BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 25, 2017 The hearing was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Jones PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Board Members Matthew Jones, Robert Swisher, Brad Lamb, Karen Alfred Bryan Baesel Assistant Law Director Robin Leasure and Clerk of Commissions Nicolette Sackman SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE Docket 2017-04 Letter dated received 4/25/17 opposed to request signed by John Cleary, 2448 Hedgewood Way; Linda Schmidt, 24496 Hedgewood Way; Mike & Mary Beth Duffy, 24504 Hedgewood Way; Rick & Becky Sofka, 2275 Stones Throw; Lisa Hughes, 24493 Cornerstone; Marianne Betters, 24490 Cornerstone; Rod Marques, 24495 Hedgewood Way (these were the owners that signed the letter but other names were listed without signatures) DOCKETS Docket 2017-02 Applicant: Mark Davis Premises: 31009 Detroit Rd., PP# 211-10-018 (and 31055 Detroit, PP# 211-10-017) Requesting a permit to construct landscape mounds and a landscape entrance feature with the following features: Mounds and fencing 5 off of the right of way line; 99.33 of 54 high fencing; 18.64 total width of columns; and 235 of landscape mounding - 48 in height. {Note: the frontage of this property is 282 linear feet 10% = 28 linear feet}. At variance with 1211.33 which states: Landscape entrance features are defined as elements including mounding, pillars, and short sections of fences, to identify the intersection of a private driveway and a public street. Such features may not enclose a front yard either visually or physically and may occupy no more than 10% of the parcel width, shall be set back at least 10 from a right-of-way and not higher than 30, except pillars, the total widths of each when added together shall not exceed 4. This will require the following variances: 1. A 5 location variance for the location of the landscape mounding. 2. A 5 location variance for the location of the fencing. 3. A 207 variance for the length of the landscape mounding. 4. A 71.13 variance for entrance fencing/gate. 5. A 14.64 variance for sum total of column widths. 6. A 24 variance for fence height. 7. An 18 variance for height of mounding. 8. A variance to visually enclose the front yard. Page 1 of 6
Note: On 9/12/16 the Westlake Planning Commission approved a lot assembly for 31055 & 31009 Detroit Rd., PP# 211-10-018 & 017, which the applicant must record with the Cuyahoga County Auditor and any variances would be contingent upon the recording of that Assembly Plat. Applicant or agent was not present and Clerk Sackman had not received any correspondence. Mr. Morse neighbor at 31109 Detroit Rd. requested that he be notified when this matter is back before the board. Motion: Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Mr. Lamb to table Docket 2017-02. Yeas: Jones, Lamb, Swisher, Alfred Docket 2017-03 Applicant: Stephen and Tracy Krebs Premises: 27350 Langale, PP#212-10-062 Requesting to install an addition on this property 10.81 (10-10 ) off the side property line; at variance with 1211.08(e) which states the width of either side yard of a lot shall be not less than the respective dimensions as set forth in section 1211.09 (15 ). A 4.19 (4-2 ) side yard setback variance. Mr. Pastel, contractor, sworn in by Ms. Leasure, explained the applicant is seeking to build an addition on their home and replace an existing detached garage that is in very poor condition. The existing detached garage is currently located 6 off the property line and the new garage will be attached to the house and located 10 10 off the property line in the same general area of the detached garage. Current code requires the addition and house to be setback 15 off the side property line. Discussion ensued that the existing garage is being demolished and replaced with a new attached garage. It was questioned if the garage could be moved further off the lot line similar to the addition (the addition and garage are not on the same setback line) so a variance was not needed. Mr. Pastel advised that the exiting garage is closer to the property line than the new garage will be and the applicant would like to retain as much of their back yard as possible. Mr. Jones would like to see the garage conform to the code but was understanding of the desire to retain space in the rear yard. He stated that this improves the existing condition and the house to the west is forward so this is an improvement to the character of the neighborhood. After a careful review of the plans and testimony of the Applicants, the Board found that: 1. Applicant s property is located at 27350 Langale Road; 2. Applicant sought to build an addition on his property 10.81 off the property line which required a side yard setback variance of 4.19 ; 3. The existing garage structure at the rear of the property is 6 from the side yard property line; 4. The variance as granted for the addition will be a lesser intrusion into the side yard setback then the existing garage structure; Page 2 of 6
