Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/10/2001 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS &APPEALS THURSDAY, MAY 10,2001 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: Thomas Brooks, 13714 Carmody Drive; Mike Goergen, 6794 Boyd Avenue; Dave Johnson, 6806 Boyd Avenue; Shawn Cheesman, 6782 Boyd Avenue CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, William Ford, Louis Giglio and Michael O'Leary Absent: Ismail Ismail I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dunham explained that since Greg Olson was not present,they would not be administering the oath of office to him. Motion/Second: Ford/Giglio,to approve the agenda with the omission of swearing in of new member. The motion carried, 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 11,2001 Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ford, to approve the January 11 minutes as presented. Motion carried, 3-0-1 with Giglio abstaining because of absence from that meeting. III: VARIANCES Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals May 10, 2001 A. Request#2001-03 by Thomas and Lynn Brooks for 13714 Carmody Drive for approval to construct a 9' x 24'4"third stall garage addition having a side setback of three-feet from the side lot line (Code requires a five-foot setback). Thomas Brooks, 13714 Carmody Drive, explained that they currently have an undersized garage and have had difficulty with storing bikes. It is sometimes necessary for them to remove their cars from the garage in order to get the garbage cans out. Brooks further explained that they have consulted with two builders who have both recommended that he construct a nine-foot stall. A seven-foot addition would not require a variance, however, it would look like an addition and would not be as attractive as a nine-foot addition. Brooks said they want the addition to be as appealing to the neighborhood as possible. He explained that in order to make the addition look as natural as possible,they need a two-foot variance. The third stall would be the nine-foot standard width and the depth would be 24'4". Brooks said they did consider a shed in the back, however, that would not be as appealing to the neighborhood. Brooks did submit to the Board signatures from the surrounding neighbors in support of his request. The neighbor directly next to the proposed addition has no problem with it. Brooks said he feels this request is not out of the ordinary and is not for a gigantic addition but something that would have curb appeal and add to the neighborhood. If he were to build within the City Code, it would appear to be an add on. In response to a question from Dunham regarding the existing mailboxes, Brooks explained that the driveway would not affect the mailboxes. They are located on the curb and the drive will not be widened until after the curb. He also explained that the utilities would come into the back of the garage. Dunham asked how close the neighbor's deck comes to the lot line. Brooks responded that the deck is 12 feet from the lot line and the proposed addition would be three feet from the lot line for a total of 15 feet. Giglio asked if there are any utilities in the easement. Brooks explained that there is electrical and cable located in the easement. Ford asked if the petitioner has discussed landscaping with the abutting neighbor. Brooks responded that they will try to do something that is in keeping with what the neighbor wants and it makes no difference to him. Johnson presented her staff report stating that the request is for a three-stall garage, 9' x 24'4". The zoning is in the R1-9.5 district. The minimum lot size is 9,500 square feet with a five-foot minimum setback for the garage with no less than 15 feet total on both sides of that lot. This residential neighborhood was constructed in the 1990's and the homes along Carmody Drive predominately have double garages. Johnson explained that options discussed were construction of a detached storage building/garage behind the house and the construction of an eight-foot addition requiring a four-foot setback variance. A third option that could be considered is widening of the driveway to allow space for parking another vehicle without infringing on the use of the garage doors. Johnson said that if the Board should approve this request, a condition of approval 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals May 10, 2001 should include that the petitioner meet with the Engineering Department to determine whether or not a portion of the utility easement would need to be vacated. Giglio asked what the applicant would do if the variance were not granted. Brooks said he feels the addition would look jammed and as an attachment if they built within City Code. He also feels that a shed is not an attractive addition and the option of a larger driveway for parking a vehicle outside would not meet his needs. Ford asked for the history of a two-foot variance on a five-foot setback. Johnson responded that she did have that information available. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Dunham closed the public hearing. Ford said he feels the hard part about this request is the fact that the side yard setback is five feet. If they were looking at a two-foot variance on a ten-foot setback it would not be the same. With the setback and variance putting the garage so close to the lot line, they must be more concerned. O'Leary pointed out that part of the hardship would be the size of the lot. Dunham said he does not like the setback or the fact that the addition would be on the utility easement. O'Leary said he is not concerned about the easement since this neighborhood is pretty much developed. He is,however, concerned about the addition being so close to the neighbor. Giglio said he would prefer to see an addition built within Code without a garage door. He does not feel this is unattractive. He realizes this is not an ideal solution but this also is not a hardship. Ford explained that he would be unable to support any variance that allows construction that close to the property line. Motion/Second: Ford/Giglio to deny Variance Request 2001-03 based on the fact that three-feet is too close to the property line. The motion carried,4-0. B. Request#2001-04 by Mike and Leslie Goergen for 6794 Boyd Avenue for approval to construct a 12' x 20' third-stall garage addition having a side setback of seven feet (Code requires a minimum of a ten-foot setback). Mike Goergen, 6794 Boyd Avenue, explained that they need the additional space for three vehicles and for his two children's toys. He currently has a two-car garage and would like to keep all of his vehicles inside. This would not be the first three-car garage in the neighborhood; there are six other homes that have three-car garages. Goergen further explained that there is a 25-foot space between the property line and existing structures. There would be seven feet on one side and 19 feet on the other. This is an odd shaped lot and he would not be extending the driveway to the street. Goergen said if he were to place a storage shed in the back it would have to be rather large and access to it would be difficult because of the backyard elevations. Goergen said he also feels it would be an eyesore to the neighborhood and would not suit their needs. Goergen addressed a letter of opposition received from David and Lisa Johnson. The Johnson's 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals May 10, 2001 were concerned about the accuracy of the survey. Goergen explained that his builder did measure his property and came within a few inches of the certificate of survey. With regard to the Johnson's concern for the existing oak tree, Goergen said he did not believe the tree would be an issue. He did not feel they would encroach on the Johnson property. Goergen said he would be happy to have a tree expert come out and verify where the tree roots are located. Ford asked why the applicant requires a 12-foot addition rather than a nine-foot addition. Goergen explained that he does not want to remove an existing load bearing wall in the garage. The builder indicated that 12 feet is the minimum. An 11-foot addition would not accomplish what they want to do. Giglio asked why they didn't do a survey. Goergen responded that the builder did not feel it was necessary given the survey done in 1986. Dunham asked if the applicant has considered any landscaping. Goergen indicated that there is an existing tree on that side of the garage. If necessary, they would be willing to plant small shrubbery. Dunham asked if the applicant has considered other options such as making the garage twice as deep. Goergen explained that there is an existing mudroom and closet space behind the garage which would hamper them from bringing the garage back further. Also, the lot drops in the back. Johnson presented her staff report indicating that the request is for a 12' x 20' third-stall garage addition. This property is located in the most common zoning district of the City, R1-13.5. Goergen is requesting a variance to allow him to build seven feet from the lot line rather than the required ten feet. This neighborhood was constructed in the mid-late 1980's and the homes along Boyd Avenue predominately have double garages. .Options discussed were to minimize the variance by constructing a ten-foot garage addition or to add additional garage space to the back of the existing garage. This request is not in the utility easement and a five-foot utility easement would still be maintained. Two letters of concern for this variance were received. Dunham opened the public hearing. Dave Johnson, 6806 Boyd Avenue,presented photographs showing the general layout of the neighborhood and the location of the existing oak tree. He indicated that they are very concerned for this tree as the applicant extends his driveway out. They feel that any excavation will likely damage the root system of the tree. Johnson explained that the three-car garages that Goergen referred to are located at an entirely different end of the neighborhood. Their immediate neighborhood does not have any three-car garages. Johnson said they feel this construction will create an oddity in the neighborhood and will bring the structures too close together and detract from the property value. Johnson stated that he was not aware of the variance request until he received a letter from the City. The homeowners never contacted him regarding the proposed addition. Dunham explained that the homeowner would be able to excavate his property as long as he meets City code. The oak tree discussed is not on his property. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals May 10, 2001 Shawn Cheesman, 6782 Boyd Avenue, spoke in opposition to the requested variance explaining that they live in this area because they like the large distances between the homes. He indicated that they have no problem with improving the houses and the value of the property. However, they are concerned about setting a precedent with the variance. Cheesman said he is not aware of any home with a three-car garage that has had a variance, they are all original construction. Dunham explained that this Board treats each variance requested on its own merits. There would be no precedent set because their decision is based on each request. Dunham closed the public hearing. Giglio said he would vote against this request because he feels that the third stall could be added on without a variance and a 12' addition is large. O'Leary said he could not support this request since there appears to be alternatives. Ford said he sees no hardship and it is contrary to the neighborhood character. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Giglio, to deny Variance Request 2001-04 based on the character of the neighborhood and objections of the neighbors and because of the lack of a hardship. The motion carried, 4-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS Johnson updated the Board on the Bergeland variance request. V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson reported that at this time no applications have been received for the June 14 meeting. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Ford/O'Leary, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried,4-0. 5