Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 January 3, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES January 3, 2017 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Jeffrey Thoms, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Elizabeth Williams, Planner; Allen Davis, Director of Community Development; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of December 20, 2016 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Propp) I. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THIRD DRIVEWAY WITH REDUCED LATERAL CLEARANCE AT 3200 N. MAIN STREET The petitioner is requesting an access control variance to permit a third driveway, where municipal code restricts the property to a maximum of two (2) driveways, with reduced lateral clearance from North Main Street to 39 feet where code requires a minimum of 75 feet. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and discussed the current use of the site which is a manufacturing building occupied by Muza Sheet Metal. He reviewed the site plan for the addition to the existing structure and a fenced in storage area and discussed the proposed third driveway which leads to the storage area. He stated that staff had no concerns with the variance to allow a third driveway access as it will not create traffic conflicts as it does not lead to a parking lot and will have few vehicles accessing it. Carven Blanck, president of Muza Sheet Metal, stated that they are requesting the additional driveway due to the current building addition and are also considering another building addition in the future and discussed the current accesses to the site. He further stated that there were other businesses with more than two driveway accesses in this area. Motion by Vajgrt to approve an access control variance to allow a third driveway with reduced lateral clearance located at 3200 N. Main Street. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CLOSURE OF SEVEN WINDOWS ON THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 W. 11TH AVENUE __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 January 3, 2017 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to permit the closure of 7 windows (reduction from 15 windows to 8 windows) on the front and side elevation of the duplex located at 15 West 11th Avenue. Ms. Williams presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. She further discussed the various land uses in the area and reviewed photos of the subject site. She explained that the petitioner was proposing to reduce the number of windows on the porch from 15 to 8 windows and the reason the owner desired to make this modification. She reviewed the site plan depicting the proposed window replacements and discussed the need to preserve the home’s architectural integrity and impact to the neighborhood and curb appeal if the variance was approved. She reviewed photos of other homes adjacent and across from the subject site and discussed alternative methods of window replacement that would meet code requirements which have been discussed with the applicant. She distributed copies of an email to the Commission from the applicant regarding bracing and code requirements that were not required according to a conversation she had with the building inspectors on this matter. Staff is recommending denial of this variance request as the reduction in window openings was felt to be too great resulting in an impact to the traditional look of the home. Steven Case, 2772 Elo Road, contractor and applicant for this project, stated that the project started out with a nuisance letter received from the city related to broken windows and that the cost of the project was $4600. He further stated that it was a rental home and discussed how it would be more secure without the large amount of windows on the porch. He also discussed the dimensions of the porch and the use of the porch as a storage area and the repeated issues with broken windows. He felt that from a cost standpoint it is too prohibitive and would be more likely to not replace the windows and just repair them. Mr. Borsuk requested further explanation of why there were continual issues with broken windows and if larger windows could be utilized that would more appropriately fit the profile of the home. Mr. Case responded that the fourth window was in too close of proximity from the door of the house and was being broken with tenants moving in and out and that vandalism was another possible issue however he was not sure. He further stated that the reduced height in the windows was due to providing windows that were in stock and that the windows had already been purchased on sale and may be subject to restocking fees if returned. He was not sure what other sizes were available. Mr. Borsuk questioned if either the homeowner or the contractor was aware of the architectural integrity requirements for residential properties. Mr. Case replied that he did not think that the ordinance would apply to storm windows. Ms. Propp stated that the west elevation appeared to have too many windows and she could see having three windows on the front elevation on either side and two windows on the east and west __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 January 3, 2017 elevations. She felt the shapes of the new windows should be longer and she could see reducing the number of windows but not making them smaller. Mr. Case stated that the 60” windows were the standard size. Ms. Propp questioned how the actual windows would look on the house. Mr. Case responded that they would be proportionate to the other windows on the home and described how the windows would have strips of wood in between them and discussed details of the installation. Ms. Propp inquired what the staff recommendation was on this request. Ms. Williams indicated that staff was recommending that a third window be added to the front (north) elevation and two additional windows on the west or right elevation maintaining the current window openings. Mr. Burich commented about the amount of area that is glass currently and that staff was trying to maintain a look of symmetry and rhythm with the first and second floor and the intent of the Ordinance was to prevent walling off existing window openings and to maintain the curb appeal of the neighborhood. Mr. Bowen questioned if the email had been shared with the building inspectors and that the bracing issues that were raised can be worked out. Ms. Williams responded that the original structure had an open air porch and those features were integrated into the structure at the time it was enclosed. Mr. Case commented that there was not adequate room to put three windows in the front and that the area was needed for storage purposes. He described the spacing between the windows and that there was not enough room to place more windows for aesthetic purposes. Gary Davies, 1241 Glane Court, property owner, discussed the neighbor’s home that has smaller windows in the front elevation and the letter he received from the city regarding the need to repair the broken windows. He further discussed that he had made improvements to the home and that there were three children living there who need a safe place to play. He felt the amount of windows on the porch made for a more insecure environment as far as vandalism. Mr. Bowen questioned when the application was submitted. Ms. Williams responded that it was received the beginning of December. Mr. Bowen then questioned if the letter received regarding the nuisance issue relating to the broken windows was sent out from the Planning Services office. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 January 3, 2017 Ms. Williams responded that the letter was sent from Inspection Services and the applicant then applied for a building permit to reduce the number of windows by more than 10% which resulted in the application for a variance. Mr. Bowen commented that if the contractor was not aware of the process and did not have a lot of time to work on this issue that the Commission could choose to lay this item over to be reconsidered and possibly find a solution if further discussed with staff. Mr. Borsuk agreed with the option to lay the item over and discussed that the windows have already been purchased and that the design standards have been in place for several years therefore the building community should be aware of the new requirements. He further discussed that the house fits in the neighborhood as it currently exists and that he felt a solution could be more compatible than what is currently proposed. He felt a one or two meeting layover would be reasonable to come up with a proposal that would be more code compliant. Ms. Propp stated that the current number of windows on the west side elevation is too many and she would also like to see diagrams that are more proportionate. Ms. Williams clarified that the drawings submitted with the application were to scale. Mr. Hinz discussed the porches in this neighborhood and the lack of energy efficiency as most of the porch structures have no insulation and he felt the Commission would be receiving more of these types of requests in the coming years as people try to make improvements or sell their property. Mr. Burich stated that the design standards were adopted to prevent open air porches from being enclosed and to stop these types of alteratons from occurring. The design standards were created to prevent inappropriate modifications without the approval of a variance to these standards. Motion by Bowen to lay over a residential design standards variance for the closure of seven windows on the front and side elevation of property located at 15 W. 11th Avenue for two weeks. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Davies questioned if he left the windows as they currently exist with just repairing the broken ones, if there would be issues with the upcoming rental inspections. He felt that leaving the windows as is would be more cost efficient but had concerns with the renovations proposed for the Buckstaff property and the city requiring improvements to be made to adjacent properties that were not in good condition. Mr. Fojtik commented that the Commission was suggesting that there may be other options that could be explored. Mr. Bowen stated that the applicant and staff would have a few weeks to figure out other alternatives or solutions that would be more acceptable rather than just deny the variance and a __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 January 3, 2017 few more weeks would provide the opportunity for staff and the applicant/owner to discuss the issue. Motion carried 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Borsuk commented that he would like to thank the staff for all their support to the Plan Commission and community in the past year. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated that the Commission members would be receiving an invitation to an open house with the neighboring property owners regarding the arena proposal for the Buckstaff site. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:36 pm. (Vajgrt/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services