5. The variance is necessary to preserve limited rear yard space; 6. The variance sought is not substantial; 7. The adjoining property owners would not suffer a substantial detriment; and 8. The spirit of the zoning code would not be violated by the granting of the variance. Motion: Mr. Lamb moved, seconded by Mr. Swisher to approve a 4.19 (4-2 ) side yard setback variance. Yeas: Jones, Lamb, Swisher, Alfred Docket 2017-04 Applicant: Mathew and Denise Hlavin Premises: 24485 Cornerstone, PP#215-27-070 Requesting to install a second garage area with an interior floor space of 393 sf. Currently this dwelling has an attached 1100 sf garage but it is proposed to be reduced to 605 sf - total garage area of 998 sf for both garage areas. At variance with 1211.04(a)(2) which states on lots of single family lots private garages may be attached or detached, but not both, and shall be limited to one garage area not to exceed a maximum garage space of 1,000 sf on lots more than 20,000 but less than 40,000 sf.; a variance for two garage areas on this lot. Mr. Schill, Schill Architecture, sworn in by Ms. Leasure, explained he designed the original house in 2007 and now that the applicant s children are older they desire to renovate the home. They would like to add more space to the kitchen, laundry room, and mud room, so existing space in the garage will be converted into living space reducing the garage bay taking away a bay from a four car garage. Once the garage is reduce in square footage the applicant will keep three cars in the existing garage and they need additional space for stuff that is kept in the garage. The proposal is to construct an additional garage area (393 sf, 58 to 66 off the rear lot line) at the rear of the house that is connected to the house with a roof and unenclosed breezeway. The footprint of the house touches both side yard setbacks so the only location for this addition is at the rear of the house. The applicant will also be creating an outdoor patio and dining area. He explained the lot is 24,710 sf so coverage with the proposed addition is at 15% lot coverage, which is under the 20% of lot coverage permitted. Mr. Schill reviewed the drawings. The shape of the existing garage and new garage area create a motor court with three bays (existing garage) and one bay (new garage area) for additional storage. The new garage area is connected to the house but is a separate space from the existing garage area. The total amount of square footage does not need a variance. Mr. Schill stated his practical difficulty is that he is constrained as to where he can go due to no room on the side yards and he can only add on to the rear of the house. He stated that around 2007 he received a variance at 24510 Cornerstone for a detached garage space that one drives under (porte-cochere) so this is not unique to the area and will not be seen from the street. Mr. Swisher asked if there was any way the additional space could be accommodated in the existing garage. Mr. Schill noted the garage is currently touching the side setback line and the only place to provide the extra space is at the rear. He stated this is not unusual as he has received variances for similar requests, including recently in Quail Hollow. Mr. Swisher stated he had a problem with two spaces. Page 3 of 6
Mr. Jones stated that he has viewed the two garage spaces as a matter of functionality. In the past variances have been granted for two non-connected garage areas when they have been served by the same driving area, like motor court situations. Mr. Jones felt this this was the same situation but as he has reviewed the proposal he has looked at ways this can be achieved without a variance. He stated other options he thought of that could be done without a variance would be a lot more obtrusive. He gave an example that the entire existing four car garage space could be converted into living space and the proposed addition as shown could be increased to a four car bay, which would go further into the rear yard and not need a variance. Mr. Schill stated that he did look at that option as he didn t want to come before the board for a variance but a huge four car garage at the rear destroyed the architecture of the home. Mr. Jones added that it would also take a lot of the yard. He reiterated that the variance request is not for the amount of garage space (sf) but to allow two separate garage spaces but this was more a matter of functionality and layout, which he did not have an issue. He questioned if there were ways to achieve this without a variance but felt those options would use up more of the yard and be less functional. He was not in favor of more hard surface on the property and preferred to keep the driveway as compact as possible while being able to service what is allowed by code for number of parking spaces. Mr. Schill stated this was not his first design solution and they looked at three options. He noted he could place the garage so it was 30 off the rear property line but that would bisect the rear yard. Mr. Swisher questioned what kind of stuff would be stored in the new garage area and if cars would be stored there. Mr. Schill advised they had kid s stuff and it is a garage so at some point a car could go in the garage. Their everyday cars will be kept in the existing garage which has direct access to the house without having to go outside to access the space, unlike the proposed garage area. Mr. Jones noted the variance request is not for both an attached and detached garage. Ms. Sackman stated the variance request was for two garage areas. Mr. Jones asked if it mattered if it was attached or detached, as it is physically attached to the structure of the house and Ms. Leasure agreed that it did not matter if it was attached or detached as it is two garage areas. Mr. Jones stated the proposed garage is not connected with an enclosed interior that connects to the house but with a roof structure that is open underneath between the house and the proposed garage area which is considered an attached garage. He stated he would have an issue with a standalone garage at the rear of the yard, and keeping the addition more compact with the exiting structure was preferred. Ms. Linda Schmidt, 24496 Hedgewood, sworn in by Ms. Leasure, stated she lives behind the Hlavins and presented photos of the Hlavin s property from her yard and her view from her house. She stated for the last ten years she has had to look at an open garage door and items in the garage. If the new structure is constructed it will block her view of things as well as her neighbor s view of things. She felt this was taking up too much property and the structure was too big and unnecessary on such a small lot. Ms. Patty Cleary, 24488 Hedgewood Way, sworn in by Ms. Leasure, stated that a lot of the neighbors received notice of the variance and her understand was that is so they can give input on whether they think the variance should be granted or not, which Mr. Jones stated was correct. Page 4 of 6
She stated all of the neighbors, except one who wish to remain uninvolved, stated they don t want the variance granted and feel strongly that it would infringe. No matter what it is a two car garage in the middle of their back yard. Mr. Schill advised that there are no view easements across the property line. Regarding comments made by Ms. Schmidt, the proposed addition will match the architecture of the house and will have windows and provide a nice elevation. Regarding the photos submitted by the neighbors that show the drive Mr. Lamb questioned where in relation to the photo will the structure be located in relation to the blue car shown in the photo. Mr. Schill advised the proposed garage would be in the area to the left of the basketball hoop shown in the photo and the basketball hoop will be removed. The proposed garage will be a side load garage like many other garages in the city. Ms. Cleary questioned if additional concrete will be installed south of the basketball hoop, which Mr. Schill advised there would be approximately an additional 5 of concrete. Mr. Schill added that if he were to construct a four car garage in the rear yard it could go further back and conform to the code. Ms. Schmidt questioned the backup pad and how they were shown on the plans. Mr. Schill reviewed the plans and stated the setback from the rear yard for the new structure/pad were 66 on one side and 58 on the other side. Ms. Schmidt stated Mr. Schill s designs are very nice but didn t see that this was an improvement for her and that it was too much stuff and too small of an area. Mr. Schill advised this is one of the larger lots in Cornerstone. Ms. Schmidt stated this would be the only lot with this (a garage) standing out in the middle of the lot. Mr. Schill advised by code he can put a garage in the rear yard which would be worse and felt what he was requesting was a better solution. After a careful review of the plans and testimony of the Applicants, the Board found that: 1. Applicant s property is located at 24485 Cornerstone Ave.; 2. Applicant desires to have two garage areas at variance with WCOD Section 1211.04(a)(2); 3. The garage area of the existing attached four car garage is 1100 sq. ft.; 4. The total combined garage area of the two proposed garages is 998 sq. ft.; 5. The proposed second garage and existing structure are under the 20% lot coverage limit; 6. Applicant cannot expand the existing structure east or west as it currently abuts the side lot lines; 7. Applicant could convert the existing garage space to living space and build one 1000 sq. ft. detached garage on the rear of the property without the need for a variance, but a new 1000 sq. ft. four car detached garage in the rear yard would excessively intrude upon the view of the neighboring property owners and be less functional; 8. The variance is necessary to preserve rear yard space; 9. The variance sought is not substantial because the proposed layout of the second garage is more functional and keeps the residence, garage and driveway area more compact then placing one detached garage further back into the rear yard; 10. The adjoining property owners would not suffer a substantial detriment by the granting of the variance as it has no negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and 11. The spirit of the zoning code would not be violated by the granting of the variance. Motion: Mr. Lamb moved, seconded by Ms. Alfred to approve a variance for two garage areas on this lot for Docket 2017-04. Page 5 of 6
Yeas: Jones, Lamb, Alfred Nays: Swisher, motion carried MISCELLANEOUS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Ms. Alfred moved, seconded by Mr. Lamb to approve the minutes of January 31, 2016 Yeas: Lamb, Swisher, Alfred, Jones FINDINGS OF FACTS Motion: Mr. Swisher moved, seconded by Mr. Lamb to approve the findings of fact for Docket 2017-01 Routhier. Yeas: Lamb, Swisher, Alfred, Jones ADJOURNMENT Chairman Jones adjourned the meeting at 8:01 P.M. Matt Jones, Chairman Nicolette Sackman MMC, Clerk of Commissions Approved: Page 6 of 6