Loading...
03 AUG 11 A G E N D A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 11, 2003 6:15 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER: PAGES 2. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Regular Scheduled Meeting July 14, 2003 1-5 Special called Meeting July 28, 2003 6-7 3. VARIANCE REQUEST(S): a. Side Yard Variance 163 Roosevelt Road Petitioner: Stephen Fulton 8-10 b. Front Yard Setback Variance 901 and 905 Graham Road Petitioners: Robert Kerr and Jamie Yates 11 c. Accessory Building Maximum Square Footage Variance 5123 Madison Avenue Petitioner: James & Bettie Harkey 12-14 ADJOURNMENT MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: August 11, 2003 6:30 p.m. – 7:02 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Martha Boyd, Susan Dollar, Glen Keaton, Kevin McCleary and Chairman Perry City Representative, City Engineer Whisker _________________________________________________________________ City Clerk Susan Davitt recorded those listed above in attendance and Chairman Perry declared a quorum. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Commissioner Boyd moved, second by Commissioner Dollar to approve the minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting of July 14, 2003 and the Special Called Meeting of July 28, 2003. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE(S): Side Yard Setback Variance at 163 Roosevelt Road Chairman Perry opened the public hearing at approximately 6:15 p.m. Petitioner Stephen Fulton explained that when the garage at his residence was built in the 40’s it was not bolted to the foundation, adding that one side of garage slipped off the foundation and had to be torn down. He stated that he would like to rebuild the garage to store his antique car. He then explained that the garage was removed in the 90’s leaving the foundation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Dollar, Mr. Fulton responded that when City Inspector Marty Sanady inspected the concrete foundation, he was informed that in order to rebuild the garage he would have to obtain a side yard variance. It was determined that the existing foundation is approximately 3’8” from the side property line. He added that when the adjacent house was sold, the new neighbor did not have the property lines surveyed before installing a fence. He stated for that reason he is not precisely sure of the exact property line between the homes. Commissioner McCleary established that the foundation and fence line in question is located to the left of the property from the street. Chairman Perry questioned if Mr. Fulton’s intention is to add to the existing slab. Mr. Fulton responded that he added onto the foundation toward the direction of his residence. He explained that the previous garage was built for a smaller car, and did not permit easy access to the vehicle. He related that he added approximately 3’ of new foundation toward his house, making the garage slightly wider and longer by extending the foundation to the rear approximately 2’ to 3’ back. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Dollar, Mr. Fulton demonstrated on the plot plan the location of the house in proximity to the garage, saying that it would allow him more space to move his trailer into and out of the area. Commissioner McCleary asked if he and the neighbor have a good rapport regarding the location of the fence. Mr. Fulton replied that the fence is brand new and has only been there a couple months. Commissioner McCleary asked if the neighbors had said anything to him 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 11, 2003 regarding the requested variance. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Dollar, Mr. Fulton stated that the variance is needed so that he can still gain access to his rear year, adding that in the future he may want to expand his residence. Chairman Perry closed the public hearing at approximately 6:21 p.m. Commissioner Boyd moved, seconded by Commissioner McCleary to grant the requested side yard setback variance of approximately 3’8” at 163 Roosevelt Road. MOTION CARRIED. b. Front Yard Setback Variance at 901 and 905 Graham Road Chairman Perry opened the public hearing at approximately 6:22 p.m. Chairman Perry noted petitioners Mr. Robert Kerr and Mr. Jamie Yates requesting a front yard setback variance. Mr. Robert Kerr states that he lives at 901 Graham Road the property to the right of Mr. Jamie Yates property at 905 Graham Road. He related that they removed a chain link fence that was in disrepair and are requesting to replace it with a privacy fence, which they are purchasing jointly. Mr. Kerr and Mr. Yates offered the Board a drawing and photo of the property and the fence before being informed that he and Mr. Yates would have to seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment regarding a front yard setback. City Engineer Whisker stated that the fence goes beyond the front yard building line to the front property line. Mr. Kerr stated that City Engineer Whisker measured from the center of the road to make sure that it did not impede upon the 30’ City right-of-way. He explained that he is just proposing to replace the chain link fence that was in the same place, and that the privacy fence would not extend further than was previously in place. He noted that from the center of the road to the end of the fence is 30 feet. Mr. Whisker stated that the fence is proposed to extend to the front property line. Discussion ensued regarding the front setback; Mr. Kerr added that he and Mr. Yates were not aware of the build line further explaining that they just wanted to replace the existing dilapidated fence. Mr. Yates related that it was his and Mr. Kerr’s desire to improve the appearance of their property. Mr. Kerr mentioned that he would like to build a privacy fence along the other side of his property, pointing out that the City cleaned out the ditch and he has purchased sod for the area to keep the weeds down. City Engineer Whisker noted that the request would be for a front yard setback variance of 55 feet. It was noted that both properties are large lots. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 11, 2003 Mr. Kerr reiterated that the old fence extended the same distance beyond the building line and that he and Mr. Yates are just proposing to replace the chain link fence with a privacy fence. In response to a question posed by Chairman Perry, Mr. Kerr related that the privacy fence would not obstruct the view pulling out from the driveway, adding that the nearest cross street is Pulaski and the fence is not visible from there. He explained that there is more than enough distance from the fence to the end of the drive not to obstruct the view. City Engineer Whisker related that he felt there would be enough distance to determine sidewalk walk traffic backing from the drive, adding a car backing out would end up in the pull off area on Graham road and would not block the sidewalk. He estimated approximately 15’ between the fence and sidewalk. Commissioner McCleary stated that he was previously concerned regarding the fence height, but noted that Mr. Kerr and Mr. Yates are both in agreement regarding the fence construction. Mr. Kerr stated that the front fence would actually be lower than 6’ as it extends to the road. Mr. Yates added that the property slopes as it moves toward the street, explaining that the fence would stair-step in two stages. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McCleary, it was clarified that Mr. Kerr and Mr. Yates are building the fence themselves and splitting the cost. Discussion ensued regarding the aesthetics and it was noted that the property is being improved. Commissioner Dollar stated that personally she does not have a problem with the fence but philosophically is concerned given the ordinance and that there is no overriding reason why it should be allowed. She added that there is no hardship associated with the property that would support the request. She agreed that the property is more attractive given the work done by Mr. Kerr and Mr. Yates. Mr. Kerr reiterated that a fence was there previously and was in disrepair, which is why it was taken down. He stated that when the City replaced the sewer line he had to re-sod the grass, adding that he would like to assure everyone that he is just trying to make his property look attractive. Chairman Perry closed the public hearing at approximately 6:32 p.m. Commissioner McCleary moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to approve variance for the six-foot privacy fence located between 901 and 905 Graham Road. MOTION CARRIED. c. Maximum square footage accessory building variance at 5123 Madison Avenue 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 11, 2003 Chairman Perry opened the public hearing at approximately at approximately 6:35 p.m. Petitioner James Harkey related that he would like to have a garage/storage building in the rear yard in order to park their vehicles, store their boat and have a hobby shop. He stated that he furnished a drawing for review, adding that he has a copy of the bill of assurance with him. Chairman Perry noted that the variance exceeds the maximum square footage allowance for accessory buildings. Mr. Harkey agreed saying that the maximum is 650 square feet and his request is for a 780 square foot accessory building. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Dollar, Mr. Harkey responded that he needs the extra square footage to store an antique truck, his boat, power tools that he uses for mechanic work, and tools utilized for personal carpentry work. Chairman Perry recognized visitors to address the variance issue. Ben & Susan Rice of 708 Jefferson introduced themselves, relating that they live in the sub-division, and were the developers of the sub-division. Mr. and Mrs. Julius Budelis of 5008 Madison. Mr. and Mrs. Franz Schmucker at 5102 Madison. Mr. Rice explained the reasons for a subdivision bill of assurance, pointing out that restrictions are placed on use of the property to ensure property activity in a subdivision that would not cause property values to decrease. He stated that the bill of assurance does permit storage buildings for storage of automobiles. He added that the bill of assurance also spells out how close to the property line an accessory building can be located, adding that it requires any buildings constructed to be approved by himself and Mrs. Rice. He stated that provision was included in the bill of assurance to ensure that accessory building would conform to the aesthetics of the primary residence, making sure that construction is compliant with the bill of assurance and does not detract from property values. Mr. Harkey explained that having never lived in the City limits he was not sure where to begin the variance process either with the Board of Adjustments or with bill of assurance. He noted that if the variance was approved by the City he had prepared a letter to Mr. & Mrs. Rice for their consent. Mr. Rice stated that as long as the bill of assurance guidelines are met, they would not unreasonably withhold approval. He stated that some property owners might be concerned with how the building is used regarding noise and other considerations. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Boyd, Mr. Harkey related that he has considered two types of construction, one being a metal building that meets the bill of assurance codes and secondly a wood frame building 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 11, 2003 that meets the architecture of the house with vinyl siding and brick on the front. He pointed out that it would not detract topographically as stated in the bill of assurance. He noted that the bill of assurance did not state an accessory building could not be a metal building, but that the metal building would need to comply with the bill of assurance. He furnished the Board with a picture of a metal building that would be similar in design, but added that he plans a pitched roof with matching color to the primary residence. He related that if necessary he could add brick to the front façade, adding that would not be out of context regarding the primary residence. He stated that if there were something else the Board would require he is willing to do that too. Mr. Rice stated that brick on the front façade would be appreciated if Mr. Harkey did not feel that it would be asking too much. Commissioner McCleary stated that he did not have an opportunity to view the exterior of the house before the meeting but would like to do so, adding that he would like to look at the size and determine why there would be opposition to the request. Discussion ensued regarding the larger size for an all-metal building. Mrs. Harkey stated he has received estimates on a wood building and the metal building. He related that an all-metal building could have a brick façade to enhance the appearance. He explained that often, metal buildings with a 3-12 pitch roof are used next to expensive buildings, adding that it would resemble the style of the house. Commissioner McCleary questioned if some of the concerns from the neighbors was the size of the building. Mr. Rice stated that the size of the building is a concern. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Dollar, Mr. Harkey stated that the building would be 30’ deep and 26’ wide. He added that there would be two 8’ to 9’ foot doors in the front. He then explained the brick façade for the face of the building. He related that one side of the building would be used to store his antique truck and the other side would house the boat. He then related that the building would need to be deep enough to have a place for his mechanic and carpenter tools in order to have room to work. He explained that the building would have two windows and a separate entrance door. He added that the building would sit to the rear of the lot 18’ from the rear property line. He noted that the building would be 5’ from the nearest side yard lot line. Mr. Rice stated that he believes the bill of assurance requires the proposed building to be 10’ feet or 10% of the lot width, whichever is greater, from the side yard lot line. He then read from the bill of assurance, “building location 10% located nearer than a distance equal to 10% of the width of the lot at the frontal building line or 10 feet whichever is greater to the interior. Principal building should be in the interior lot no nearer than 25 feet of the rear lot line”. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 11, 2003 City Engineer Whisker calculated that the bill of assurance would require that the building be approximately is 11’ from the side yard property line. Commissioner Dollar noted that the building location would need to be moved 6 feet to the interior of the lot to meet the bill of assurance. Mr. Harkey stated that he did not interpret the bill of assurance to read that way and asked if someone could explain. Mr. Rice stated that no building shall be located nearer than 10% of the lot width at the front building line or 10 feet, whichever is greater. He then clarified that the width of the front building line is 110’ and that 10% would be 11’ from the side yard property line. City Engineer Jay Whisker stated that any easements are for utilities and are automatically built in by City code for side, front and rear building lines. He stated that in this instance the Bill or Assurance requires 10% or 10 feet, whichever is greater. Mr. Rice questioned if anyone wanted to voice opinions regarding the choice of metal or wood materials for the construction. In response to a question from a neighbor, Mr. Harkey stated that that the size of the building was determined by the need to store a vehicle, a boat and tools for personal use with room to work around the vehicle. He then related that the wood building completed would cost $28,000.00, adding that the metal building would be approximately $20,000.00. He stated that the prices would include leveling the lot, pour concrete slab, and construct the metal building that would be insulated with two garage doors in the front, a side door, and two windows, which are the same requirements for the wood building. Mrs. Harkey stated that they believe it would be more attractive to have