PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2004-00831, Kenneth B. and Karin L. Kolsky The applicants seek a one and one-half foot variance from the rear yard setback requirement to construct an addition at 24 Hollyberry Court. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. and Mrs. Kolsky presented their request. Mrs. Kolsky stated that they are asking for a one and a one-half foot variance to the rear setback. This would be an extension of an existing variance on one corner of their house. Ms. Kolsky explained that before they bought their house, the house was improperly placed on the lot when originally constructed. This error resulted in the house being located one and one-half feet too close to the rear property line and nine-inches too close to the side property line on the left front corner of the house. The building was granted a variance for this condition on July 25, 1981. Ms. Kolsky stated that they are only asking for a variance equal to the amount that the existing house already encroaches. They are asking to build a two or three story addition to one part of the back of their house. Ms. Kolsky stated that they feel the variance is not contrary to the public interest because they are not asking for a larger encroachment to the existing variance; it is an extension of that variance. Ms. Kolsky submitted into the record as Exhibit 2, signed statements from the five adjacent homeowners who would be most affected by the addition. Ms. Kolsky said they also have the approval of the Architectural Committee of North Farms. Ms. Kolsky noted that because of the way the house is sited on the property and the existing landscaping, the encroaching area is not easily viewed by anybody in the neighborhood, except for possibly two of the neighbors behind them. She commented that they feel that this addition would add to the value of their home. Ms. Kolsky said that the variance is needed because of the conditions peculiar to their property and are not the result of their actions. The lot is irregularly shaped and the house is not placed on the lot so that it is parallel to any of property lines. The house is also located at an angle to the lot lines. Ms. Kolsky noted that the conditions were considered significant enough to warrant approval of the variance for the original house and is still relevant to the development potential, about possible additions, on the site. The proposed addition stair-steps with the diagonally located rear property line are an attempt to limit encroachment. Ms. Kolsky stated that if the ordinance is enforced, there a number of homes in her development, including two of the five homes adjacent to their property, have already had additions. She noted that they would not be able to build a reasonable addition without this encroachment. The Board discussed storm drain easements, impact of the addition on vegetation, removal of three trees, and reconfiguration of the proposed stair-steps. In response to the Board, Ms. Kolsky explained that the triangular area on the plan would only change the configuration of the stairs. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Kolsky said that, without a variance, they could shift the entire addition westward, but, it would protrude from the side of the house and it then would be seen from the front of the house and that would also shift the addition to the only flat area in their backyard, which would be used as a patio. If that were the case, she said she does not know if they would get approval from the Architectural Control Committee. Ms. Hall informed the Board that when the North Farm neighborhood was being constructed, the setbacks in that zone were an average of 15 and 25 feet. Therefore, some houses in the neighborhood have only a 15-foot rear yard setback. By the time this house was built, it appears that there was a surveying error. The surveyor laid out the foundation improperly so it encroached in two areas. If the house had been placed on the lot properly, this variance and the original variance would not have been necessary. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2004-00832, Annie Song The applicant seeks a seven-foot year yard variance and a four percent variance from the maximum lot coverage requirements for an addition onto the rear of the dwelling at 309 Currier Drive. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. Song presented her request. Ms. Song explained that they are proposing to build an addition onto the back of their house, which would include a second car garage addition, a mudroom, a study, a family room, breakfast room and an addition to the master bedroom suite. The addition would allow her aging parents to visit for a longer period of time and allow her to work at home and be with her children. Ms. Song stated that the addition would not be contrary to the public interest because in the Rockshire subdivision, a minimum lot area requirement is 15,000 square feet and her lot is only 9,108 square feet. She noted that if they had a lot that met the minimum lot area requirement that would have given them maximum lot coverage of 3,750 square feet. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Hall explained that Ms. Song’s property is located in the Rockshire subdivision is a Planned Residential Unit (PRU), which allows for clustering of lots and placement for the original houses, but it did not provide guidance for future additions or alterations. Ms. Hall explained that the subject lot is basically square with a grade that is unremarkable. Most interior lots are rectangular and easily support at least a minimal addition. This property could not support an addition over six feet in depth without a variance. She said the addition is proposed to come to within twenty-three feet of the rear property line. The addition also proposes to cover twenty-nine percent of the property when a maximum of twenty-five is permitted. As a result, the requested variances are for seven feet from the rear yard setback and for three hundred fifty square feet or four percent more than the maximum lot coverage permitted. In response to Mr. Sternstein, Ms. Song replied that there were no objections from the neighbors and she has approval from the Homeowners Association (HOA) of Rockshire. Mr. Deitchman inquired about a large tree that was removed in the rear yard. Ms. Song explained that the tree was damaged by a storm last year. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Song if she had objection to a condition that they could not build an additional structure without the Board’s review. Ms. Song replied that she would not object to the additional condition. In response to Mr. Schwartzman, Ms. Song stated that they plan to have a small patio for the grill outside of the sliding glass doors. The patio would be at ground level. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. Variance Application APP2004-00834, Staci Houser The applicant has applied for a variance from the front yard setback requirement to retain an accessory building located at 1415 Bradley Avenue. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Ms. Houser presented her request. Ms. Houser explained that she has placed a gazebo in her back yard. She said she applied for a building permit and was informed by a City employee that she did not need a building permit for placing a building in the back yard. Ms. Houser did note that the person did say she would like to connect her to somebody who knew more than she did. Ms. Houser said that she did speak to an inspector who was very nice and told her to apply for a permit. Ms. Houser informed the Board that she has been through quite an ordeal in order to retain this gazebo in its location. Ms. Houser stated that she has lived in her house since birth and since her parents passed away, she has done a great deal of work on her house. She noted that she has always had building permits for projects on her property, but the builders have always gotten them. Ms. Houser said she applied for a building permit for the gazebo, but did not follow up on the finalization of the permit. She noted that Inspection Services told her that the paper work was lost. She said she went to the Mayor and Council was told to apply for a variance. The variance was submitted and then lost by the Planning Division. She had to resubmit a second application, which adds to the confusion. Ms. Houser explained that the gazebo was installed in its current location to be integrated with a memorial garden for deceased members of her family. She indicated that moving the gazebo would defeat the purpose of its construction. The Board discussed the close placement of the gazebo to the street and how it would affect the neighbors. Ms. Houser stated that she has letters from neighbors surrounding her property. None of the neighbors has objected to the gazebo. She said she has also received positive feedback about the gazebo from strangers walking along her street. In response to Mr. Hill, Ms. Houser stated that her house is situated on a corner lot, which is secluded. There is no visual impact, in terms of sight distance, for anyone. There is no impact on the community. What is so frustrating is that there are many houses in the neighborhood that are not well maintained. She said she works very hard on her yard to make it beautiful. Mr. Schwartzman asked if Ms. Houser could relocate the gazebo in a location where it would meet the zoning requirements. Ms. Houser replied that she has a back yard deck and a swimming pool, which would be an inappropriate location for the gazebo. The gazebo is in a perfect location for everyone’s visual pleasure. If the gazebo were moved to the back yard, it would come too close to the deck and it would require removing some trees. Mr. Chasten stated that in viewing the property, he would agree with the applicant that there is no other place to locate the gazebo. In response to Mr. Hill, Ms. Houser stated that she has a fence on her property, which is within the boundary line. The Board discussed concerns regarding setback issues because the property is a corner lot, the purpose for the gazebo, whether a sidewalk is planned for Dean Drive, and when the gazebo was constructed. The following neighbors testified in favor of the application: 1. Mr. Andreas Vassilas, 507 Fletcher Place, testified that Ms. Houser’s yard as well as her house is the most beautiful and well maintained in the neighborhood. Mr. Vassilas stated that Ms. Houser’s house would encourage the people to follow the same example and make their homes in the neighborhood look much better. Mr. Deitchman stated that one of the Board’s concerns is setting a precedent for gazebos in every yard. Mr. Vassilas replied that he understands the procedure and they want to influence other people to follow good examples rather than bad examples and to follow the zoning procedures. Mr. Hill noted that he hears the neighbors speaking very positively about the appearance of this particular structure, but it may become a problem in the future in terms of maintenance of the structure. 2. Eugene Vassilas, 507 Fletcher Place, testified that Ms. Houser’s house and yard are beautifully kept and her house serves as a benefit to the neighboring houses. 3. Eulalia Cabanos, 1502 Bradley Avenue, testified that Ms. Houser has a beautiful house and she and her family enjoy the gazebo very much. Ms. Cabanos said she and her daughters visit Ms. Houser frequently and the inside of Ms. Houser’s house is also beautiful. 4. Ruth Vassilas, 507 Fletcher Place, testified that Ms. Houser’s house is always open for everybody in the neighborhood and she definitely has the nicest yard in the neighborhood. Ms. Houser asked the Board if there was any document she could sign that she were to sell the house or upon death, the gazebo would be taken down and the ground restored to grass as it was. The Board discussed the future maintenance of the gazebo and the fact that the variance normally “runs with the land”. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISIONS Variance Application APP2004-00831, Kenneth B. and Karin L. Kolsky Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve Variance Application APP2004-00831, Kenneth B. and Karin L. Kolsky per staff recommendations with the understanding that the Board is approving the first floor plan drawing in the application including a hand drawn notation regarding a diagonal structure that results in the one and one half foot encroachment proposed as an option on the first floor. The Board also approved the alternate stepped-back version as shown in their architectural drawing. The version to be built was left to staff, at the permit stage, to clarify which version is being constructed. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2004-00832, Annie Song Mr. Sternstein moved, seconded by Mr. Hill to approve Variance Application APP2004-00832, Annie Song per staff recommendations and subject to an additional condition that reads, “Any further structure proposed to be placed in the rear yard is subject to the Board’s review. The motion passed unanimously. Variance Application APP2004-00834, Staci Houser Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve Variance Application APP2004-00834, Staci Houser notwithstanding staff’s recommendation of denial, which the Board believes is technically correct, but the Board was exercising its ability to evaluate the request in the public interest. The Board voted to approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1) the applicant must submit an Affidavit of Posting certifying that the public hearing sign has been posted on the property in accordance with City requirements. 2) The Board is approving this gazebo structure as documented in the application with no further enclosure than the existing screening and the Board is only approving placement at that particular location. Mr. Hill stated the reasons for approving this application. The Board found nothing contrary to the public interest. There was ample testimony expressing that the existing location is the most favorable on this property and that other placements would cause site problems for windows on the adjacent property. There are conditions peculiar to this property regarding its corner lot and the requirement for two front yard setbacks. The Board also include that the perceived setback on this property is measured on the ground and regarding the public right-of-way, which is maintained by the property owner and has no sidewalk structure in it. The Board believes this is peculiar to the property and not the result of any action taken by the applicant. A literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in practical difficulty – The Board finds that any other placement would have impact on the lot regarding desirable features such as vegetation and topography, and that this particular placement is the most reasonable and accepted by the neighbors as a result of ample public testimony. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Hill moved, seconded by Mr. Sternstein to approve minutes of Meeting No. 7-04 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Chasten reported about upcoming applications to the Board on November 6, 2004, 2005 Meeting Calendar, and discussion of the new Chair and alternate for 2005. Mr. Hill said he would be absent at the November 6 meeting. Ms. Hall reported about upcoming applications to the Board on November 6, 2004. Mr. Chasten stated that there would be two worksessions with the Mayor and Council about the Town Center and revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Both worksessions are scheduled to be in October. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:17 p.m. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | 
