Loading...
Petterson Add/MP-CS 981203Board of Adjustment December 3, 1998 Page 3 Speaking in opposition to the variance request was Colleen Snyderwood of 505 Sora Lane, noting that she is the homeowner adjacent to the affected property. She indicated that the fence request would compromise the aesthetics of this neighborhood, noting that she would walk out her front door, look over and have no view other than the fence. Ms. Snyderwood indicated that she and her husband originally considered purchasing the lot at 815 Pelican, but were immediately made aware of the many limitations of this lot, just as the Kleins would have been. Chairman Stonecipher asked if this is the last lot to be developed in this subdivision, and Ms. Snyderwood indicated that it is. He further asked if the Kleins had informed them of their plans, and Ms. Snyderwood indicated that she was provided with a drawing of their plans, but it did not include the comer clip. Ms. Snyderwood was shown an updated drawing, and after reviewing it, noted that the 45-degree angle would not be acceptable. ' The meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. Commissioner LeGros commented, and it was generally agreed among board members, that the problem would not be effectively solved by adding a comer clip to the fence. Commissioner Chomiak asked if the intended fence would be a 6-ft. wooden fence, and the applicant replied that an 8-ft. combination brick/cedar fence with brick columns and a concrete base would be installed. Commissioner Jamadar commented that perhaps the two requests should be voted on separately. Mr. Klein returned to the podium to make additional comments about the fence issue. He asked for clarification of the circumstances surrounding the granting of the other fence variances in that area, and Greg Jones responded that although the detailed information is available in the office files, each request must be considered on its own merit. Mr. Klein reiterated that they've made several concessions to keep the pool and deck in compliance with code, and he would appreciate some consideration regarding the fence variance. Referring to the other similar variances that were granted in this neighborhood, Ms. Klein added that it would appear that a precedent has been established for the 15-ft. setback in this neighborhood. For the benefit of the audience and board members, Chairman Stonecipher responded that the actions of this Board do not set precedents; each case must stand on its own merit. He further commented that the property owners who would be affected by this variance are the homeowners on Sora Lane who voiced their opposition via the petition, adding that his own opinion would probably be different if those lots on Sora Lane were currently vacant. Motion was made by Commissioner Jamadar to deny the request for the 10-ft. variance to the 25-ft. front yard setback for the construction of a fence. Motion was seconded by Commissioner LeGros, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to l, with Commissioner Glasener voting in opposition. Variance denied. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros to grant the 4-ft., 8-in. comer variance to the 25-ft. front building line for the placement of a porte-cochere. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Glasener, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 1, with Chairman Stonecipher voting in opposition. Variance granted. ITEM 4: Public Hearing to consider a request for a variance from Section 14-4 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, to amend alley requirements, and a variance from Section 9-2-6(D) of the Code of Ordinances to allow for a fence in the front yard for the property located at 326 W. Sandy Lake Road. Mr. Rupert W. Keeping, on behalf of Nancy Petterson, is requesting this variance for these two duplex residential lots. Board of Adjusunent December 3, 1998 Page 4 Greg Jones explained that this is a two-part request: 1) a variance to the garage access requirements, and, 2) a variance to allow a fence in the front yard. Regarding the garage access, he explained that it's zoned duplex (2F), and could possibly be developed as several duplex lots. The owners wish, however, to develop the property as two separate lots, with Lot #1 being developed as a two-residence unit: one section for the immediate family and the other for an additional family member. He noted that the plans for Lot #2, which is located at the front of the property, have not yet been furnished to City staff. Greg Jones explained that the plans for Lot #1 have gone through Planning and Zoning and will soon be considered by City Council. He further explained that during the platting process for this property, there were two opposing factors under consideration. He noted that the Ordinance reads that, where an alley exists, the access to the garage area must be taken from the alley only. The Fire Department, however, indicated that they would be unable to take a fire truck down the alley, thereby recommending that a fire lane be constructed off of Sandy Lake Road to access the rear of the property, considering its depth. Greg Jones added that because the front drive connects with the parking area that serves the garage, a zoning violation exists with respect to the rear access requirement. Greg Jones explained that although detailed site plans are not normally required for duplex zoning, the applicant, in this case, was asked several times to submit additional information, considering the unusual conditions surrounding this parcel; each time he seemed reluctant to provide the requested information. Furthermore, Greg Jones noted that the site plan and the floor plan included in this packet do not match, adding that because the submittal was incomplete, Staff's explanation and recommendation were difficult to prepare. Greg Jones indicated that in the second part of this request, the applicant wishes to construct a screening fence along Sandy Lake to match the adjacent screening fence for Summer Place subdivision. He explained that the lots along Sandy Lake Road have a 30-ft. front yard requirement, and this would apply in this parcel. He further explained that the screening fence for Summer Place is required by Ordinance wherever rear yards can be seen from a roadway. Therefore, the applicant would be unable to build a fence within his front yard. Or, if he did, he would need to place the fence back to 30 feet, and although that would be acceptable for Lot//2, it wouldn't be acceptable for Lot #1. Greg Jones explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to the fencing requirements to allow him to build a fence at the front of the property that would be in line with the adjacent Summer Place screening wall. He noted that the applicant has indicated that he will install gates with an opticom to allow Fire Department access. Greg Jones indicated that although Staff realizes the difficulty of making all of these variables work, the incomplete information provided by the applicant has hindered the process. He noted that Staff's recommendation would be to hold this case under advisement until the applicant provides complete information. Board of Adjustment December 3, 1998 Page 5 Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on what is considered the front yard on this lot, and Greg Jones responded that the two lots would be considered separately, noting that the setback for Lot #1 would be approximately 200 feet back for a fenceline, as outlined in the fence ordinance section of the Code of Ordinances. Commissioner Jamadar asked if the fu'elanes, as shown on the sketch, were proposed by the applicant or by the Fire Marshal, noting that the plan does not include a turnaround. Greg Jones responded that although there is no turnaround, the Fire Department felt they could accept this plan whereby the fu'e truck would need to back out of the property. Commissioner Chomiak inquired about the property to the west, and Greg Jones responded that the estate development lots of Cottonwood Creek adjoin this property to the west. Chairman Stonecipher commented that some of the problems in this case seem to be caused by the duplex zoning, adding that re-zoning may solve these problems. Greg Jones responded that the applicant specifically requested the duplex zoning and did not wish to change it. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Ruppert Keeping explained that he purchased this property about six months ago, and plans to build two large single family residences on the property. He noted that he has maintained the current zoning in order to keep his options open. He explained that if these variances are denied, the property would be developed with as many as 12 duplex units. He added that he wishes to expand the existing wall along Sandy Lake to provide a privacy and sound barrier from Sandy Lake Road, adding that he plans to install front-entry iron gates with an opticom system to allow Fire Department access. Because alley access by the Fire Department was found to be unworkable, he explained that he was asked to include a hammerhead turnaround, as shown in the sketch. Mr. Keeping reported that he has furnished the information requested of him by submitting 17 complete sets of drawings, including the tree survey, the boundary survey, and the engineer's survey, to the Planning Department a week ago. Greg Jones responded, however, that this board does not see that information. Mr. Keeping reported that the main problem with this property seems to be the lack of alley access behind the garage. He noted that the homes will be oriented to the west, facing the rear of the Cottonwood Estates homes, and separated by a huge treeline. Because of the west-facing orientation, people traveling along Sandy Lake would be allowed to view his rear yard, unless a screening wall is constructed to provide privacy. Furthermore, he noted that directly across the street, a screening wall is being constructed the entire length of that development. Mr. Keeping commented that a brick screening wall would be far superior to a rickety wooden fence, in his opinion. Mr. Keeping indicated that no plans exist for Lot #2, pending the outcome of this hearing and the City Council meeting on December 8th. He indicated that this property has been neglected for approximately 30 years, adding that the old mobile home which currently sets on this property will be removed as soon as possible. He noted that the lot is 525 feet long with 25 feet of frontage being dedicated to the City for the future widening of Sandy Lake Road. He noted that he also purchased a 20-ft. easement along the west side of this property, bringing the total dimensions of the property to Board of Adjustment December 3, 1998 Page 6 500 feet deep by 200 feet wide. Mr. Keeping explained that the proposed wall would be rock and red brick, similar to the screening wall at The Springs subdivision. Commissioner LeGros asked if the screening wall would run down the eastern side, and Mr. Keeping reported that it would run along three sides: along Sandy Lake on the south; along the eastern boundary; and across the northern boundary, adding that the west side (his front yard) would comply with the Ordinance requirements. Commissioner Jamadar asked if a single residence would be built, and Mr. Keeping responded that it would be two connected structures to comply with duplex zoning. One structure will be primarily a two-story structure to house the guest quarters, three-car garage, hobby shop, greenhouse, and exercise room. Commissioner Jamadar asked why the site plan and floor plan do not match, and Mr. Keeping indicated that he did not wish to incur architectural expenses until he knew the outcome of this public hearing and City Council's actions. Chairman Stonecipher asked the applicant to clarify the various accesses to the property, and Mr. Keeping did so, explaining the use of the hammerhead section as a possible turnaround for the Fire Department. He further explained that there are two garage facilities, one for each duplex. Discussion continued on the location of the driveway and garages. Commissioner Jamadar asked if it is a requirement to build a duplex facility on a duplex-zoned lot, or if a single family home is allowable, adding that he felt two different sets of rules were being imposed on this parcel. Greg Jones responded that when you start applying the duplex requirements to a single family residence, it can get complicated. As an example, he noted that the Ordinance prohibits a detached accessory building from having kitchen and bathroom facilities which could possibly allow it to be used for rental purposes. Discussion continued on the differences between a single family residence and a duplex as they relate to the Ordinance. Commissioner Jamadar asked for further clarification on the two specific requests, and Mr. Keeping listed them as such: 1) to omit the driveway on the east side; and 2) to allow for the construction of a screening wall positioned in line with the existing adjacent screening wall. Chairman Stonecipher asked about the section of the sketch referring to the removal of a portion of the driveway, and Mr. Keeping indicated that he would be required to remove a small section of the rear driveway to prohibit its use as a rear entrance. Commissioner Glasener asked how the two structures would be connected, and Mr. Keeping replied that a breezeway would be used to connect the two. Commissioner Jamadar reiterated the importance of a site plan and floor plan which actually match, indicating that such information is needed for this Board to make an informed decision. Chairman Stonecipher asked the applicant to clarify his answer on the checklist regarding a property hardship. Mr. Keeping described the property should it be developed into eight or twelve duplexes, noting that a City street would be added to the property, and the quality of the construction would meet minimum code requirements only. Board of Adjustment December 3, 1998 Page 7 The meeting was opened to the public. Speaking in favor of the variance requests was Mary Porter of 448 Leisure Lane. Ms. Porter reported that she's lived in the area since 1992, noting that the property has been cleaned up considerably in recent months. She commented that she was relieved to hear of the applicant's intentions, adding that this is a very creative way to develop this property, while preserving its beauty, as well as the trees. She noted that she's very much in favor of maintaining the single family environment. Laura Cope, of 133 Summer Place, asked if the variance was tied to this particular plan, or, .once granted, could it be applied to any plan the property owner chooses, such as the 12-duplex option. It was agreed that the variances, if granted, would be applied to the overall construction of duplexes on this lot, and should the use or zoning change, the variances would no longer apply. Ms. Cope voiced her approval of the request as long as it is limited to the use discussed this evening. No one spoke in opposition to the request. The meeting was closed to the public and opened to the Board for discussion. With regard to alley access, Commissioner Chomiak asked if the reasons for the two alley access requirements relate to the fact that there are two garages. Greg Jones responded that normally in a duplex lot, it would be set up in such a way as to have access to the two parking areas separately and from the alley only. Discussion continued on the requirements as they pertain to this situation. Chairman Stonecipher asked if board members were comfortable with the amount of information submitted, considering the fact that an accurate footprint is not available, and most indicated they were satisfied with tonight's explanation. Commissioner Jamadar explained that he agrees, in principle, with what the applicant wants to do, but the submittal of matching, accurate drawings would have made this process more efficient. In addition, it was generally agreed that the narrow frontage and the depth of the lot present property hardships, as well as the requirement for the fire lane. Chairman Stonecipher also asked board members if granting the variances would be contrary to the public interest, and most agreed that it would actually be beneficial to the public interest. Commissioner LeGros asked how these variances would be tied to this particular use, wondering if, in the future, Lot//2 could possibly be rezoned. Greg Jones responded that Lot//2 could be rezoned, but, if so, it would most likely be an SF (single family) zoning which is compatible with the surrounding area. He added that if the applicant tried to do anything out of the ordinary, he'd be required to go through an approval process. He further explained that the applicant will be required, in this current situation, to submit the necessary paperwork for permit approval before any building begins. Motion was made by Commissioner Glasener that the variance relating to garage access requirements be granted and that the variance from the Code of Ordinances to allow a front yard fence be granted. Board of AdjusUnent December 3, 1998 Page 8 Motion was seconded by Commissioner Jamadar, with an amendment that both variances be' granted based on the use of the parcel as it is shown in the plans submitted by the applicant this evening. A vote was taken and the motion carried, 5 to 0. Variances granted. ITEM 5: Other Business. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by Commissioner Glasener that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was secondetl by Commissioner Jamadar, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. David Stonecipher, Chairman Mary l~eth Spletzer, l~eco~ing Secretary