Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 10/16/2002MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
October 16, 2002
PRESENT:
RECEIVED IN
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date - 14 C�--
By _Time �(
Willa Burgess 0 Members
Jose Garcia 0 Alternate
Dana Mills, M.D. 0
J. D. Ruiz 0
Les Seipel, Acting Chair 0
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff
Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0
ABSENT:
John Key, Chairman 0 Members
Thomas Cross 0
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Seipel called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the April 17, 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved by the
Board as submitted.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. V 02 -04
Reduce Setbacks to Construct A Two Story Accessory Building
2003 Avondale
Applicant ....... ............................... Mac Fitzsimmons, M. D.
Property ........ ............................... 2003 Avondale Street, Lot 12 E 5 ft., Lot 11, Block 2,
Country Club Estates
Requested Action ........................ Variance to allow construction of a 26 ft. high, 2 -story
detached building, setback 9 ft. from the west
property line and 6.5 ft. from the south property line.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
The present building is 8.5 feet from the west line and
8 feet from the south line.
Purpose ........ ............................... To allow construction of a 26 foot tall detached
garage in similar location as an existing single story
garage.
Zoning .......... ............................... Single Family One
Commentary:
The subject residential property, zoned Single Family -1, is located on Avondale Street,
east of Hamilton Boulevard. The applicant plans to demolish the single story garage
that exists on the site. He is requesting a variance to build a replacement accessory
structure to be used as a detached (26 ft tall) garage. The ground floor will be a garage
and a utility room. A residential unit is not indicated. The second story will be attic space
accessible by a pull -down stairway.
Section 6500 of the Zoning Ordinance, Accessory Use Regulations, paragraph 6516
states: [the] side setback interior will be 5 feet minimum, except when the wall height
exceeds 8 foot or the total height exceeds 15 feet, the setback shall be equal to the
total height. The applicant requests permission to construct with a setback of only 9 feet
to the west property line and 6.5 feet to the south property line. Since the proposed
structure height is 26 feet; the ordinance requires that the building be setback 26 feet
from the side and rear property line.
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] Zoning ordinance regarding setback from property
line for new construction over 16 feet."
Staff response: The property owner wants to build an accessory structure that is
less than the required setback. The applicant states there are other structures in
the area that are over 15 feet tall and do not meet the setback. His request
suggests that those buildings are part of the pattern of development in the
neighborhood.
To determine the conditions in the neighborhood, staff measured the heights of
the residences and accessory buildings along this block of Avondale on the
same side of the street. Staff used electronic measuring equipment to measure
structure heights. Since staff was not able to go into backyards to measure
distances, the setbacks are estimates based on measurements from topographic
maps of the area.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
RESIDENCE GARAGE SIDE REAR
ADDRESS HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT (FT) SETBACK (FT)
SETBACK (FT)
2035 Avondale 22 N/A N/A N/A
2031 Avondale 32 23 25 12
2027 Avondale 26 22 41 20
2025 Avondale 22 11 6 15
2019 Avondale 23 19 3 16
2017 Avondale 22 15 5 17
2015 Avondale 19 15 3 16
2003 Avondale 24 14 9 14
applicant's property
Note: all measurements are approximate
Note: the underlined, bold setbacks do not meet current requirements for the
garage /building height
The survey showed that some buildings were constructed with setbacks less
than required by the current regulations. However the proposed two -story
garage will be taller than any other garage on this block. Also it will be taller than
the main residence on his lot (24 feet). The applicant should present a case
further explaining the hardship or special conditions in this case.
2. Demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances do not result from
the actions of the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "[A] Garage already exists on this spot, not enough room
on property to move it without attaching to house."
Staff response: Some neighborhood structures built in earlier years do not meet
the setbacks of the zoning ordinance. Of the twelve adjacent setbacks surveyed,
five were not in compliance. In the applicant's case, he states that prior
construction in this neighborhood creates a special condition.
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 construction of 2 -story
detached building at site of existing structure. "
Staff response: The regulation prevents the applicant from constructing an
accessory building in the desired location. The applicant has stated that
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
requiring the 26 ft. setback would result in an awkward backyard and that others
in the neighborhood enjoy buildings that do not meet the ordinance.
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: "Similar 2 -story detached structures are common in this
neighborhood (Country Club): most date back to original construction of
neighborhood."
