Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 06/15/2011MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 15, 2011 PRESENT: Dustin Nimz, Chairman 0 Members Jerry Beavers 0 Jose Garcia 0 Kerry J. Maroney 0 Chad Hughes 0 Alternate #1 Kinley Hegglund, Senior Assistant City Attorney 0 Legal Dept. Norm Standerfer, Director of Community Development 0 city staff Marty Odom, Planner II 0 Leo Bethge, Planner II 0 Diane Parker 0 ABSENT: Elvin Dudley 0 Member Dara Forbes 0 Alternate #3 David Lane 0 Alternate #2 Paul Walmsley 0 Alternate #4 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Nimz called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. II. APPOINTMENT OF A VICE CHAIRMAN BY THE CHAIRMAN Chairman Nimz appointed Elvin Dudley to the position of Vice Chairman for the remainder of this year. III. MINUTES Mr. Garcia made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2011 Board of Adjustment meeting; Mr. Beaver seconded. The motion carried. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 IV. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case V 11 -05 Request for variance to allow the platting of a nonconforming 45' wide lot in order to construct a new home 2012 Speedway Avenue The applicant, Susan Goetz, requested a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to lot reduce the minimum width of a residential lot from Addition 5wa Records orig originally atted I and was platted as a 50' lot. when the Harrison of developed in the late 1920's. This parcel became unp acted due so land exc hated a five feet being sold to the neighbor on the west nonconforming lot width. The applicant stated there was a house on this lot; in 2004, it was destroyed by fire. The proposed house would be 34' wide which would accommodate both five foot interior side yard setbacks. Qualifying Criteria: a. The applicant stated the lot is 45' wide. Variance approval was requested to build a residence because [the lot] is shy of the 50' minimum requirement. Staff noted a special circumstance may exist since the lot width for single family is nonconforming at 45'. b. The applicant stated the lot was purchased in good faith to build a new residence. Staff commented the applicant may have been unaware of the nonconforming situation [when the lot was purchased]. C. The applicant noted some homes in this vicinity were built on similar sized lots. The former residence on this lot was built in 1928 but was destroyed by fire in 2004. A builder purchased the lot then cleared unless preparation fora new new s The lot is currently vacant and will remain s approved. Staff stated, in 1928, there was a conforming single) family house to builtd on a this property; however it was destroyed by fire 2004. The app plans one -story house to fit within this reduced lot width. d. The applicant stated a one -story residence is planned for her to reside in during her retirement years. The house will be similar in size and appearance to the surrounding homes and will add aesthetic value h neighborhood. The use of the family property will be the same as other nearby single y Staff's response was allowing a reduced lot width would not create an BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 inconsistency in the neighborhood since the applicant has designed a home to fit within a 45' lot width. Building a home would help improve both land value and aesthetics within the immediate area. Twenty -three (23) notifications of this request were mailed to the surrounding property owners. Two (2) responded as in favor; none (0) were opposed; and, one (1) was undecided /no opinion. Staff felt the qualifying criteria was meant and recommended review of the evaluation criteria. Mr. Mahoney made a motion to accept the qualifying criteria; Mr. Hughes seconded. The motion carried. Evaluation Criteria: Mr. Bethge reviewed the Evaluation Criteria with the Board. In summary, staff determined a special condition may exist since the lot is five (5) feet less in width than surrounding lots and was originally sold prior to the City's adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. This variance would permit a home to be built on a substandard lot as well as promote stronger land values and improve the neighborhood aesthetics. He noted that staff acknowledged a hardship and a special circumstance may exist. Staff recommended approval of the variance. The applicant's representative was in the audience and available for questioning. Mr. Garcia made a motion to approve this variance; Mr. Maroney seconded. The motion carried. 2. Case V 11 -06 Request for a variance to locate a storage building three feet from a common property line instead of the required 17' and three feet from the street front property line instead of the required 15' 2203 Taft The applicant, Jewelline Stephens, owns the home built on a residential lot in 1927 on Taft. Through the years, there have been property realignments including the combination of lots which is the case with this property. A portion of the rear of the Taft lot was combined with the lot to the north at 2161 Avenue L resulting in the remainder of the rear Taft lot having only a 22' width. The applicant recently demolished a 6' x 12' storage building that had a nonconforming setback from Kell Blvd. The ordinance allows nonconforming accessory buildings to be rebuilt provided the new structure is the same size or smaller and is located in the same location as the previous structure. Ms. Stephens is requesting this variance to place a significantly larger accessory building of 16' x 16' x 17' in the same general location. The ordinance requires accessory structures over 15' tall to have a setback from a common property line equal BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 to the overall height. The setback requirement for the proposed structure would be 17' from the north property line and 15' from the Kell Blvd. right -of -way. With the three foot setback requested, there would be a reduction of 14' and 12' respectively. Qualifying Criteria: a. The applicant stated, "my lot is a peculiar shape which makes my request questionable where as most people's lots are not odd shaped, which is why this has to go before the board ". Staff commented the configuration of the lot may be considered a special circumstance. The rear yard is 22' wide which does not enable full use of the property and does not allow enough area for setbacks of an accessory building. b. The applicant stated when she purchased the lot it was in the current configuration. Staff noted a special circumstance may exist based on the former owner selling approximately half of the rear yard to the north property, 2161 Avenue L. C. The applicant stated, "I believe the lot is odd shaped and the footage required may be slightly not exactly on the mark ". Staff commented the applicant does not have the use of the rear yard to construct a larger accessory building because of insufficient space to comply with the setbacks. It was noted by staff the selected storage building is much larger than other storage buildings in the area. d. The applicant did not feel a special privilege existed because the previous [accessory] building was grandfathered and the new building would not interfere with anyone's property. She stated she needed a more solid storage building with more room. Staff noted the applicant would not be receiving special privileges or accommodations; however, staff does have concerns regarding the extreme size and height of the structure. Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified of this variance request. One (1) reply was in favor; none (0) were opposed; and, one (1) was undecided /no opinion. Staff felt the qualifying criteria was meant and recommended review of the evaluation criteria. Mr. Maroney made a motion to accept the Qualifying Criteria; Mr. Beaver seconded. The motion carried. Evaluation Criteria Mr. Bethge reviewed the Evaluation Criteria with the Board. In summary, staff determined a storage building of this size would not be compatible with the surrounding BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 neighborhood. Approval could go beyond the intent of the variance process and could produce a lessening of code requirements to such a degree that it would not be considered "in harmony" with the intent of the ordinance. Staff recommends denial of the variance for this storage building. Staff felt approval of a smaller accessory building would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Ms. Stephens stated she previously had a storage building on this lot. The proposed building has a second floor which she plans to use "to do projects ". Chairman Nimz stated his concern is for the height of the building. He commented, after the freeway construction, some of the lots abutting Kell resulted in unusual shapes. Mr. Maroney asked if a 16' x 16', one story building would be acceptable. Mr. Bethge replied staff is concerned about the height; any setback over the requirement is based on the height of the accessory building. Chairman Nimz asked about the maximum allowable height in the ordinance. Mr. Bethge replied there is no maximum. A building height of 15' and above would require a setback of equal distance; below 15', the setback would be five feet from the back and three feet on each side. He noted that a height lower than 15' would require a variance of two (2) feet. Mr. Beaver asked if the height of the proposed building were 17' and the difference would be two (2) feet; Mr. Bethge agreed. Mr. Garcia asked if there were two issues, the setback and the height; Mr. Bethge replied there were two variances for the setback, one to the north side and one to the south because the height is greater than 15'. Mr. Garcia asked the applicant if a building with a height of 15' would be acceptable. Ms. Stephens explained smaller buildings did not have a loft. Chairman Nimz asked if she chose a smaller building [in height] would it be single story; Ms. Stephens replied affirmatively. She stated she consulted a builder about lowering the height and was told there would be no way to walk on the second floor. Chairman Nimz stated there would not be many uses for the segmented portion of that lot. Mr. Garcia stated there has been plenty of work done on that corner. Mr. Hughes believed there might have been telephone lines in the alley. Mr. Odom noted the space in the alley was cramped and he asked if the fence would be removed in order to place the building on the lot. Ms. Stephens stated it would be lifted over the fence. Mr. Beaver asked about the placement of the building. Mr. Bethge showed the Board on the diagram. Mr. Beaver asked if the majority of the structure would be visible from the chain link fence in the alley and the 11' exposed over the privacy fence on the freeway side of the lot. Ms. Stephens replied affirmatively. Mr. Garcia made a motion to grant the variance; Mr. Beaver seconded. The vote was four (4) in favor [Messrs. Nimz, Beaver, Hughes, and Garcia] and one (1) opposed [Mr. Maroney]. V. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 1:57 p.m. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5 Dustin Nimz, Chairman Date BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6 RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: I" -2-v -1 BY: TIME: