MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
WHICH TOOK
PLACE ON TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004,
AT 6:30 P.M.,
IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
1. ROLL CALL.
PRESENT: Board
Members – Dunn, Green,
Holthof, Lichtenwald, and Sutton
ABSENT: Higgins (excused)
OTHERS
PRESENT: Jon Lynch, Assistant City Manager and five people in the
audience
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES.
It was moved to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2004 meeting, the motion was unanimously approved with the following corrections: page 2 #2 total of 372 sf, spelling would; page 3 second paragraph pole instead of sign; #11 spelling fluorescent; The program is “self” created; page 4 #9 spelling irregularly; add 16. Setback of 32’ existing at Wilson Court and Jefferson Avenue; page 5 spelling encroachment; Page 6 Findings #12 Petitioners… Third paragraph Sally Sutton…A wrap around porch is an alternative option.
2.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONSIDERATION.
No. 04-07
– Randy and Terri Applegate, for an area/dimension variance to permit a second
story addition at 109 Ripley Street.
Jon Lynch pointed out the location on the location map in a
RA-1 Zoning District. A series of single
family residential occupied dwellings encompasses the entire block in our
subject area. To the south we have a
mixture of uses that encompass things like office buildings and parking. The subject location is located within the
West Main Street Historic District. The
subject lot is generally 60 feet wide and 60 feet deep.
The existing structure is classified as a nonconforming
structure by virtue of existing setback dimensions. The proposal encompasses the demolition of a
single story portion of the home. There
is a portion of the structure with a flat roof that they wish to replace. The proposed two story addition would extend
to within 10 feet of the rear property line.
Essentially there are two variances from the Zoning
Ordinance that the Zoning Board of Appeals will be discussing. The first has to do with Section 24.1A of the
Zoning Ordinance, this section requires a minimum side yard setback of 8 feet
on one side and 12 feet on the other side of a residential dwelling located in
a single family residential zoning district.
There is a second provision of the Zoning Ordinance and that is Section
32.1A which has to deal with nonconforming structures.
A number of comments have been received regarding this
petition. We did receive one telephone
call in the office yesterday in opposition to the petition. The caller indicated that she felt the
density of the proposed dwelling was not appropriate for the lot or the
neighborhood. We also received comments
of support from property owners at 516 West Main Street, 608 West Main Street,
and 115 Ripley Street.
Terri Applegate, the petitioner, spoke to the board
addressing Sally Sutton’s questions. The
fence in the back of her yard belongs to the property behind her. They have lived there for four years. They had the idea of renovating when
purchasing, since they were in the historic district and they wanted to bring
it back to historic standards. They
currently enter the side of the garage and go up to the upper level. They want to move the garage over three feet
to enter from the garage. They can park
in the garage but they can’t get out of the vehicles. The flat roof additions were built in 1939
and all the roofs and additions leak.
Hank Holthof asked how far back is the house being cut
back? Are the stairs going to be totally
remodeled? The foundation is staying intact. They are demolishing the roof and the steps
will stay.
The petitioner stated that it is a full basement with cement
floors and an exposed beamed ceiling.
They would like to maintain the footprint but it is not functional. To get a full bath an extra room is
necessary. Their alternative would be to
move.
Randy Applegate, the petitioner, stated they tried to put
the van in the garage a couple of times and it was too difficult, the doors hit
the side and you can’t get out. They did
pursue alternatives. They are adding an
entrance to the garage here that will eliminate that problem. Also, they are adding a new entrance door to
provide elderly access.
A letter from a home on 115 Ripley is the neighbor abutting
on the side they are asking for a variance.
He would have the most impact.
The letter of opposition didn’t want the second floor, nor the moving
over of the garage.
The petitioner displayed a picture of the house in 1910
showing the electrical lines. The
picture shows the original porch. The
house was seperated and the addition will make it historically correct and
bring it back to its original status.
Sally Sutton asked if the porch would be in alignment with
the neighboorhood porchs and the setback from the sidewalk be comparable.
The petitioner stated that the new porch will be covering
more area sideways but not toward the sidewalk.
With an addition in the historic district you want it to match but you
want to make a slight change in the roof line so someone can see the new addition
and the original.
The petitioners came to the Zoning Board of Appeals first
before going to the Historic District Commission for approval on the new
porch. They are on the calendar to meet
with the HDC on the porch.
No one
else spoke in support of or in opposition to the request.
Findings of Fact:
1.
Property
is zoned Residential A-1 with the lot equaling 25% of a normal RA-1 lot, 60’ x
60’.
2.
Three
letters in support from property owners in the area in the historic district
and one phone call against the proposed addition.
3.
Proposed
setback on the east side of the property is proposed to be 3’6”.
4.
Existing
5’ setback is on the west side of the structure.
5.
Petitioner
stated that they are unable to park a car in the existing garage and exit the
vehicle.
6.
One
of the reasons for structure demolition stated was insect infestation.
7.
House
is within the West Main Street Historic District.
8.
10’
setback in the rear with the remodeling.
9.
Petitioners
have lived in the house 4 years.
10. Original part of the house was
constructed in 1865.
11. The additions, which will be the
demolished, were built in 1939.
12. The house is currently nonconforming
because of setback requirements.
13. A full basement exists under the
original structure and part of the addition area.
14. A covered front porch existed on the
original house when it existed on Main Street where the Centennial Park is now.
15. The house has never had a rear
entrance.
16. Original house was split into two
houses and existed as a two story home.
17. A picture of the original structure
was shown by the petitioners and the picture was taken in 1910.
18. The roof portion of the addition is
in need of total replacement.
A motion was made by Sally Sutton
and seconded by Roy Green to approve petition no. 04-07 for an area dimension variance
to expand a nonconforming structure based on the findings of fact.
In the board’s deliberation, Hank
Holthof stated the first criteria is the burden of the size of the lot. It has a lot of constraints with the West
Main Historic District and the maintenance of the base structure. The second criteria, it would do justice to
the neighbors and the property owners, in bringing the home back into a more
historic view and get rid of bugs and the poor condition of attached
structures. The house is in the historic
district making it unique. The lot size
is 25% of the normal lot size. The
problem is not self created. It was
established long before the current RA-1 regulations ever existed. Petitioners have normal room sizes and can’t
infringe on the original structure. All
four criteria are met.
Sally Sutton agrees with Hank on all
of them. She would like to add that the
house originally did not exist on that lot.
It is unique because it was moved there. It will help the neighborhood
and owners for functionality as well as aesthetics and preservation of the
historic district. She supports with all
four criteria being met.
Roy Green stated that the plan will
add to the quality of the housing in the area and the petitioner’s house in
particular. This is a large house on a
small lot and the plans are positive in changing that. He supports this entirely.
Tim Lichtenwald agrees that all four
criteria have been met and agree with the comments made previous to his
comment.
Joe Dunn stated that the lot size is
small especially the depth. Unique due
to original portion on a small lot and to make it more functional becomes
restrictive to meet the current setbacks.
Renovation will do justice for the petitioner plus the
neighborhood. He supports this.
Hank Holthof stated that there is no
way to put a detached garage on this property.
They just want a single car garage.
Vote on
the motion:
Yea: Dunn, Green, Holthof, Lichtenwald, and Sutton
Nay: None
The
variance was approved.
3. Public
comments before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
None
4. Old/New Business.
A joint meeting of City Council and Planning Commission has been
scheduled for May 20, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. and they are all invited.
Officer elections will take place in June, place on the agenda.
5. ADJOURN.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Lynch, AICP,