Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Adjustment-Minutes-8/22/2000Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -August 22, 2000 Page 1 of 7 The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Dee McNosky at 7:02 p.m. on August 22, 2000. Roll Call: Present: Teresa Rutherford ,Sara Lester, Larry Henry, Jerry Birkes, Dee McNosky Absent: Steve Magee Staff: Jan Levy, Dorothy Posey Approval of Minutes: August 8, 2000 Jerry Birkes moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Sara Lester seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Henry, Birkes, McNosky Noes: None Abstained: Rutherford, Lester Chairman McNosky explained the procedures of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to the audience. She asked the voting members to identify themselves. The voting members for the meeting are: Rutherford, Lester, Henry, Birkes, and McNosky. Chairman McNosky outlined the meeting format for the audience. PUBLIC HEARING - A request from George Lamberth 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' wrought iron 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-00-005 Jan Levy presented the case to the Board. George Lamberth was present to represent the case. He said that they have moved from California and were not in possession of the dwelling when the Board heard the previous case relating to a front building line encroachment. He said that they made changes to the request by changing the material of fencing to a 6' wrought iron fence rather than a wooden fence, and they changed to a much less obtrusive location over the building line. He said that the purpose of the change in location from the current fence is in order to secure the pool equipment. He said that the pool meets all of the restrictions on the property. He said that the pool equipment being exposed is a personal risk that they would like to avoid. He said that the fence would be aesthetically appealing to the neighbors. He said that they will landscape the fence for additional privacy. He said that at the time they bought the home, they were not really advised what the building lines were and as a result have downsized the pool, moved fences, and they would appreciate the Board's favorable consideration of their request. Chairman McNosky asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. There was no one. Jerry Birkes told the applicant that one of the other members who is not present and is a builder, inspected the pool and asked questions about the location of the pool equipment. He said that at that time, there was some confusion about where the pool equipment was originally located. He Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -August 22, 2000 Page 2 of 7 said that this member said that the pool equipment was on the side of the house not the front. Mr. Birkes asked if the pool equipment has been moved from that original location to the front of the house. Mr. Lamberth responded that the equipment is where it was originally installed. He said that in order to protect the resource of the trees, they have literally had to collapse the pool. He said that the walkway runs right along the fence line. Mr. Birkes said that the other contention at the last meeting was that the pool seemed to be constructed toward the building line and the in the drawing there seems to be space nearthe patio area. Mr. Lamberth said that they looked at placing the pool farther back on the lot, but it left little patio space and did not allow for egress and transgress to the rest of the yard. He said that that location would interfere with their walkways and their grandchildren could not access the yard. Sara Lester commented on the location of the trees and the need to stay as far away from the root system in order to prevent them from dying. Mr. Lamberth said that the minimum space that they could build in was 10'. He said that the curvature in the pool accommodates the root system. He said that there are about six trees mature trees that range in diameter from 8" to 13". Teresa Rutherford questioned the location of the fence against the dwelling and the location of the pool equipment on the drawing. He said that the air conditioning unit and the pool equipment. Mr. Lamberth indicated on the drawing where the equipment is located. He said that they painted the equipment green and have landscaped to make the area more appealing to the neighbors. He said that the equipment is still exposed and anyone could maliciously damage the equipment. He said that the shrubbery was recently planted and will be moved to accommodate the fence. Chairman McNosky closed the public hearing. Larry Henry said that from his perspective, he believed that the pool could have been moved farther back and left space to access the yard, but the fact of the matter is that the pool is there. He said that he understands the need and desire to protect the trees, and they look great and add value. He said that he does not see that the variance will be harmful in any way and the applicant is trying to protect the trees. He said that there is a hardship because of the impact of the building lines on a corner lot. Jerry Birkes moved that the variance is approved as stated that it is a 6' wrought iron fence and not a wooden fence. Teresa Rutherford seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Rutherford, Lester, Henry, Birkes, McNosky Noes: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING - A request from Jim and Lanette Carpenter 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' wrought iron picket fence that would encroach over the 30' building line along Bill Simmons Road on the lot at the southeast corner of Bill Simmons Road & Glade Road - 2201 Glade Road, Abstract 328, Tract 2Q. Case A-00-006 Jan Levy presented the case to the Board. She explained how staff determined the proper location for a fence if the property was platted and the right-of-way for Bill Simmons Road was Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -August 22, 2000 Page 3 of 7 dedicated. Staff determined that the farthest location a fence could be placed away from the dwelling would be 43' from the side of the dwelling and the applicant is asking to place a fence 48' from the side of the dwelling. Staff acknowledged the applicant's desire to save the mature trees and be as far away as possible from the drip line and not disturb the root system. Mr. Birkes asked about the drawing that was presented and why staff's indication of 43' seems to be farther away from the dwelling than the location that is indicated by the applicant stating 48'. Staff responded that the applicant's drawing is not correct. Staff indicated the 43' in relation to the center line of Bill Simmons Road that was determined by a site visit rather than the centerline shown by the applicant. The applicant's property line comes to the center line of Bill Simmons Road. The 43' is the City's figure and would comply to any future platting requirements. Staff presented another drawing to clarify their position. They displayed the photograph of the trees and indicated that the fence would be five feet closer to the dwelling than the applicant is requesting in order to alleviate the confusion on the plot plan drawing. Staff told the Board that the applicant's drawing is not correctly drawn to reflect the centerline of Bill Simmons Road. Staff told the Board that the 43' line would be on the western side of the trees. Sara Lester asked staff to explain how they determined the 43' line. Staff answered that they determined the center line of Bill Simmons Road and measured 25' from the center line to allow fora 50' right-of-way that is required for local roads. The fence could be considered a perimeter fence and could be placed at that location. Staff said that the 43' is 5' farther back than what the applicant is requesting. Dee McNosky said that the 5' may have a significant impact on the trees and the fence would be placed farther back than any other fences in the neighborhood. Jim Carpenter, applicant was present to represent the case. He said that for the public record, staff has been very helpful in explaining the variance process to him. He said that he wanted to say thanks for the courtesy and professionalism displayed by staff. He presented overheads of what the first phasing of the fence would look like. He said that in the first phase there would not be brick columns. He said that after they pay for the next semester of their son's college, they may construct the brick columns. He presented an overhead of the trees that were planted by them 25 years ago. They said that the property was a neighbor's chicken coop and they really did not know where the property lines were at the time. He said that they have nurtured the trees. He said that when they had problems with their septic system, they had to dig and disturb the trees. He said that they went into decline at that time about 10 years ago. Mr. Carpenter said that when city sewer became available, the roots were cut again at approximately the location they are requesting the fence to be placed. He said that they then had a major gas leak in their yard and the gas company cut through the roots again. He said that the trees have been disturbed three times at the 48' to 49' away from the house location. He said that 5' closer to the root ball will have a big impact and they don't want to disturb the root system. He displayed an overhead of a picture taken down the center line of Bill Simmons Road to show the location of the neighbors' fences. He said that all of the fences are approximately 12' away from the edge of the asphalt. He requested that they be allowed to place the fence like every Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -August 22, 2000 Page 4 of 7 body else and then build the brick columns later on and not do anything else to disturb the root balls. Mr. Carpenter asked the Board to grant the variance at 48' from the dwelling. Jerry Birkes told the applicant that he had a sprinkler head that has blown off at the south of the property. He asked the applicant why he wants to build the fence at 48' away from the dwelling rather than the 43' recommended by staff. From the overhead indicating the applicant's proposed line in relationship to the trees, he indicated where the roots were disturbed by the gas company and said that that location would not disturb the root system any farther. Chairman McNosky asked the applicant about the possibility of placing a fence directly over the gas line and possible future rupture of the line. She asked him if he was aware of the possibility of having the fence ripped up to repair any ruptured lines. Mr. Carpenter said that the fence would be inside the gas