BUILDING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Transcription

1 BUILDING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, October 17, 2017 Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mr. Olson 1. Roll Call. Present: Mr. Olson, Mr. Matola, Mr. Collins, Mr. Liechty, Mr. Janusz, Mr. Domaszek, Mr. Koleski, and Ms. Steindorf Absent: Mr. Schoenecker Also Present: Mr. Harrigan, Ms. Nelson, Applicants, and Members of the Public 2. Review and act on meeting minutes dated October 3, Mr. Collins stated that in item two he did not make the motion to approve, it was actually Mr. Domaszek. Mr. Collins also stated that in the motion under item three, the word the should be removed. Mr. Liechty motioned and Ms. Steindorf seconded to approve the meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried Consideration, public hearing, and action on a fence variance request by Holly Gamblin (Karla and John Florance) at Braemar Drive. Mr. Olson opened the public hearing at 5:33 p.m. Dave Davis, a representative for two of the neighboring properties (13355 and Braemar), voiced strong objections by both neighbors to this variance request. He stated they feel the fence is very out of character for the neighborhood and believes it will have a negative impact on all neighboring properties. Mr. Koleski arrived at 5:34 p.m. Mr. Domaszek asked if Mr. Davis is aware of any fences similar to this proposed fence in the Village of Elm Grove. Mr. Davis stated he cannot recall any fences like this one, especially not any that are located on the property line. Collin McWey, a buyer purchasing Braemar, stated that he was not aware of this fence proposal when they made the offer on the home and stated that this would have greatly affected that decision. Holly Gamblin, a realtor representing the applicants, stated that her clients are very concerned about safety. Her clients, Ryan Braun and his family, would very much like to be a part of this community, but would like a physical barrier to keep anyone from 1

2 approaching the property. Since Mr. Braun is a prominent sports figure, they have received unwanted attention and have had incidents in the past. Their main concern is the safety of their young children. Ms. Gamblin stated that if the fence variance is not approved, the Brauns will not be purchasing the home. Joe Cottrell of Braemar stated that he also objects to this fence proposal and believes it will have a negative impact on the neighborhood and set a dangerous precedent for Elm Grove. He encouraged the board to deny this request. Ms. Gamblin stated that people s actions defy reason and that the Brauns want to have a safe place for their family. Mr. Domaszek assured Ms. Gamblin that the board understands that this proposal makes sense for her buyers but they need to determine if it make sense for Elm Grove. Lynn Zellmer of Braemar stated that while she is not opposed in any way to Ryan Braun or any other celebrity moving to the neighborhood, she is very opposed to this type of fence in this neighborhood. Laura Goranson of 705 Elm Grove Road stated that she understands the applicants need for security and that as long as the fence is screened with landscaping, she does not oppose it. Ms. Goranson stated that she understands the objections raised by residents living on Braemar Drive as they would be looking directly at the fence in the front yard. Nonie Johnson of Braemar stated that this is a very welcoming and open neighborhood and added that fences would not necessarily stop anyone from climbing over onto the property. Gail Dallmann of Braemar stated that she objects to the variance request and stated that other residents in Elm Grove will want the same type of fence if this one is approved. Mr. Olson closed the public hearing at 5:48 p.m. Kyle Kohlmann of Seasonal Services presented an overview of the plans. He stated that they plan to meld the fence into the landscaping and add new landscaping to the front and back of the property. He stated the masonry field stone will match the stone on the house exactly. Mr. Olson asked if the fence would be black wrought iron. Mr. Kohlmann said yes. Mr. Olson asked Ms. Gamblin if her clients had considered any other security options besides a fence. Ms. Gamblin stated that they did look into other options but her clients would like a physical barrier to prevent someone from driving through the front door. 2

3 Mr. Domaszek stated that in general he is not in favor of fences and that Ryan Braun is not the only person of wealth or means that needs security in Elm Grove and many residents would be asking for this type of fence in the future. He stated that this fence is contrary to every other type of fence the building board has approved. He stated that he feels the fence is attractive and understands the reasons the applicants want it, but he would not be able to vote in favor of allowing a fence like this. Mr. Matola stated that closing off the front yard with a fence changes the dynamic of the village and he would not be able to vote in favor of this variance request. He also stated that he has received feedback from other residents that are against granting this request. Mr. Domaszek stated that residents have reached out to him to voice their objections as well. Ms. Steindorf wondered if perhaps the applicants could plant a barrier of trees or bushes instead of a fence in the front yard that would prevent a car from driving through and then fence in the back yard. Mr. Liechty stated that they could still have a gate on the driveway as they could consider that a decorative fence. Mr. Domaszek asked Ms. Gamblin if she thought her clients would be open to these other options. Ms. Gamblin stated that she could bring this to their attention but she does not think they would go for this option since they have received death threats. Mr. Liechty stated that he agreed with the comments the board had made so far and that we have never had a fence like this in Elm Grove. He stated that the language that was once included in the code of ordinances that stated Elm Grove should maintain an open look and feel is still supported by many residents today. He stated he would not be in support of a fence of this type. Mr. Olson stated that the building board always looks for consistency and that this fence is very inconsistent with anything else that has been approved. Mr. Koleski expressed his concern that approving this fence would lead to a slippery slope where many more fences of this type would be requested. Mr. Liechty motioned and Ms. Steindorf seconded to deny the fence variance request. 4. Review and act on a request by Daniel and Katherine Wilhelm of Oakdale Drive for a building alteration. 3

4 Applicant presented overview of plans and stated that he was not happy with how long the garage appeared from the street and wants to add the dormer to break it up visually. Mr. Liechty asked if they will be adding copper on the dormer. Applicant said no, they will use the same shingle as the rest of the roof. Mr. Liechty stated that they may have a problem using shingles as the slope of the dormer will be extremely shallow and suggested that they use copper instead and that would also tie in to the copper on the front of the house. Applicant stated that he liked that idea and will use copper instead of shingles. Mr. Liechty motioned and Mr. Domaszek seconded to approve the plans with the stipulation that a copper roof will be used on the dormer. 5. Review and act on a request by Dwayne and Michelle Setzer at 600 Meadow Lane for a building alteration. Applicant stated that they have made a few changes to their request and will now be replacing the existing casement windows with new casement windows, reducing the size of one window on the south of the home, and eliminating the back window. Mr. Olson asked if the casement windows will have divided lites. Applicants said yes. Mr. Liechty asked what color the windows will be, if they will be adding new gutters and downspouts, and what color the new gutters and downspouts would be. Applicant stated that they will all be cream colored. The windows will be cream on the outside to match the trim color and white on the inside. Mr. Liechty asked if they would be replacing the basement windows. The applicant stated that they had not thought about it at this time. Mr. Liechty stated that in the future if they are replacing windows that are the same size as existing they would not need building board approval but urged them to stay with the cream color. Mr. Liechty motioned and Ms. Steindorf seconded to approve the plans with the stipulation that the windows will have a cream exterior. 6. Review and act on a request by Charles and Sarah Lauber at 920 Madera Circle for an accessory structure. Mike Schierl from Breezy Hill Nursery was present before the board. Mr. Harrigan stated that the height of the structure is ten feet with two feet for the cupola and that this height is within the code limits. Mr. Matola asked if the structure will have a hip style roof. Mr. Schierl stated that was correct. 4

5 Mr. Liechty asked if the trim would be cream. Mr. Schierl said yes. Mr. Liechty asked if the olive brown siding on the house would appear anywhere on the pavilion. Mr. Schierl stated that the timbers would match the trim on the house. Mr. Liechty asked if the roofing would match the roofing on the house. Mr. Schierl said yes. Mr. Liechty asked about the material for the piers. Mr. Schierl stated that they will have limestone caps with a Lineo stone column. Mr. Liechty asked if the louver would be metal. Mr. Schierl stated he believes it will be cedar. Mr. Liechty motioned and Mr. Matola seconded to approve the plans as submitted. 7. Review and act on a request by Jeffery Russell at 810 Morningside lane for a retaining wall replacement. Applicant stated that the current retaining wall of railroad ties has been there for approximately 25 years and it is starting to fail. The new wall will be at the same location as the current wall but will not be quite as high in some areas. Mr. Liechty asked if they will be losing any trees due to the grading. Applicant said no they will not be disturbing any existing trees. Mr. Liechty asked if the drainage behind the wall would be daylighted. Applicant stated that it will daylight near the driveway end. Mr. Matola asked about sheets 7 through 11 in the included plan set that show a fence/railing. The Applicant stated that there will be no railing so that can be ignored. Mr. Matola asked if there are any height restrictions with retaining walls that require a fence. Mr. Liechty stated that the only restriction he was aware of was if you were over a certain height you needed engineering review. Mr. Harrigan stated that he was also not aware of any regulations that would require a fence. Mr. Liechty motioned and Mr. Domaszek seconded to approve the plans as submitted. 8. Review and act on a request by Michael and Kathy McDonough at Wrayburn Road for a revised building addition plan. Applicants were not present before the board. 5

6 Mr. Harrigan stated that they plan to extend the addition by two feet and they are adding windows. Mr. Matola stated that at the last meeting the board noted the pitch of the yard and the applicants stated they would be taking the siding all the way down to grade. Mr. Olson stated that it looks like they addressed his concerns about adding the trim detail to the window on the left elevation. Mr. Matola asked if they were still within impervious surface limits. Mr. Harrigan said yes. Mr. Liechty asked if they are proposing new doors on the rear elevation. Mr. Harrigan stated that he was not sure but if the opening size is not changing the board would not need to approve that. Mr. Matola motioned and Mr. Collins seconded to approve the plans as submitted. 9. Review and act on a request by Dennis and Jacqueline Shepherd at Thomas Jefferson Court for an accessory structure and outdoor fireplace. Mr. Liechty asked about the limits on the size of accessory structures as stated in the code of ordinances. Mr. Harrigan stated that for yard maintenance buildings it is 150 square feet. Mr. Liechty stated that this pergola would be approximately 400 square feet and seems massive compared to the scale of the home and outdoor area. Mr. Liechty stated he has never seen a structure of this size and scale that is free standing in the village. Ms. Steindorf stated that the language regarding size limits of accessory structures in the code only references yard maintenance buildings. Mr. Liechty stated that he believes the board has referenced that part of the code and applied it to other accessory structures. Mr. Domaszek stated that the board can look at the neighboring yards to see how a structure of this scale would fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Liechty stated that the massive scale of this pergola concerns him and asked if any consideration could be given to reducing the size. The applicant stated that he did not think the homeowners would be opposed to a reduction in size and understands the board s concerns. 6

7 Mr. Matola asked if the fireplace would be connected to the pergola. Applicant stated that it will be centered but not connected. Mr. Liechty stated that if the corners of the pergola were reduced to 12 by 12 and the top could extend two feet on either side, this would be a more acceptable size. Mr. Matola stated that they could even have a three feet overhang. The applicant stated that he did not think the homeowners would have a problem with that at all. Mr. Koleski asked if there was any concern for fireplace embers burning the pergola. Mr. Matola stated that the building inspector could review the plans with regards to the height and placement of the chimney and he could determine if this would meet code requirements. Mr. Matola motioned and Ms. Steindorf seconded to approve the plans with the stipulations that the overall size of the pergola will be reduced so that it does not exceed 150 square feet, the overhang of the structure can extend up to three feet, and approval is contingent upon the building inspector s evaluation of the fireplace chimney height. 10. Other business. None 11. Adjournment Mr. Liechty motioned and Mr. Domaszek seconded to adjourn the meeting. carried 8-0. Motion Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carey Nelson Administrative Assistant 7