Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02161995 ZBA Minutes (2)• MINUTES FROM F~BRUARY 16, 1995 R~GULAR SESSION ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUT~S T~e Zoning Board o~ Adjustments came to order at 7:30 wit~ the followin~ members preseni:: Sterling Minor, Chairman, Fran~x Bil~in~s, Vice Chairman, Stephen Masera, Rob Peterson and Arden Morley. Members absent were Melinda Snell, Sue Porretto, Lee Huber and Victor Hansen. Also Present {xom tke City were Dennis Holm, Chief Buildin~ O~icial and Cat~een King, Building Secretary. Members introduced themselves and procedures were explained. No residents were present to express opinions re$ardin~ any items t~at were not on t~e a~enda. The {irst case on t~e Doc~xet was 95-01 , concernin~ property located at 3005 Robinhood, Lot 15, Bloc~x 14, Monticello Addition, a request ~or a variance to allow a porte coc~ere to encroach into a setbac~x. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Arden Morley made a motion to approve the • r~otices as posted. This motion was seconded by Fran~x Billin~s. Voting was unanimous. George Boe~une owner and applieant o~ 3005 Robin~ood ~Xplained i:hat his house was built in 1934 and he and his wi~e moved into it three years ago. He explained tkat at that time it was in tremendous disrepair. He explained that it too~x a lot o~ wor~x to up~rade and repair tke ~ouse, but stated the one thin~ they could not deal witk ~owever was tke ~ara~e and tkey decided that it had to be torn down. He stated that they would li~xe to build a porte cochere ~or t~e one par~xing space required by tke Zonin$ Ordinance on the side of their house, and in order to do this they would ka~.e to penetrate tke five (5) fooi: setbaclx requirement I~y two (2) ~eet. He explained t~iat i~ t~ey built the garage to the bac~Z o~ the lot they would ~ave a tkree (3) foot setbacl~. He explained that the reason that tkey wo~ld l~e to have the porte cochere on the side of the lot is because this would allow them to have a bac~Zyard instead o~ a kundred ~eet o~ concrete. He stated that he be~ieved that not only will they bene{it ~rom this but so will the entire nei~~orhood. He stated tkat i~ tliey do not get the variance that tkey are as~xin~ ~or t~en tkey will kave to build a~ara~e in t~e rear yarcl and t~en the ~ara$e will a~ut another gara~e. He stated that ke felt that with tke ~ara~e on t~e side it would be more attractive. Sterling Minor as~xed if t~ey placed a new ~ara~e wkere the old ~arage was would it be in compliance with t~e current Zonin~ Ordinance setbac~s. Mr. Boelune a~reed and s~iowed a plan o~ tke proposed porte cochere anc~. a plan o~ tke proposed • ~ara~e. • Mr. Boehme explained that if they went bac~x a bit ~urther on the lot then they were allowed to have a 3' side setbac~x but because tkey would li~e to have it on the side o~ the house they are required to have a 5' side setbac~ and there~ore cannot utilize the lot to its ~l extent. Mr. Minor as~xed i~ he plans on ~avin~ a second atory. Mr. Boe~une explained tkat they are plannin~ on addin~ a second story to tke house. Fran~Z Billin~s stated that it was his understand~~ that i~ the variance was not ~ranted then Mr. Boehme wo~ld then have to build the ~ara~e wkere it was. Mr. Boehme a~reec~.. No Correspondence was received in ~avor. Dennis Holm, Chie~ Building O~icial ~ave the City's point of view. Mr. Holm explained that the lot is 50' wide and there~ore the 3/7 Exception would be allowed. The 3/7 Exception would allow a 3' setbac~x along the west property line and a 7' setbac~x along the east property ~ine. The proposed porte cochere would be located on t~e east side o~ t~e property and would not meet t~e requirements because the lot currently ~as a~ive (5) ~oot east setbac~x and a~ive (5) ~oot west • setbac~x meanin~ t~ey would have to encroach five (2) ~eet into the east side setbac~x. M. Holm explained that ~or them to be able to do what they want they would have to ~o bac~ 70' t~en they woizld ~ave a 3' side setbac~x. Mr. Holm ~ave the de{inition o~ gara$e space whic~ is buildin~ space for storage o~ motor vehicles. Enclosed ~ara~e space must be completely within a buildin~. Semi-enclosed space must have a solid or an opaque wall at least six ~eet high