MINUTES MANHATTAN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Wednesday, July 9, 2014 7:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Harry Hardy, Chairperson; Connie Hamilton, Vice Chairperson; Ray Thompson MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Lavis, Angie Danner STAFF PRESENT: Chase Johnson, Planner; Everett Haynes, Planning Intern CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11, 2014, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING. Hamilton moved to approve the June 11, 2014 minutes which was seconded by Thompson and passed with a vote of 3-0. CONTINUE A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET TO TEN (10) FEET FOR A PROPOSED FENCE ALONG ESTELLA DRIVE LOCATED AT 2105 PLYMOUTH ROAD, IN THE R, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (APPLICANT / OWNER: ZIFEI LIU) Hamilton moved to remove Item 2 from the table and continue the Public Hearing. Thompson seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 3-0. Johnson presented the staff report with the recommendation of approval with three (3) conditions. Hardy opened the public hearing. Zifei Liu, the applicant, addressed the Board. He spoke about the revisions to the plan and the addition of landscaping to create a buffer and help screen the fence. Liu also noted that the neighbor directly to the south is supportive of the fence, as long as several edits were made to the plan, such as adding a slight diagonal in the fence for a better vision field. Liu emphasized the need for the fence because of his young children needing a space to play in safety. Hamilton asked the applicant if he understood that one of the conditions of approval is that the fence and landscaping must be maintained in good shape. If conditions are not maintained, the city could find the applicant in noncompliance and require the fence be taken down. Daryl Donahey, local neighbor at 2041 Estella Dr., addressed the Board, concerned with the construction of the fence. Donahey strongly believes that proposed type of fence should not be
Page 2 in a front yard but is rather a back yard fence. Donahey believes that the fence will diminish the aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood. Liu addressed the Board again stating how he needs the additional space for his children to play in. Hardy closed the public hearing. Hamilton wanted clarification about language used in staff report about neighbor who is away on vacation and if the Board needed to table the item again. Johnson stated that the neighbor was away but is still in contact with the applicant. Hamilton stated that the language in the staff report needed to be struck in order for the Board to make a decision. Hamilton disused that she feels the curve of the street, presence of green space/landscaping, the fence having no impact on the nearby bus stop, and the support of neighbors has helped the applicant make a better case and argument for the proposed fence. Hardy also agreed with Hamilton saying the modifications to the design has swayed him to support the application, with conditions. The Board made the following findings of fact for the Exception at 2105 Plymouth Road. PRESENT USE: Single-family home COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Other than the Exception request, the subject site complies with all applicable regulations. PROBABLE EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The subject site and surrounding properties are zoned R, Single-Family Residential District. The property is within a residential neighborhood in the northwest area of the community that is continuing to develop. Minimal substantial adverse impacts on adjacent properties are anticipated by approving the Exception. Although the area where the fence is proposed to be located is technically the front yard along Estella Drive, it functions as a side yard. While the proposed fence located in the second front yard is uncommon in the immediate neighborhood, the adjustment to the fence and proposed landscaping shown on the revised site plan should help mitigate any adverse impacts that would be created by the encroachment of the fence. The properties that would be impacted the most by the proposed fence are the homes to the direct northwest, southwest and south of the subject property. Due to the curvilinear form of Estella, impact to properties further to the south of the subject site is reduced by expanding the distance to the subject site and giving the appearance that the fence is set further back than it actually is from the property line. In addition, a form letter was received by six (6) surrounding neighbors offering their support for the fence including the neighbors to the
Page 3 northwest and southwest. According to the additional application documents the property owner located to the direct south have no problems with my fence if I am willing to make a little adjustment at southwest corner of my fence to allow better view from their guest room in basement. However, they are not able to provide a letter of support since they are traveling in Europe. EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY, OR GENERAL WELFARE: The Exception desired will not encroach upon any utility easements or the vision clearance triangle at the intersection of Estella Drive and Plymouth Road. The proposed fence will be outside of the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback along Plymouth Road. In addition, the fence will be located approximately twenty-five (25) feet from the public right-of-way located to the west of the subject site. While the proposed fence located in the second front yard may affect the neighborhood order along Estella Drive, the adjustment to the fence and proposed landscaping shown on the revised site plan should help mitigate any affect on the order of the neighborhood and should not impact the public health, safety and welfare of the general public. THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS IS UNREASONABLE, OR UNNECESSARY WHEN ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CONSIDERED: The strict application of the front yard setback would require that the proposed fence be located a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the property line along Estella Drive. Due to the location of the home on the subject site, there is limited yard area to the south of the property. The application documents state the house is located on a corner lot with very narrow back yard space. The owner wants to place a wood fence along the west side of the house to make a 24 ft wide side yard that (would) allow kids to play safely. Considering the revised proposed fence addition will have a limited impact on the adjacent properties, minimal effects on public health, safety and general welfare and the alternatives available to the applicant, the strict application of the front yard setback seems unreasonable. Hamilton made a motion to approve the EXCEPTION under the terms of the Manhattan Zoning Ordinance of the City of Manhattan, Kansas, to allow for the reduction of the minimum required front yard setback from twenty-five (25) feet to ten (10) feet for a proposed fence along Estella Drive in the R, Single-Family Residential District with the following conditions: 1. The Exception shall apply only to the fence as described in the application documents and shown on the revised application site plan. 2. The proposed landscaping shall be installed as shown on the revised site plan to provide the intended screening as clarified by the applicant during the meeting. 3. The fence and landscape area adjacent to the fence shall be maintained in good condition. Thompson seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 3-0. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM
Page 4 FOURTEEN (14) FEET TO ZERO (0) FEET FOR AN EXISTING FENCE LOCATED AT 1004 COLORADO STREET, IN THE R-1/TNO, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT. (APPLICANT / OWNER: ALISON RUSINE) Johnson presented the staff report with recommendation of denial of the item. Hamilton asked if the fence is three (3) feet in height and if so, could the fence remain. Johnson answered that regulations state that a structure must be thirty (30) inches or less and be related to another issue, not necessarily a fence.. Hardy opened the public hearing. The applicant, Alison Rusine, was present and addressed the Board. Rusine explained that she did not knowingly disregard the zoning code and believed they were in compliance when constructing the wooden fence. A notice letter was sent to the previous owner and not delivered to the current owner (Rusine) until after the fence was already completed. Rusine also commented on the positive support and comments received from neighbors, passer-bys, and the public. Rusine also presented examples of other front yard fences within the area, none of which are only four (4) feet from the front porch, which is what zoning allows. She strongly believes that the fence is a positive addition that adds to the character of the neighborhood. Rusine also presented a newspaper article and accompanying photograph from June 2014 that depicts the fence and argues that the fence is a positive addition to the neighborhood, especially since it was featured in a front page article. Hamilton asked if the residence was a single-family unit or multi-family residence and if all units had access to the front yard. Rusine answered that it is a multi-family residence with three (3) families and all have access to the front yard. Hardy closed the public hearing. Hamilton discussed fencing regulations and that similar cases often required fencing that is more see through and shorter. Hamilton also discussed that the fourteen (14) foot setback is a product of allowing new buildings/houses being built in the area to sit closer to the street. Thompson commented that the example photos of other properties with front yard fences are in noncompliance Hardy discussed the Board s history and consistency of policy regarding fencing in the TNO. Hardy also discussed how the fence creates a visual obstruction in the streetscape of Colorado, especially since the material is wood and not see through. The Board made the following findings of fact for the Exception at 1004 Colorado Street:
