Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/21/2000 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING - .TUNE 21, 2000 Present: Mr_ Rodney McNeil Mr_ Eldon Karr Mr. Thomas Mr. Jones Mr, Wright Mr, Tim Beard Mr. McNeil called the ineeting to order at 7:00 p.,m. Mr, Wright moved approval of the agenda. Mr, Jones seconded the motion which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTS Reconsideration of variance requested by Daryl and Sonya David of Section 30-41 - 3.(B)4 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required front yard (corner) setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. The purpose of this request is to construct an attached garage located at 5505 Galloway Circle, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Mr.. Karr moved to reconsider the David's request since all five Board members were not present at the .Tune 21 hearing at which time a vote on the applicants' request ended in a tie. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion to reconsider. The petitioners described their situation rioting that any driveway widening done would not cross into state right --of -way. Mrs. David spoke of the small size of the lot, easements onsite and how the minimum 30- foot setback requirement on both streets unfairly penalizes corner lot owners. Mr. Wright moved to approve the request due to the recurring nature of corner lot setback requests in addition to the specific circumstances present at the petitioners' site. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion which carried with the following vote: AYES: McNeil, Thomas, Wright NAYS: .Tones, Karr ABSENT: None 1 Variance requested by Tolin Caputo for Rainbow Sign Company of the following sections of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance: 30- 93.1 L(A) and 30- 93- 13.(E)5 to increase the square footage of a nonconforming freestanding sign from approximately 100 square feet to 196 square feet and increase allowable height from 25 feet to 54 feet; Sections 30- 93- 11:.(A) and 30- 93- 13.(E)5 to increase the square footage of a nonconforming free - standing sign from approximately 192 square feet to 224 square feet and to increase the allowable height of said sign from 25 feet to 32 feet; and Section 30- 93- 13.,(E)2 to increase signage on a lot in excess of its maximum sign area allocation located at 3915 Brarribleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Mr. Caputo presented the case on behalf of Cave Spring Corners tenants, Kroger and Ames. He noted that both signs need refurbishing, that ISroger's difficulty is a loss of visibility since the drugstore onsite now bears the Kroger name and is not independent as previous pharmacies at this location have been. The applicant stated that he is not seeking to raise the height of the two signs existing heights of 32 and 54 feet, respectively), rather to reinstall sign faces within existing frameworks. Mr. Caputo was not sure of the dates of original construction of the sign structures, Mr. Wright asked the applicant to clarify particular locations and sizes of proposed sign faces to be inserted into each sign. Mr. Jones asked if lowering the Ames sign had been considered, Mr. Caputo replied that he does not have authority from Ames to offer such a change. Concerning the Ames sign, Mr. Wright moved to approve the request with the condition that support columns not be disturbed and that total height (existing at 54 feet) not be altered. Mr. Karr seconded the motion which carried with the following vote: AYES: McNeil, Karr, Thomas, Wright NAYS: Jones ABSENT: None Concerning the Kroger /Cave Spring Corners sign, Mr. Jones moved to approve the request with the condition that total height (existing at 32 feet) not be altered. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion which carried with the following vote: AYES: McNeil, Karr, Thomas, Jones, Wright NAYS: None ABSENT: None Concerning the request to increase overall signage on the property already in excess of its allowed maximum, Mr. Wright moved to approve the petition.. Mr, Karr seconded the motion which carried with the following vote: AYES: McNeil, Karr, Thomas, Jones, Wright NAYS: None ABSENT: None 3. Variance requested by Lowell and Sarah Eller of Section .30 -100 -1 L(A) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to create a family exemption subdivision within an existing Planned Residential Subdivision, The purpose of this request is to create a 1,355 acre parcel for sale to a daughter and son -in -law located at 4410 Harborwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Attorney Jeff Dorsey representing the Ellers opened discussion of this request stating that the C. Dan Coleman subsivision, within which the applicants property lies, is not a Planned Residential Subdivision as defined by the ordinance. Mr. Dorsey noted in his opinion that this subdivision is not an "integral, residential neighborhood unit" since most standard features built into subdivisions (curb and gutter, etc), are not present here, that one of the nine subdivision lots is greater than five acres in size and that the total area of the Eller lot (4,09 acres), width of the tract at its south end (over 300 feet) and the degree of separation from either side property line to the potential future building site (over 100 feet) makes a variance appropriate in this instance.. Attorney Wil Dibling introduced opposing landowners Sam Lazzaro, Linda Graham and Ed Blankenship. Their comments involved privacy issues and the lack of a public road at the subject location.. Mr. Dibling noted his complete agreement with the staff report, particularly spirit and harmony of the ordinance, Community Plan comments and an approval here would set a precedent to allow family exemptions throughout the county, even in Planned Residential Subdivision. Mr. Dorsey then noted that because of the recordation date of the Coleman subdivision (1987), P.R.S provisions do not apply. Sarah Eller stated that the dwelling proposed for the family exemption would be in line with nearby real property values, that all covenants would be complied with, that absolute minimum grading at construction would occur and and that, had she and Mr. Eller known in the first two years of ownership (1990 - 1992), they would have created the family exempt lot prior to the ordinance prohibition on such exemptions (begirming in 1992 with the appearance of Planned Residential Subdivision language), Mr.. Karr moved to deny the request based on the lack of a demonstrable hardship shown per ordinance requirements and the possibility of the petitioners filing an administrative appeal over whether or not this subdivision meets the Planned Residential Subdivision definition. Mr. Jones seconded the motion which carried with the following vote: AYES: Darr, Thomas, Jones NAYS: McNeil, Wright ABSENT: None Approval of Minutes: Mr. Karl° moved to approve the minutes of May 17, 2000, Mr, Jones seconded the motion which carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p,m.. Respectfully submitted, ! J I-VIrI Timothy Beard, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals