Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/08/2004• 0 Minutes approved by the Board at the May 13, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — April 8, 2004 8:30 a.m 11 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chaimerson: Steve Remington hone: (H) 223-7138 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday April 8, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Andy Miscio Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Donahue Dana McBride STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Bames, 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 March 11, 2004, meeting. Hall seconded the motion. The motion passed. ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2455—Approved with conditions. Address: 2313 Montadale Court Petitioner: Dale Lindholm Zone: RL—Residential Low Density Section: 4.3(D)(2)(9c) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 8 feet in order to continue the construction of an 8x8 play structure. The structure is 23 feet in height. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The applicant was initially told that no permit would be required for a play structure but was later told that one was required due to the height and placement. A portion of the easement along the rear of the property has been vacated where the structure sits. Due to the location of several large trees, this was the most reasonable place to locate the structure; otherwise it would be in the middle of the yard. The yard backs up to open space. Staff Comments The Board has granted a number of variance requests to the rear setback requirement when it has been found that the purpose of the rear setback regulation is met because the lot backs up to open space instead of to another buildable lot. Those variances have been for more customary buildings and uses. This building is taller than most detached accessory buildings. Staff Presentation: The property was in the RL (residential low density) zoning district wherein a 15-foot setback was required from the rear property line. The structure was nearly complete. Work was commenced without a building permit. A stop work order was issued and a building permit was applied for when it was discovered that the location of the structure did not comply with the required setbacks. The structure was also located within a platted utility easement. Before a permit could be issued the Applicant had to determine whether a portion of the easement could be vacated. The Applicant went through the easement vacation process. A portion of the easement was vacated in November 2003. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was on Montadale Court, and in a cul-de-sac with eight other houses. An irrigation ditch was behind the property. The structure, according to the Applicant, was only visible from another subdivision beyond the ditch. Barnes stated the Applicant's statement was not accurate. The Applicant created a play area for his children. ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 3 • Remington asked staff when a play structure required a building permit. Barnes responded that small structures like storage sheds, play houses, and other accessory buildings are exempt from permit requirements when they do not exceed eight feet in height and/or 120 square feet. If the structure exceeded either limitation then a building permit was required and subject to setback standards of the zone that the property was located. Remington asked if there was a concern with the height of the play house. Barnes replied that there was not a maximum height for this type of detached accessory building, although there was a maximum size limit of 800 square feet. One would have to refer to the maximum height within the zone it was located. The maximum height allowed in the RL zone was 28 feet. All buildings are subject to setback requirements. Remington stated that in some zoning districts the setback depended on the height of the structure. Bames replied that there are some zones where the side setback was dependent upon height, although he did not know of any zoning districts where the rear setback had to be greater as the building got taller. Applicant Participation: Dale Lindholm, 2313 Montadale Court, addressed the Board. Lindholm stated the reason he located the play house in its current location was because he has neighbors on both sides, and a side -yard setback of seven feet was required. He placed the play house to the rear between a couple of trees. When the trees have leaves the play house was hidden. Lindholm felt the • impact to the neighbors would be less if the play house was located to the rear of the property. Remington asked Lindholm whether he wanted to use the hardship or the equal to or better than standard. Lindholm said he did not present it as a hardship, but a practical place to put the play house. Lindholm stated that a play house was not a hardship. Lindholm spoke with his direct neighbors. Lindholm wanted to use the equal to or better than standard because the play house backed up to open space. Lindholm explained that the playhouse consisted of a series of ladders and trap doors. Opposed to the Appeal: Maggie Woolridge, 2101 Clydesdale Drive, addressed the Board. Ms. Woolridge represented Sunbridge Management and the owners of 2306 and 2312 Sceap Court. Woolridge felt