Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/08/20000 11 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat II Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 11 Chairperson: William Stockover 11 Phone: 482-4895 (H) II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday June 8, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth Andy Miscio Thad Pawlikowski Steve Remington William Stockover. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ayraud Diane Shannon STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Sandy Lindell, Staff Support to the Board Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call was taken. ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 2 of 17 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Pawlikowski to approve the minutes from the May 11, 2000, meeting. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL 2297: --Approved Address: 1497 Taft Hill Road Petitioner: Larry and Sherry Pettigrew, Owners Zone: RL Section: 3.8.11(3)(a) Back ound: The variance would allow a fence to exceed four feet in height when located between the front of the home and the front property line. Specifically, the variance would allow construction of a six feet high wood fence to be located between the front of the house and Taft Hill Road. The fence would be close to the house (within ten feet of the front wall of the home) and sixty-two and a half feet away from Taft Hill Road. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is a comer lot. While the legal front of the home faces Taft Hill Road, the "useable" front entrance faces Lake Street. The owner desires to construct a fence that will screen the noise from Taft Hill Road, so it needs to be constructed in front of the home. The home is setback approximately seventy-two feet from Taft, and the fence will be sixty-two and a half feet from Taft Hill Road. The intent of the code will be met. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal. A letter was faxed from the adjacent property owner of 1551 South Taft Hill showing full support to the Pettigrews request to install a six feet fence. If one looks west towards the front of the house, the fencing requirement states that from the front face of the house out to the property line a fence can be no higher than four feet. The house is situated on a corner lot with the legal front facing Taft Hill Road. The fencing would be along the front of the house and jog in and out instead of being straight. The location of the fence out to the back of the curb on Taft Hill Road is sixty- two and a half feet. The south wall of the house is what the Pettigrews are ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 3 of 17 referring to as the entrance normally used instead of using the entrance off of Taft Hill Road. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Sherry Pettigrew, addressed the Board. She has lived in this home for seven years, and the amount of traffic and noise is unbelievable. Her home does not have air conditioning, making it necessary to open up the house in the summer. When opening up the house, the Pettigrews find the sound, noise, dirt, and oil to be more unbearable. It is an attractive fence that would be landscaped and enable the Pettigrews to make a walkway to use as a front entrance. The above items have been difficult for them since they have owned the property. There would not be a problem when one turned left (north or south) on Taft Hill Road from Lake Street. The fence would not obscure any oncoming traffic. Board Discussion: Board Member Breth stated that he does not have a problem with setting a six feet high fence that far back off of Taft Hill Road. He believes that anytime an individual is on a busy arterial like that of Taft Hill Road, these types of problems are inevitable. If the house were closer to the street, Breth might have foreseen a problem However at sixty-two and a half feet away, he believes the placement of the fence will be fine. Miscio questioned how far back the Pettigrews decided to put the fence from the road. This decision was made because Ms. Pettigrew did not want to obscure any oncoming traffic, because there are accidents at Taft Hill Road and Lake Street everyday. The fence is closer to the house. The type of fence the Pettigrews want reflects sound. The Pettigrews do not want to look at Taft Hill Road, and believe the fence would make their house quieter and neater. Peter Barnes asked the Board to put a condition on the appeal. The condition would be that the fence be constructed per the approved plans the Pettigrews have submitted as far as the articulation and the varying setback of the fence. Otherwise it could be just a straight fence. Board member Breth likes the idea of the staggered fence and made a motion to approve Appeal 2297 for the hardship stated and to stipulate a condition that the fence is built per the plans that were submitted to the Board. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Pawlikowski, and Breth. Nays: None. ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 4 of 17 Appeal #2297 approved. 4. APPEAL 2298 — Approved Address: 401 Bobolink Court Petitioner: William Friehauf, Owner Zone: RL Section: 3.8.3(1) Background: The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building. Specifically, the variance would allow a woodworking business to be conducted in the existing detached building on the lot. The owner has been using the building for nine years for mainly personal use woodworking, and the intensity of the use will not really change. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The building has been on the lot for nine years. If it were attached to the house, then a variance would not be required. The building has been all set up and used for personal woodworking/hobby use, and it makes more sense to be able to continue using it, rather than move the business activity to the attached garage. Staff Comments: The house is at 401 Bobolink Court. The detached garage is behind the existing fence. The detached building is approximately seven feet from the house. On the west side of the property line is a privacy fence between the adjoining properties. Board Member Breth asked if the Board saw something similar to this situation a couple of years ago in the same neighborhood. Peter Barnes responded that it was approximately six months ago and was several blocks away from the current situation. It was someone who manufactured mainly wood signs in a detached building. Applicant Participation: William Friehauf addressed the Board. He applied for a sales tax license because he does primarily wood carvings -sculpture. He has been doing this for quite a few years and sold his products through galleries. The galleries usually handle the sales tax issues and he was wholesale exempt. He has been selling some on his own. He does not get customers to his house and no traffic as far as people coming to the residence. It is handled as commission type work and usually done at shows. ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 5 of 17 Miscio asked Applicant Friehauf if anything would change if this were approved. Friehauf stated it really would not. Stockover asked the Applicant about employees. Friehauf does not have employees and does not intend to. It is not a commercial enterprise, but one piece at a time. Clients do not come to his home; they see his work at shows. Board Discussion: Miscio stated that he was in favor of the Applicant's request. Breth stated that as the activity is ongoing with no changes, he favors the request as well. Miscio made a motion to approve the request for the hardship stated. Breth seconded the motion. Peter Barnes asked the Board to consider revising the motion. Barnes would like to incorporate the findings and precedent. The Board can make mention that this is an older existing detached building. This allows a little bit of wiggle room in the future for a precedent setting if someone wants to come in and say I want to build a brand new detached building to use. Miscio revised his motion pursuant to the existing use as an ongoing business requiring no change modification, and that it is an already existing detached building. Breth seconded the revised motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Pawlikowski, and Breth. Nays: None. Appeal #2298 was approved. For the record Board member Remington appeared before hearing Appeal number 2299 at 8:50 a.m. 5. APPEAL 2299: -- Approved Address: 1600 Sheely Drive Petitioner: Bob Brandes, Owner Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(b) Backaround: The variance would reduce the required front yard setback along Prospect Road from twenty feet to fifteen feet in order to allow a trellis cover over a passageway next to a new two car attached garage. 0 • I ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 6 of 17 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This is an odd -shaped corner lot, wherein the legal front yard is along Prospect Road, but the front of the home faces Sheely Drive. The area along Prospect functions more as a side yard and the proposed fifteen feet setback from Prospect complies with the required minimum setback along the street side of a corner lot. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal. The front of house faces out onto Sheely Drive, which is actually their legal side yard. The Brandes are wanting to add the garage and trellis along the west wall of the house. The Brandes currently do not have a garage, but the have a long driveway. The garage wall itself will extend over approximately half the smaller window; the trellis will then extend over the larger window. Applicant Participation: Bob Brandes addressed the Board. He stated he is asking for a variance of the setback. He was surprised to learn that the legal front of his house was on Prospect when there is not even an entrance to the house from that road. He stressed to the Board that he was requesting a variance of the setback for a trellis not an actual foundation structure. The garage itself is well within the setbacks. The trellis will conform with the architectural integrity of the other improvements the Brandes are making to the house. The cover would also allow them more protection from the congestion on Prospect. Board Discussion: Remington stated this type of situation with corner lots is seen by the Board often, and is wondering if it is the trellis causing the variance. Miscio asked staff if a trellis is considered a fence. Peter Barnes clarifies that a trellis is not a fence. A trellis is in the same category as a porch cover even though the trellis does not have a solid roof on it. Breth did not have a problem with the Applicant wanting to put the trellis up because it is setting back from the brick wall that is setting there anyway. Breth also puts into consideration that the true front is not the useable front. In Miscio's opinion, the trellis is an improvement to the overall property, and the trellis would improve the appearance. ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 7 of 17 Breth made a motion that the Board approve appeal number 2299 for the hardship stated, and stipulates the improvements to the property should be completed in conformance to the plan submitted to the Board. Peter Barnes asked a question regarding the Brandes home being designated as historic structure. If so, any exterior changes to the house also have to be approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission (hereinafter LPC). Mr. Brandes states that he has received preliminary approval from the LPC, after submitting all requested information to them. Brandes has been placed on the consent agenda for next week. He can not make any improvements to the house without the Commissions permission. Peter Barnes stated this was not previously mentioned. Any designated structure and any improvements have to be designated by the LPC. The Zoning office has nothing in writing from the LPC regarding their feelings about the variance request. Breth amends his motion to approve appeal number 2299 for the hardship stated provided the LPC does not come back with something else. According to Peter Barnes Breth's previous motion basically limited the plans to what was submitted. So if the LPC were to come back and tell the Brandes to do something else, that would void the variance. Remington seconds the motion. Vote: Yeas: Remington, Miscio, Stockover, Pawlikowski, and Breth. Nays: None. Appeal # 2299 was approved. 6. APPEAL 2300 — Approved Address: 314 Wayne Street Petitioner: Gary Ulrich, Owner Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Back ound: The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback from six feet to three feet six inches in order to allow a second story addition to an existing garage for a personal -use art studio. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing garage was built at a three feet six inch setback. There is a large pine to the north of the garage. The owner already has the windows and wants to have ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 8 of 17 southern exposure. There are no structures in the neighbor's yard to the south. The lot is forty feet wide. Staff Comments: The detached garage is already existing, and currently sits three feet six inches from the south property line. In the NCL Zoning District a five feet sideyard set back is required. When a wall is over eighteen feet then an additional one -foot setback is required for every two feet over eighteen feet. In this instance, along the south side the height of the wall would be twenty feet and therefore requiring a six feet sideyard setback. The Applicant is requesting a three and a half feet versus a six feet setback. The garage sits approximately thirty-three feet in from the alley. The addition would line up with the existing south wall. The dormer window is requiring the six feet setback. Peter Barnes explains that any new construction would have to be five feet from the property line if it does not exceed eighteen feet in height. The dormer is at twenty feet, which requires a six feet setback. If there is some other vertical element of the wall or something that is eighteen feet or less in height, then a five feet setback would be required and a variance would still be needed. The requirement is because of the extra height of the dormer. The Applicant needs a six feet setback. If the dormer was not there, the Applicant would need a five feet set back. The requested variance is to reduce the required set back from six feet to three feet six inches. Applicant Participation: Gary Ulrich addressed the Board. He purchased the house at the end of February. He had originally planned to build in the another area, and he already had a lot of his materials such as the windows. Mr. Ulrich had originally intended to build an addition onto the house, but the tree is not allowing him to get into the backyard to do any kind of excavation or addition. The ridge of the garage has a definite dip in it from when it was built back in the 60s. The garage is built out of 2x4s so the rafters are starting to sag. He decided to put his art studio on top of the garage, and wants southern exposure. The windows (already purchased) require a six feet setback. There are no windows on the north and some smaller ones on the east and west side. He would like the large dormer on the south side. Board Discussion: Remington questioned Applicant Ulrich if he is planning on changing the dimensions of the first floor. Mr. Ulrich would like to extend eight feet in, so he would have places to put both of his vehicles and have a spot for his tools. • 0 ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 9 of 17 He plans on adding to the west side. He does not need a variance for the addition to the west. The pitch of roof will change from a 4/12 to a 5/12, which will give a little bit less height on north and south side. Board Member Remington asked staff if a variance is required to make it into an art studio. In response to Mr. Remington's question Peter Barnes stated that as long as it remains a personal use art studio as stated in the application, then a variance is not required. If it were to be used in connection with a business activity, then Mr. Ulrich would be dealing with the same situation as the previous variance requests —the need for a variance for a detached building to be used in connection with a business. Board Member Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2300 as proposed in accordance with the plans that have been submitted. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Remington, Miscio, Stockover, Pawlikowski, and Breth. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL #2301: --Approved Address: 636 Peterson Street Petitioner: John Peek, Owner Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required sideyard (north) setback from ten feet to three feet in order to allow a second story addition. This zoning district requires a five feet setback with an additional one foot for every two feet of height over eighteen feet. The addition will be twenty-eight feet high. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing house currently sits at a three feet setback on the north side. Their family requires additional room. The style of the home will maintain the architectural style of the neighborhood. The home is 70 to 80 years old. Staff Comments: The NCM Zoning District requires a five feet sideyard setback. The house is currently sitting on a three feet sideyard setback. Any kind of upward addition would require a variance regardless of the height. The Applicant is proposing a twenty eight feet high second story addition, which requires a ten feet sideyard setback. The top of the gable will be twenty-eight feet. The house next door has 11 ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 10 of 17 approximately the same type of second story. A letter was received from the adjacent property owners Paul and Melissa Hughes of 632 Peterson Street showing full support of the second story addition. AAnlicant Participation: The Applicant appreciates the historical nature of the neighborhood. The Applicant does not want to move away from the area, but the house is too small (two bedroom, two bath) for a growing family. The Applicant was considering adding on to the back of the house, but in the back yard there is an apple tree that is old and valuable. The Applicant would hate to take it down They feel they have tried their best to keep the originality of the existing home for historical reasons and their likeability of the floor plan The second story addition would allow them to have upstairs space. The addition will also maintain the ambiance of the neighborhood. Eventually the owner would like to change the fencing around the house, and put the front porch back to its original state. The Applicant has talked to their neighbors and the neighbors are in favor of the change. Board Discussion: Remington felt the variance would fit and stay in character of the neighborhood. Stockover understands the hardship of having a narrow lot and valuable trees to the rear of the house, making a rear addition difficult. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2301 for the hardship stated and the characteristics of the narrow lot and the existing trees (topography and landscaping). Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Remington, Miscio, Stockover, Pawlikowski, and Breth. Nays: None. Appeal #2301 was approved. Peter Barnes stated that staff will read the next two appeals at once, as they are adjacent lots asking for the same variance. Discussion can be in regards to both, but the motion will have to be separate. Board agreed. 8. APPEAL 2302: -- Approved Address: 2621 Red Fox Court Petitioner: Wolfgang K. Wegner, Jr., Owner/Contractor ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 11 of 17 Zone: I Section: 4.2(E)(2)(d) and 4.3(1))(2)(c) 9. APPEAL 2303: -- Denied Address: 2620 Red Fox Court Petitioner: Wolfgang K. Wegner, Jr., Owner/Contractor Zone: RF Section: 4.2(E)(2)(d) and 4.3(D)(2)(c) Back round: The variance would reduce the required rear yard (east) setback from fifteen feet to seven and a half feet in order to allow a house to be built on the lot. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The legal rear yard could be viewed as a side yard. This is in a cul-de-sac with unusually shaped legal front and rear yards as well as the easements making it difficult to situate the house on the lot. The neighborhood covenants require a minimum of a 2000 square feet home. Staff Comments: Both properties are vacant lots. The lots are adjacent to each other at the end of a cul-de-sac. The rear property line along the back is to the east. The side property line is to the south. Peter Barnes stated that by definition the rear property line is the lot line most parallel to the front property line. The radius on the cul-de-sac is most parallel to the east property line, so that east property line is the rear property line. In regards to 2620 Red Fox Court, lot three, the fence line is considered the rear property line. They are required to be at fifteen feet and are requesting to be at seven and a half feet from the property line. The street in the back is County Road 38E (north sideyard property). The front line would be along the cul-de- sac, side property line along the west, rear along the east and another side would be parallel with County Road 38E. Board Member Remington asked if the lot is surrounded by open space. Jenny Nuckols responds that lot number three is open space. There are some lots where nothing will be built in those areas. Peter Barnes handed out copies of the approved development plan, which shows a proposed trail to the east of these two lots. The east lot line to lot three and four is separated by twenty feet of open space, and within the open space is utility and t ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 12 of 17 drainage easement. In addition to the easement, there is a plan to put in a pedestrian trail that may or may not stay there. Applicant Participation: Wolfgang Wegner addressed the Board. One of the reasons he plans to position these houses on the lot as proposed was because the rear property line is 171 feet deep. The homeowner would have an unobstructed view to the south. By positioning the house on the lots this way, it does not obstruct the view of the property owner to the east. It allows the owner an open view of Horsetooth. Mr. Wegner is finding it difficult to find a reasonable size house in the appropriate price range for the subdivision that would fit the lot. By changing the rear property line on lot four, the house will not be facing directly into lot five. Wegner believes it would look odd for the front of one house to face the side of another. Breth asked Applicant Wegner if any other plans are available to him for a longer and narrower house in the appropriate price range for the subdivision that would comply more with code. No, responded Wegner, if he were to keep the rear property line the same, it is even tougher to put a house on there. Wegner had tried to cut off sections of the garage to make the garage a two -car garage instead of a three -car garage. However, it was still three or four feet over the code requirement. Remington asked Wegner how far the three -car garage sticks out toward the rear property line from the main house line. Wegner states the three - car garage is closer to the rear property line than the house (approximately 3.6 feet). Breth asked the Applicant if there is anyway he could turn the three -car garage flush with the side of the house. Wegner claimed if this were done he would still only be at a ten feet setback instead of a fifteen feet setback. The house is within the seven and a half -foot easement minimum. Board Member Pawlikowski questioned why lot number five (a similar lot) did not require a variance. The Applicant explains a variance was not needed because the front sidewalk allowed the rear property line to be on the south side. The building envelope on lot four and five have the same seven and a half setbacks. Peter Barnes added some clarification is needed. The code only requires a five feet sideyard. Barnes does not know where the seven and a half feet came from and believes the easements and utility easements are only six feet, not seven and a half feet. The plot plan does not have a dimension on it. If one were to look to the right of lots 1-6 and the other lots 7-8, there is note stating a six feet utility easement is typical. This means all of the side easements are six feet unless otherwise noted, and there are some twenty feet utility and drainage easements. All other dashed lines represent six feet easements. The code requires a five feet side setback, but the easement takes precedence so six feet is the minimum requirement. Barnes believes the seven and a half feet is a covenant issue and of no interest to the Board. t ZBA June 8,2000 Page 13 of 17 Breth stated that this has been his point. If only six feet have to be there, then Wegner could pick up another one and a half feet. Breth still does not see why the garage could not be redesigned. He does not consider this a narrow lot. He considers it to be an unusual lot. Breth lives on a lot like this. Breth thinks that it is more an issue of placement of the house and location of the garage in proportion to the house than it is a setback problem. Applicant Wegner believes if he were to slide the house over, and take part of the garage off, he would still not be within requirements. Wegner does not know if it would be accessible. He would also like to keep the houses in line down the cul- de-sac and maintain a proportional look. He also wants to keep the east property views from being obstructed, the houses on lots four and five would stick out to far. Breth believed it would need to be proportionate if one were going down the street, but Mr. Wegner is not going on down the street. Breth now understands that Wegner is trying to keep as much open space as possible between the garage on lots three and four. The Applicant stated that is correct. Wegner also wanted the Board to consider the views being a privacy issue with south views instead of facing the property owner to east. Miscio asked Applicant Wegner if the houses in this neighborhood are fairly consistent in size (two story or ranch), or if they are custom homes and really different. Wegner states they are custom homes with little consistency, but mostly two story. Miscio asked Wegner if conforming to the code would cause this house to be significantly different from other houses in the area in size or configuration? Wegner states that yes it has been difficult for him to find a house that will fit on the lot that would be good for a home buyer. Miscio states if this proposal was granted the Board can improve the views by the neighbor, allow for conformance in the neighborhood, and makes the contractor's life easier. However, Miscio believes the negative has not been heard other than the proposed house plan does not conform to code. Miscio asked for another negative. Stockover had a concern if he is looking at lot three right. Lot three is 82.2 feet and lot four is 66.29, so there is sixteen feet difference in the two lots. Mr. Wegner is asking for the same variance based on the same conditions yet there are two different widths of lot. This concern needs to be considered when discussion begins. Breth agreed that the lots are not the same width. The Board has not seen the proposed house for lot three. Breth believes a variance should not be granted for a house that has not been proposed yet. i ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 14 of 17 Peter Barnes let the Board know that discussion has not started because the Board needs to hear if anyone in the audience is in support of the decision or opposed. Stockover asked if anyone in the audience is in support of the appeal. Don Hahn of 900 E County Road #34 is in support of the appeal. He is the partial owner, the developer of Fox Hills subdivision, and the architectural control committee officer. Mr. Hahn stated his opinion as follows: The way the lots were set up in the envelope it was the impression that the homes would be set like Mr. Wegner was trying to propose. The house meant to be on the lot was apparently missed between the front and back. It is Mr. Hahn's opinion that the views and the way the houses would sit in this particular case are so much better if they are turned and go the other way. For instance, between lot four and five, if one sets the house in the fashion that Mr. Wegner proposed then the homeowner could have a large backyard which faces south —all open spaces and a nice environment. If the backyard was put to the east, the homeowner would only have a fifteen -foot backyard. The majority of the homes in the subdivision have the possibility for walkouts. The walkouts are generally placed to the side and fitted on the hillside. The proposed house in question would face into the side of lot five. This type of placement would not be attractive to a prospective homebuyer. The concern is about the seven and a half feet setback that is in the covenants of the Fox Hills Subdivision. This covenant allows the houses to be further apart and gives the homeowners more room between the houses. The distance has thus far been maintained, and the homeowners are very much in favor. Lot three might not be a problem, but lot four is a definite problem Remington asked why the Applicant is not asking for a variance of the six feet required legal setback. Mr. Hahn responds that the covenants in the Homeowners Association call for a seven and a half feet setback. Remington feels a variance of the covenants would be more appropriate. Mr. Hahn feels Remington's suggestion could create a conflict between the existing homeowner and the Fox Hills Architectural Control Committee due to the existing homeowner's impression of being seven and a half feet away from their prospective neighbors when the property was purchased. Stockover asked if anyone in the audience were opposed to the variance. Mr. John Williams of 2625 and 2629 East County Road E approached the stand. He is the property owner to the east of the Fox Hills Subdivision. Mr. Williams opposes the variance because he does not see why Applicant Wegner cannot make the house longer to the south. Second the issue of drainage. The builder has • t ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 15 of 17 currently built a "driveway" almost over to Mr. Williams' property line, and lastly the powerlines. Mr. Williams would also like a fence to be built between the property lines of lots three and four, allowing for a twenty feet easement. Peter Barnes noted that Mr. Williams is reading from the general notes on the approved development plan in regards to fences. The note restricts the height of fences to four feet, and the fence has to be of an open nature along lot lines adjacent to the open space. Mr. Bames contacted Jay Barber in the Stormwater Utility Department prior to meeting with Mr. Williams. According to Stormwater's inspection of the property, the results were that the drainage is not functioning per the original grading plan, and a hold has been placed on lots three and four until a correction has been made. Stormwater also indicated that they did not have a problem with the fence exceeding four feet in height. Since the note on the approved plan restricts it to four feet in height, the only way a six feet fence in this development adjacent to the open space can be approved is