17-75 Special Exception 806 Howard Street

Home Browse Search

Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 upper storage dwelling unit is an appropriate Special Exception use of this property. They meet the criteria as set for that. In terms of the variances it's kind of one of those unique things that are our ordinance doesn't adequately address and it's actually again'on our list of things to fix in the new year. When someone seeks a Special Exception we currently make them bring the entire site up to standards. We wrote in a provision into the ordinance a couple of years ago when you rezone your building and your setbacks become legal non-conforming. So if this was a rezoning for instance they would not need to get the setbacks for the building,they would not need to get the setbacks for the parking. They would however need to look at the parking number and the landscaping. The landscaping that they're requesting for the parking screening would essentially require them to rip up the alley and put in shrubs which would block the access. So we would not want to encourage that so we support that variance for the landscape,for the parking screening. The other landscaping,as I understand,will be installing. The parking reduction, in the staff's opinion,was determined in 1992 by the approval of the Board in terms of the office competent so we were strictly looking at the additional parking that would be required for the residential dwelling unit and the Staff's opinion the availability of on street parking that would require, a dwelling unit requires two additional spaces. I believe they said the reconfiguration might add a third. So three spaces could adequately be handled in the space provided adjacent to that. So with that the Staff recommendation on this is favorable for the Special Exception and approval of the variances. Is there any questions? I will say that I have read some of the letters. The height for this District is not in question by the Board. They are allowed to build up to 50' in height within the"0"Office District. That item is not under consideration... MR.CRUMLISH: There's no variance then for the additional area? MRS.SMITH: There's no variance needed for the height of the building and there's also no maximum floor area requirement for the"0"Office District. So the only impact of the area would be the impact on the parking calculations. MR.CRUMLISH: Can you address the ADA parking variance? MRS.SMITH: The ADA parking variance actually depending on you outcome, may or may not be necessary. The ADA parking spaces are based on the number of spaces provided so in 1992 when the variances was granted down to 4 spaces one of those four spaces would have to be ADA compliant. So if the variance is granted from the requirement to 4,the variance for the ADA spaces would not be necessary because only one of those spaces would need to be ADA compliant. So that variance is kind of not really needed. MR. URBANSKI: May I ask a question of the presenter? When looking at the drawing of the proposed three story,what side of that faces Howard? MR. MURPHY: Yes, Howard is to the left. That's where the porch is. MR. HAWLEY: The exterior is all brick? MR. MURPHY: Correct. MR. URBANSKI: I have been on this Board in excess of twenty years, I have never seen this amount of letters in opposition. MR.CRUMLISH: I'll mention the letters in a minute. MR. URBANSKI: The contact with the neighbors and the people in the area, I understand that if they were to look at the remodeling of a building similar to"the original building", have they been notified of what the new building would look like? MR. MURPHY: These images have been shared with the neighbors immediately to the south,who are in attendance today,and also with the NENC Board. So yes that drawing is out there. It's the same drawing. 13