BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
MARCH 27, 2008
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve rear and side yard building setback variances for a Storage Building for Door Security Solutions located at 49 Hill Road North.
Mr. Henderson presented the staff report: Zoning History: Door Security Solutions at 49 Hill Road North received a Conditional Use Permit for a storage building with a noncontinuous foundation in February of 2008. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a noncontinuous foundation building (storage building) at the rear of the property. The storage building would be 10-ft from the rear of the property, 10-ft from the southern property line and 13-ft from the northern property line. The storage building protrudes 40-ft into the rear yard setback, 2-ft into the northern side yard setback and 15-ft into the southern side yard setback. This site is located in the Olde Village area which has experienced several residential uses converted to office and commercial uses. The applicant would like to be able to maximize his site. Variance Request Table I – Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses and Conditional Uses – Rear Yard Building Setback – where commercial uses abut residential uses, a rear yard setback not less than 50-ft will be provided, subject to landscaping requirements. The proposed storage building would be located 10-ft from the rear property line. Therefore a 40-ft setback variance would need to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. A residential subdivision abuts the rear yard of Door Security Solutions. Table I – Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses and Conditional Uses – Side Yard Building Setback – where commercial uses abut residential uses, a rear yard setback not less than 25-ft will be provided, subject to landscaping requirements. The proposed storage building would be located 10-ft from the southern side yard property line. Therefore a 15-ft setback variance would need to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. A residence abuts the southern side yard of Door Security Solutions. Table I – Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses and Conditional Uses – Side Yard Building Setback – where commercial uses abut commercial uses, a side yard setback not less than 15-ft will be provided. The proposed storage building would be located 13-ft from the northern side yard property line. Therefore a 2-ft setback variance would be required. A commercial use abuts the northern side yard of Door Security Solutions (Papa Joe’s Pizza). Chapter 1296.01(b) - A Type A buffer is required between residential uses and commercial uses. The Type A buffer requires a complete opaque buffer from grade to six feet above grade. The buffer shall consist of a wood fence, an earth berm and landscaping or a combination of the above on the west and south sides of the property. There are several large trees at the property line to the rear of the proposed building and the residential subdivision. The property to the rear also has a large fence separating them. The applicant has identified removing the older trees and replacing them with eleven pine trees 6-ft tall at installation spaced 8-ft on center across the back. Staff recommends that the larger trees remain and that the 6-ft tall pine trees be supplemented along the western property line per the City’s Landscape Architect. The existing residences to the rear (west) and south both have fences that appear to be 6-ft tall. The pine trees along with the neighbors’ fences appear to provide a sufficient buffer to meet total opacity from grade to six feet above grade. 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 storage building variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The rear yard setback variance would be considered major because the storage building would protrude approximately 80% (approximately 40-ft) into the required 50-ft rear yard setback. However, considering there are other buildings and structures located approximately 10-ft from the rear property line in the area in commercially and residentially zoned properties, the storage building does not appear to be out of place in this location. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission required the owner to install 6-ft high pine trees at installation to supplement the neighbors existing 6-ft high fence. The side yard setback variances would be considered major on the southern property line and minor on the northern property line. The southern side yard would have a setback of approximately 60% (approximately 15-ft) and the northern side yard would have a setback of approximately 13% (approximately 2-ft). To help buffer the storage building from the southern neighbor, the Planning and Zoning Commission required the owner to install 6-ft high pine trees. In addition the neighbor has a 6-ft high fence. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The property is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial uses with buildings and structures located close together in a downtown setting. The storage building with the proposed buffers would likely be compatible in this area. 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 do to the shape of the site. 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 and side yard setback would be preserved because the storage building would match the exterior character of the main building and would not be any closer to the rear and side (south) property line then the building at the rear of the property directly north of the site. The downtown area was constructed prior to the current zoning ordinance, thus it is nearly impossible for buildings to comply with current zoning standards. Many of these lots are being converted to commercial uses which require more restrictive setbacks then residential uses. It only makes practical sense to allow property owners utilize their property when the requests are not extreme and are consistent with the character of the area. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear and side yard building setback variances for the storage building with the following conditions: 1. That the rear yard setback shall be reduced from 50-ft to 10-ft. 2. That the side yard setback to the south shall be reduced from 25-ft to 10-ft. 3. That the side yard setback to the north shall be reduced from 15-ft to 13-ft. 4. That 6-ft tall pine trees at installation located 8-ft on center shall be installed along the south property line per the City’s Landscape Architect. 5. That 6-ft tall pine trees at installation shall be supplemented along the west property line per the City’s Landscape Architect. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permit.
Bill Weimer, after being duly sworn, stated he is the representative for Door Security Solutions. He stated that they agree with the staff report but is requesting to be able to remove trees with roots that are protruding and could cause damage in the future along with the possibility of branches falling due to the age of the tree. The Board discussed the possibility of removal as long as there was replacement of any trees that may be removed with input from the City Arborist.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve with the following conditions: 1. That the rear yard setback shall be reduced from 50-ft to 10-ft. 2. That the side yard setback to the south shall be reduced from 25-ft to 10-ft. 3. That the side yard setback to the north shall be reduced from 15-ft to 13-ft. 4. That 6-ft tall pine trees at installation located 8-ft on center shall be installed along the south property line per the City’s Landscape Architect. 5. That 6-ft tall pine trees at installation shall be supplemented along the west property line per the City’s Landscape Architect. 6. That the owner can remove trees along the western property that are a nuisance to the proposed development per the City Arborist. 7. That the Storage Building shall be constructed of similar color and materials to match the existing building. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Wells and Mr. Wright voted “Yea”. Motion passed 4-0.
NOTE: Mr. Linek arrived late. Mr. Wells relinquished the chairman responsibilities to Mr. Linek.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck located at 177 Fox Glen Drive East (Fox Glen Subdivision).
Mr. Henderson presented the staff report: That there is no Zoning History. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to extend their current deck. The addition is approximately 12-ft x 24-ft (288 square feet) and would protrude approximately 8.66-ft into the setback. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a PR-4 district the rear yard setback is 30-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 21.34-ft from the rear property line to the south. It protrudes approximately 8.66-ft into the rear setback. The property is surrounded by residential houses to the east and west and a dedicated open space to the south and would likely have a minimal impact on the adjacent residents. 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 porch variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because the deck would protrude approximately 28.9% (approximately 8.66-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 is surrounded by single-family homes on three sides of it with a dedicated open space behind the house. The deck would not likely impact the adjacent properties. 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 porch would protrude only 8.66-ft into the 30-ft setback (approximately 28.9%). The BZA has approved several similar requests where decks/porches 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 building setback variance request for the deck with the following condition: That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 30-ft to 21-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permit.
Mr. Linek asked if there was anyone to speak on this matter. The property owners were in attendance but didn’t feel a need to speak.
Mr. Wright
moved to approve with the following condition: That the rear setback for
the deck shall be reduced from 30-ft to 21-ft.
Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr.
Boruszewski, Mr. Wells and Mr. Wright voted “Yea”. Motion passed 4-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck located at 590 Manchester Drive (Manchester Subdivision).
Mr. Henderson presented the staff report: There being no Zoning History. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a deck that is approximately 15-ft x 21-ft (315 square feet) and would protrude 3-ft into the setback. 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 32-ft from the rear property line to the north. It protrudes approximately 3-ft into the rear setback. The property is surrounded by residential properties to the east and west and a church to the north. It would likely have a minimal impact on the adjacent residents. 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 porch variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because the deck would protrude approximately 8.6% (approximately 3-ft) into the required 35-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 is surrounded by single-family homes to the east and west and has a church to the north. 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 porch would protrude only 3-ft into the 35-ft setback (approximately 8.6%). The BZA has approved several similar requests where decks/porches 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 building setback variance request for the deck with the following condition: That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 32-ft. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permit.
Mr. Linek asked if there was anyone to speak on this matter. Mr. Schultz stated that the applicant was out of town due to spring break.
Mr.
Boruszewski moved to approve with the following condition: That the
rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 32-ft.. Mr. Linek
seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Wells
and Mr. Wright voted “Yea”. Motion passed 4-0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning