Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 November 12, 2014 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES November 12, 2014 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Reginald Parson, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen 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 22, 2014 were approved as presented. (Penney/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 736 E. MELVIN AVENUE Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed Front Yard Setback 30-17(B)(3)(c) 25’ 13’ 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 adult family home purposes. The principal structure is a single story ranch-style home and the general area is comprised of low-density residential uses. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a permanent wheelchair ramp on the south side of the home in the front yard setback which would be a second wheelchair access for the facility. The need for the second ramp is tied to state regulations and licensing requirements and is creating a degree of hardship for the petitioner. The first exit ramp is placed by-right near the northeast corner of the structure however the second ramp does not have any by-right alternative location based on the existing development on the parcel. The proposed location in the front yard appears to be the most practical for implementation and is located near the home’s driveway for efficient drop-off/pick-up for residents and Inspection Services has reviewed the site plan and confirmed the design is the least intrusive for setback requirements. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. James Marvin, 1414 Lake Breeze Road, stated that he was the maintenance manager of the Clarity Care home which is a non-profit company that provides housing for residents with disabilities. He explained that this home was newly purchased to replace a previous facility and it requires two exit points with handicapped ramps constructed to satisfy State code requirements. He identified the two locations for the proposed ramps which are the only two points which would meet the code requirements for the State. He further explained that they could not meet the front yard setback requirements for the City with the second handicapped ramp which is laid out and designed to be the least obtrusive from the front and side views of the property. Both the ramp and sidewalk area are contained within the present trees on the site and will meet all City code requirements other than the front yard setback. Mr. Penney questioned the location of a downspout in the front yard area and questioned how this would be addressed. Mr. Marvin responded that approximately 8-10 feet west of the transition point there will be a pipe laid similar to a storm lateral to handle the storm water runoff within the property lines. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 November 12, 2014 Ms. Larson questioned that there appears to be a door next to the garage and inquired why this door could not be used for a second exit. Mr. Marvin replied that the exit needs to be a ramped exit and that the door by the garage and breezeway would not be usable as there is not sufficient area to create a ramp near the garage and they cannot modify the interior walls to make room to install a ramp at this location. Mr. Parson inquired if there would be safety issues due to the trees located near the proposed ramp. Mr. Marvin responded that they have trimmed the trees in this location to address any concerns and additional landscaping will be addressed in this area. Mr. Carpenter commented that they have heard previous cases regarding the installation of handicapped ramps within the setback area and questioned if the party who required the ramp no longer lives at this location, what happens to the existing ramp. Mr. Muehrer indicated that when the City is notified that the resident of the home that required the ramp no longer lives at this location, the City will request that the handicapped ramp be removed. Mr. Krasniewski questioned how many similar properties Clarity Care operates within the city. Mr. Marvin responded about 13 other properties consisting of both adult living facilities and CBRF’s. Mr. Krasniewski then questioned how many of these facilities require double handicapped ramps. Mr. Marvin replied that they do not all have these types of requirements as if the residents of the facility are all ambulatory, it is not necessary and they have to make appropriate changes to accommodate the residents of that particular facility. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what the setback was for the principal structure. Mr. Muehrer indicated it was about 22 feet which is a nonconforming structure. Mr. Marvin added that the setback was about 20.5 feet with the various bump outs of the structure. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the organization was aware that they would need two ramps at this location when they purchased the home. Mr. Marvin responded affirmatively. Mr. Cornell questioned how many residents this facility would accommodate. Mr. Marvin responded that the home has the capacity to hold up to eight individuals however the actual number would be about four residents. Mr. Parson questioned the location of trees in the backyard of this property. Mr. Marvin replied that there is one large tree in the backyard however he was not aware if it was on their property or the neighbors. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 November 12, 2014 Mr. Parson then questioned if these trees would create a safety issue. Mr. Marvin responded negatively and stated that there was a small back porch and 6-8 feet to the lot line in the backyard and the existing tree should not cause any safety concerns. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the ramp on the north side meets the required setback standards. Mr. Muehrer responded that the north ramp is permitted by-right. Mr. Krasniewski questioned the purpose of the window well located on the site plan in between the house and the handicapped ramp. Mr. Marvin indicated that it was an oversized window well and the ramp extends out about 6-8 inches from this well and about 2 ½ feet from the bay window located above it. This feature is not necessary for ventilation. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if it would be possible to build over the window well and reduce the setback by about two feet or so. Mr. Marvin responded that he felt that would be possible. Ms. Larson questioned if they would need that amount of room for maneuvering on the ramp. Mr. Marvin explained the space necessary for the ramps installation and that they were in need of both ramps when the house was purchased. He further explained the difficulties in finding viable homes for this purpose in the city and the necessity of a minimum number of rooms and square footage for bedrooms for the residents and several other requirements due to state codes. He further discussed the home’s requirements and stated that this property had excellent space for the interior layout and that one large bedroom was divided into two bedrooms making a three bedroom home into a four bedroom home however the home would still only be viable for four individuals to reside there due to the size of the rooms. Mr. Penney questioned the depth protruding from the house for the existing window well. Mr. Marvin responded that it was about 18-24 inches however to remove this feature of the home would require the removal of the basement windows in that location and filling in the foundation. He estimated that the below grade window area was about 15x30 inches. Mr. Krasniewski inquired what height the ramp was at that point. Mr. Marvin commented that it was about 7-8 inches off ground and if they could not install the ramp without removing the existing window well, it would cost approximately $3000 to $4000 to remove and repair this area. Jeff Stark, 1215 Maricopa Drive, stated that regarding the window well issue, the area is only about 16-18 inches wide and the ramp was proposed to be located behind the existing trees providing for very minimal visibility to the neighboring properties. Dan Gabert, 940 Bowen Street, stated that he and his wife Nancy were concerned with the residents already living in another home at 1008 Bowen Street for disabled persons in the neighborhood and that this residence Board of Appeals Minutes 4 November 12, 2014 does not have any ramps at all. He felt that the ramp could be constructed to run it out to the garage or the breezeway as this property already has one ramp on the site and he feels that this is overdone and they should find another location for the second ramp other than in front of the house. He further commented that he was not sure what it will look like but he felt that they should install shrubs to hide it from the neighbor’s view as he felt it would be an eyesore in the neighborhood and that this proposal was not thought out or well planned and certain restrictions should apply. Nancy Gabert inquired if the residents from the Bowen Street facility were going to be moving from that site to this location as she felt that there were traffic problems from parking issues near the existing facility and residents of that facility are not well cared for and that it was not feasible to have two homes of this nature in this neighborhood. Mr. Krasniewski indicated that this area possessed a zoning classification of R-1 Single Family Residence District which allowed this type of housing. He further stated that the entire block could consist of homes such as this one and that the neighbors needed to understand this issue and that the Board of Appeals has no control over these types of matters. Mr. Gabert stated that the other home in the area is not well cared for and was detrimental to the neighborhood and he was against this handicapped ramp being installed in front of the home as it would be an eyesore. Mr. Penney commented that the house has already been purchased and will be used for this purpose. Mr. Carpenter stated that he could not tell where the garage was located on the site plan. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the garage structure was not shown on the site plan but displayed its location if it had been included and questioned if the garage was two stalls. Mr. Gabert responded affirmatively and stated that the ramp could be placed inside of the garage. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the residents of this home would not be driving. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the garage stalls would still be necessary for the care providers that work at this facility as off street parking needed to be provided. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the handicapped ramp could be installed from the back of the garage. Mr. Krasniewski commented that from the appearance of the location on the site plan of the home, there would not be adequate area to place the ramp on the side of the garage. Mr. Marvin stated that as far as exiting out of the garage, state code requirements do not allow exiting out of an area with an overhead door. He discussed the service door between the garage and breezeway and the three different height variations between the home, breezeway and garage which would require the installation of two different ramps. He further stated that there is not enough room for the ramps and the required head and foot pads as there needs to be adequate room to turn a wheelchair and provide a stopping point. He further explained the regulations regarding the ramp specifications and stated that Advocap owns the home that the residents are currently living in and will be moving into this location when ready for occupancy. He stated that he does not have control over what Advocap does with their property after the transition takes place. The current Advocap facility is for individuals who are ambulatory only and one of its Board of Appeals Minutes 5 November 12, 2014 residents had to move to another location due to the fact that she was no longer ambulatory and this location could not provide ramped exits. Once the ramps would be installed at this facility, the individual would be able to move back into it with the other individuals that she was accustomed to sharing accommodations with. Ms. Larson questioned if the property was well maintained by Clarity Care. Mr. Marvin responded that it was maintained as well as possible within their budgetary requirements and that the lawn is mowed and sidewalks are well maintained either via staff or contracted services. Mr. Penney commented that from discussion it sounded like a door was added to the home and questioned if another door could be added with the ramp to the east. He further explained how it could be configured without being located entirely in front of the house. Mr. Marvin replied that from an exit standpoint, he would like to have the ramp entrance in the location proposed due to emergency situations. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the applicant had purchased the home and began construction on remodeling projects prior to this hearing. Mr. Marvin responded that they were not aware that a variance would be required to install this ramp at the time the home was purchased and construction began. He was aware that two exits were necessary and two ramps but thought one ramp could be installed by the breezeway entrance however there was not adequate area. Mr. Krasniewski commented that there were no dimensions on the site plan for the area where the breezeway was located. Mr. Marvin stated that to divide one of the bedrooms into two, they had to extend the hallway into the breezeway and there was not adequate room for the ramp in this area due to the interior layout of the home. He thought the area was approximately 14x14 feet with the hallway extending off the back side. Mr. Penney questioned if the work had already began on the handicapped ramp. Mr. Marvin responded that it had not and that concrete work was started today and that construction had began on the first approved ramp. Mr. Gabert questioned why the ramp could not extend from the back of the garage to Melvin Avenue as it could go from the garage structure straight out to the street and that other options are available. Ms. Larson commented that the cars in the garage would be an obstacle if this was done and that according to the site plan, the garage is located right next to the lot line which did not appear to leave adequate room for a handicapped ramp in this location. Mr. Krasniewski questioned how much area was between the garage and the lot line on the west side of the property. Mr. Muehrer estimated it to be about 5 to 10 feet and the location would still require a variance for the installation of a ramp. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 November 12, 2014 Mr. Penney stated that it appeared there were other options available for the ramp’s placement on the east side or west side. Mr. Marvin commented that there was a door in the back of the house but there are two problems with that area as the hallway is not wide enough to maneuver a wheelchair and the transition space within the breezeway was not adequate. He explained the space that would be required to meet state code requirements. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the laundry room has a door installed in it to the backyard that would allow the ramp to be installed off that area from the bedroom areas and the door could be enlarged. Mr. Marvin responded that it had a covered porch off the back of the door which would create height issues with the installation of a ramp at that exit point. Mr. Krasniewski asked to clarify that the covered porch area behind the laundry area was above grade but not the same as the rest of the house. Mr. Marvin further explained the setup of the steps from that exit point and why that area was not suitable for the ramp placement. He felt that this portion of the home was probably added after the home was built. Mr. Penney commented that the Board would need to verify how much room is on the west side of the house to know if placement of the ramp would be feasible in this location. Mr. Stark stated that the laundry room exit was studied previously and this area did not possess sufficient height to allow for the ramp construction in this location without having to remove the entire porch area. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the existing porch could be removed to make a separate entrance that would allow adequate room for the ramp installation. Mr. Stark commented that this scenario added a lot of expense that was not necessary when there were other options and the ramp’s location was being dictated by the construction of the home. He discussed their operations which entail providing housing for disabled residents who require special accommodations. He further stated that all the homes that they operate do not require two handicapped ramps and that Clarity Care intends to keep this property in operation and the other options brought up do not work for numerous reasons. This home is better suited for handicapped residents than two-story units. Mr. Carpenter stated that it sounded from the comments that the organization has already turned a three- bedroom home into a four-bedroom and this could have eliminated the room necessary to add the ramp to the breezeway area and created the problem. Mr. Stark responded that there was not adequate space in the breezeway to add the ramp to this area prior to adding the hallway. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what the dimensions of the breezeway were before adding the hallway. Mr. Stark replied that it was 14 feet wide by 9 feet long. Board discussion ensued regarding the dimensions of the rooms before interior remodeling was completed and the layout and dimensions of the hallway. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 November 12, 2014 Mr. Marvin stated that the hallway was not wide enough for accessibility and the garage extended the full length of the house. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a permanent wheelchair ramp in the minimum front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Penney stated that there may not be other practical options available but he was not convinced as there was not adequate information on the site plan to make that conclusion. Mr. Krasniewski commented that with all the discussion regarding the interior remodeling of the home, the hardship declared may be self imposed. Mr. Carpenter stated that dimensions are lacking on the site plan that could assist with determining alternative locations for the ramp and only a partial diagram is depicted on the site plan. Mr. Krasniewski suggested that the applicant request a continuance of this hearing. He further stated that the Board would require side yard data and a site plan drawing that included more dimensions. He discussed other options available but could not conclude which ones would be feasible as without knowing the dimensions of some of the areas discussed, a determination could not be made and more information was required. Ms. Larson stated that she does not like to see any basement windows closed off as they may be necessary at some point for ventilation or lighting. Board members agreed that the Board would need the whole layout with dimensions of the rooms and the garage as well as setbacks on the west side of the property. Motion by Penney to continue this hearing at the December meeting with the petitioner providing a more complete diagram of the property. Seconded by Parson. Mr. Cornell asked the petitioner if he understood what the Board was requesting be submitted at the next hearing. Mr. Marvin responded affirmatively. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator