Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11051996BOA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR NIEETI~G NOVEMBER 5. 1996 The meeting ~vas called to order by Chairman Oberbeck at 7:00 PM. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Devito Mr. Beck'w/th (Alternate) Mr. Freeland (Alternate) Chmn. Oberbeck Vice Chron. Capp Mr. Crocker Mr. Gore ALSO PRESENT: Robert Massarelli. Director of Commumw Development Gerry. Kubes and Ann Brack, Secretaries The City. Attorney, Valene Settles, could not be present at this meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION bv Freeland/Devko I make a mot/on to approve the minutes of October 1, 1996 A voice vote was taken. Unammous approval. NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Oberbeck briefly outlined the format of the Public Hearings for the benefit of the applicants and the public present. All persons present including Mr. Massarelli, who were to testify, at this meeting were sworn m by Secretary. Kubes. No ex parte commUmcations were made by any Board Members. PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE - 581 CONCHA DRIVE - EDGAR P. VANLOKHORST (There were 17 notices of hearing sent and we received no letters of objection or non-objection.) Mr. Massarelli gave a staff report and explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to alloxv an e.,dst/ng garage to encroach into the sideyard setback a distance of 2.8 ff. to 4.6 ff. from the property, line, and an emstmg pool to encroach the same sideyard setback 5.3 f~. from the property. line. where the code requires a mm/mum of a 10 ft. sidevard setback. This is located in a RS-10 zoning district on approximately .28 acres of land. The garage was constructed in January,, 1984, the pool in March of 1990. The application for the building permit on the garage included a rough drawing showing that ir was located 10 fl. from the side property line. A permit was issued for the garage. The specifications for the pool deck shows the pool approximately 6 ft. from the property. line and the edge of the pool was 10 ft. from the property, line. The exact dimensions were not given and the draWing was not to scale so these measurements cannot be certified. Bob noted that the pool deck may encroach the setback, but not the pool itself. Based on the survey, the perrmt was issued and the pool was constructed. A drawing for the storage building in 1995 showed the garage .and the pool to be 10 ft. from the property, line. Then in 1996, there was a survey that showed that both structures were encroaching in the sideyard setback, k appears to staff the previous owner who had the garage constructed, as well as the current property owner, were acting in good faith and believed the structures were correctly located on the property,. Staff recommends that if a variance is issued, that the garage or pool not be allowed to expand, and that no other su-ucture be allowed within the setback, and if the structure or pool is destroyed or receives more than 50% damage, they may not be replaced and the variance V'nll expire and be removed, putting a time limit on it. At this point, several interested parties who arrived at the meeting late were sworn in by the Secretary. Mr. Vanlokhorst was present and spoke on his own behalf. Board members then asked him several questions. Mr. Vanlokhorst prov/ded an ongmal survey showing only the lot. Approximately seventeen (17) years ago, when his home was built, a final survev was not required. There was discussion about tightening up the code to prevent this ,type of situation from happening in the future. Ms. Leola Vanck was sworn m at this point, in order to speak in behalf of the applicant. Ms. Beverly Albrecht was present in opposition to the applicant. She presented the Board with photographs of a survey stake in close proximity to the garage of Mr. Vanlokhorst's property, which abuts her lot. After much discussion, it was determined that Ms. Albrecht's property was still intact, and completely buildable. Mr. Massarelli noted that the encroachments were on one property only. The previous owner who had the garage and pool constructed did so in good faith, and believed the construction companies placed them properly. The 1996 survey was the first time that the encroachment was recognized. Mr. Massarelli advised that no screen enclosure be allowed, and a time limit be placed on the variance, if approved, so that the variance would expire with the garage and pool if such time occurs that damage of more than 50% would occur to either, making it necessary, to replace either. MOTION by Crocket/Capp I make a motion to grant the variance Unth staff recommendations: 1. No screen enclosure on pool. 2. After more than 50% destroyed or damaged, the physical structure be removed. 3. No other structure to be built on setback. Roll call was taken: Crocker - Yes Deviro - Yes Capp - Yes Oberbeek - Yes Gore - No The motion with conditions was approved 4 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING - THERON C. PHINNEY - 158 CRAWFORD DRIVE - VARIANCE FOR ONE TON COMMERCIAL VEHICLE TO BE PARKED AT RESIDENCE There were no ex parte commumcations in this instance. Mr. Massarelli noted that Mr. Phirmey has applied and received a conditional approval for a home occupational license to operate a mobile car repair service from his home. The condition on the approval is that he receive a vanance on the use of the one ton truck. The code in addressing Home Occupations prohibits a commercial truck in excess of three-quarter (3/4) ton from being parked at the residence. Mr. Phinnev has converted a three-quarter (3/4) ton truck to his mobile car repair vehicle, and in doing so he had to increase the ca ~rrymg capacity, to one ton. The residence is located in RS-10 zoning. Mr. Massarelli noted section 20A-5.16. i(c)(4), a homeowner is allowed to park a vehicle up to one ton at their home. If Mr. Phirmey had not gotten a home occupaUonal license, he could park this truck at his home. A hardship exists because of a lack of a secure off-site storage area for such vehicles at a reasonable distance from the home, and the strict interpretation of the code creates an unnecessary, and undue hardship on the applicant, particularly in light of the fact that homeowners are allowed to have one ton trucks at their homes. Bob mentioned that one condition the Board might consider is to require screening where the vehicle is parked to minimize the visual impact on the neighborhood; also to consider tUne limitations, and it is suggested that a variance be limited onlv to the time that the applicant holds a valid home occupation license for the mobile car repair service. He also noted the inconsistency in the Land Development Code - namely - you can have a one ton truck at your home as a personal vehicle (as most home occupational license holders use their personal vehicle). It appears to be unreasonable to allow a one ton truck for a homeowner but if he suddenly gets a home occupation, he can't have the one ton truck. Mr. Pkinney explained that m the process of convening the three-quarter (3/4) ton truck to a one ton truck, only the chassis was changed, and all the e,,aenor dimensions remained the same as for the original three-quarter (3/4) ton track. At this point he supplied several photographs of the subject n-uck for the Board members to look at. Asked if he could fit this truck into a garage, Mr. Phmney replied that he could not. He also noted that he purchased his residence because it seemed to be ideally suited to park this vehicle with minimal visual impact on the neighbors. To his knowledge no immediate neighbor has anv problem ~vith it. The vehicle measures 17 fr. long, the body measures 7 1~. wide, and if you include the c[iamond plate fenders it would measure 8 ft. wide, and it stands 8 fr. tall. It was converted 12 to 15 years ago. He works alone and has been in that business since 1975. Several members expressed concerns that the truck be obscured as much as possible because of the e~enor appearance of the truck. There were no proponents nor opponents present in this case. The public heating was closed at 7:34 PM. Mr. Massarelli recommended that because of a list of seven conditions, it is a balancing that the Board is doing, and you are allowed to consider conditions and give one condition more weight than another one. He recommended consideration of some screening where the vehicle will be parked. Also a time limit should be considered, that it be onlv valid durmg the time that the home occupational license is held. When the license is no longer held, the variance should expire. Mr. Phinney noted that he would not be doing flus business fbrever, and suggested that the Board consider putting limitations on this variance, that if the vehicle not be used at some time, the variance be eliminated. If the track should ever need replacement, it would be replaced with a three-quarter (3/4) ton truck, and the variance would expire. There was much discussion at this point in reference to screening of the track because of the printing on the outside of it. Mr. Beckw/th brought up the notion of repamrmg the truck so it doesn't look like a billboard. Mr. Oberbeck suggested that the Board was drifting from the main issue in the variance application. He also suggested that Mr. Massarelli take some of tonight's suggestions back to planmng and Zoning. MOTION by Crocker/Gore. I'd like to entemain a motion to approve, with conditions: 1. Screening with hedging as high as the truck along the side and rear. (After some discussion) place the hedge screening requirement to take place if and when someone builds on the side lot or behind his propertyi' (The above condition was removed by Mr. Crocker so the motion could be seconded. They then went into discuss/on on the motion and the conditions.) After some discussion, it was determined that the adjacent properties on the side and rear were in fact standard building lots and could at some time in the future, be built upon. Mr. Freeland suggested screening the side yard and the rear of the vehicle and making this a condition of the motion of approval. Several board members agreed. Roll call was taken. Mr. Crocker Yes Mr. Devito - No Chmn. Oberbeck- No Vice-Chmn. Capp Mr. Gore Yes No The vote was three (3) against, and two (2) for. The request for variance was not approved. Chairman Oberbeck explamed how the motion progressed because of some confusion. MEMBERS MATTERS: None STAFF MATTERS: Mr. Massarelli mentioned a previous discussion about Staff Recommendations. In the process of rewriting the Land Development Code, he found, on page 755, a requirement for staff to give the Board a recommendation on each case. Based on the Code. from now on we will be giving you a recommendation. The Board has the option of eliminating this requirement if you so choose by going through the regular process to change the Code. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 PM. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING HELD APPROVED AT MEETING HELD ANN BRACK, RECORDING SECRETARY GERRY KUBES, SECRETARY ADJVI.DOC