Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/10/1996ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING October 10, 1996 8:30 AM 11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11 Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 229-1629 (w) 226-5101 (h) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 10, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Shannon, Gustafson, Stockover, Breth, Feiner, Keating. Members absent: Lieser. Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Jennifer Nuckols, Building & Zoning The meeting was called to order by Chairman Breth. The minutes from the September meeting were approved. Apoeal 2183 1535 Remington Street by John Clarke owner, approved with conditions Section 29-511(2) --- The variance would allow a fence to be taller than 6 ft. high. Specifically, the variance would allow a fence to be 8 ft. high along the west property line and along a portion of the south property line adjacent to Prospect. This variance request was conditionally approved by the Zoning Board in 1993, however, the applicant did not construct the fence before the variance expired. Therefore, the applicant is resubmitting. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner operates a photography studio from the house as a home occupation. When outdoor portraits are taken, a backdrop taller than the subject is necessary. Therefore, a 6 ft. high fence won't work. The property is adjacent to the drive -up lane for Taco Bell, and is also along a major arterial road. The 8 ft. fence is also proposed to act as a visual and sound barrier from the adjacent Taco Bell. See petitioner's letter for additional comments. Zoning Board of Appeals October 10, 1996 Page 2 --- Staff comments: None. Zoning administrator Barnes explained that this variance request had previously been approved in 1993 with the condition that the fence not go beyond the eastern most spruce tree on the south side yard. He showed slides of the location and explained that the proposed fence would be located on the south property line, which is adjacent to Prospect. He further continued that the proposed fence would be 8 ft. high along the south property line and showed the existing driveway and the above mentioned spruce tree. It was shown that there is an elevation change on the lot on the Prospect side; approximately a 4 ft. high change in elevation, that creates a topographical issue. The location of the Taco Bell restaurant in relation to the appellants property was shown with the type and size of fence that is currently on the Taco Bell property. Administrator Barnes noted the opening in the fence that enables one to see through to adjacent properties and that it is in this area that the petitioner is trying to achieve privacy and a background for his photography business as well as a buffer on the south side from the traffic on Prospect. An alley access was shown and it was stated by Barnes that the appellant can enter the property from the alley as well as Prospect. Chairperson Breth questioned if the fence could go further east, that code stated that it has to comply with distance requirements from the center of the street? Barnes replied that there is a requirement that no fence, unless split rail, can be within 75 ft. of the center of an intersection. Breth asked for verification on the placement of the existing wrought iron fence; whether it is on the property line. Barnes stated that he believes it is, and that the new 8 ft. fence would be located at the same location. Board member Shannon questioned the nature of the fence that will be built. Barnes stated that Mr. Clarke could better answer that. John Clarke, owner, appeared before the Board. He explained that he was previously approved for the fence in 1993, and was in the process of moving into the home and due to circumstances was unable to build the fence at that time. He is therefore reapplying. He commented that the existing wrought iron fence will be replaced and relocated elsewhere on the property. He also noted that the house is built from the parts of an old mansion that was originally on the corner of College and Mulberry, where the current Gart Sports is located, and the wrought iron fence is from that original mansion. Mr. Clarke stated that he is experiencing problems with traffic noise and lack of privacy and that as he uses the area for his photography business, a 6 ft. high fence will not work as a background for a person who is taller than 6 ft. He stated that his main hardship is that of lack of privacy and increased noise. He noted that there is an unusual slope. The house sits up 4 ft. to 5 ft. above the level of the street so when one looks into the property, Zoning Board of Appeals l October 10, 1996 Page 3 a taller fence is needed to afford the same privacy as a 6 ft. fence would on a lot of normal topography. He stated that it is difficult to maintain grass on the south side due to the constant traffic and that a fence would better enable him to care for that area. Mr. Clarke showed a slide that showed that a 6 ft. high fence, due to topography, would afford the home no privacy. One would be able to see right into the windows of the home. An 8 ft. high fence would block the view of the home and provide more privacy and a barrier to noise. Mr. Clarke stated the he believes his hardship to be the unique characteristics of the slopping lot and how the house is built- up and that he sees no detriment to those around him by having the Board grant him permission for an 8 ft. high fence. He stated that the fence will not be the ordinary cedar fence. It will be constructed of wood and possibly masonry block, designed in an attractive and solid manner. Chairperson Breth asked just where the location of the fence will be? Mr. Clarke stated that he will have the property surveyed to find the true property line and would then have it built on that line, unless that property line encroaches on the sidewalk. Breth questioned the height of the fence as it goes up the slope near the driveway. Mr. Clarke stated that the fence will come up to the driveway and then go in towards the house a short distance. A height of 8 ft. will be maintained from grade even as the fence goes up the slope. No one was present in favor or opposition of the appeal. Shannon asked to confirm that there are no visibility problems as automobiles approach the intersection. Barnes stated that as proposed, there are no sight obstructions. Barnes stated that if the Board where to approve the appeal, they may wish to add a condition that the fence be at 8 ft. from the grade of the sidewalk, not the actual sloping of the ground. Stockover remarked that in many neighborhoods, when a fence is along a sidewalk, the area between the sidewalk and fence is often neglected. Mr. Clarke stated that he would like to work with the City on that and possibly see if that sidewalk could be widened up to the fence Breth stated that he does see that there is a topographical hardship in this instance and that he would be in favor of granting the appeal with the condition that the 8 ft. be measured from grade of the sidewalk. Shannon moved to approve Appeal 2183 with the condition that the fence proceed only so far east as the eastern most spruce tree and that the fence be no higher than 8 ft. above the grade of the sidewalk and driveway. Board member Keating seconded the motion. Zoning Board of Appeals October 10, 1996 Page 4 Yeas: Shannon, Stockover, Breth, Gustafson, Keating, Felner. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2184 242 Conifer Street by Greg Fisher, architect withdrawn by applicant. Section 29-371 Other Business Barnes mentioned the appeal from last months meeting regarding the pitch of the roof turret addition and that he and the Mayor had met with the applicant to discuss the applicants concerns. Barnes also noted that the adoption of the principles and policies of the City Plan was delayed until November by City Council and the rest of the new zoning codes is being worked on daily. In December a rough draft may be ready to give to ZBA members for their input. The meeting was adjourned. yt�1 K Marty Breth, Chairpe n AWA-L'a- Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator