BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
JUNE 26, 2008
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 560 Manchester Drive (Manchester Subdivision).
Mr. Henderson presented the staff report: Zoning History: None. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a deck that is approximately 12-ft x 16-ft (195 square feet) and would protrude 2-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. The proposed deck would be located approximately 33-ft from the rear property line to the north. It protrudes approximately 2-ft into the rear yard setback. The property is surrounded by residential properties. 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 deck variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because the deck would protrude approximately 6% (approximately 2-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. 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 2-ft into the 35-ft setback (approximately 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 33-ft.
Mr. Wells asked if there was anyone to speak on this matter. With there not being anyone in attendance to speak on this, Mr. Wells entertained a motion.
Mr.
Boruszewski moved to approve with the following condition: That the rear
setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-ft to 33-ft. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll
was taken: Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Yea”. Motion
passed 3-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a side yard building setback variance for a deck at 111 Sourwood Street (Sycamore Creek Subdivision).
Mr. Henderson presented the staff report: Staff Report: Zoning History None. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a deck that is approximately 12.66-ft x 12-ft (152 square feet) and would protrude 1-ft into the side yard setback. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Planned Residential Dimension Bonus Maximums – In a PR-4 district the side yard setback is 8-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 7-ft from the side property line to the south. It protrudes approximately 1-ft into the side setback. The property is surrounded by residential properties and a pond to the west. 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 deck variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because the deck would protrude approximately 13% (approximately 1-ft) into the required 8-ft side 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. The deck would likely impact the property to the south 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 side yard setback would be preserved because the deck would protrude only 1-ft into the 8-ft setback (approximately 13%). The BZA has not reviewed a side yard variance in recent history. This lot is oddly shaped. The rear corner of the house is 8-ft from the property line while the front corner on the same side is 17-ft from the property line. The side yard abuts two residences to the south. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the side yard building setback variance request for the deck with the following condition: That the side yard setback for the deck shall be reduced from 8-ft to 7-ft.
Mr. Wells asked if there was anyone to speak on this matter. Mr. Rob Bruno, after being duly sworn, stated he is the representative for Ace Fence and Deck, the contractor for the home owner. Mr. Bruno stated that he supported the staff report, but that the homeowner on Monday had requested a change in the plans that might cause the request to change from 1 foot to 2 feet, and submitted the changed drawings into record. He stated that the 2 feet would be the worse case and feels that this change may only be eighteen inches, and felt the 2 feet change would be best. Mr. Bruno stated that there is a home next to the property on this side and that the neighbor also has a 4 foot fence. Mr. Cline clarified that the property to the south had a home and fence built on it. Mr. Schultz asked when he knew about the change and that in the future please inform City staff as soon as possible. Mr. Boruszewski verified if the neighbors have been notified and if there were any comments from them, Mr. Schultz stated that they were and there had been no comments received. Mr. Cline asked if procedurally this would be acceptable change to the request. Mr. Schultz stated that since the request was written subjectively for a side yard setback variance, the change would be supported by staff.
Mr. Cline
moved to approve with the following condition: That the side yard setback
for the deck shall be reduced from 8-ft to 6-ft. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll
was taken: Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Yea”. Motion
passed 3-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a height variance for Value Place Hotel located on the west side of Freedom Way on Lots 1 and 2 of the Ashton Crossing Subdivision.
Mr. Henderson presented the staff report: Staff Report: Zoning History: Planning and Zoning Commission approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architectural, Landscaping and Lighting in June 2008. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a four story 45,052 square foot hotel. A single curb cut at the southwestern corner of the site would provide access through a private easement. The site plan identifies 125 parking spaces while 125 spaces are required. A dumpster would be located along the north edge of the parking lot. The proposed hotel would have a maximum height of 60.08-ft at the top of the copula. Variance Request: Table 1 – Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses and Conditional Uses – Hotels/motels are a permitted use in the C4 district. The maximum height for a hotel/motel is 40-ft unless an action by the Board of Zoning Appeals allows the building to have a greater height. The proposed height of the four story hotel would be 60.08-ft. The building would protrude approximately 20.08-ft into the height maximum. The height of the building without the cupola would be 50-ft. The median rood height would be 43.25-ft. The applicant is proposing the cupola but if the hotel is allowed a pole sign directing towards the highway traffic the cupola would be deleted from the plans, leaving the total height at 50-ft. The property has Interstate 70 on the west and north sides and Highway Commercial (C4) zoned land on the south and east sides. It would likely have a minimal impact on the adjacent properties. 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 building height variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered moderately substantial. The hotel with the copula it would be a 50% variance request (60-ft) and without the cupola it would be a 25% variance request (50-ft). The Holiday Inn Express appears to be 50-ft in height. The Best Western on Winderly Lane appears to be 45-ft in height and the Hampton Inn appears to be 37-ft in height. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The property is surrounded by Highway Commercial zoned land and Interstate 70 and is vacant except for the Motorcycle Hall of Fame to the east. 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 building height would be preserved because of the location of the hotel adjacent to I-70 and properties around the site are currently vacant except for to the Motorcycle Hall of Fame to the east. The Holiday Inn and Best Western are over 40-ft in height. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the building height variance request for Value Place Hotel with the following condition: That the height of the building shall be increased from a maximum of 40-ft to 61-ft.
Mr. Wells asked if there was anyone to speak on this matter. Mr. Jeff Brown, after being duly sworn, stated he is the legal representative for Value Place. Mr. Brown stated that he agreed with the staff report. Mr. Cline verified if there was on history on Best Western and Holiday Inn Express. Mr. Schultz stated that Holiday Inn Was constructed before it was annexed to the City and Best Western was constructed in the City. Mr. Henderson that both hotels are typical architecture for this use and that this request is in character of all that are in the City. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the request because that this is the first building in the Ashton Crossings development, it is close to the freeway, the height requirement was primarily meant for buildings along the 256 corridor and the Nonresidential Design Standards require pitch roofs that facilitates taller buildings. Mr. Boruszewski asked if the copula was in lieu of a pole type sign. Mr. Brown said that there has been discussion on this and that they are working with the City in regards to signage. After further discussion, Mr. Wells entertained a motion.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve with the following condition: That the height of the building shall be increased from a maximum of 40-ft to 61-ft, as per the submitted plans. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Yea”. Motion passed 3-0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning