[0:08] All right, it is 7:30. Let's call to
order the March 9th meeting of the
[0:17] zoning board of appeals. Uh, can we
start with a roll call of everyone who's
[0:23] present this fine evening? B, you want
to start us off? Freeze Stacker Smart,
[0:29] » Vincent Verna,
>> Ben Failey, chair,
[0:32] » Chris Gmbioski,
>> Andy Docker,
[0:34] » Joe Cleo, Mike Brooks. All right, so we
have a quorum. Um, we have an agenda.
[0:39] Can I get a motion to approve the agenda
as presented or motion to modify?
[0:47] » Motion to approve the agenda as
presented.
[0:50] » Second. All in favor?
>> I. All right, we have an approved agenda
[0:54] uh as per the uh third item on the now
approved agenda. Any
[1:01] um modifications or additions, deletions
from the January 12th meeting minutes or
[1:09] fail? If not, I would uh entertain a
motion to approve.
[1:15] » Make a motion to approve.
>> I'll second.
[1:18] » All in favor?
>> I
[1:19] » I
>> Okay. meeting minutes from January
[1:22] approved which brings us to the first uh
first appeal variance request from Eric
[1:30] Leman on 25615
Parkwood.
[1:34] » Mr. Chairman, before we get started on
that, um Adam did arrive and that puts
[1:40] our number at eight. You can only have
seven participating.
[1:43] So, um at this point,
Vincent, you're going to be the odd man
[1:48] out.
>> Okay. Okay.
[1:50] » So, Vincent will not be participating in
this because we have seven. You need
[1:54] four votes. Four votes to handle this.
>> May I be excused?
[1:58] » You can be excused. Yes.
>> It's raining. You don't want to go out
[2:03] there.
>> It's pretty bad. This is where you want
[2:06] to It's a shelter in place.
>> Enjoy it in the basement
[2:09] » scenario. All right. So,
>> okay. So, our roll call will now reflect
[2:15] that.
Uh, Adam's here. We have uh seven voting
[2:20] members and our first appeal.
Are we going in going in as presented?
[2:26] Any I think while we we this is the
agenda as approved. So we'll start with
[2:32] uh Parkwood.
>> Come on up.
[2:36] » Y
>> All right. So we uh we want to we'll
[2:39] like to get a just a a general
introduction about what you're what
[2:45] you're looking to do. We've got some
materials already and then usually we'll
[2:48] let Hank walk us through the finer
points.
[2:51] » Great. Uh my name is Eric Leman. Uh nice
to meet you all. Uh here today to ask
[2:56] for a minor variance for lot coverage to
support an addition on our garage. We
[3:01] are in a house, one of the few houses in
Huntington Woods that doesn't have a
[3:04] basement. We do have some storage space
in the attic, but we have little kids
[3:07] and we ultimately would like to add some
storage space to the garage so we have a
[3:11] more usable space there. So, we're
looking to add uh 10 feet to the garage
[3:16] uh overall, and Hank will walk you
through what the numbers ultimately look
[3:19] like. Uh but the goal here is for us to
be able to expand the garage a little
[3:23] bit to provide storage space for for our
household, for our family.
[3:27] » Okay. Uh Hank, you want to
>> Yeah.
[3:31] » something for us?
>> Absolutely. So, so you can see it. What
[3:34] he's looking at is you're looking at
this house, which takes up a fair amount
[3:39] of the lot in and of itself. I'll point
out that it's a ranch and before I get
[3:44] into all the details, ranches typically
take up a lot more room because they
[3:48] have on one floor what most places have
on two. So typically ranches, it's not
[3:54] unusual to find them in a situation
where they're at or above the lock
[3:59] coverage. So Mr. Leman is you can grab a
seat, Eric, if you want. So there's a
[4:06] microphone there, too. Um, so what he's
looking at is he's adding this area
[4:11] right here. It's not in any setback
areas and it's 10 by 20. So you're
[4:17] looking at 200 square feet total is the
ask on that. So what is the lock
[4:24] coverage is existing is 33.9.
The lock coverage that he's asking for
[4:30] is going to be 33902.
3392.
[4:35] So it's just a little bit of an increase
into that because they do have a very
[4:38] big lot. But let me go through the
request for the variance and see where
[4:42] what we have. So we're looking at one uh
special unique circumstances exists
[4:48] which are peculiar to the land structure
or the building involved which are not
[4:53] generally applicable to land structures
or buildings in the same district.
[4:58] So when you're looking at this, the
current story, the current overage comes
[5:02] as a result of the design of the
architecture. You have a situation where
[5:06] you have a ranch on a lot which
typically spreads out more than it would
[5:11] anyway. Coupled in this situation, one
of the other oddities of this is there
[5:15] is no basement. So there's no place
other than the closets in the bedrooms
[5:20] and little closets there. So that kind
of goes towards the architecture that I
[5:26] had mentioned. Uh the house as you can
see is also on an irregular shaped lot.
[5:31] Again the design is a ranch and the
issue becomes with the ranch is you are
[5:35] typically expected to have what space is
normally on two floors to be put all on
[5:39] one floor. And again on top of that this
particular ranch was designed and built
[5:43] with no basement resulting in a severe
lack of storage. The solution of the
[5:48] garage extension would give them some
relief from the storage woes that they
[5:51] currently have. Having said that,
whether they had put an addition on the
[5:55] house or the garage, the addition would
be the same, the same size, the ask
[6:01] would be the same. It's just maybe the
location is different. So, in the back
[6:06] here, just to point out a couple other
things, um, which again I may have to I
[6:12] may reiterate on later. back in through
this area in through here. The previous
[6:17] owner had put in some drainage and some
uh dry wells back in here um because it
[6:25] was damp during the early spring season.
And so she had put that in there and
[6:31] that's not going to be anything that's
going to be any different than that.
[6:34] It's still there. This is not disturbing
that in any way, shape or form. So
[6:39] again, the variance will not be injurous
to the neighbors or any other detrime or
[6:43] neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to
the general public. Um again, it's
[6:48] unlikely to have an impact provided the
downspouts and drainage are properly
[6:52] addressed. The building department will
monitor and inspect that on the final.
[6:56] No communications have been registered
on this particular property and the
[7:00] property does have storm water
mitigation measures in place from the
[7:04] previous owner. Three, special
conditions and circumstances do not
[7:08] result from the actions of the
applicant. Again, Mr. Leman did not own
[7:12] or build the property, plat the lot, or
situate the house on it. It all predates
[7:17] his ownership. And again, uh the same
thing with the garage, the size, and the
[7:22] architecture. He had no uh he had no
input as to how the house was sized or
[7:27] how the house was laid out. And four, a
literal interpretation of the provisions
[7:32] of this ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
[7:35] other properties in the same district
under the terms of this ordinance and
[7:40] that the variance is the minimum
necessary. And again, the house and lot
[7:44] are over coverage as existing with no
basement. The house has no storage other
[7:49] than the smaller 1950s closets, which
offer substandard size even for clothes
[7:54] storage. While the space was cramped,
even for the 94 year old former
[7:59] resident, it stands to reason that a
young couple might face even larger
[8:03] issues. While the current garage is a
twocar garage, the family can't use it
[8:07] because the space is taken up for
storage. What they seek is an
[8:11] accommodation that will allow the
expansion of the garage to 704 square
[8:15] ft, which although bigger than allowed,
should give them adequate storage as
[8:19] well as provide space for vehicles that
every other lot has. And again, we did
[8:24] put some sample motions down there for
you. Um, Eric is here if there's any
[8:29] other questions that you want to ask or
if he wants to add anything to this. Um,
[8:35] that house has been like that for years
and years and years and there hasn't
[8:39] been any other accommodation needed.
Whether or not the previous occupants
[8:43] and I've known I know the family that
they bought it from, in fact, I went to
[8:47] Burton with her son. So, I I've known
them for years, been in that house many,
[8:52] many times. And um while it is a larger
house in that particular area, there's
[9:00] not really accommodations for storage.
So, you may choose to consider that in
[9:06] your deliberations with this. But those
are the four main criteria that you take
[9:11] a look at. And again, I'm happy to
answer any questions that I can, as I'm
[9:15] sure Mr. Leman would.
>> All right. Uh then let's proceed uh if
[9:21] members of the board have questions for
the applicant or staff before we
[9:28] deliberate.
>> Do you want to have one order?
[9:32] » Uh
uh however we who any
[9:36] » I don't have any questions. We can start
with me. I'll I'll pass.
[9:39] » Okay.
>> I don't have any questions right now. I
[9:42] may have as we go on but I don't have
right second. I I just wanted to clarify
[9:47] the the math or very So just to just if
to make sure I heard what you said,
[9:52] Hank, which is a little bit different
from what's on here.
[9:54] » Yes.
>> It's so it's 33.90
[9:59] 92.
>> Well,
[10:00] » it's now and they're asking for they're
asking for the little bit more for the
[10:04] 200 square feet.
>> So it goes from 33.92
[10:09] » that is what it is
>> to whatever the math is.
[10:13] » That is the ask. It comes out under 34%.
[10:19] » It doesn't move it. It's that's the
whole that's the movement with
[10:23] » Yeah. It doesn't move the needle.
>> Okay. That's that was what I wanted to
[10:26] understand because there's a reference
here to 42%.
[10:30] » Here's the thing. The reason that that
was 42 was that was what was submitted
[10:34] originally by the applicant.
>> Um and Mr. Leman was having another Mr.
[10:40] Leman help him with the math. And um
it's a little bit less than what they
[10:45] were talking about.
>> Okay. Well, that's I guess it's better
[10:48] to have it air in that that direction.
>> Well, it has to be because if it would
[10:52] turned out more than what was
advertised, we couldn't have the
[10:54] meeting,
>> right?
[10:55] » Okay. So, it is uh
>> so it's 30.
[10:58] » We know we know in real terms it's two
it's 200 square feet 10 by 20,
[11:04] » right? for an additional 200
>> and it's and the as a percentage of the
[11:09] overall lock coverage it is about 0.02%
02%.
[11:15] » Yeah.
>> Difference of L.
[11:26] » Okay. Got it. Uh uh other questions for
either the applicant.
[11:31] » Is that not this?
>> Only question I have is just just about
[11:35] to do this particular eye. Uh pvious lot
covered. Remember we use that term uh in
[11:41] terms of drainage and storm water. talk
to other neighbors. That's not an issue.
[11:46] » Well, it doesn't appear to be because
they have a system back behind the
[11:49] garage as it exists. And what you're
adding for was um what you're adding for
[11:55] is the 10 ft is the width and the down
spout would go on the front side of the
[12:01] garage.
>> Okay.
[12:03] » So, it would just be pitched differently
is all.
[12:05] » Okay. That's all.
>> But I have I mean I have nothing to
[12:09] believe that would lead me to believe
that that would dramatically increase
[12:14] the water flow.
>> So, sorry.
[12:17] » Go ahead.
>> So, then it's that gutter is going to
[12:20] drain to that drywall you mentioned.
>> Well, the gutter is going to drain to
[12:24] the front and then if it runs back,
it'll end up in the driveway.
[12:28] » And that was my understanding in
conversations uh you know that we had
[12:32] with the other Mr. Leman.
>> Okay.
[12:36] » The only question I have is there all
the access to this addition is going
[12:40] through the garage itself. There's no
not additional walkways that you're
[12:43] going to be placing over there.
>> Uh no additional walkways. No.
[12:49] » If if you take a look at the way that
this is laid out, the driveway itself
[12:53] goes specifically to the garage. So any
access to that room would be through
[12:58] what would be assumed to be a man door
or would also be access from inside the
[13:03] garage.
>> So the storage that they simply don't
[13:06] have space for inside would go outside.
So basically, it's like if you took that
[13:11] and you put that somewhere else, you
would be entitled to a 10 by10 shed,
[13:15] » which you would be entitled to, but
you'd still be over the lot coverage.
[13:18] And this way, they can attach it, get
what they need, and have a more cohesive
[13:22] structure,
>> and it's in an area where they've done
[13:25] some storm water improvements.
[13:30] » All right. Uh so now we will um take
comments and questions from the public
[13:38] regarding this
particular request.
[13:46] » Hi Susan Considine
12727 Lasowl.
[13:53] I'm just curious how they exceeded the
lot coverage in the first place. Um was
[13:57] that by ZBA variance? Was that um when
concrete was installed and nobody looked
[14:04] or was it when some some impervious
service was added uh without a permit?
[14:10] Just curious.
>> I can answer that for normally we don't
[14:14] answer comments but this bill next
>> long as it doesn't cut into my three
[14:18] minutes.
>> Well, it will but
[14:20] » Okay. Well, then don't then I'm good.
Okay. So, um, you know, I have a concern
[14:25] because we had a project come up before
the planning commission last month and
[14:30] really the where the down spouts, it
just showed them going down. It didn't
[14:34] show which way they were angled. I see
little arrows on this one today. And so
[14:38] I asked Hank afterward, I said, when the
building inspector goes out to give
[14:42] final approval, what are they using as
their frame of reference to refer to
[14:47] which way the down supposed are supposed
to be turned? I said, what what is he
[14:50] relying on? He said, common sense. And
so I know in some of our paperwork it
[14:55] says if the zoning administrator feels
and then one time someone in the
[15:00] planning commission asked Hank in your
opinion and I would say that feelings,
[15:05] opinions and common sense are personal
and idiosyncratic and I've also heard
[15:10] that the previous person in his position
did a had a lot of oversightes and I've
[15:14] seen them in the records. So, I would
like to see it exactly. I I heard
[15:19] something about a down spout dropping on
the driveway. Where is it? And shouldn't
[15:23] that be on there? So, when the building
inspector comes out says, "Yes, this is
[15:28] built according to code." Because I've
also been hearing, "Oh, well, once
[15:32] something's approved, we can't do
anything about it." So, I've been
[15:35] looking at the affidavit the owner
signed that says, "Yes, I'm going to do
[15:40] this according to code." And then the
building permit says um this will only
[15:45] be permitted according to code. So whose
responsibility is it? You know, I think
[15:51] that the owner is relying on the city to
not allow them to do anything that isn't
[15:55] correct. So the other thing too that
this survey came in and you don't see
[16:01] any of the neighbors and if you uh
hopefully you guys all look at Google
[16:06] aerial maps before you come in here.
There's a neighbor to the southwest that
[16:10] has a garage pretty close to the corner.
I can't tell because there's too many
[16:15] trees, but I would have thought this
would have come in showing that. So
[16:19] hopefully this drywall works. But
shouldn't it say that there it's only um
[16:23] allowed with a drywall in the back? Cuz
we're assuming if you figure out just
[16:27] the size of the old garage, that's 4
84 square ft. And then you only have
[16:34] about uh 132 square feet behind the
behind the garage. So you absolutely
[16:39] need something to manage that water. So
there's got to be something that says
[16:44] you have that installed and it must be
maintained. Um, let me see if I have
[16:49] anything else to say. Oh, yeah. Again,
there's nothing about which way the
[16:52] driveway sloped. So, we don't know how
much of the this backyard is trying to
[16:58] manage. Are they managing the full back
of the house? And, you know, you're
[17:03] talking about the lot coverage. How come
there's no reference to what's the rear
[17:07] lot coverage 50%. I I see these plans
come in all the time and that I've seen
[17:13] one plan that came in where the
architect or the surveyor bothered to
[17:17] put the rear lot coverage percentage. So
that's my input. Thank you.
[17:25] » Okay. Unless there
>> Mr. Chair, just for the record, the rear
[17:28] lock coverage is right behind Chris, but
it's on there.
[17:33] » Got it.
>> What is it?
[17:40] the
>> I'll make a motion.
[17:45] » Oh, first let's just I just want to make
sure there isn't any other public
[17:48] comment. That's okay. We'll close public
comment.
[17:51] » Um uh the
um appellant can respond if if he so
[17:58] chooses uh or we can proceed amongst the
board.
[18:05] Uh, and we may have questions for you
too. It's more, you know, it's it can be
[18:10] fluid as
>> I do recognize the concern about
[18:13] drainage in Huntington Woods because we
know that there are areas in the in the
[18:16] in the woods that have drainage issues.
I will say for certain that this at
[18:21] least the way that this is drawn up.
This is just a lot survey. When we do
[18:25] propose plans to the city, we will check
and verify with the city that our
[18:29] downspouts and drainage are addressed so
that we're putting water into the yard
[18:34] where the drywall will ultimately take
it away. Um, so great.
[18:40] » Uh, all right. U, so now uh we can uh we
can entertain a motion and then have an
[18:47] opportunity for discussion. Sandy Andy.
>> Yep. I'll move I'll move to grant the
[18:52] appeal to allow from section 40-4.03-R1A
[18:58] through R-1E
one family district dimension
[19:03] requirements. The following dimension
requirements shall apply to the R uh-1A
[19:08] through R-1E district asking for a 3.4%
lock coverage where 30% is allowed and
[19:15] 33.9%
exists. 22 220 square feet addition to
[19:21] the garage. Uh and uh section 40-103
accessory building structures and uses
[19:29] um access accessory buildings and
residential zoning districts. One no
[19:33] more than two accessory buildings or
structures may be permitted for lot a
[19:37] private garage or require not to exceed
650 ft in floor
[19:44] area and one other accessory building
not to exceed 100 ft in floor area may
[19:49] be permitted. request for is for 700
square four square ft and as a practical
[19:55] difficulty has been established and the
use and the appeal generally meets the
[20:00] requirements for a variance. I will just
say after reading all of that in the
[20:03] » well let's allow for a second I guess a
second
[20:06] » okay so now we can discuss
>> after reading all that I think it's
[20:11] clear that this is not a big deal uh I
think that um you know if you are
[20:18] clearly to say the least inconvenience
by not having enough storage space
[20:22] » um without the basement with the small
closets which we all know about from 19
[20:27] style
>> uh um you know
[20:31] you don't you don't have that basement.
Uh it isn't irregularly shaped lot and
[20:36] while there is a theoretical concern uh
about drainage uh I'm satisfied that
[20:42] Hank who's been with us for many many
years and knows these situations well
[20:47] and experience clearly instructs that if
there is a drainage problem uh he will
[20:53] bring it to our attention as he has done
in past circumstances. The fact that
[20:57] there's already been mitigation back
there uh is important and I'm sure you
[21:02] complied with all the notice
requirements so that your neighbors are
[21:06] aware of this and therefore I feel quite
comfortable uh having moved the way I
[21:10] just did.
>> I don't feel comfortable having read the
[21:13] way I
[21:18] uh any other comments for
the record or for the group to consider?
[21:26] Uh okay. Yeah. I mean I just I think
we're we see a pattern of people, you
[21:32] know, wanting to uh find, you know,
moderate ways or or
[21:41] manageable, affordable ways to make
their houses more uh habitable in the
[21:48] way that we live now with all of our
stuff and working from home sometimes
[21:54] and juggling things. So it's uh when we
can I think that it's uh it's good to uh
[22:00] to allow for for that folks to stay put.
Um having said that uh we can now we
[22:07] have the motion as presented and
seconded. Uh all in favor
[22:12] » opposed hearing none. Motion passes.
>> Thank you very much.
[22:16] » Enjoy.
>> Appreciate it everybody.
[22:18] » Are you in the neighborhood?
>> Uh two years.
[22:21] » Yeah.
>> All right.
[22:24] Thank you.
>> And the motion was the motion was made
[22:28] by Andy and seconded by
>> um made by Joe, seconded by Andy.
[22:39] » Okay. I just want to make sure for the
record.
[22:41] » I didn't
[22:46] streamline. He's quick.
>> He's ready. He likes to see his name.
[22:50] » Okay. So the alternative would have been
he could have added he could have built
[22:56] a 600 added he had he could have a 650
foot garage and then build an additional
[23:01] 100 foot accessory building
>> which would have been
[23:04] » but this is actually less lot coverage
in one cohesive architectural design.
[23:09] » Yep. It's a good it's good. It's uh it's
on the books.
[23:12] » Uh that brings us to uh Mark
>> Ber. Thank you Mark Filer. um at 1065
[23:23] Borgman. Uh so uh we can hear first from
the appellet about the variance you're
[23:32] looking for tonight.
>> Thanks. Similar to the previous one,
[23:36] been in our house about 12 years. uh
three children. Uh two of them are
[23:40] drivers now. And uh although the house
is already taking up a fair amount of
[23:44] the lot, um our garage was old and
rotting away. And uh we're just looking
[23:51] to put up a basic 20x 22 uh twocar
garage for additional storage uh and
[23:58] just modernizing the neighborhood. Um,
part of that also is u to address the
[24:02] drainage question because that's a big
problem that we're having currently in
[24:06] in the backyard um is we're also getting
estimates to as we if we were to do the
[24:11] garage, you know, repair the drainage.
We're getting estimates from Great Lakes
[24:14] and a few places on some different
either French drain or this new hydronic
[24:18] system they've got which looks kind of
interesting. Um but addressing the
[24:22] drainage obviously is is crucial and
then again just having just a baseline
[24:26] twocar garage um you know which just add
to the house. So
[24:31] » okay so for Andy's benefit there's not a
second party you'd have to read for the
[24:36] the bigger garage just just rear lot
coverage. So Hank do you want to give us
[24:42] some additional context?
>> And again Mr. Chair on this there's
[24:45] there's a couple things that um we
should throw in here. Mr. Filer had
[24:52] applied originally for a addition and a
garage. When he found out how much he
[25:00] was going to be over on the lot
coverage, the addition went by the
[25:03] wayside. So now there's just the garage.
The garage was originally going to be
[25:08] bigger. He's paired it down because uh
440, which is what he's looking for in
[25:14] square foot for the garage, is the set
aside for that zone district. So, he's
[25:19] just gone to that set aside. He was
going to be charged for that footage
[25:22] anyway. So, when I say charged, I mean
in the calculations, he was going to be
[25:28] charged for it. So, that was one of
those things that uh that had happened.
[25:32] Then, to compound the issue, um Mr.
Filer had contracted a building company
[25:38] to, you know, get a permit and build the
garage and the contractor went and tore
[25:44] down the garage. So there is no garage
there now on his property whatsoever. So
[25:51] needless to say, um Mr. Filer has some
disenchantment with the entire process
[25:57] as it as it came out. Um so what we did
was is we had the we had advertised this
[26:05] at the original size and the original
issues that we were going to have. Now,
[26:10] as it turns out, when we redid the
survey, which we did not get until last
[26:15] week, but we do have the information,
and that's what it is on there. The
[26:20] actual rear yard lock coverage is going
to be uh was going to be uh what was
[26:30] » No, it wasn't going to be anywhere close
to that.
[26:32] » Okay.
>> I do want to Frank, can you help me get
[26:35] this up here so I can see this?
>> See the number on
[26:40] I thought you were going to talk about
your contract.
[26:42] » I have a big print if you want to.
>> It's got all that on.
[26:46] » Okay. So, the lock coverage is going to
be um the rear the rear yard lock
[26:51] coverage. Let me see what we got here.
Uh it's going to be actually 46.94
[26:58] square ft.
So, that was what was going to happen.
[27:02] So, realistically for that, the original
house isn't being modified. So, that is
[27:07] it is what it is. that's staying the
same way it was and that was a little
[27:11] bit over. And as with the previous
thing, these houses were built before
[27:17] these people had it. Like with the
previous appeal, that house was built in
[27:21] 1950. So I don't have any idea what
zoning ordinance was in effect. If
[27:27] anything, I had 1950. I wasn't even born
yet. But having said that, that actually
[27:32] says a lot. but um to to understand what
it is. So, he's got 46.94 for rear yard
[27:40] lock coverage. So, all he's really
asking for is to have his garage back
[27:44] and have everything stay the same.
>> So, what's the variance for if he's not
[27:49] going over 50%?
>> He's not going over 50% of the rear
[27:52] yard, but the house actually has the
lock coverage issue.
[27:56] » Oh, it's the it's not the rear.
>> So, it's Well, it is the that exists.
[28:01] » Okay. So whether or not you want to
throw that in and again we got this
[28:06] before we got the final figures for
this. So you can determine that the
[28:11] final figures including any lock
coverage or additions for the rear yard
[28:16] on the addition are still less than the
50% lock coverage and determine it that
[28:22] way. It's it's up to you what you want
to do. Or you can say that he's at 46.94
[28:28] and doesn't need to be here. Yeah,
that's amazing.
[28:33] » Um
because originally we had a much bigger
[28:37] number on that.
But what Mr. Filer's interest was and
[28:41] and again Mark, if I'm if I'm speaking
incorrectly on this, please let me know.
[28:46] » His interest was being above board on
this whole thing. particularly since the
[28:51] particularly since the uh garage
existed. The contractor tore it down and
[28:57] he needed the relief to come back here
and this was a big deal and we didn't
[29:01] get the 46.4
sealed drawing until uh what was it?
[29:07] Thursday.
>> Yeah, late Thursday.
[29:09] » Is there any prejudice to him if we
weren't to have a vote? Does it help him
[29:15] to have a vote on this? Assuming we were
to vote for
[29:18] » Well, I I I think that if you if you see
that this is his way, you can you you're
[29:23] going to need a vote whether it's to
determine that he doesn't need to be
[29:25] here or whether he or or whether you
know you're going to prove it as drawn
[29:30] as shown.
You can do that and then you know that
[29:35] way he would be he would be
situated. You know, I mean ultimately
[29:41] what he wants is just what he had. Yeah.
>> And that's legitimizing
[29:47] pretty much everything he's been
through.
[29:50] » Thank you for being a board.
>> Yeah. Okay. Uh
[29:55] well, we can uh take public comment now
if anyone has anything that they want to
[30:02] share.
My name is John Cero. I live at 104
[30:08] Fort Talbet. My my question is because I
came here with a misunderstanding I
[30:13] guess. Does this exceed the 50% rare lot
coverage? If it doesn't exceed the 50%
[30:19] lot rear lot coverage if he's just
replacing the garage that existed prior,
[30:24] it's confusing why we're even here on
this point.
[30:28] » Well, we have to be here.
>> I understand you have to. But I said on
[30:31] this point, right?
>> Yeah.
[30:34] » For the record, I'm going to agree with
him because he um we didn't have that
[30:38] information till late last week. So, as
we had on the original information, it
[30:43] was going to be way over. It was going
to be substantially over when the
[30:46] surveyor gave us the corrected
information. That's why I said I I you
[30:50] know, I wouldn't it it would not be
incorrect if you told them, you know,
[30:54] that he didn't need to be here. And I
agree with Mr. Sher.
[30:57] » Yeah. I mean, if if it's over 50%, all
I'd ask the the board to do is condition
[31:03] uh the approval on appropriate
elevations being taken of the neighbors
[31:07] lots and of that lot with appropriate
elevation distances so that you guys can
[31:12] actually see where the water drainage
is. If it's under 50% or 50% and it
[31:17] meets the guidelines, then it is what it
is. Um, you know, it's exist I mean,
[31:21] these properties subdivisions existed
for over 100 years, my understanding,
[31:25] are close to 100 years. The city's been
here and the subdivision has certain
[31:30] sizes that, you know, everybody buys the
property in Huntington Woods. They know
[31:35] they're buying an old home and they know
it's the 21st century and they have
[31:39] certain things that occur and you're
giving up something to be in this
[31:45] community and to the extent that I mean
I heard in the last one I didn't say
[31:49] anything but
the fact that that that things have
[31:54] changed in the p now compared to the
past doesn't change the fact that these
[31:59] lots were designed to only have a
certain amount of uh coverage and the
[32:04] city is, you know, has issues with storm
water runoff uh issues. And it's because
[32:10] this the the board or I don't know if
the board, but it's because properties
[32:14] are being allowed to be overdeveloped.
And what's happening is when the
[32:20] properties are being overdeveloped, it's
shifting the water to a neighbor's
[32:24] property. That's what happened to me
when plans were approved by the city for
[32:29] uh driveways. My property was flooded.
Nobody nobody looked at the plans.
[32:35] Nobody looked at any of the elevations.
There was no elevations. There was no
[32:39] current elevation taken. And as a
result, I had I had no recourse through
[32:44] the city. The city was unwilling to do
anything. And I had to take I had to
[32:48] litigate and it cost me a lot of money.
My neighbors had insurance. So, you
[32:53] know, it cost me over $40,000 in a civil
engineer expert, a surveyor, and a
[33:01] source cause expert. And my neighbors
had insurance because insurance covers
[33:05] this type of stuff. And it what it
happened is because this was approved,
[33:09] and I'm listening to this, it's, you
know, it doesn't apply to Mr. feeler.
[33:14] But if if we're not seeing a a drainage
plan before approval, if we're not
[33:22] seeing elevations so you guys can see
how the water is draining, and if you're
[33:26] not seeing a civil engineer report that
says, "Yes, water will be retained on
[33:30] this property. Here's the natural flow
of water and water won't increase on the
[33:34] neighboring property, then it's this is
pretty much prefuncter." And
[33:38] » what was your third uh thing that you
mentioned? Drainage plan for approval,
[33:41] civil engineer report. What was it
there? the elevations.
[33:43] » Elevations, right? Not just elevations
that are 20 feet apart because there's
[33:48] undulations in the wa in the property
and that could redirect the flow of
[33:51] water. There needs to be elevations
taken of properties that are more like
[33:55] 5t apart. So you can actually see the
flow of water on a topographical survey.
[34:01] When my my neighbors developed and I
think this happens with a lot of people
[34:05] in this neighborhood in in the city and
that's why you're getting more and more
[34:08] people coming up here complaining about
it. I mean, I I want Mr. Feler and I
[34:12] want the last applicant to enjoy their
home. I mean, I just don't want their
[34:17] enjoyment to come at my expense or at a
neighbor's expense. And I think it's
[34:22] super important to make sure that
nobody's taking on somebody's water
[34:26] because they want a bigger home or
because they want an improvement to
[34:30] their property. I bought my property as
is and it shouldn't be impacted by the
[34:35] development of other properties. And
that's all I really wanted to say. I
[34:39] wanted to give you my piece. Appreciate
it.
[34:41] » Thank you.
>> Can I ask a question?
[34:46] » Of the no of tank.
>> Sure.
[34:50] » I mean uh this is an issue that does
come up. Uh the drainage issue and he
[34:57] just uh proposed three things that could
in a problematic matter. I'm not saying
[35:04] tonight it is at all problematic matter
based on the representation made. He he
[35:09] mentioned three things that could
theoretically be done. Uh a drainage
[35:13] plan for approval, civil engineer
report, and elevations 5 ft apart. I
[35:18] guess my question is does the city
consider uh those types of showings when
[35:24] there is what I think people would
consider a colorable or concerning
[35:28] issue.
>> So the answer is yes, but it's done in a
[35:32] different manner. When you're looking at
a garage or something specific that does
[35:35] not go to the planning commission, then
if Dwayne, who's our building official,
[35:40] sees something that he feels is uh less
or or concerning to him about it, he can
[35:48] order additional information and he can
order additional studies. like with the
[35:52] last one where um I was aware that there
was the water mitigation measures
[35:57] undertaken
and uh the way that it was explained to
[36:01] me that how they were going to do that
and everything with the downspouts that
[36:05] still has to get through our building
department. So if whether it's him,
[36:10] whether it's Mr. Filer, or whether it's
uh anybody else, that still has to get
[36:15] through our building official. So that's
the second check and balance on that. So
[36:20] if in if in the event that let's just
say I was completely wrong, let's just
[36:24] say I was way off the charts wrong on
it, then Dwayne would have an
[36:29] opportunity to correct that. And
Dwayne's our building official. He's
[36:33] been a ACT 54 certified building
official for I want to say 40 years.
[36:39] » My only question response to that and I
I obviously trust your judgment
[36:44] implicitly. Well, but you you don't have
to.
[36:46] » But what I'm saying is I I do think this
is coming up enough
[36:50] » that we should uh have a discussion at
an appropriate time, not while your you
[36:56] know variance request is pending uh to
make sure we understand it and make sure
[37:01] we understand what proof should
reasonably required in X situation and Y
[37:06] situation.
>> So here's a excellent opportunity for
[37:09] that to happen. you got the memo about
the ZBA and the planning commission
[37:14] joint meeting. That would be a great
point to to bring up and say agenda
[37:20] » this is yeah this is being asked here
>> and then um you know even though it's
[37:26] not necessarily something that the ZBA
typically considers is you're
[37:30] considering dimensional variances
>> um if the ordinance is adjusted which
[37:35] the planning commission is in the
process of if the ordinance is adjusted
[37:41] then um it could be adjusted to the
point where you would have a greater
[37:45] degree of certainty that it's being
managed in a manner that's more
[37:51] consistent with the changing times, the
climates, the additional rains that
[37:55] we're having and that. So, that would be
a discussion that would be great to have
[38:00] at that point.
>> I would welcome that person.
[38:02] » So, absolutely.
>> All right. Well, let's continue with
[38:04] public comment and then we can uh
>> I'm sorry.
[38:08] » That's okay. Yeah. So, just to add to
what John was saying, remember the old
[38:12] Wendy's? Where's the beef? Where are the
calculations? Because again, the 50% lot
[38:19] coverage, that's good. I'm glad it
showed up on this one. But again, it
[38:23] matters which way the driveway sloped.
Uh, is there enough grass to manage how
[38:29] much of the house is coming onto it?
Then when the next house comes up, you
[38:33] you'll see they're draining. It looks
like their entire driveway is draining
[38:36] to the right of way and the whole uh
western side of their house drains onto
[38:41] the driveway. And so the city is going
to ask uh residents to pay more money
[38:46] for sewers. And yet I've been coming to
planning commission meetings for not
[38:52] quite a year yet and I don't see a whole
lot of attention to storm water. I don't
[38:58] see calculations and it makes a
difference. Even that the first house
[39:02] that came up was the driveway sloping
toward the back because then is there
[39:06] dry well sufficient to manage the garage
and anything else that's coming toward
[39:11] it? You guys have no idea. I mean, maybe
Hank does. I don't know. But it wasn't
[39:15] on the drawing. So, um I wish I have a
list. I'd like the city to do a whole
[39:22] overhaul on storm water management. And
we should be looking at some of our
[39:26] checklists because we had a resident who
came forward to complain about water
[39:30] from two new builds. And then when we
um Dan came out, Goslin comes out and I
[39:37] guess he thought everything was fine
because she never heard from them. And
[39:41] then we start digging into the files and
we can't even find an asbuilt survey.
[39:47] And that's a requirement and it's been a
requirement since 2005 and the house was
[39:52] built in 2015.
And the same thing happened to me. Big
[39:56] garage went up behind me. Then they put
a new driveway, changed the slope, and
[40:01] the drive concrete permit doesn't show
the slope. And I'm flooded up to like
[40:07] this high with ducks all the way up.
I've got a 22 foot deep garage with 20
[40:12] ft behind me and I was flooded up almost
to the front and then I have no
[40:16] recourse. It's all like, oh, your down
spouts are turned the right way but not
[40:20] where they're flowing. So, I just want
to add to I'd like to see some
[40:23] calculations. You know, it's not rocket
science. There's cities that are
[40:28] actually requiring the homeowner to
calculate their storm water and show
[40:32] which way it's running. and our planning
commission needs to start paying
[40:36] attention to that because I can't
believe how many program projects they
[40:39] just let through and there's no clear
idea where the storm water is going.
[40:43] It's like well we feel it could be a
problem or so I'd like to see some
[40:48] calculations.
Thank you.
[40:51] » Okay, thank you. That
concludes public comment. Uh
[40:58] the appellant can respond if you want.
All right. Um, so before we entertain a
[41:05] motion,
my I'm I'm I'm not, you know, here to
[41:11] make an executive decision, but my as I
understand the inclination, it's good
[41:15] you're here and you'll, you know, want
to have a garage back and I'm sure it'll
[41:20] be nicer than the one before. Uh my the
hunch is to just interpret that there
[41:26] isn't a need for a variance and that
uh that you you know you you have
[41:36] the green light in in the absence of one
to build what you what you're proposing
[41:40] to the city to build. Again, that's uh
if someone does want to entertain, want
[41:46] to propose a motion, we can certainly
make a motion.
[41:49] » Well, that would be
uh maybe
[41:54] » make the motion.
>> What happens? It shouldn't it shouldn't
[41:57] come from the chair.
>> I know, but isn't that the motion?
[41:59] » What happens if we say, "Hey, we don't
they don't need a variance." What What
[42:03] is the process after that? if he doesn't
need a variance, he goes and gets a
[42:06] building permit and he'll have to supply
the same information
[42:10] » and the survey to Dwayne to look at and
so he'll be taking a look at that.
[42:14] » Can I can I ask Hank a question while
we're just absolutely on the subject?
[42:17] » Is there a storm drain running down the
back side of this property line on this
[42:23] side of Orman? I know there's one that
runs down
[42:27] north side.
>> Can you help
[42:31] in some places?
[42:48] Yeah, there we go. So, were you saying
that on the back side of this alley?
[42:54] » Yeah, I'm just I can't I don't see one
here, but I know that, you know, we do
[42:58] have them that run down that back.
>> We do have them. If it was back there,
[43:01] it would be noted on there.
>> Okay.
[43:04] » Because in the easements, they're
supposed for the surveys, they're
[43:07] supposed to do that. Having said that,
um it wouldn't be a situation where they
[43:11] would be able to tap that by right or
anything. Um but he did mention that he
[43:17] had talked to Great Lakes about a system
other than drainage and it's a Jeep
[43:22] system. It's a system that's newer and
what it does is it puts rods into the
[43:27] ground which creates space in the ground
for the water to circulate even in clay.
[43:34] So which I will promise you his lot is
clay. So um
[43:40] » we're shocked.
>> Well that's because we all a lot of us
[43:44] live in the same area and they're the
same thing. Chris has got the same I got
[43:47] the same you know I mean it's it's play
unless you're up on the hill. So, um,
[43:52] then that's that's what it would be, but
he still has to do that. So, he'll have
[43:57] to satisfy Dwayne that that's and and
that's in in part on that. So, he'll my
[44:02] guess is he'll be in for permit
tomorrow.
[44:06] So, that'll get to Dwayne. Dwayne's in
on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Um,
[44:12] I mean, and if you like if you like, I
can, you know, give you whatever Dwayne
[44:16] finds on it, just as an FYI. Um because
I would really love it if somebody would
[44:23] bring that up planning commission at the
joint meeting and you have that
[44:26] discussion.
>> So that information might be helpful for
[44:30] that.
>> Can I make a short motion to redeem
[44:33] myself?
>> You're fine.
[44:37] I move based on the representations made
tonight that there is no need for a
[44:44] varian and that the uh applicant uh can
proceed with uh the plan that he's
[44:51] presented to us.
>> Yep.
[44:54] » I'll second that. Provided it's approved
by the building department.
[44:57] » Provided by the building department.
>> Okay.
[45:00] » Uh we have a second. Uh couple but a
couple second by uh other thoughts
[45:07] before we take a vote.
>> Uh okay. Uh so all in favor of the of
[45:14] the motion as succinctly presented uh
>> I all in favor opposed.
[45:20] » All right. No opposition. So uh in lie
of a variance you can proceed with your
[45:28] 30 something procession. Thank you.
>> Go build.
[45:32] » All right.
>> Thanks, Mark.
[45:34] » Thank you.
[45:42] » Final
variance request from David Ellenburgg
[45:48] at 13
332 Lello. Uh
[45:54] you want to come to the podium or or
there's fine and we'll hear from you
[45:58] first.
>> Thanks. Thanks for letting me present
[46:00] the project. Um, real real brief, uh, we
are two two big parts of the project.
[46:07] Number one is just exterior facelift,
modernized, new, you know, new fiber
[46:13] siding, shale, new metal porch roof,
just just cosmetic uh, facelift on the
[46:19] house. And then the second part is a
master bedroom over an existing family
[46:24] room. So, we have an existing family
room in the back. Um, and we just want
[46:29] to put a master bedroom. It's gone
through uh several improvements and
[46:33] iterations with the planning
commission's input and a lot of help
[46:37] from Hank and um we've really uh put in
a bunch of improvements to get it to
[46:41] where it is now and uh that's what we're
asking for.
[46:46] Hank,
>> thank you. So, um the ask here is 154
[46:51] square feet and the house is a little
bit unique in that um what he's doing is
[46:55] he's building out the second floor over
the first floor. So, there's a lot
[47:00] relation to the foundation, but there's
also some relating to the planning
[47:03] commission appearance that um David
Alenberg has just been through. So, let
[47:09] me go through and I'll take you and then
again if there's any questions certainly
[47:13] you can ask them. So again with this one
one is special or unique conditions or
[47:17] circumstances exist which are peculiar
to the land structure or building
[47:21] involved which are not generally
applicable to other land structures or
[47:25] building in the same district. So the
existing house foundation designs have
[47:32] determined the layout. So it's a square,
it's a rectangle except for the bottom
[47:37] has a cutout. There's a little cutout in
the back of it. So the cutout is going
[47:44] straight. He's going straight for the
second floor, not over the cutout, which
[47:48] is providing a roof over the second
floor and space in the bedroom up above.
[47:53] So there's a couple reasons that that's
important. If you take a look at the
[47:58] plan, the back area is covered by the
second floor, which accounts for a
[48:01] portion of the overage that he's looking
for. The overage in that area right
[48:06] sizes the room and allows for more
fenestration. Why is that important? The
[48:11] planning commission requires 20%
fenestration on the elevations. So he
[48:16] had to have the elevation. So either you
crowd walls that that shouldn't
[48:20] necessarily have it with windows with
windows or you spread it out. If you
[48:25] take a look at the area that he's
looking at for that and uh let's
[48:31] I'm sorry. Hold on. Let me
we don't have our usual equipment set up
[48:36] here. So I apologize. So, when you take
a look at this here, um, on the top
[48:43] part, uh, the top left one, the front is
to the right, the bottom is to the left,
[48:49] the the back is to the left. So, you see
where the second floor is over the first
[48:54] floor, supported by a post, right, where
the down spout comes down. So, you could
[48:59] see that that's what's supporting that.
So, that area right there, which doesn't
[49:04] have it on the first floor, would have
it on the second floor. So what's
[49:07] important about that? If you take a look
at it on the west elevation, you see
[49:12] that what's occupying that space on the
second floor is obviously ground floor
[49:16] is obviously floor, but it's also a
window which helps to meet the the
[49:21] fenestration requirements of the
planning commission. Also take a look at
[49:25] that on the north elevation and you'll
see a window in the back corner as well.
[49:32] So that's where a lot of the
fenestration and the balancing of the
[49:35] fenestration is happening. So that's one
thing that he also has to have. And
[49:41] again, the total area that the maximum
house size for the house is 2695
[49:46] is what he's asking for where 2541 is
permitted. Um and then two, the variance
[49:53] will not be injurous to the neighborhood
or otherwise detrimental to the general
[49:57] welfare. it's unlikely to have an impact
provided that the downspouts are
[50:01] properly addressed and again the
building department will monitor inspect
[50:05] that on the final uh neighborhood
communication that was in favor of the
[50:09] project is included. So you have seen
that the neighbor that's affected on
[50:14] that side in particular is fine with it.
Not that that's the end all to it, but
[50:18] it's it's a contributing factor. Three,
special conditions and circumstances are
[50:23] not result of the actions of the
applicant. The Ellenberg family did not
[50:27] own or build the property, plat the lot
or situate the house on it. It all
[50:31] predates his ownership. So
also that would mean the configuration
[50:37] of the house, whether the first floor
had to cut in and walk out door to the
[50:41] back or whether you know the the size of
the house, the configuration on the lot.
[50:46] So that's what that would encompass. Uh
and four, a literal interpretation of
[50:51] the provisions of this ordinance would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly
[50:54] enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this
[50:58] ordinance and that the variance is the
minimum necessary. Again, the ask here
[51:02] is 154 square feet for house size. They
did have planning approval as planning
[51:07] commission thought the design made
sense. While exact adherence to the
[51:11] standard may determined to be a bit of a
stretch, the ask is the minimal to
[51:15] square off the house and keep the
fenistration.
[51:19] So as required by the planning
commission and allow the plan to provide
[51:23] reasonable use of the interior. So let's
take a look at that part of it. So if
[51:28] you take a look at the upper level here.
So where this room is in the back right
[51:33] over here where you see the cursor. So
you've got the one window here, the one
[51:38] window here. If you see the doorway goes
into here, there's very little room. So,
[51:43] this opens up and this is the space that
is the rectangle for the bedroom. So,
[51:49] while this is an entryway over here,
this area here is the area of concern.
[51:54] So, um what uh Mr. Alenberg and I have
discussed is that this area here, if
[52:00] you're looking at kind of where I'm
going with this,
[52:04] that's kind of the area right there that
he's asking for. Um, and then one of the
[52:09] other mitigating factors is the house
already is one of those colonials that
[52:15] if you take a look at it, it's got the
one- foot canal lever in the front of
[52:18] the house.
>> So, right away, there's the one foot
[52:21] canal lever that's in the front of the
house that he can't redesign that.
[52:27] That's already there.
>> So, and if you take a look at that,
[52:30] that's 30 foot wide by 18 inches or
whatever it is. There's a there's a
[52:35] significant amount of square footage
that's taken up by the canal lever and
[52:39] by that cutout, which if you add the two
together, you get pretty close and you
[52:44] don't get you don't get to 154 square
feet, but you don't get that far from
[52:49] it. So, what he's really asking to do is
to square off the second floor. Um,
[52:54] we've been through the plan a bunch of
times. It's not something where he can
[52:58] shave anything off the back of it
because if you shave it off the back of
[53:02] it, then he falls inside of the
foundation. So, you can't reasonably do
[53:07] that. And the other thing is is that you
can't take out the canal lever in the
[53:11] front because that's already built. So,
those are a couple of the things that
[53:17] have structural, you know, concerns. Um,
you have the proposed uh motions there
[53:23] and I'm sure that David can answer any
questions or I'm happy to take any
[53:26] questions from you all that if you if
you want for it. But it's actually it's
[53:32] not a huge ask for this lot on this
house on this lot because realistically
[53:38] most houses like that are built squared.
>> Great. Uh, all right. Let's open the
[53:43] floor to public comment.
[53:49] This one have rear lot coverage on it.
>> There's no reading. There's no addition
[53:53] to the rear lot.
>> Okay. So, this is a good point is I
[53:58] think if anybody's coming asking for a
variance, somebody's got to step in from
[54:03] Huntington Woods and look at the storm
water. When this came before the
[54:07] planning commission, I brought up that
the backyard has already exceeded the
[54:10] rear lock coverage and they were like,
"Well, it's already there. We can't do
[54:14] anything about it." So, who's going to
step in? Because if you look at this um
[54:20] look at the northeast downspout, it
looks like it risks flooding. Uh all
[54:26] these houses have the same house number
on it. Uh so I'm guessing next door is
[54:30] 13328.
And again, you've got uh it looks like
[54:34] is there concrete behind the garage? Uh
I can't remember where the down spouts
[54:39] drop here, but if you're going to allow
an increase, can all that backyard
[54:44] manage it? And then again, like ho how
many uh how many uh increases can they
[54:52] get? And based on the little bit I can
see on the driveway, it looks like they
[54:57] drain their whole driveway to the
street. And so I don't know if the
[55:01] garage is draining because you don't
have downspouts on there. I thought that
[55:04] was required to submit. And then they're
draining a lot of their western water.
[55:09] And so when the city comes to me and
wants me to pay higher taxes for the
[55:13] sewer, when I'm trying to manage as much
water in my own backyard and somebody
[55:18] else can just run as much as they want
to the street, that's not very fair. In
[55:22] other cities, Oak Park is even um
charging sewer rates based on how much
[55:29] water people are putting into the city
sewer. And right now, as far as I can
[55:34] see, Huntington Woods does not look at
that. Like, you want to run your whole
[55:37] driveway to the street and you're at the
minimum setback in the back. You want to
[55:40] drop your driveway on the driveway and
run it to the street, too. Oh, sure.
[55:44] That's okay. You know, there I don't see
any of that coming up. Once in a while,
[55:48] it shows up if an architect or surveyor
does. And so, you know, this hands off
[55:53] if somebody went over their lot coverage
before. Was this done with a permit? Was
[55:58] it done? You know, I'm seeing plans
where um it's approved with a little
[56:03] tiny patio in the back and then you look
at the house on aerial maps and it's got
[56:08] a huge patio. And so that's why I told
Hank, shouldn't we have some frame of
[56:13] reference for the final building
inspector? Because then we don't know,
[56:18] did Huntington Woods approve it or did
um the homeowner pour the pour the
[56:24] concrete later when they already knew
they were at 50%. And I found some where
[56:30] houses are over, all you have to do is
scroll through aerial maps. A house is
[56:34] over 50%. And then I see they get a
permit to add a gazebo and a what do you
[56:40] call it? A hot tub in the back. So the
building inspector approved the hot tub
[56:44] and they were already questionable at
50% and the hot tub definitely put them
[56:48] over and but it went through. So, I
don't see enough checkpoints in this
[56:53] process. And I think anytime you're
asking for a variance, anytime you've
[56:58] exceeded anything, and I'm I regret I
didn't bring it, there is something in
[57:02] the code that as soon as something gets
altered, everything else has to be up
[57:06] for u to have eyeballs on it. So, I'm
just the planning commission didn't do
[57:13] anything when this house came up. So, I
hope that you will. Thank you.
[57:18] It's
>> interesting. almost like a biocale
[57:20] clause or something.
>> All right. Uh
[57:23] » Mr. Chair, can I can I just because
there was a point made that I I just
[57:26] want to clarify.
>> Certainly.
[57:28] » So, if you're taking a look at this
particular one and you see the shots
[57:32] that are on this,
>> you see the shots are lower on the
[57:35] inside of the property. So, it drains
from the property line towards the
[57:38] inside of the property in the rear yard.
So, it doesn't drain onto the neighbor's
[57:42] property there. If you take a look at
the shots, you'll be able to see that
[57:46] it's clear on the front page. And then
from the from the back of the house
[57:52] forward, it absolutely does come down
the driveway towards the front towards
[57:57] the street. Um as does every lot on the
street.
[58:02] » Okay. Uh any additional public comment?
[58:07] » John Spir44 Talbet. wasn't going to make
a comment until um uh that statement was
[58:14] just made. You're looking at elevations,
sir. You're looking at elevations. It
[58:17] may not apply to his, but you're looking
at elevations where you have one point
[58:21] and then 40t away or 30 feet away or 20
feet away, you're taking another
[58:25] elevation and you're coming to a
conclusion that the water drains this
[58:29] way. That's just not not so water
doesn't d I mean you're you're ignor if
[58:35] you if you take that as the gospel then
you're ignoring whatever's in between
[58:39] those two elevation points and that
whatever is in between those two
[58:43] elevation points have a significant
determination on where the water flow is
[58:47] going. So, I think it's a misnomer to
say, "Oh, well, they took an elevation
[58:52] from the corner of the home and then
there's an elevation at the bottom of
[58:56] the driveway. Therefore, the water must
run this way." And I just, you know, I
[59:00] urge the the panel or the board to, you
know, in the future take that into
[59:05] consideration when you're looking at
elevation. You need more elevations than
[59:09] a few.
>> I I would also suggest that Mr. sure
[59:12] will come to the planning commission the
joint meeting because whatever his
[59:16] comments are
>> um they may be valid but based on the
[59:19] information that we have here this is
what I can determine
[59:22] » so if he's saying which he may well be
that the the information that the shots
[59:28] are not sufficient in quantity
to make that statement 100%
[59:35] then maybe we need to have more shots or
maybe we need to require them and uh I
[59:40] mean I'd appreciate if you show up
planning commission and make some
[59:43] comments.
>> I'll be there because
[59:44] » absolutely would.
>> I've had two court decisions in my favor
[59:47] on this exact point
>> and I shouldn't have had to go through
[59:50] that point.
>> That may be helpful.
[59:51] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[59:55] » All right.
Any further public comment? Uh hearing
[1:00:00] none, we'll close public comment. Uh
give the appellent an opportunity to
[1:00:06] respond if he wishes. Okay. then uh we
can
[1:00:11] uh entertain a motion and and discuss.
>> Okay, I'll make the motion question
[1:00:16] » uh or or questions for the staff first
if that's uh whatever works.
[1:00:21] » Whatever you want to do.
>> Yeah, go ahead. If you if there's
[1:00:24] something you want to ask Hank or the or
the appellent before we entertain a
[1:00:27] motion, that is that is good times.
[1:00:32] Okay. Uh Joe, did you have
>> Yeah, I was going to make a motion.
[1:00:36] Yeah. Move to grant the appeal to allow
matter of of variance request from David
[1:00:42] Ellensburg at 13332
LLO and take public comment for the
[1:00:48] following variance section 40-4.03-R1A
[1:00:55] through R-1E one family district
dimensional requirements. The follow
[1:01:01] dimensional requirements shall apply to
R1A to R1E
[1:01:07] districts. Maximum house height and
asking to exceed the maximum house size
[1:01:12] for uh 2,695
square ft for 2541
[1:01:19] square feet is permitted. the total
overage request of 154 square feet as it
[1:01:25] meets the intent of the ordinance and
would lessen the burden and do sub do
[1:01:29] substantial justice to the applicant.
>> All right. Uh
[1:01:36] we should have a second or an amendment.
Okay. Seconded. Any
[1:01:42] » further discussion before we
>> have a quick question.
[1:01:44] » Go ahead. Um, was there any thought
taken in a way to make the proposed
[1:01:53] addition fit? Like I understand
it's not a big portion and it's just the
[1:01:59] small corner, but um like was there
thought like what you know is there a
[1:02:06] way to do the additional?
>> Yeah, we the short answer is yes. We've
[1:02:11] been working at this since since I think
last almost 12 months, you know, couple
[1:02:16] trips to the planning commission. We've
looked at everything. It's Yeah. And
[1:02:20] it's
>> the short answer is yes. I wanted to try
[1:02:23] to get it and we we got it a lot closer.
Initially, it was 280. The ask was 280
[1:02:29] something and we, you know, they tabled
it at the planning commission. They were
[1:02:33] helpful and gave us recommendations. But
yeah, we've been back and forth on this.
[1:02:37] Myself and Hank have become fast
friends. So the the short answer is yes.
[1:02:43] We you know it got to the point where it
was kind of
[1:02:46] » this this is what we're able to do and
you know either we can do it or we can't
[1:02:51] do it. It wasn't feasible to do
anything.
[1:02:55] » Yeah, for sure. No, no, I appreciate the
question.
[1:02:58] » I would say I I like this plan a lot.
I'm super comfortable approving it. I
[1:03:02] mean, you're going up, not out. Um but I
out of respect to the uh you know
[1:03:07] questions raised here in the commentary
given
[1:03:10] » I we got a lot of smart people in this
neighborhood and I think vegetation and
[1:03:14] clever ground grading as a long-term
solve to you know the water issues we
[1:03:19] have is something that um you know we
can explore and probably figure out
[1:03:23] something that works great for
everybody.
[1:03:25] » Very good. All right. Any other comments
or questions?
[1:03:30] » I'm not comfortable with this one. Uh,
and I'm not going to recommend people
[1:03:34] don't vote for it, but I think this is
just stretching the u criteria a little
[1:03:40] bit too much. Uh, I I I just don't see
this as an extreme situation where a
[1:03:46] variance is required, but I also
understand that it's a small ask and
[1:03:51] there's got to be discretion exercised.
Uh I just personally am not hearing
[1:03:56] what's particularly unique or what the
particular real exigent need is. And I'm
[1:04:03] one of these guys who really believes
that the uh ordinance have to have real
[1:04:08] integrity and that um you know there was
a comment earlier that I've kind of
[1:04:12] espoused many times before which is you
do buy your home knowing you know what
[1:04:18] the limitations on expansion are. And I
know that there's a very important
[1:04:23] consideration about the homeowner being
able to do what he or she wants with the
[1:04:27] home. I'm just not hearing it on this
one personally, but I understand, sir,
[1:04:31] that this is a small ask uh and it's
just for my comfort levels.
[1:04:35] » Appreciate it.
>> Any other comments before we vote? All
[1:04:41] right, then. Uh all in favor of the
motion as presented,
[1:04:47] uh this would be the time to vote.
>> Okay. Uh opposed, one opposed. So, your
[1:04:52] motion passes.
>> Good luck with your project very much.
[1:04:56] » Thank you. Appreciate that.
>> Uh, before we
[1:04:59] conclude, we will open the floor back up
to general public participation.
[1:05:10] How can we house on a slide?
>> So, I've been trying to see um one one
[1:05:17] of my other comrades says uh you know
when when a neighbor gets water from
[1:05:23] somebody else, whose problem is it?
Because that water wouldn't have been
[1:05:29] coming if the city hadn't approved a
structure
[1:05:33] or an installation.
So why is it that the person who gets
[1:05:39] the water has to fight?
And if something's put in and somebody
[1:05:45] gets water that they didn't get and the
city approves something, maybe the city
[1:05:51] should have to prove that it's not
giving them water. So, I just wanted to
[1:05:56] read I Hank will have to tell you if
these are still active, but in looking
[1:06:02] through city files, I found there's a
homeowner affidavit. I call it the I'm
[1:06:07] looking for the city's CYA clauses. Um I
certify that I am familiar with the
[1:06:13] provisions of the applicable ordinance
and the rules governing the types the
[1:06:18] type of installation and hereby agree to
make installation in conformance with
[1:06:23] the ordinance. Now this is 1999 so maybe
it's changed. Okay. So the so the so the
[1:06:29] homeowner is saying okay I'll do it. But
then um but then the city comes in and
[1:06:36] they have a clause with the uh with the
permit that says permission is hereby
[1:06:42] granted for construction in accordance
sorry should brought up in my thing
[1:06:49] anyway based on in accordance and
subject to all applicable ordinances.
[1:06:54] Sorry I can't get my phone to work right
now. So who who's responsible? the city
[1:07:00] says, "We're not going to let you do it.
It has to be according to." So, they
[1:07:03] think it is. And then, you know, we've
seen projects come up where they approve
[1:07:09] the house, but they don't approve the
driveway. We So, we don't know which way
[1:07:14] the driveway is being sloped. So, again,
it's not just 50% rear lot coverage. We
[1:07:19] need to see a storm water management
plan when these come in. Which way's the
[1:07:23] driveway sloped? I almost never see
where's the high point of the driveway
[1:07:26] so we know what's going to the back,
what's going to the front. Um I I've
[1:07:30] seen so many projects come up that don't
have downspouts marked. So again, we're
[1:07:34] just going to have to rely on that the
guy who comes through has common sense
[1:07:37] and they're in the right spot. But then
if a neighbor starts getting water, like
[1:07:42] there's a home over on Hart, I found the
the plan in the in the down spouts or in
[1:07:47] the front of the garage, probably
draining on the to the driveway, going
[1:07:50] all the way to the street, putting more
burden on the city sewer system because
[1:07:54] they have less than 50% in their
backyard and no ZBA variance to get it.
[1:08:01] And so it says they're in the front and
I drive by and they're in the back. So
[1:08:05] what did the We have no record now.
Well, what did the city approve? Did
[1:08:09] they approve it to the plan, but the
homeowner moved the downspout? You know,
[1:08:13] we don't have good records, so we don't
know.
[1:08:16] » But we don't know.
>> Just a comment. That's why you need to
[1:08:19] come to the planning commission so that
we can get requirements I put in there.
[1:08:23] » This is this is not
>> I come to the meetings. I've been told
[1:08:26] maybe residents will be invited to
participate, but so far that hasn't
[1:08:29] happened.
>> Well, we don't even have a framework
[1:08:32] ordinance together yet.
>> I know. Well, that's another thing.
[1:08:35] Zalooki goes and just dumps dumps other
cities ordinances. And I'm not even sure
[1:08:41] our planning commission understands
what's already on the books. Shouldn't
[1:08:45] we shouldn't we take inventory of what
we already have,
[1:08:47] » Mr. Chairman?
>> Because there's a lot of issue with the
[1:08:49] interpretation and implementation.
>> Okay, I'll I'll end. But but when I
[1:08:54] speak, you know, a lot of problem is not
with what's on the books. It's the
[1:08:59] interpretation and implementation of it
and the recordkeeping.
[1:09:02] » Well,
Mr. chairman and for the record just as
[1:09:06] long as we're you know on that subject I
absolutely would encourage both of them
[1:09:11] Mr. Shiro is exceptionally knowledgeable
in this and
[1:09:16] this just is at the wrong board for
this. So she should be at the planning
[1:09:20] commission for this.
>> All right. Well, her comments are
[1:09:24] » are noted as is the city's response. All
>> on the record per the open meetings act.
[1:09:32] Any other public comment before we
adjourn? I don't think there's other
[1:09:38] business beyond that. Okay. Uh hearing
none, we can entertain a motion to
[1:09:44] adjurnn.
>> Motion to adjurnn.
[1:09:47] » I'll second.
>> All in favor?
[1:09:49] » I.
>> All right, that's a wrap. Thanks
[1:09:51] everybody.
>> Thank you guys. Appreciate it.