03-03-16 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

lot coverage of 44.2%for the proposed new house on the northern lot contrary to the provisions of Section 106-333 that allows a maximum lot coverage of 40%. The applicant planned to replat the property in order to demolish the second house and an accessory building in order to build the new proposed building.The garage of the main house requires a five foot setback from the new property line, which is the reason for the need of a frontage variance. City Planner said that the frontage variance forces the creation of a smaller lot,which triggers the lot coverage variance, even if the house is a similar size to those around it. Mr. Ensey confirmed that all requirements for public hearing notification have been met. Notices of the public hearing were mailed to all property owners located within 200'of the subject site. Three property owners were directly notified of the public hearing via mail. b. Applicant Presentation Chairman Rothermel swore in the applicant Kathleen Lemon. Ms. Lemon said that the setback variance was in order to match the neighbors' houses better aesthetically.The applicant also noted that they were only the lot coverage maximum percentage because of the fact that the house will have overhangs and decks and there is green space in the form of a sewer easement adjacent to her property. c. Public Comments There were no public comments. d. Question and Answer Nettie Warren asked if the roof overhangs do in fact count as part of the lot coverage percentage and City Planner Ensey confirmed that they did. Motion by Charles Schoppe to approve the the following variances: 1) A proposed lot frontage of 47' contrary to the provisions of Section 106-333 that requires a 50 foot frontage; 2)the northern lot will total 4,700 square feet in area contrary to the provisions of Section 106-333 that requires a minimum 6,000 square foot lot for single family development; 3) a front setback of 15 feet from the front property line contrary to Section 106-333 that requires a minimum setback of 25' from the front property line;4) a lot coverage of 44.2%for the proposed new house on the northern lot contrary to the provisions of Section 106-333 that allows a maximum lot coverage of 40%. Second by Nettie Warren. Motion Carries. Ayes: Rod Rothermel,T.J.Walker, Nettie Warren, and Charles Schoppe Nays: None Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read from Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances: Appeals from the Board of Adjustment.