Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/13/2002 Approved Minutes Board of Adiustments & Appeals THURSDAY,JUNE 13, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER COuncil Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Giglio, Ismail Ismail,Michael O'Leary, Greg Olson Anthony Ramunno and Randy Stroot STAFF: Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Warren &Brenda Dammann, 6336 Creekview Lane; Daniel&Theresa Kosch, 9296 Amsden Way CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary, Anthony Ramunno and Randy Stroot Absent: Louis Giglio and Greg Olson I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of May 9,2002 Motion/Second: Ismail/ Stroot,to approve the May 9 minutes as published. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Ramunno abstaining because of absence from that meeting. III: VARIANCES A. Request#2002-06 by Warren and Brenda Dammann of 6336 Creekview Lane for approval to permit a garage addition 4.5 feet from the side property lot line. City Code requires a 15-foot side yard setback. Warren Dammann explained that they have lived in this home for 18 years. They like the neighborhood and the neighbors and would like to stay in this house and improve their property. They feel there are deficiencies with their existing garage and they would like to correct those deficiencies. The existing attached garage has no direct entry to the house. The existing garage is very tight with two full-sized vehicles parked inside. They also have limited storage space . Dammann stated that their intention is to increase the size of the garage and to make a better entry into the house and mudroom. The applicant stated that they would be removing the existing garage. The current garage is 12.5 feet from the side property line with the new proposed garage being 4.5 feet from the inside property line. The new garage is designed as a two-story with both levels heated. The lower level would be used as storage, work and play areas. The garage will have interior stairs allowing easy access to the new lower level and backyard as well as an additional entrance into the home. There will also be a service door entrance from the driveway to reduce heat loss during access. Damman indicated that they need five feet to allow adequate space for the stairway and an additional three feet for room around the vehicles. The front of the house will also be remodeled increasing the entryway. They will also be able to go directly from the garage to the house. The hillside of the property is steep and they are proposing professional terraced landscaping walls and shrubbery between the properties to eliminate soil erosion and to improve drainage. Ismail said from the information provided, he does not see any major necessity for this variance and questioned why the applicant could not be 10 feet from the property line. Dammann responded that the major reason for the request is to allow them to have the stairway to the lower level. This is not a hardship but rather one of convenience. They have two levels in the garage and they would like the stairwell inside the garage in order to access the lower level of the garage. Ismail asked if the front of the house would be moved out. Dammann explained that the front of the garage and house would remain at the same location but the wall from the entryway would be moved out to the porch. Dammann explained that this is a pie-shaped lot. There is a flower box with an overhang on the north side of the house. Part of this remodeling will include the removal of the flower box. By removing the flower box,they will be in compliance with the side yard setback requirement for that side of the house. In response to a question from Stroot,Mrs. Dammann showed where the stairwell is located on the proposed addition. She explained that the stairway would provide access into three areas. Stroot asked if the applicant has thought about putting the stairwell along the back wall. This would eliminate the necessity for the five extra feet. Mrs. Dammann said this would also eliminate some storage on the backside. Dammann explained that if the stairwell is placed in the back he doubts they will be able to install the proposed overhead door on the lower level. Ramunno asked if any of the neighbors are opposed to the proposed addition. Dammann responded that they are not. They have seen the plans. Mrs. Dammann said the neighbor most affected has had a problem with water in their basement and it is hoped that their new driveway will improve the drainage problem. 2 Dunham asked what other options the applicant has looked at for the placement of this garage. Dammann explained that they did look at constructing a detached garage in the back. However,by not building an attached garage they lose a lot of the efficiency and utilization. Storage is only one piece of this addition. They are also looking to improve the entry into the house. Dunham asked if they looked at exploring a double deep garage. Dammann said they have not. A double deep garage would give them a"U" shaped house in the back and they feel this would be unsightly. Mrs. Dammann indicated that cost would also be a consideration. Johnson presented the staff report stating that this area is zoned R1-22 which requires a 15 foot side setback. The homes in this area were built in the 1960's and it is not uncommon to see a few homes that did not meet that setback requirement. This house was constructed too close to the lot line. The request is to add an addition that would be within 4.5 feet of the side lot line. Notices were sent and staff did not receive any calls or inquiries on this request. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear,Dunham closed the public hearing. Ismail explained that he is not very comfortable with this request and with cutting the code from 15 feet down to 4 feet. He said he feels the applicant needs to do some revisions. O'Leary pointed out no objections to this request have been received. However, neighbors come and go. They need to look at what the future will hold for a new neighbor as to that setback. O'Leary said if he approves anything it would be something similar to construction of an addition 6-feet wide versus the proposed 8-feet and then being 6.5 feet from the side lot line. O'Leary said the applicant also needs to explore going deeper on the backside. The hardship is the shape of the lot, however,building 4.5 feet from the side lot line is extreme. O'Leary said he does not think he could support this request. He suggested that the applicant come back with some other ideas versus this Board turning the request down. Stroot said he is concerned with how close this proposal is to the property line. There is a steep fall off from the applicant's house to the neighbor's retaining wall. This will create an even steeper slope off of their yard. Stroot said there appears to be a lot of space in the back but he is concerned with the drainage issue. Ramunno explained that he is struggling with this request even though he understands the problems with homes built in this era. Dunham said he is not hearing positive feedback from the Board members on the 4.5-foot set back. He asked if the applicant would be interested in having this item continued for one month to give them the opportunity to look at other options. Dammann said they would like to look at other options. One of the options would be a six-foot wide addition. This would still allow them to put the stairway as proposed but would not allow them to gain any more room around the vehicles. O'Leary said he would prefer to continue this item to allow the applicant time to look at other options. Since the existing garage is not 3 within Code, O'Leary asked if the applicant would be able to replace it 12.5 feet from the side property line if the old one were torn down. Johnson said this would depend upon the specific plans. They would not be changing the character of the neighborhood. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ismail,to continue Variance Request#2002-06 to the July 11 meeting to allow the applicant time to see what other ideas and options they can come up with for the garage addition. The motion carried, 5-0. B. Request#2002-07 by Daniel and Theresa Kosch of 9296 Amsden Way for approval to construct a concrete sport court(15' x 20' in size) two-feet from the side lot line. (Code requires a minimum setback of ten feet). Kosch explained that this request is for an accessory structure and use. They are requesting approval to build a concrete court or sport court structure on their lot. The current restriction is ten feet from the property line and they are requesting that they be allowed to build this court two feet from the property line. They are proposing to build a 15-foot by 20-foot sport court facility on one side of their lot. The court would be between six-feet and two-feet from the property line. The far backside would be six feet from the property line and towards the street it would be two feet. Kosch further explained that this variance is necessary because of significant limitations in the configuration of the yard and driveway. The driveway slopes down and the side lots are small. Their children are at the ages where they are looking for additional things to do such as basketball. Kosch said they have looked at other options including building on the south side of the lot, which is too narrow and slanted. Kosch thought they could place the court in the back on the north side tucking it in as close to the tree line as possible and between the deck. Since most of their soil is clay and because of the woods and hill they get water drain off and the lawn in this area is wet most of the year. This is a small concrete court,which would at least allow the kids to play in the back yard. Kosch pointed out that the neighbor next to the proposed court is in full support of this request. It is also their intention to plant shrubs on the side of the concrete court. It is difficult to see the court from the street because of the slope of the land. Kosch displayed pictures of the existing property indicating that they would build this court as close as possible to the deck. Ramunno asked how steep the court would be. Mrs. Kosch indicated that the area would be graded. Gravel would be laid beneath the concrete as well as drain tiles. The court would be level with the grass and mulch would be put around the back. Ismail asked if there would be landscaping around the court and on the street and neighbor's sides. Kosch responded that their thought was that they would place shrubs on the neighbor's side and if possible not on the street side. This would give them a little more space. If landscaping on the street side became an issue they could place plantings there but their preference is to not do that. The court cannot be seen from the street. Stroot questioned the drainage. He indicated that the back yard is soggy and he asked what their plans are with regard to drainage. Mrs. Kosch explained that they would be installing drain tiles. Different layers will be placed under the court with drain tiles on the side. The rest of the yard is sloped. The water does run towards the street. 4 Dunham asked what other options the applicant has looked at. He pointed out that the deck was recently replaced and constricts play area in back. Kosch pointed out that they just replaced the existing deck because it was rotting. Kosch said there really is no other place to locate the court because of the hill and the size of the side lots. Johnson presented the staff report stating that the sport court facilities are considered accessory structures that do have to maintain a ten-foot setback. Staff s main concern is the amount of the setback and the drainage issue. Staff did receive five calls regarding this request; four were not in favor of the request. They felt the integrity of the neighborhood would be affected and they were placing too much impervious surface on the property which does not drain well. The Preserve Association does have recreational facilities available for the residents. Options reviewed included minimizing the size of the court so it is not in the five-foot utility easement. If the Board chooses to approve the request or modification, staff recommends that it be reviewed for drainage issues by the City's Engineering Department and if it is approved for construction in the drainage utility easement the property owners need the request reviewed by the City Engineering Department. The applicant also needs to receive approval from the Preserve Association. In response to a question from Ismail regarding the utility easement, Johnson explained that if a 12 foot by 20 foot court were constructed it would be out of the five-foot utility easement. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, the public hearing was closed. O'Leary expressed concern with the drainage easement issues and approval from the Preserve Association. Stroot said he was also concerned about the drainage part of it. Johnson pointed out that if the Board has some reservations about this request, they could wait to act on it after the Preserve Association takes action on the request. Ramunno indicated that if the Preserve Association approves this request and the easement and drainage issue is resolved he would not have a problem with approving this request. Ismail said he feels the Preserve's approval is a neighborhood issue and he is surprised that the applicant did not talk to the Association first. Dunham said he was not sure that this is the best use of the property and the homeowner may be trying to pack too much into this lot. In response to a question from O'Leary, Mrs. Kosch explained that the nearest park is approximately two miles from their home and the Association does not have a basketball court. Motion/Second: Ismail/Ramunno, to approve Variance Request#2002-07 for construction of a concrete sport court five feet from the side lot line with the following conditions: 1) The drainage issue be addressed by the City's Engineering Department, 2) Landscaping and shrubbery be planted on the street and lot line sides, and 3) Construction of the court to occur outside of the utility easement. 5 The hardship is the topography of the lot. Dunham asked what would happen if the City's Engineering Department could not find a solution for the drainage problem. Johnson responded she expected solutions exist,but it may cost the homeowner more than anticipated. Ramunno pointed out that the arrangement of the lot and the hill clearly makes it a difficult area to have any type of activity and the fact that there is no structure above ground lessens his concern. Vote was called on the motion with all members voting aye except Dunham who voted nay. The motion carried, 4-1. OLD BUSINESS Johnson reported that Nathan Bergeland may be applying for a different type of variance and/or requesting an extension of his 2001 variance. NEW BUSINESS Johnson reported that the only item scheduled for the July 11 meeting at this time is the item continued from this evening's meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 6