Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 04/17/2002MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 17, 2002 PRESENT: John Key, Chairman 0 Members Willa Burgess 0 Alternate Thomas Cross 0 Jose Garcia 0 Alternate Dana Mills, M.D. 0 Alternate Dawn Murer 0 Alternate David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II 0 ABSENT: Michael Norrie 0 J. D. Ruiz 0 Les Seipel 0 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Key called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the January 16, 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved by the Board with a correction on the last page noted. III. REGULAR AGENDA 1. V 02-03 Reduce Minimum Lot Size 1432 22" d Street Case No . ...................................... V 02-03 Applicant......................................Ty Elam, President, A & E Blind and Awning Property........................................1432 22nd Street, Lot 17, Block 5, Sibley Taylor Requested Action.........................Variance to subdivide a single lot into two lots that will be smaller than 5000 sq. ft. each. One lot will be 4086.6 sq. ft. and the other will be 2863 sq. ft. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 The variance would also allow a building with a zero setback in a Limited Commercial Zone. The City minimum setback is 5 feet. Purpose........................................To allow a residential structure to be platted on a separate lot from the adjacent commercial use. Commentary. The applicant is requesting a variance to replat his lot at the corner of Holliday Road and 22nd Street lot into two lots. The two new lots will be smaller than the City's minimum of 5,000 sq. ft. each. One lot containing a residence and garage will be 2,863 sq. ft. and the other containing a commercial building will be 4,086 sq. ft. The plat will also create a situation where the garage is located on the property line. This would not conform to the five-foot setback required by the zoning regulations. Therefore a variance of the 5-foot minimum setback is also required QUALIFYING CRITERIA 1. 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 building in the same district. Applicant's statement: "The lot size of the property will not meet the 5000 sq. ft. minimum after replatting." Staff response: The property owner wants to divide the lot to sell the house separate from the adjacent commercial building. State law requires that properties be platted prior to sale. 2. Demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement: "House was there when A & E purchased the lot. This was built before and purchased by A & E long before the code was enacted." Staff response: City insurance maps show that the home existed prior to 1954. 3. State how 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: "[The ordinance] prevents A & E from being able to sell the house. " Staff response: The regulation of the minimum size of a lot is not a hardship. The requirement does not prevent the sale of this lot, only its subdivision. However, there are very few properties containing a residence and a commercial business on the same lot in this area. This may be considered a unique situation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 4. State how 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: "[The] House will still be used as a residence as it was originally intended. The property was purchased long before the code was enacted." Staff response: Records show that the dwelling existed before zoning was established. Staff feels that this request does qualify for a hearing by the Board. 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 feels that granting this variance would be in the public interest. However granting this variance would result in the garage being on the new property line. Therefore the variance should include a variance to allow the garage to be on the property line rather than setback five feet. 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 existence of a commercial building on the same lot with a residence could be considered a special condition. 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 Limited Commercial, a residence 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 requirement for a minimum lot size is to insure that there is sufficient space on a lot so that it can be developed. In this case, the lot has an existing structure. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 The intent of a side setback requirement is also so that sufficient space is available for development, to prevent overcrowding and fire protection. The residential garage is attached to an adjacent commercial garage. When a new property line is created, the garage will be on the property line. The Building Code requires that a one hour firewall be installed separating the two uses. Is in harmony therewith; Staff believes that this subdivision, where no additional building is proposed will not change the conditions in the neighborhood. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; The general area is zoned Limited Commercial. It is not anticipated that this subdivision will create nuisances that will adversely impact the surrounding properties. Or detrimental to the public welfare. Granting this variance should not harm the long-term economic development of the City or affect the public in the long-term through function, appearance or layout. RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that special conditions may exist because of prior development that occurred before the applicant purchased the property. The existence of a residential dwelling adjacent to a commercial structure could be considered a special condition. Staff feels that if this variance is granted, it should include a provision that also reduces the required setback to zero feet for that portion of the garage that will be adjacent to the new property line. As a condition of this variance, the applicant shall install a firewall on each wall that is on the property line, as required by the Building Code. Chairman Key swore in the applicant, Mr. Ty Elam, and the potential owner of the house, Ms. Leslie Cyr. Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of this Variance Request: Mr. Cross made a motion to hear this case based on the fact that it does meet the qualifying criteria. Dr. Mills seconded the motion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote in favor. Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria of this Variance Request: Mr. Stillson reviewed the evaluation criteria. He stated that an additional variance will need to be considered to allow an existing structure to remain on a property line. Chairman Key suggested amending the application to include this variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 Mr. Elam reviewed the residential property explaining the area between the two buildings was covered but not physically joined together. Ms. Burgess made a motion to grant the variance with the condition that a firewall be installed on the wall on the property line and the application be amended to included a five foot setback. Mr. Cross seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. IV. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. John Key, Chairman Date BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5