No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1991 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA June 13 , 1991 1 Roll call. --�- 2 . Appeal 1989. The variance would reduce the required side yar� setback along the street side (the north side) from 15 feet 10 feet in order to allow a porch cover to be built over porch deck. The house is located in the RM zone. Sect 29-178 (5) by Marlene Bentino and Brian Hall, 301 S. Loomis St. 3 . Appeal 1990. The variance would increase the maximum number of residents allowed in an elderly group home facility from 15 to 40. The property is currently a 40-unit motel located in the HB zone. Section 29-322 (1) , 29-475(a) by Abram P. Boone, 1809 N. College Avenue. 4 . Appeal 1991. The variance would reduce the required corner- side yard setback along Whedbee Street from 15 feet to 9. 5 feet in the RM zone to allow an addition to a single family residence. Section 29-178 (5) by James E. Colburn, Jr. , 430 Garfield. PP'' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting June 13 , 1991 Appeal 1989 --- 301 S. Loomis St. --- Petitioner: Marlene Bentino and Brian Hall --- Zone: RM --- Section 29-178 (5) --- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the street side (the north side) from 15 feet to 10 feet in order to allow a porch cover to be built over the porch deck. The house is located in the RM zone. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house is 84 years old. Originallly, there was a porch cover which wrapped around the house and covered the deck. The owners desire to restore the appearance of the house to its original state by constructing a porch cover similar to the original. The deck is already only 10 feet from the lot line, so the cover will not be any closer than the existing structure. --- Staff comments: None. Aippeal 1990 --- 1809 N. College Avenue --- Petitioner: Abram P. Boone --- Zone: HB --- Section 29-322 (1) , 29-475 (a) --- The variance would increase the maximum number of residents allowed in an elderly group home facility from 15 to 40. The property is currently a 40-unit motel located in the HB zone. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The HB zone allows any use permitted in the RM zone, but the RM zone allows only 15 residents because of the supposed residential character inherent in RM neighborhoods. This property is in the HB zone on North College, and is not residential in character. The property is currently a motel, so the proposed use would actually be less intense. The lot exceeds the RM requirement of 12, 750 sqaure feet for 15 residents. --- Staff comments: The lot is 60, 390 square feet. Using the lot area formula for group homes in the RM zone, 78 residents would be allowed. As mentioned in the hardship, staff believes that the intent of the group home ordinance is to limit the number of residents to 15 because it is assumed that the neighborhood the facility is located in will be predominantly residential. Therefore, the hardship is due to the location of the property on College Avenue. G q- v Apipeal 1991 --- 430 Garfield --- Petitioner: James E. Colburn, Jr. --- Zone: RM --- Section 29-178 (5) --- The variance would reduce the required corner-side yard setback along Whedbee Street from 15 feet to 9.5 feet in the RM zone to allow an addition to a single family residence. --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The home has an existing setback of 11 feet to the side lot line. The addition to the home is placed on the lot in the only location where it can be placed. Since the home is already at an 11 foot setback, and because of an existing driveway and garage, it is necessary to place the addition in this location. It is also necessary to place the addition in this manner in order to make it line up with the existing structure, otherwise the additon would be too small to be of any use. The addition will be 30 feet from the street, since the property line is 20 feet behind the street. --- Staff comments: The topography of the lot also adds to the hardship. When this is taken into account along with the presence of the existing garage and driveway, there is little in the way of other locations on the lot on which an addition could be built.