Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06261996 ZBA Minutes~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES FROM JUNE 26,1996 The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Chairman Sterling Minor, Vice Chairman Sue Porretto, Frank Billings, Amy Chaisson Selig, Michael Neal and Ty Hutchins. Absent were Metinda Snell and Lee Huber. Present from the City were Chief Building Official Dennis Holm, Assistant Building Official Pedro Solis and Building Secretary Susan Thorn. This meeting was reconvened from July 20, 1996. The first item on the agenda was the hearing of the residents. No one was present. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Sue Porretto made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Frank Billings seconding the motion. Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings, Selig, Neal ~ Voting against: None The motion carried. The second item on the agenda was Public Hearing of Docket No. 96-04, concerning property located at 3805 Swarthmore, Lots 8 and 9, Block 14, College View First Addition. This was a request for variance to allow the dividing of two lots, which creates one lot does not meeting the pervious and open area requirements. Property Owners Cas and Gita Vanwoerden gave the following the reason for their request. The Vanwoerdens explained they were selling Lot 9, Block 14, College View First Addition in order to meet their obligations with the bank. They have resided at the properly located at 3805 Swarthmore since 1982 which includes the two lots at the dead end of Swarthmore. Additions were made to the existing house located on Lot 8 which encroach onto Lot 9. After finding a buyer for Lot 9 the Vanwoerdens went to Dennis Holm requesting information on what steps needed to be taken in order to divide the two lots. The Vanwoerdens stated they were aware an addition extended over the lot line on the east side of the house and would have to be removed prior to dividing the lots. After speaking to Mr. Holm the Vanwoerdens were informed there was a problem with the studio addition to the garage. If the addition remains as is, the lot would not meet the 60 % open area requirement for • the rear yard. Mr. Vanwoerden explained this particular addition is used as a studio , ~~ • for his wife and a study for himself; therefore, the space is needed. Five feet of the addition would have to be removed in order to meet the east side setback requirements; however, the Vanwoerdens explained they are asking for a variance to the 60% open area requirement so the majority of the studio could remain. Mrs. Vanwoerden explained, " she is an artist and uses the space as a studio and she needed a certain amount of space to work in." Vice Chairman Sue Porretto asked the Vanwoerdens, "What their hardship was?" Mr. Vanwoerden stated, " if they could not sell the lot, they would have to move because of their obligations. Mr. Vanwoerden also stated, " if they brought the property into conformance and the addition was removed his wife would lose the studio space and would no longer be able to work in her profession at home." No correspondence was received in favor. Chief Building Official Dennis Holm gave the City's point of view. Mr. Holm explained the variance is needed because of the following: Zoning Ordinance No. 1493, Article 5, Building Sites, Section 5-102. Division of building sites requires the following criteria to be met. Two or more subdivided lots, which are designated as a single building site, may be divided into separate building sites if all of the • following criteria are met: (1) The division occurs along the common boundaries of the subdivided lots. (2) The division does not cause a condition in violation of this ordinance, unless the condition relates to buildings or structures which would not have been in violation of the City's ordinances in effect at the time they were constructed, assuming that the same division of the two subdivided lots occurred at that time. The division is occurring along the common boundary for Lots 8~ 9, therefore, item 1) has been met. The division, however, of Lots 8 8~ 9 is causing a violation of this ordinance by creating a non-compliance with the required 60% open rule in the rear yard. Mr. Holm explained the present studio structure contains 706.86 square feet. The required rear yard is twenty feet from the rear property line and the lot is 50 feet wide; therefore, 1000 square feet is in the required rear yard. The largest area of coverage allowed in the required rear yard is 40%, which is 400 square feet. The Vanwoerdens's have proposed to remove the east five feet of the existing studio structure. The remaining structure would then be 15.3 feet in depth by 41.2 feet in length equaling 630.36 square feet. The Vanwoerdens's are asking for a 30.36 square foot variance for the existing studio structure after their proposed remodeling. To bring the structure into compliance the maximum width allowed would be 26.2 feet with a depth of 15.3 feet, this would be a total of 400.86 square feet. • 2 r ~ • No correspondence was received in opposition. Frank Billings made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the meeting. Sue Porretto seconded the motion. ~ Voting for: Minor, Billings, Porretto, Selig, Neal and Hutchins Voting Against: None Motion carried. The third item on the agenda was Public Hearing of Docket No. 96-05, concerning property located at 2703 Quenby, Lot 6, Block 3, Quenby Court Addition. This is a request for variance, which would allow a new garage to be built three (3) feet from the west side properly line, when the garage is not seventy (70) feet from the front street line. Property Owner poug Goulden gave the following reason for the request: "Due to the configuration of the lot he felt a hardship exists as the lot is seventy (70) feet wide by ninety (90) feet deep. The vast majority of the lots in West University Place are a minimum of fifty (50) feet wide and one hundred (100) feet deep and in his • opinion the Ordinance was written with those size lots in mind and not one his size." Mr. Goulden also explained "Granting of a variance is in order as this would not be against public interest as a special condition exists because of unusual shape of the lot. The configuration of lot would require the garage to be seven feet from the property line thus creating a problem with maneuvering an automobile out the garage. The spirit of the ordinance is preserved, because the setback was created to discourage front loading garages." Frank Billings asked "What would be the setback of the proposed house on the opposite side? Mr. Goulden said "The setback would be seven (7) feet." Mr. Billings asked "If the dimensions of the garage would change?" Mr. Goulden said "The dimensions of the garage would be the same, but the location of the garage and its attachment to the house would change. I did not want a garage located towards the front of the house, because there were several large oaks trees in the front, which would have to be removed." Frank Billings asked "What the alternative would be if the variance were not granted." Mr. Goulden explained "The garage would be located seven (7) feet from the property line." No correspondence was received in favor. Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official gave the City's point of view. Mr. Holm • explained "The owner, Douglas Goulden is requesting a variance to Zoning 3 ., • Ordinance No. 1493 for allowing a new garage to be built three (3) feet from the side property line, when the garage is not seventy (70) feet from the front street line. The new garage is not allowed in the rear 5' setback because it contains an utility easement. The new garage would be twenty-three (23) feet in depth and adding the five (5) foot previously noted will place the front of the new garage at 61.61 feet from the front street line. The City is asking the requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 1493 be met or the request for a variance be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Board Members asked if Mr. Holm was aware of the odd configuration of lots in this particular area of the City. Mr. Holm replied "To his knowledge there are lots in this particular area which are oddly shaped." No one spoke in opposition. One letter was received in opposition from Steven B. ~ Julie Harris, residents of 2707 Quenby. Another letter was received in opposition from the following residents: Richard S. Hollyer & Doris M. Hollyer of 2616 Quenby • Marie Brantly, 2603 Quenby Amy Chaisson Selig made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the meeting. Sue Porretto seconded the motion. Voting for: Minor, Billings, Porretto, Selig, Neal and Hutchins Voting Against: None Motion carried. Chairman Sterling Minor stated Docket No. 96-06 had been withdrawn. Sterling Minor opened discussion of Docket No. 96-05 by explaining Amy Chaisson Selig would be the alternate voting on this request, however the discussion was open to all the Board Members. Mr. Minor stated The property contained several additions to the house serving various purposes. The owners want to continue all the uses. The room constructed over the patio is being demolished. The sixty percent rule requires some significant space in the backyard needs to be provided for drainage. This open area space was provided by Lot 9. Mr. Minor also stated in this instance the hardship is tied to both the family situation and to the land. • The property owners can use the structure as a home and have use of the rooms 4 R22 UrUan Forest Preservation and Enhanccmcnt ~ CH,APTE tree suiv s Sec. 22003. Trcc disposition conditions (for building pcrmits); e3' (a) General requirement. Every petmit for development or pre-development activity must contain tree disposition conditions meeting the reclu~m~~ °f ~s section. (b) ~Essential vnd mandatory conditions Tree disP°sition conditions are the most important means from unreasonable harm during development and pra-development of protecting the urban forest of ti~e City $ct~vity. 'I'ree d.isposition conditions sha11: (~) prnhibit remova! of or damage to any large tree, except): C) removal of a trae which is d'~sea-Sed, se~'~1Y ~ed or dead may be authori~~ad; and eat to the use (il) damage to or removal of a tree which cau~s an ~~O~ie impedim . aad eajoyment of the applic~nY's property m~aY b~ au~o~~ed; and lu dainage to or rein.oval of a lovwvalne tree maY b~ ~O~'~' ~ ~) : ~) Require re~laoemeat trees, to the exteat provided in the crit,ecia maaual, for any~ ~trees authori~ed to be Damaged or R+~oved. Exceptior~ No repla+oemea~t is required t. value traes. C3) Recl~ Protedion for large trees (aad Critical Root Zones). The eonditions maY SPecifY . ti~e meti~.ods af prot~ection to be u.sed,. ~d ~ted. The coaditions ~4~ Require ~~y ~~~d damage to trees be miaim~~ ~ may spec%ify m~hods of mitigatioa r,o be used. C~ R~q~~ire~ if there is major dc.welopmeu~ ~ the affect~d subjoct si~e attain. a m~aimnm planting standard of tree density as s~ forfl~. in. ~e cxit~ia maaual. (c) Procedure. The building official shall not issue anY Permit for any developm~.t or Pre- developmeat Activity vmless all ti~e following have fust oax~a~ad: The applicant must have filed a tree survey, and the urb~n fores~r must have (1) Tree Survey. SPP~~ it for oomplianae wifl~ ti~is c~p~er ~e ~t{~an fore~' Cl) Tree Disposition Conditioas. Tree disposition oonditions ~roved bY The urbaa fore~ maY reeluire ~ P~ °~ laad must have been inse~d into fl~.~ removal of or damage to the tree autho~ed bY the oondition: whei+e a tree is located to agc+ee anY ct" e,xce tion. Exoe~rt for the requiremeait to in.seat the mandaturY oonditions, this ~~ "1"°"''1'r'pa p ect or other adivity tt~ut will not bave any signific~at, adverse section does not apply to a subject sitey pi'oj ~e ~~ forester. ~ effect upon any large tree, as determined bY _ h:newtreef.orm • • that are existing. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the variance at least to the extent requested." Frank Billings stated "Many persons in West University that would like to build up their property, but the Board should not start granting variances to allow property owners to have the same amount of structures on one lot they had on two lots." Michael Neal stated "I fail to see the hardship factor in this instance, however any funds expended by the owner should be used to bring this structure into compliance." Amy Chaisson Selig expressed her concerns "In regards to the efFect removing a part of the structure would have on the structure." Frank Billings made a motion to deny the variance because of failure of the applicant to show a hardship as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. This motion was seconded by Michael Neal. Voting was unanimous. Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings, Selig, Neal. ~ Voting against: None Ty Hutchins abstained. Motion carried. Sterling Minor opened the discussion of 96-05 concerning the properly located at 2703 Quenby by explaining Ty Hutchins would be the voting alternate on this issue and Amy Chaisson Selig would abstain. Sterling Minor explained the dimensions of the lot are fairly unique, because of the lots being wider and the depth narrower and he was in favor of granting the variance. He stated if the variance were not granted the property owner has already said the garage would not be used as often because of the difficulty of maneuvering out of the garage. Mr. Minor stated if the setback were to be five feet it would eliminate the door, however it be easier with a five (5') setback than a seven (7) feet setback. Mr. Minor said most of these houses on this street have three (3) feet setbacks until you reach the newer houses, and he was not sure whether it would look odd with a seven (7) feet setback, rather than a three (3) feet setback. Amy Chaisson Selig stated when an architect designs plans with a garage with a • swerving approach there is a set of dimensions and equations the architect would 5 • use to determine whether the garage would be functional. Michael Neal explained he felt the hardship in this case would be the uniqueness of the piece of property in its shape and dimensions. Mr. Neal further explained even though he would rather see a wider setback given the unusual dimensions of the lot it would make it extremely difficult for the property owners to be able to use the garage. Frank Billings expressed his concerns about how close the garage would be to the house on the adjoining property. Sue Porretto stated she felt there is no hardship because the garage is usable as Amy Selig has stated, however she would be inclined to grant a variance allowing for a five (5) feet setback. Michael Neal made a motion to grant the variance to allow the garage to be built closer than seventy (70) feet to the front building line with the condition the setback be five (5) feet. This motion was seconded by Sue Porretto Voting was unanimous. ~ Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings, Neal, Hutchins Voting against: None Amy Chaisson Selig abstained. Motion carried. Sue Porretto made a motion to approve the minutes from May 16, 1996 as written. This motion was seconded by Ty Hutchins. Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings, Neal, Hutchins, Selig Voting no: None Motion carried. Amy Selig Chaisson made a motion to adjourn. This motion was seconded by Ty Hutchins. Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings, Neal, Hutchins, Selig • 6 . .'• • Voting no: None Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY ~ •