Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Special Meeting Minutes August 27, 2019 Commission Chambers, City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chairman W. Darbee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with a quorum. INTRODUCTIONS & ROLL CALL Present: Jan Rise, C. Greenleaf, W. Darbee, L. Dowd, L. Elliott Excused: Kellie Berry Absent: None Others: Staff Liaison Scott McKillop APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion made by J. Rise, seconded by C. Greenleaf, to approve the June 11, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT – NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS – PUBLIC HEARING W. Darbee opened the meeting to public hearing. Case Z19-04 - 1006 N. Wenona - Cory Snyder on behalf of William Lange Request for a non-use variance from zoning regulations governing minimum distances required between attached garages and side and rear lot lines. Cory Snyder and William Lange were present. Mr. Snyder explained the house and garage were both existing and he was hired to construct a breezeway between the two structures for the owner to safely ambulate between them. The breezeway would be 10 feet wide by 20 feet long. It would be 30 feet from the rear property line and would not change anything already existing between the owner’s garage and the neighbor’s garage. Mr. Snyder said the presented drawings included all the details for the proposed structure. Mr. Lange presented that his wife had Multiple Sclerosis which can be a very debilitating disease and because of this, they would like to construct the breezeway so his wife can cross between the garage and the house safely in harsh weather and without fear of their toddler getting away from her because of the trouble she has keeping up with him at times. Mr. Lange explained it would help his wife’s quality of life in the near future. L. Elliott asked if there was a deck or some other structure in the backyard because it looked like there was according to the satellite pictures. Part of Mr. Lange’s response was unintelligible. He went on to explain the previous owner had built a small leaky roof at the back of the house that had not been properly tied in making it difficult for his wife and was inadequate for their needs. Mr. Snyder added that there actually had been two makeshift roofs that were visually unsafe. One roof had a plexi-type drop-down side to another roof that sloped off the garage in another direction that was in rough shape. He said it was torn down not realizing 25 feet was now needed for the property line. W. Darbee inquired if the garage met the needs of the owners as it exists. Mr. Snyder confirmed the garage was in good shape; however, the issue is where the garage sits on the property. To move the garage would require extensive changes such as a whole new foundation just to move it two more feet in one direction and three in another. The garage would have to be raised and lifted and would be very costly at a minimum of $10,000. C. Greenleaf stated he believed the garage could not be moved and stay in current compliance. He said it would be too close to the neighbor and to the rear property line because it was not a full sized lot and thought the backyard was probably not any larger than 25 feet by 25 feet. He did not think it was practical to move the garage and felt it would still be outside of the current zoning regulations. W. Darbee asked if any communication had been received in regards to this case. S. McKillop answered there had been none whatsoever. W. Darbee closed the public hearing. L. Elliott voiced his concern for Standard #4. He felt the physical characteristics of the property make it difficult and probably outweigh the personal circumstances of the owner. W. Darbee agreed with L. Elliott and felt it also fit in with Standard #1. He inquired when the home was built. C. Greenleaf replied it seemed to have been built in the 1950’s. W. Darbee asked what the lot size was and if the other lots in the area were larger than the owner’s. The applicant did not know the exact lot dimensions but stated it was a three quarter lot. According to the staff report the lot is 55 feet wide by 100 feet deep. S. McKillop stated the standard city lot size is 50 feet wide by 100 foot deep. He said the assumption could be made that the lot could possibly be 60 feet wide by 100 or 110 feet deep, because of the size of the house and the noted setbacks to the property lines so the imposition of the regulation on this lot would be the same as it is on any other lot. 2 J. Rise noted in reference to Standard #4 that this property was in the middle of several adjacent properties with what appeared to have similarly sized lots and duplicate placements of garages. She felt it was a general neighborhood condition and not unique to the owner’s property. J. Rise added that in reference to Standard #2 she did not know how it would be justice to the surrounding properties that have the same constraints if the variance is granted. L. Dowd asked why the breezeway would be 10 feet wide between the house and the garage. Mr. Snyder answered that it is a walkway and will also have some storage but the size will allow a comfortable allowance for Mrs. Lange to pass through. He said the garage sits back from the house and part of the breezeway needs to be lapped on to the side of the garage as well as make it to the house. C. Greenleaf stated that if it was less than 10 feet wide, the wall would end up in the middle of the house’s entrance. W. Darbee asked for confirmation the reason the variance was being requested was because the house would be attached to the garage via the breezeway changing the garage’s status from detached to attached. S. McKillop replied he was correct. He added the garage becomes attached by virtue of the breezeway and if a garage was being built with a breezeway, the new regulations would apply. Granting the variance would have the effect of creating a situation that does not comply with zoning regulations and would create a situation of non-conformity. He said it is not quite the same as if a request were made to build a new building one foot from the side lot line. W. Darbee agreed and asked if it would be in compliance to build a breezeway that was not attached to the garage. S. McKillop answered there would not be an issue if it was built as a detached structure as long as the closest portion of the building was two feet from the south lot line, two feet from the rear lot line and at least five feet from the house. He added if located between the home and the side lot line on the south, it would have to be roughly seven feet from the lot line on that side so that there would be two side yards totaling 15 feet with no side being less than five feet. S. McKillop stated if assuming the property was 65 feet by 110 feet, a two and a half car garage could be built on the property in compliance considering where the driveway and home were located if the existing garage was demolished. Motion made by J. Rise, seconded by L. Dowd, to deny the variance because it does not meet with #4 in her interpretation of it and also does not meet with #2. As discussed with the city liaison, the property would probably be able to have a larger garage and still have proper setbacks. Based on those two items that must be met as in the discussion, she moved to deny the variance. W. Darbee inquired if the motion was for both variances requested by the application. J. Rise confirmed the motion for denial was for both requested variances under the application. 3 Roll Call: L. Dowd – Yes, J. Rise – Yes, W. Darbee – Yes, C. Greenleaf – No, L. Elliott – Yes Motion carried to deny. (4 – Yes to Deny and 1 – No) OLD BUSINESS – PUBLIC HEARING None. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Motion made by C. Greenleaf, seconded by J. Rise, to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried. Prepared by: Lisa Griffiths, Planning & Zoning Administrative Secretary 4