The meeting was called to order at 4:30 PM by Commissioner Sean Ebbert
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Sean Ebbert Commissioner Present
Deborah Larsen Board Member Present
Michael Ferris Board Member Absent
Chris Cook Board Member Absent
Mark Schmidt Board Member Present
Ryan Schoonveld Board Member Present
Burwell L. "Mike" Carmichael Board Member Present
Laurie Schmidt City Attorney Present
Trudy Wilder Building Inspector Present
Cecil Derringer Chief Building Official Present
Approval of April 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes
1. Regular Meeting Minutes of Thursday, April 18, 2019 RESULT: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Deborah Larsen, Board Member
SECONDER: Mark Schmidt, Board Member
AYES: Commissioner Ebbert, Board Member Larsen, Board Member Schmidt, Board Member Schoonveld, Board Member Carmichael
ABSENT: Board Member Ferris, Board Member Cook
Old Business
2. Continuation of Deliberation- 706 Lions Park Drive - Stephen Holmes
Chair Ebbert asked if new notices were sent to the neighbors to inform them the April item was extended to May. Ms. Wilder reported that no notices were sent because the public hearing was closed in the April meeting, this was a continuation of the discussion. If discussion continued beyond May, new notices would be sent.
Steve Holmes explained he eliminated all variance requests except the request for a variance at the SE corner to add a second story to the existing structure. He explained that the original application had measurements on the south side that were not correct. He stated the exceptional circumstances exist in that the house is wedged between two other houses, the foundation has been there 100 years and his ability to expand the house is hindered. Although houses are supposed to be separated 5’ from the lot line for a total of ten feet, this is not what is existing there. He is not making the non-conformity worse, just adding a second floor in that area, building straight up to expand the bedroom. The rest of the south side is not changing. The variance request is for the front seventeen feet to allow the increased vertical height.
Ms. Larsen questioned if the intent was still to re-side the south side, her understanding is it would have to meet the fire code and that no openings or windows would be allowed? Mr. Holmes said no windows would be on the addition. He also stated the original part of the house would remain untouched.
Ms. Wilder and Mr. Derringer reviewed the existing front yard setback variance, which does not include a variance for the current requested side yard setback variance of 1.6’. Discussion ensued over the location of the front porch and overhang.
Mr. Schmidt asked what was unique about the lot, and if any alternatives have been sought. Mr. Holmes stated that the lot is 33’, which is common but most homes are centered on the lot, his is not and the location of the foundation is an issue. Different designs were reviewed and considered, but moving the structure and proposed changes to the north were more costly, complex and would look strange. This design is more beautiful and not odd shaped, with the second floor slid over.
Mr. Schoonveld asked if the proposal on the south side is the minimum change to mitigate the hardship, and believed it was.
Mr. Holmes said the hardship is the bedroom, with no closet, and the room was narrow and constrained, and the ceiling was so low at points that you hit your head. The walls would be extended straight up. They have come to the point that they need to make the bedroom larger and the home larger to be more comfortable for family to visit and not a weekend cottage.
Mr. Ebbert asked if the home was destroyed by fire would the variance stay for only this part of the house.
Attorney Schmidt affirmed the variance as granted would stay.
Mr. Schmidt questioned if it is a substantial property right to have a square ceiling. The structure has 3 bedrooms. He did not like the long term plan to allow a structure 1’ from the lot line and where is the hardship? Mr. Schmidt referenced Mr. Holmes claim that the neighbor's property is more open at this spot so it would not be so constricted, a 1’ setback almost uses the neighbor’s setback. He struggles with allowing a permanent 1’ setback and believed it was detrimental to safety. There is no sunset to a variance. He asked if this would increase the non-conformity of the setback.
Attorney Schmidt stated that expanding the second story into the required setback would increase the non-conformity.
Mr. Holmes stated that he did not think the City should look at it that way, that setbacks are guidance for new construction. This is existing and they should look at the unique situation here. He should not be constrained more than the neighbors for the unique situation. The Zoning Board is here because he has a unique problem.
Mr. Schmidt stated the Board is bound by rules, and do not vote on individual build designs but review the 9 standards under Sec. 21.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. What is the purpose of the Ordinance, why does the lot need a variance, what is unique about the property? The structure is sufficient, it may not be ideal but that is not the intention of a variance. The ordinance states non-conformity should not be increased and it could be re-designed to bring the structure into
conformity.
Ms. Larsen stated the Board did not review the standards at the last meeting.
15.4.10. A. The Variance would not be detrimental to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood
Mr. Schoonveld stated this situation is frustrating and the neighbors seemed OK with the change. Under the standards (A) this proposal would not be detrimental to the properties.
Mr. Schmidt stated he was happy the applicant addressed some concerns but some still remain. The properties are tight, there is a case to be made based on comments that it would be
detrimental to adjacent properties.
Mr. Holmes stated the neighbors are now fine with the proposal and said the problem is was that one gentleman came around and stirred up the neighborhood. The Patrick's had a good
argument about the size of the rear deck and he addressed this.
15.4. 10.B. The Variance would not impair the intent and purpose of this Ordinance.
Mr. Schoonveld said there may be safety concerns, relating to fire.
Mr. Schmidt state he was also concerned about light space between houses and the Public Safety Department concerns that the small space will restrict fire access.
Mr. Schoonveld felt the Public Safety Department contradicted itself. Mr. Schmidt disagreed, the tighter setbacks are not changing, but are increasing to a second floor.
Ms. Larsen stated it was clear the Deputy Director of Public Safety did not like it, she read the last two sentences of his comments.
15.4.10. C. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply to the property in question or to the intended Use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning District and vicinity. Such circumstances shall create a practical difficulty because of unique circumstances or physical conditions such as narrowness, shallowness, exceptional shape or topography of the property involved, or to the intended Use of the property. See Section 15.4.8.B.
Mr. Schmidt stated the only exceptional or extraordinary circumstance evident is the existing structure; the lot width, size, length all meet required criteria. There is room to expand in the back and the structure is not trapped on every wall. There is a wide range of build plans that can work within the setbacks. Ms. Larsen agreed.
15.4.10. D. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zoning District and in the vicinity. The possibility of increased financial return shall not of itself be deemed sufficient to warrant a Variance.
Mr. Schoonveld said it is not being done for financial return and being able to enjoy it is relative to each person. It is hard to enjoy it when it is so restricted.
Mr. Schmidt did not believe there was a substantial property right involved. He stated that a house should have room for basics like a kitchen, bedroom, or 1 car garage. A minimum sized house fits. Being hard to enjoy based on bedroom size is relative.
15.4.10. E. The condition or situation of the specific piece of property or of the intended Use of said property, for which the Variance is sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for the condition or situation.
Chair Ebbert stated this Board runs into this request regularly. The home is close to existing property lines and this does happen in a number of situations but changing the ordinance to address is not the best approach and is not so recurrent to formulate a general regulation. This problem is addressed by the Zoning Code.
15.4.10. F. The condition or situation for which the Variance is sought shall not be the result of actions of the property Owner.
Mr. Schoonveld and Mr. Schmidt agreed that the applicant bought the property as is. Chair Ebbert stated raising the height of the ceiling of the bedroom is the reason for the request and is the result of the property owner’s action. Mr. Schmidt agreed.
15.4.10. G. Strict compliance with area, Setbacks, Frontage, height, bulk or density requirements would unreasonably prevent the Owner from using the property for a permitted purpose, or would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome.
Mr. Schmidt does not see this as a burden, the applicant does not like the layout but can use the existing structure within the limits of the ordinance. Mr. Schoonveld agreed.
15.4.10.H. The Variance requested is the minimum change necessary to mitigate the hardship.
Mr. Schoonveld stated he was good with the variance if it was indeed a hardship. Mr. Schmidt said that needs to be determined; if it was a hardship, it was the minimum change to the
bedroom. Mr. Ebbert questioned the fact that a low ceiling would be a hardship because it would not be built that way today, or if it was a hardship that the house was close to the property line? Mr. Holmes said that probably this area was originally an attic and was converted to a bedroom.
15.4. 10.I. The Variance will relate only to the property that is the subject of the application.
All members agreed the variance was only relating only to the applicant’s property.
Mr. Ebbert asked for any other comments. Hearing none, the vote was taken.
Mr. Schmidt moved to find that the proposed variances requests from Section 5-2 - Table 5-1 and Section 19.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for the property at 706 Lions Park Drive to 1) decrease the south side yard setback from seven feet (7’) to one foot and six-tenths (1.6’) for
RESULT: DENIED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Mark Schmidt, Board Member
SECONDER: Deborah Larsen, Board Member
AYES: Commissioner Ebbert, Board Member Larsen, Board Member Schmidt, Board Member Carmichael
NAYS: Board Member Schoonveld
ABSENT: Board Member Ferris, Board Member Cook
New Business
3. 2019-166 : Re-Appointments, Organizational Meeting, Nominating Committee and Nominations Mr. Schmidt asked if Mr. Ebbert was still interested in chairing the ZBA. Mr. Ebbert agreed to serve. Mr. Schoonveld moved to appoint Mr. Ebbert as Chair of the ZBA for the upcoming year. Mr. Schmidt seconded. Approved 5-0.
Ms. Larsen moved to appoint Mr. Schmidt as Vice-Chair. Mr. Schoonveld seconded. Mr. Schmidt agreed to serve. Approved 5-0.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Mark Schmidt, Board Member
SECONDER: Ryan Schoonveld, Board Member
AYES: Commissioner Ebbert, Board Member Larsen, Board Member Schmidt, Board Member Schoonveld, Board Member Carmichael
ABSENT: Board Member Ferris, Board Member Cook
Public Comments None.
Adjournment
The meeting was closed at 5:15 PM
______________________________________ Presiding Officer