BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 27, 2018

Transcription

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 27, 2018 The hearing was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Jones PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Board Members Matthew Jones, Robert Swisher, Karen Alfred, Brad Lamb Bryan Baesel Clerk of Commissions Nicolette Sackman and Assistant Law Director Sean Kelleher OATH OF OFFICE - Bryan Baesel Mr. Baesel was not present and the oath of office will be administered in the future. SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Docket Paxton received 2/25/18 from Vincent DeVries, 1828 Farrs Garden Path opposed to variance request Docket Mehall received 2/27/18 from Sharon Pavlas Roach and Amelia Mae Roach, in support of variance request ELECTION OF OFFICERS Election of officer was postponed to a future meeting. DOCKETS Docket Applicant: Brian Akers Premises: Westwood Rd., PP# Requesting to construct a single family dwelling such that the total width of two adjoining side yards on adjoining lots shall be 22-5 ½ at variance with (e) which states the total width of both side yards of a lot and the width of two adjoining side yards on adjoining lots shall be not less than the total width as set forth in Section for the district in which it is located (30 ); a 7-6 ½ variance for the total of two adjoining side yards. Mr. Kevin Hoffman (Polaris Engineering) and Mr. Brian Akers were sworn in by Mr. Kelleher. Mr. Hoffman explained they need a variance as there is not a 30 setback between houses. The Aker s house conforms to the zoning code 15 side yard setback but since the neighboring house is closer to the lot line than 15 there is not 30 between dwellings. The neighbor s house is an older home and may have been built prior to the 15 side yard setback requirements. There was Page 1 of 8

2 an existing house on the parcel that was demolished to construct the Aker s house but setback measurements were not taken from that house. Mr. Hoffman estimated based on the photo on the auditor s website that the existing house that was demolished may have been closer with the two houses being setback approximately 20 apart. The new house will be 15 off the lot line and there will be a 22-5 ½ setback between the two houses, which is an improvement over what previously existed. Members of the board discussed that the neighbor s house has a non-conforming setback and was probably constructed prior to the current zoning codes. There are other houses in this neighborhood that have non-conforming setbacks and are not 30 between dwellings or have a 15 side yard setback. The applicant s lot is almost 100 wide and they comply with the side yard setbacks and shouldn t be punished due to an existing condition of a neighboring house. The setback will not be out of character for the neighborhood. beneficial use of the property without a, it would be asking a lot of the applicant to comply with the setback code based on the location of the neighbor s house 2. Whether the variance is substantial no 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services N/A method other than a Motion: Based upon the findings of fact, testimony and evidence presented, Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Ms. Alfred to approve a 7-6 ½ variance for the total of two adjoining side yards. Docket Applicant: Joe Paxton Premises: 1917 Bassett Rd., PP# Requesting to install a 192 sf utility building at variance with (k) which states a utility building shall be permitted in a rear yard provided that the maximum building size on lots 20,000-40,000 sf is 150 sf in area; a 42 sf variance. Mr. Paxton, sworn in by Mr. Kelleher, explained he is seeking a variance to permit a larger shed than he is permitted. By code he can have a 150 sf shed and he would like a 192 sf shed. He Page 2 of 8

3 explained his yard is 0.89 acres, L shaped, and is heavily wooded with many mature trees so he has a lot of yard equipment that is needed to maintain his yard. His house is a ranch home with a two car garage that is 20 x 20 so they cannot fit cars and yard equipment in the garage. He calculated based on the amount of equipment he has a shed at 192 sf would give him enough room for storage. Part of his yard is fenced but he did not fence the entire rear yard that is behind his neighbor s house. The shed will not be visible to surrounding property owners and a couple of his neighbors have larger sheds, as they have more acreage, so the shed would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Members of the board discussed concerns with the proposed shed size as it is much larger than permitted for a lot this size. They reviewed and questioned if a smaller shed could be used and consideration was given for something larger than 150 sf but not as large as 192 sf. Based on the survey plat provided part of the applicant s lot area goes to the center line of Bassett Road so while the lot is 0.89 acres it is really not that larger when the area within the right-of-way is removed. They estimated the lot to be approximately 33,000-36,000 sf in area pending how calculations are determined. Mr. Paxton advised that due to the large number of trees on his lot there are a lot of leaves that fall in autumn and black walnuts. Maintaining the yard requires time and a lot of equipment. He was open to a smaller shed and discussion ensued with it being determined that a 10 x 16 shed would meet the applicant s needs and proved the board with a comfort level in granting a variance that is not substantial. beneficial use of the property without a 2. Whether the variance is substantial no 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services N/A method other than a variance yes, as a 150 sf shed would probably work, but the existing garage is small and has limited storage space Motion: Based upon the findings of fact, testimony and evidence presented, Mr. Lamb moved and seconded by Ms. Alfred to grant a 10 sf variance for a 16 x 10 shed that is 160 sf in area. Docket Applicant: Brent Mehall Page 3 of 8

4 Premises: 1669 Balmoral Way, PP# Requesting to construct a detached recreational fireplace 10 from the side property line and 15 from a building on the same property. Additionally, they would like to construct the face of this fireplace 4 6 wide at a height above 5 ; at variance with (n)(2) which states outdoor recreational fireplaces that are detached from a residence, shall be located no closer than 20 to any side property line of a lot. No Outdoor Recreational Fireplace that is detached from the residence shall exceed 12 in height. Neither shall such structures exceed 8 in width nor 5 in depth for the first 5 in height, nor 3 in width or depth for any portion of the structure above the height of 5. No detached Outdoor Recreational Fireplace shall be located closer than 20 to any building on the same property. This will require three variances: One for 10 from the side property line, a second for 5 to a building on the same lot, and a third for 1-6 for the width of the structure above 5 in height. Ms. Abby McConnaughy and Mr. Paul Neundorfer (contractors for the applicant) were sworn in by Mr. Kelleher. They reviewed the site plan showing that the lot is pie shaped (wide at the front and narrow in the rear yard) with a drainage easement along one of the property lines. Based on the lot shape there is no location to place the fireplace without a variance. If they were to put it behind the deck it would block the view of the yard and wooded area, which is a feature that attracted them to the house. The rear of the house has a wall of windows looking out onto the deck and rear yard. The fireplace will be located in the rear yard but to the side of the deck. They proposed to install a 6 fence along the property line as well as a hedge of arborvitaes and other landscape material for screening. The fireplace will be a gas burning unit with no chimney and is smokeless. The design of the fireplace looks like it has a chimney but the reason they are requesting a wider unit above the 5 grade is so a television can be mounted on the fireplace. Members of the board discussed the proposal and that the fireplace will be open in the front facing the applicant s property and cannot be a wood burning fireplace. The board has received numerous variance for these types of fireplaces. The width of the fire place being limited to 3 wide above 5 in height seems to be an arbitrary number as this will not impact surrounding properties. The placement in relation to the house is not an issue since this is not a wood burning fireplace and does not omit ambers. The noted fence and landscape will screen the unit from neighbors and it was noted the adjacent neighbor s side loading garage is in the area of the fireplace so there would be minimal visual impact and would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Due to the odd shape of the lot the proposed location is the best location. beneficial use of the property without a variance yes, not an issue 2. Whether the variance is substantial no 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services N/A Page 4 of 8

5 method other than a variance yes, a fireplace doesn t have to be built, but there were no concerns with the proposal as it is a permitted use. The required location is less desirable than the proposed location. Motion: Based upon the findings of fact, testimony and evidence presented, Ms. Alfred moved, seconded by Mr. Lamb to grant a 10 setback variance from the side property line. Motion: Based upon the findings of fact, testimony and evidence presented, Ms. Alfred moved, seconded by Mr. Lamb to grant a 5 setback variance to a building on the same lot. Motion: Based upon the findings of fact, testimony and evidence presented, Ms. Alfred moved, seconded by Mr. Swisher to grant a variance for 1-6 for the width of the structure above 5 in height. Docket Applicant: Westlake Commons (Biryani Hut Express) Premises: Center Ridge Rd., PP# Requesting to add 1,258 sf of restaurant customer service area with 54 new seats, with no additional parking spaces (140 existing, 163 needed); at variance with (b) if there is an increase in seating capacity, parking shall be provided; variance request to apply (b) Joint Use of Parking Facilities to a restaurant and allow 23 shared parking spaces. Mr. Annreddy, owner of Biryani Hut Express, was sworn in by Mr. Kelleher. He explained he is seeking a variance for shared parking spaces. He is expanding his business and leasing a second tenant space so that he can have a party room available for events. The space will not be used daily and is for events that would happen a couple of times a month. The use of the party room will not be at the peak times of the other tenants and most of the time will be in the evening. He reviewed the business hours for the bigger tenants in the plaza: Claudette s closes at 2:30 pm daily; Kumon is open Tuesday 4 pm-7 pm and Saturday 9 am to 12 pm; Rettig Music closes at 6:30 pm weekdays, 4 pm on Saturday and closed on Sunday. He showed photos of the parking lot which he explained is never full and there are frequently empty parking spaces. In addition there are 18 parking spaces behind the building that are never used. He stated the parking lot is the busiest during Claudette s peak breakfast and lunch hours. Most of the vehicles at the plaza come and go and do not stay for long periods of time. He would like to be able to have 23 shared parking spaces and did not think there would be parking issues as frequently the parking lot is Page 5 of 8