line. Teresa Rutherford asked the applicant how far apart the brick columns would be constructed. He responded that they would be as far apart as every fence section, probably 12'. He said that he consulted the neighbors on the materials and chose what would look best and he would do the same for the columns. Larry Henry asked if the applicant really felt that the columns were a necessity because they could further damage the root system of the trees. Mr. Carpenter said that having just the wrought iron fence would not disturb the root balls if it is placed 48' away from the home. He said that they do have to drill holes and pour concrete and 5' closer to the trees would cause a problem with the central root ball. Mr. Henry said that they could avoid any disturbance by not drilling holes for brick columns and just having a fence. Lanette Carpenter said that they have not made a decision to build brick columns. She said that they can currently afford to build the fence without the brick columns and it would look just fine and they may decide not to put in brick columns. Mrs. Carpenter said that if the City told her to put in brick columns, they would find a way to put them in. She said that they would like to enclose that part of their yard and they didn't want the fence to get any closer to the trees. She said that they had a tree surgeon come out to work on the trees and he advised them that if they put the fence 48' away from the home, the trees would probably not be hurt. She said that they did not ask him about putting the fence closer to the trees because they did not consider that. Jerry Birkes asked the applicants why they did not consider placing the fence on the other side of the trees near the dwelling. Mr. Carpenter said that they wanted to stay outside the drip line as far as possible. The existing sidewalk meanders about 3 to 4 feet away from the house to avoid the drip line and they want to have full use of their yard. He said that they have given away a big chunk of their yard to the City to build sidewalks along Glade Road. He said that they started with an acre of property and it is now reduced back to .65 acres and this would further reduce their yard. He said that potentially they would have a house on a little postage stamp and wouldn't have yard for their kids. Lanette Carpenter said that she would not go to the trouble of putting a fence on the east side of the trees, because it wouldn't serve any purpose. She said that it wouldn't bring in any part of the yard and they want that big part of the yard for future grandchildren to play in. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -August 22, 2000 Page 5 of 7 Teresa Rutherford said that she was having trouble in seeing why a wrought iron post placed in the ground with a piece of concrete every twelve feet would have a big effect on the trees. She said that it was not like they would have to dig a ditch along the tree line. Lanette Carpenter responded that the tree surgeon told them that he has seen where people have just parked a car under a tree and that causes damage to the tree. She said that they were advised that the farther they can put a fence away from the drip line, the better off the trees would be. There being no other speakers, Chairman McNosky closed the public hearing portion. Jerry Birkes said that there has been mention of other lots south of the Carpenters' lot having fences closer than allowed. He said that these are in a very rural area and the neighbor to the west has a fence for the livestock and some of the properties have horses on them. He said that the Carpenters have a residence on Glade Road not a farm on Bill Simmons. He acknowledge there are other fences built back from the street and he does not believe that posts built every twelve feet would have much of an adverse effect on the trees. He said that this is a corner lot and as he, Mr. Birkes, is on a corner lot, he couldn't build a fence wherever he wanted, but by the regulations. He said that he did not see a conflict with the property itself, and he would recommend going with staff's recommendation of building the fence 43' from the house. Chairman McNosky stated that this piece of property is not platted and it does not fall under the guidelines that they typically look at for zoning variances. She said that the property does not have platted 10' or 15' setbacks. Chairman McNosky said that it is the custom of the area that fences are placed about 12' from the road and this property may never be platted. She said that they could also go with the applicants' request and place a condition that they understand that if in the future that if Bill Simmons was widened or the property was platted, they move the fence. She said that this is not really a zoning issue, because the property is not zoned as a platted lot, and they need to be a little more flexible than if the property was platted. Larry Henry said that he agrees with staff's recommendation that damage to the trees can be avoided by not putting in brick columns. He said that the main concern about the trees is that their feeder roots are close to the surface and he can support the staff's recommendation. Mr. Carpenter said that they are not asking for anything different than what has been approved for his neighbors. He said that Mr. Kramer installed a fence two properties down from his last year