BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, MAY 25,
2006
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 27, 2006 Regular Meeting: Mr. Wells moved to approve, Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for a deck and gazebo at 985 Gray Drive (Windmiller Ponds Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated the Zoning History being none. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 16-ft x 24-ft (384 square feet) treated wood deck and gazebo. The gazebo would be a 12-ft by 12-ft octagon. The gazebo would be protruding into the setback by 9-ft. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The proposed deck and gazebo would be located approximately 26-ft from the rear property line to the west. It protrudes approximately 9-ft into the rear setback. The property has residential properties on both sides and across the street from it. The rear yard shares a property line with vacant reserve area owned by the Homeowners Association. The gazebo would be located at the northwestern edge of the deck. The gazebo would stand 12-ft height from the top of the deck. The deck and gazebo would be built 42 inches above finish grade. Staff supports the deck and gazebo if the adjacent residents do not have a legitimate compliant because it protrudes only 9-ft into the setback and the BZA has approved similar requests in the past. The subdivision has several houses with large decks and the proposal would not be out of character for this subdivision. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for the deck with the following condition: That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 26-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Mr. Linek asked if there was any comments, there being none.
Mr. Wells moved to approve with the following condition: 1. That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 26-ft. Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for a deck at 954 Gray Drive (Windmiller Ponds Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated the Zoning History being none. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 15-ft x 18-ft (270 square feet) treated wood deck that would be protruding into the setback by 8-ft. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 27-ft from the rear property line to the north. It protrudes approximately 8-ft into the rear setback. The property has residential properties on all sides of it. The deck would likely impact the property to the north the most. Staff supports the deck if the adjacent residents do not have a legitimate compliant because it protrudes only 8-ft into the setback and the BZA has approved similar requests in the past. The subdivision has several houses with large decks and the proposal would not be out of character for this subdivision. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for the deck with the following condition: That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 27-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Mr. Linek asked if there was any comments, there being none.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve with the following condition: 1. That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 27-ft, Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a minimum lot width variance for a lot split at 321 Stemen Road.
Mr. Schultz stated Zoning History: The existing single family unit was built in 1994. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to create two lots from the existing 14.53 acre parcel. The two lots would be 5.061 acres at 321 Stemen Road and 9.459 acres at the back parcel. Presently, the 14.53-acre parcel contains one single family house on that lot. Variances Requested: Frontage Width – The minimum frontage in an AG district for a single-family dwelling is 150-ft and 100-ft for an agricultural use. The existing lot’s (321 Stemen Road) frontage is 282.46-ft. The new front parcel would have a frontage of 226.56-ft. The new back parcel would have frontage of 55.89-ft. The existing residential unit is located on the parcel in such a way that the back parcel can not achieve the required 150-ft of frontage on the road. The existing house would maintain the required side yard set back, which is 50-ft. Staff recommends access to both parcels should be through a single shared curb cut. The curb cut would only provide access to the existing house and one single-family unit that would be built on the back parcel. Lot Size – The minimum lot size in an AG district for a single-family dwelling is five acres. Both lots would be greater then the required minimum lot size of five acres (321 Stemen would be 5.061 acres and the back lot would be 9.459 acres). The owner is proposing the utilities for the back 9.459 acre parcel would be located underground on the western edge of the property. In conclusion, staff supports the variance request for the following reasons: The area is zoned AG (Rural District) for five acre lots and the variance request would maintain the rural character. The two properties would be utilizing a single shared curb cut that would be limited to just two residential units. Staff would not encourage or support such variances to minimum frontage width unless in unique situations such as this case. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the BZA variance request with the following conditions: 1.That the frontage of the back parcel shall be 55.89-ft. 2. That both parcels shall utilize a single shared curb cut to access the properties through an easement agreement. 3. That the curb cut shall only be utilized for the existing house and a future single family unit on the back parcel. 4. That the proposed lot splits shall meet all other City development standards. 5. That all utilities for the back lot shall be under ground and on the west side of the property.
Forest Wheeler, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the neighboring property owner to the east at 351 Stemen Road. Mr. Wheeler requested clarification of what parcel the utilities are to be placed, the existing or the new back lot. Mr. Schultz verified that it must be on the property owners of the lot split on the west side. Mr. Linek asked on how the property would be split. Mr. Schultz stated that the western 56 ft of the property will be for the back portion of the lot split. That the utilities will be on the west side of the 56 ft parcel. Mr. Wheeler asked who is responsible for the maintenance of the said property, grass and weeds. Mr. Schultz stated the owner of the parcel is responsible for maintenance.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve with the following conditions: 1.That the frontage of the back parcel shall be 55.89-ft. 2. That both parcels shall utilize a single shared curb cut to access the properties through an easement agreement. 3. That the curb cut shall only be utilized for the existing house and a future single family unit on the back parcel. 4. That the proposed lot splits shall meet all other City development standards. 5. That all utilities shall be underground on the western edge for the rear lot of the property. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
5. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further. Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:17 P.M., May 25, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning