Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues decision on unpermitted 1,900-square-foot carport; owner told to work with staff
Summary
The Board of Adjustment continued a request from a property owner seeking to keep a large, unpermitted accessory carport that exceeds the city's 1,000-square-foot limit and prevents issuance of a building permit for a new house.
A variance request to keep a large, unpermitted accessory carport was continued to give the applicant time to work with staff on options to bring the site into compliance.
Applicant Christian Cifantes said he bought the property with a large pre-existing steel carport and later discovered it exceeded the city—s accessory-structure size limits and lacked permits. Planning staff told the board the applicant cannot obtain a building permit for a principal dwelling while a stand-alone accessory structure remains on the lot unless the board grants a variance allowing a pre-existing accessory structure; staff also noted the structure exceeds the usual 1,000-square-foot maximum (applicant said the structure is roughly 1,900 square feet).
Why it matters: The case highlights how unpermitted accessory buildings interact with permit issuance for primary residences and how the board uses continuances to permit applicants to work with planning staff on compliance options.
Discussion and options: Board members pressed the applicant on whether he could reduce the accessory structure to the permitted size and whether a continuance could allow him time to demolish or modify the carport to 1,000 square feet so that the primary home could be permitted. Planning staff (Sarah Welch) advised that even if the accessory building were reduced to 1,000 square feet, the applicant would still need a variance to keep an accessory structure on the lot before a house is built because there is presently no primary structure on the parcel. Several board members suggested continuance so the applicant could consult with staff on demolition or modification plans and come back with revised documentation.
Outcome: The board continued the case to the August 7 meeting to allow the applicant to work with staff on a plan (options discussed included reducing the hard-surfaced area to 1,000 square feet, demolishing the accessory structure, or applying for an amended variance request). No final action was taken at the meeting.
Practical note: Staff recommended that if the applicant reduces the structure to the 1,000-square-foot maximum and wishes to retain it while building a house, he would still need a variance to allow a stand-alone accessory structure prior to construction of the primary dwelling.