Page 5 PRESENT USE: Legally nonconforming three-family (3) residential property COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The City of Manhattan issued an Opinion of Nonconformance, dated September 16, 1986, that stated the existing three-family dwelling is a legally nonconforming use and a second Opinion of Nonconformance on May 8, 2001 was issued for the subject property. On February 11, 2009, a conditional use for a modification to a legally nonconforming use and exception to allow a reduction of required off-street parking was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Other than for what the Exception request is for, the subject site complies with all applicable regulations. PROBABLE EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: Adjacent properties to the north, east, south, and west are currently zoned R-1/TNO, Single-Family Residential with Traditional Neighborhood Overlay District. Property further to the south is zoned R-2/TNO, Two-Family Residential with Traditional Neighborhood Overlay District. The area is a mix of singlefamily, two-family and three-family dwellings, with a combination of owner-occupied and rental units. The existing fence is not a minor encroachment into the front yard setback and visually disrupts the building line along Colorado Street. There are currently no other property along Colorado Street in the area that has a similar fence within the front yard setback. The existing fence on the subject site seems to cause an adverse visual impact on the adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted a form letter from ten (10) surrounding neighbors offering their support for the existing fence; including the neighbors to the direct east and west, south across Colorado Street, and north across the alley. EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY, OR GENERAL WELFARE: The existing fence does not encroach into any vision clearance triangles or utility easements. However, the location of the fence does affect the public order along Colorado Street. There are very few properties along Colorado Street and within the general neighborhood that have fences encroaching into the front yard setback. The few properties that do contain fences within the front yard setback are comprised of either chain link or stone material and appear to be long term nonconformities. The application documents include pictures of these properties within the surrounding neighborhood. THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS IS UNREASONABLE, OR UNNECESSARY WHEN ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CONSIDERED: The applicant states in the application documents, The zoning regulations are very clear for the front yard setback. Before building the fence we looked at the regulations, but unfortunately I misinterpreted the TNO yard requirements. Instead of moving the fence, the applicant has proposed an Exception to the regulation. The application documents state that Most houses in the neighborhood have fenced in back yards, giving their children and pets a safe area to play. In an effort to make 1004 Colorado more family-friendly, we wanted to redo the front and side yards with a thriving lawn and fenced in play area.
Page 6 Other than the fact that the fence currently exists, there are no physical conditions which would prevent the fence from meeting strict application of the regulation. The rear yard is comprised of a seven (7) stall parking lot associated with the legally nonconforming use, which reduces the amount of open space available to the property. However, the fence in its present location provides for an area of approximately 2,324 square feet of open yard. The fence in its present location, but reduced to the minimum fourteen (14) foot front yard setback along the south property line, would provide an area of approximately 1,592 square feet, a loss of 732 square feet. It seems that a reasonable alternative is available to the applicant to locate the fence outside of the front yard setback and meet the stated objectives of providing a fenced in yard area. When all facts and circumstances are considered, strict application of the regulations is not unreasonable. Thompson made a motion to deny the Exception under the terms of the Manhattan Zoning Ordinance of the City of Manhattan, Kansas, to allow for the reduction of the minimum required front yard setback from fourteen (14) feet to zero (0) feet for an existing fence in the R-1/TNO, Single-Family Residential District with a Traditional Neighborhood Overlay District. Hamilton seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 3-0. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET TO TWELVE (12) FEET FOR AN ADDITION TO A PATIO ROOF LOCATED AT 2721 BUTTONWOOD DRIVE, IN THE R-2, TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. (APPLICANT / OWNER: PHIL ANDERSON) Haynes presented the staff report with recommendation of approval of the item. Thompson asked if the property was a duplex. Haynes discussed that the property and house is an attached single-family residence that shares a common wall and line. Hamilton asked for clarification regarding the easements. Haynes elaborated on the easements and how the fence along the southern property line may be in violation of code, since its built directly in a utility and drainage easement. Hamilton asked about the design of the porch roof and if it would be enclosed. Haynes answered that the porch roof would not be enclosed. Thompson asked for clarification regarding the visualization of the porch roof and if it would be connected to the house s rear exterior wall.