the boat enclosed rather than being outside. Mr. Harkey added that the truck is a 79 model, explaining that if stored inside it would prevent rusting. He stated that having the storage building would make the yard look neater. He related that he had observed other homes in the neighborhood that have two or three small storage buildings that are dilapidated in some cases. He stated that some of the storage buildings do not meet the bill of assurance requirements. He related that the construction company has stated that they are familiar with bill of assurance standards and based their estimate on other storage buildings in the neighborhood. He added that some homes in the neighborhood have large metal storage buildings. Mrs. Rice questioned who in the subdivision had a large metal storage building. Mr. Harkey stated that there is one next door to his residence. He continued that the building had to have been built on the lot because it could not have fit through the gates. He noted that the building is larger than an 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 11, 2003 8 X 10 foot building, adding that the building does not match the house or the topographical scenario. In response to a question proposed by Chairman Perry, Mr. Harkey stated that he plans to have brick on the front of the building to match his house. He added that the rear of his house is vinyl siding, continuing that to his understanding the building could be vinyl/metal siding. He related that the bill of assurance states that it could be either, adding that he wants the building to fit the surroundings. Commissioner Boyd asked Mr. Rice if there was concern that if approved it would set precedence. Mr. Rice stated that there is concern regarding the affect in the future with other property owners. Commissioner McCleary questioned if the size of the building is the biggest factor. Mr. Rice stated that he liked the idea of brick on the front of the building, adding that he can understand the need for the size of the building given Mr. Harkey’s intended use of the building. He added that he is concerned regarding someone else that may want to do something that large in the future. Chairman Perry noted that all variances are determined on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Susan Dollar noted that even if approved by the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Harkey would still need to get approval regarding the bill of assurance. Mr. Harkey stated that he understands that the bill of assurance is a different issue, adding that the only requirement from the City is the approval for a larger sized building. He clarified that he will need to direct a letter to Mr. & Mrs. Rice regarding permission the building size and esthetic issues. He questioned it the two are separate issues. City Engineer Whisker reiterated that that the Board of Adjustment has authority regarding a size variance, adding that the Board can make other considerations contingent upon approval. Commissioner Dollar clarified that it would seem that the size is not the major concern is not the size specifically, but is the aesthetic result. Mr. Rice stated that size is a factor if used to establish a precedent. Mr. Harkey asked if the size of one building is different from three or four buildings. Mr. Rice responded that there are no other buildings in the neighborhood over 600 square feet that he is aware of. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 11, 2003 Mr. Harkey agreed, adding that he is not only talking about size but the presentation of three or four metal storage buildings from the street. He stated that the main issue is the variance in size. Commissioner Dollar questioned if two smaller buildings would comply regarding square footage. Mr. Harkey stated that he believes two smaller buildings would not be as aesthetically pleasing. It was noted that two smaller buildings would comply with the City Code square footage, but would still need to meet bill of assurance requirements. Chairman stated that he has seen the finished product of other metal buildings that are similar to what Mr. Harkey has described with brick, in his opinion they look great. Mr. Harkey invited the Board to visit his property and review the proposed site. Discussion ensued to table the item of business. Mr. Rice stated that he does not have a problem with the building; he is more concerned about how it will be used. Chairman Perry noted that Mr. Harkey had stated that the building would be used for personal storage purposes not for any business purposes. Mr. Harkey explained that he is in the military, and when he retires, he would like to have a place where he can work on his hobbies. He stated that he would like to be considerate of his neighbors, explaining that when the wind blew his neighbors tree down across the street, he went over and helped cut the tree. He stated that he and his wife have made every effort to help anyone in the neighborhood. Chairman Perry closed the public hearing at approximately 7:01 p.m. Commissioner Keaton moved, seconded by Commissioner Dollar to table the request until the next regularly scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Perry adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:02 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, ___________________________ _____________________________ Susan L. Davitt CHAIRMAN Mark Perry CITY CLERK - TREASURER 8