BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY HALL,
THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
1. Mr. Wells called the public hearing to
order at 7:00 P.M. with the following members present: Mr. Wells, Mr. Wright, Mr. Cline and Mr.
Boruszewski. Mr. Linek was absent.
Others present were
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 22, 2010, Regular Meeting. Mr. Cline moved to approve; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Wright and Mr. Cline voting “Yea”. Motion passed, 4-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for a motion to
approve a front yard building setback variance for a fence at
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Board members and
stated the applicants house is on a corner lot
and by code has two front yards.
The owner is proposing to construct a four foot high fence that would
encompass the back yard and encroaches into the 30 foot front yard setback
along the northern side of the property along
1. That the front yard setback for the
fence shall be reduced from 30 feet to 15 feet along
Mr. Brian Seymour, after being duly sworn, gave additional paperwork to the Board members and to be included with the minutes. Mr. Seymour stated he was not aware of the setback and was advised by the fence contractor that he would need approval. He has not contacted the Homeowner’s Association yet as their procedure is to have the variance approved first. He stated one reason they need the fence is for a rescue greyhound they adopted and they want to be able to contain him to their property off leash. They did sign a legally binding contract with the adoption agency agreeing that they are not allowed to use an electric fence with greyhounds because they move so fast they can actually run through them without being detected. Mr. Seymour stated if they stay at the 30 foot setback the fence will go through the middle of their backyard and he feels that will be an eyesore. He stated they plan to put a flower bed on the outside of the fence on the street side to improve the appearance. He stated he had provided paperwork that indicated the neighbors he had spoken with and they did not have a problem with the 15 foot variance, and he had also provided pictures of other fences in The Landings subdivision.
There were no further comments or
questions. Mr. Cline moved to approve the request that the front yard setback for
the fence shall be reduced from 30-feet to 15-feet along
B. Review and
request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance, a side yard
setback variance and a maximum lot coverage variance for a pool located at
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Board members and stated the applicant is proposing to construct an above ground pool, approximately 12 feet by 24 feet, 288 square feet, to be located in the south eastern corner of the rear yard. It would be located three feet from the eastern and southern property lines and there is a ten foot setback requirement in the R4 district. In addition the proposed pool would increase the existing lot coverage from 38.34% to 40.73% and the maximum lot coverage in R4 is 34%. The lot does backup to a City park on the east and south side. In 2003, the applicant submitted for a three season room to be added on the back of house. In 2006, an aerial photo showed the three season room addition, also two sheds, one located east of the house and one in the southeaster corner and that the property had a fence. The City has no record of submission for either of these requests. Mr. Henderson clarified the land on the other side of the fence is the park, where the disc golf course is located.
Mr. Henderson stated the spirit and intent of the zoning requirements would not be preserved and that substantial justice would not be done by granting a variance for the following reasons:
1. That the lot coverage is above the maximum requirement by 6%
2. The substantial rear and side yard setback variance request.
3. The pool would protrude into a 20-foot utility easement on the rear of the property.
4. That the owner did not receive approval from the Planning and Zoning Department or the Building Department to construct the two sheds and the fence.
Staff does not support the variance request because four of the seven practical difficulties for area variances are not satisfied (numbers one, two, six and seven) with standards two and seven having significant non-compliance issues. Staff does not support the side yard set back variance, rear yard setback variance and the maximum lot coverage variance for the pool.