around at least one- hal~ o~ its perimeter. Mr. Holm explained that if there was a new home goin~ on this lot t~en the driveway would be located on the other side because o~ the driveway pattern that was already been establisked. Therefore the City opposes this request ~or variance and requests that the garage be built according to the Zoning Ordinance. Sterling Minor as~ed if you kave to have at least seini-enclosed ~ara~e space? Mr. Holm explained that sin~le family detached one space is enclosed, semi-enclosed ~ara~e space plus one space enclosed or not. One eorrespondence was received that could either be in ~avor or in opposition. Rob Peterson made a motion to close t~e evidentiary portion o~ the ~earing. This motion was seconded by Arden Morley. Voting was unanimous. The second item on the Doc~et was 95-02, concernin~ property located at 4102 Villanova, Lot • 142, Fairhaven Acldition, a request ~or a variance on a side street setbac~Z. • Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Arden Morley made a motion to approve the notices as posted. This motion was seconded by Stephen Masera. Votin~ was unanimous. Bob Adams president o~ Geor~etown properties who resides at 4031 Byron stated t~at ~e was a builder wko was tkere to plea this case ~or tke daughter o~ the mother that owns the property in question. He stated that he has submitted the current owners a contract to buy the concerned property and t~e contract stipulated that the property be as t~ey t~oug~t it was anc~ all maps show it to be, a minimum o~ 43' wide by 132' deep. He explained that t~e recent survey copy indicated that it was just over 41' wide by 132' deep which he stated that buildin~ a house on a lot that narrow would not be able to be sold on the current mar~xet very well even thou~h the ~arage will be on the side. Bob Adams skowed the members pictures o~ tke property s~owin~ where the property pins were located. Mr. Adama also showed a survey that showec~. two {igures across tke ~ront and rear on eitker side, ~e explained that tke ones outside the parentheses were the ones tkat the survey determined were accurate measurements, he stated that the ones that were inside tke parent~ieses wit~ the words call in ~ront of it meant t~at was what the original dimensions were skown on various maps ~rom the beginning. Mr. Adams stated that he ~elt that t~e supposition at t~is point was that because the Academy street now measures 63' wide ri~ht o~ way wken originally tke parentheses call 60' ri~ht of way he believes that when the pins were set they were set improperly • by two (2) ~eet. The Variance that they are as~xin~ ~or is to recover that two (2) feet which will allow a{ive (5) ~oot setbac~x on each side o~ t~e house on a 33' wide house. Ster~in$ Minor as~Zed i~ the su~~estion would be that tkey wanted a variance to allow a 3' setbac~ on the Academy side. Bob Adams skowed the proposed plans ~or the house. Bob Aclams stated that the dimension o~ the house was 32.11 ~eet. Bob Adama explained that by accruing the extra two ~eet tkis would allow tke ~ara~e to move ~orward two ~eet ma~in$ it ei~ht ~eet bac~x ~rom the {ront building ~ine instead of the required ten feet. He also explained that he would li~xe to ~ave a bric~x Fence enclose a patio to ~xeep children or pets in and would be a~le to bloc~x o{~ t~e street. Sterling Minor as~xs how meanin~{ul was it ~or him to pull t~e ~ara~e ~orward two ~eet. Bob Aclams stated that it was important because ri~kt now it measures 13' X 38' and t~at is a peculiar size lot and by movin~ the $ara~e up two feet it would kelp, he also stated that it meets t~e required pervious area. ~ Sterlin~ Minor stated that assumin~ that the lot is 41' wide then all that the board can deal witk • is ~ow close they can go to 41' ~ine, he stated that he can not ~ive them 2' so they will tal~ about how ~ar away thin~s are ~rom t~e 41' lot, based on that assuxnption you are as~xin~ ~or a variance to ~ave a 3' setbac~x. Then ~or t~e $ara$e you are as~xin~ ~or a 8' setbac~x instead o~ t~e required 10' setbac~x. Bob Adams a~rees to this. Fran~x Bil~ings stated that i~ none of these solutions were ~iven to him where wo~ld the house sit? Bob Adam stated that then ~e will not be able to build on that lot. Bob Adams reviewed the plans with the members o~ the board and showed t~at he can either kave move tke ~ouse bac~Z leavin$ tke fence on the property line and have a three ~oot setbac~x allowin~ the garage to move forward or it can be moved ~orward and have a three ~oot setbac~Z on tke west side. Stephen Masera as~Zed which o~ these solutions did ke prefer. Bob Adams stated that he pre~ers the {irst solution, moving toward the street because it would then provide a~ood distance between houses on the west side. Mr Adams stated that they have ~ impin~ed on the city's property. Sterlin~ Minor as~xs how important t~e ~ence is? Bob Adams replied that it was decorative and will enclose children inside. Sterlin~ Minor stated t~at ke does not ~eel that the board can ~rant a decision ~or them to utilize city property. Fran~x Billin~s stated i~ nothin~ is ~ranted if tkey do not let them put the fence outside their property line would eliminatin~ the ~ence be a solution to him? Bob Adams stated that the saleablity of the property would be a~ected because they kave a lon~ porc~ t~ere ~acin~ a very busy street and he stated that he was trying to bloc~x o{~ the street. He stated that they have proposed it to be a wooden ~ence but he said it could ~e a wooden fence i~ t~at would be a$reeable. Joe Adams - 4031 Byron stated that she was t~e other ~al~ o~ Geor~etown Properties, s~e stated t~at they live three houses ~rom Academy and she explained tkat the street is very busy. She explained that she just doesn't see how tkat house can be sa~e or even loo~x right witkout that bric~x ~ence bein~ t~ere. She also explained that this was a Charleston style type ~ouse and t~e ~ fence is part of t~e design. • Arden Morley as~xed i~ the ~ence was bric~ and if Mr. Adams would consider havin~ a wrou~~t iron ~ence instead. Bob Adams explained that he kad thought about a wrou~ht iron and that he really did not have alot o~ objection but he stated tkat it really would not s~ut out anything wit~ a see t~ru ~ence, and the wrou~ht iron would have to be so designed to ~xeep children ~3 pets inside. Eric Giebel- 4102 Marquette stated that he would li~Ze to loo~x at the proposed plans for t~e house. He as~ed i~ the ed~e oF the house ~oing to be in line with all t~e otker ~ouses? Sterling Minor explained that logically it would have to be in line wit~ the other kouses. Bob Adams stated that spea~in~ ~or tke dau~~ter and son in law o~ Mary Carpenter who is tke actual owner o~ t~e property they wo~ld l~ke to say that all the maps t~at are shown ineludin$ tke current City maps s~ow t~at t~e lot is 43' wide t~e mystery is w~ere did that 2' ~o ma~xin~ it 41' wide. Sterlin~ Minor as~xed i~ Mr. Lon~'s property t~e same width as t~is and the property across t~e street is it t~e same? • Bob Adams stated that ~is property was wider than 41' accordin~ to the ~encin~ o~ it, he stated t~at ~e is wider to t~e west. Fran~x Billin~ as~xed i~ there was a~ouse on the lot now. Bob Adams stated t~iat there was a house on t~e lot now but it was in bad shape and really need to be demolished. JR Tuc~er- 4102 Villanava stated that he was tkere wken tkey were surveying tke property and he pointed out that the driveway was wider t~an he thou~ht it was supposed to be. He stated that he went down to t~e County Cler~xs several montha bac~ and ~ot a map that showed the lot to be 43' wide but w~en the surveyor surveyed the property it came out 2' short, he also explained that their ~ardship would be t~at the money that they would ~et {rom t~e sale o~ this property would help pay ~or t~e care o~ ~us mother in law who is the owner o~ t~e property. Vir~ina Tuc~xer- 4102 Villanova stated that she is the daughi:er o~ Mary Carpenter the owner o~ tke property in question and she stated that i~ this variance was not ~ranted ske does not ~now a tkin~ that tkey can do with tke property and would really be in a bind. Bob Adams stated tkat he has desi$ned a house that would be narrow and wor~x with tkat lot and ~ive what ke ~eels tkat people would want in a house. He stated that he would not want to buy tke ~ property if t~e lot was unable to be built on. • Chris William Carpenter stated that he was the grandson o~ Mary Carpenter and he explained that he $rew up in tkat kouse and that he