Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/11/1999 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1999 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Kathy Nelson, Chairperson; Cliff Dunham; William Ford; Louis Giglio; Ismail Ismail; Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Dan Kleinpaste, VP Corporate Services, American Baptist Homes Ken Thygesen, 7013 Beacon Circle CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: William Ford, Cliff Dunham, Ismail Ismail and Mary Vasaly Absent: Kathy Nelson, Louis Giglio and Michael O'Leary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/Vasaly, to approve the agenda as presented_Motion carried, 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of January 14, 1999 Motion/Second: Vasaly/Ford, to approve the January 14 minutes as presented. Mr. Ford asked staff to verify the first sentence on the second page, that a portion of the property discussed in Request 99-01 was within the MUSA. Ms. Johnson indicated that a small portion of it is and that statement is correct. Motion carried, 3-0-1 with Ismail abstaining because of absence from that meeting. III: VARIANCES A. Request 99-02 by American Baptist Homes for 11985 Technology Drive to expand office rooms onto existing decks resulting in two less parking stalls on- site than required by Code. Mr. Dan Kleinpaste, Vice President for Corporate Services, American Baptist Homes, 11985 Technology Drive, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Kleinpaste presented additional information to the Board which he thought would help clarify their request for the variance. The information explained in detail why they feel the variance is a legitimate request. There are two deck areas under the current roof line of the existing building and they are requesting that these areas be enclosed to enable them to convert them into a conference room and an expansion of their staff services. Mr. Kleinpaste stated that initially they did consider seeking other housing at another location, however, after consulting with the City, they decided to proceed with an expansion on the site to accommodate their growth and to request a variance for a possible additional expansion. Mr. Kleinpaste explained that they are adding a sufficient amount of office and storage space to allow them to remain on this site. The advantage they would have would be the additional conference room which would allow them to hold a number of meetings in-house rather than using off-site facilities. Mr. Ismail said he had noticed that they are currently doing work on the facility. Mr. Kleinpaste explained that that is correct. This is the space that is not impacted by this variance request. This is an addition to their facility and was approved under the normal administrative review process and the existing parking for this addition is well within the parking guidelines. Mr. Kleinpaste further explained that the construction Mr. Ismail observed is on the north side of the project. Ms. Vasaly indicated that the petitioner has stated that this variance is needed in order for them to have conference room space. However, Ms. Vasaly pointed out that there are quite a few existing rooms that seem to be the same size as the proposed conference room. She asked why these existing rooms could not be used for a conference room. Mr. Kleinpaste explained that they have looked at doing that, however, they have grown dramatically over the last two years. All of those offices have been assigned. To use one of these areas as a conference room would remove their ability to adequately house their staff. Also, other offices will be used for additional storage. The existing office space is needed much more than the proposed conference room. Ms. Vasaly asked how long they feel this expansion will accommodate their business. Mr. Kleinpaste indicated that the are projecting ten ears. Once the proposed Y P J g Y remodeling is completed, there will be three additional employees on board. The addition gives them the ability to address their future office needs. Ms. Vasaly said she understands that this addition represents growth for them, however, the concern is parking. Given the increase of employees, she questioned if this increase will further Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals February 11, 1999 affect the parking. Mr. Kleinpaste said they have reviewed the parking situation including the increased employees and have found on an average work day, there are between 12 and 16 cars parked in the lot. Even if they have a Board Committee meeting, all but four stalls are used. Mr. Ford asked how many employees are currently located at this facility and how many existing parking spaces. Mr. Kleinpaste responded that they have 16 employees on-site and they have a potential for 33 parking stalls. They are proposing to remove an existing island which will give them two additional spaces. Currently they have 28 existing stalls. The island is proposed to be removed in the spring which will bring them up to 33 stalls. Mr. Ford pointed out that if the island is removed, the petitioner will have 30 spaces which still results in them being short five spaces. Mr. Kleinpaste explained that there will be adequate space to add the necessary spaces and still maintain the setbacks. They have been working with the City on this. Mr. Dunham questioned if they are removing spaces or if because of the additional square footage they will be short. Mr. Kleinpaste said they are not removing spaces but the addition requires two additional spaces. Mr. Ismail asked what type of business American Baptist Homes runs and if it involves customers coming to the facility. Mr. Kleinpaste explained that primarily they provide senior services and their clients do not come to the facility. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report to the Board stating that this building was originally approved in 1983, prior to the Shore Land Code. Staff did look at this proposed addition and compared it to other uses around the lake. The proposed addition does require two additional parking stalls. The only location to add the parking spaces would be on the west side which spaces would then be too close to the water line. Staff does not favor parking with the shore land variances. Ms. Johnson said that notices had been mailed to surrounding property owners and they have received no comments on this request. Mr. Ford said he feels one of the conditions of this variance should be that the petitioner has to add additional parking spaces. He asked if this would be appropriate. Ms. Johnson explained that City staff prefers less asphalt and more green space if the facility does not need the parking spaces. However, the space for parking must be there should it be needed in the future but does not necessarily have to be actual parking spaces(proof-of-parking). Mr. Ford said then if they approve the variance for two spaces, the petitioner may not be required to build the additional spaces as required. Ms. Johnson said that is correct. As long as staff is comfortable with the number of 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals February 11, 1999 spaces on the site. Mr. Ismail questioned why the City divided this remodeling into two different projects even though the end result is the same. Ms. Johnson responded that the City did issue a permit for the building addition on the north side which meets Code for parking. The deck addition was separated because that portion of the remodeling does not meet Code and requires a variance for parking. Following discussion, Mr. Dunham opened the public hearing. No one appeared before the Board, therefore, Mr. Dunham closed the public hearing. Mr. Ford said he would support the variance. There appears to be adequate parking now and the request is relatively small considering they have existing spaces they are not using. Ms. Vasaly stated that this building was built prior to the shore land code. Adequate parking does exist and she does not see a significant increase of the use of the building which will require additional parking. Ms. Vasaly said she feels this is a minor request. Mr. Ismail said he would also support the request. This business does not attract outside customers which would require additional parking. Motion/Second: Ford/Vasaly, to approve Variance#99-02 to expand office rooms onto existing deck resulting in two less parking stalls on-site than required by Code. Mr. Ford said the hardship is the way the property is situated,water on 3 sides, does not allow room to add the additional parking. The motion carried, 4-0. B. Request 99-03 by Ken Thygesen, 7013 Beacon Circle, to construct a 14-foot wide third garage stall having a front yard setback of 24 feet (Code requires a 30-foot setback). Mr. Ken Thygesen, 7013 Beacon Circle, the homeowner, explained that he is looking at adding an additional third stall to his existing garage. Mr. Thygesen showed various pictures of the site and existing garage. He explained that his property abuts three public streets; Dell Road, Maple Leaf Drive and Beacon Circle. Because of the lot, the addition will not seem out of place nor will it stick out. There are seven lots in this cul- de-sac and of those, three have added a third stall garage. Ms. Vasaly asked Mr. Thygesen if he has discussed this addition with his neighbors. Mr. Thygesen said he has and none of the neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposed addition. Ms Vasaly asked the petitioner if he has explored any other options for placement of this third stall on the site. Mr. Thygesen responded that the only other way he could do this would be to place the addition on the back corner of the house; on 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals February 11, 1999 the Maple Leaf Drive side. He did not feel that architecturally it would look as nice and would require their entering the house through a bedroom. The proposed location seems to be the most conventional layout. Ms. Vasaly asked Mr. Thygesen why he needed this third stall. Mr. Thygesen said he has no basement and has very little storage. His home is a split-level and he has three children. The main use of this addition would be for storage. Mr. Ismail said he noticed that there are several residences in this neighborhood that have three-car garages. Mr. Thygesen said he feels the reason for this is because of the location and rather than move to get a three-car garage, the residents are adding on. Mr. Dunham asked if there would be additional storage above the proposed third stall. Mr. Thygesen explained that the space above this addition would be used in the master bedroom for part of the bedroom and for closet space. Mr. Dunham asked the petitioner how he arrived at a 14 foot wide addition rather than a 12 foot. Mr. Thygesen stated that the architects suggested this to make it worthwhile and it would be difficult to make it any longer because of the setback. Mr. Dunham questioned if there is any proposed landscaping. Mr. Thygesen said yes, he has been holding off on doing any landscaping until he was able to do the addition. This has been in the planning stages for several years. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report explaining that this lot does have three street frontages and is required to have a 30 foot setback from all abutting streets. In this particular area, the lots are usually one-third acre or larger. Notices were sent out to the residents and they did not produce any comments, letters or calls. Ms. Johnson explained that some of the options reviewed with the applicant were to build a detached storage facility on the site or to minimize the variance by constructing a 12 foot addition. Mr. Ismail said he is opposed to a detached building and asked Mr. Thygesen if he has considered building a 12 foot addition. Mr. Thygesen said he knew either sized addition would require a variance and he prefers the larger sized garage. Mr. Thygesen said he is investing a lot of money on this addition and he would like to maximize his investment. It would be less desirable to have a 12 foot garage because of his storage needs and for the room above the garage. Ms. Vasaly asked if the required 30-foot setback is a safety issue. Ms. Johnson responded that it is more for aesthetic purposes when looking at the homes down the street. 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals February 11, 1999 Mr. Ford pointed out that the way this block is laid out, there are no other homes that would be affected by this addition. Mr. Ford asked what the normal sized garage additions have been. Ms. Johnson said most come in at 10 feet or 12 feet. There have been some as narrow as 9 feet. Following discussion, Mr. Dunham opened the public hearing. No one appeared for the public hearing, therefore, Mr. Dunham closed the hearing. Mr. Ford said he does have a problem with the size of the variance and he feels it is fairly significant. The proposed garage is one of the larger ones this Board has reviewed. He said he would prefer to have the extent of the variance minimized. Also, he is concerned with the landscaping and he said he would like to discuss this further. Mr. Ford said he would be in favor of a smaller sized addition and could easily support a 12 foot addition with a landscaping plan. Mr. Ismail said he does not have difficulty with accepting a 14 foot expansion of the garage in this particular neighborhood and some very nice landscaping should take care of the aesthetic view. Ms. Vasaly said she agrees with Mr. Ford's comments. As a general matter, she does not think it is appropriate to grant variances just for additional space. She does not feel it would be a hardship of the type that they have seen on occasion. Yet, there are other factors to consider in this case. Ms. Vasaly said this is a unique situation in the type of lot the applicant has. Mr. Dunham said the hardship would be one of storage. If basements do not exist, storage does become a problem and this proposed addition would be valuable space. Mr. Dunham said the 14 foot addition is generous,but again, the additional 2 feet will not impact the neighborhood that much. Mr. Dunham said he was disappointed they did not have an opportunity to review the upstairs addition which may have had more of an impact. The comments on landscaping are very critical and if this item is approved, Mr. Dunham said he would like to see some large trees and/or evergreens planted. With landscaping, Mr. Dunham said he would support this variance request. Mr. Thygesen said he would be very happy to do the landscaping. It has never been a question as to whether or not it would be done. Motion/Second: Ismail/Vasaly, to approve Variance#99-03 to construct a 14 foot wide third garage stall having a front yard setback of 24 feet with the following condition: 1) That an appropriate landscaping plan be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to building permit issuance. 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals February 11, 1999 The motion carried, 3-1 with Mr. Ford voting nay. IV. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to be discussed. V. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Johnson explained that a letter had been sent out to three members of this Board whose terms were up in March asking them if they would be willing to serve until September. The variance request by Ryan Engineering on January 14 was appealed to the City Council. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board is scheduled for March 11 at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Johnson reported that they currently have one item for consideration. Mr. Ismail indicated that he would be absent from that meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Vasaly/Ford, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried, 4-0. 7