Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 07/21/2010MINUTESir
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 21, 2010
PRESENT:
Dustin Nimz, Chairman
0 Members
Jerry Beaver
0
David Lane
0
Elvin Dudley
0
Jose Garcia
0
Chad Hughes
0
Kerry J. Maroney
0
Paul Walmsley
0
Kinely Hegglund, Senior Assistant City Attorney 0 Legal Dept.
Kevin Hugman, Asst. City Mgr. 0 City staff
Leo Bethge, Planner II 0
Diane Parker 0
ABSENT:
Dara Forbes 0
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Nimz called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Paul Walmsley was sworn
into office by Mr. Bethge.
II. MINUTES
Mr. Dudley made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2010 meeting of
the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Garcia seconded. The minutes were approved with a
unanimous vote in favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case V 02
A variance of 22' -5" by reducing the front yard setback from 25' to 2' -7" to
allow a front yard above ground swimming pool
3215 10th Street
The applicant, Mr. Floyd Wright, requested a variance from the Subdivision Regulations
to reduce the front yard setback from 25' to 2' -7 "; thereby requesting a variance of 22'-
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
5 ". The applicant stated he installed an above ground swimming pool in the front yard
thinking it was not a structure because it could be removed. Mr. Wright commented this
house was built in 1955 and was not designed for additional structures to be placed in
the backyard. He requested this variance because the front yard is the only available
location on his lot and because he wants to provide enjoyment for his family and
friends.
This parcel does not have sufficient space to install a pool that would be in compliance
with building codes since the interior side yard is 15 ft. and rear yard is eight (8) feet. If
this property is compared to similar properties across the street, those properties
contain more than 2,000 square feet, are configured into a square lot; and can
accommodate accessory structures because of the deeper backyard.
Qualifying Criteria:
a. The applicant stated there is no place on his lot to place a 16 foot pool and
have a clearance of 25 feet from the property line.
Staff indicated a special circumstance may exist because this applicant is not
able to use his property to its fullest extent because of platting. The interior
and rear yards are not able to accommodate structures, such as a swimming
pool.
b. The applicant stated he was not aware an above ground pool would be
considered a structure.
Staff noted a special circumstance may exist based on the platting of this
irregular corner lot.
c. The applicant stated classifying an above ground pool as a structure denied
his daughter, family, and friends of the right to enjoy having it in the yard.
Staff responded the applicant does not have the privilege of using his
property similar to his neighbors who have ample side and rear yards. The
applicant's alternative was to use his front yard.
d. The applicant felt, by granting a variance for the pool, he would have the
same rights as his neighbors.
Staff reported, based on the configuration of the lot and the placement of the
house, the applicant would not be granted special privileges or
accommodations.
Mr. Lane made a motion to accept the Qualifying Criteria; Mr. Dudley seconded. The
motion carried.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
Evaluation Criteria:
Mr. Bethge reviewed the four steps of the Evaluation Criteria in detail. In summary of
his review, the following remarks were submitted by staff: it was noted:
a. The variance would not be contrary to public interest but consideration should
be given to the neighborhood property owners;
b. A special condition existed but not a hardship since the applicant was aware
of the property's limitations when he purchased it;
c. The applicant's swimming pool request was a permissible use in a Single
Family -2 zoning district; and
d. A special circumstance may exist but the applicant knew what the limitations
of this site were before he purchased it;
The variance may not be in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance since the
majority of the pool would be in the front yard setback.
The variance could be injurious to the neighborhood concerning aesthetic
issues, community character, and property values.
This variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare because the
swimming pool is located on private property.
Chairman Nimz asked for the responses received from the 200 foot mailing be
presented to the Board. Mr. Bethge noted twenty -one (21) surrounding property
owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 4.76% replied in favor; one (1) or
4.76% replied opposed; and, three (3) or 14.29% replied as undecided or other.
Mr. Lane asked if the request was to move the pool or keep it at its present location.
Mr. Bethge replied the applicant wishes to have the pool remain in the front yard. Mr.
Lane commented the fence is eight to ten feet from the road and the pool appears
farther from the road. Mr. Bethge stated everything viewable is in the right -of -way.
From the property line [the fence] towards the house would be the setback which
makes the pool in the 25 foot setback. He further stated the proposed 2' -7" setback
places the pool outside the setback.
Mr. Wright commented he did not realize a swimming pool was considered to be a
structure. When asked if he was going to disassemble the pool, he responded if it
remained, he would not have to repeat asking for a variance each year.
Chairman Nimz remarked the neighborhood has been well maintained with no yard
trash.
To questioning, Mr. Bethge responded the 25 foot setback is the standard. The fence
is permitted in the front yard because it is not taller than four (4) feet. In this
neighborhood, some lots have downward slope to the street of approximately 2-1/2
BOARD Of ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
feet. It was noted this slope could possibly deter erratic traffic from driving onto the lot
[into the swimming pool]. Mr. Bethge stated every case is unique as a result it is
doubtful this case is establishing a precedence. Mr. Lane noted a process is in place
and conditions would have to be met in order for other residents to request swimming
pools in their front yards. Mr. Hegglund commented the decision this Board makes
would not be binding on future decisions of front yard swimming pools. Mr. Bethge
noted this variance only applies to the swimming pool on this property and not other
structures or remodeling additions to the home.
Mr. Walmsley noted a concern regarding an unattended opened gate into the pool area
on this property. Mr. Wright commented he was in the process of installing self - closing
gates; before completing the installation, he wanted to know if this variance request was
going to be approved. Currently, the gates are locked.
Mr. Bethge responded to questioning by stating the swimming pool fence is permitted
as long as it has at least 50% of the face area open and free of opaque materials and is
no taller than four (4) feet.
Mr. Maroney noted the 25 foot setback was established to create a visual corridor for
aesthetics and for the protection of the residents and public. He commented he was
unsure about his decision to grant the variance because it would not be harmonious
with the [setback] regulations. Mr. Maroney further remarked the subdivision ordinance
does not specifically state an above ground pool cannot be located within the front
setback. Mr. Lane agreed also commenting a pool situated two (2) feet from the road
seems awkward.
Mr. Lane stated a variance for a front yard structure should be taken quite seriously;
due to the nature of the location of this house on this particular lot, he moved to grant
the variance request. This motion died for lack of a second. The discussion resumed.
Mr. Hegglund explained to questioning the variance would be in place as long as the
structure [swimming pool] is located in that position on the lot. If the owner should sell
the property with the pool in place, the variance remains in effect.
Mr. Maroney asked if conditions could be placed on the approval. Mr. Hegglund
commented the structure would have to comply with the building codes and conditions
cannot be part of the approval process.
Mr. Lane made a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Garcia seconded. There
were five (5) in favor with Mr. Beaver, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Lane, Mr. Maroney, and Mr.
Walmsley voting to approve this request. Three (3) responded opposed: Mr. Hughes,
Mr. Dudley, and Chairman Nimz. The motion passed and the variance was granted.
IV. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Dustin Nimz, Chairman
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
Date