Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/13/2004[l Minutes approved by the Board at the June 10, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — May 13, 2004 8:30 am. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) flChairperson: Steve Remington IlPhone: (H)223-7138 II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday May 13, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dana McBride arrived at 8:35 a.m. Andy Miscio Steve Remington William Stockover • BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dwight Hall STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Remington made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 8, 2004, meeting. Dickson seconded the motion. The motion passed with Donahue abstaining. • ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO.2459—Approved. Address: 7233 Matheson Drive Petitioner: Michael Agruss Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(3) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear setback from 8 feet to 6 feet in order to allow the construction of a 12x18 screened porch room. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The rear yard is only 18 feet deep from the house to the rear property line and there is open space to the west. The request is only for a two -foot reduction from what is required. Staff Comments: This rear setback request is similar to others that the Board has considered in the last two years in that there is open space to the back. However, the other requests have been for generally open - sided porches or decks. This proposal is for a screened porch room, so it is more closed in than other similar requests. The intent of the rear setback is to provide for privacy, light, and ventilation. The Board has determined in the past that when the property abuts an open space, the intent of the code is satisfied equally well when the structure is open in nature. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was located in the Ridgewood Hills subdivision. The aerial photograph displayed where the green belt was located behind the property. Barnes illustrated where the proposed enclosed porch addition would be placed on the lot. In the past, the Board considered reducing the rear setback requirement using the equal to or better than standard. The rear setback requirement in the LMN zone was eight feet. The Applicant proposal was to have a rear setback of six feet. The intent of the setback requirement was to ensure privacy, light, and ventilation. Donahue asked if the open space could ever be sold and subdivided into lots. Barnes said he did not know if it was a detention pond area or not, although it did not appear to be. Barnes said if the open space was divided into lots the homes would not have street frontage. If the space were sold the open space would likely be deeded to adjacent property owners. Applicant Participation: ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 3 • Michael Agruss addressed the Board. Agruss was unaware of the setback requirements. He felt the open space met the intent of the code. Agruss said that his neighbors on both sides of him were not concerned. Dickson asked Agruss if there would be a problem with cutting the addition to eight, nine, or ten feet. Agruss replied yes because the smaller size would not be functional for him. He felt that he was not infiinging due to the open space, and the utility easement would still be accessible. Miscio asked Agruss if his backyard was smaller than surrounding properties. Agruss said yes. Board Discussion: Miscio asked staff if a variance would be required if the porch was not enclosed. Barnes said yes. The only time a variance would not be required if it was an open deck or patio slab less than 30" above grade. Remington was in favor of the variance request but wanted a condition placed on the approval that the porch only be screened and not enclosed. Miscio agreed with Remington. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2459 based on the equal to or better than standard. The variance request was not detrimental to the public good. The intent of the rear setback standard was to provide adequate light, ventilation, privacy, and space between • properties. The property backed up to dedicated open space which ensured the intent of the standard being met. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Stockover, McBride, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. Bames announced an agenda change because two board members needed to leave early. Board member McBride had a conflict of interest with the last agenda item, and a quorum would not be maintained. Appeal 2464 was heard out of order. 3. APPEAL NO.2460—Approved. Address: 905 West Oak Street Petitioner: Don Knoll Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(3) and 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the west lot line from 15 feet to 8.5 feet and, reduce the required side -yard setback along the south lot line from 5 feet to 1.5 feet • in order to allow the existing detached one -car garage to be demolished and replaced with a new 18' x 26' detached one -car garage. The existing garage is 4.5 feet from the rear lot line and 0 feet ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 4 from the south side lot line. The Zoning Board denied a variance request on April 8, 2004 that would have allowed the new garage to be constructed entirely in front of the existing home. This revised request results in a new garage approximately in the same location as the existing garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is an irregular shaped