Page 7 Haynes answered that the roof would be partially connected to the exterior rear wall and pitch out to the south where it would be supported by three (3) columns. Hardy opened the public hearing. Phil Anderson, the applicant, addressed the Board and answered questions. Hardy closed the public hearing. Thompson voiced his concern for the direct adjacent neighbor to the west and if they have been properly notified. Hamilton, Johnson, and Haynes elaborated that neighbors have been notified in a timely manner although there was a lack of information regarding his opinion on the project. Hamilton discussed the project s design and its minimal impact on neighbors, voicing her support. Hardy also voiced his support for the project and the adequate space between the porch area and adjacent properties. The Board made the following findings of fact for the Exception at 2721 Buttonwood Drive. PRESENT USE: Attached Single-Family Dwelling COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The property adjoins two easements. One easement adjoins the property to the south and serves as a utility and drainage easement. The easement is twenty (20) feet wide with the center point on the southern property line. The easement thus extends ten (10) feet into the subject property itself. A wooden privacy fence has been built directly upon the southern property line and could possibly be encroaching on this easement. The encroachment is being addressed by the City s storm water engineer and public works staff. The subject site otherwise complies with all applicable regulations, other than for what the Exception requests are for. PROBABLE EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The subject site and surrounding properties to the north and west are zoned R-2, Two-Family Residential District. To the south are properties zoned as PUD, Planned Unit Development and R-1, Single-Family Residential District. To the northeast are properties zoned R-3, Multi-Family Residential District and PUD, Planned Unit Development. The immediate area is made up of attached single-family homes. Impacts on adjacent properties should be minimal. The subject site backs up onto two (2) large lots: one (1) with a completed and occupied residential home and one (1) undeveloped lot. 820 Butterfield Rd. is a large irregular shaped property with the house itself far in proximity to the subject site which will not visually impact this adjacent property. 2507 Butterfield Ct. is a large, unimproved lot. Due to its unoccupied status, the addition of a porch roof would have
Page 8 little to no effect on the property in its current status. If a house was constructed, the porch roof will still have a minimal effect on visuals due to its material and the existing privacy fence that helps create a visual barrier between the two properties. The adjacent property to the west, 2723 Buttonwood Drive, is separated with a privacy fence built directly on the property line, creating a visual buffer between the two rear yards. The property and structure to the east, 2719 Buttonwood Drive, lies farther back from the western property line. The privacy fence also creates a visual buffer between the two properties. In summation, the construction of a porch roof would have no visual effect on these lots or any other nearby properties. The application documents state that the addition of a porch roof would not cause a substantial effect on adjacent properties due to the presence of several utility easements, the privacy fence, and the distance on the nearby properties. EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY, OR GENERAL WELFARE: The public health, safety, and welfare should not be adversely impacted. The proposed location of the porch roof addition will be outside of any easements. A twenty (20) foot drainage and utility easement rungs along the rear property line with its center point at the property line, thus only extending ten (10) feet into the property itself. A fifty (50) foot utility easement runs along the eastern property line. This easement contains above ground power lines. The center point of this easement is at the property line, thus only extending twenty-five (25) feet into the property itself. The proposed porch roof would be outside of both easements. THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS IS UNREASONABLE, OR UNNECESSARY WHEN ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CONSIDERED: The strict application of the rear yard setback would prohibit the construction of the proposed building addition. A porch roof of smaller size within the setback would not properly and/or efficiently serve the function of providing adequate shade for the family s enjoyment and use of the space. Without an exception, the owner would only be allowed to build a roof extending four (4) feet from the rear exterior wall of the home and would not provide sufficient shade. The property owner also lacks any reasonable alternatives without seriously reconfiguring the house s size and position. Considering the proposed porch roof addition will have a limited impact on the adjacent properties, the strict application of the rear yard setback seems unreasonable. Hamilton made a motion to approve the EXCEPTION to allow for the reduction of the minimum required twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback to twelve (12) feet for an addition to a patio roof at 2721 Buttonwood Drive in the R-2, Two-Family Residential District, with the following conditions of approval: 1. The Exception request shall be limited to the proposed building addition as explained in the application and shown on the site plan 2. The subject site shall be developed as proposed. 3. All applicable permits shall be obtained. 4. The proposed patio addition shall not be enclosed
Page 9 Thompson seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 3-0. Hardy adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted by Everett Haynes, Planning Intern sr