Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/2004 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday,April 08,2004 Roll Call Approval of the Minutes from the July 10, 2003 Meeting Appeal: 2455 2313 MONTADALE CT The variance would reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 8 feet in order to continue the construciton of an 8 x 8 play structure. The structure is 23 feet in height. Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)9c) Petitioner: Dale Lindholm ZoningDistrict RL- Residential Low Density Appeal: 2456 905 W OAK ST The variance would allow the existing detached garage to be demolished and a new 2-car, detached garage to be constructed without being setback 10'further than the front setback of the existing home. Specifically, the garage will be constructed entirely in front of the existing home. Code Sections: 4.6(F)(1)(C) Petitioner: DON KNOLL ZoningDistrict NCL T Appeal: 2457 301 S Sherwood St The variance would reduce the required lot size from 5000 square feet to 4750 square foot in order to allow the existing home to be demolished and a new home constructed in its place. The existing home is in bad structural repair and restoring it is not feasible. Code Sections: 4.7(D)(1) Petitioner: Mike Sherman and Hillary Foshee ZoningDistrict NCM Appeal: 2458 2617 Harvard St The variance would allow a fence to be taller than 6'. Specifically, it would allow a fence with an overall height of 8'to be constructed on the rear(west) property line. Code Sections: 3.8.11 Petitioner: Same ZoningDistrict R L Other Business: l� Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting Thursday, April 08, 2004 Appeal 2455 Address 2313 MONTADALE CT Petitioner Dale Lindholm Zoning District RL - Residential Low Density Section 4.3(D)(2)9c) Description The variance would reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 8 feet in order to continue the construciton of an 8 x 8 play structure. The structure is 23 feet in height. Hardship The applicant was initally told that no permit would be required for a play structure but was later told that one was required due to the height and placement. A portion of the easement along the rear of the property has been vacated where the structure sits. Due to the location of several large trees, this was the most reasonable place to locate the structure, otherwise it would be in the middle of the yard. This yard backs up to open space. Staff Comments The Board has granted a number of variance requests to the rear setback requirement when it has been found that the purpose of the rear setback regulation is met because the lot backs up to open space instead of to another buildable lot. Those variances have been for more customary buildings and uses. This building is taller than most detached accessory buildings. G Appeal 2456 Address 905 W OAK ST Petitioner DON KNOLL Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(F)(1)(C) Description The variance would allow the existing detached garage to be demolished and a new 2-car, detached garage to be constructed without being setback 10' further than the front setback of the existing home. Specifically, the garage will be constructed entirely in front of the existing home. Hardship The lot is an irregular shaped lot, wherein the home is addressed off Oak Street, but the front of the home faces Washington Avenue. The existing detached garage complies with the requirement to be recessed behind the front of the home, but doesn't comply with the side or rear setback requirements. The garage is not on a foundation, and it also suffered structural roof damage during the March 2003 snowstorm. Since the existing building is structural unsound, and in violation of the setbacks, the owner would like to construct a new garage. The only location on the lot where the property line setbacks would be met is the proposed location in front of the house. All the other homes along Washington are located on the front part of the lots, however, this home is located at the rear of the lot, making it very difficult to construct a new garage that would comply with all the locational requirements of the code. Staff Comments Staff believes that it would be difficult to find that this is an "equal to or better than" situation. Therefore, if the Board determines to grant a variance, a hardship finding would be more appropriate. 0 S"� Appeal 2457 Address 301 S Sherwood St Petitioner Mike Sherman and Hillary Foshee Zoning District NCM Section 4.7(D)(1) Description The variance would reduce the required lot size from 5000 square feet to 4750 square foot in order to allow the existing home to be demolished and a new home constructed in its place. The existing home is in bad structural repair and restoring it is not feasible. Hardship The lot was split off from the original lot many years ago, resulting in the 4750 square foot size. The existing home was built in 1910 and has become very dilapidated. A structual engineer has determined that it is not really feasible to repair the home to a safe condition. Without a variance, the only thing that can happen is that the existing home will remain and in its current condition can't be occupied. The new house will comply with the required 2 to 1 lot area to floor area ratio, so even though the lot is slightly undersized, the amount of building coverage on the lot will comply with the code. Also see petitioner's letter. Staff Comments Since the lot already contains a house and is nonconforming with regards to lot area, the granting of a variance will not increase the degree of nonconformity. The unique circumstance relative to this property is that it is probably better to demolish the house and build a new one, than it is to try to rehab the existing one. G S-O Appeal 2458 Address 2617 Harvard St Petitioner Same Oe.a,._ 0 ,-t,,.._ Zoning District RL Section 3.8.11 Description The variance would allow a fence to be taller than 6'. Specifically, it would allow a fence with an overall height of 8' to be constructed on the rear (west) property line. Hardship Eckards Drugs is constructing a new store and parking lot to the west of the residential property. The variance is being requested to help reduce the amount of noise and light spill-over onto 2617 Harvard St. Additinally, the Eckards site is 2-2.5 ft higher in elevation than the residential property and replaces a two-story motel that used to act as a buffer from surrounding noise. Staff Comments The Board should be concerned about setting a precedent by granting this variance. If the variance should be granted solely on the basis of the owner's dislike for the nuisance factor that is perceived to accompany the property behind his, then any property owner that doesn't like what or who is abutting their property would have grounds for a variance. Therefore, if the Board is inclined to grant relief, a more site-specific and unique finding should be made. i.e., the noise from College Avenue used to be buffered by the presence of the 2-story wall that was located directly behind the applicant's lot, but due to the changed conditions abutting the redevelopment of the rear lot, the applicant no longer has the privacy and Q screening that previously existed. wl cu"'L y-0