The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/13/2004 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday, May 13, 2004 Appeal 2459 Address 7233 MATHESON DR Petitioner Michael Agruss Zoning District LMN Section 3.5.2(D)(3) Description The variance would reduce the required rear setback from 8' to 6' in order to allow the construction of a 12 x 18 screened porch room. Hardship The rear yard is only 18' deep from the house to the rear property line and there is open space to the west,. The request is only for a 2' reduction from what is required. Staff Comments This rear setback request is similar to others that the Board has considered in the last 2 years in that there is open space to the back. However, the other requests have been for generally open-sided porches or decks. This proposal is for a screend porch room, so it is more closed in then other similar requests. The intent of the rear setback is to provide for privacy, light and ventilation. The Board has determined in the past that when the property abuts an open space, the intent of the code is satisfied equally well when the structure is open in nature. 6-0 Appeal 2460 Address 905 W OAK ST Petitioner Don Knoll Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(E)(3) & 4.6(E)(4) Description The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the west lot line from 15' to 8.5' and reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 5' to 1.5' in order to allow the existing detached one-car garage to be demolished and replaced with a new 18' x 26' detached one- car garage. The existing garage is 4.5' from the rear lot line and 0' from the south side lot line. The Zoning Board denied a variance request on April 8, 2004 that would have allowed the new garage to be constructed entirely in front of the existing home. This revised request results in a new garage approximately in the same location as the existing garage. Hardship The lot is an irregular shaped lot, wherein the home is addressed off Oak Street, but the front faces Washington Avenue. The existing garage is not on a foundation, and it also suffered structural roof damage during the March 2003 snowstorm. Since the existing building is structural unsound, the owner would like to construct a new garage. If the new building is moved forward in order to comply with the 15' required rear setback, then it will not be recessed at least 10' behind the front of the home as required by code. A variance to allow the building to not be recessed was denied, so any location will require a rear setback variance. If the new building is located in compliance with the 5' side yard requirement, then it is too close to the home. Adding it onto the home, would result in the loss of most of the windows on the south side of the home. Staff Comments This is basically a rehearing of Appeal 2456, which would have allowed the new garage to be constructed in front of the existing home. That appeal was denied on April 8, 2004. The petitioner is now submitting something in keeping with the direction provided by the Board and neighbors at the April 8th hearing. Appeal 2461 Address 1001 W MOUNTAIN AVE Petitioner Joe and Julie Geiman Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(E)(4) and 4.6(D)(1) Description The variance would reduce the required west side-yard setback from 9 feet to 5 feet in order to allow the construction of a second story addition that would line up with the existing west wall of the house. The variance would also reduce the lot area to floor area ratio requirement from 3 to1 to 2.53 tot to allow an addition to the main floor as well as the second story addition. Hardship See petitioners letter. Also, the new second story west wall will line up with the existing west wall which is at a 5' setback. The peak height of the existing wall is 21'. The proposed peak height will be 28 feet which requires a 9' setback. The proposed square footage of the home and exiting storage structure will be 3316 square feet. 2800 square feet are allowed in the NCL zone. This is a corner lot, so the lot appears to be larger than it is and therefore, the building mass is visually reduced as compared to a building of this size on an interior lot. Staff Comments The lot area to floor area variance request is not an uncommon type of request in these old neighborhoods. The Board has allowed for some flexibility in the standard when the property is a corner lot, since the lot appears larger than it really is, and thereby reduces the visual mass of the buildng. The applicant is choosing not to build the proposed 26 x 26 garage at the rear of the property at this time. The existing storage structure will remain as noted on the site plan. G 6 -0 Appeal 2462 Address 408 E PITKIN ST Petitioner SHEPHERD WOLF Zoning District NCM Section 3.8.3(1) Description The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in the existing detached 2-car garage that is on the rear of the lot, instead of within the home. Specifically, the variance would allow a website design business to be conducted in the building. There would be no non-resident employees, and client visits would occur approximately once every 3 months. The only person working in the detached building will be the resident of the home. Hardship The home is a small one bedroom home that does not have an attached garage. In order to accommodate an area for the business, it would be necessary to construct an addition. Staff Comments The Board has granted numerous variances for home occupations in detached buildings in the older neighborhoods when there is no attached garage on the premises. Since there is no attached garage in this instance, this is similar to other variance requests. Appeal 2463 Address 2024 E HARMONY RD Petitioner JOHN MARKS Zoning District HC Section 3.8.7(C)(1)(k) Description The variance would allow a sign advertising a home occupation to be larger than 4 square feet per face along an arterial street. Specifically, the variance would allow a sign to identify the Psychic Kay home occupation to be 24 square feet per face instead of the allowed 4 square feet per face. The proposed sign would be located along Harmony Road, in front of the house. Hardship This property is at the intersection of Harmony and Timberline, which is one of the largest intersections in the city. Cars travel along Harmony at 55 mph, so an advertising sign needs to be large enough to be seen by motorists well in advance in order to avoid sudden stops along a State highway. The property is zoned to allow commercial uses. If the building were not occupied as a residence, but rather entirely as an office, the property would have a sign allowance of 115 square feet. This would mean that a sign as large as 57.5 square feet per side would be allowed for a commercial use. Staff Comments The Board has granted several sign variances to allow home occupation signs to exceed 4 square feet when the property is along a high speed major arterial street. Harmony Road is a State highway and it is high speed along this section of Harmony. However, the 24 sf sign that is proposed is considerably larger than the size allowed for other similar variances. Those variances have allowed the signs to be around 10 sf. This property is somewhat different from previous ones the Board has heard in that it is surrounded by commercial uses. Still, 24 square feet may be a little excessive. If the Board does grant a variance for a size larger than 4 s.f., then Staff recommends that the Board consider placing some conditions on the color of the proposed sign. Appeal 2464 Address 603 Bayberry Circle Petitioner Dana McBride Zoning District RL Section 4.3(D)(2)(c) Description The variance would reduce the required rear setback along the south lot line from 15' to 10' in order to allow a new house to be constructed on the lot. The setback variance is requested in order to maintain an adequate distance from the Greeley water main that exists in the front of where the house is proposed to be located. Hardship See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments This lot is a classic example of a hardship situation due to the unique circumstances created by the fact that the lot is virtually covered with easements. This results in a very small buildable area. The board granted a similar variance a few years ago, but the house was never built. b t� Other Business