MINUTES
Members Present: Jim Rockis,
Bernie Bossio, Mark Furfari, and Jim Shaffer.
Members Absent: Nick Iannone.
Staff Present: Lisa
Mardis, Deputy Planning Director.
OLD BUSINESS:
1.
TABLED V06-19 / Bjorkman /
Motion
to take off the table by Bossio, second by Shaffer. Motion carried unanimously.
Mardis
read the staff report stating that the petitioner seeks to raze the existing
two structures and construct a three-story, twelve two-bedroom multi-family
structure on the subject realty. The
Planning Commission approved the petitioner’s minor subdivision request in
August to combine the subject parcels contingent upon razing the structures. The petitioner’s Development of Significant
Impact Site Plan application hearing before the Planning Commission was
scheduled for September 13th and the application was approved.
Mardis
clarified that the proposed site plan (attached hereto) illustrates a one (1)
foot encroachment into the required five (5) foot southern side setback and a
three and a half (3.5) foot encroachment into the required 7.5 foot northern
side setback (adjacent to Sixth Street).
As such, the petitioner must obtain variances for said side setback
encroachments.
Addendum
A of this report illustrates the location of the subject realty, photographs of
the existing structures, and the petitioner’s proposed front elevation.
|
Height,
Bulk, Area, and Density |
||
|
Development
Standard |
Provision |
Provided |
|
Height |
2-4 stories |
3 stories |
|
|
4,000 sq. ft. |
7,320 sq. ft. |
|
Setbacks |
Min. Front – 5’ Min. Side – 7.5’ along Min. Rear - 20 ft. |
Front – 5’ Side – 4’ along Rear – 20’ |
|
Maximum
|
60% or 4,392 sq. ft. |
3,136 sq. ft. |
Bill
Bjorkman, applicant, explained that the current building has 4’ setbacks.
Bossio
asked for public comments. There being
none, the public portion was closed.
Mardis
explained that the proposed project represents the redevelopment of aging
structures to housing that will meet modern building code and fire code design
standards. The final product appears to
support the “Sunnyside Up” vision by increasing density while providing sufficient
parking and enhancing the quality and character of the neighborhood. The Board of Zoning Appeals must determine
whether the proposed request meets the standard criteria for a variance by
reaching a positive determination for each
of the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the variances as
requested by finding in the affirmative for Finding of Fact #4 as presented by
the petitioner and in the affirmative for the remaining Findings of Fact as
suggested below:
1.
V06-21 / Lee / Pennsylvania Avenue: Request by Eric
Lee for variance approval from zoning ordinance 402.07 Bufferyard Landscaping
Requirements, A. which states, “New non-residential or multi-family residential
buildings that abut a residential property (zoned or use) shall provide a
landscape buffer ten (10) feet wide planted with five (5) medium to large trees
and ten (10) to fifteen (15) shrubs per 100 linear feet of transitional yard
between the non-residential and residential uses. This requirement may supersede the minimum
setback requirement for the district.” For property located on
2.
V06-22 / Three Arrows, LLC /
Mardis
read the staff report stating that the petitioner seeks to build a
single-family dwelling on the subject realty.
The location of the structure is proposed at 135 feet from the front
property boundary, which exceeds the maximum front yard setback of twenty (20)
feet set forth in the “Development Standards Table” (Appendix A) of the Zoning
Ordinance. As such, the applicant must
obtain a 115 foot variance. Addendum A
of this report illustrates the location of the subject realty.
Dave
Delaney, representing Three Arrows, LLC, observed that all the houses in the
vicinity exceed the 20’ setback and they are staying within the character of
the community.
Furfari
asked where access to the house would be at the end of the street.
Delaney
replied that the driveway will be just past the last driveway
Mardis
had a plan that was not included because of computer malfunctions.
Bossio
asked for public comments. There being
none, the public portion was closed.
Mardis
advised that the petitioner is concurrently asking for minor subdivision
approval by the Planning Commission.
Approval of the subject variance petition should be made contingent upon
approval of the minor subdivision petition.
Last week, the petitioner received permission by the Planning Commission
for minor subdivision approval. The
Board of Zoning Appeals must determine whether the proposed request meets the
standard criteria for a variance by reaching a positive determination for each of the “Findings of Fact” submitted
by the applicant.
Mardis
explained that Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested with the
above condition and the following amendments to the findings of fact.
#2. The predominant setback trend for existing
structures along
#3. The proposed setback conforms to the
trends of surrounding structures thereby contributing to the character of the
neighborhood.
Bossio
asked why we have a maximum setback and if it is the same in every district.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Public
Comments: None.
Staff
Comments: None.
There
was discussion about how information is presented by applicants.
ADJOURNMENT: 6:59
p.m.