Staff response: Records show that the dwelling, and those in the surrounding
area, existed before zoning was established. Most of the homes on this block
were constructed between 1929 -1947. The applicant's residence was
constructed in 1930.
Staff feels that based on the information available, this request not qualify for a hearing
by the Board. Staff has concerns in addition to the setback issue. This accessory
building will be taller than any other measured on the block, and that it will be taller than
the residence it serves. The applicant should provide additional information on the
difficulties in constructing at the required 26 -foot setback.
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 the public interest would be served if the Board decides to grant
variance based on a finding of a special condition or hardship.
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 applicant should provide more information upon which the Board could
make a finding on the question of unnecessary hardship.
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 One, an accessory structure is a permitted
use in this zoning district provided it meets setback and height requirements.
d. The granting of the variance:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
The intent of the requirement for a maximum height of accessory buildings
is to protect adjacent property owners from non - aesthetically pleasing
structures that would interfere with the enjoyment of their own property.
If the Board determines that a hardship or special conditions exist, the
granting of a variance would be consistent with the intent of this ordiance.
Is in harmony therewith;
Staff has recommended conditions that may make this variance more
compatible with the surrounding properties.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
The total height of the structure is taller than the primary residence and
the placement of some windows could have potential adverse impacts.
Staff has made recommendations that would limit possible harm to the
neighborhood.
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
If the Board finds that special conditions or hardships exist, staff recommends the
following conditions:
1. The proposed construction is adjacent to a utility easement. A surveyor should
assure that the building does not overhang or encroach the easement.
2. The proposed structure should be limited in height to no taller than the primary
structure, as is the pattern on this block. Staff has measured the residence
height at 24 feet.
3. If concerns are raised concerning the proposed window on the west side and the
privacy of the adjacent neighbor's back yard, the Board may consider eliminating
the second story window.
Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of this Variance Request:
Mr. Seese presented the case noting that there were several structures in the
neighborhood that did not comply with the setbacks; however, those building were
constructed prior to the establishment of zoning in 1985. Mr. Seese stated there does
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5
not appear to be a hardship nor is there a particular uniqueness that would cause this
case to qualify. He also stated that staff does not feel this case meets the criteria to be
heard by this Board.
Chairman Seipel asked if the applicant should seek a waiver from Council. Mr. Seese
replied that presenting this case to Council would be an alternative if this Board chose
not to hear this case.
Dr. Mills asked if the upper portion of the building would be an apartment. Mr. Seese
replied that it would not. Dr. Mills asked if there were responses from the neighbors.
Mr. Seese stated that 14 surrounding property owners were notified of this request.
Three replied in favor and none were opposed.
Mr. Seese reviewed the criteria again and summarized by stating that this structure
would be nonconforming. He again stated there were no special circumstances to
warrant approval of a variance.
Mr. Stillson commented that there were no situations in this neighborhood where the
garage height exceeded that of the residence. There were also very few setbacks that
were not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Garcia asked if the building were constructed at a lower height, would the applicant
still need a variance. Mr. Seese replied that the side setback would probably need a
variance. The height of the building dictates the setback requirement.
Chairman Seipel asked if the current garage had damage to it.
Dr. Fitzsimmons, applicant, stated that it does have damage. He stated that he has
decided to eliminate the second floor of the building. There will be no plumbing to the
garage at all. He described the damage to the current garage from heavy rains that
flood the back of his property and garage. He stated that it was less expensive to
construct a new building that to repair the existing one.
Chairman Seipel asked if the new construction were one story, would the applicant
need a variance. Mr. Seese stated if the wall height did not exceed eight feet and the
overall height did not exceed 15 feet, he would not be required to get a variance. As
the wall height and overall height get taller, then the setback increases and a variance
would be required.
Dr. Fitzsimmons stated he does not have much space in his yard and is more
concerned about utilizing the back corner of his property. He then stated that he would
like to make the structure wider and deeper than the existing structure.
Chairman Seipel suggested the applicant submit a new site plan to staff then if a
variance is required he could reapply. Mr. Seese stated there is not enough information
regarding the change in his plans to decide if a variance will be required.
Dr. Mills made a motion to deny the acceptance of the qualifying criteria. Ms. Burgess
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6
seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to deny the criteria.
IV. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
John Key, Chairman
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7
Date