Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 09/20/2000MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 20, 2000
RECEIVED IN
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PRESENT:
John Key, Acting Chairman 0 Members
Don McKinney 0
Charles A. Peters, III 0
J. D. Ruiz 0
Les Seipel 0
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0 City Staff
ABSENT:
Rainer Hanold, Chairman 0 Members
Michael Norrie 0
Willa Burgess 0.
Luther Houston 0
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Key.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Peters made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 31 and August 16,
2000 meetings. Mr. McKinney seconded the motion. Both sets of minutes were
approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Variance to Reduce the Front Setback from 25 to 10 Feet
8 & 9 Worthington Court
Case V 00 -06
Applicant ........... ............................... David Rhone, for Rhone Building Corp.
Property ............ ............................... #8 & #9 Worthington Court, Lots 12 & 13, Block 2, Knob
Hill Section One.
Requested Action ............................ Variance
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7
Purpose ............ ............................... This is a variance to reduce the front setback on two lots
from 25 feet to 10 feet. The applicant seeks this variance
to allow more space on the lot for a structure and
backyard.
Commentary:
The applicant requests a variance to reduce the front yard building line from 25 feet to 10 feet.
A 10 -foot building line would allow a house to be built as close as 10 feet from the front property
line. These lots, located on a cul -de -sac, are part of a specially created Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning district, approved in 1994. The PUD regulations require a 25 -foot
front setback, the same as the Zoning Ordinance.
After platting these lots, the developer (not the applicant) dedicated a 15 -foot access easement
strip along the back line of these tracts, reducing the lot depth. The easement provided access
to other lots next to these properties. The developer also paved a 9 -foot wide access driveway
in the easement. The easement cannot be fenced or incorporated into the backyard. The
reduced the lot depths effect the applicant's lots more than the others on the block as his lots
have the least depth.
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: "[The] 10 foot paved access in back of the lots reduces the
available usable land. The paved access takes up what would be used for backyard."
Staff response: Staff agrees that the 15 -foot access easement along the back of these
lots reduces the useable area on the applicant's lot.
b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "Paved access was done prior to our purchase of the lots in
question. Platting was also done prior to our purchase of the lots."
Staff response: The developer dedicated the strip after the Worthington Court properties
were platted. Planning Commission required a rear access for lots north of Worthington
Court that fronted on Missile Road. The easement was taken off the back of the
Worthington Court properties.
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: 'The paved space would [otherwise] be used as a backyard. As
it stands, by having a 25 -foot building limit line coupled with the paved access, the
backyard is going to be nonexistent. Reductions in the 25 foot building limit line would
allow some backyard for houses on either lot."
Staff Response: The available space for a backyard is dependent on the size of the
house to be constructed. The applicant has supplied a floor plan of the proposed
house, but its location on the lot is not shown. Staff estimates that the house will be
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
about 35-40 feet deep on the west side of the lot. With a 25 -foot front setback, the lot
has a buildable depth of 46 feet.
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: "Waiving of the 25 foot building limit line would only allow for
backyard use, something that should be offered with any home. Since the homes in the
neighborhood have backyards, the adding space to the backs of the lots would not be a
special privilege."
Staff response: Staff agrees with the applicant concerning the benefits of a backyard.
Having a backyard is not a special privilege. By increasing the backyard area, the
residence is moved forward resulting in a reduced the area in the front. The purpose of
having a front setback is to allow a visual corridor and to prevent overcrowding. In a
residential area the front setback also provides a space for a driveway for a front entry
garage. The driveway should be long enough to accommodate a vehicle parked outside
the garage, so that the vehicle does not block the sidewalk. The typical 25 -foot setback
provides that space for parked cars.
Staff feels that this request contains 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 suggests that the
following evaluation criteria be used:
a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
This variance may be contrary to the public interest if the visual corridor is interrupted in
a way harmful to the other properties and inadequate space for the parking of vehicles
is the result. There are other houses constructed on this cul -de -sac that have a 25 -foot
setback.
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 reduced lot depth of the lot created by the access easement creates 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 Single Family. This activity is a permitted use in this zone.
d. The granting of the variance:
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
The intent of the regulation of the regulation of setbacks in to insure a visual
corridor, prevent overcrowding and to provide enough room for vehicle parking
within the property. Staff feels that a reduction to 10 feet may adversely impact
the existing pattern of setbacks and will not provide enough room for the parking
of vehicles. However without a site plan, measuring the full impact on the
adjacent lots is difficult.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - PAGE 3
Is in harmony therewith;
Staff feels that a reduction to 20 feet would not disturb the existing setback
patterns and would be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
A reduction of the front setback to 10 feet may have an adverse impact on the
neighborhood.
Or detrimental to the public welfare.
Granting a variance to 20 feet would allow adequate parking and open space
and would not be detrimental to the public welfare.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends a reduction of the front setback to 20 feet rather than 10 feet because of
concerns for the harmony with existing setbacks and driveway parking.
Mr. Stillson reviewed the qualifying criteria as outlined above.
Mr. David Rhone, applicant, was sworn in by Chairman Key. He gave a brief background
regarding the original developer and the purchase of those properties by Rhone Building. Mr.
Rhone then explained the qualifying criteria by stating the 10 foot paved access as well as a
additional five foot private access is more prevalent on these two lots because of their
relationship to the radius of the cul -de -sac. He further stated that building any size home within
the 25 foot front setback would deny these lots of backyards. He stated that he is not trying to
overbuild in this subdivision but construct affordable houses similar to the ones already built.
The possibility of rear access driveways was discussed.
Mr. McKinney made a motion to hear Variance 00 -06 based on the fact that it meets the
qualifying criteria. Mr. Seipel seconded the motion. It was passed with a unanimous vote in
favor.
Mr. Stillson presented the evaluation criteria as outlined above. Mr. Rhone reviewed each of
the four items in detail. He suggested the Board place conditional use restriction to rear access
garages on the two lots. This could leave more area for less setback than is required. The
setback as it relates to a cul -de -sac was discussed among the board members.
Chairman Key suggested a 10 foot setback with rear access or a 20 foot setback with a front
entry garage. Mr. Rhone stated the 10 foot setback with rear access would be most appealing
to him. Two -story construction, after discussion, was determined economically inappropriate for
this lot.
The neighborhood notification was discussed. Twenty -five surrounding property owners were
notified of this variance request. Three (3) or 12.0% replied in favor and none (0) were
opposed. Mr. Peters mentioned that two of the three responses in favor did not live in the area
and one of which was the previous owner of these properties.
Chairman Key suggested a 10 foot setback with rear access or 15 — 20 foot setback with front
garage access consequently giving the applicant an option of the two. The pros and cons of
front and rear entry garages were discussed.
Mr. Peters made a motion to grant this variance request.which would allow the applicant to
construct a rear access garage resulting in a front setback of 15 feet. The motion was
seconded and approved with a unanimously vote in favor.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
IV. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
John Key, Acting Chairman
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5
Date