hated to see her part witk the kouse but he ~eels t~at she skould not be penalized by th~s un~ortunate mishap he stated that she did not alter tke property in any way and he stated that he does not Feel i;hat t~e variance request was unreasonable. Julie Beiser- 4105 Villanova stated tkat ske ~eels that she would li~xe to see this plan to build th~s kouse ~o into e~ect she stated that she said that obviously some thou~kt and preparation ~as gone into desi~nin~ tkis house and the issue of the saleabilty is there to be thought of. Also she stated that being a nei~~or s~e has seen several builders drive by and because o~ the odd widt~ o~ the lot she ~elt tkey mi~~t not have been interested. Ckarles Long- 4103 Oberlin stated that he lives directly behind the house. He as~xed is whether moving into tke easement is on the table or is the question of i:he variation o~ the setbac~Z. Sterlin~ Minor explained that he does not t~in~Z so ke felt that they will have to ~et permission some w~ere else. Ckarles Lon~ stated then he felt it to be o~xay to build the house with the variance he stated that he believed a Charleston house would be quite nice. • Bob Ac~.ams stated to please consider the three foot setbac~x on tke West side so t~at the ~ence can be built on t~e property line. No correspondence was received in ~avor Dennis Holm, Ckie~ Buildin~ O~{icial gave the City's point of view. Mr. Holm explained that tke city was requestin~ t~at the zonin~ ordinance be upheld however i~ the variance was ~ranted in this case would not be loolxed upon disfavorably by the City. He skowed a 1941 map skowin~ t~at at that time the street showed a 60' easement ke etated t~at he is not aure when this easement chan~ed but since 1922 when tke Fairhaven addition was plated it was the lot was 43.14' wide than since 1941 till now it c~an~ed to 41' and he explained tkat he does not ~now how. He explained t~at basically the City is not opposed to ~rantin~ t~e variance. Mr. Holm stated that if he could determine whether there had been an error then he stated that he would ~i~xe to have i:hat to be allow to be adjusted so that if the variance was ~ranted however at tke 41' and they were able to ~ind w~ere tkat other 2' went for some reason i~ somethin~ was not c~one appropriately or something, 1:~en ~e would li~xe that would ma~xe a impact on t~e decision, he stated tkat ke did not ~now i~ he would be able to ~ind anything but i~ ke did tken they could build w~at they wanted without tke variance. ~ No one else was present to spea~x in opposition. ~ No correspondence was received in opposition. Fran~x Billin$s made a motion to close tke evidentiary portion o~ the hearing. Tkis motion was seconded by Rob Peterson. Voting was unanimous. Tke Board discussed 95-01, Sterlin~ Minor stated that the only special condition kere is the idea that this is a 1934 house which should be preserved which would be a le~itimate concern, ~e stated that ke did not see a hardship that he t~ou~ht the board would }~e required to ~ind. He explained tkat ke thou~ht that tkey kad a very typical situation tkere with a 50' wide lot, and t~ere is alot o~ dec~ and alot o~ hot tub. Fran~ Billin~s stated that t~ere has been no skow of hardship as required by the ordinance statute, and a~arage can be built on the lot and t~ey want to use it ~or something else and he stated that he felt the ~oard could not ~rant a variance on so he maved that the application 95-01 be denied. This motion was seconded by Arden Morley. Votin~ was unanimous. T~e next item ~or discussion was 95-02, Sterlin~ Minor stated that w~et~er t~e lot was 41' or 43' t~ey would still ~ave a special condition. He stated t~at i~ in ~act the lot was 41' wide then t~at would ~all into tke kardship cate~ory. He stated that the board does not have be~ore t~em an explanation as to why the recent map skows 63' wide obviously the 17' that t~ey saw in tke • pkoto~rapks skowec~. that there was a tremendous apron from the pavement part to the c~.e~ined lot line. He stated t~at ke has never keard any proposals as why that happened to Academy. He explained tkat it seemed to him that thia was the exact situation that the entire statute was designed to deal wit~. Fran~x Billin~s stated that he a~reed with Sterlin~ Minor C~