6/22/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK D9 PAGE G15 Staffs review of the application indicates that the proposal would result in 340 sq. 8. more enclosed building area and that approval of such a proposal would increase the degree of existing building coverage nonconformity. In addition, staff s analysis is that converting 50 sq. & of outdoor display/covered sidewalk area to enclosed area, all within a frontyard setback, would increase the degree of the setback nonconformity by allowing more building structure within that setback. ♦ Variance Review It is clear from the previously described facts that there are existing nonconformities on the site of the proposed additions/redevelopment. As such, redevelopment proposals are guided by the county's nonconformities regulations, as well as more general development requirements. Specifically, nonconformities section 904.05(3) pertains to "additions to, and development or redevelopment of, establishments with site -related nonconformities." That section states that additions/development/redevelopment of sites with nonconformities may be permitted if the proposed changes "... do not increase the existing site related nonconformity." The proposal cannot be permitted since it would increase the degree of building coverage nonconformity by 340 sq. ft. and would result in 50 more square feet of enclosed building area within a required 25' setback. The applicant maintains that the proposed display (glass) enclosed area covers pre-existing outdoor patio display area that is over slab and under roof and that has functioned similarly to a retail area for years. Thus, the applicant contends that there is no proposed change in use of the area to be enclosed and that 140 sq. & of pre-existing outdoor patio display area is being removed entirely. In essence, the applicant asserts that converting roofed -over sidewalks or patio area to building area is no real change in circumstances and that the proposal be construed to result in a decrease in the degree of nonconformity. In addition, the applicant contends that the county's improvement of 141 Street a few years ago has adversely affected the site's setbacks and its outdoor patio display area and that enclosure is necessary for nuisance and security reasons. The Board of Adjustments agreed with staff, concluding that the zoning code properly distinguishes between roofed over sidewalk display area and enclosed conditioned building area. There is a tangible and important difference between enclosed building area and areas historically used for placement of outdoor patio furniture. For instance, the zoning code specifically limits the amount of enclosed building area allowed on a site, as expressed in the maximum building coverage requirement. Also, the Board Of Adjustments previous decision in the Landmark Motor Lodge case from January 11, 1988 recognized the distinction between grandfathered -in, roofed -over patio area and enclosure of that area within a setback. In the Landmark case, the Board Of Adjustments unanimously denied a request to convert a roofed -over patio area to enclosed building area within a frontyard setback. It should be noted that the county's improvement of 141 Street years ago did not involve acquisition of right-of-way from the subject property, although a frontyard setback applies along 141 Street since it is now a road right- of -way. To grant the appeal and corresponding variance request, the Board of County Commissioners must review the evidence in the same way as the Board of Adjustments, and conclude that the circumstances and conditions related to the proposed project and site are unique. Such conclusions must be guided by findings based upon review of the request in light of the eight variance criteria contained in section 902.09(6)(a) of the land development regulations (LDRs). No variance can be granted unless the Board of County Commissioners finds that the request satisfies all eight of the following criteria. 1. Special Condition. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved, and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; JUNE 229 1999 0 54