No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/1990 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting k ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA March 8, 1990 1. Roll call. 2. Appeal #1943. Reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 1.5 feet for an addition to the rear of a home in the RLP zoning district. 9�¢ Section 29-148, 29-133(4) by ,Tim Temple, owner, 3212 Camelot Drive. 3. Appeal #1944. Allow a freestanding sign to be 2 feet from an interior side lot line instead of the 15 feet required by Code. Specifically, it would allow an 18 square foot per face sign identifying SInside-Out". ?j J The new sign would replace the existing ground sign which received a similar variance in 1979 to reduce the setback distance,;firr lot line on the south side of the lot. to the interior Section 29-595(d) by Gardner tee'; Signs, petitioner, 2720 S. College Avenue. t ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting March 8, 1990 Appeal _#1943 ---3212 Camelot Drive G ---Petitioner: Jim Temple, owner 1,0 _^ ---Zone: RLP 0-&4�k ---Section: 29-148, 29-133 (4) ---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to l 1.5 feet for an addition to the rear of a home in the RLP zoning district. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The petitioner desires to enlarge the eating area of the home. The existing eating and kitchen area are very small, and the proposed addition will increase the size of the eating area and kitchen storage area. The only way to build the addition is to the rear. The house is already at the minimum setback, so any addition will require a variance. The property adjacent to the rear lot line and south lot line is a detention pond and will always remain undeveloped, so the addition does not impact anyone and the intent of the code is met. --Staff comments: The house was built so far back on the property that the rear yard is very shallow, in fact the existing deck is already encroaching into the required setback. This lot is very unique in that it has a detention pond on two sides which means that if a variance is granted it certainly shouldn't have any substantial detriment to the public good, nor should it impair the intent of the Code. If a variance is granted it should be conditioned on the applicant getting the 10 foot easement vacated which runs along the rear lot line. Appear#1944 ---2720 S. College Ave. ---Petitioner: Gardner Signs, contractor --Zone: HB --Section: 29-595 (d) --The variance would allow a freestanding sign to be 2 feet from an interior side lot line instead of the 15 feet required by Code. Specifically, it would allow an 18 square foot per face sign identifying "Inside-Out". The new sign would replace the existing ground sign which Greceived a similar variance in 1979 to reduce the setback distance to the interior lot line on the south side of the lot. �r ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addition, if this sign were place 15 feet from either interior side lot line it would be located in one of the 4 existing parking spaces in front of the building. Parking accommodations are already very limited and the owner would like to keep the existing spaces. The intent of the Code will be met because the sign will not result in any visual sign clutter because the South College Liquor sign is approximately 95 feet away. ---Staff comments: There appears to be a legitimate hardship because the only place the sign could be located without a variance from either side lot line would be somewhere in the middle of the parking area or curb cut. This would virtually render the parking unusable. The sign is smaller and lower than the existing sign which received a similar variance. The Board may want to condition any variance by requiring that if the property to the south replaces their existing sign with a new sign that is within 30 feet of this proposed sign, a new variance will be required. Other business: