Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Adjustment-Minutes-7/11/2000Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -July 11, 2000 Page 1 of 2 The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was called to order by Vice-President McNosky at 7:03 p.m. on July 11, 2000. Roll Call: Present: Teresa Rutherford, Sara Lester, Dee McNosky, Jerry Birkes, Steve Magee Absent: Larry Henry Staff: Barry LeBaron, Jan Levy Approval of Minutes: May 23, 2000 Jerry Birkes moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Steve Magee seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Rutherford, Lester, Birkes, Magee, McNosky Noes: None Election of Officers Steve Magee nominated Dee McNosky to be elevated to Chairman. Teresa Rutherford seconded the motion. There being no other nominations, the nominations were closed. Vice Chairman McNosky called for a vote. The vote being: Ayes: Rutherford, Lester, Birkes, Magee, McNosky Noes: None Chairman McNosky opened the nominations for Vice Chairman. Jerry Birkes nominated Steve Magee for Vice Chairman. Sara Lester seconded the nomination. There being no other nominations, the nominations were closed. Chairman McNosky called for a vote. The vote being: Ayes: Rutherford, Lester, Birkes, Magee, McNosky Noes: None Chairman McNosky explained the procedures of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to the audience. She asked the five voting members to identify themselves. The five voting members for the meeting are: Rutherford, Lester, Birkes, Magee, and McNosky. Chairman McNosky outlined the meeting format for the audience. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - A request from Dan Light, D'Lightful Homes, Inc. for a variance from Section 3.26 -Fences Free Standing Walls, and Screening Material of the Land Development Code - to provide for the construction of a 6' wood fence that would encroach over a portion of the 30' building line on Lot 25, Block 1 Remington Park, Phase II at 503 Mustang Court. Case A-00-002 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -July 11, 2000 Page 2 of 2 Chairman McNosky opened the public hearing. Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission. Those present wishing to speak were: Dan Light, the applicant. He told the Board about the stand of trees that exist on the lot and expressed the owner's wishes to save the trees by designing a pool to be located in the chosen area. He said that the pool equipment will need to be placed in a location facing the street and this presents a difficulty for screening it and securing it from theft. He said that they are proposing off-sets in the fence to give it character and the neighbor does not object. Mr. Light said that the Homeowners' Association does not object. Jerry Birkes, questioned the shaded areas on the drawing. Mr. Light told him that they were flower beds. He asked about the location of the patio. Mr. LeBaron said that he combined the drawing of the detail of the house on the lot and the drawing of the pool was reduced to approximately the correct size to fit into the space indicated for the pool. Mr. Birkes said that the drawing does not give them a complete picture of the variance request. Mr. Light indicated the location of the patio in relationship to the trees and the pool. Chairman McNosky asked the applicant if the construction of the pool will be far enough off the drip line in order to ensure the safety of the trees. The builder responded that the owner is trying to save 3 to 4 trees. He said that one of the trees is pretty close to the pool. Mr. Light said that the owner purchased the lot because he loved the trees. Steve Magee said that he looked at the property and the pool equipment is plumed at the back side of the house toward the pool not toward the front of the lot. He said that the patio seems large and the pool is 26' long which is a large pool. He said that within the area provided, the pool could have been pushed back. Mr. Magee said that he is sympathetic to saving trees, but it seems like the patio is pretty large, and with the 26' internal dimension for the pool, the pool itself fits within the building line, it could be pushed back without impacting the trees. He said that while the lot has some irregularities to it, within the context of the plat, it is not really a strange shaped lot. He said that visually the fence built over the building line will create a very narrow area on the lot. He said that he believes the owners could fit the pool within the setback lines and with some redrawing, the issues could be worked out. He said that he thought the owners were trying to move the pool equipment out into what is considered the front yard, because this is a corner, and that is not appropriate. He said that he is having trouble supporting the request because the pool can fit within the lot while still preserving the trees in a little different configuration. He said that he is concerned that they will violate a front setback line on Mustang Court while there are still other lots on the cul-de-sac not having homes built on them. Mr. Light responded that the lot adjacent is being built on by the head of the Architectural Control Committee for the subdivision. Mr. Light said that the owner called him to tell him that he wanted an eight foot fence and was afraid that Mr. Light would build a six foot fence and then he would have to double face the fence with an eight foot fence and he wanted to avoid that and work out the problem in advance. Mr. Light said that they met and came up with the location of the eight foot fence. He said that the reason they began the pool is because the owners are moving very soon from California. Mr. Magee stated that the pool meets the setback requirements. Mr. Light Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -July 11, 2000 Page 3 of 2 said that the customer has signed off on the pool plans and construction has begun so it is too late to move the pool. Chairman McNosky said that the real issue is the location of where the fence is proposed. She asked the applicant if he could tell her the distance that the fence is over the building line. Mr. Light responded by indicating on the overhead the location of the pool equipment and the distance from the street. He said that the owner wanted to be able to access the pool equipment and landscape the area. He said that the location of the fence on the side property line would be 31.5 feet from the curb. Steve Magee asked Barry LeBaron if the applicant can put a fence in the front yard and if he was aware of where the fence is. Mr. LeBaron answered that there is an existing fence on the common property line and he thought that it stopped at the building line when he inspected the area. Mr. LeBaron said that the fence should stop at the building line unless a variance is approved for something beyond the building line. Teresa Rutherford asked the applicant if it were necessary to place the fence and the location coming off the dwelling rather than moving it back farther because the air conditioning equipment is not placed where it is shown on the drawing. Mr. Light responded that if the fence were moved back to the next indention in the dwelling, the equipment would be outside the fence and unscreened. Mr. Light said that if the air conditioning equipment is on the second indentation rather than the first it is in the wrong position and will be moved. He said that the drawing is how the equipment is supposed to be installed. Mr. Magee said that currently the pool is plumbed into the northern most planter area and not at the side of the house and the air conditioning equipment is where the pool equipment shows on the drawing. Mr. Light said that the equipment will be moved and placed where it shows on the drawing. Ms. Rutherford said that she is concerned that a wooden fence built over the building line will be aesthetically unappealing. Mr. Light said that the developer, the homeowners' association, and the neighbor have reviewed the plans and given approval. Mr. Light said that he is responsible for the encroachment of the other fence as he wanted to screen the pool as quickly as possible for safety reasons and the neighbor's fence company built the fence over the building line without malice. Mr. Light said that he is requesting a variance for the whole plan to include the side fence and the front fence encroachment at 31.5 feet from the curb. Jerry Birkes questioned the lack of dimensions on the plot plan. It was determined that the point where the fence would attached to the dwelling is 21.5 feet from the curb. Chairman McNosky restated that the variance is for 8.5 feet over the building line at the side fence and taper back to meet the building line where the pool equipment is located. Steve Magee asked Mr. LeBaron if the builder moved the pool equipment to where it is showing on the exhibit, would there be a way to screen it legally from the front, possibly with a low fence. Mr. LeBaron said that anything over the building line would be illegal, it could be landscaped or a 30" fence could be used. Jerry Birkes asked about the location of the front door in relation to the building lines. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -July 11, 2000 Page 4 of 2 Chairman McNosky said that she sees a strange situation where a house is situated not only on two flanking streets with two setbacks, but the cul-de-sac contours the lot and makes that setback line unusual. She said that she admires the builder's and homeowners' efforts to preserve the trees because we do not have enough of them. She said that it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood to make the pool equipment and the air conditioning equipment and the pool itself placed in a private type setting with a fence and not shrubbery. Teresa Rutherford asked if there was any reason why the equipment could not have a fence not encroaching a building line. Mr. Magee said that when he considered the variance request he realized that when the equipment was moved to the location shown on the drawing, the fence would be right up against the equipment & decking and this limits their options. He said that he would not want his pool equipment outside the fence. Mr. Light told the Board that the owner, Mr. Lamberth, had some of his pool equipment stolen at a previous home and he wanted the equipment to not be accessible to the public. He said that Mr. Lamberth expressed that he wanted a back yard like everyone else and did not want to lose the usable space in his back yard because of the shape of the lot resulting from the cul-de-sac. Teresa Rutherford asked Mr. Light if there could be room for the equipment if it were moved back one farther indention. Mr. Light said that the pool equipment would have to be moved behind the home at the location of the master bedroom window as the air conditioning equipment cannot be moved. He said that air conditioning equipment cannot be moved because it adversely affects the efficiency. Chairman McNosky asked the applicant if the cul-de-sac did not cut into the corner of the lot, would he be asking for a variance. Mr. Light said that he would not need a variance if the cul-de- sac did not cut into the corner of the lot. Mr. Magee asked if the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNosky closed the public hearing. Steve Magee said that for the record, he appreciates what Mr. Light is doing and asking for. He said that it makes it difficult for the board because the pool is going in the ground now. Mr. Magee said that he is concerned that when they violate a front setback, and if you look at the overall plat, this portion shows four cul-de-sacs with lots similar to Mr. Light's. He said that he is having trouble finding the unique circumstances as it is not unique in a cul-de-sac arrangement to have lots like this. He said that he feels that there were reasonable alternatives and still believes that some exist for installing the pool, preserving the trees, still finding a place to put all of the equipment and then running the fence along the building line per the code requirements. He said that those are his findings after considering the matter pretty carefully and having gone outto look at the lot. He said that his only concern is that if someone violates a front setback on this cul-de- sacfor this purpose, they have trouble setting a precedence and for those reasons, he has trouble with the request. Mr. Light requested to respond and Mr. Magee told him that the public hearing was closed and those were just his comments and he wanted them to be entered into the record. He said that he Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -July 11, 2000 Page 5 of 2 has carefully considered the request and he understands the utility and what the property owners are looking for, but he thinks that there are reasonable alternatives. He said that is why he has trouble supporting the request. Jerry Birkes said that he really thought there were some alternatives to satisfy everybody's needs, but since the pool is already dug, he felt pushed into either granting the request or not granting the request. He said that he didn't think there were alternatives. He said that he has moved three air conditioners four years ago to get them out of his pool area and they still work and are efficient. He said that there are a lot of people who have air conditioners outside their fence and believes that the units could be moved somewhere else on the lot, but they were not given that alternative. He said that he really has trouble supporting the request, because what is good for Sally is good for Sam and the fence juts out terribly. He said that he has trouble finding the hardship that is not self created. Chairman McNosky asked for a motion since there were no other comments. She asked again if there was a motion. There being none, Chairman McNosky moved that the request for a variance is approved. There being no second, the motion was not voted on. Chairman McNosky informed the applicant that there being no second the Zoning Board of Adjustment has decided to not take action and the applicant's request has failed. Steve Magee asked Barry LeBaron how long Bob Van Til has been on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Magee said that he would strongly suggest that they prepare a plaque and award it to him at the City Council meeting or a future Board meeting. He said that he would prefer a City Council meeting with several of the Zoning Board of Adjustment members present. Mr. Magee said that Bob spent a lot of time of this board and even though he does not know him very well, Mr. Van Til represented the city well, knew what he was doing and worked hard and his service needs to be recognized. Steve Magee moved that the City recognize departing Chairman Van Til in an appropriate manner as determined by staff. Teresa Rutherford seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jan Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: July 25, 2000 as submitted. jh/min/0711 zba.min