Case #1 Quirina Padilla May 2, 2012

Transcription

1 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #1 Quirina Padilla DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 7 foot side yard setback (South side) and to a 6.5 foot rear yard setback (East side) instead of 20 feet each as required (Proposed Carport) LOCATION: 3285 Dam Neck Road Lots 32-B-2 & 33-B-1 Princess Anne District #7 GPIN: ZONING: AG-2 YEAR BUILT: 1961 AICUZ: noise zone 70-75dB DNL applicant would like to construct a 20 X 30 carport on a recently installed 20 x 30 concrete slab. The carport will be installed 7-feet from the south side property line and 6.5 feet from the east side (rear) property line, instead of 20-feet each as required. It will be located on the south east corner of this 33,750± square foot lot that presently has a one-story single-family dwelling and 274 square foot storage shed installed on it. Based on the submitted physical survey, it appears the existing storage shed slightly encroaches across the rear property line onto the adjoining lot. The adjoining lot is 64,033 square feet, however, it s important to note the submitted physical survey depicts the adjoining lot is subdivided into two lots. According to noted #3 of the submitted physical survey, the survey was prepared based on an unrecorded subdivision plat. Therefore, the abutting lot is not legally subdivided as depicted on the submitted physical survey. A gravel driveway is shown on the physical survey in the front yard and leading up to the proposed carport. After reviewing aerial maps, it appears this site has previously been used to storage heavy equipment and as bulk storage yard. However, staff has not recently observed these activities taking place on this site. Though the applicant has expressed relocating the recently installed concrete slab will be costly, staff was unable to identify a hardship with this request. The applicant has the options to install the proposed carport on this lot without encroaching on the required setbacks.

2 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #2 William Moffat DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 6.9 foot side yard setback (East side) instead of 10 feet as required (Existing 1 st and 2 nd Story Deck) LOCATION: th Street Lot 11, Old Beach Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: A-12, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1937 AICUZ: noise zone 65-70dB DNL applicant would like to retain an existing first and second story deck with steps presently installed 6.75-feet from the east side property, instead of 10-feet as required. The second-story deck is 12 x 8 with stairs that extends off of the south side of the deck onto to the first floor deck. The upper decking and stairs are constructed above and within the footprint of a 12 X lower deck. According to the applicant, the wood decking replaced an existing concrete deck that was installed on the rear of the south apartment building. Steps that once led from the north side of the second- floor to the ground (concrete surface) level of the apartment building are depicted on the physical survey. Each of the buildings on this site contains two dwelling units arranged one unit above the other. Therefore, the upper decking and steps will provide access for the second-story unit. This deck has been in place for approximately two years. City records indicates the property owner and/or contractor came in the Zoning Office on November 18, 2010 and was told a setback variance will be required for the decking and steps that was constructed without a building permit. In addition, the Permit & Inspections Office has received several citizen concerns regarding constructing the decking and steps without acquiring the appropriate building permit. Both Zoning and the P & I Office have notified the property owner several times regarding the existing setback violation and permit requirements. On February 23, 2011, a Zoning Inspector issued a summons for the deck and steps encroachment. The court case was continued until June 12, 2012 to give the applicant the opportunity to apply for a setback variance. Though staff does not condone beginning any construction without obtaining the appropriate building permit; the deck and steps maintains a greater setback from the east side property line than the existing building. Secondly, the deck encroachment is minimal and the steps will provide emergency rear access for the second story unit. If approved, the following conditions are recommended: 1. No portion of the existing decking and steps within the required setback shall be altered or expanded without further consideration from the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. The decking shall remain unenclosed and uncovered. 3. An after-the-fact building permit must be obtained within 7 business days preceding this hearing.

