Loading...
PZC Packet 081793PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 17, 1993 Lot 46, Block I, Wildridge Subdivision Lot 46B, Rear Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing PROJECT TYPE: Single Family Residence on a Duplex lot. ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES This item was tabled at the August 3, 1993 Commission meeting in order to obtain more information on the dimensions of the variance request. The applicants, John Pellerito and Christine Kinnard, are requesting a rear yard setback variance to allow an existing deck to remain on the residence located on Lot 46-B. The deck encroaches into the ten foot rear yard setback by one (1) foot. According to the submitted survey map showing the building location, no other setback encroachments exist. Therefore, the applicants are requesting relief from the 10 foot rear yard setback requirement of the Code. The applicants state that the deck was constructed prior to their purchase and were without knowledge of the foot encroachment. The issue was discovered following a survey for a Final Plat for a Duplex Subdivision of the property. SITE, CHARACTERISTICS: The wood deck is located between the residence and a 10' utility and drainage easement running along the rear property line. Because the house and deck are existing, the grades have been completed. The slope of the site in this location is generally uphill from the house to the rear property line. STAFF COMMENTS: Before acting on a variance application, the Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Section 17 36.40. Approval Criteria: A. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Comment. The encroachment has been in place for over a year and no complaints have been raised by adjacent property owners. Staff feel that there is no problem with the PLANNING AND ZONING COMTVHSSION STAFF REPORT August 17, 1993 Page 2 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Lot 46B Rear Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing relationship of the requested variance to edsting and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibly and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Comment. The applicant discovered the encroachment during survey work being done for a Final Plat for this property. The degree of relief is insignificant to the present and future use of this or adjacent properties. Staff feels that denial of the requested variance in order to achieve uniformity of treatment would be an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship to place on the applicants. C. The effect of the requested variance on fight and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Comment. The requested variance would have no effect on the above listed conditions or facilities. D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. Comment. Staff has not identified any other factors for the Commission to consider. FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 17, 1993 Page 3 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Lot 46B Rear Yard Setback Variance Request Public Hearing C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: L The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity, iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommendation is for approval. Staff feels that the request meets the required criteria necessary for approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, Y41' Steve Amsbau PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 17, 1993 Lot 46, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Lot 46B, Rear Setback Variance Request Public Hearing PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (V� Approved with recommended coLAitions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Sue Railton, Secretary The Commission granted approval for the side yard and rear yard setback variance, citing the following findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C That the variance is warranted for the following reason: 1 The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in parctical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. U s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 17,. 1993 Lot 88, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Monroe Residence Final Design Review PROJECT TYPE: Addition to Existing Residence o ZONING: PUD, Duplex COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES The applicant is requesting Final Design Review approval for a 340 sq. ft. addition to an existing duplex located in Wildridge Subdivision. The existing duplex was completed and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued on October 5, 1983. (The Design Review Board reviewed and approved the original application on June 3, 1981.) The proposed room addition is to be located over the existing residence and will replace an existing roof -top deck. Access to the room addition will be from an existing circular stairway. All exterior wall finishes and window treatments will match existing materials. The new roof overhand and parapet will match the existing roof line treatment. SITE PLAN: No Site Plan has been submitted because there will be no modification to the existing site grading or landscaping as a result of this action. BUILDING: Habitable Space, Existing. Proposed Addition Maximum Height. Roof Form. Exterior Wall Finish Exterior Wall Color Exterior Windows Other Building Issues: 2990 Square feet 340 Square feet 21 Ft., no change Flat Stucco to match existing surfaces White, to match existing structure New windows to match existing None i• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT a August 17, 1993 Lot Rlo4 Wildridge Subdivision Monroe Residence Final Design Review STAFF COMMENTS OR CONCERNS: Applicant will provide a letter from the owner of the adjacent residence (duplex) in su!)port of this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends design review approval for an addition to Monroe residence located on Lot 88, Block 4, Wildwood Subdivision. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Commission Review 4. Commission Action Respectfully submitted, 2YemsbVh T H N CD O OI oI I1 LJ o s i' j � I c] • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 17, 1993 • Lot Bieck 4 Wildridge Subdivision Monroe Residence Final Design Review PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (v� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date -9//7/'173 Sue Railton, Secretary./ � The Commission qranted final design approval for the requested addition to the Monroe residence. n, PLANNING AND ZONING COMUSSION STAFF REPORT August 3, 1993 Lot 69, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Brethauer Single Famill, residence Final Design Review, Submittal of Requested Information On August 3, 1993, the Commission granted Final Design Approval with the following conditions: 1. Within the next month, the applicant re -submit a revised south retaining wall which meets the criteria of the Town as far as structural stability; and 2. A revised landscape plan be included for the revised south retaining wall. The applicant has prepared the requested information and is requesting Final Approval. Prior to the Commission meeting, Staff will complete a technical review of the re- submittal. phisbau submitted, S Director ofCommunity Development PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (✓� Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date g 3 Sue Railton, Secretary K�— The Commission granted final design approval of the submitted information with the recommendation that if the retaining walls reach a height that the Town has to require structural engineering on it, that they do so. 0. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 17. 1993 Lot 32, Block 1, Benchmark at Heaver Creek Beck Commercial Building - Conceptual Design Review Request for Conceptual Design Review for a Light Industrial/Commercial Building PROJECT TYPE: Commercial Buiieing ZONING: IC - Light Industrial and Commercial COMPLIES WITH ZONING? YES The applicant has requested Conceptual Design Review to assist in the development of Final Design Plans. The submittal is for a light industrial/commercial building on Lot 32, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. This building matches the existing commercial building on Lot 33, directly to the west. SITE PLAN: A site plan has been submitted by the applicant which shows access from Nottingham Blvd. Parking must meet the minimum parking requirements for the existing building on Lot 33 and parking for the proposed building on Lot 32. A driveway is proposed to connect the existing parking area to the west with the proposed parking for this building. The driveway approach from Nottingham Road will be flat with grades within the parkin3 area under 4% slope. The proposed building will be set into the hillside on the northeast, requiring a cut of approximately 16 feet at the northeast comer of the building. The site area is approximately one half acre. BUILDING: The proposed building footprint is 4013 square feet and will be approximately 21 feet in height. The building will have a flat roof and finishes will match the existing, adjacent building on Lot 33. As a Conceptual Review, the Staff has no formal recommendation. Detailed building, parking and landscape plans will be reviewed following application for Final Design Review. Respect ly Submitte , a. --- Steve Amsbaugh V [• r°r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EM August 17, 1993 Lot 32, Block i, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Beck Commercial Building -Conceptual Design Review Request forConceptual Design Review for a Light ndustrial/Commercial Building PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted ( ) Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn ( ) ' Conceptual, No Action ( ✓j Date S / 3 Sue Railton, Secretary . 419,L X'�X'Z 4s this was a conceptual design review, no formal action was taken at this time. The Commission felt that this was a good project and urged the applicant to continue. They also asked the applicant to pass on to the owner that the best side of Lot 33 should be cleaned up as this is a very visible corner.