09/03/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

footers may meet building codes and not need to be replaced. Mrs. Diver noted that a special permit was required as the existing rear yard was only 46 feet deep. Mr. Mitchell said the existing 46 foot setback is preexisting and the request is to have a single season porch. He believes that the screened in porch would be aesthetically pleasing and enhance the use for the owner. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the rear lot coverage was exceeded and Mr. Mitchell said it was not. Mr. O'Malley reviewed chapter 1165.02 as it pertains to non-conforming structures and advised the board to address the special permit first. Mrs. Diver read aloud the standards for a special permit to add to a non-conforming home and board members felt no adverse affects would be created by granting the special permit. Mrs. Sergi moved, seconded by Ms. Rudolph, to grant Roger James of 24908 Mitchell Road A special permit to add to a non-conforming building 1165.02 (b), roll call on the motion; Diver, Sergi, Bellido, Rudolph - yes, Lopez - no, the special permit was granted 4-1. Mr. Lopez said that he understood that the applicant wants to have a screened in porch but the porch only increases the non-conformances of the home and wanting your porch screened in is not a hardship. Once the variance is granted the screened in porch can become an addition unless the condition is placed to not allow anything but screening. Mrs. Diver felt that since the patio was just being covered and screens added to enable the owner the use of his backyard she did not object. All the homes in the development were built non-conforming which doesn't allow any owner the opportunity to enhance or fully utilize their lot without variances. Ms. Rudolph said each request should be looked at individually and the slab is preexisting, the yard is fenced in and the character of the neighborhood would not be affected. All homeowners should be offered the opportunity to fully utilize their backyards and unfortunately the developer hindered all the homeowners in the development from having that opportunity. The request is not significant and if the garage was placed differently in the front the home would not be non- conforming. There is no other method than a variance to do anything to the home. Mrs. Bellido felt that the spirit and intent of the code would be upheld granting the variance. The standards are a general standard applied to the entire city and unfortunately the majority of the lots in the city do not comply with the existing zoning codes. Granting the variance is upholding the spirit of the code as long as it remains a screened in porch. Mrs. Diver said all the lots in the area are very small and there is no other method than a variance to enhance the home. Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Sergi, to grant Roger James of 24908 Mitchell Road the following variances: 1. A 16 foot rear yard variance for residence too close to rear property line; code requires 50 ft and 34 ft is shown which is in violation of section 1135.08 (a). 2. A variance from Section 1165.02 as existing rear yard setback is 46 ft and will decrease to 34 ft. roll call; Diver, Sergi, Bellido, Rudolph - yes, Lopez -no, variances granted 4-1. NON-RESIDENTIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS: CMS09-07 LaQuinta Inn & Suites; 25105 Countrv Club Blvd: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of signage and the following variances are required: 1. A 1 foot 7 inch variance for a wall sign higher than allowed (north elevation); code permits 4 ft and 5 ft 7 inches are shown, section 1163.28 (c) 3