Loading...
12 APR 09 A G E N D A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 9, 2012 6:15 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER: PAGES 2. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Regular Scheduled Meeting of February 13, 2012 1-6 3. VARIANCE REQUEST(S): a. Rear Yard Setback Variance 1812 North James Street Petitioner: Jack Childers 7-9 b. Rear Yard Setback Variance 201 Merganzer Drive Petitioner: Robert Thurston 10-11 c. Rear Yard Setback Variance 3 Danbury Lane Petitioner: Robert & Carolyn Hudson 12-13 ADJOURNMENT MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 9, 2012 6:15 p.m. – 6:57 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Joe Ott, Alderman Howard, and Jon Johnson were present. Chairman Glen Keaton also answered roll call. City Engineer Whisker and City Attorney Bamburg were present. ______________________________________________________________________ City Clerk Susan Davitt recorded those listed above in attendance and Chairman Keaton declared a quorum. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Alderman Howard moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the regularly scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting of February 13, 2012. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE(S): a. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 1812 North James Street Chairman Keaton opened the public hearing at approximately 6:15 p.m. Mr. Jack Childers explained that they are proposing to construct a den where there is currently a screened back porch, and additionally a bedroom and bath. City Engineer Whisker clarified that the addition would extend 10’ into the 25’ rear yard setback, leaving 15’ to the property line. Mr. Brian Childers explained that he is purchasing the home from his father, who would also be living in the house. He stated that under those arrangements he will need to have an extra bedroom. City Engineer Whisker answered Commissioner Ott that water and sewer would not be a problem. He then added that none of the neighbors had registered any objections with his office. He offered that if the design is refigured it could be within the 25’ setback, not requiring a variance. Discussion ensued regarding various options of design that would meet setback requirements or greatly diminish the amount of variance needed. Mr. Jack Childers stated that when he first asked about a building permit, it was his understanding that the setback was 10’ so he proceeded with the loan contract and hired a contractor under those assumptions. He added that his son returned for additional information and was then told that the setback was 25’ not 10’. He related that the original layout was designed under the assumption that it was a 10’ rear yard setback. City Engineer Whisker apologized for the confusion, asserting that his office is well aware that the residential rear yard setback is 25’. Jack and Brian Childers explained that the design of having the bedroom and bathroom attached to one side of the den but not directly to the rear 1 of the home was to keep from blocking windows in the kitchen and other bedrooms. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING April 9, 2012 6:15 p.m. – 6:57 p.m. City Engineer Whisker suggesting shifting the bedroom closer to the home by 10’ and relocating the bathroom and walk-in closet in order to meet the 25’ setback. He stated that a 10’ variance is more than the usual variance, adding that normally it is around 5’ because of various circumstances or it is an unusual lot shape. He related that this lot is the standard dimensions with 27.5’ to work with in the rear yard. Discussion ensued as to reconfiguring the addition in order to keep it within the 25’ setback. Mr. Brian Childers remarked that even with refiguring the dimensions, if he cannot make the 25’ setback, how much would the Board be willing to grant regarding a rear yard setback variance for the addition. He also noted that the current design is only 18’ wide so the addition does not extend across the entire width of the property into the setback. He then answered that he did not want to shift the design so that it crosses the width of the backyard, explaining that he has small children and would like to leave room for them to play. City Engineer Whisker stated there are various ways the current dimensions could be shifted to reduce the setback request and keep the same square footage. Chairman Keaton questioned if Mr. Childers felt he could refigure the dimensions in order to keep within the 25’ setback, Mr. Brian Childers answered that at the most he might could reduce it to be 22.6’ from the rear property line. City Attorney Bamburg stated that the Board could not grant a blanket amount up to a certain footage. He explained that a new plan would need to be submitted. He noted that this would be best for title purposes regarding future property transfers. He suggested that the Board table the request and allow Mr. Childers an opportunity to redraw his plan, adding that if he still needs a variance, the Board could review the new request without having to republish. Further considerations for shifting and reducing the dimensions of the addition were discussed, as well as moving an existing portable accessory building. Mr. Brian Childers stated that he is also worried about the overhang on the house and the new addition taking up airspace for the condenser unit regarding proper airflow for draw. He stated that he could reduce that space from 8’ to 6’ as well have shaving off 2’ from the bedroom, reducing the variance by 4’. Commissioner Ott stated that the redraw needs to be as close to the setback requirement as possible, which would make granting the variance easier. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING April 9, 2012 6:15 p.m. – 6:57 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding a time table and it was the consensus of the th Board to meet again on April 16 at 5:30 p.m. Chairman Keaton concurred with City Attorney Bamburg, reiterating that the site plan would need to be represented if the reconfiguration still requires a variance the Board could meet back in one week. He related that the Board could not grant an amended variance request without reviewing a new site plan. Chairman Keaton closed the public hearing at approximately 6:36 p.m. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Ott to table the th request until Monday, April 16 at 5:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Bamburg advised that if the new plan does not require a variance, Mr. Childers would need to submit a letter withdrawing his request for a variance. Chairman Keaton requested that the variance sign remain on the property for an additional week. b. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 201 Merganzer Drive Chairman Keaton opened the public hearing at approximately 6:37 p.m. Mr. Robert Thurston, property owner of 201 Merganzer Drive, requested a variance of 2’ regarding the 25’ rear yard setback. He presented the Board with photographs of his property and his site plan. City Engineer Whisker noted that there is a garage addition that is already into the 25’ setback. He stated that this property is adjacent to a 100’ power line in Northlake, so there is no neighbor to the rear. He then answered Chairman Keaton that there had not been any call from neighbors. Mr. Thurston explained that he is proposing to construct a sitting room for the kitchen. He then answered that the exterior would be brick to match the front of the house. Chairman Keaton closed the public hearing at approximately 6:43 p.m. Alderman Howard moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve a 2’ variance as requested at 201 Merganzer Drive. MOTION CARRIED. c. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 3 Danbury Lane Chairman Keaton opened the public hearing at approximately 6:44 p.m. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING April 9, 2012 6:15 p.m. – 6:57 p.m. Mr. Robert Hudson explained that because of declining health his mother-in-law is now living with him and his wife. He added that his wife had to go daily to take care of her mother at her mother’s house. He stated that they are proposing to add a bedroom, bath and sunroom for his mother-in-law. He stated that the dimensions would be 22’ X 44’. Mr. Jim Moore, President of the Stonewall Property Owners’ Association, related that he was contacted by Mrs. Hudson, saying that he gave her a copy of the Stonewall Bill of Assurance. He related that the Bill of Assurance requires that the rear yard setback must be 25’ with side setbacks of 7.5’. He stated that he redrew and gave Mrs. Hudson a copy of a new plan moving the addition to the side where the patio is located. He added that he asked Mrs. Hudson to redraw the plan so that it does not encroach on the rear 25’ setback. He related that there is a home adjacent to the Hudson’s rear property line, explaining that the privacy fence between the properties is in the middle of an easement. He noted that the proposed addition is a 968 square foot addition, adding that there is a greenhouse on the property that could be moved to accommodate relocation of the addition. He stated that the Stonewall Board does not have a problem with the addition but does not want it to encroach into the 25’ rear yard setback. Mrs. Hudson stated that the problem with moving the addition to the side is that the utilities are connected on the back wall of the garage as well as a water hydrant, which would interfere with the addition being placed there. She stated that it would still be 14.5’ from the easement. Mr. Hudson then pointed out that the house at 1 Danbury is 8.5’ from the easement with a concrete slab that goes up to the easement. He then related that he had come to the Engineering Department in January and was told by the secretary that he did not need to apply for a permit, that the builder would be the one to apply for the permit. He stated that she told him that he could come within 5’ of the easement. City Engineer Whisker clarified that if the addition it attached to the existing home the rear yard setback is 25’, adding that if it is a separate building being used as a storage shed it can be 5’ from any property line. He stated that he would make sure his office was corrected regarding that information. Chairman Keaton questioned if the extension could be L-shaped to prevent going into the rear setback. Discussion ensued regarding the sunroom being the only part of the proposed extension that encroaches on the setback. City Engineer Whisker refigured the extension, moving it out to the side by 10’, which would require the removal of the greenhouse. He estimated that he could come up with approximately 1,045 square feet to be utilized 4 as an addition without regard to layout and without encroaching into the setback. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING April 9, 2012 6:15 p.m. – 6:57 p.m. Mr. Moore offered that he did not feel the Stonewall Board would object to a 5’ side yard setback. City Engineer Whisker clarified that the City side yard setback is 5’ from the property line to the roof overhang. He noted that the obvious challenge is the utilities as well as the slope of the roof. Mr. and Mrs. Hudson agreed that the revised plan would work for their purposes. Chairman Keaton offered that the Board of Adjustment is planning to meet in one week and this would offer Mr. and Mrs. Hudson an opportunity to determine if they could make this plan work or if they might possibly need to return to the Board for a slight variance without having to re-advertise the variance request. Alderman Howard moved, seconded by Commissioner Ott to table the item of th business until the Special Called meeting of April 16 at 5:30 p.m. if it is determined by Mr. and Mrs. Hudson that they still require a variance. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Keaton closed the public hearing at approximately 6:56 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Without objection, Chairman Keaton adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:57 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, ___________________________ _____________________________ Susan L. Davitt CHAIRMAN Glen Keaton CITY CLERK – TREASURER 5