6 empty when his party center would be in use. Mr. Annreddy explained the party room would be used for parties only and not used daily or rarely during the peak hours of the other tenants. The board reviewed Assistant Planning Director William Krause s memo with a detailed parking analysis based on the code requirements for the various tenant uses. It appears that Claudette s is the largest user of parking spaces and as noted their peak business hours are breakfast and lunch. In the evening the parking lot has many parking spaces that are not in use. It was noted the party room will be used for events only and not daily dining needs. Mr. Annreddy explained that 60% of his business is carry out with only 40% being dine in customers. The board reviewed the parking needs for all the tenants, peak hours and the proposed use. Concerns they expressed were if a variance were to be approved what would happen in the future if the tenant were no longer there and another restaurant moved in, or if another food service operation wished to move into the remaining vacant tenant space. They were aware that this plaza has had numerous vacant tenant spaces over the years and were willing to work with the applicant. Many of the board members have dined at Claudette s and have never had any parking problems during peak hours nor did they notice issues with parking. The board discussed options for conditions of approval for the hours the party room could be used to prevent potential parking issues. Pending future tenants the parking may need to be reviewed further at that time, which concerned Mr. Lamb. beneficial use of the property without a variance no, the board looked at the highest and best use for this tenant space, and maybe a tenant could be found to fit the parking requirements, but the plaza has struggled with vacancies and the reality is that there is a current tenant with a viable use for the tenant space 2. Whether the variance is substantial no 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services no method other than a Motion: Based upon the findings of fact, testimony and evidence presented, Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Ms. Alfred to approve a variance to allow 23 shared parking spaces with the following conditions: 1. The variance applies only to a business serving food and drinks that occupies tenant space #8, Center Ridge Rd. 2. Tenant space #8, consisting of 1,780 sq. ft. of gross square footage can only be used for serving food and drinks after 1:00 pm on weekdays, after 12:00 pm on Saturday and all day on Sunday. 3. The customer service area for tenant space #8 cannot exceed 1,350 sq. ft. and contain Page 6 of 8

7 more than 54 seats. Yeas: Jones, Swisher, Alfred Nays: Lamb, motion carried Docket Applicant: Nick Ross Premises: 892 Richmar Dr., PP# Requesting to install an unenclosed porch 8 into his front yard at variance with (c) which states building features may project into required front and side yards of a dwelling, but shall not project more than 4 into a front yard; a 4 front yard projection variance. Also requesting to install an addition with a 42-2 setback at variance with which states the average setback of conforming buildings located within 300 on either side of a lot proposed for development shall be the minimum front yard setback required for that lot (this average for this area is 47-4 ); a 5-2 front yard setback variance. Mr. Ross, sworn in by Mr. Kelleher, explained he purchased the home in 2009 and since that time his family has grown and they need more space. The proposal is for a home addition and garage addition, as he would like to stay in the house. He needs variances for the front porch setback and the garage setback. His property is unique as Cahoon Creek is in his rear yard and the yard has a narrow depth with a 24 drop to the creek on part of the property. The garage is designed to be a side loading garage and due to the depth of the property and the drop in grade he cannot push the garage addition further back on the lot. He would like to be able to have a front porch with room for people to enter his house. The porch will be covered but open. Mr. Ross explained his neighborhood is an older neighborhood without an established front yard setback. The setback is determined by the average of houses located within 300 on either side of his lot and one house is has a 58 setback and another has a 38 setback. The houses in the area vary when it comes to setbacks. Members of the board discussed the proposal and concern with the setback and size of the rear addition to the house, although the rear addition does not require a variance and is not for the board to review. Mr. Swisher had concerns with the front porch setback and if the entryway needed to be so deep. The various setback elevations on the applicant s house do add character and the setbacks of the existing houses on the street are inconsistent. Mr. Ross explained the additions were designed to break up the length of the front façade and to allow for storage room in the garage. The foundation for the garage cannot go any further back on the lot due to the grade issues. He also noted they wanted enough room in the entryway so people had room when they entered the house. He also enjoys the neighborhood and sitting on the front porch. Mr. Swisher felt the addition was extensive. Mr. Ross advised they did look at putting the garage on the other side of the house but that is not practical as it does not work with the layout of the interior of the house. It was noted that even if the addition were in line with the existing house it would still need a variance. Page 7 of 8

8 beneficial use of the property without a variance yes 2. Whether the variance is substantial yes 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services N/A method other than a variance yes, the property is large and while it may not be the ideal layout there is probably other ways to get this done without a variance Motion: Based upon the findings of fact, testimony and evidence presented, Mr. Lamb moved, seconded by Ms. Alfred to grant a 4 front yard projection variance for the front porch. Yeas: Jones, Alfred, Lamb Nays: Swisher, motion carried Motion: Based upon the findings of fact, testimony and evidence presented, Mr. Lamb moved, seconded by Mr. Swisher to grant a 5-2 front yard setback variance for the garage addition. Yeas: Jones, Alfred, Lamb, Swisher MISCELLANEOUS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Ms. Alfred to approve the minutes of January 30, 2018 Yeas: Swisher, Alfred, Jones, Lamb ADJOURNMENT Chairman Jones adjourned the meeting at 9:02 P.M. Matt Jones, Chairman Nicolette Sackman MMC, Clerk of Commissions Approved: Page 8 of 8