Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1994 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
June 9, 1994
1. Roll call.
.�2'. Appeal 2104 . The variance would reduce the required rear yard
setback from 15 ' to 11 ' for a portion of a proposed porch
cover to be built over an existing concrete patio slab.
Section 29-148 and 29-133 (4 ) by James & Dawn Mitamura, 512 Owl
Ct. .
3 . Appeal 2105 . The variance would allow a housing project ID
sign to be located at the project at a location other than at
an entrance to the project. Section 29-591(6) by Steve Pink,
P.A. Signs, 2212 Vermont Drive.
Appeal 2106. The applicant is appealing a staff
determination. The applicant is desiring to obtain a building
permit for a 50 ' X50 ' metal building, 18 ' high which would be
placed on his 47 ,600 square foot lot, as an accessory,
detached, building. City staff has classified the building as
a principal building because of its size. Such a principal
building and use, is not permitted in the RL zone. The
applicant is appealing this determination, and believes it
should be classified as an accessory building and use. The
building will be used for storage of the owner' s R.V. , boat,
trailer and other material. The building would comply with
all required setbacks and the owner will plant trees to
provide some screening of the building. The applicant
believes that his proposed building and size are consistent
with other buildings which have been approved by the City.
The applicant owns the building which is currently sitting on
land he owns in Iowa. Section by Larry Pettigrew, 1497 S.
Taft Hill Road.
ra: Appeal 2107 . The variance would allow more than one
subdivision identification sign at an entrance into a
subdivision. Specifically, the variance would allow a 14
square foot sign to be located on each of two entry wall
structures. One entry wall is to be located on the northwest
corner of S. Lemay and Fossil Creek, the other entry wall
will be located on the southwest corner of S. Lemay and Fossil
Creek. Section 29-591 (6) by Rob Layton, 6101 S. Lemay Avenue.
,6--. Appeal 2108. The variance would reduce the required lot area
from two times as large as the floor area of the building, to
1 .52 times as large as the floor area. Specifically, the
variance would allow a 2610 square foot addition to the S&B
Pickle Barrel restaurant (405 sq. ft. 1st floor, 2205 sq. ft.
second floor addition) . The addition would be for more floor
area for the restaurant and associated office space. The lot
size is 7840 square feet. Section 29-303 by Bob Piccaro, 122
W. Laurel Street.
7 . Other business.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
June 9, 1994
Appeal 2104
--- 512 Owl Ct.
--- Petitioner: James & Dawn Mitamura, owners
--- Zone: RLP
--- Section 29-148 and 29-133 (4 )
--- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from
15 ' to 11 ' for a portion of a proposed porch cover to be built
over an existing concrete patio slab.
--- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The patio slab is
existing and the owners desire is to build a porch cover over
the slab. The home is built at an angle to the rear property
line, so only part of the cover will be closer than 15 ' . The
south side of the lot is shallow (at 81 ' ) so there is not much
lot depth to work with at the part of the house where the slab
is located. The lot is an irregular shaped lot, where the
north lot line is almost twice as long as the south lot line.
--- Staff comments: None.
Appeal 2105
--- 2212 Vermont Drive
--- Petitioner: Steve Pink, P.A. Signs, sign contractor.
--- Zone: BP
--- Section 29-591 (5 )
--- The variance would allow a housing project ID sign to be
located at the project at a location other than at an entrance
to the project. The variance would also increase the allowed
size of the sign from 35 sq. ft. to 55 sq. ft. Specifically,
the variance would allow the permanent "Pinecone Apartments"
1 I .D. sign to be located along Timberline Road, where there are
no entrances, and would allow 35 sq. ft. of individual letter
signage to be applied to a brick wall .
--- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The project is located
along Timberline Road which is an arterial street. Because of
the arterial street designation and the amount of traffic on
Timberline, the housing project was not allowed an entrance
onto Timberline Road, even though the project has a lengthy
frontage. The project does have an exit onto Timberline,
however the sign code requires that the ID sign be located at
an entrance. The applicant and owner feel that this causes
the project a hardship in identifying the project so that it
can be located from the major street frontage.
--- Staff comments: The locational aspect of this request is
similar to the one heard by the Board last month for the New
Colony Apartments on Shields, and for other apartment
complexes in past years.
Appeal 2106
--- 1497 S . Taft Hill Road
--- Petitioner: Larry Pettigrew, owner.
