Case #2016-BZA Cynthia Craig July 6, 2016

Transcription

1 Case #2016-BZA Cynthia Craig PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 3.5 foot side yard setback (east) instead of 8 feet as required for a proposed sunroom and existing screen porch; and to a lot coverage of 36.9% instead of 35% as allowed for an existing dwelling and a proposed addition, ND ST Zoning: R5R (NE) GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1930 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon of Sykes Bourdon SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a sunroom addition and maintain an existing porch 3.5-feet from the east side property line instead of 8-feet as required; and to allow 36.9% in lot coverage instead of 35% in lot coverage for a proposed building addition and existing dwelling. *The applicant is expected to modify the above request by withdrawing the lot coverage variance request. The existing dwelling presently has three screen porches located on the east side and southeast corner of the dwelling. Two of the porches are planned to be converted into a sunroom addition, while one of the porches located on the east side will not be altered. It s the applicant s contentious the existing porches were built prior to 1954 when the city Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The existing dwelling was built in 1930; therefore, staff does not refute the applicant s claim the porches are nonconforming to the east side yard setback. The proposed sunroom addition will be enclosed within the footprint of the existing screen porches and the present setback will not decrease with this proposal. The proposal to enclose the an existing nonconforming screen porches will not decrease the existing side yard setback The proposed south side addition will comply with all of the applicable setback requirements This request is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community The North Virginia Beach Civic League has no opposition to the side yard setback variance request. The applicant s withdrawal of the lot coverage variance has been acknowledged and accepted RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed sunroom addition shall be constructed substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations 2. The remaining screen porch shall not be enclosed without further considerations from the Board of Zoning Appeals

2 Case #2016-BZA Michael Gillikin PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 0 foot side yard setback (east) instead of 8 feet as required for an existing enclosed patio; and to modify the conditions of a variance granted on February 4, 2015, 1136 TREEFERN DR Zoning: R5D GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1986 AICUZ: Noise zone greater than 75dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Billy Garrington of Governmental Permitting Consultants BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On August 1, 2012, a variance to a 3.8- foot side yard setback (East side) instead of 8-feet as required was Granted with conditions for proposed covered porch. CONDITIONS: 1.) The proposed covered unenclosed front porch shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations. 2.) The porch shall remain unenclosed. On February 4, 2015, variances to a 1-ft west side yard setback and to a 2-ft rear yard setback instead of 5-ft each of as required for a shed; and to a 0 east side yard setback instead of 8-ft as required for a proposed covered patio was Granted as conditioned. CONDITIONS: 1.) The proposed covered patio shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevation. 2.) The proposed covered patio shall remain open and unenclosed. 3.) The existing shed shall be relocated in compliance with the required setbacks within 30 days of this hearing. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to modify a variance granted on February 4, 2015 to allow a 0 east side yard setback, instead of 8- feet as required (see variance conditions above). The applicant is seeking to retain a covered porch that was enclosed. On June 16, 2015, a building permit was obtained to demolition a rear deck and construct a new covered porch on a monolithic slab. The variance information was noted on the permit and the conditions approved with the variance were clearly attached to the permit. A final inspection of the covered patio was

3 conducted on July 17, 2015 by a building permit inspector. At the time of the inspection, the covered patio was not enclosed and it was passed. Staff is unclear when the covered patio was enclosed. On February 23, 2016, the Zoning Office received a call from a concerned citizen in referenced to the covered patio being enclosed without receiving the appropriate approval from Zoning. A subsequent inspection was made by a zoning inspector and it was determined the covered patio had been enclosed and was not in substantial adherence to the submitted building elevations. The applicant was notified verbally the covered patio could not be enclosed per the conditions of the February 4, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals variance. The existing shed that was required to be relocated in compliance required setbacks per the variance approval; has been removed. Removal of the shed occurred after the final building inspection and the posting of this variance request. According to the applicant, before adding the knee wall and Ez-Breeze windows the applicant placed a call to Permits and Inspections to confirm code compliance as relate to enclosing the covered patio. He stated he was advised the installation of the knee wall and windows would not be considered enclosed as defined by building code. Staff consulted with the Building Code Administrator and was advised the structure is considered enclosed because the windows and knee wall impede travel and a door is installed to provided ingress and egress into the enclosed space. The conditions of the Board of Zoning Appeals variance clearly states the covered patio must remain unenclosed and will be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations The shed conditioned to be relocated in compliance with the required setbacks, has been removed Both a petition in support and a letter in opposition to this request have been received and is included in the file RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. The windows, door and any framing shall be removed from the enclosed porch/ patio converting it to an unenclosed covered patio as originally approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals

4 Case #2016-BZA Richard Freeman PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 7 foot rear yard setback (west) instead of 20 feet as required for proposed decking and pergola; and to a 13 foot rear yard setback (west) instead of 20 feet as required for a proposed room addition, 2721 BLUEBILL DR Zoning: R15 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1969 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Billy Garrington of Governmental Permitting Consultants BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On March 18, 1998, a variance to a 15-ft rear yard setback, instead of 20-ft as required was Granted for a proposed residential addition SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a rear second floor deck and pergola 7-feet from the rear property line, instead of 20-feet as required. In addition, the applicant would to convert a second floor screen porch located on the south side of the dwelling by enclosing it into living area. This proposal will require a variance to a 13-feet setback from the rear property line, instead of 20-feet as required. Other improvements to the existing dwelling, including a detached garage and in ground swimming pool are also planned with this proposal; however, they will comply with the required setbacks. The proposed rear second floor deck and pergola will replace (in the same footprint) a second floor rear deck currently in disrepair. Approximately 7-feet on the proposed room addition (enclosed portion) on the south side of the dwelling will encroach into the required rear yard setback. The proposed deck and pergola will be constructed in same footprint as the existing second floor deck and the rear yard setback will not change with this request It appears the existing rear deck was illegally constructed at some point after the dwelling was built. No setbacks variances for the deck were found; therefore, staff could only confirm the dwelling is nonconforming and not the deck The proposed second floor deck will abut Pike Inlet; therefore, granting

5 setback relief from rear property line is not expected to have any direct impact on the adjoining property owners RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed deck, pergola and room (enclosure) additions shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations provided in the file 2. With the exception of the proposed pergola, the second floor deck shall not be covered. In addition, both the proposed second floor deck and area (ground level) beneath it shall not be enclosed without further consideration from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

6 Case #2016-BZA City of Virginia Beach PREPARED BY: Kevin Kemp DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 10 foot front yard setback (southeast) instead of 30 feet as required for a proposed commercial building, 1008 Bells RD Zoning: R10 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: Greater than 75 db DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Martinec with the City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Virginia Beach Department of Museums requests a variance to the front yard setback along Bells Road for the purpose of constructing a building to accommodate the Virginia Aquarium Marine Animal Conservation Center (MACC). (CIP 3-292) This facility would replace a similar operation that is currently located at the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center. The primary focus of the facility will be on the research and rehabilitation of injured sea animals. The facility will include amenities such as animal collection facilities, laboratories, and office space and support areas. The subject site is 2.57 acres. The site is located along Bells Road, which is a 60- foot ingress/egress easement that is improved with asphalt, and is adjacent to the Virginia Beach Dredge Operations facility. The United States Navy owns the site directly across from the subject site. There are two water inlets from Owls Creek that impact the buildable area on the site. Furthermore, the slopes adjacent to these two inlets drop in elevation approximately eight-feet to the edge of the Creek. To accommodate these environmental conditions, a variance to a ten-foot setback along Bells Road, instead of 30-feet is requested for the proposed building. The submitted site layout shows the 18,000 square foot facility located on the southern portion of the site. The building will be located feet from the property line, with two stairways located feet from the property line. A proposed parking area with 24 spaces is shown along the eastern portion of the site. Due to two inlets from Owls Creek and a significant change in topography, a majority of the buildable area is located on the southern portion of the

7 site, closer to Bells Road. Vehicular traffic along this portion of Bells Road is primarily City vehicles using the Virginia Beach Dredge Operations Facility. The subject site has a remote location, and is consistent with the surrounding land uses that are City and U.S. Navy Operation facilities. A written endorsement from the U.S. Navy s Deputy Facilities Director, Sally Torgler P.E. has been provided to the applicant for the proposed building, specifically the requested variance. CONDITIONS: 1. When developed, the site shall be developed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan entitled, CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN VIRGINIA AQUARIUM MARINE ANIMAL CONSERVATION CENTER, dated June 8, 2016 and prepared by Waller Todd & Sadler Architects and WPL.

8 Case #2016-BZA JMF, Inc. PREPARED BY: Kevin Kemp DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 12 foot side yard adjacent to a street (Dawson Rd.) instead of 20 feet as required for proposed porches on two proposed single family dwellings (units A & B); and to a 16 foot side yard adjacent to a street (Dawson Rd.) instead of 20 feet as required for a proposed covered walkway (unit A); and to an 8 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 10 feet as required for two proposed single family dwellings (units A & B); and to a 4.5 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 5 feet as required for proposed HVAC units (units A & B), 5510 Dawson Rd (Units A & B) Zoning: R5R (NE) GPIN: YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: Less than 65 db DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eric Garner with WPL and Billy Garrington with GPC, Inc. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The subject site is developed with a small singlefamily home constructed in The applicant intends to demolish the existing home and redevelop the site with two single-family dwellings. The subject site is located within the R-5R Residential Zoning District, North End Overlay. In this district, a site can be developed with two single-family dwellings provided certain requirements are met, as identified in Section 506 of the Zoning Ordinance. The submitted site plan and elevations show that the proposed homes meet these requirements; however, due to the narrowness of the lot, variances to the side yard setbacks are requested to allow for the proposed homes to be built. The subject site, located within the R-5R Zoning district, has a 20-foot setback from the property line adjacent to Dawson Road. The applicant requests a variance to a 12-foot setback for the front porches on both Units A and B. Additional variances to an 18-foot setback is requested for the exterior wall of Unit B and to a 16-foot setback for a covered walkway on Unit A. In the R-5R North End Overlay, the required side yard setback is ten-feet. The applicant requests a variance to an eight-foot side yard setback for both Units A and B. The air-conditioning units for both units are located along the west side of homes. A variance is requested to allow the air-conditioning units to be 4.5 feet from the property line, instead of five-feet as required.

9 The submitted building elevations show two-and-a-half story dwellings. The homes are designed to reflect a beach cottage aesthetic with features such as large covered front porches and roof dormers. The subject lot has a nonconforming lot width of feet, which is deficient to the 85-feet that are required in the R-5R Zoning District for a corner lot containing two single-family homes. The proposed single-family dwellings meet a majority of the dimensional requirements to allow for two homes to be developed on one lot in the R-5R (North End Overlay) District including: 16-feet of separation between the homes, no parking located between the homes and the street, the garage facing the street is set back six-feet from the edge of the home, the wall of the home does not exceed 25-feet in height, and the total height of the building is does not exceed 37-feet (Ordinance states 35 feet, but homes in a flood zone are provided an additional two-feet in height). The required off-street parking spaces are located such that they are not between the porches and the streets. The front porch on Unit A is located 13-feet from the front property line, as permitted as an incentive in the North End Overlay Ordinance. CONDITIONS: 1. The site shall be developed with two single-family dwellings in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan entitled, BZA EXHIBIT OF LOT-31, EXCLUSIVELY FOR JMF, INC. dated May 10, 2016 and prepared by WPL. 2. When developed, Unit A as shown on the above referenced site plan, shall be in substantial adherence to the submitted building elevation entitled, CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR ZONING-SITE PLAN APPROVALS, UNIT A DAWSON RD ELEVATION, dated February 1, 2016 and prepared by Progressive Realty & Development Corp. 3. When developed, Unit B as shown on the above referenced site plan, shall be in substantial adherence to the submitted building elevation entitled, CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR ZONING-SITE PLAN APPROVALS, UNIT B DAWSON RD ELEVATION, dated February 1, 2016 and prepared by Progressive Realty & Development Corp.

10 Case #2016-BZA Michael & Rathana Shocket PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 10 foot side yard setback adjacent to unimproved 43rd street for a proposed single family dwelling; and to modify the conditions of a variance granted on August 6, 2014, 4288 Ocean Front AVE Zoning: R7.5 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: noise zone 65-70dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon of Sykes Bourdon & Ahern BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HISTORY: On August 6, 2014, a variance to a 13.5-ft side yard setback adjacent to 43 rd Street instead of 30-ft as required for a singlefamily dwelling and to a 10.5-ft side yard setback adjacent to 43 rd Street for proposed HVAC unit was Granted with conditions. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing a 10-foot side yard setback adjacent to 43 rd Street instead of 13.5-feet as previously approved and to modify the conditions of the variance Granted on August 6, 2014 for a proposed two-story single-family dwelling. The applicants are proposing to modify the design of the proposed dwelling and shift the dwelling to a 10-foot side yard setback from the property line adjacent to 43rd Street, instead of 13.5-feet as previously approved. According to the applicant, the setback variance previously granted to a 10.5-foot side yard setback from the property line adjacent to 43 rd Street for the HVAC units has been withdrawn. Although, the proposed site plan depicts a concrete pad on the south side of the dwelling, staff assumes the HVAC units will comply the required setbacks. This lot does not conform to the minimum lot width 85-feet for corner lots in this zoning district The setback variance is sought from the property line adjacent to the unimproved portion of 43 rd Street. This portion of 43 rd Street is not expected to ever be developed and will continue to be used for each access The setback requested with this proposed are consistent with the minimum side yard setbacks in this zoning district, if the side property line is not

11 adjacent to a street The proposed dwelling will be shifted 3.5-feet closer to the property line adjacent to 43 rd Street than the previous proposal This proposal is not expected to have a detriment impact on the adjoining property owners No opposition has been received regarding this request and the North Beach Civic League is not opposed to this request RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. The proposed three story single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevation entitled Shocket Residence prepared by Cox, Kliewer & Company, P.C. and dated March 16, 2016

12 Case #2016-BZA Edward & Deborah Amorosso PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a total building height of 40.5 feet instead of 35 feet as allowed for a proposed single family dwelling; and to a 5.5 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 8 feet as required for a proposed covered entryway; and to a 4.5 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 8 feet as required for a proposed attached covered shower structure, 3876 JEFFERSON BLVD Zoning: R5R (SD) GPIN: YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon of Sykes, Bourdon Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to construct a three story single-family dwelling. The following variances are requested with this proposal: A variance to 40.5-feet in building height instead of 35-feet as required A variance to a 5.5-foot west side yard setback, instead of 8-feet as required for a proposed entryway A variance to a 4.5-foot west side yard setback, instead of 8-feet as required for a proposed attached covered shower structure This lot is 34.50ft in width where the lot faces Jefferson Blvd and ft in width on the north end of the lot and it is nonconforming in regards to the lot minimum 50-ft lot width required for this zoning district. The lot grading elevation changes approximately feet from the lowest to highest points of the lot grading as measured within 6-feet of the proposed building foundation. The 5.5-foot height variance sought with this request is slightly more than the lot grading elevation differential. In order for the variance request to be consistent with the lot grading elevation differential the proposed building height should be no higher 40-feet. The lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot width and the south side of the lot narrows significantly as it approaches Jefferson Blvd. The lot grading elevation differential is not consistent with the 5.5-foot building height variance requested RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed three story single-family dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan 2. The proposed three story dwelling shall not exceed a maximum building height of 40-feet

13 Case #2016-BZA Elkin / C & C Development PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 12 foot side yard setback adjacent to a street (Atlantic Ave) instead of 20 feet as required and to an 8 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 10 feet as required for a proposed single family dwelling; and to a 10.5 foot side yard setback adjacent to a street (Atlantic Ave) instead of 18.5 feet as required for a proposed bay window; and to a 6 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 8 feet as required for a proposed chimney; and to allow an existing deck to be located with the required 16 foot building separation, 6404 Atlantic AVE Zoning: R5R (NE) GPIN: YEAR BUILT: New construction (existing dwelling 1940) AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon of Sykes, Bourdon Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to construct a 2 ½ Story single-family dwelling in conjunction with and existing 1 ½ story single-family dwelling. The following variances are requested with this proposal: A variance to a 12-ft setback from the property line adjacent to Atlantic Ave instead of 20-feet as require for a single-family dwelling A variance to a 8-ft west side setback, instead of 10-feet as require for a single-family dwelling A variance to a 10.5-ft setback from the property line adjacent to Atlantic Ave instead of 18.5-feet as require for a proposed bay window A variance to a 6-ft west side setback, instead of 8-feet as require for a proposed chimney A variance to allow an existing deck to be located in the required 16-foot building separation This proposed dwelling will be developed in the North End Overlay district. This district offers reduced setback requirements when developing under some design incentives. The existing dwelling is nonconforming in respects to required front yard and side corner setbacks. The lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot area and lot width for duplex development in this zoning district. A deck (above 16 in height from the ground elevation) will remain on the existing dwelling within the 16-foot separation required between the existing and

14 proposed dwellings. Consequently, the applicant has agreed to lower the deck under 16 in height from the ground elevation in compliance NE overlay district. The existing lot is nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot area and lot width The rear deck on the existing dwelling will be lowered under 16 in height as measured from the ground elevation The proposed dwelling will maintain more of a setback from the property line adjacent to Atlantic Ave than the existing nonconforming dwelling The North Virginia Beach Civic League supports the setback variances with the exception of the request to allowing an existing deck (above 16 in height) to be in the 16-foot separation between dwellings. It s suggested by the NVBCL the decking be lowered to less than 16 in height from the ground elevation RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed 2 ½ story dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations 2. The proposed porches shall remain unenclosed 3. The existing 17.9 x 17.6 rear deck will be lowered under 16 in height as measured from the ground elevation

15 Case #2016-BZA George McCullough PREPARED BY: Kevin Kemp DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 12 foot front yard setback (southeast) instead of 50 feet as required for proposed additions, roof structure alterations, a dormer and a covered porch, 828 DWYER RD Zoning: AG2 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1895 AICUZ: db DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Donald Montgomery SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a variance to a 12-foot setback adjacent to Dwyer Road, for the purpose of constructing additions and making several alterations to the existing single-family home. The subject site is zoned AG-2 Agricultural and has a required front yard setback of 50- feet. The existing home was constructed in 1895, prior to the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance and is located only 12.8-feet from the property line adjacent to Dwyer Road. The applicant wishes to install a new roof system in order to bring the structure into compliance with the building code. The roof pitches will be increased over the two single-story portions of the home. A 214 square feet room addition and covered porch is proposed on the west side of the existing home. A 205 square foot room addition is proposed on the east side of the existing home. At the rear of the home, a second story addition including dormer window is proposed over the living room. The dormer will be six-feet by ten-feet. The existing nonconforming home was constructed in 1895, predating the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance. The home was constructed 12.8-feet from the front property line. The proposed alterations to the roof and additions to the home will not increase the encroachment into front yard setback. The subject 1.05 acre lot meets all dimensional requirements for the AG-2 Agricultural Zoning District. The submitted building elevations show that the proposed additions and

16 alterations will maintain the integrity of the farmhouse style of the existing home. The subject property is one a several properties on the west side of Dwyer Road that is agriculturally zoned. The zoning of the surrounding area has mostly been rezoned to middle-density residential zoning districts and developed with single-family homes. There is a 128 square foot shed located in the required side yard setback that will be removed. CONDITIONS: 1. The additions and alterations to the existing home shall be in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan entitled, PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT 7 FOR GEORGE McCULLOUGH AND ALISSA McCULLOUGH, dated March 18, 2016 and prepared by Ward M. Homes Land Surveyor, P.C. and marked on by Zoning Staff. 2. The additions and alterations shall be in substantial adherence to the submitted elevation drawings entitled, FRONT ELEVATION, LEFT ELEVATION, RIGHT ELEVATION, and REAR ELEVATION.

17 Case #2016-BZA Greg & Pat Casey PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 5 foot side yard setback (west) instead of 8 feet as required for a proposed generator, TH ST Zoning: R5R (NE) GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 2015 AICUZ: noise zone 65-70dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Greg & Pat Casey SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to install a 22kW Generac stand-by generator 5-feet from the west side property line, instead of 8-feet as required. The proposed generator will produce sound outputs of 67dB while operating normally and 58dB when operating in exercise/test mode as measured at a distance of 23-feet. Additionally, the contractor has offered to install a 4-foot tall three sided enclosure and category I landscaping screening around the proposed generator to screen and mitigate the sound outputs. A 4-foot three sided enclosure will be installed around the proposed generator to provide screening and mitigate sound outputs The proposed generator shall only operate during emergency power outages and during testing as prescribed by the manufacturer s specifications RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed 22kW Generac stand-by home generator shall be installed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and manufacturer s specifications 2. A minimum 4-foot high solid enclosure and category I landscape screening shall be installed around three sides of the proposed generator 3. The proposed generator shall only be operated during emergency power outages or in exercise /testing mode for the purpose of maintenance as recommended in the manufacturer s specifications

18 Case #2016-BZA Timothy Benton PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 20 foot front yard setback (east) instead of 30 feet as required and to a 5 foot side yard setback adjacent to a street (unimproved Walnut Hill Rd.) instead of 30 feet as required and to a 13.5 foot rear yard setback (west) instead of 20 feet as required and to 39.5% in lot coverage instead of 35% as allowed for a proposed single family dwelling; and to a 10 foot rear yard setback (west) instead of 15 feet as required and to a 16 foot side yard adjacent to a street (unimproved Walnut Hill Rd) instead of 25 feet as required for a proposed HVAC unit, 623 Rosemont RD Zoning: R7.5 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: noise zone 65-70dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Timothy Benton SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family dwelling. The following variances are sought with this proposal: A variance to a 20-foot front yard setback instead of 30-feet as required for the proposed singlefamily dwelling A variance to a 5-foot side yard setback adjacent to a street (unimproved Walnut Hill Rd) instead of 30-feet as required for the proposed dwelling A variance to a 13.5-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20-feet as required A variance to allow 39.5% in lot coverage, instead of 35% in lot coverage as allowed for the proposed single-family dwelling A variance to a 10-foot rear yard setback instead of 15-feet; and to a 16-foot side yard setback adjacent to (unimproved Walnut Hill Rd) a street instead of 25-feet as required for a proposed HVAC unit This lot was created in 1968 and it is nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot area and width. It appears this infill lot has never been developed. The lot is narrow and it is nonconforming in regards to the minimum lot area and width for this zoning district The north side of the lot is adjacent to a 50-foot unimproved Walnut Hill Rd street that is not expected to be developed Considering the narrowness of this nonconforming lot, the variances requested are reasonable RECOMMENDED CONDITION: 1. The proposed two-story dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan

19 Case #2016-BZA Betty Sundin PREPARED BY: Kevin Kemp DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 15 foot side yard adjacent to a street (Holly Rd.) instead of 30 feet as required for a proposed single family dwelling, 4810 Holly RD Zoning: R7.5 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: db DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Leslie R. Watson, Esq. with Wolcott Rivers Gates SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a variance to a 15-foot setback adjacent to Holly Road, instead of 30-feet as required for the purpose of constructing a single-family home. The subject site was recorded by plat in 1884 as Lot 200 of the Hollies neighborhood. The applicant purchased the property in 1977; however, the site is currently undeveloped. The subject 6,250 square foot lot is adjacent to City right-of-way along the northern and eastern property lines. There is a 15-foot unimproved alley to the rear of the lot. The subject nonconforming lot is substandard to the dimensional requirements of the R-7.5 Zoning District in regard to lot area and lot width. A lot created with the current requirements would need to be 7,500 square feet with a lot width of 85-feet. This variance request would allow the proposed two-story single-family dwelling to be located 15-feet from the property line adjacent to Holly Road. The narrowness of the lot creates a situation where the proposed home is long and thin (27-feet wide and 75-feet in length). Two off-street parking spaces are provided at the rear of the lot. Access will be from Holly Road. The subject lot is substandard in regard to size and width to the current requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a lot within the R-7.5 Zoning district. The width of the subject lot is 50-feet. The setback from the property line adjacent to Holly Road is 30-feet. The setback on the other side yard is five feet. Due to those requirements, without obtaining a variance the buildable area on the lot is only 15-feet wide.

20 The proposed single-family home meets all other dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (front yard setback (30-feet proposed), side yard setback (8-feet proposed), rear yard setback (20-feet proposed) and lot coverage (32.4% proposed). Staff has received letter of support from several of the surrounding property owners, including the owners of th Street, the property most impacted by this request. CONDITIONS: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial adherence to the submitted site layout entitled, BZA VARIANCE EXHIBIT, LOT 200, THE HOLLIES, dated April 22, 2016 and prepared by Bruce Gallup Surveyors & Engineers. 2. The single-family dwelling shall be in substantial adherence to the elevation drawings submitted with this application.

21 Case #2016-BZA Charles & Kristina Bonner PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 16.6 foot rear yard setback (north) instead of 20 feet as required for a proposed single family dwelling, 2810 OCEAN SHORE AVE Zoning: R7.5(SD) GPIN: YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL REPRESENTATIVE: James Gregory, Jr SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling at a 16.6-foot rear yard setback, instead of 20- feet as required. The applicants are planning to construct the new dwelling at the same rear yard setback as the existing two story dwelling that will be demolished with this proposal. An existing detached garage located closest to the east side property line will also be demolished with this proposal. The submitted site plan did not depict where the HVAC units would be placed nor did it indicate where the required (2) 9 x 18 off-street all-weather surface parking spaces would be located on the site. The applicants were made aware of these requirements and it will be addressed during the site plan review process. Staff understands the applicants desire to maintain the existing rear yard setback in efforts of preserving the view. However, it has always been the goal of staff to encourage compliance if constructing on vacant lot or if a dwelling is being completely demolished. It appears the proposed two-story dwelling could comply with the required rear yard setback. If impacting the existing 30 oak tree is the concern, staff believes the applicants could achieve compliance and alleviate any impact to the tree by redesigning the footprint of the proposed dwelling Staff was unable to identify hardship as it relates to the existing lot. There are no environmental restrictions or topographic conditions that contribute to an undue hardship. The width of the lot does not meet the minimum 75-ft lot width required in this zoning district; however, the applicants are not

22 seeking variance relief to the side yard setbacks RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed two story dwelling shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations 2. The required (2) 9 x 18 off street all weather parking spaces shall be installed in accordance with the city zoning ordinance

23 Case #2016-BZA James & Kathleen Warren PREPARED BY: Kevin Kemp DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 12 foot side yard setback adjacent to a street (46th street) instead of 30 feet as required for proposed steps and landing; and to a 6 foot side yard adjacent to a street (46th Street) instead of 30 feet as required and to a 5 foot front yard setback adjacent to Myrtle Ave. instead of 20 feet as required for a proposed in-ground pool; and to a 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to Myrtle Ave. instead of 20 feet as required for an existing hot tub; and to a 13 foot front yard setback adjacent to Myrtle Ave. instead of 30 feet as required for an existing deck, 4600 MYRTLE AVE Zoning: R7.5 GPIN: YEAR BUILT: 1948 AICUZ: db DNL REPRESENTATIVE: Eddie Bourdon with Sykes Bourdon Ahern & Levy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests the above listed variances for the purpose of installing an inground pool and reconfiguring the existing access on the south side of their home. The subject 76-foot wide lot is adjacent to City rights-of-way on three sides, therefore requiring a 30-foot setback along the south, east and western property lines. The existing home encroaches into each of these required setbacks. The subject lot is 6,250 square feet and was recorded by plat initially in 1884, then reconfigured in The applicant requests a variance to a 15-foot setback along Myrtle Avenue for an existing hot tub and a variance to a 13-foot setback along Myrtle Avenue for an existing second floor deck. Staff was not able to identify when either of these improvements were installed. The proposed inground swimming pool is located at the southwest corner of the lot, six-feet from the property line adjacent to 46 th street and five and a half feet from the property line adjacent to Myrtle Avenue. The proposed pool is 12-feet by 24-feet in size, and is surrounded with a brick banding. The applicant wishes to reconfigure the side entryway facing 46 th Street. The existing stairs leading to the entry extend along the south side of the home down to the parking surface. The proposed reconfiguration would provide a landing in the middle of the stairs and the stairs would project towards the street. To accommodate this configuration, a variance to a feet setback, instead of 30- feet is required.

24 There is an existing 54-inch in height vinyl fence that encroaches into the right-ofway along Myrtle Avenue and 46 th Street. This fence will be removed and replaced with a 48-inch, picket style fence, that will meet the requirements of Section 201 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance. There is also a small shed and arbor that encroach into the required setback along 46 th Street; both structures will be removed. The subject 6,250 square foot lot is nonconforming in regard to the 7,500 square foot lot area that is required in the R-7.5 Residential zoning district. The site is unique in that it is surrounded by City right-of-way on three of the four sides. The front, rear and side yard setbacks are 30-feet. Due to the configuration of the house, the only area on the site that can accommodate substantial site improvements is the southwestern portion, which is adjacent to City right-of-way. The proposed reconfiguration of the stairway along the south side would be located feet from the property line. The existing nonconforming stairway is located approximately 14-feet from the property line. The existing hot tub and second floor deck do not encroach further into the setback than the existing home. The existing fence that does not meet the required setbacks, will be replaced and moved to meet all dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing shed that does not meet the required setback will be removed. The proposed improvements are consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed inground pool and reconfigured stairway shall be constructed in substantial adherence to the submitted site plan entitled, BZA EXHIBIT FO LOT-A. EXCLUSIVELY FOR WARREN RESIDENCE, dated February 25, 2016 and prepared by WPL. 2. Prior to completion of the proposed improvements, the existing shed and arbor along 46 th Street shall be removed. 3. The existing 54-inch in height fence shall be removed and replaced with a fence that meets all requirements of Section 201 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance.

25 Case #2016-BZA Jon Carlson PREPARED BY: Kevin Kemp DESCRIPTION: A variance to allow parking spaces within a proposed parking structure to be 8 4 wide instead of 8 9 wide as required and to allow column obstructions within the required drive aisle and to permit a drive aisle width of 22 feet instead of 23 feet as required (proposed parking for proposed multi-family dwelling), TH ST Zoning: OR GPIN: REPRESENTATIVE: Thomas Beverly of TM Beverly & Associates SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant intends to construct three residential units on this 4,550 square foot parcel zoned OR- Oceanfront Resort District. The applicant has Optional Form of Development approval to construct a 42-feet tall building with first floor parking and three stories above. The approved architectural elevation shows that high quality cement fiberboard siding will be used and that the building will have an attractive lobby area on the first floor. Two parking spaces are required per residential unit for a total of six spaces. The City Zoning Ordinance allows a parking space to have a minimum width of 8-feet 9-inches within a parking structure, as proposed for this multiple-family project. The width of a standard surface parking space is 9-feet. The applicant has been working with staff on this project for several years prior to obtaining the Optional Form of Development approval. During building plan review, it was realized that a second emergency exit was required. The additional exit occupies space at the rear of the first level parking area, reducing the area needed to meet the parking space width requirements. At this time, the applicant is asking for a variance to allow the six parking spaces to have a width of 8 4, rather than 8 9 as required. Each parking space will be the required, 18- feet in depth. This application was deferred from the June 1 st Board of Zoning Appeals hearing due to concerns over columns that obstructed the drive aisle and parking spaces. The applicant shifted the location of the columns so that they no longer obstruct any of the parking spaces. The columns within the drive aisle have been shifted so that they align with the parking stripes, therefore making them easier to maneuver around. The columns will be wrapped with a foam product that can withstand the impact of a 4,000 pound vehicle striking the column at ten miles per hour. This is intended to protect the integrity of the structure, as well as minimize damage to vehicles if any collisions occur.

26 The applicant indicates that the smaller parking space width will reduce the area devoted to the automobile and improve environmental quality in keeping with the vision for the resort area. Allowing for six spaces on the site will alleviate the need for residents of the complex to park on the street. Compact parking spaces are allowed to have a width of 8. The parking spaces meet the standard 18 minimum length for a parking space. Compact spaces have a minimum length of 17. The Public Works, Traffic Engineering Department is not objecting to the proposal since the development is for private residential use, rather than a commercial or office use. CONDITION: 1. Six parking spaces are required on the site with a minimum width of 8-foot four-inches.