through a minor amendment of the development plan. Board Member Breth stated the fence is of no concern to this Board because it is not part of the appeal. Peter Barnes responded to Breth saying the issue of the fence takes care of a lot of Mr. Williams concerns. Peter Barnes clarifies that the Board may want to consider the fence as part of any variance given. Miscio asks Mr. Williams if a fence would mitigate all other issues Mr. Williams has with the Fox Hills subdivision. Mr. Williams states that is correct, as long as the drainage is taken care of as well. Mr. Hahn re -approached the stand stating the Fox Hills homeowners would be very dissatisfied with a six feet closed fence. He would rather have the fence on Mr. Williams' property. At this point Stockover stated his opinion. He believes the Applicant is asking for the same variance (eight feet) on lot three and lot four. Lot three is sixteen feet wider than lot four. It is Stockover's opinion, that lot three does not qualify for the same guidelines as lot four. The hardship is self-imposed. Remington agreed with Stockover. Miscio believed that a decision on lot four needs to be made. He has not heard any negatives about granting a variance to lot four. Stockover believed the fence to be a moot point because the four feet high fence is not going to stop or change the situation. He is also having a hard time fording the hardship because there are not any pre-existing conditions. Miscio claims the purpose of open space is not to keep people out, but to promote a view. Breth believes the hardship is there with the unusually shaped lot. Breth no longer has a problem with lot four or the fence, but believes the fence serves as a deterrent. • 11 ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 16 of 17 Remington is having a problem with the Board being asked to change the setbacks when the Homeowners Association is not willing to do the same thing for the same reasons. Miscio stated that covenants are very hard to change, and it could be bypassed if the Board grants the variance. Miscio made a motion to approve the variance request for lot four, Appeal number 2302 as proposed with the stipulation that the contractor is required to put a fence along the east boundary line in conformance with the covenants. Breth seconds the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Pawlikowski, and Breth. Nays: Remington. Breth made a motion that Appeal 2303 be denied due to lack of hardship. Remington seconds the motion. Miscio asked if the Applicant or future homeowner could come back if he had a specific plan. Peter Barnes responded yes. Vote: Yeas: Remington, Miscio, Stockover, Pawlikowski, and Breth. Nays: None. 10. Other Business Last month the idea of equal to or better than was suggested to the Board as opposed to a strict reading of the code on hardship issues. Paul Eckman created a packet for the Board to review. If the Board is wanting the code change, the change would not be presented to council until the end of the year. The standards would be formatted the way the Planning and Zoning Board's standards are formatted. Currently the Planning and Zoning Board's are set out with some numbers and it is broken down making it easy to read. The substance has not changed but the format did. The opening part requires the Board find that the variance will not be detrimental to the public good, and the use cannot change. The proposed wording would allow the Board to grant a variance if the proposal will advance or protect the public interest. This gives the Board the opportunity to grant a variance even though there is not a hardship. The Board could grant variances as well for better ideas. The last paragraph is a disciplinary provision. It would make the Board be more disciplined in their thinking when the Board concludes a variance should be granted under either paragraph one or two. If it is a better idea or hardship, the ZBA June 8, 2000 Page 17 of 17 Board needs to make some specific findings as to why. The change would allow for an either/or situation. Breth requested that the formatting be changed such that number one should be number two and number two should be number one. A discussion was held regarding the last paragraph. Breth does not want this because it would extend meetings and because the paragraph is more binding. This means the Board would really have to sort items out to prove to themselves and to the public it was a better idea due to it being public record. Peter Barnes asked Mr. Eckman if the change would be legal, and Mr. Eckman is confident that as a home rule city, it can be done in Fort Collins. Eckman will have to do some research before the change is proposed to council. Staff discusses comments. It is stated that the Board appreciates staff comments. The idea of having the petitioner (instead of the Board) give a proposed finding as to why a variance is better is found to be too difficult for homeowners. Martin Breth left the meeting at 11:10 a.m. The Board was instructed to think of some other scenarios to play out (the equal to or better than plan) to see if it is something the Board would like to adopt. The discussion will be continued at the next meeting. The meeting is adjourned at 11:25 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator