Coralville Board of Adjustment

City of Coralville Board of Adjustment Meeting November 20, 2017 Staff: Jim Kessler, Building & Zoning Official and Dee Marshek, Administrative Assistant Item 1: Meeting called to order 6:00 PM Item 2: Member present: Knudson and Nicola, Wells, and Nesbett. Absent: Boucher Item 3: Approval of March 20, 2017 Minutes. Nicola: Motion to approve. Nesbett: 2nd Motion Motion carried: 4 -0 Item 4: Public Hearing request Michael & Sarah Heenan will be for a Variance to Section 165.21 (6) (B) Rear Yard Setback. This request is located 921 Timber Ridge Ct. Public Hearing open: Property owner Mike Heenan explains his request for a variance to build an additional garage on his property at 921 Timber Ridge Court. Heenan shows and describes the site plan to the members. Kessler shows the property on the monitor to the members, explaining that this is a corner lot which has 2 front yards setbacks, 1 rear or backyard and 1 side yard setback. He states the setbacks as two 35 ft. front yards, a 6 ft. side yard, and a rear yard at 30 ft. Members discuss and question the proposed garage location and the setbacks off the neighboring property. Heenan states the garage would be 7ft. off the property line. Kessler states the task for the members is to decide if the setback variance will be granted. Danielle Tarnowski of 931 Timber Ridge Court (neighboring property to the north) elaborates on some history of her property and states that the neighborhood covenants only allows a maximum of a 3 stall garage and a minimum15 ft. side yard setback. She has concerns that the distance of this new garage would be too close to their home or property line. She feels if the request is granted that it would affect the future sale of her property. Public Hearing closed: Kessler states the City only enforces the 6 ft. side yard setback not the neighborhood covenants. Tarnowski states this proposed garage addition is in the area of the 30 ft. rear yard setback, not a 6 ft. side yard. The City code says it should be 30 ft. Heenan ask about other options and questions if an accessory building could be built. Kessler explains the possibilities and setbacks for an accessory building. Heenan states he prefers to attach the garage, but asks about the possibilities of an accessory building in this same backyard. Kessler explains the requirements for a stand - alone accessory building. Tarnowski states the neighborhood covenants only allows for a gazebo style of building. Kessler again states that the City doesn’t enforce neighborhood covenants. Members again discuss the site plan and ask what the garage would be used for. Heenan explains they have three children and it’s for extra storage. They love the neighborhood, and do not want to move. He adds he really doesn’t want to build an accessory building but would if that’s the only option. It would be 3ft. off the property line, which is closer than the 7 ft. attached garage. Kessler explains that an accessory building doesn’t have to come in front of this board; that would be approved through the building codes and review process. Tarnowski announces that the covenants are still enforced. a) Consider approval of the Variance. Roll Call Vote: Wells – nay Nicloa- nay Nesbett- nay Knudson- nay Motion Denied: 4 – 0 Neenan questions Kessler on how to move forward. Kessler adds they can move forward with the detached accessory building as far as the City is concerned. Item 5: Public Hearing request is for an Appeal of the Building and Zoning Officials decision that Builtrite Custom Homes is in violations of the Code of Ordinance, Sections 165.21 R-1 (Single Family Residential District) and 165.40 (Outside Storage). This property is located at 905 Lincolnshire Place. Public Hearing open: Jehle first explains this is a vacant lot of a 3 lot subdivision and 2 lots or homes have been completed. He states he originally received a letter stating he was in violation for dense growth of weeds. Jehle admits he had a dirt pile that had grown up in weeds and he took care of that issue on the 19th of October. He adds that at the same time he regraded the dirt pile into a berm with a flat top that flows back into the existing hill side. Jehle shows and explains the grading to the members. He feels there is a discrepancy; the Agenda now has changed the violation to being outside storage. Jehle reads the section of the Ordinance to the members, and states he doesn’t feel this now pertains to what has been done or accomplished on the vacant lot. Knudson questions if the berm is meant to be permanent. Kessler questions Jehle about his original intended use of the dirt pile. Jehle states he had originally talked to Kessler about relocating the dirt pile to a different job site, but now doesn’t know if that will occur. He also states that his agreement with the people that he purchased the ground from is that he can’t build on this lot for another 2 years. He doesn’t think it’s obtrusive, and now his plan is to grade and seed it in the spring and continue to mow and maintain the lot. Knudson states, so you are no longer storing it here now. Jehle comments that in his mind it is not being stored at the present time, it’s been blended into the existing hillside. Members discuss the site and the neighboring resident valid reason for filing the complaint, which was the reason for the violation letter being sent to Jehle. Kessler and Jehle continue to discuss the original condition of the lot and the reason for the complaint and violation letter. Jehle feels the issue has been resolved. Kessler states that the City has to act on the residence complaints and now the concern is the present stormwater issue of the bare dirt created from the grading and building of this perm. Kessler states that this site has to be covered and seeded to prevent runoff. Jehle adds he has spoken to Amy Foster the Stormwater Coordinator. He states he has a CSR (Construction Site Run-off ) permit and shows the members where the erosion controls are located on the lot. Kessler again states that this berm has to be covered and seeded and until then, this is in violation of the City’s Stormwater Ordinance. Members and Kessler discuss what the options are for Jehle since it’s too late in the season to do the seeding. Kessler adds he could put a layer of mulch on the berm; it has to be covered to control the possibility of runoff. Nesbett voices concerns over which of the two issues is being discussed. He comments that it appears half of the violation has been resolved and the other half is a Stormwater issue. Jehle states that the violation issue has been taken care by removing the weeds and grading the lot. The Stormwater issue is something that he will work out with Amy Foster. Kessler disagrees, and states that the members have to look at the violation and have every right to make their decision on the Appeal contingent on that dirt pile being taken care of. Nesbett asks Jehle if it’s his plan to seed the dirt pile in the spring. Kessler comments that it can’t wait till spring. Jehle is concerned that it will be frozen and he won’t be able to do the seeding now. Kessler states that Amy Foster will determine what needs to be done and that it does have to comply with the City’s Stormwater Ordinance. Nesbett question what happens if we didn’t approve the appeal. Kessler states at this point if you don’t approve the Appeal, and since he’s created the berm he still has to follow the Stormwater requirements. Nicola states she doesn’t blame the neighbors for being upset since it had been overgrown with weeds for over 6 months. Members continue to discuss the weeds and dirt pile and the fact it took a violation letter to resolve the issue. Public Hearing closed: a) Consider action on the Appeal. Knudson: Motion to affirm the Appeal decision contingent to working with Amy Foster and resolving the Stormwater issues in a timely manner. Nicola: Motion 2nd. Motion Carried: 4 – 0 Item 6: Adjourn Meeting @ 6:42PM Nicola: Motion to Adjourn. Nesbett: Motion 2nd. Motion Carried: 4-0 Respectfully submitted, Dee Marshek