06/07/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (Fl)). R. Menser seconded the motion, which was unanimously denied. III. NON-RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQiJESTS: 1. Walters Advanced Dentistrv; 4780 Clague Itd: (WRD #4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of constructing new Dental office. The following variances are requested: 1. A 50 foot variance for front yard setback, (code requires 100 ft, applicant shows 50'), section (1137.07 (b)). 2. A 30 foot variance for parking area and driveway to walls of main building, (code requires 30', applicant shows 0'), section (1137.08) table. 3. A 10 foot variance for parking area to side lot line, (code requires 20' applicant shows 10'), section (1137.08) table. 4. A 10 inch variance for south sideyard setback, (code requires 24' 10 inch, applicant shows 24'), section (1137.06 (g)). 5. A variance for 3 wall signs, (code permits 0, applicant shows 3), section (1163.27(a)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1137.07 (b)), (1137.08) table, (1137.06 (g)) and (1163.27(a)). Mr. Sampat the architect and Mr. Walters the owner both came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mrs. Diver aslced if the applicants heard and understood the 7 factors for consideration, both men acknowledged they understood. Mr. Sampat said that each of the 4 area variances listed were due to the awkward shape of the lot, the location of the driveway and the zoning requirements being mixed use residential requirements, not office. The lot could not accommodate a dental office or any other building without area variances. Wellington's driveway easement for ingress/egress will ensure traffic impact is minimized. He suggested the Planning & Design Commission felt the area variances were warranted. He questioned the 10 inch variance as the wall of the building is 25 feet from the south sideyard. There are two non-illuminated wall signs which are carved sandstone with blaclc epoxy lettering. He questioned if the proposed clock was considered a wall sign. Mr. Mathews advised that the clock was considered a wall sign and the 10 inch variance was due to the distance from the roof line to the south lot line being 24 feet. Mrs. Sergi did not feel that a 10 inch variance was substantial. Mr. O'Malley reminded the board that they granted the applicant a use variance based on the current footprint due to the pie shaped lot which imposes practical difficulty developing the lot as zoned. Therefore the board is following up their previous determination that the lot is challenging. Mrs. Sergi felt that due to the lot shape it would be hard to place any building on the lot to code. Mr. Sampat said a south handicap parking space was moved to increase the landscape bed and for the added safety of pedestrians leaving the building. Mr. Kelly felt that the shape of the lot and the applicant's efforts to place the building in the least offensive manner warranted the variances and the building use would be the least offensive to the abutting neighbors. Mrs. Diver felt that the office addition would esthetically improve the entrance to the neighborhood. Mr. Menser felt that as the board granted the use variance to allow the office the residential restrictions should be mute. Mrs. Sergi felt the property could not yield a reasonable return without variances and granting the variances would not be substantial enough to be detrimental or cause neighboring properties undue hardship. All board members voiced their agreement. Board members felt that the variances were not substantial considering the proposed use. The character of the neighborhood would be improved by the proposed development. The variances would not affect governmental services. The property was purchased with knowledge of the zoning laws. The applicant's predicament could not be precluded without variances. Due to the use being an office wall signs are warranted. The spirit and intent of the zoning code would be observed and justice served granting the applicants variances. Mrs. Sergi felt the applicant did a good job trying to minimize the variances needed and looked forward to seeing the area improved. 3