Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/2003 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting r Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday,July 10,2003 Roll Call Approval of the Minutes from the February 13, 2003 Meeting Appeal: 2427 1250 W Elizabeth St The variance would allow the McDonalds restaurant to have two menu board signs instead of the one allowed, and would allow each sign to be 43 square feet, 6.5 feet tall instead of the 35 square feet, 5 feet tall that is allowed. The restaurant will have a double drive-thru, and one sign is necessary for each drive- thru lane. Code Sections: 3.8.7(G)((9) Petitioner: Weylan "Woody" Bryant ZoningDistrict CC Appeal: 2428 1404 Ponderosa Dr The variance would reduce the required rear-yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow the construction of an 8'x 20'detached storage shed and bird house combination building. Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)(C) Petitioner: Douglas Doty ZoningDistrict RL Appeal. 2429 4001 S College Ave The variance would allow three ground/freestanding signs along South College Avenue instead of the one that is allowed by the sign code. Specifically, the variance is requested in order to permit both a preview menu board (ground sign)and regular menu board (freestanding sign)in addition to the original KFC groundsign. The variance would also increase the amount of signage allowed along College Avenue from 155 square feet to 331 square feet(the actual amount of signage for the property will not exceed the total allowed sign allowance for 462 square feet based on the College Avenue and Boardwalk frontages combined). Code Sections: 3.8.7(G)(6), 3.8.7(D)(5)(C) Petitioner: Westec Construction ZoningDistrict Commercial Appeal. 2430 1504 LONGS PEAK ST The variance would allow an 18'x 26'detached garage/personal-use shop located at the intersection of Longs Peak and East Prospect Rd. Specifically, the structure is already existing, construction having started summer of 2002 and finishing winter of 2003. The required setback along East Prospect is 15'. The variance request would reduce the south side-yard setback from 15 feet to Vat the right rear corner of the structure in order to allow it to remain where it is located. Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)(d) Petitioner: GENE HOMOLKA ZoningDistrict RL a Appeal: 2431 661 Parliament Ct The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to allow a 20'x 11-4 --- 14'deck on the rear of the home. The deck is existing and was constructed at the time the house was built. Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)((C) Petitioner: Terry Colbert ZoningDistrict RL Appeal: 2432 320 Locust St The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in the existing detached building on the rear of the lot. Specifically, the owners conduct an attorney-at-law practice from the home. A portion of the home occupation activity (for paperwork and computer work only) is conducted from the detached building. The home occupation ordinance requires all of the business activity to be conducted in the house. Code Sections: 3.8.3(1) Petitioner. Lyn McCormick ZoningDistrict NCM Appeal. 2433 130 N Mack Str The variance would reduce the required rear-yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow for the construction of a 14'x 24'detached, one-car garage. Code Sections: 4.6(E)(3) Petitioner: Phillip and Amy Benton ZoningDistrict NCL Appeal. 2434 2540 E DRAKE RD The owner and petitioner request a variance as provided in Section 2,10 and 4.9(B)(1)(b)of the Land Use Code to allow installation of a permanent structure that contains a use which was existing on the property at the time the property was placed in the T zoning district. Specifically, the variance would allow the construction of a new 78'x 108'greenhouse building. The new building will be located 30'west of an existing greehouse. There are two ways to receive approval to construct a new building in the T zone. One way is to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, the other is to rezone the property. Code Sections: 4.9(B)(1)(b) Petitioner: Allen Curtis ZoningDistrict T Appeal. 2435 516 Edwards St The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5'to 4'9" in order to allow the rear 12'of the home to be removed and replaced with a 17'addition. The new addition will line up with the existing west wall of the home and will extend 5'further to the rear then the existing rear of the home. The variance will also allow the new addition to have a flat roof instead of a roof having a minimum 2:12 pitch in order to allow the roof to function as a deck. Code Sections: 4.7(E)(4), 4.7(F)(1)(g) Petitioner. Jim Liebl ZoningDistrict NCM Other Business: Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday, July 10, 2003 Appeal 2427 Address 1250 W Elizabeth St Petitioner Weylan "Woody" Bryant Zoning District cc Section 3.8.7(G)((9) Description The variance would allow the McDonalds restaurant to have two menu board signs instead of the one allowed, and would allow each sign to be 43 square feet, 6.5 feet tall instead of the 35 square feet, 5 feet tall that is allowed. The restaurant will have a double drive-thru, and one sign is necessary for each drive-thru lane. Hardship See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments It is probably necessary for each drive-up lane to have a menu board for proper and efficient operation. However, if the ZBA is inclined to allow the extra sign, it is recommended that the Board determines that the signs are being screened from public view to the maximum extent possible. .1 Appeal 2428 Address 1404 Ponderosa Dr Petitioner Douglas Doty Zoning District RL Section 4.3(D)(2)(C) Description The variance would reduce the required rear-yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow the construction of an 8' x 20' detached storage shed and bird house combination building. Hardship See petitioner's letter Staff Comments No comments G j Appeal 2429 Address 4001 S College Ave Petitioner Westec Construction Zoning District Commercial Section 3.8.7 (G)(6), 3.8.7(D)(5)(C) Description The variance would allow three ground/freestanding signs along South College Avenue instead of the one that is allowed by the sign code. Specifically, the variance is requested in order to permit both a preview menu board (ground sign) and regular menu board (freestanding sign) in addition to the original KFC ground sign. The variance would also increase the amount of signage allowed along College Avenue from 155 square feet to 331 square feet (the actual amount of signage for the property will not exceed the total allowed sign allowance for 462 square feet based on the College Avenue and Boardwalk frontages combined). Hardship The building recently underwent remodeling with the drive-up windows remaining at the same south wall location. The relocation of drive lanes and drive-up window to the north side of the building where a menu board could have been installed without any variance (as it would have been considered a freestanding sign taking allowance off Boardwalk) would have been prohibitive as it would have made a substantial change to the site plan thus affecting existing parking, drive through lanes, sidewalks, etc. Applicants prefer to also have the smaller preview board approved as the third South College ground/freestanding sign in order to help expedite the ordering process thus reducing traffic/cue spacing problems which may occu r. Staff Comments The intent of the standard that is requested to be varied is to reduce the sign clutter along streets, thereby preserving and enhancing the streetscape. It may be difficult to find that 3 signs in close proximity promotes the standard equally well or better than. Therefore, the Board may have to find some hardship. The large KFC/A&W monument sign is a nonconforming sign that needs to be brought into compliance in 2009. The Board may determine that in order to mitigate the presence of 3 signs along College Avenue, a condition to bring the large sign into compliance now might be appropriate. Additionally, the new preview board could possibly be turned at an angle in order to reduce the amount of sign face that is visible from College Avenue. To_ Appeal 2430 w Address 1504 LONGS PEAK ST Petitioner GENE HOMOLKA Zoning District RL Section 4.3(D)(2)(d) Description The variance would allow an 18' x 26' detached garage/personal-use shop located at the intersection of Longs Peak and East Prospect Rd. Specifically, the structure is already existing, construction having started summer of 2002 and finishing winter of 2003. The required setback along East Prospect is 15'. The variance request would reduce the south side-yard setback from 15 feet to 1' at the right rear corner of the structure in order to allow it to remain where it is located. Hardship The structure is located approximately 15 feet from the curb along East Prospect Rd. , one foot from the property line. There is a 15 - 20 year old Choke Cherry Tree located directly north of the garage structure. The tree would have had to have been cut down to comply with the setback and still be able to have a driveway access to the garage. Staff Comments Prospect Road is a major arterial street, so the garage is not impacting any other property, and part of the garage is hidden by the fence. However, the building is still noticeable. If the Board finds grounds to grant a variance, perhaps a condition that the owner plant an additional tree or two in the parkway to help screen the building would be appropriate. d Appeal 2431 Address 661 Parliament Ct Petitioner Terry Colbert Zoning District RL Section 4.3(D)(2)((C) Description The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to allow a 20' x 14' deck on the rear of the home. The deck is existing and was constructed at the time the house was built. Hardship The