Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/2002 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday, February 14,2002 Roll Call Approval of the Minutes from the December 13, 2001 Meeting Appeal: 2367 4606 S Mason St — SO' -ci t"I"A - The variance would allow a sign that is mounted at an angle between two building walls that are at right angles to be considered a flush wall sign, even though it is more than 12 inches from the wall surface to which the sign is mounted. The sign would advertise"Soundtrack". Specifically, a 57 square foot slign would be located at an angle between the two walls at the southwest corner of the building. A smilar variance was approved in 1999 to allow the"Soundtrack" sign that is currently at the northeast corner of the building. Code Sections: 3.8.7(1) Petitioner: Bruce Hindle, for Gordon Signs ZoningDistrict HC Appeal: 2368 824 Whedbee St The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 1.5 feet in order to allow a 480 sq. ft. addition to the west side of the existing detached garage. The existing garage is already located at a setback of 1.5 feet from the lot line. The proposed addition will line up with the existing north wall. Code Sections: 4.7(E)(4) Petitioner: Dennis Sovick ZoningDistrict NCM Appeal: 2369 2101 Clydesdale Dr The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from the south lot line from 15' to 8' in order to allow a 16'addition to the south side of the house. There is currently a 10' sunroom addition on the south side of the home which will be demolished. The new addition will extend 6'further to the south then the existing sunroom. Because this is a corner lot, the south lot line is classified as the rear lot line, even though the south side really functions as a side yard. Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)(C) Petitioner: Gary Woolridge ZoningDistrict RL Oder Business: Election of officers. Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday, February 14, 2002 Appeal 2367 Address 4606 S Mason St Petitioner Bruce Hindle, for Gordon Signs Zoning District HC Section 3.8.7(I) Description The variance would allow a sign that is mounted at an angle between two building wails that are at right angles to be considered a flush wall sign, even though it is more than 12 inches from the wall surface to which the sign is mounted. The sign would advertise "Soundtrack". Specifically, a 57 square foot sign would be located at an angle between the two walls at the southwest corner of the building. A similar variance was approved in 1999 to allow the "Soundtrack" sign that is currently at the northeast corner of the building. Hardship See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments Copies of the 1999 variance are included in the Board packets for reference. If a hardship standard is found to not apply in this case, the Board would have to determine that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard, and that the granting of the variance would not G be detrimental to the public good. �;�;o►� The purpose of the standard to limit the projection of a wall sign to 12 inches is primiarily one of aesthetics. The code classifies a sign that is more than AD ng�il s 4'`S 12" from the wall as a projecting wall sign. Such signs are usually found on buildings that are close to or abutting the property line along a street. Such �rl o'"' buildings are generally in the downtown area. Since projecting wall signs CA generally project over a public sidewalk, and are quite close to the street, -� the regulations that apply to such signs with respect to size are more restrictive than for wall signs. For instance, the maximum size of a projecting wall sign is 12 square feet, but the size of a flushwall sign on the same building would only be limited by the amount of sign allowance that the building has. Projecting wall signs are very visible from the street, and therefore the size limitation is intended to ensure that such signs don't detract from the appearance of the streetscape of the city. The Board may find that the proposed sign promotes the purpose of the standard since it 1) does not project from the furthest exterior walls of the building, 2) does not project over any public sidewalk, and 3) it is not in close proximity to a public street. The Board may find that the proposal is equal to or better than a proposal that complies with the Code since 1) one sign would replace the 2 existing signs, and 2) the square footage of the one proposed sign would be less than the square footage of the 2 existing signs. Appeal 2368 Address 824 Whedbee St Petitioner Dennis Sovick Zoning District NCM Section 4.7(E)(4) Description The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 1.5 feet in order to allow a 480 sq. ft. addition to the west side of the existing detached garage. The existing garage is already located at a setback of 1.5 feet from the lot line. The proposed addition will line up with the existing north wall. Hardship The existing garage building is small and is already nonconforming. The new wall will line up with what already exists. The existing home on the lot is located to the rear of the 190' deep lot, and is already much closer to the -T,614 rear garage than all other homes in the neighborhood. It is the only lot on which the home is located at the rear. Moving the garage over an additional `� 3.5 feet will further"block" the rear of the home. Staff Comments None. Appeal 2369 Address 2101 Clydesdale Dr } Petitioner Gary Woolridge Zoning District RL Section 4.3(D)(2)(C) Description The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from the south lot line from 15' to 8' in order to allow a 16' addition to the south side of the house. There is currently a 10' sunroom addition on the south side of the home which will be demolished. The new addition will extend 6' further to the south then the existing sunroom. Because this is a corner lot, the south lot line is classified as the rear lot line, even though the south side really functions as a side yard. Hardship This is a corner lot, wherein the legal rear lot line actually functions as a side lot line. The requested setback does comply with the minimum required for a side yard setback. The Board has heard this type of variance request regarding corner lots numerous times. Staff Comments This is a typical corner lot situation that the Board deals with from time to time. 9-0 � 1 _ 1 M � F err ►.� � , r � J �rA�� ��,� =r 111,,, `` ♦ ;�I 0 IL Board ol'_Appcclk I CbI'LIiHA 0CN2 a,l