BOA Variance Case 1997_2020 East St Unit B_6 Foot Fence

Home Browse Search

LOUISVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT JANUARY 15, 1997 APPLICANT: Kathy L. Bray (resident). OWNER: Roland E. Anderson. LOCATION: 2020 East Street, Unit B, Louisville, CO 80027. ZONING: PCZD - Planned Community Zone District, Commercial. REQUEST: Approval of a variance to allow a six-foot solid wood privacy fence in the front yard setback. BACKGROUND: The subject property is a 0.56 acre property on the east side of Highway 42, north of Hecla Drive. The property is triangular, with nearly 400 feet of frontage on Highway 42, but an average depth of only approximately 80 feet. The Davidson Highline Lateral Ditch runs along the rear (east) property line. This property was zoned PCZD in 1989 and amended in 1991 as part of the North Louisville General Development Plan. This parcel is zoned for retail and office commercial development. The overall PCZD district includes single and multi family residential in addition to the retail and office commercial uses. Alvenus Park is the only portion of the North Louisville PCZD platted and partially developed. The PCZD zone district established approved uses and development densities. It did not establish required setbacks. Those would be developed during the PUD and Plat review process. The General Development Plan did state that the yard and bulk standards would generally comply with those in general commercial zoning districts. That standard would be 25 feet in the Zoning Code, and 30 feet in the Commercial Development Design Guidelines. Section 17.16.120(B) states that, "No fence, wall, or hedge exceeding four feet in height shall be located in any required front yard." A condition in the 1989 annexation agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Anderson and the City was that the residential use of this property could continue until the time of development of the property. Residential use of the property would be discontinued if the property were approved for a Plat or PUD for commercial development of the property. No such development has yet occurred, though the owner was allowed to replace an older mobile home on the property with a new modular home earlier in 1996. This provision was intended to allow the property owners 1