3 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #3 Robin & Melanie Loomis DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 5 foot side yard setback (West side) instead of 10 feet as required (Proposed Room Addition) LOCATION: 4012 Mintwood Court Lot 1, Windsor Woods Rose Hall District #3 GPIN: ZONING: R-7.5, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1969 AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB applicant is proposing to construct a 9 x 14 room addition on the west side of an existing single-family dwelling. A variance to a 5-foot side yard setback, instead of 10-feet as required is sought with this proposal. This addition is intended to expand an existing bathroom. This lot is 13,927 square feet and is shaped irregularly. An inground pool is installed in the rear yard and 7.5 x 9.7 shed is located in the east side yard of the lot. The shed is presently encroaching on the 5-foot side yard setback; however, the applicants are willing to relocate the shed should this request be approved. This property is zoned R7.5 and requires a 5-foot and 10-foot side yard setback. At the time this property was developed, the developer had the option of establishing either the east or west side as the 5-foot setback thus requiring a 10-foot setback on the opposition side. The dwelling is presently 8.1-feet from the east side and 12-feet from the west side property lines. Therefore, the east side has been designated to maintain a 5-foot setback and the west side has been designated to maintain a 10-foot setback. Staff recognizes the lot is pie shaped and as such creates some challenges with complying with the required side yard setbacks. Consequently, it appears there are several opportunities to expand the dwelling without encroaching onto the required side yard setbacks. Additionally, allowing the setback relief as request is not in keeping with the intent and/ or spirit on the zoning ordinance as it relates to side yard setbacks for this zoning district.

4 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #4 Bay Shore Development DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to an 8 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Southern Boulevard) instead of 18 feet as required (Proposed Single Family Dwelling) LOCATION: 100 North Fir Avenue Lots 1 & 2, Rose Hall District #3 GPIN: ZONING: R-5D, RMA YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family dwelling 8- feet from the property line adjacent to Southern Blvd, instead of 18-feet as required. A one-story single-family dwelling presently installed on this lot as well as on lot 2 (the lot to the north) will be demolished. The existing dwelling is presently 4.5-feet from the property line adjacent Southern Blvd. The applicant intends to construct single-family dwellings on both lot 1 and 2. The property line adjacent to Southern Blvd is presently separated by a 40±foot unimproved right-of-way strip. Therefore, the proposed dwelling will be located approximately 48-feet from the edge of the (street) pavement. This 4,200 square foot corner lot is only 35-feet wide, and therefore is nonconforming in respects to the minimum (5,000 sq ft) lot area and minimum (60-ft) lot width requirements. This proposal is consistent with the developmental trend in the surrounding community. Additionally, the setback from the property line adjacent to Southern Blvd will increase with this request. Therefore, this request is not expected to create a detriment to the adjoining property owners or surrounding community. If approved, the following conditions are recommended: 1. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed substantial adherence to the submitted site plan and building elevations. 2. Any future decking (above 16 in height from the finished grade) or accessory structures shall be complied with all applicable setback requirements.

5 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #5 Andy McSweeney DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to 38 feet in building height instead of 35 feet in building height as allowed (Proposed Single Family Dwelling) LOCATION: 2120 Wake Forest Street Lot 37, Cape Story Lynnhaven District #5 GPIN: ZONING: R-7.5, RMA YEAR BUILT: new construction AICUZ: noise zone less than 65dB DNL applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single-family dwelling 38-feet in building height, instead of 35-feet in building height as allowed. As depicted on the site plan submitted, the lot elevation differential from the lowest to the highest point of the lot elevation is approximately 1.57-feet when measured within 6-foot of the proposed footprint. The site plan is also depicts a 23 x 24 detached garage on the north east corner of the lot. Based on the footprint of the proposed garage, it appears it will exceed the maximum floor area allowed for accessory structures. The proposed garage will have to be reduced unless 20% of the floor area of the proposed dwelling allows the (garage) to exceed the allowable floor area (500sq ft) for accessory structures. This will have to be confirmed during the review process before a building permit can be issued for the proposed garage. The applicant states the height variance sought with request is necessary to raise the finished floor elevation of the proposed dwelling to accommodate for the base flood elevation. Though the building code requires the finished floor to be one-foot base flood elevation, it believed the proposed dwelling can be designed to accommodate this requirement. Additionally, the height increase the applicant is seeking with this request is not consistent with the lot elevation differential. Though the lot elevation differential was greater previously, this lot now appears to be fairly leveled. Because the lot elevation differential (1.57-ft) is not consistent with the (3-foot) height increase requested, staff was unable to identify a hardship with this request. Staff recommends the applicant consider redesigning the proposed dwelling to comply with the maximum 35-feet in building height or reduce the height to be consistent with the (1.57-ft) lot elevation differential.

6 PREPARED BY: CHRIS LANGASTER Case #6 Patrick Durnin DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 2 foot side yard setback (East and West sides) instead of 8 feet each as required and to a 5 foot rear yard setback (North side) instead of 10 feet as required (Proposed Garage) LOCATION: nd Street Lot 21 Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: RT-3, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1930 AICUZ: noise zone 65-70dB DNL applicant is proposing to construct a 26 x 26 detached garage 2-feet from both side property lines instead of 8- feet each as required. The applicant is also seeking a 5-foot setback from the (rear) property line adjacent a 20-foot alley, instead of 10-feet as required. The proposed garage is intended to replace an existing nonconforming 11.2 x 22.2 detached garage that presently encroaches on the rear and west side yard setbacks. The proposed garage will abut directly next to an existing two story building that is presently located on the west side property line the two lots share. Therefore, the separation between the existing building and the proposed garage will only be 2-feet. Allowing this detached garage that is virtually double the size of the existing nonconforming garage is expected to both create a detriment as well as a potential fire safety issue for the adjoining property owners. Although, this lot is nonconforming and narrow, staff recommends the applicant considers reducing the footprint of the proposed garage. This would allow the proposed garage to be centered on the lot while maintaining a minimum 5-foot setback from both the east and west side property lines as well as complying with the required rear yard setback. If the proposed garage is modified as suggested, it would allow for a 20 x 21 footprint. When considering the narrowest of the lot and the close proximity of the structures on the adjoining lots, the aforementioned option appears to be the most reasonable.

7 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #7 James & Paulette Fulmer DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: request a variance to a 1.4 foot side yard setback (South side) instead of 15 feet as required (Existing Deck) LOCATION: 3008 Sandfiddler Road Lot 3, Sandbridge Princess Anne District #7 GPIN: ZONING: R-20 YEAR BUILT: 1977 AICUZ: Less than 65 db DNL applicants are requesting a variance to allow an existing elevated pool deck to remain with a 1.4 side yard setback, rather than 15 as required. The applicants obtained a permit for an in-ground swimming pool. The applicants also extended existing retaining walls adjacent to the pool. The pool is unique in that it is located between two oceanfront homes and was constructed into a sand dune. Topographic conditions and substantial grade changes around the pool have resulted in the need for a variance for the decking. The Building Official has determined that the swimming pool is technically an in-ground swimming pool and does not require a variance. An existing retaining wall was extended northward, approximately 8 toward the applicant s home and decking was installed around the pool out to the new wall. They also replaced an existing retaining wall on the east side of the pool approximately 2 seaward of the prior retaining wall and extended pool decking out to the new wall. The height of this decking is at the same grade height as the land/sand around the entire in-ground pool. Pool decking within the required 15 side yard setback requires a variance because it is above 16 in height. The applicants also installed a privacy fence on the south side of the pool to screen it from the adjoining residence. The site plan indicates that the portion of this fence within the 30 front yard setback will be reduced to 48 to meet the zoning requirement for fences. The site plan also indicates that the portion of the retaining wall that was built into the city right-of-way will be removed. The Building Code requires verification that the retaining walls supporting the pool meet certain specifications and the applicants have submitted a letter of verification from a structural engineer regarding the strength of the retaining wall. This letter is being reviewed by the Building Official. If approved, the following conditions should be required: 1. The decking shall remain as installed as shown on the revised site plan and shall not be expanded. 2. All retaining walls shall be removed from the public right-of-way, as shown on the submitted site plan. 3. Fencing within the 30 front yard setback shall be reduced to a height of 48, as shown on the submitted site plan.

8 Case #8 Melissa Salyer PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 9 foot rear yard setback (South side) instead of 20 feet as required (Existing Deck) LOCATION: 1217 Birdneck Lake Drive Lot 35, Birdneck Lakes Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: R-5D YEAR BUILT: 1985 AICUZ: Greater than 75 db DNL applicant had an irregularly shaped rear deck that she rebuilt, squaring it off. The goal was to create a larger deck space to be used as an outdoor play area for a daughter who has some physical challenges. The lot is irregularly shaped and approximately half of the deck does not meet the required 20 rear yard setback. When the home and original deck were constructed in 1985, the required rear yard setback was 10. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the new deck to remain in place with a 9 rear yard setback, rather than 20 as currently required. It should be noted that Camp Pendleton adjoins this lot, providing forested open space to the rear. If approved, the following condition should be required: The deck shall remain open and not be covered, enclosed or screened in.

9 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #9 Deborah White DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a modification of conditions of a setback variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on December 7, 2011 LOCATION: 1184 Birdneck Lake Drive Lot 47, Birdneck Lakes Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: R-5D YEAR BUILT: Home built in 1986, recent deck reconstruction AICUZ: Greater than 75 db DNL APPLICATION HISTORY: On December 7, 2011, the BZA granted the applicant a variance to allow a second story deck with a zero side yard setback on the north side. Although a 12 by 12 deck was proposed, the BZA approval allows the deck to extend no more than 5 feet from the dwelling within the required 8 side yard setback. At the January 2012 meeting, the BZA discussed a request from Ms. White to reconsider her application for the 12 by 12 deck, but the reconsideration was not granted. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: At his time, Ms. White is asking that the condition of approval be amended to allow a deck with a depth of 6, rather than the 5 approved in December. The applicant has confirmed that the former deck was 6 wide. Beyond the 8 side yard setback, the deck widens to 11, as permitted by right. The required rear yard setback of 20 is met by all portions of the deck. The Birdneck Lake subdivision was platted with a zero side yard setback and the deck will align with the existing home. Because the zero side yard setback option has been deleted from the zoning ordinance, existing lots platted with a zero side yard setback require a variance even to replace existing structures. The proposed 6 wide deck is in keeping with the original deck and the intent of the former zero lot line regulations. If approved, the following condition should be required: The deck is approved to extend 6 from the house within the required 8 side yard setback on the north. The deck shall not be enclosed, covered or screened in.

10 PREPARED BY: KAREN LASLEY Case #10 Dr. Gerald Einhorn DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: requests a variance to a 2 foot setback for side yards adjacent to a street (Pinewood Road) instead of 35 feet as required and to a modification of condition #1 of a variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 7, 2007 (Proposed Trellis on Existing Deck) LOCATION: 3102 Holly Road Ives Property Beach District #6 GPIN: ZONING: B-2, RMA YEAR BUILT: 1977 AICUZ: Greater than 75 db DNL HISTORY: A variance was approved by the BZA on January 18, 2006 to allow an addition to this shopping center unit for a kitchen. The variance was to side yard setback, and parking. Since this variance was approved, the parcel to the west has been rezoned from A-12 to RT-3 and the variance is not longer relevant. A second variance was approved by the BZA on February 7, 2007 to allow an uncovered deck with restaurant seating. The variance was to the parking requirement generated by the deck. A condition on this variance indicates that the deck cannot be covered or enclosed. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: At this time, the Terrapin desires to install a trellis over the outdoor eating area adjacent to Pinewood Road. The trellis installation will include planters, landscape material and ceiling fans. The trellis will be approximately 33 by 37 or 1,221 square feet. An elevation of the proposed trellis has been submitted showing that the trellis will enhance the outdoor eating space. A variance is required to allow the trellis to have a 2 setback from Pinewood Road, rather than the 35 required setback. Staff notes that in the resort area, outdoor cafes are strongly encouraged by both the Comprehensive Plan and the Resort Design Guidelines. The trellis will enhance the outdoor dining area, while maintaining an open and attractive streetscape along Pinewood Road. If approved, the following condition should be required: The trellis shall substantially adhere to the submitted site plan and architectural elevations and shall not be permanently enclosed.