BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY HALL,
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2011
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Wells called the public hearing to order at 7:00 P.M. with the following members present: Mr. Allen, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Cline. Mr. Linek and Mr. Wright were absent. Others present were Scott Fulton, Karen Risher, George Ellish, and Chris Mergel.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 29, 2011. Mr. Cline moved to approve, Mr. Wells seconded
the motion. Roll call was taken with
Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Allen voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a side yard building setback variance
for a deck at 213 Little Wolf Court (Shawnee Crossing subdivision). Mr. Fulton stated the applicant is proposing to construct an irregular shaped deck that will wrap around from the west side to the north side of the house. There is a creek that runs through the back of the property and this will all be to the east of the creek. The deck would be 41 feet along the north side of the house and 38 feet along the west side. The side yard setback for this property in the PR4 zoning district is eight feet. The driveway is up to the side and they want to brink the deck around so it meets up with the driveway. The variance is not considered to be substantial as the deck will protrude approximately 40 – 42 percent (3.33 to 3.16) feet into the required eight foot side yard setback.
Staff supports the side yard building setback variance request for the deck with the minimum zoning requirements and the following condition:
1. That the side yard setback for the deck shall be reduced from eight feet to four feet.
Mr. Allen stated there is a steep drop behind the house. Mr. Fulton stated that the deck is going to be well above the drop and will extend slightly over that drop. Mr. Cline clarified that the Board has approved this type of setback request in the past.
After being duly sworn, Mr. George Ellish stated the property owner wants to install pavers between the end of the drive and the deck. Mr. Wells clarified that there is not an issue with the pavers. Mr. Allen clarified that there will not be any stairs down from the deck and that other than from the driveway the only access to the deck will be from a sliding door from the kitchen. Mr. Ellish stated the property owner has children and as this will be a high deck, the owner does not want steps there as they are concerned about the children falling.
Mr. Allen moved to approve that the side yard setback for the deck shall be reduced from eight feet to four feet; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Allen and Mr. Wells voted “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard building setback variance
for a porch at 71 W. Church Street. Mr. Fulton stated the applicant is proposing to repair the existing porch that is approximately eight feet by 14 feet (112 square feet) and add an addition to the porch of eight feet by 23 feet (184 square feet) so that the porch will wrap around the front of the house. That will be in the front yard setback. Currently the house is setback only about 17 feet from the right-of-way and in the R4 zoning district it is required to be 35 feet so the house already does not meet that requirement. The zoning regulations were designed for new builds in subdivision and they don’t always fit for the houses that have been here for quite some time. The average setback of the houses within 100 feet of this one is approximately eight feet and this porch will extend about eight feet off the front of the house and will be nine feet from the right-of-way and will be further back than this average.
Staff supports the front yard building setback variance request for the porch with the minimum zoning requirements and the following condition:
1. That the front yard setback for the porch shall be reduced from 35 feet to 9 feet.
After being duly sworn, Mr. Chris Mergel stated that he would like the porch to have the same appearance as the porch of the house at 63 W. Church Street. Mr. Allen clarified that in the letter Mr. Mergel provided there is an address of 75 W. Church Street and he could not find that address and clarified that the correct address is 63 W. Church Street. Mr. Mergel stated the existing porch was damaged by ice and is caving in and it does have to come down. He further stated that he would like to replace the existing porch and expand it so that it will wrap around the front of the house and fit into old downtown theme.
Mr. Cline moved to approve the front yard setback for the porch shall be reduced from 35 feet to 9 feet; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Allen voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a side yard building setback variance
for a garage addition on 905 Haddington Place (Melrose subdivision). Mr. Fulton stated the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the garage on the eastern side of the home. The addition would be 29 feet long and 14 feet wide. It would protrude approximately 1.5 feet into the side yard setback and be 8.5 feet from the property line. This is an R4 zoning district and the required setback is 10 feet from the side property line.
Staff supports the side yard building setback variance request for the garage addition with the minimum zoning requirements and the following condition:
1. That the side yard setback for the garage addition shall be reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet.
Mr. Cline clarified that this will be parallel with the property line and is an addition to an existing garage. Mr. Wells clarified that there is no one here to speak for the owner. Mr. Fulton stated the applicant and the adjoining property owners were notified.
Mr. Allen moved to approve the side yard setback for the garage
addition shall be reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call
was taken with Mr. Allen, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 3-0.
4. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Cline inquired if this would ever be a five member Board again. Mr. Fulton stated there have been some things that were brought to his attention and that he would investigate this. Mr. Wells clarified that an opening would need to be advertised and that residents could apply.
5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Cline moved to adjourn; Mr. Allen seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Allen voting “Aye”. Motion carried, 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M. on October 27, 2011.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
____________________________
Scott Fulton, City Planner