--- Zone: RL Zone
--- Section
--- The applicant is appealing a staff determination. The
applicant is desiring to obtain a building permit for a
50 'X50 ' metal building, 18 ' high which would be placed on his
47, 600 square foot lot, as an accessory, detached, building.
City staff has classified the building as a principal building
because of its size. Such a principal building and use is not
permitted in the RL zone. The applicant is appealing this
determination, and believes it should be classified as an
accessory building and use. The building will be used for
storage of the owner's R.V. , boat, trailer and other material.
The building would comply with all required setbacks and the
owner will plant trees to provide some screening of the
building. The applicant believes that his proposed building
(. and size are consistent with other buildings which have been
approved by the City. The applicant owns the building which
is currently sitting on land he owns in Iowa.
--- Staff Comments: Section 29-456 of the Zoning Code defines an
Accessory Building and Use as a "subordinate use of a
building, other structure or tract of land, or a subordinate
building or other structure, which is:
( 1 ) Clearly incidental to the use of the principal building,
other structure or use of land;
( 2 ) Customary in connection with the principal building,
other structure or use of land;
( 3) Ordinarily located on the same lot with the principal
building, other structure or use of land. "
It is staff ' s opinion that the proposed 2500 square foot building
does comply with criteria ( 1) and ( 3) above. However, staff
believes that the building does not comply with criteria (2 )
because it is not customary to have a large, detached accessory
building of this nature in a residential neighborhood. The code
allows detached garages or storage buildings in such neighborhoods
when they are of a size which is customary or common for a
particular neighborhood.
While the petitioner' s lot is large, it is located in an RL zone
which is characterized by one story homes, most of which are on
normal size lots. The other detached buildings in the neighborhood
appear to be about the size of a standard two-car garage (400 - 500
square feet) . Staff believes that while the proposed use of the
building is customary, the 2500 square foot size is not customary
in connection with the principal building of the lot, which is a
single-family dwelling. Therefore, the structure should not be
classified as an accessory or subordinate building. Instead, the
building should be considered a principal building. As a principal
building, used for storage, it is not a permitted use in the RL
zone.
The petitioner has presented staff with photographs of 3 accessory
buildings which he believes have set a precedent for his proposal.
The largest of the buildings is 1408 square feet, and it is located
on a lot that is 2 .3 acres in size.
As specified in Section 29-41 (a) of the Code, the Boards decision
should be "in harmony with the purpose and intent of Articles III
and IV and in accordance with the public interest and the most
appropriate development of the neighborhood. "
S 3 w La /a00 0 ko--4-j, /a N qO, RL Y 80 f
l&,100
Appeal 2107
--- 6101 S. Lemay Avenue
--- Petitioner: Rob Layton, landscape architect
--- Zone: RLP Zone
--- Section 29-591 ( 6 )
--- The variance would allow more than one subdivision
identification sign at an entrance into a subdivision.
Specifically, the variance would allow a 14 square foot sign
to be located on each of two entry wall structures. One entry
wall is to be located on the northwest corner of S . Lemay and
Fossil Creek, the other entry wall will be located on the
southwest corner of S. Lemay and Fossil Creek.
--- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The configuration of the
intersection, along with the required landscaping along Lemay,
does not lend itself neatly to functioning with a two-faced
ground sign. The entry wall structures will be built anyway,
and the owner desires to place a sign on each wall. The signs
will be smaller than the 35 square foot per face ground sign
that is allowed. The sign faces are integrated into the wall,
and should be less intrusive than a double-faced,
freestanding, sign.
--- Staff comments: None.
Appeal 2108
--- 122 W. Laurel Street
--- Petitioner: Bob Piccaro, owner
--- Zone: BL Zone
--- Section 29-303
--- The variance would reduce the required lot area from two times
as large as the floor area of the building, to 1.52 times as
large as the floor area. Specifically, the variance would
allow a 2510 square foot addition to the B&B Pickle Barrel
restaurant (405 sq. ft. 1st floor, 2205 sq. ft. second floor
addition) . The addition would be for more floor area for the
restaurant and associated office space. The lot size is 7840
square feet.
� --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: The kitchen of the
restaurant needs to be enlarged. The building footprint will
be enlarged only slightly. The restaurant is quite crowded
and the traffic flow needs to be improved. There is no
additional land available to buy. Up until two years ago,
this property was zoned BG, and a variance would not have been
required. Many of the other buildings in the block built a
second floor addition under the old zoning, and the owner
would like to be able to do what others have done.
--- Staff comments: None.