home has a walk-out basement and the deck was constructed off the kitchen when the home was built. There is an open space, natural area behind the home, so the intent of the rear setback standard is met. Staff Comments The purpose of the rear setback standard is to ensure separation between buildings and structures in order to provide for privacy, light, air circulation, etc. There are no developable lots behind this property. The Board has heard similar rear setback requests previously and has determined that the purpose of the standard is promoted equally well. Appeal 2432 Address 320 Locust St Petitioner Lyn McCormick Zoning District NCMI Section 3.8.3(1) Description The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in the existing detached building on the rear of the lot. Specifically, the owners conduct an attorney-at-law practice from the home. A portion of the home occupation activity (for paperwork and computer work only) is conducted from the detached building. The home occupation ordinance requires all of the business activity to be conducted in the house. Hardship The rear building used to be a painting shop and was ideally set up to use as an area for clerical work. No customers are supposed to come to the rear building. Customers meet with the attorney in the home on an appointment only basis. Staff Comments The Board has granted variances in the past to allow home occupation activities to be conducted in existing detached buildings in the old part of town when the home has no attached garage that can be converted. This home does not have an attached garage. UJ Appeal 2433 Address 130 N Mack St Petitioner Phillip and Amy Benton Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(E)(3) Description The variance would reduce the required rear-yard setback along the east lot line from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow for the construction of a 14' x 24' detached, one-car garage. Hardship The house is small, containing only one closet. The petitioner's would like a few feet of extra length added to the garage for storage. There is currently no garage or driveway on this lot and the lot is only 97.5 feet in depth. Staff Comments None. Appeal 2434 Address 2540 E DRAKE RD Petitioner Allen Curtis Zoning District T Section 4.9(B)(1)(b) Description The owner and petitioner request a variance as provided in Section 2.10 and 4.9(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code to allow installation of a permanent structure that contains a use which was existing on the property at the time the property was placed in the T zoning district. Specifically, the variance would allow the construction of a new 78' x 108' greenhouse building. The new building will be located 30'west of an existing greenhouse. There are two ways to receive approval to construct a new building in the T zone. One way is to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, the other is to rezone the property. Hardship Cargill conducts Canola Oil research. In order to do this, controlled conditions are required for year round operation. There are already two greenhouses on the property and additional space is needed in order to maintain the operation. One of the existing greenhouses will be converted to office space in the future, and it is necessary to have the new greenhouse operational prior to the conversion. If the desired expansion is delayed an interruption of the product development cycles will take place causing significant economic erosion of the business. Staff Comments The building is considered an accessory building, and is similar to the other accessory buildings that are existing on the property. The building is not for the purpose of being able to conduct an activity that is not already being conducted. 0 Appeal 2435 ,Address 516 Edwards St Petitioner ,Jim Liebl Zoning District NCM Section 4.7(E)(4), 4.7(F)(1)(g) Description The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5' to 4' 9" in order to allow the rear 12' of the home to be removed and replaced with a 17' addition. The new addition will line up with the existing west wall of the home and will extend 5' further to the rear then the existing rear of the home. The variance will also allow the new addition to have a flat roof instead of a roof having a minimum 2:12 pitch in order to allow the roof to function as a deck. Hardship The existing home is already at a nonconforming setback, If the new addition is moved over to comply, then the proposed room will be smaller. In order to be able to use the roof as a deck, it needs to be flat. By using the roof as a deck, then less of the back yard is used up. Also, a pitched roof on the addition will shade the back yard, so the flat roof reduces the amount of yard that is shaded. Staff Comments The new west wall can probably be constructed at a 5' setback without any hardship being imposed on the owner. The rooms will be 3 inches smaller. 6 .�'-0 Other Business `