Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5066-A Staff AnalysisJune 19, 1989 Item No. B - Other Matters File No. Z -5066-A Owner: Address: Dennis and Clara Seyer/Wassell Turner, Agent 5125 Stonewall Road Request: An interpretative request from ................. ._... _._.._.._. Staff on whether the condition placed on an approved variance has been violated. STAFF ANALYSIS: On August 15, 1988, the applicant came before the Board of Adjustment seeking two variances. One was for a reduced front yard setback in order to construct a carport; the second was for a reduced front yard setback for an accessory structure (a pool). In attendance at the public hearing was one objector, Mrs. Patricia Brown. Her objections primarily centered around the existing fence and patio area being located within the right-of-way. On April 12, 1989, it was brought to the Planning Staff's attention by the enforcement officer of that particular area that there possibly was a violation of the conditions as approved by the Board of Adjustment in regard to the carport. The Board's approval was based on the recommendation from the Staff which stated that the carport could never be enclosed and no covering could be placed over the pool. A meeting was held between the Planning Staff, enforcement officer and the agent for the property owner on April 24, 1989. Mr. Turner, the agent for the owner, expressed that he didn't feel the condition had been violated because at least one side of the carport is open. Staff disagreed and felt that this was an issue that needed to be addressed by the Board of Adjustment. The intent behind Staff's recommendation was for a carport to be placed on the site that was open on all sides except the one where it was attached to the wall of the existing structure on the site. June 19, 1989 Item No. B - (Continued) The task before the Board of Adjustment is a determination as to whether or not the condition placed on the approval for the carport has been violated. Once the determination has been made, three possible avenues of action can be taken. 1. The Board could give direction to state that structures designed in this fashion do, in fact, fall under the boundaries of a carport not enclosed. 2. The Board could require of the applicant to remove everything (the three additional walls) except for the supporting columns and stipulate that nothing can ever be done to the structure that would give the appearance that it is not open. 3. The Board could amend the initial condition placed on the approval of the carport to state that what is on the site presently can continue to exist with the stipulation that the open side can never be enclosed by additional construction or installation of a garage door. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (May 22, 1989) Mr. Wassell Turner, agent for the applicant, was in attendance. There were no objectors present. Staff offered the Board an overview of the issue which was a determination by the Board as to whether a previous approved variance had been violated by the applicant not meeting the condition placed on the approval of a carport. The condition stated that the carport could never be enclosed. Staff explained that the issue was brought to the Staff's attention by the Enforcement Officer who observed the structure while doing field investigation. If the Board does, in fact, rule that the condition placed on the carport has been violated, then listed in the agenda are three possible avenues of action that could be taken. Mr. Turner stated that from the sketch shown in the agenda, there was an existing building on the site. In the ordinance it says that a carport could be built on a site and that is all that is stated. His interpretation of a carport does not necessarily mean that it is open on three sides. If the Board would look around the City, many carports can be found which are not open on three sides. Therefore, he designed the carport to architecturally compliment the house. It provides a barrier for the pool because of the insurance requirement. There was no intent June 19, 1989 Item No. B - (Continued) on his, or the applicant's part, to circumvent the condition placed on the approval of the carport. It is just that from his architectural definition of a carport, what is built on the site is what he thought the Board meant. The Chairman stated that the discrepancies come from what the Board had in mind versus what Mr. Turner and the applicant felt the Board's condition of approval meant. The Board had in mind, with the approval of the carport, that it be open on all sides except for the one attached to the shed. The minutes do, in fact, stipulate that condition. Mr. Turner stated that what he was saying was that he does have one side open, and to him that means that the carport is not enclosed. A Board Member then asked Staff if it had been a known fact during the initial approval of the carport that the sides would be enclosed, would the recommendation of Staff be the same. Staff stated that possibly not because, from the site visit, the structure as constructed definitely is a major impact to the lot. It was then asked whether the neighbor who was in attendance at the earlier meeting had objected to this structure as it is designed. Staff stated that as of the meeting, no objections had been received. Mr. Turner stated that the objection from the neighbor during the earlier meeting was regarding the fence being placed in the right-of-way. Staff agreed to that point. Mr. Turner was then asked by a Board Member, the difference between the structure as it appears on the site and a garage. Mr. Turner stated that the fact that there is an open side keeps it from being a garage. The Board Members stated that for security purposes of a garage, there are four walls. Wouldn't the same security be accomplished by this structure by having a six foot security fence at the same location as the opening which is making the structure a carport. Mr. Turner stated that if the fence was not present, there would be no way to prevent people from using the pool. It was then asked of Mr. Turner if there existed a partial wall to the rear of the structure. Mr. Turner stated that there exists six to seven feet of separation from the wall to the shed. It was then asked if the opening was the entire rear wall. Mr. Turner said no, the opening was not the entire rear wall. A Board Member then stated that the problem he was having with Mr. Turner's description of a carport was the fact that the opening was to the rear of the structure and not the front. It does not seem logical to him that the carport opening would be to the rear as interpreted by Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner was asked what was the architectural significance of this type of design. Was it just to meet the requirement June 19, 1989 Item No. B - (Continued) placed on the approval for the initial carport? Mr. Turner stated it was, but there are a lot of carports in the City enclosed on one, two or three sides. His understanding was the Board of Adjustment approved a carport, period. It wasn't specifically stated that any -sides were not to be enclosed as stated on all carport issues addressed at the meeting today. A question was then asked whether other carports designed by Mr. Turner were done as the one on the site. Mr. Turner stated that each case is addressed differently, and for the amount of area his client had to work with, the designed carport existing on the site was the best, in his opinion, to achieve what the client wanted. The City Attorney present asked Mr. Turner what, in his opinion, was the reason behind Staff and the Board making the recommendation that the carport be open on all sides. What would be the intent of the openings? Mr. Turner stated that it probably had to do with the density of the land area available, but he really did not know. From an architectural point of view, sometimes in order to compliment what is existing on a site, a better design for a carport would be to enclose some of the walls. It was then asked if Mr. Turner felt it was required to.prevent a total blockage of view on the site. Mr. Turner stated, possibly, but he really did not know. He would rather be told specifically in order to aide with the design of the structure. A Board Member then asked how Mr. Turner would define "enclosed" because from the picture circulated among the Board Members, the building on the site is definitely enclosed. Mr. Turner stated he would describe it as being partially enclosed. As long as there exists some large opening, the structure is not fully enclosed. Mr. Turner was then asked the purpose of the overhead door. Mr. Turner stated the door provides a barrier to the pool.. It was asked if the barrier could be served with a fence across the front of the carport. Mr. Turner stated it was possible but it would depend on the insurance requirement. After additional discussion, it was stated by a Board member that the issue appears to be the stretching by the applicant and Mr. Turner of the interpretation of "enclosed" because unless a person was looking from the rear of the property, the structure would definitely appear enclosed. If density is of concern, then the structure as built now is definitely dense. Mr. Turner stated that in his opinion the issue is not "enclosed" but the definition of a carport. Mr. Turner was then asked if he and the applicant had any discussion as June 19, 1989 item No. B - {Cont inued to what the Board had required for the initial approval. Mr. Turner responded that he and the client had discussed the design of the carport but not the requirements or conditions placed on the carport by the Board of Adjustment. As a result of the discussion, the first action taken by the Board was a determination that the condition placed on the previously approved variance for a carport to never be enclosed had definitely been violated with the structure as designed on the site presently. The determination was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. After further discussion by members of the Board, it was determined that Mr. Turner had the expertise necessary to propose to the Board possible designs other than what exist on site. A Board Member stated that in his opinion, it is incumbent upon Mr. Turner to correct the violation by presenting to the Board different designs in order to bring the structure into some type of compliance with the original condition placed on the approval. It was then decided to allow Mr. Turner an opportunity to return to the Board on June 19, 1989 with alternative designs to correct the violation of the condition. The Board generally agreed that at least two or more sides would have to remain open in order for Mr. Turner to accomplish this task. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (June 19, 1989) Due to the fact neither the applicant nor the agent, Wassell Turner, was in attendance at the meeting, a motion was made instructing the staff of the Office of Comprehensive Planning and Environmental Codes office to proceed with all necessary enforcement actions against the owner. At the May 22, 1989 meeting it was determined that the condition placed on the earlier approval had been violated. It was the opinion of the members present that any correction of the violation was incumbent upon the owner or agent. Included in the motion is a statement that there exists no possible chance for a rehearing of this item before the Board of Adjustment. There were no objectors present at the meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. May 22, 1989 Item No. 11 - Other Matters File No. Z -5066-A Owner: Address: Dennis and Clara Seyer/Wassell Turner, Agent 512f Stonewall Road Request: An interpretative request from Staff on whether the condition placed on an approved variance has been violated. STAFF ANALYSIS: On August 15, 1988, the applicant came before the Board of Adjustment seeking two variances. One was for a reduced front yard setback in order to construct a carport; the second was for a reduced front yard setback for an accessory structure (a pool). In attendance at the public hearing was one objector, Mrs. Patricia Brown. Her objections primarily centered around the existing fence and patio area being located within the right-of-way. On April 12, 1989, it was brought to the Planning Staff's attention by the enforcement officer of that particular area that there possibly was a violation of the conditions as approved by the Board of Adjustment in regard to the carport. The Board's approval was based on the recommendation from the Staff which stated that the carport could never be enclosed and no covering could be placed over the pool. A meeting was held between the Planning Staff, enforcement officer and the agent for the property owner on April 24, 1989. Mr. Turner, the agent for the owner, expressed that he didn't feel the condition had been violated because at least one side of the carport is open. Staff disagreed and felt that this was an issue that needed to be addressed by the Board of Adjustment. The intent behind Staff's recommendation was for a carport to be placed on the site that was open on all sides except the one where it was attached to the wall of the existing structure on the site. May 22, 1989 Item No. 11 - (Continued) The task before the Board of Adjustment is a determination as to whether or not the condition placed on the approval for the carport has been violated. Once the determination has been made, three possible avenues of action can be taken. The Board could give direction to state that structures designed in this fashion do, in fact, fall under the boundaries of a carport not enclosed. 2. The Board could require of the applicant to remove everything (the three additional walls) except for the supporting columns and stipulate that nothing can ever be done to the structure that would give the appearance that it is not open. 3. The Board could amend the initial condition placed on the approval of the carport to state that what is on the site presently can continue to exist with the stipulation that the open side can never be enclosed by additional construction or installation of a garage door. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (May 22, 1989) Mr. Wassell Turner, agent for the applicant, was in attendance. There were no objectors present. Staff offered the Board an overview of the issue which was a determination by the Board as to whether a previous approved variance had been violated by the applicant not meeting the condition placed on the approval of a carport. The condition stated that the carport could never be enclosed. Staff explained that the issue was brought to the Staff's attention by the Enforcement Officer who observed the structure while doing field investigation. If the Board does, in fact, rule that the condition placed on the carport has been violated, then listed in the agenda are three possible avenues of action that could be taken. Mr. Turner stated that from the sketch shown in the agenda, there was an existing building on the site. In the ordinance it says that a carport could be built on a site and that is all that is stated. His interpretation of a carport does not necessarily mean that it is open on three sides. If the Board would look around the City, many carports can be found which are not open on three sides. Therefore, he designed the carport to architecturally compliment the house. It provides a barrier for the pool because of the insurance requirement. There was no intent May 22, 1989 Item No. 11 - (Continued) on his, or the applicant's part, to circumvent the condition placed on the approval of the carport. It is just that from his architectural definition of a carport, what is built on the site is what he thought the Board meant. The Chairman stated that the discrepancies come from what the Board had in mind versus what Mr. Turner and the applicant felt the Board's condition of approval meant. The Board had in mind, with the approval of the carport, that it be open on all sides except for the one attached to the shed. The minutes do, in fact, stipulate that condition. Mr. Turner stated that what he was saying was that he does have one side open, and to him that means that the carport is not enclosed. A Board Member then asked Staff if it had been a known fact during the initial approval of the carport that the sides would be enclosed, would the recommendation of Staff be the same. Staff stated that possibly not because, from the site visit, the structure as constructed definitely is a major impact to the lot. It was then asked whether the neighbor who was in attendance at the earlier meeting had objected to this structure as it is designed. Staff stated that as of the meeting, no objections had been received. Mr. Turner stated that the objection from the neighbor during the earlier meeting was regarding the fence being placed in the right-of-way. Staff agreed to that point. Mr. Turner was then asked by a Board Member, the difference between the structure as it appears on the site and a garage. Mr. Turner stated that the fact that there is an open side keeps it from being a garage. The Board Members stated that for security purposes of a garage, there are four walls. Wouldn't the same security be accomplished by this structure by having a six foot security fence at the same location as the opening which is making the structure a carport. Mr. Turner stated that if the fence was not present, there would be no way to prevent people from using the pool. It was then asked of Mr. Turner if there existed a partial wall to the rear of the structure. Mr. Turner stated that there exists six to seven feet of separation from the wall to the shed. It was then asked if the opening was the entire rear wall. Mr. Turner said no, the opening was not the entire rear wall. A Board Member then stated that the problem he was having with Mr. Turner's description of a carport was the fact that the opening was to the rear of the structure and not the front. It does not seem logical to him that the carport opening would be to the rear as interpreted by Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner was asked what was the architectural significance of this type of design. Was it just to meet the requirement May 22, 1989 Item No. 11 - (Continued) placed on the approval for the initial carport? Mr. Turner stated it was, but there are a lot of carports in the City enclosed on one, two or three sides. His understanding was the Board of Adjustment approved a carport, period. It wasn't specifically stated that any sides were not to be enclosed as stated on all carport issues addressed at the meeting today. A question was then asked whether other carports designed by Mr. Turner were done as the one on the site. Mr. Turner stated that each case is addressed differently, and for the amount of area his client had to work with, the designed carport existing on the site was the best, in his opinion, to achieve what the client wanted. The City Attorney present asked Mr. Turner what, in his opinion, was the reason behind Staff and the Board making the recommendation that the carport be open on all sides. What would be the intent of the openings? Mr. Turner stated that it probably had to do with the density of the land area available, but he really did not know. From an architectural point of view, sometimes in order to compliment what is existing on a site, a better design for a carport would be to enclose some of the walls. It was then asked if Mr. Turner felt it was required to prevent a total blockage of view on the site. Mr. Turner stated, possibly, but he really did not know. He would rather be told specifically in order to aide with the design of the structure. A Board Member then asked how Mr. Turner would define "enclosed" because from the picture circulated among the Board Members, the building on the site is definitely enclosed. Mr. Turner stated he would describe it as being partially enclosed. As long as there exists some large opening, the structure is not fully enclosed. Mr. Turner was then asked the purpose of the overhead door. Mr. Turner stated the door provides a barrier to the pool. It was asked if the barrier could be served with a fence across the front of the carport. Mr. Turner stated it was possible but it would depend on the insurance requirement. After additional discussion, it was stated by a Board member that the issue appears to be the stretching by the applicant and Mr. Turner of the interpretation of "enclosed" because unless a person was looking from the rear of the property, the structure would definitely appear enclosed. If density is of concern, then the structure as built now is definitely dense. Mr. Turner stated that in his opinion the issue is not "enclosed" but the definition of a carport. Mr. Turner was then asked if he and the applicant had any discussion as May 22, 1989 Item No. 11 - (Continued) to what the Board had required for the initial approval. Mr. Turner responded that he and the client had discussed the design of the carport but not the requirements or conditions -,placed on the carport by the Board of Adjustment. As a result of the discussion, the first action taken by the Board was a determination that the condition placed on the previously approved variance for a carport to never be enclosed had definitely been violated with the structure as designed on the site presently. The determination was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. After further discussion by members of the Board, it was determined that Mr. Turner had the expertise necessary to propose to the Board possible designs other than what exist on site. A Board Member stated that in his opinion, it is incumbent upon Mr. Turner to correct the violation by presenting to the Board different designs in order to bring the structure into some type of compliance with the original condition placed on the approval. It was then decided to allow Mr. Turner an opportunity to return to the Board on June 19, 1989 with alternative designs to correct the violation of the condition. The Board generally agreed that at least two or more sides would have to remain open in order for Mr. Turner to accomplish this task. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. OTHER MATTERS OF CONCERN Item No. �I File No: Owner:l [� Address: Request: / �`r W t/r,� 2y� �� 4�)h& aer c0119e 6- C ea., qe6�� - � `7 ))6?,6 Meo vtdotd, On :august 15, 1988, the applicant came before the Board of Adjustment seeking two variances. One was for a reduced front yard setback in order to construct a carport; the second was for a reduced front yard setback for an accessory structure (a pool). In attendance at the public hearing was one objector, Mrs. Patricia Brown. Her objections primarily centered around the existing fence and patio area being located within t'he right-of-way. On April 12, 1989, it was brought: to the Planning Staff's attention by the enforcement offiicer of that particular area that there possibly was a violation of the conditions as approved by the Board of Adjustment in regard to the carport. The Board's approval waz based on the recommendation from the Staff wfriicch stated that the carport could never be enclosed and no covering could be placed over the pool. A meeting was held between the PlIaInning Staff, enforcement officer and the agent for the p!ro'portY owner on April 24, 1989. Mr. Turner, the agent for -r�%n:e :owner, expressed that he didn't feel the condition had Vb,uan violated because at least one side of the carport is; gpen. Staff disagreed and felt that this was an issue that ma ed -ed to be addressed by the Board of Adjustment. The intent behind Staff's recomawntmiti.on was for a -carport to be placed on the si to that wmz ro;en on al I sides exce-pt the one where it was attached to b'in:w.a'll of the existing structure on the site. The task before the Board of Adjustment is a determination as to whether or not the condition placed on the approval for the carport has been violated. Once the determination has been made, three possible avenues of action can be taken. 1. The Board could give direction to state that structures designed in this fashion do, in fact, fall under the boundaries of a carport not enclosed. - aiiu st,puiate that nothing can ever be done to the structure that would give the appearance that it is not open. 3, The Board could amend the initial condition placed on the approval of the carport to state that what is on the site presently can continue to exist with the stipulation that the open side can never be enclosed by additional construction or installation of a garage door.