HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 07/03/1985 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JULY 3, 1985 PAGE 4
Mr. Roskom stated that this is a special use for subsidized elderly housing, but
that it is being addressed as marketable elderly housing. It is the responsibility
of the Board to address this problem which the ordinance has.
Ms. Hintz added that the ordinance is the result of individual cases and it looks
like we are within the spirit of the ordinance.
Mr, Larson stated that he couldn't see where two units would make a difference, but
wasn't sure that the elderly would necessarily use less green space than a family.
Ms. Hintz moved approval of the 66 unit retirement service center apartment complex
with 2,913+ sq. ft. of lot area per unit. Motion seconded by Mr. Larson. Motion
carried 4 ®1.
With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Ames stated with reference to this specific
type of occupancy which the ordinance does not address, this is of such a nature
that the green space will not be for family usage.
Ns, Hintz stated that 87 sq. ft. is not the normal variation from the code, but felt
that their argument was relatively sound. She didn't feel that two units would
make a great deal of difference.
Mr. McGee stated that as far as he could see the intention of green space considers
the community at large, where children can play, The code does not differentiate
in favor of the elderly and other types of uses in providing green space.
III. 1395 Moreland Street e James T. Barry, Jr.
Mr. Roskom stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a four car accessory
building with an 11 ft. rear yard setback.
Mr. Russ Young, 2308 Jackson Drive, informed the Board that the property in back
of the site is the Shopko building. They planned to leave 25 ft. of green space
behind the garage. However, 1315 Moreland has 11 ft. behind the garage and they
discovered that the code requires 25 ft. If the variance is granted all of the
garages will be in conformity,
Ms. Hintz stated that in that area it seems pointless to require the 25 ft. As long
as there is enough room for emergency use, that is all that is necessary.
Mr. Larson asked about the size of the garage,
Mr. Young replied that it would be 24 ft. x 56 ft.
Ms. Hintz commented that with a garage of that length no one will have a use for
the property behind it. Lining up the garage with the rest of the neighborhood
will also look better aesthetically.
Mr. Ames stated that alleyways are protected by the ordinance. Most alleyways allow for
the buildings to be adjacent to it.
Ms. Hintz moved approval of the four car accessory building with an 11 ft. rear
yard setback. Motion seconded by Mr. Ames. Motion carried 5 -0.
With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Kimberly suggested that they stay in conformity
with the garages in the area; that there is no feasible use for the area behind the
structure.