the play house was imposing and intrusive, and also felt there was no privacy. She also noted a financial hardship regarding future rentals. Woolridge submitted photographs taken from the Sceap Court properties. The Board discussed the photographs. Woolridge described the play house as a lookout tower. Miscio asked if the leaves on the trees helped with the privacy issue. Woolridge said that she did not know but six months out of the year there are not leaves on the trees. Miscio commented that the structure was allowed on the property. Woolridge asked if there were any laws to protect the privacy of homeowners. Barnes responded that setback standards were the closest thing the City • had to ensure minimal rights to privacy, light, ventilation, and some private space. Bames noted ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 4 that the setbacks are a minimum. Barnes illustrated the lot lines on the property and the placement of the easement. Dickson asked Barnes if the play house were within the lot lines would it not be restricted. Barnes explained that the maximum height allowed for buildings in the RL zone was 28 feet. Barnes said the play house was an accessory building and restricted to 800 square feet. Barnes stated that currently there was not a height restriction on accessory buildings. Barnes defined an accessory building as a "building that was detached from a principle building and customarily used with and clearly incidental as subordinate to the principle building or use and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principle building." A play house was not unusual in a backyard, although Barnes noted that it was unusual to have a play house that was 23 feet in height. Dickson asked if Browns Farm had covenants regarding play structures. Barnes replied he did not know. Dickson asked Woolridge if she was aware of any covenants. Woolridge replied no. Remington asked Woolridge how she felt if the Applicant complied with the standards and moved the play house seven feet in from the rear property line. Woolridge felt it would be better, although she would rather the play house be smaller. She then decided that it would not make much difference. Board Discussion Dickson noted that the Applicant could move the play house closer to the eight -foot utility easement and to the north, and even closer to the neighbors. Lindholm commented on the privacy issue. He said that all of the houses in the neighborhood are lower than the irrigation ditch. There was a trail along both sides of the irrigation ditch and people are on the trail all of the time. Lindholm felt that privacy was not issue with the trail having high traffic. Miscio asked if the play house could be moved without difficulty. Lindholm said the play house was placed on piers, although it could be moved with a crane. Stockover saw both sides of the situation. Dickson stated that the play house should be within the setbacks. Miscio was concerned with creating a worse situation if the structure were moved. Dickson stated that Lindholm placed the play house in the most convenient location in his yard, but not the least obtrusive. Hall said the height of the building made the request extraordinary. Stockover asked Lindholm what was in the top portion of the play house. Lindholm replied that the top portion was an open deck. The last three feet was an open railing. Stockover asked if the height from the top of the window to the top of the rail was three feet or more. Lindholm said the top railing was three feet tall. Stockover asked if it would be an issue to take the top portion off. Lindholm said no but was concerned with the play house not having a roof. Stockover remarked that the top portion not only added height, but width. Lindholm agreed. Miscio liked ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 5 • the idea of removing the top portion. Hall asked if there was a way for the Applicant to scale down the structure in height while maintaining a roof. Lindholm said yes and listed some options. Stockover asked the Applicant if he would rather move the structure or remove the top portion. Lindholm replied that he would like to discuss it with his children. The Board discussed tabling the request to give Lindholm some time to discuss the issue with the children. Lindholm was agreeable. Stockover was not in favor of tabling the appeal. He said a variance with restrictions could be approved or the Applicant could move the playhouse and comply. Miscio was in favor of tabling the appeal. Lindholm asked the Board how they felt about an open instead of a closed railing. Stockover replied that it would not change anything. Hall wanted to know how high the structure would be if the top portion were removed. Lindholm replied that it would be 20 feet in height if the top portion were taken off. Stockover asked Woolridge if she had any additional comments. Woolridge was in favor of taking off the top portion, although she was concerned with the remaining windows. Lindholm explained that the windows are below the upper deck and one could look out the windows. If the top portion were taken off the windows would remain. The roof of the new structure would be the floor of the upper deck. The Board discussed closing off the windows on certain elevations. • Miscio wanted the variance request to be owner specific. Remington was concerned with being too restrictive. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2455. Dickson stated that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. She based the approval on the equal to or better than standard. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard because the property backed up to open space, and the play house as currently built could be located somewhere else on the property. Dickson placed the following conditions on the approval: (1) the play house had to be lowered to 20 feet in height; (2) overhangs removed; or (3) the play house be moved into the appropriate setback. Dickson stated that in the event the property was sold the play house would have to be reevaluated if it remained in its current location. Miscio seconded the motion. Stockover did not agree with the reevaluation of the property if it were sold. Eckman stated that it would be difficult to enforce the condition. Miscio and Dickson agreed to remove the reevaluation condition. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Stockover, and Miscio. Nays: Hall and Remington. 4. APPEAL NO.2456—Denied. Address: 905 West Oak Street Petitioner: Don Knoll Zone: NCL • Section: 4.6(F)(1)(C) ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 6 Background The variance would allow the existing detached garage to be demolished and a new two -car, detached garage to be constructed without being setback ten feet further than the front setback of the existing home. Specifically, the garage will be constructed entirely in front of the existing home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The lot is an irregular shaped lot, wherein the home is addressed off Oak Street, but the front of the home faces Washington Avenue. The existing detached garage complies with the requirement to be recessed behind the front of the home, but does not comply with the side or rear setback requirements. The garage is not on a foundation, and it also suffered structural roof damage during the March 2003 snowstorm. Since the existing building is structurally unsound, and in violation of the setbacks, the owner would like to construct a new garage. The only location on the lot where the property line setbacks would be met is the proposed location in front of the house. All other homes along Washington Avenue are located on the front part of the lots, however, this home is located at the rear of the lot, making it very difficult to construct a new garage that would comply with all the location requirements of the code. Staff Comments Staff believes that it would be difficult to find that this is an equal to or better than situation. Therefore, if the Board determines to grant a variance, a hardship finding would be more appropriate. Staff Presentation A letter from Garrett and Barbara Pretzer of 912 West Oak Street was read in opposition of the variance request. Bames commented on the opposition letter and stated that the proposed garage had a 28 foot setback from Oak Street. The proposed garage would be in the front but the proposed setback would be larger than the referenced 20 feet. Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes said the code required in the NCL zone that any new detached accessory building had to be setback at least ten feet farther than the front wall of the house. The property was on a corner and the house fronted on Washington. The lot was an irregular shaped lot due to the curve in Oak Street. The proposal was to construct a new garage 28 feet behind the property line along Oak Street. Hall asked if the property abutted an alley. Barnes said the property does not have alley access. Remington wanted to know what the side and rear setback was for the property. Barnes said the proposal would comply with the side setback of five feet. If the garage was moved back farther and complied with the setback building code issues would arise. The house was setback eight and a half feet, which was not compliant. Either way the Applicant would need a side or rear ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 7 • setback variance. Barnes noted that it was not unusual to find non -complying buildings in the older neighborhoods. Applicant Participation Don Knoll, 3630 Arctic Fox Drive, representative for Knoll Construction and Stanley Carlon addressed the Board. Knoll stated that his biggest problem was the lot configuration and where to locate the garage. Stockover asked Knoll if there were any alternatives. Knoll responded he did not know of any alternatives. The proposal was what the owner would like. Dickson asked if he looked into attaching the garage. Knoll said yes but it was more expensive. Remington asked if Knoll could move the garage to the back of the property and have the same rear setback as the house. Knoll replied that the garage would be too close to the house. Knoll commented that the owner would like to enhance his property with a two -car garage. O_, pyosed to the Appeal Lisa Knudsen, 209 South Washington Avenue, addressed the Board. She expressed her opposition to the appeal because a two -car garage would completely block her view from her living, dining, and bedroom window. Knudsen noted that the homeowner does not own a car. • The proposal was out of character with the neighborhood. Knudsen would not mind a one -car garage in the same footprint. Knudsen shared photographs she took with the Board. Remington wanted to clarify that the Knudsen was agreeable to a rear setback variance. She replied yes. Knudsen stated that she would not be impacted if the garage were widened in its current location. Knudsen did not want the proposed garage to come any further forward than its current location. . Leslie Echevarria, 817 West Oak Street, addressed the Board. She expressed her opposition to the appeal because a two -car garage was out of character with the neighborhood. Leslie stated that the proposal would be detrimental to neighboring properties. Leslie stated that it was difficult for her to oppose the request because Stanley Carlon was a good neighbor and friend. Board Discussion Remington stated the lot was an irregular shape and the Board could find a hardship, although a garage in the front was not the best solution. Remington was inclined to grant a rear and side yard setback variance to keep the proposed garage in its current location. Barnes pointed out that the Applicant did not request a setback variance. If the Board was inclined to consider a setback variance then the appeal would have to be tabled so legal notices could be sent to adjacent property owners. • Hall was in favor of keeping the garage in the current location and its current size. Knoll clarified that the front of the garage would be behind Knudsen living room window. ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 8 Stockover noted that the lot was unique but felt the Applicant was trying to put too much on the lot. Stockover stated that the only reason the homeowner wanted to change the garage was due to financial aspects. Stockover noted that financial aspects could not be considered. Stockover felt there were other options. Stockover wanted to deny the appeal and allow the Applicant to come back with another solution for the back corner. Hall made a motion to deny Appeal Number 2456. Hall stated that approval of the variance request would be detrimental to the public good. The Applicant did not demonstrate that there was a hardship. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Hall, Stockover, Miscio, and Remington. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO.2457—Approved. Address: 301 South Sherwood Street Petitioner: Mike Sherman and Hillary Foshee Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(D)(1) Background The variance would reduce the required lot size from 5000 square feet to 4650 square feet in order to allow the existing home to be demolished and a new home constructed in its place. The existing home is in bad structural repair and restoring it is not feasible. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The lot was split off from the original lot many years ago, resulting in the 4750 square foot size. The existing home was built in 1910 and has become very dilapidated. A structural engineer has determined that it is not really feasible to repair the home to a safe condition. Without a variance, the only thing that can happen is that the existing home will remain in its current condition and cannot be occupied. The new house will comply with the required 2 to 1 lot area to floor area ratio, so even though the lot is slightly undersized, the amount of the building coverage on the lot will comply with the code. e-'sogtta Peeck I� Staff Comments Since the lot already contains a house and is nonconforming with regards to lot area, the granting of a variance will not increase the degree of nonconformity. The unique circumstances relative to this property is that it is probably better to demolish the house and build a new one, than it is to try to rehab the existing one. Staff Presentation ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 9 • Barnes noted that the minimum lot size in the NCM zone was 5000 square feet. The lot was split off years ago, which was not uncommon in the older neighborhoods on comer lots. The lot was nonconforming under current the standards of the current code. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes showed what was proposed to be demolished. The front of the home faced Sherwood. There were reports in board packets from structural engineers and staff regarding rental housing code issues. The building cannot be reoccupied until the housing code issues are resolved. There was a crack in the foundation. The existing detached garage will remain. Barnes noted that the Applicants do not currently have a specific design. The Applicants submitted a proposed building footprint. The proposed house would comply with the setback requirements and the lot to floor area ratio. The Applicant submitted photographs of other homes in the area that the Applicants would like a similar design. Remington asked staff if the lot was a legal nonconforming lot. Barnes said yes. The lot was legal at the time it was split off and due to the code changes the lot became nonconforming. Applicant Participation Mike Sherman and Hillary Foshee, 307 South Sherwood Street, addressed the Board. The Applicants submitted two additional letters of support. Barnes noted that in board packets there were other letters and petitions signed by adjacent property owners in support of this appeal. • Sherman noted that he received positive support from neighbors. Sherman and Foshee currently live next door to the property. They