lot, wherein the home is addressed off Oak Street, but the front faces Washington Avenue. The existing garage is not on a foundation, and it also suffered structural roof damage during the March 2003 snowstorm. Since the existing building is structural unsound, the owner would like to construct a new garage. If the new building is moved forward in order to comply with the 15 foot required rear setback, then it will not be recessed at least 10 feet behind the front of the home as required by code. A variance to allow the building to not be recessed was denied, so any location will require a rear setback variance. If the new building is located in compliance with the 5-foot side yard requirement, then it is too close to the home. Adding it onto the home, would result in the loss of most of the windows on the south side of the home. Staff Comments: This is basically a rehearing of Appeal 2456, which would have allowed the new garage to be constructed in front of the existing home. That appeal was denied on April 8, 2004. The petitioner is now submitting something in keeping with the direction provided by the Board and neighbors at the April 8th hearing. Staff Presentation: A letter from Garrett and Barbara Pretzer of 912 West Oak Street was read in favor of the appeal. Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. Bames said that the appeal was a rehearing of what was denied last month. The Applicant had a new proposal. The garage will be placed in a similar location to its current location. The proposal differed in that it was a few feet further to the east towards the front of the lot. The existing home was on the south lot line and, the new addition will be 1.5 feet. The lot was an unusual shape because it was not rectangular. Bames illustrated the proposed location of the new garage. The rear of the garage will line-up with the rear of the house. Applicant Participation: Don Knoll, 3630 Arctic Fox Drive, addressed the Board. Knoll stated that the drawings were self-explanatory regarding the location of the garage. In support of the appeal: ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 5 • Lisa Knudsen, 209 South Washington Avenue, addressed the Board. Knudsen wanted to know the current dimensions of the garage and the proposed dimensions. Her primary concern was how many more feet to the east it would be located. Knoll said the garage was currently 16x20 and the new garage was 18x26. The proposed garage would be six feet further east. Knudsen stated that she had no objection to the variance request. Board Discussion: Dickson said the proposal was reasonable and was exactly what the Board sought last month. Dickson was in favor of the appeal. Remington and Stockover agreed. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2460 based on the hardship standard. Approval of the variance request was not detrimental to the public good. The lot was an irregular shape in the older part of town. The front portion of the property had only 37 feet and the angle of the side lot line reduced the building envelope. The proposed location for the garage was the most feasible location on the lot. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Stockover, McBride, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. • 4. APPEAL NO. 2461—Approved. Address: 1001 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Joe and Julie Geiman Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(3) and 4.6(E)(4) Back rg ound: The variance would reduce the required west side -yard setback from 9 feet to 5 feet in order to allow the construction of a second -story addition that would line up with the existing west wall of the house. The variance would also reduce the lot area to floor area ratio requirement from 3 tot to 2.53 to to allow an addition to the main floor as well as the second story addition. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioners letter A. Also, the new second -story west wall will line-up with the existing west wall which is at a 5' setback. The peak height of the existing wall is 21'. The proposed peak height will be 28 feet which requires a 9' setback. The proposed square footage of the home and exiting storage structure will be 3316 square feet (2800 square feet are allowed in the NCL zone). This is a comer lot, so the lot appears to be larger than it is and therefore, the • building mass is visually reduced as compared to a building of this size on an interior lot. ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 6 Staff Comments: The lot area to floor area variance request is not an uncommon type of request in these old neighborhoods. The Board has allowed for some flexibility in the standard when the property is a comer lot, since the lot appears larger than it really is, and thereby reduces the visual mass of the building. The applicant is choosing not to build the proposed 26 x 26 garage at the rear of the property at this time. The existing storage structure will remain as noted on the site plan. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The lot was a comer lot. The property was in the west side neighborhood. The homes directly adjacent to the property were one-story homes although there were two-story homes in the neighborhood. The proposal was to increase the footprint of the home slightly and construct a second floor. A new wall will line up with the existing west wall. The existing west wall was at a five-foot setback. Barnes noted that for a wall height of up to 18 feet a five-foot setback was required. As the wall got taller the setback would need to be increased. Barnes showed examples of other two-story houses in the neighborhood. McBride asked if the future garage shown on the plans was part of the variance request. Barnes said no. The garage was not proposed at this time. The existing garage structure will remain as noted on the site plan. ADDlicant Participation: Joe Geiman, 1001 West Mountain Avenue, addressed the Board. Geiman bought the house with the intent of improving it. The house was built in 1910 and an addition was done in the 1950s. He wanted some bedrooms upstairs. The proposed height of the second -story addition would be 26'-9". Geiman submitted a petition signed by neighbors who expressed their support of the appeal. The petition included a copy of ordinance number 14-1996 which was adopted by City Council which contained the objectives of the east side -west side neighborhood plans. Barnes read the petition. Geiman did not want to expand out on his lot. He noted a variance would not be required if he chose a single story addition. Geiman felt the impact of the addition would be minimal. Miscio stated he was having a hard time understanding the hardship. Geiman said the hardship was the house being built on the five foot line. Miscio felt Geiman's proposal would have less impact on the lot. In support of the Appeal: Dorothy Dickerson, 1003 West Mountain Avenue, expressed her support for the appeal. Her home would be impacted the most and, she did not have a problem with the variance request. Board Discussion: ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 7 • Miscio was still confused about the hardship. Remington stated there was not a hardship and felt the approval should be based on the equal to or better than standard. Donahue did not see how the proposal would be equal to or better than the standard. Stockover stated the proposal was better than what would be allowed which was building to the rear of the property. Dickson said part of the hardship was the fact that the property line was set in so close to the house on the north and east sides. Miscio said the biggest impact was to the west neighbor and, the west neighbor did not have a problem with the appeal. McBride suggested a Dutch hip roof to adjoin the house with the previous addition would eliminate the need for a setback variance but would not make much difference. Stockover did not feel that a Dutch hip roof maintained the architectural character of the neighborhood. Donahue agreed that the Applicant's proposal would create less visual bulk on West Mountain Avenue. Stockover said the property line was well within the sidewalk on two sides and there was 16 feet of open space between the house and street. Stockover did not have a problem with the increased floor area because it was a corner lot with extra green space. Stockover was in support of the appeal. Stockover made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2461 based on the equal to or better than standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The intent of the code was met due to the property being a comer lot with extra green space by making the lot appear larger. The proposal of a second -story addition was better than adding 729 square feet to • the rear of the property. The peak of the roof on the west -side was minimal versus the alternative of adding another 20 feet of wall to the back. The proposal had less of a visual impact. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Stockover, McBride, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO.2464—Approved. Address: 603 Bayberry Circle Petitioner: Dana McBride Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(c) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear setback along the south lot line from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow a new house to be constructed on the lot. The setback variance is requested in order to maintain an adequate distance from the Greeley water main that exists in the front of where the house is proposed to be located. 0 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 8 Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B. Staff Comments: This lot is a classic example of a hardship situation due to the unique circumstances created by the fact that the lot is virtually covered with easements. This results in a very small buildable area. The Board granted a similar variance a few years ago, but the house was never built. Staff Presentation: Board member McBride declared a conflict of interest and excused himself from participating in the appeal. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property has been a problem property for a few years. A building permit was issued a number of years ago. A foundation was put in when the owners found out there was an unplatted easement on the lot. The foundation encroached into the easement. The lot was sold to Habitat for Humanity. The house fronted on Bayberry Circle and Redwood Street. A portion of Redwood Street has been vacated and added to a portion of the lot for 603 Bayberry Circle. There was an overhead power line and Bames illustrated the various easements. The lot was undeveloped and the houses that abutted the property were already constructed. The proposed house would be setback quite a distance from Bayberry Circle due to with the easements. The lot was large but difficult to find an area to build the house. A building permit was applied for that complied with all the setbacks, but the City of Greeley has requested that the house be located an additional five feet to the south to maintain a distance from the easement. Remington asked if a variance for this lot was approved prior to the hearing. Barnes said he did not find any previous variance requests for the lot. Dickson wanted to know what was directly to the west. Barnes replied a house and the homeowner was notified via a legal notice. Applicant Participation: Robert Bartel, representative and contractor for Habitat for Humanity, addressed the Board. A permit was applied for and ready to be picked up. Bartel did not obtain the building permit yet because he wanted to satisfy the needs of the Greeley Water Department. Bartel said the house would not be located in the easement, but outside of it. The City of Greeley Water Department requested that the house be moved back another five feet, which was beyond the legal setback requirement. Bartel stated the following reasons for moving the house further: (1) if a repair needed to be done more space was needed; and (2) if a water line were to break there would be a lot of water and pressure coming out of the line and the house would face potential damage. Habitat for Humanity has already purchased the lot with the intent of building a house. Bartel reviewed the long history of problems with the lot. ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 9 • Miscio asked Bartel if he was not allowed to build under a power line easement. Bartel said there was a ten foot easement requirement. Remington asked if there was a letter from the Greeley Water Department noting their request. Bartel said yes and gave the letter to staff. In support of the appeal: Sandy Briggs, representative for the City of Greeley, addressed the Board. Briggs stated that the 27" pipeline provided 50% of the potable water to Greeley during the winter. The City of Greeley was concerned with the safety of building a house on the lot and requested that the house be setback another five feet. There was a disagreement over the actual placement of the easement. The City of Greeley liked to maintain a ten -foot distance from the center of the pipeline. Board Discussion: Remington was in favor of the appeal and stated that the lot was encapsulated by easements. Miscio agreed with Remington. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2464 based on the hardship standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The lot was unique in that it was encapsulated by significant easements, specifically the main water line for Greeley and overhead power lines. The proposed location was the only feasible location to build a house. Remington stated that the City of Greeley's request was reasonable. Miscio • seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO.2462—Approved with conditions. Address: 408 East Pitkin Street Petitioner: Shepherd Wolf Zone: NCM Section: 3.8.3(1) Background: The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in the existing detached two -car garage that is on the rear of the lot, instead of within the home. Specifically, the variance would allow a website design business to be conducted in the building. There would be no non-resident employees, and client visits would occur approximately once every 3 months. The only person working in the detached building will be the resident of the home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 10 The home is a small one bedroom home that does not have an attached garage. In order to accommodate an area for the business, it would be necessary to construct an addition. Staff Comments: The Board has granted numerous variances for home occupations in detached buildings in the older neighborhoods when there is no attached garage on the premises. Since there is no attached garage in this instance, this is similar to other variance requests. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was located in the East side neighborhood in the older part of town. It was not uncommon for homes in the neighborhood to have detached garages. The home occupation ordinance required that all portions of a home occupation business be conducted within the home, not in detached buildings. A variance would not be necessary if the garage were attached. Applicant Participation: Shepherd Wolf, 408 East Pitkin Street, addressed the Board. Wolf was in the process of purchasing the property. His purchase was contingent upon approval of the variance request. His home occupation included web and graphic design. Miscio asked if Wolf was going to add -on to the garage. Wolf replied no. He planned on putting in carpet and a false wall on the inside of the garage to prevent drafts. Board Discussion: Remington noted that Board has heard similar requests. He wanted to place the condition on the approval that it was for this particular business and homeowner. Stockover agreed with Remington. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2462 based on the hardship standard. The granting of variance was not detrimental to the public good. In the newer neighborhoods variances are not required if the garage was attached, but this was not the case for the older neighborhoods. The Applicant's business will not generate delivery traffic or a high number of client visits. Remington placed the following conditions on the approval: it was for this specific business of web and graphic design and Applicant. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Stockover, McBride, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 6, APPEAL NO.2463—Tabled until the June 10, 2004 meeting. Address: 2024 East Harmony Road Petitioner: John Marks ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 11 • Zone: HC Section: 3.8.7(C)(1)(k) Background: The variance would allow a sign advertising a home occupation to be larger than 4 square feet per face along an arterial street. Specifically, the variance would allow a sign to identify the Psychic Kay home occupation to be 24 square feet per face instead of the allowed 4 square feet per face. The proposed sign would be located along Harmony Road, in front of the house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This property is at the intersection of Harmony and Timberline, which is one of the largest intersections in the city. Cars travel along Harmony at 55 mph, so an advertising sign needs to be large enough to be seen by motorists well in advance in order to avoid sudden stops along a State highway. The property is zoned to allow commercial uses. If the building were not occupied as a residence, but rather entirely as an office, the property would have a sign allowance of 115 square feet. This would mean that a sign as large as 57.5 square feet per side would be allowed for a commercial use. Staff Comments: • The Board has granted several sign variances to allow home occupation signs to exceed 4 square feet when the property is along a high speed major arterial street. Harmony Road is a State highway and it is high speed along this section of Harmony. However, the 24 square foot sign that is proposed is considerably larger than the size allowed for other similar variances. Those variances have allowed the signs to be around 10 square feet. This property is somewhat different from previous ones the Board has heard in that it is surrounded by commercial uses. Still, 24 square feet may be a little excessive. If the Board does grant a variance for a size larger than 4 square feet, then Staff recommends that the Board consider placing some conditions on the color of the proposed sign. Staff Presentation: Barnes stated that there was an audience member who wanted to speak in opposition to the variance but she had to leave early. She jotted down some notes and asked Barnes to read it into the record. Her name was Van Ao. She apologized that she could not stay for the meeting. She owned the property at 2008 East Harmony Road, Elements Day Spa and Wellness Center. Ao felt the color the house, pink, was awful. She felt the color of Psychic Kay made neighboring properties less professional. Ao was opposed to the increase in signage. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Home occupations were allowed in all zones, although the sign code restricted the size of home occupation signs to two square feet. An exception was if the property was on an arterial street and the owner would be allowed four is foot feet for signage. Barnes defined an arterial street. The Applicant proposed a 24 square foot sign. The sign would be located in front of the house. The Board in the past has approved ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 12 similar variance requests, although Barnes could not recall one being approved that was larger than 10 square feet. The proposed sign would be for a 24 square foot monument sign. The property was at the comer of Harmony and Timberline. The building directly to the west was a State Farm Insurance office, as well as the Elements Day Spa and Wellness Center. Both properties were previously houses that have been converted into commercial uses. Barnes illustrated where the sign would be located on the property. Remington asked what would be required if the Psychic Kay property were converted to a commercial use. Barnes said the property would have to be platted, enter into a development agreement with the City of Fort Collins, and pay the fees. A development review process would be necessary to deal with the architecture of the building, landscaping, and parking lot improvements. A building permit would then need to be applied for in order to comply with the building code for a commercial use. Remington asked if the petitioner's statement was correct in stating that if the property were converted to a commercial use if the Applicant would be allowed 115 square feet for signage. Barnes said yes. Remington asked if Barnes knew the dimensions of the State Farm sign. Barnes replied approximately 40 square feet per side. Applicant Participation: John Marks and Kay Adams, 2024 East Harmony Road, addressed the Board. Marks said the variance request was the outcome of clients finding it difficult to locate Psychic Kay. Marks stated a bigger sign would boost the business. Adams stated that due to the speed of traffic on Harmony she was losing clients. Miscio asked if the comer of Harmony and Timberline was hard to miss. Adams said yes. Miscio felt the intersection was easy to find. Remington wanted to know what color and what materials would be used for the proposed sign. Marks said it would be a yellow and black box with a flesh colored palm. The material would be plastic with a base of mortar and stone or brick. Opposed to the Appeal: Dave Lawser, owner of State Farm Insurance next door, addressed the Board. Lawser expressed his opposition to the appeal. According to Lawser, the Applicant has already violated the Sign Code. Lawser had a signed agreement (the home occupation license) with the owners of Psychic Kay regarding signage which they have repeatedly violated. Lawser said the business was not of a commercial nature but a home occupation. He wondered why the Applicant had not received a ticket for the large window signs. Lawser said he was unable to move. He felt the house was an embarrassment to Fort Collins. Lawser reviewed the license the Applicant signed and agreed to abide by. ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 13 • Remington asked what the signed document was. Lawser said it was an application to comply with the home occupation requirements. Barnes said the application becomes the license once it was signed. (Dickson left the meeting at 10:20 a.m.). Marks responded to Lawser's comments. Marks said he was not here to make enemies. Marks admitted that there was some signage that exceeded the restricted size, but he has since taken down the banner. Marks stated that he has not broken the law. Marks said he was not a joke and noted that he did not sell cars. Lawser commented that he had nothing against the Marks family other than they did not respect the law. Lawser had no further comments. Board Discussion: Remington asked if the existing signage complied with the home occupation ordinance. Barnes said he did not believe it complied with the four square feet. Marks met with Barnes about some proposed signage. Barnes noted a few things have been added since their meeting. Stockover asked if Psychic Kay has been cited in the past for violations. Barnes said there was an issue with banners when the Applicant first moved into the property. Barnes noted that everyone gets 20 days a year to have banners. There was an investigation regarding cars being • sold from the property. According to state law, an individual was allowed to sell up to two cars a year. If more than two vehicles were sold a dealer's license was needed. The cars did not have anything to do with the home occupation. McBride asked if Psychic Kay had any other signage besides the window signs. Barnes said no. Miscio failed to see a hardship. The intersection was a major intersection in Fort Collins. Miscio felt the business was moving more towards a commercial nature. Remington did not want to get in the middle of a neighborhood dispute. Remington noted the Marks have a right to have a home occupation on the property. Remington was concerned with the proposed appearance of the signage. Remington felt the proposal was massive. He was not in support of the proposed signage being 48 square feet. Remington said he did not have enough information because he did not know what the sign will look like or where it will be located. He wanted a total sign package. McBride agreed with Remington. Donahue was concerned with the size of the sign. Miscio stated the proposed variance was not satisfactory. Stockover said the Board had the ability to dictate the appearance and placement of the sign. Stockover asked if the monument sign was approved would the window signs need to be taken down. Barnes replied that there were several home occupations that have small signs of an allowable size along the street in addition to small front entrance sign. The Board could condition the approval that no other signs are allowed on the property. Remington still wanted to see the whole sign package. He was not in favor of the proposal. isBarnes noted that the Board could place conditions on the appeal. Remington suggested that the ZBA May 13, 2004 Page 14 hearing be tabled until the Applicant was able to submit a total sign package. Marks agreed to come back in June with a proposal from the sign company. He agreed to take down all the exterior lights. Stockover told Marks that based on Board discussion the Board was comfortable with approving a 10 square feet sign. Lawser reiterated that Psychic Kay was a home occupation. Stockover stated that the Board was not the police or Zoning enforcement. Remington made a motion to table Appeal Number 2463 until the June 10, 2004, meeting. Remington requested a total advertising plan for the property including base material, colors, location, signage on the building, and lights be brought to the next meeting. The plan should be similar to other home occupations on similar arterial streets. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Stockover, McBride, and Donahue. Nays: None. Barnes suggested to Marks that the signage in his window not to exceed four square feet. Other Business There was no other business. Meeting �adjored at 10:48 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson lg Peter Bames, Zoning Administrator Petitioner's Letter A -4 ).q6f • 11 40 1001 W. Mountain Ave. remodeling plan Joe and Julie Geiman In the 1950's an addition was added with only 8-foot ceilings. The original 1910 ceilings are 10 foot. In order to keep with the old town style it is important to raise the ceilings to match the original design. The gables will be facing East and West for Aesthetic and structural reasons. We feel with a growing family it is essential to have additional square footage. Also, having three bedrooms on the same level is pleasing to our family and better for appraisal value. Furthermore, by allowing a growing family to remodel this old town property it brings stability and increased value to old town Fort Collins. a-qb� d Anril 29. 2004 Building and Zoning Dent. Citv of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins- CO 80524 To Whom It Mav Concern: Please consider our recuest for a variance for the Habitat for Hurnanitv house at 603 Bavberry Circle in Fort Collins. We are reauesting that the rear vard setback be reduced from 15' to 10'. The City of Greeley Utilities Dept. has requested us to request a variance based on proximity of our house to the City of Greeley water mains as shown on our site plan. Although we are out of their easement, we are still within 10' of a water main. They have requested us to stay 10' away from their line. We currently have a building permit ready to be issued. Thank you for your consideration. On behalf of Habitat for Humanity, cerely, I-bana J. McBri e Design Director Habitat for Humanity DJM/bam 1510 HILLSIDE DR. FOQT COLLINS, CO 80524 970-493-0268