BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, JUNE 22,
2006
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a side yard parking setback variance for Orthopedics Laser Technologies at 1241 Hill Road North.
Mr. Schultz stated the Zoning History being: The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials/site plan and landscaping on May 9, 2006. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to build a second office building on the lot. They are requesting a parking setback variance along the northern property line so the proposed access road would align with the existing access road. The current parking setback for the property is 9-ft. The applicant is proposing a 3.75-ft parking setback to be consistent with the existing access drive. Variances Requested: Side Yard Parking Setback: Side Yard (North) Parking Setback – The City requires a 15-ft side yard-building setback when commercial properties abut. Parking may occupy up to forty percent of the side yard setback when the adjacent zoning is commercial or industrial. Therefore, the parking setback is required to be 9-ft (15-ft x 0.60). The applicant is proposing a 3.75-ft parking setback along the northern portion of the site. This request would align the existing access drive with the proposed access drive. Seven Practical Difficulties Standards for Area Variances - the Board of Zoning Appeals should examine the following standards when deciding whether to grant a landowner an area variance. 1) Whether the property will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The property could be beneficially used without a variance but could not be developed to the extent as proposed by the owner. 2) Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be minor because the existing access road to the existing office building is located 3.75-ft from the property line. 3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The adjacent site is zoned commercial and the proposed office building would not likely cause substantial detriment to the adjoining property owners. 4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The health, safety and general welfare of the subject property and adjoining properties would not likely be impacted. 5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Staff would not have knowledge of this information. 6) Whether the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not without impacting the site plan, which would likely require a reduction in building area and/or requiring other site plan zoning variance requests. 7) Whether the variance preserves the "spirit and intent" of the zoning requirement and whether "substantial justice" would be done by granting the variance. The variance request approval would be minor thus preserving the spirit and intent of the parking setback requirement. Staff would recommend additional landscaping in this area if the variance is approved. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the BZA variance request with the following condition: That additional shrubs shall be installed along the northern property line adjacent to the access drive.
Michael Masitros, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the architect for this project. Mr. Masitros agreed with the report that was written and the access drive was done with the intent to incorporate future development in the area. Mr. Cline asked if there were any further comments.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve, the variance request with the following condition: That additional shrubs shall be installed along the northern property line adjacent to the access drive. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard building setback variance for a fence at 236 Lorraine Boulevard (Stonebridge Estates Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz
stated there is not any zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to
build a 6-ft solid wood privacy fence that would encompass the backyard and be
located approximately 5-ft from the front property line along Brandy Hill
Avenue (approximately 6-ft from the sidewalk). The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback
from approximately 30-ft to 5-ft. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.15 –
Fences In Front Yards – No fence shall be located in the required front yard: In
a R-4 district the front yard setback is 35-ft. However, Stonebridge Estates is
an older subdivision and the front yard setback line for this portion of the
neighborhood is 30-ft. The subdivision was platted around 1987. The existing
6-ft high solid wood privacy fence is located along the property line to the
north and east. The fence stops at the
front yard setback line along Brandy Hill Avenue. The proposed fence would be
located approximately 5-ft from the property line along Brandy Hill Avenue (approximately 6-ft from
the sidewalk). The fence would protrude into the front yard setback by
approximately 25-ft. Seven Practical
Difficulties Standards for Area Variances – the Board of Zoning Appeals should
examine the following standards when deciding whether to grant a landowner an
area variance. 1) Whether the property will yield a reasonable return or
whether there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The
beneficial use of the property would not likely be compromised without the
fence variance. 2) Whether the variance is substantial. The variance
would be considered substantial because it would protrude approximately 83%
(approximately 25-ft) into the required 30-ft front yard setback. 3) Whether
the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or
adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." Because
the subject property is a corner lot, the proposed solid wood privacy fence
extending to within 5-ft of the sidewalk would obstruct views of property
owners along Brandy Hill Avenue particularly the property immediately east. A
privacy fence almost abutting the sidewalk would be aesthetically out of
character for the neighborhood. There
are some older fences that do approach the sidewalk and front property lines in
the neighborhood (west across Loraine Boulevard) but the fences are smaller in
scale and are open picket fences that do not block the views. These fences were
likely constructed prior to the 1992-revised fence ordinance not permitting
fences in front yards. Pictures are included in your packet. 4) Whether the
variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The
health, safety and general welfare of the subject property and adjoining
properties would not likely be impacted. 5) Whether the property owner
purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Staff
would not have any knowledge of this information. 6) Whether the problem can
be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not likely.
If the variance were not granted, the result would just be the amount of land
enclosed within the fence in back yard would be reduced. 7) Whether the
variance preserves the "spirit and intent" of the zoning requirement
and whether "substantial justice" would be done by granting the
variance. The variance request approval would not likely preserve the
spirit and intent of the front yard setback because it would be reduced
substantially. In the past four years, the Board of Zoning Appeals has not
approved a front yard fence variance request that protruded into a setback this
much (from 30-ft to 5-ft). Staff Recommendation: Staff does not support the
front yard setback variance to within 5-ft of the property line. Additional
Comments: Code Enforcement Issues: Currently, the property owner had a
continuance from Mayor’s Court until July 10, 2006 pertaining to the following
zoning code violations: Repairs to the deck railing and lattice and eliminating
all the backyard debris and clutter including the excess firewood. The
prosecutor has stated that he would review this after the BZA decision.
Harry Walker, after being duly sworn, stated that he lived at 478 Brandy Hill, which is located the first property adjacent to the property to the east. Mr. Walker stated the reason for this variance is to cover up a large amount of debris and feels that this should not be allowed because it is not consistent with other properties. The homeowners association would not be supportive. Also, he stated the fence would obstruct the view of the intersection and be a safety hazard.
Ted Robinson, after being duly sworn, stated that he was the property owner and that since this is a corner lot he would like to be able to utilize this area. He stated that the variance would allow him to utilize this area so that he could be able to put a 10 foot x 20 foot garden, 20 foot x 20 foot basketball court, 10 foot x 12 foot shed and a swing set. Mr. Schultz stated that on corner lots it is a concern on where a fence is placed for the safety of motorists and pedestrians in regards to driveways. Mr. Robinson stated that he took measurements and that the distance from my property line to the driveway on Brandyhill is 46 feet and the distance from the driveway to the stop sign is 91 feet and that this shouldn’t cause a safety hazard. Mr. Robinson stated that he did go before the City prosecutor on May 22 and told the prosecutor of the situation. The prosecutor indicated that if he put up a fence to the City’s specifications that he would dismiss that charges and that he would be responsible for court costs. Mr. Cline asked why could you not just extend the fence to the back of the house versus extending all the way out to the sidewalk. Mr. Robinson stated he would like to enjoy his yard to the fullest possible way. Mr. Schultz stated that the house was not entirely built on the 30 foot build line. The garage was built 26 feet from the property line. Mr. Wells stated if there is a possibility to come to a compromise on a variance. Mr. Schultz stated that it is the boards responsibility to make the final decision on what kind of variance is granted. Mr. Wells stated that there is already 4 feet given due to the garage and to give an additional 6 feet, making a total of a 10 foot variance and leaving a 20 foot set back appears to be appropriate. Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline and Mr. Wells all agreed that a 10 foot variance leaving a 20 foot set back is reasonable. Mr. Walker stated that fence variance would be fine but that did not solve the wood storage problem. Mr. Wells and Mr. Schultz both stated that that is a code enforcement issue and the BZA is only able to make a decision on the fence variance. Mr. Schultz stated that the prosecutor placed the code violation case on a continuance until the variance was granted and that if the fence was built to City standards that the charges would likely be dismissed and Mr. Robinson would be responsible for court costs. Mr. Walker stated that the 20 foot variance set back would be appropriate. Mr. Walker also stated that he had taken measurements himself and that the wood pile in Mr. Robinson’s back yard is 17 feet from the corner of his house and is a fire hazard with all the fuel that is there.
Charles Smith, after being duly sworn, stated that he is a neighbor, indicated that he is also concerned with the wood pile in the rear yard which would be covered up by the fence. Mr. Wells again stated that the BZA is only able to review the fence variance and that the board is not granting the full request of 25 feet. Mr. Robinson asked if possible the variance could be 17feet versus the 10 feet suggested by the board. Mr. Schultz stated that that would be more than half of the original 30 foot set back requirement. Mr. Cline stated that based on the neighborhood that the 10 foot variance with a 20 foot set back would be appropriate.
Mr. Cline moved to approve, a 10 foot variance, leaving a 20 foot set back. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck at 470 Stone Mill Road (Stonebridge Estates Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated there is not any zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 16-ft x 18-ft (288 square feet) wood deck that would be protrude 8-ft into the rear yard setback. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. This older part of the Stonebridge Estates Subdivision has a build line of 25-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 17-ft from the rear property line to the west. It protrudes approximately 8-ft into the rear setback. Seven Practical Difficulties Standards for Area Variances – the Board of Zoning Appeals should examine the following standards when deciding whether to grant a landowner an area variance. 1) Whether the property will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The beneficial use of the property would not likely be compromised without the deck variance. 2) Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because it would protrude approximately 32% (approximately 8-ft) into the required 25-ft rear yard setback. 3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The property has residential properties on all sides. The deck would likely impact the property behind it the most but not likely to substantial detriment. 4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The health, safety and general welfare of the subject property and adjoining properties would not likely be impacted. 5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Staff would not have knowledge of this information. 6) Whether the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not likely. 7) Whether the variance preserves the "spirit and intent" of the zoning requirement and whether "substantial justice" would be done by granting the variance. The spirit and intent of the rear yard setback would be preserved because the deck would protrude only 8-ft into the 25-ft setback (approximately 32%). The BZA has approved several similar requests where decks protruded less than 50% into the rear yard setback. There are a lot of shallow lots in the City and it only makes practical sense to allow homeowners utilize their rear yards when the requests are not extreme. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for the deck with the following condition: 1) That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 25-ft to 17-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
David Bristol, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the property owner and he indicated that they are doing upgrades to the home and that there are several other homes in the neighborhood that have decks. Mr. Wells verified that all properties owners where notified.
Mr. Wells moved to approve, That the rear yard setback for the deck shall be reduced from 25-ft to 17-ft, Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
4. OTHER BUSINESS: The next meeting is scheduled for July 27, 2006. Mr. Cline moved to approve, the date change from July 27 to July 20, due to the Violet Festival being on July 27. Mr. Boruszewski 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. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:38P.M., June 22, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning