Day replied “no”. Chairman Soule indicated that these exhibits would be made part of the record.

2

Mr. Day, referencing the submittal packet which had already been distributed to the members, explained that the Eidelman’s have a 4 year old and a 1 year old; that they purchased the property 4 months ago and moved in 1 month ago. He stated that they did some minor interior work prior to their move-in and would like to connect the existing detached garage to the house.

Mel Disney asked if the garage currently has an existing man-door; noting that there was no floor plan included in the submittal, only a site plan.

Mr. Day replied “yes”.

Mel Disney asked how the owners will enter the house.

Mr. Day indicated that glass in the sunroom will be converted to a door.

Rick Bliss asked why the garage is situated where it is now.

Mr. Day replied that he did not know; he believes the garage was built for one to two owners ago.

Rick Bliss stated that he spoke with the previous owner of the property who was the one who had the garage/accessory structure built and he understands that it was placed where it is because that was the only place to put it to meet setbacks. He questions if the rules have changed or not (since 1998) but knows that it was not originally connected to the house was because it would not have met setbacks.

Mr. Day stated that things are different because the new owners, the Eidelmans, would like the two structures connected.

Rick Bliss referred to one of the questions on the application referring to practical difficulties and asking if the property can be used for what it is zoned; noting that the answer was “no” but the “why not” was not answered.

Louis Clayton informed Rick that the question is misleading and that the question “can the property be used for what it is zoned” has just been taken out. He advised the members to refer to pages 4 and 5 for the follow-up questions/answers.

Chairman Soule questioned if they were answering “no” to the previous comment.

Louis Clayton indicated that he does not know.

Rick Bliss referred to Page 3 of the staff report, questioning the increase in fire hazard if the two structures are connected.

Louis Clayton indicated that he does not know. Rick Bliss referred to Page 3 of the staff report, questioning the increase in fire hazard if the two structures are connected.

3

Mr. Day indicated that he doesn’t believe there is an increased fire risk; no more than there is now.

Mel Disney asked what will happen to the existing garage man-door as it will become an interior door.

Mr. Day stated it will be a 1 ¾ solid fire-rated door.

Chairman Soule asked if the existing detached structure meets the setback requirements for accessory structures.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if, in staff’s opinion, it would be difficult to add a garage onto the existing structure and meet setbacks.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”, noting that the existing principal structure already does not meet setback requirements.

Chairman Soule asked if the addition is 118 square feet.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if the garage has been in existence since 1998.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if, in staff’s opinion, this addition will have no negative impact on adjacent properties.

Louis Clayton replied “that is correct”.

Chairman Soule asked if this is considered a small addition.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if staff agrees that granting this variance would not be a detriment to the public safety and won’t impair light or air to adjacent properties or be a safety concern.

Louis Clayton agreed.

Chairman Soule asked if the existing buildings and landscaping will provide visual screening of the addition.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked the applicant if he had any objections to these exhibits being made part of the record.

Mr. Voellinger replied “no”.

Chairman Soule indicated that these exhibits would be made part of the record.

Mr. Voellinger asked that the survey he brought with him that highlights the setback lines be marked as an exhibit and entered into the record.

Chairman Soule asked if it was included in the submittal.

Mr. Voellinger indicated that the survey was included, but it was not highlighted. He stated that they bought the house 4 years ago and studied the zoning laws for R-2. He noted that this unique

He stated that they bought the house 4 years ago and studied the zoning laws for R-2. He noted that this unique

5

lot has three “front” yards by Code and one rear yard and that if setbacks were met, the lot would be unbuildable.

Chairman Soule asked about the unique lot (noting the three front yards).

Mr. Voellinger stated that the code does not address three front yards and that it is a unique challenge. He noted that the driveway is right off Hanley Road and leads to a tuck-under, 2-car garage. He stated that they attempted to keep the tuck-under garage and that the remainder of the planned work meets setbacks.

Chairman Soule asked if the lot has an irregular shape as well.

Louis Clayton replied “yes” and reiterated the uniqueness of having three front yards.

Chairman Soule asked if that reduces the buildable area.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if the placement of the house on the lot is challenging as well.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”. He explained that the yard opposite the yard with the lesser street frontage is, by definition, the rear yard; in this case, the front yard functions more as a side yard.

Chairman Soule noted that 17-foot distance from the south property line. He asked if this is a typical side yard for a lot of this size.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if the structure will be partially screened by a wall (along Hanley Road).

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if staff believes that air and light will not be negatively impacted by this addition.

Louis Clayton indicated that he was correct.

Liza Streett, referencing Page 5 of the plans {west elevation}, noted the garages face Polo Drive. She asked if any consideration was given to make the doors face south, noting there may be Code issues with a street facing garage.

Mr. Voellinger indicated that Polo Drive is unique due to the lot shapes and that there are 8 or 9 front facing garages.

Chairman Soule asked staff if there is a regulation prohibiting front (street) facing garages.