Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 01/20/1988ri
M I N U T E S
as ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
January 20, 1988
No PRESENT
Richard Sutton, Chairman
4r David Gossom, Vice Chairman
William Kidd * Members
Syd Litteken, Alternate #1
Richard Sutherland, Alternate #3
Roger McKinney, Director of Planning
Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator
Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney * City Staff
Paul Stillson, Planner II
Barbara Bridges, Secretary
ABSENT
Bill Rowland
No Robert Seabury
Adrienne Barker, Alternate #2 * Members
Edna Boren, Alternate #4
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sutton called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by David Gossom, seconded by Richard Sutherland, and
carried with none opposed that the September 16, 1987 Minutes be
approved.
BUSINESS ITEMS
we 1. Add -on
Chairman Sutton asked for a status report on pending court cases.
Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson briefed the Board as fol-
lows:
- (V-87-06, carport in the front setback area at 1606 Phoenix).
The attorney for the applicant has agreed to request a hearing
date. If he doesn't, a request for summary judgment will be filed.
(V-87-08, carport in front setback area at 4631 Langford).
The applicant was made to obtain a bond for the cost of removing
the carport, set at $1,000. The next step will be to file a re-
quest for summary judgment.
to
Item No. m,rJ!-
Page No. 1___
me
73
2. V-88-01. Request to reduce the building setback from 25' to
15' for construction of a building at 102 Henrietta
Street
r�
This business item was presented by Bill Gowan, attorney, and by
Glen Edsall, Regional Manager for J. C. Equipment Co., applicant.
Mr. Gowan described the features of this area and other consider- ift
ations which he believed should be reasons for granting the vari-
ance, summarized as follows:
This business needs to expand by constructing a 30' x 40'
building on the north side of the existing building, and
the only way to situate the building is to be within the
25' setback by approximately 101. This would not create
any problem in the area as it has practically no traffic
except that of the equipment company. Mill is "really a
big unpaved alley" connecting Henrietta St. with Jalonic.
Other properties in this area have already violated the
setback. In fact, a Fina station is 1' from the street.
Therefore, denying this variance would deprive him from
using his property to the extent that surrounding proper-
ties are used.
Mr. Edsall also spoke briefly to the Board, and provided pictures
of the area, supporting Mr. Gowan's description. Mr. Edsall was
asked why he did not abut the existing building. He replied he
"could put in a fire wall if we have to." However, due to site
problems, the proposed location is preferred.
Discussion was made of the staff recommendation that a setback of
18' be approved, which is the same setback as two other buildings
on the same side of the block. Mr. Kidd noted he had previously
talked with the staff on a request for his own business, and was
advised they could not recommend anything less than 201. He felt
his situation was very similar to this one, and asked why the
staff recommended 18' in this case. Since a request for setback
variance had not been submitted by Mr. Kidd, there was no file to
refer to. However, Mr. Mukerjee advised that existing setbacks
are always one consideration, and in the case before the Board,
the established reduced setback is approximately 181.
Chairman Sutton referred to the application submitted. He stated
there are no reasons presented upon which to grant a variance
other than the fact that the building the applicant wishes to
construct would require one. After further discussion Mr. Suther-
land restated the facts presented, that the area has very limited
traffic, and there are existing reduced setbacks. Therefore, he
felt this variance would not disrupt traffic or impair the visual
corridor. He moved that the variance be granted at 151, rather
than the staff recommendation of 181. The motion was seconded by
Syd Litteken, but failed by a vote of 3 in favor by Sutherland,
Gossom, and Litteken, 1 opposed by Chairman Sutton, and 1 absten-
tion by Bill Kidd.
do
Item No. M_ I k
Page No. 2-74
Im
Mr. Sutherland then moved that a variance to 18' be granted. The
motion was seconded by David Gossom, but also failed by a vote of
NA 3 in favor by Sutherland, Gossom, and Litteken, and 2 opposed by
Kidd and Sutton. Therefore, the variance was denied.
3. V-88-02. Request to reduce the setback requirements for a
am garage with alley access from 20 to 13 feet
This business item was presented by William Glowacki, applicant.
Mr. Glowacki stated a building permit was approved in 1984 for
construction of a 24' x 40' building, "best described as a hobby
shop." The foundation was then laid and passed inspection. Due
to economic reasons, no further work was done at that time. When
he was issued a new permit in December, 1987 he was informed that
the City had passed an ordinance requiring that the entrance of
his building must be 20' from the alley. Mr. Glowacki felt that
since he had approved permits, his variance should be granted.
Mr. Mukerjee pointed out that it is stated on the latest building
Am permit that alley access is denied. It was explained the build-
ing could be finished with the existing setback; however, alley
access with this setback could not be approved without a variance.
Mr. Mukerjee also pointed out that the lot is big enough for the
entrance to the building to be from the side, with access off the
alley. Mr. Glowacki stated that construction in this manner would
"only have one stall," whereas he would have two with entrance
from the back.
After further discussion, Mr. Sutherland stated he is concerned
so with the staff statement that granting this variance would set a
precedent. He stated his opinion the Board should review requests
on a case -by -case basis, and in this case the applicant has "not
done anything improper." In fact, he has "jumped through all the
legal hoops we told him to jump through." There is presently only
one property owner who uses the alley for access, so it is not
heavily travelled. Also, if financial hardship alone cannot be
considered, he feels the applicant has suffered other hardship as
well. Mr. Sutherland then moved that the variance be granted.
do Chairman Sutton asked Mr. Sutherland to cite more specifically
the basis for his motion. Mr. Sutherland stated because it is
not contrary to the public interest of the city; there are spe-
cial conditions that exist in that the applicant began his proj-
go when it was acceptable; there is nothing with granting the
variance inconsistent with the ordinance; and the applicant would
not be doing anything detrimental to the neighborhood.
Chairman Sutton and Mr. Sutherland then questioned Assistant City
Attorney Jeanie Thompson on various legal points. Chairman Sutton
stated his opinion the applicant has not met any of the criteria
on the application to be used as evaluation for the request, and
asked Ms. Thompson about the basis on which a variance should be
granted or denied. She referred the Board to Section 7340 of the
ordinance, which lists review and evaluation criteria. However,
Item No. -ZLt
Am 75 Page No. �_
she noted the ordinance does not actually require that reasons be
given. It is recommended, for one thing, in case the decision is
challenged in court. The City Council could amend the ordinance
to require this. As a practice, proposed amendments have been
initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, the
Zoning Board could make a suggestion for amendment.
After further discussion, David Gossom seconded the motion to
approve the variance. Chairman Sutton stated for the record that
denying access would not prevent the applicant from using the
existing slab or from obtaining access from the rear. The motion
passed by a vote of 4 in favor by Sutherland, Gossom, Kidd and
Litteken, and 1 opposed by Chairman Sutton.
4. Add -on
Bill Kidd again brought up the subject of what the differences
could be for the staff to recommend the variance as in the first
case considered, and not the same for his business. Mr. McKinney
and Mr. Mukerjee, Chairman Sutton, Vice Chairman Gossom, Attorney
Gowan, and Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson all stated
their thoughts on this issue. Chairman Sutton requested the staff
to again provide copies of the publication, Matters of Interest
to the Zoning Board of Adjustments: A Legal Perspective" to Board
members, as it addresses the questions put forward, and would be
helpful to the Board in deciding future cases.
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
r�
Richard Sutton, Chairman
rn
M
Item No. IV�cNS
Page No.
76