HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/2004 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals
Agenda
Regular Meeting
Thursday,July 08,2004
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes from the July 10, 2003 Meeting
Appeal: 2471 2914 INDIGO CIRCLE SOUTH
The variance would reduce the required rear-yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 8 feet in
order to allow a 12'x 27' covered patio structure to be built over the existing concrete patio location (the
existing concrete patio is 12' x 12', and the concrete would be extended to the west and to the east).
Code Sections: 4.3(D)(2)(c)
Petitioner: TANYA DOWD
ZoningDistrict RL
Appeal: 2472 2505 S COLLEGE AVE
The variance would increase the sign allowance for the building from the allowed 220 square feet to 285
square feet in order to allow two new signs to be placed on the east wall for two tenant spaces, one
currently occupied by Oreck and the other currently vacant. The existing wall signs would remain for the
existing tenant spaces.
Code Sections: 3.8.7(D)(5)(a)
Petitioner: Clarisa Castor
ZoningDistrict C
Other Business:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Agenda
Regular Meeting
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Appeal 2471
Address 2914 INDIGO CIRCLE SOUTH
Petitioner TANYA DOWD
Zoning District RL
Section 4.3(D)(2)(c)
Description The variance would reduce the required rear-yard setback along the north
lot line from 15 feet to 8 feet in order to allow a 12'x 27' covered patio
structure to be built over the existing concrete patio location (the existing
concrete patio is 12' x 12', and the concrete would be extended to the west
and to the east).
Hardship See petitioners letter.
Staff Comments This property is a corner lot, wherein the front of the house faces Indigo
Circle South. When the house was built in 1997, the Code required that the
lot line along Wild Rose Ct. was to be considered the legal, front lot line.
Consequently, the east lot line was considered to be the rear lot line,
requiring a 15' setback. Prior to construction of the home, it was necessary
for the contractor to obtain a "variance" to reduce the setback from the east
lot line (the rear at the time) to 7'. That setback reduction was approved. At
the time it was approved, the north lot line was considered to be a side lot
line, wherein only a 5' setback is required. Since the time that the house
was built, the Code was changed in order to avoid the comer lot setback
variances that the Board frequently dealt with. For this specific lot, the
change resulted in the north lot line now being classified as the rear lot line
rather than as a side lot line. Consequently, a variance is now being
requested for the setback reduction from the "new" rear lot line. This will be
the second time this lot will have requested a rear setback variance, with the
rear lot line being a different lot line each time. If the porch would have
been constructed at the time of the original home, no variance would have
been required since the setback from the north lot line would have complied
with the side setback requirement. Staff believes that this has created a
situation that is unique.
Appeal 2472
Address 2505 S COLLEGE AVE
Petitioner Clarisa Castor
Zoning District C
Section 3.8.7(D)(5)(a)
Description The variance would increase the sign allowance for the building from the
allowed 220 square feet to 285 square feet in order to allow two new signs
to be placed on the east wall for two tenant spaces, one currently occupied
by Oreck and the other currently vacant. The existing wall signs would
remain for the existing tenant spaces.
Hardship See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments As recently as 1998, this building had 555 square feet of signage displayed
as a result of a prior sign code provision. The amount of signage was
reduced considerably when World Savings moved out of the building. The
proposed increase to 285 square feet will still be considerably less than the
previous amount. The two signs on the west wall of the building aren't
visible from the street, yet they still count as signs. If those signs were
removed, then a variance would not be required. However, the removal of
the 2 signs would not affect the streetscape appearance of the property
since they aren't visible from the street. The passing motorist would not
know that the west signs would have been removed. Such a scenario could
also be illustrated for numerous other buildings in the city. Therefore, that
condition alone may not be adequate to avoid setting a precedence.
However, that condition, coupled with the fact that the amount of signage
will still be far less than what was historically on the building, may be
sufficient to distinguish this property from others.
6 +4,.,_ 2?0 ¢0�, 4^& (
a
s
Other Business