Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 October 22, 2014 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES October 22, 2014 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Reginald Parson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter, Tom Willadsen, Kathryn Larson STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of October 8, 2014 were approved as presented. (Carpenter/Penney) ITEM I: 2104 HICKORY LANE Steven L. Goodwin-applicant, Steven L./Tamera R. Goodwin-owners, request the following variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Accessory Structure location 30-1(A)(2) Rear or Side Yard Front Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is used for residential purposes. The principal structure is a single story home with a detached garage that fronts and is accessed via Hickory Lane and the general area is comprised of residential uses. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 12’x20’ garage and replace it with a 22’x29’ garage in approximately the same location. The lot configuration and historical development pattern are creating justifiable hardships as the principal structure consumes the majority of the lot width limiting side and rear yard access and placement alternatives. The lot is also traditional “lake front- style” development where the dwelling is closer to the waterfront and the accessory structure is closer to the street frontage and the proposed location for the new garage is consistent with the remaining neighborhood and the variance is recommended for approval. Mr. Parson arrived at 3:32 pm. Steve Goodwin, 2104 Hickory Lane, stated that he currently has a one-car garage which is too small and he wants to raze the structure and enlarge the new structure to be a two-car garage. He further stated that he has to back out of the current garage onto Hickory Lane and does not feel that it is safe and he desires to change the orientation of the garage to enable him to back out and turn to allow exiting onto Hickory Lane in a forward motion. Mr. Parson questioned how many feet was it from the garage to the street now. Mr. Goodwin responded that it was about 20 feet and the new layout would be making the driveway wider and would allow him to drive into the garage from the side. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the variance would involve more than just the garage but would also be for the new layout of the driveway. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 October 22, 2014 Mr. Muehrer responded that the petitioner will have to remove the concrete approach and replace that area with grass and the layout of the new driveway will have to meet the current code standards. Mr. Penney stated that the entry to the garage would now be from the west/southwest. Mr. Parson questioned if this variation would be shifting the garage structure over. Mr. Goodwin replied that the garage structure would be wider than the previous one and would run parallel to the house. Mr. Penney inquired if there would be any problems with installing a new approach for the reconfigured driveway. Mr. Muehrer responded negatively and stated that the reconfiguration of the driveway would have to meet current access regulations but this would not create any issues and that the variance request was for the placement of the garage structure in the front yard only. Mr. Krasniewski questioned how close the new driveway would be to the property line. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the code standards require it to be 7½ feet setback for the driveway. Mr. Goodwin commented that he has not looked into it yet and did not have any plans at this time but he would comply with the current ordinance standards. Mr. Krasniewski commented that with his calculations, there would be 35 feet left to work with as far as placement of the new driveway. Mr. Muehrer stated that the driveway would be limited to 24 feet at the right-of-way line. Mr. Penney inquired how long the petitioner had owned this property. Mr. Goodwin responded that he has owned it for about one year. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the petitioner was planning on replacing the garage slab as part of the project. Mr. Goodwin responded affirmatively. Mr. Parson asked to clarify the scope of the project and that it would be extending the garage to a two-car structure and extending the driveway to accommodate the entrance to it from the side. Mr. Muehrer explained the change in the garage entrance and how it would affect the current driveway alignment. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if there was asphalt currently between the garage pad and the existing driveway and if that was going to be removed. Mr. Goodwin responded affirmatively and stated that he would be replacing the asphalt area with grass. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 October 22, 2014 Motion by Parson to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Mr. Penney inquired if the Board needed to add any conditions regarding the new approach. Mr. Muehrer indicated that it would not be necessary as that would be addressed at the time of site plan review and that there was adequate room to work with as it was a conforming sized lot. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the driveway and garage structure would be placed far enough back from the lake. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Board discussion ensued regarding the traffic flow on Hickory Lane and it was determined that there was very limited traffic on this street. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts: Unique physical limitations. No harm to public interest. Safety issue. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Muehrer provided copies to the Board of an email he sent to Old Dominion in regard to the improvements and status of corrections at their location at 1880 Stillman Drive. He stated that he had met with the branch manager, Tim Behling, last week and did a walk-through with him on site to review the status of the improvements that were necessary since their variance had been granted as some of the requirements had still not been addressed. He reviewed the email sent to Mr. Behling regarding these issues and referred to the photos he took showing the condition of the site currently. He stated that the gravel that was illegally installed had been removed. However, a permit was not obtained and that the issue of parking on the grass area has been controlled. In regard to the landscaping plan that had not been addressed, the dead trees on the north lot line had been replaced; however, there was still some plantings missing on the site. Considering the late season, the owner has been given notice that the remaining landscaping requirements would need to be addressed no later than next spring. He stated that the property owner indicated that their business may be relocating and a new tenant may be occupying the site as their business has the need for a larger parcel. A building permit still had not been obtained for the 10’x200’ asphalt section installed on the west side of the loading dock and the owner was given notice that this permit would have to be acquired no later than November 1st. He concluded with that the petitioner was making progress on the corrections required to meet the conditions of the variance granted and he would continue to follow-up on the issue to ensure compliance. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the owner would sell the property and move to another site prior to these issues being addressed, would the new owner be required to comply. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 October 22, 2014 Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively but stated that the current owner indicated that they had intentions to finalize all outstanding issues prior to selling the property. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the necessary plantings were outside of the fence and had nothing to do with the parking or paving and could be done without interfering with the business’s operations. Mr. Muehrer replied that the northwest and northeast corners of the site still needed work however the north side of the site was complete. Mr. Krasniewski then inquired if the building permit fees would be doubled due to the work being completed without the necessary permits in place first. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Parson questioned why the asphalt was stopping at a certain point on the site. Mr. Muehrer gave a history of the issues with the site and the variance request that was heard on several occasions last year. He also discussed the landscaping plan that was approved for the site in 1997 and was not completed appropriately which came to light when the variance request for the fencing was reviewed. He reiterated that the property owner was making progress on the required improvements. Mr. Penney questioned if someone would be monitoring the situation to ensure compliance was obtained regarding the outstanding issues. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the outstanding issues were only the lack of a building permit for the asphalt work which has been completed and that they have until May 1, 2015 to complete the lack of landscaping plantings required. He would be following up on these issues to ensure compliance. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES Mr. Muehrer stated that the item that was reviewed at today’s meeting was a special request and that the meeting was held only because the petitioner failed to submit his application by the necessary deadline for the October 8th meeting. He requested feedback from the Board members on whether this process should continue as staff is limited and accommodating this request was difficult. He then asked if the Board members felt this should be allowed with future submittals. The current standard was that a second meeting was only held in the event that there were more than five submittals received by the application deadline for the first meeting of the month and there were only four on the October 8th agenda. Mr. Krasniewski questioned when the deadline was for the applicant’s submittal and when was the application received. Mr. Muehrer responded that the deadline for the October 8th meeting was September 19th and the application was not submitted until September 24th. He further stated that the submittal deadlines were explicitly explained to the petitioner prior to his application being received. Mr. Cornell stated that we do not want to set precedence by allowing applications to be received after the deadline and holding a special meeting due to the applicant’s failure to meet the requirements on time. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 October 22, 2014 Mr. Muehrer indicated that we try to accommodate applicants who may have situations that are beyond their control; however, this did not apply in this case. Mr. Cornell commented that he did not want to do this on a regular basis. Mr. Penney stated that if the application is not received on time, the petitioner should have to wait until the following month to have their request heard unless there were special circumstances that may apply at some time. Board members agreed that moving forward, special meetings will not be held to review applications that simply were not submitted on time without any extenuating circumstance. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the City’s website stated that the Board of Appeals meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month and that the reference to the fourth Wednesday should be removed to avoid any confusion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. (Krasniewski/Penney). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator