Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2003 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday,September 11,2003 Roll Call Approval of the Minutes from the July 10, 2003 Meeting f Appeal: 2438 1994 KINNISON DR The variance would allow a 1620 square foot detached accessory building to be built in the LMN Zoning District, instead of the 800 square foot maximum size allowed. The new building will be built in the same location as the previous detached building that was damaged in the March snow storm. Code Sections: 3.5.2(D)(5) Petitioner. Robert Haas ZoningDistrict LMN Appeal: 2439 1409 N LEMAY AVE The variance would allow two detached buildings to be larger than the maximum 800 square feet allowed for detached buildings in the RL zone. Specifically, the variance would allow two buildings that were damaged by the March 2003 snow storm to be reconstructed at a larger size than existed prior to the snowstorm. One building is proposed to be rebuilt at 7200 square feet, instead of the original 4000 square feet. This building will be used to house a car collection and exercise equipment. The other building will consist of rebuilding a portion of the damaged building and constructing an additional 1800 square feet onto the rebuilt portion. This building is used to house farm equipment and tools. Code Sections: 3.5.2(D)(5) Petitioner: Daniel Golub ZoningDistrict RL Appeal: 2440 810 W Mountain Ave The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback from the west lot line from 5 feet to 3.97 feet in order to allow the existing shed addition on the rear of the home to be removed and a new 19.5'x 26', one-story addition to be constructed in its place. The new west wall be in the same location as the existing west wall. Code Sections: 4.6(E)(4) Petitioner: David Thompson ZoningDistrict NCL Appeal: 2441 2731 Granada Hills Dr The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 14 feet in order to allow a second floor addition over the existing garage and a roof overhang to project 6 feet beyond the front of the existing garage. The new construction will be about 24 feet behind the curb. Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)(d) Petitioner: Richard Taranow ZoningDistrict RL Appeal: 2442 1436 Hiwan Ct The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback from 5 feet to 3.5 feet in order to allow a patio cover(lattice cover)to be constructed over the existing concrete patio slab. The cover is already constructed. Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)(d) Petitioner: Brent Hisgen ZoningDistrict RL Other Business: Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday, September 11, 2003 Appeal 2438 Address 1994 KINNISON DR Petitioner Robert Haas Zoning District LMN Section 3.5.2(D)(5) Description The variance would allow a 1620 square foot detached accessory building to be built in the LMN Zoning District, instead of the 800 square foot maximum size allowed. The new building will be built in the same location as the previous detached building that was damaged in the March snow storm. Hardship Specifically, this property was annexed into the City limits spring of 2003. The lot contains more than five acres and this structure would have been allowed to be constructed under the code and requirments of Larimer County. The existing garage was damaged in the snow storm in March of this year. The applicant did not realize that a structure of the size requested would not be allowed under the City's Land Use Code, and therefore did not look into building prior to annexation. Part of the structure will be for a personal-use shop that is currently located in the home. The remainder will be used for personal storage of items such as a lawn tractor and other yard implements, as well as for vehicles. Staff Comments The intent of restricting the size of accessory buildings to 800 square feet is to ensure that, in "urban-type" residential zones, the building is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal building as required by the definition of accessory building in the Land Use Code. Limiting the size to 800 square feet also helps to limit the-amount of building coverage that can occur on lots in urban-type residential neighborhoods. The proposed building footprint of the new building appears to be larger than the footprint of the existing home, so it would be difficult to conclude that the building is I` clearly incidental and subordinate to the home. However, the proposed size of the building is inconsequential when considered in relation to the size of the lot. A five acre lot is not a normal urban-type lot. Therefore, the Board may determine that the proposal promotes the purpose of the standard equally well as would a proposal that complies with the standard since the size of the building relative to the size of the lot is equal to an 800 square foot building on an average size residential lot. 1{r' Appeal 2439 Address 1409 N LEMAY AVE Petitioner Daniel Golub Zoning District RL Section 3.5.2(D)(5) Description The variance would allow two detached buildings to be larger than the maximum 800 square feet allowed for detached buildings in the RL zone. Specifically, the variance would allow two buildings that were damaged by the March 2003 snow storm to be reconstructed at a larger size than existed prior to the snowstorm. One building is proposed to be rebuilt at 7200 square feet, instead of the original 4000 square feet. This building will be used to house a car collection and exercise equipment. The other building will consist of rebuilding a portion of the damaged building and constructing an additional 1800 square feet onto the rebuilt portion. This building is used to house farm equipment and tools. Hardship See petitioner's letter. In addition, both of the buildings were nonconforming buildings prior to the snow storm. They can be rebuilt to their original size without a variance. However, this property is 4.25 acres in size and has historically been used for agricultural uses and a commercial greenhouse. The applicant continues these types of uses and believes that since the buildings need to be rebuilt anyway, this is the appropriate time to make them more suitable for the activities that are conducted on the property. Staff Comments This is similar to Appeal 2438 in that the previously existing buildings were damaged by the snow storm and the lots far exceed the size of the average residential lot. The proposed buildings on this property are much larger than the house, so it is difficult to conclude that they would be incidental and subordinate to the house. If the Board finds no hardship, then the variance request will need to be considered based on the equal to or better than standard as explained in Appeal 2438. S Appeal 2440 Address 810 W Mountain Ave Petitioner David Thompson Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(E)(4) Description The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback from the west lot line from 5 feet to 3.97 feet in order to allow the existing shed addition on the rear of the home to be removed and a new 19.5' x 26', one-story addition to be constructed in its place. The new west wall be in the same location as the existing west wall. Hardship The existing shed addition is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. The property is a locally designated historic structure. Placing the new wall in the same location as the existing wall would satisfy the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and identify the new area as an addition. If the new wall were moved further to the east, the functionality of the interior floor space would be reduced. The new construction is proposed to be located at the setback that already exists, and the original house is setback even closer to the west lot line. Therefore, the new wall will be further from the lot line than the remainder of the house. Staff Comments None. oo Appeal 2441 Address 2731 Granada Hills Dr Petitioner Richard Taranow �1 Zoning District RL Section 4.3(D)(2)(d) Description The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 14 feet in order to allow a second floor addition over the existing garage and a roof overhang to project 6 feet beyond the front of the existing garage. The new construction will be about 24 feet behind the curb. Hardship The proposed setback from the street is consistent with the setback of other homes in the subdivision. Normally, a 20 foot setback results in a 24 foot setback from the back of the sidewalk. There is no sidewalk in this cul-de- sac, so the proposed 24 foot setback from the street is consistent with the intent of the ordinace. Staff Comments If there is a hardship, staff believes it would have to be based on the unusual situation of the property line being so far behind the curb and the lot having no sidewalk. Under the equal to or better than standard, the Board may determine that the 24' setback from the street is equal to the street setback that occurs in normal situations. G 6 '0 Appeal 2442 Address 1436 Hiwan Ct Petitioner Brent Hisgen Zoning District RL Section 4.3(©)(2)(d) Description The variance would reduce the required side-yard setback from 5 feet to 3.5 feet in order to allow a patio cover (lattice cover) to be constructed over the existing concrete patio slab. The cover is already constructed. Hardship The property backs up to an open space. So only one adjacent property is affected. There has been an existing patio at this same setback. if the posts were moved 1.5 feet in from the edge of the concrete slab, then the code would be met since an overhang is allowed to encroach up to 2 feet into a required setback. So moving the posts really would not change much of anything. The cover could remain in its present location. Staff Comments As indicated in the statement of hardship, the actual roof structure complies with the code with regards to distance from the lot line to the edge of the roof. if the posts were moved 1.5 feet, then there would be no violation, but the roof would still be the same so the change would be very minimal. There doesn't appear to be a hardship, so the Board would need to find that this is "equal to or better than" in order to approve a variance. i� Other Business