Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/09/2000 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2000 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; William Ford; Louis Giglio; Ismail Ismail and Michael O'Leary STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Sean and Diana Casey, 6292 Chasewood Drive; Jeff Gafne, Landscape Architect CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Ford called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: William Ford, Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail and Michael O'Leary(arrived at 7:10 p.m.). Absent: Cliff Dunham I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/Giglio, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried, 3-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of October 12, 2000. Motion/Second: Ismail/Giglio, to approve the October 12 minutes as published. Motion carried, 3-0. III: VARIANCES Request#2000-11 by Sean and Diana Casey, 6292 Chasewood Drive, to construct an accessory structure (gazebo) one-foot from the west side property line. (Code requires a ten-foot minimum setback.) Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals November 9, 2000 Sean Casey stated that the variance request is based on the placement of a pre-fabricated gazebo and is necessary because of the topography of the backyard. Casey explained that in order to have a playground for their children they want to place the gazebo as far back as possible out of the way and out of the view of the neighbors. They did hire a landscape architect to design the backyard. Their yard is very wooded and one of their stipulations for the design was that as many trees as possible be saved and little disturbance to the neighbors and the hillside be performed. Casey stated that in the process of doing the landscaping in the backyard it became evident that two mature trees in the yard would prevent placement of the gazebo without intruding on the five-foot easement. Casey said he believes there will be no further construction that will require additional utilities. They did consult with the surrounding neighbors prior to requesting the variance and they have no objection to the requested variance. Casey explained that the gazebo is 13 feet in diameter and is screened. The adjoining neighbor in the back does have a fence that is five feet from the point at which their easement starts. The proposed location of the gazebo would be 11 feet from the existing fence. Casey displayed pictures of the proposed location for the gazebo. He indicated that placing the gazebo five feet from the property line would require the removal of two mature trees. The proposed location is the most logical. Casey indicated that they did purchase the gazebo prior to knowing that a variance would be required. Also, the proposed location of the gazebo would allow them to see their children in the backyard from the deck of the house. If the gazebo were placed directly in front of the steps, it would block their sight of their children playing on the play structure. Jeff Gafner, landscape architect for the petitioners, explained that they did push the play area further forward to keep the trees in place on the property and the play area was worked around the existing trees. Placement of the gazebo as proposed would give the Casey's the best alternative for viewing their children in the play area. Giglio pointed out that if there is a need for some type of utility the applicant would have to move the gazebo. Gafner explained that the gazebo is bolted on pier footings and may be moved. Ismail asked if the only reason the applicant is not placing the gazebo closer to the deck is for sight of the children in the play area. Casey said he does not believe this is a very viable option. Diana Casey explained that placing the gazebo closer to the deck would put it almost at the entrance of the backyard and that corner is very visible to the cul-de-sac. Ismail pointed out that the request seems to be based on two trees upon a lot that has many trees, and he suggested that the applicant look at alternative locations for placement of the gazebo. Gafner explained that the design of the gazebo is such that if it were moved closer to the trees and the door were facing the home it would be obstructing any access to the backyard. Also, the closer to the trees it is placed the view from the house will become more obstructed. Casey said if they are not granted the variance they would have to remove the two large trees. 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals November 9, 2000 Ford opened the public hearing. Having no one appear,Ford closed the public hearing. Johnson presented the staff report stating that the property is in a development where the houses were built in the 1980's and early 1990's. The applicant could construct the gazebo upon the lot meeting the required ten-foot setback from the side/rear lot lines or construct the gazebo five feet from the west side lot line outside of the utility easement. Another option would be to build a screen porch on a portion of the existing deck. There is a possibility of needing the five-foot utility easement for other future utility projects. The applicant has indicated that the structure would be portable. Johnson stated that if the Board approves the request, a condition be placed on the approval that if necessary. The owners are responsible for moving the structure; and they also check with the engineering department to determine if they should vacate the easement. Johnson indicated that notices were sent to the surrounding neighbors and City staff did not receive any inquiries; only the letters submitted this evening in support of the variance. Casey explained that the deck is relatively small and is pie shaped. It does not allow for much more than a table and grill. In response to Giglio's question about future development in the area, Johnson responded that the area is completely developed but there may be other cable companies that will receive rights to the utility easement work. If this request is approved, it will be the applicant's responsibility to move the gazebo for any utility easement work. Ismail asked if the applicant would be in agreement to that. Casey said they would move the gazebo if necessary rather than remove the two trees at this time. O'Leary said he does not have a real strong objection to this request. He did point out that the two trees in question are poplar trees, which grow relatively fast and could be replaced. Giglio pointed out that since there are no utilities in the easement, it is unlikely that they would be required to move the gazebo. However, Giglio said there may be some concern for new neighbors. Ismail said he is not comfortable in approving this variance request. He has not heard any strong reasoning for granting this variance. He suggested that the applicant do more homework in investigating alternate locations for the gazebo. Ismail said he is unable to support the request. Ford pointed out that this is a fairly extreme request, a nine-foot variance. Ford asked the applicant if this is an all or nothing request. He asked if they would be able to work with a five-foot variance. Mr. Casey said that they would still be required to remove the two trees with the five-foot variance. However, if the gazebo is placed where requested, it would not be seen from the street. The applicants also have neighborhood support. The one big negative to this request is that it is a large request. 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals November 9, 2000 The Board reviewed various alternate locations for the gazebo with the applicant. The applicant indicated that the best location is the proposed location. They may be able to work with an eight-foot variance and the architect indicated that that may be manageable. Motion/Second: Giglio/O'Leary to approve a modified request to construct a gazebo two feet from the west side lot line with the condition that the utility easement is the responsibility of the homeowner and if any time in the future a qualified utility needs access the gazebo will be moved at the homeowner's expense and there will be no liability to the City or utility company. The hardship for this request is the topography of the land and the homeowner's desire to save two mature trees. Discussion: Ford said the gazebo will be set out of the way and the homeowner does have the support of the neighbors. However, he does have a problem with the extent of the variance. Ismail said he agrees and feels the eight-foot or nine-foot request is too great. Vote was called on the motion with Ford and Ismail voting nay. The motion failed, 2-2. Motion/Second: Giglio/O'Leary to approve the request to construct a gazebo five feet from the west side lot line. Giglio said this would allow the applicant to build the gazebo out of the easement but would require him to lose the two trees. Discussion: Ford indicated to the applicants that the Board could move to table this item until the next meeting. The applicant indicated that he would prefer to do that than to have to remove the two trees as would be required with the five-foot variance. Following discussion, Giglio withdrew his motion and O'Leary withdrew his second. Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to continue Variance Request#2000-11 to the December 14, 2000 meeting. The motion carried, 4-0. VI. OLD BUSINESS Johnson explained the makeup of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. She indicated that the Board will consist of five to seven people. When there are five members a quorum will consist of three. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals November 9, 2000 VII. NEW BUSINESS The December meeting will include this item and possibly an additional item. At the first meeting in January there will be student representatives attending and they will monitor the meeting. They will participate in discussion but will not vote. Giglio indicated that it is difficult for him to make the meeting by 7:00 p.m. and asked that the Board discuss at their next meeting the possibility of changing the meeting time to 7:30 p.m. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Giglio/O'Leary, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried, 4-0. 5