have lived there for two years. Hall asked if the new home at 301 South Sherwood Street would become their principle residence. Sherman was not sure and stated he was still in the design phase, although it was a possibility. Sherman noted that the property has been a rental for quite some time. Miscio asked which zoning district the property was located. Barnes replied NCM. Miscio asked if the property could be commercial in nature. Barnes stated that the NCM zone did not allow commercial uses, although schools, churches, and childcare centers would be allowed. Miscio asked Sherman if it would function as a residential use. Sherman said yes. Remington thanked the Applicants for a job well done on the information provided in board packets. In support of the Appeal Dennis Sovick, designer in Old Town, addressed the Board. Sovick expressed his support for the appeal. Sovick has worked with the Applicants regarding a design. He noted the Applicants commitment to create an aesthetically pleasing dwelling. Board Discussion E ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 10 Remington was in favor of the appeal and noted that the hardship was clear. Dickson agreed. Miscio asked the Applicants if they have been in contact with the Historic Preservation Department. Sherman stated that he has spoke with Karen McWilliams (Historic Preservation Planner) and they have received approval to demolish the house. Miscio asked if any trees would be removed. Sherman responded that there are five trees on the property. The two front trees and the ones on the south side will be removed because they are growing into the foundation. The Applicants planned to landscape the property. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2457 based on the hardship standard. Remington referred to staff comments, petitions, and signatures that approval would not be detrimental to the public good. Remington said the hardship was the unique situation of the lot being split approximately 100 years ago, and recent code changes that would not allow the structure to be rebuilt. The degree of nonconformity will not be increased. Remington noted that on two sides of the lot there was a large amount of open space. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Hall, Stockover, Miscio, and Remington. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO.2458—Approved with conditions. Address: 2617 Harvard Street Petitioner: Dean Duncan Zone: RL Section: 3.8.11 Back rg ound The variance would allow a fence to be taller than six feet. Specifically, it would allow a fence with an overall height of eight feet to be constructed on the rear (west) property line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship Eckards Drugs is constructing a new store and parking lot to the west of the residential property. The variance is being requested to help reduce the amount of noise and light spill -over onto 2617 Harvard Street. Additionally, the Eckards site is 2-2.25 feet higher in elevation than the residential property and replaces a two-story motel that used to act as a buffer from surrounding noise. Staff Comments The Board should be concerned about setting a precedent by granting this variance. If the variance should be granted solely on the basis of the owner's dislike for the nuisance factor that is perceived to accompany the property behind his, then any property owner that does not like what or who is abutting their property would have grounds for a variance. Therefore, if the Board is inclined to grant relief, a more site -specific and unique finding should be made, i.e., the ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 11 • noise from College Avenue used to be buffered by the presence of the two-story wall that was located directly behind the applicant's lot, but due to the changed conditions abutting the redevelopment of the rear lot, the applicant no longer has the privacy and screening that previously existed. Staff Presentation Barnes stated that board packets included several items. Barnes pointed out that in the last couple of days there have been events that have led staff to be unsure of what was going to happen at the Eckard Drugstore site. The code restricted the height of fences to six feet when they are located along the side or rear lot line. It was possible for individuals to build fences taller than six feet. A fence taller than six feet required a building permit so staff could determine if the fence met wind load requirements of building code. A fence over six feet was subject to the same setback requirements as a house. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was one lot removed from the comer of Thunderbird and Harvard. Barnes illustrated where the proposed Eckard Drugstore would be placed. Parking was proposed at the rear of the Applicant's property. Eckard Drugstore was required to add one more row of masonry block to the top of the retaining wall. Hall asked for clarification about the retaining wall. Barnes referred Hall to the last sheet in • board member packets referring to the proposed Eckard Drugstore. Along the east property line there was an existing five-foot high concrete wall and Eckard Drugstore was required per the development agreement to add one row of masonry block to the top of the wall. Barnes noted that the code required a parking lot to be screened from adjacent properties with a six-foot high fence. Eckard Drugstore elected to modify the existing wall to make it six feet in height. Hall asked if the existing masonry wall belonged to Eckard Drugstore. Barnes said yes and noted that the Applicant could expand further on the issue. The parking lot was elevated above the Duncan property by approximately one foot. Dickson asked if the masonry wall was five feet tall from the Eckard site or the Duncan's property. Barnes replied that the retaining wall was 4'-3" from the Eckard site. Dickson asked if Eckard was required to make it six feet from their lot. Barnes replied no and that it had to be six feet from the grade of the property line, which was on the other side of the masonry wall. Miscio asked if there would be parking along the retaining wall. Barnes explained that there were parking spaces and a landscape strip along the parking to act as a buffer between the edge of the parking and the masonry retaining wall. Hall asked Barnes if the Applicant could take down his current fence and make his property level with the parking lot and construct a six-foot fence. Barnes read a provision in the fence ordinance, "for the purposes of this section the height of a fence or wall shall be the distance from the top of the fence or wall to the original finished grade of the lot directly under the fence or wall. Any wall or similar feature that is constructed for the purpose of increasing the height of fence or wall shall be considered to part of the fence or wall." Barnes clarified that any extra amount of fill to artificially build up or change the • Applicant's grade would be considered to be part of the height of his fence. ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 12 Remington asked how high the existing wooden fence was. Barnes replied that he did not know. Remington asked if when the Eckard Drugstore site was approved if neighbors were spoken to about noise abatement. Barnes referred Remington to the petitioner. Applicant Participation Dean and Marlene Duncan, 2617 Harvard Street, addressed the Board. Mr. Duncan passed out an option from a masonry contractor. Mrs. Duncan noted that the fence behind their property was not a fence but a retaining wall. Mrs. Duncan stated that Bob Everitt who was originally involved with Thunderbird Estates told them the retaining was there for purposes to build the ground up two to three feet higher west of their property. The ground would serve drainage purposes and be equal to College Avenue. Mr. Duncan stated that he has discussed the issue with K.Bill Tiley, who was on the architectural committee for Thunderbird Estates. Tiley indicated to Duncan that the retaining was on their property and did not belong to Eckard Drugstore. Duncan has checked all of the plats and found no indication regarding the ownership of the fence. Tiley informed the Duncans that residents of Thunderbird Estates could do anything they wanted with retaining wall by way of painting and structure. The Duncans are not opposed to the parking lot but are concerned with the lights from cars coming into park. Hall stated that due to recent circumstances with Eckard Drug did the Duncans feel different or did they have the same concerns. Mr. Duncan replied no their feelings have not changed because the parking lot already exists and was recently completed. Mrs. Duncan was concerned with individuals walking behind the retaining wall and their lack of privacy and security. Duncan added there was a six-foot easement along each side of the fence that has been granted. If the Duncans built another fence and had to meet a 15-foot setback the fence would be in the middle of their backyard. Another option for the Duncans was to place a six-foot fence that abutted the retaining wall, although Mr. Duncan felt it would not be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Duncan explained the proposal he received from the masonry contractor and noted that the retaining wall would have to be reinforced with rebar. The Duncans were willing to do this. Dickson clarified that the Duncans were willing to use the existing fence, and asked if it would run the length of the property. Mr. Duncan said it would be 81 feet in length. Mr. Duncan said he had spoken to all of his neighbors and they were in favor of his variance request. Miscio asked if any of the other neighbors were intending to do the same as the Duncans so the fence lines would not be staggered. Mr. Duncan explained that several neighbors were moving and he was unsure of their intent. Mr. Duncan said a cedar fence would be placed on top of the existing retaining wall. Mr. Duncan noted that it would not make a difference if the other neighbors followed their lead because the wall was partially tom down in several locations. Remington asked if the Planning and Zoning Board discussed any of the issues regarding the condition of the retaining wall or any of the noise issues. Mr. Duncan replied no except that the ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 13 • existing fence would be built up by adding one row of block. Duncan voiced his concern that the structure would not be strong enough to hold another row of masonry block. Miscio wanted to know who owned the current fence. Mr. Duncan explained that it was considered a residential lot and the fence was on their property line. Stockover asked if the motel was built before the houses. Mr. Duncan responded that they were built simultaneously. Board Discussion Stockover asked staff that if Eckard was required to add a row of masonry block how and when could the proposed cedar portion be added. Barnes said that if the variance was approved a minor amendment would have to be processed to the Eckard Drugstore development plan. Barnes said Eckard would have to apply for the minor amendment. Barnes explained the minor amendment process. Miscio wanted the Applicants to speak with Eckard and let Eckard pay for the cost of maintaining the wall. The Applicants responded that Eckard did not own the wall. Hall agreed with Miscio that his suggestion was the ideal situation. Remington wanted something that was consistent down the length of the wall as well as structurally sound. Remington was in favor of a minor amendment. Barnes said the Board did • not have the ability to impose a restriction on the other development because a minor amendment had to be applied for with the permission and knowledge of the applicant. Stockover asked the Applicants if they were going to bear the complete expense. Mr. Duncan said yes. Stockover stated that without a lot of work the owner of the fence will remain unknown. Stockover felt the fence was a part of the hotel because it was retaining wall. Stockover said the retaining wall was more than likely owned by the hotel. Stockover felt the parking lot will remain regardless of Eckard Drugstore. Stockover did not have a problem approving the addition to the top of the fence, but thought the Applicants should be required to put it in cinder block. Stockover did not like the idea of wood being placed on the top. The fence would be eight feet tall from the Duncans' side. Eckman stated the odds of having uniformity was not likely because some neighbors will not have the money to do it. There was a discussion held regarding the cost. Hall was in favor of Stockover's idea. Stockover asked if the Applicants would have to have an engineer approve the plans to ensure that it met wind load requirements. Barnes said yes. Barnes noted that the Board would have to approve a second option just in case the Applicants do not own the fence. Remington said that his first preference would be something consistent all the way down. Remington's second choice was to grant a variance to allow the Applicants to have an 8-foot fence as long as the materials matched what was there. Remington's third choice was for the Applicants to build a cedar fence behind it. 0 ZBA April 8, 2004 Page 14 Miscio wanted to know who owned the fence prior to approving the variance request. Mr. Duncan was sure that he owned the retaining wall. There was a discussion held regarding the ownership of the fence. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2458 based on the hardship standard. Remington stated there was no detriment to the public good. The hardship was that there was a commercial property that has been built up two feet higher than the adjoining residential properties. In addition a change in use has occurred on the property from a motel to a parking lot. The Applicants would be able to modify the existing fence to 8 feet made of similar masonry materials to what currently exists. Remington conditioned the approval based upon the Applicant having the legal right to do so. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Hall, Stockover, Miscio, and Remington. Nays: None 7. Other Business There was no other business. Meeting ;T= 20 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator • • Introduction Property address: 301 S. Sherwood Street History and condition of the property: The property has been a rental property for the past 22+ years and the current overall condition of the single-family house is very poor. The house has major structural and cosmetic problems to the foundation and interior (see attached letters from 2004 inspection service and structural engineers). On March 19 Michael Sherman and Hilary Foshee closed on the sale of the property and took possession. Goal of the new property owner: Michael and Hilary wish to demolish the existing house and build a new single-family house on the lot. The existing single -car garage will remain in place. The desire and intent is to build a new, craftsman -style house while maintaining the Old Town charm and character of the neighborhood. The new house will conform to existing building codes, however, an exact footprint has not yet been finalized. It is anticipated that the new house will be either single story or one and a half stories and will not contain a basement (because lot is located in the 100-year floodplain). See attached potential floor plans for the proposed new house and photos of existing craftsman -style houses in Old Town that are similar in design to the new house. is letters variance does not appear to be detrimental to the public good. See attached multiple letters of support from neighbors to build a new home on this lot. The proposed demolition of the existing house has been approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Statement of Hardship: The building of a new home on an older, 4750 square foot lot (50 feet x 95 feet). The single family house currently situated on the property is in very poor condition. 0