BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck at 103 Rolling Meadow Court (Lot 49 – Georges Creek Subdivision).
Mr. Henderson stated the Zoning History being none. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a deck that is approximately 16-ft x 49-ft (784 square feet) that would be protruding into the setback by 3.5-ft. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Planned Residential Dimension Bonus Maximums – In a PR-4 district the rear yard setback is 30-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 26.5-ft from the rear property line to the west. It protrudes approximately 3.5-ft into the rear setback. The side yard setback for the PR-4 zoning is 8-ft. The deck plan shows the side yard setback maintaining the required 8-ft setback. The property has residential properties on all sides of it. The deck would likely impact the property to the west the most. The property to the west is an open green space in the subdivision. 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 12% (approximately 3.5-ft) into the required 30-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 subdivision properties on all four 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 3.5-ft into the 30-ft setback (approximately 12%). 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: That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 30-ft to 26-ft.
Jeff Shalayda, after being duly sworn, that he is the builder for this project and agreed with staff’s report.
Mr. Wright
moved to approve. That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from
30-ft to 26-ft. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr.
Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline Mr. Boruszewski, and Mr. Wright voted “Aye”. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a self contained cooler unit for The Wine Guy Wine Shop at 201 Clint Drive (Creek Bend Center).
Mr. Schultz stated the Zoning History: Ordinance 2002-102 – On September 3, 2002, City Council approved annexation and final development plan for Young property. Planning and Zoning Commission approved final development plan on August 13, 2002. Planning and Zoning Commission approved Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and Lighting for Lots 3 and 4 of the Creek Bend Business Park in October of 2004. Planning and Zoning Commission approved Comprehensive Sign Plan for Lots 3 and 4 of the Creek Bend Business Park in October 2004. Proposed Use: The owner of the Wine Guy Wine Shop is proposing to install a self-contained cooler in the rear of the building. The cooler would be 10-ft by 10ft. The rear fence for the site would
not have to be altered to make room for the cooler. While the drawing identifies the fence being located 7-ft from the building a site visit revealed the fence is approximately 18-ft from the building. Variance Request: Table 1 Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses, and Conditional Uses - A rear yard setback of not less than fifty feet will be provided for “Business Retail” adjacent to residential uses. Creek bend currently has a 50-ft rear yard setback with a 6-ft fence for its Type A Buffering. The fence is approximately 18-ft away from the building. The cooler would protrude into the setback by 3-ft. (6% of the setback). The cooler would be located in a utility easement. It would be the responsibility of the owner to make sure the utility easement is not impacted by the addition and/or fence. 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 variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because it would protrude approximately 6% (approximately 3-ft) into the required 50-ft rear yard setback. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." There would be little to no substantial detriment to any of the surrounding properties. To the rear of the property there is a heavily wooded area and an existing 6-ft tall fence that would buffer the cooler addition. 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 cooler and fence would protrude only 3-ft into the 50-ft setback (approximately 6%). Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for the self contained cooler unit with the following condition: That the rear setback for the addition shall be reduced from 50-ft to 46-ft. That if the any part of the addition and/or fence effects the utility easement that the owner shall be responsible for the relocation and alignment of the subject utility.
Christopher Harvey, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the architect for this project, and agreed with staff’s report. Mr. Wright questioned how far from the corner of the building would the placement of the cooler be and if the cooler and condenser could be seen from the street. Mr. Harvey stated that he did not know the specifications of the unit. Mr. Schultz stated that the cooler
would be placed approximately twenty (20) feet from the end of the building and the only access into it would be from the inside of the establishment. Mr. Cline questioned if all adjacent property owners where notified. Mr. Schultz stated that they were. Mr. Linek questioned that directly behind this property was primarily woods and a ravine. Mr. Schultz stated that this was correct.
Mr. Cline
moved to approve with two conditions: 1.That the rear setback for the self
contained cooler unit shall be reduced
from 50-ft to 46-ft. 2. That if the any part of the self contained cooler unit effects the
utility easement that the owner shall be responsible for the relocation and
alignment of the subject utility. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll
was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline Mr. Boruszewski, and Mr. Wright
voted “Aye”. Motion carried 5-0.
5. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further. Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline and Mr. Wright voted “Aye”. Motion carried 4-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M., September 28, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning