Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 11/16/2001MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 16, 2001 PRESENT: Don McKinney, Acting Chairman 0 Michael Norrie (seated in audience) 0 Les Seipel 0 Alternate Thomas Cross 0 Alternate Willa Burgess 0 Alternate Dawn Murer 0 Alternate Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0 City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II 0 ABSENT: John Key, Chairman 0 Members Charles A. Peters, III 0 J. D. Ruiz 0 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:34 p.m. by Acting Chairman McKinney. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the September 19, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved by the Board as submitted with a unanimous vote in favor. III. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Variance to Eliminate the Fencing Requirement 5612 Seymour Highway Case V 01-08 Applicant Calvin Davis Requested Action Variance Purpose Application for a variance to eliminate the fencing requirement along the Single -Family boundary adjacent to the North line of this lot. Property 5612 Seymour Highway, Lot 5-B, Block 2, Gage Addition BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 Zoning General Commercial Commentary. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 4620, Screening Requirements to eliminate the fencing requirement based on existing site conditions. Section 4620 (A) states that when a nonresidential use is adjacent to a single-family boundary, a six foot tall privacy fence is required. Qualifying Criteria: a. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Applicant's statement: "Existing irrigation canal creates a natural boundary between general commercial and single family areas. The bank of the canal creates a barrier that serves the same purpose as a fence. " Staff response: There is an existing irrigation canal on the north side of the lot where the fence would be required. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement: "The irrigation canal has been in existence for many years." Staff response: The canal was constructed over 50 years ago as part of an agricultural irrigation system. C. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Applicant's statement: "Given the location of the rear property line, the fence would actually have to be built on top of the existing canal bank. " Staff Response: The canal has a raised berm along the bank that forms the north line of the subject property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 d. That the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with the objectives of this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Applicant's statement: "Simply put, the canal bank exists, it serves the same purpose as a fence. It forms a permanent natural boundary." Staff response: The canal is a feature that separates this use from the adjacent property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 Staff feels that this application may present sufficient evidence to support the claim of hardship or special condition. Evaluation Criteria: In evaluating a variance request once it has been determined by the Board that the request qualifies to be heard by the Board, the Zoning Ordinance Section 7340 requires that the following criteria be used: a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Staff believes that it may be in the public interest to allow the existing natural conditions to substitute for a privacy fence. b. Special conditions exist, other than financial hardship alone, whereby a literal enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship to the owner of the land. The canal occupies a width of about 40 feet on either side of its centerline, for a total width of 80 feet. There is a raised bank on either side of the canal that has a height approximately equivalent with what would be accomplished with a privacy fence. C. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land, which is not allowed by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned general commercial. The proposed photography studio use is a permitted use in this zoning district. d. The granting of the variance: Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; The intent of the buffering section is to provide residential areas protection from the impacts of non-residential uses by reducing the potential impacts through increased separation, construction of visual or noise barriers, etc. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 Is in harmony therewith; In staff's opinion, allowing existing conditions to substitute for the construction of a privacy fence would be in harmony with the intent of this ordinance. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; This variance will not be harmful to the neighborhood as the berm on the canal bank is similar to the height and bulk of a privacy fence. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5 Or detrimental to the public welfare. Staff believes that approving this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Recommendation: Staff recommends that this variance be approved. Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria by the Board: Mr. Seese reviewed the criteria. Chairman McKinney asked about previous BOA cases regarding fences. Mr. Seese replied there have been several cases but this is the only case with a canal located on the property. Ms. Burgess inquired about the property beyond the ditch; Mr. Seese replied it was vacant land zoned as Single Family replied that the width of the canal and the berm act as dividers. Ms. Burgess made a motion, based on the qualifying criteria, that this application be heard by this Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Seipel and unanimously approved. Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria by the Board: Chairman McKinney inquired about setting precedence if a variance is granted. Mr. Seese commented that property is annexed as Single Family zoning which causes fencing to be required. Therefore, some businesses abut residences that are not separated by fences (pre -zoning). There was discussion regarding the usage of the canal. Mr. Calvin Davis, applicant, was sworn in by Chairman McKinney. Mr. Davis noted the canal is an active part of an irrigation system from Lake Diversion. He explained the surrounding terrain emphasizing the berm would serve the same purpose as the fence. In summary, Chairman McKinney stated that a special condition does exist with this property and the Board needs to decide if there are other solutions or if a variance be granted. He reminded the Board a variance would be required to relocate or waive the fence. Chairman McKinney stated that the berm could be considered a reasonable barrier. Mr. Seese commented that erecting a fence on the berm could weaken its structural integrity. Mr. Seipel made a motion to accept this variance based on the evaluation criteria as well as the topography of the property. Ms. Burgess seconded the motion. The Board approved the motion with a unanimous vote in favor. IV. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Seese stated that at the end of December two members, Mr. McKinney and Mr. Peters, terms would expire. He thanked them for their time and service to the City. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6 V. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. Don McKinney, Acting Chairman Date BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7