and it is exactly 12' from the road. Mr. Carpenter said that as one goes down the street, there is fence after fence and they are not asking for anything out of the ordinary. He said that they happen to be in a hardship situation because they are on the corner lot, and it is very unlikely that Bill Simmons will ever develop because it cannot be a through street. He said that if some point in the future the City wants them to plat the land, they would be open to moving the fence back. He said that he does not think that they are asking for anything out of the ordinary. Chairman McNosky called for a motion. In the absence of a motion, Chairman McNosky moved to approve the applicant's request to allow the construction of a fence at the 48' mark with the condition that if in the future the property is ever platted, the applicants would be responsible for moving the fence into the appropriate area in orderto give leeway to the road. Teresa Rutherford seconded the motion. The vote being: Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -August 22, 2000 Page 6 of 7 Ayes: Rutherford, Lester, McNosky Noes: Henry, Birkes Larry Henry moved that the variance be approved with a change to the staff's recommendation that the fence be placed at 43'. Jerry Birkes seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Rutherford, Lester, Henry, Birkes, McNosky Noes: None 3. Discussion and consideration of amending the Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure. Case A-00-007 Chairman McNosky said that Steve Magee was going to bring some items related to the rules forward at this meeting. Jan Levy informed the Board that she spoke with Steve Magee earlier in the day and he confirmed that the changes met with his satisfaction and incorporated the changes he suggested for changing the number of meetings a month, incorporate the language about the voting members, and clarifying posting times. Teresa Rutherford said that the word "absent" needed to be removed from Section 201 because it was redundant. Jerry Birkes requested that the word "may" be changed to back to "shall" in section 504 because it should be required that the Chairman will call for questions. Larry Henry stated concerns that the Chairman could prevent the Board from asking questions. Chairman McNosky said that she believed the word should be "will" and the Board agreed that it gives the statement more structure. Staff advised the Board that a variance request has been filed and there will be a meeting scheduled for September 12tH. Jan Levy told the Board that staff will incorporate the Board's corrections and present a revised version of the Rules of Procedure if they wanted to review them again. Teresa Rutherford said that Section A-3 the word "will" is changed to "shall", so the same change should be made to Section B-3 on page 9. Discussion ensued about the meaning of "will" and "shall". Jerry Birkes asked what happens when a term expires. Staff explained the changes regarding election of officers in regards to vacancies on the Board. Mr. Birkes said that he was questioning when a term expires at the end of a term. Staff explained that the City Council accepts applications for every position that is expiring and the current member needs to reapply for reappointment. Jan Levy informed the Board that the terms that will be expiring September, 2000 will be: Place 1 -Teresa Rutherford; Place 2 -Sara Lester; Place 3 -vacant; Alternate #2 - Steve Magee and Council is accepting applications until September 14tH Chairman McNosky requested that her comments to the City Council be entered into the record. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -August 22, 2000 Page 7 of 7 She said that she can appreciate that they have full right to appoint new people to the Board. She said that if the current individuals choose to reapply for their positions, she would like the Council to give heavy weight to the thought that the Board is finally getting to the point where people are trained for their jobs. She said that this Board historically has not been able to fulfill its commitment on a consistent basis because there have not been trained people who really know what they are doing. She asked that the Council give that thought heavy consideration. Chairman McNosky said that it is crucial that the Board be trained and functional and if the Council continues to keep uprooting people on a regular basis, she doesn't think that that is going to happen. Jerry Birkes moved that the meeting be adjourned. Teresa Rutherford seconded the motion. The vote passed unanimously. Larry Henry informed the Chairman that he would not be at the next meeting. The Chairman reopened the meeting in order to reopen the discussion on Item #3. Jerry Birkes moved that the proposed revisions to the Rules of Procedure be approved with the following changes: 504. "and may call for questions ..." be changed to "and will call for questions... ~~ B-3 "administrative official will ..." be changed to "administrative official shall... 201. remove "absent" to read "Any regular or alternate member arriving... Teresa Rutherford seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Rutherford, Lester, Henry, Birkes, McNosky Noes: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jan Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: September 12, 2000 as submitted. jl/min/0822zba.min