Mr. Walter Workman, after being duly sworn, stated there are
not two sheds, the one that is by the building is a gazebo. Mr. Workman also
stated that when he moved here in 2000 he came to City Hall and spoke with
Lenny Lewis in the Building Department and he gave him approval to build the
shed in the back, the fence and the area where the sunroom is, he was given
approval to do all three of these. In
the report it indicated that his fence was probably into
Mr. Schultz clarified that Mr. Workman go the permits in 2000 from Lenny Lewis in the Building Department. Mr. Schultz stated that prior to 2004, the City did not have any requirements on sheds. From 2004 on there can only be one shed, prior to that multiple sheds were allowed. Mr. Workman stated again that one is not a shed, it is a gazebo that is screened in. Mr. Henderson clarified that no record could be found, the data base the Building Department now uses was not in use then. Mr. Workman stated he only keeps his records back seven years. Mr. Schultz stated in 2000 he could have done this as the only zoning issue would have been the maximum lot coverage and if the Building Department approved it back then, the City approved it. Mr. Workman stated he did speak with the adjoining neighbors and they do not have a problem with this. Mr. Schultz clarified that Mr. Workman is aware of the easement and that Mr. Workman understands that if this is approved and the pool is installed in the easement they could come back and take the pool out without compensation to him. Mr. Workman stated he is aware there is a risk of that.
Mr. Wright stated his concern is the easements coming through the lot. The six percent may not seem like a lot however it is when you look at the total. Mr. Schultz stated the approvals Mr. Workman stated he has, and the City cannot confirm either way, the projects have been completed. The pool only adds two or three percent to the ratio, they are already above the ratio, so it is not starting at 34 %, it is starting at 37 %.
Mr. Boruszewski stated a pool is a temporary structure, it doesn’t have a foundation. Mr. Schultz stated that in the past the City allowed the setbacks to be protruded by 50 percent for fences and decks. It is adjacent to a park and does not affect the rear neighbors. Mr. Cline clarified that approving anything on a utility easement is at the applicant’s risk. Mr. Schultz stated if this was the City’s drainage easement that the City would not support this at all, however this is not a drainage easement it is a private easement. Mr. Cline clarified that if the pool is moved outside of the 10 foot setback, the only variance would be needed is for maximum lot coverage. Mr. Cline inquired if Mr. Workman would consider moving the play equipment and putting the pool where the play equipment is. Mr. Workman stated he has no objection to doing that. Mr. Boruszewski stated that putting where the homeowner wants, the most it would disturb would be the frisbee golf players.
Mr. Schultz stated that pertaining to the permits, Mr. Workman was sworn in and he did remember the name of the person who was responsible for the Building Department in 2000. Mr. Wright clarified if he was going make a motion it would be to recommend that the side and rear yard setback variance be allowed at three feet, the maximum lot coverage to be 41 percent. Mr. Schultz stated that the side and rear yard setbacks be reduced from 10 feet to three feet is what the applicant proposes, however staff would support it from 10 feet to five feet.
Mr. Boruszewski clarified staff recommends to change from a 10 foot setback to five feet.
Mr. Wright moved to approve the side yard setback from ten feet to five feet, the rear yard setback from ten feet to five feet, and the total lot coverage percentage not to exceed 41 percent. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright and Mr. Boruszewski voting “Aye” and Mr. Cline voting “Nay”. Mr. Wells clarified that the Board is not setting any kind of precedent regarding the utility easement and any liability on the City. Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion passed 3-1.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a parking space variance for Premier Daycare located at 1229 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to Board members. Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is requesting a parking space variance for Premier Daycare from the required 31 parking spaces to 27 spaces. The four parking space variance is due to the addition of the southern playground which will remove eight spaces and the site is limited in size.
Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the parking space variance request for Premier Daycare that complies with the minimum zoning requirements and the following condition:
1. That the parking space requirements for Premier Daycare shall be reduced form 31 to 27.
Ryan Gruebmeyer, after being duly sworn, stated they do not want to place the playground in the back because they prefer not to have the children out back under the electric lines. Mr. Henderson stated that they do have their site plan approved. Mr. Gruebmeyer stated they will change the parking spaces from eight feet six inches to nine feet.
Mr. Cline moved to approve the request that the parking space requirements for Premier Daycare shall be reduced from 31 feet to 27 feet. Mr. Well seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells and Mr. Wright voting “Aye” and Mr. Boruszewski voting “Nay”. Motion passed 3-1
4. OTHER BUSINESS: None
5. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further business, Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells and Mr. Wright voted “AYE”. Motion carried, 4-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:35 P.M., May 27, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
______________________________
Karen I. Risher, Administrative Clerk
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning