Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 11/21/20121
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 21, 2012
PRESENT:
Dustin Nimz, Chairman
Jose Garcia
Chad Hughes
David Lane
Kerry J. Maroney
r•r:
Tyson Traw
Kinely Hegglund, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator
Marty Odom, Planner III (�
Monique Coleman, Planner II I
Diane Parker
ABSENT: W 4
Annetta Pope
Jerry Beavers
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Nimz called the meeting to order at 1:30 p
II. MINUTES
4
s'y °� Y_, e , •
1 ss r {,
0 Members
0
0
0 Alternate #1
0
0 Alternate #4
0 Legal Dept
0 City Staff
0
0
0 Council Liaison
0 Member
Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 18, 2012 Zoning Board
of Adjustment meeting; Mr. Garcia seconded. The minutes were approved with a
unanimous vote in favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case V 12 -04
Request for a variance of approximately 5 feet, 6 inches from the 30 foot
front building limit line in order to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot addition to
an existing home
1213 Glidewell Avenue
Ms. Coleman stated this variance request is for 5 feet, 6 inches from the 30 foot front
building limit line in order to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot addition to an existing home.
The applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Donal Merriex have resided in their home on Glidewell since
1979.
In November 2012, Mr. Merriex requested a permit to construct an addition to their
home. The Planning Division reviewed the original property survey and determined this
property was platted with a 30 foot front setback. The lot is on a curvilinear street and,
accompanied with the 30 foot setback, appeared to establish peculiar conditions and an
undue hardship on the applicants.
After reviewing the case, staff advised Mr. Merriex that the proposed addition would
extend approximately 5 feet, 6 inches into the front setback and would require a
variance. Staff advised Mr. Merriex the Qualifying Criteria must be met to allow for the
variance.
Qualifying Criteria:
a. Special conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building.
The applicants stated "the lot is oddly shaped and was platted with a 30 foot
setback instead of the City's minimum 25 foot setback."
Staff's response was the lot was platted in 1955 as part of the Sunnyside
Heights Addition. This corner lot has a unique shape as well as a curving front
property line. It was platted with a 30 foot building limit line which is greater than
the City standard of 25 feet.
b. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the applicants' actions.
The applicants stated "the plat was filed with the county in 1955." [The applicants
have resided in this home since 1979.]
Staff's response was the curved shape of the lot with the 30 foot building limit
line is a result of the original design and not a result of the applicants' actions.
C. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the
applicants of a right commonly enjoyed by the other persons.
The applicants stated "other lots in the area do not have such an odd shape,
which causes the requested addition to slightly extend into the 30 foot setback."
Staff's response was the applicants' property is on the curvilinear portion of the
street while the other lots in the immediate area are not on a curve.
d. The granting of the variance would be in harmony with the objectives of the
ordinance and would not confer upon the applicants any special privilege.
The applicants stated "the use of the building will not change; it will remain as a
residential use."
..
Staff responded by stating the granting of a variance would not create a use that
is not allowed within the Single Family -2 zoning district.
Mr. Maroney made a motion to accept the Qualifying Criteria; Mr. Hughes seconded.
The motion carried.
Evaluation Criteria:
Ms. Coleman reviewed the Evaluation Criteria with the Board. In summary, staff
determined granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest. A special
condition existed other than a financial hardship whereby a literal enforcement of the
terms of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicants. The
granting of the variance would not permit an activity which is not allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance. Ms. Coleman continued stating this variance is consistent with the intent of
the ordinance, is in harmony therewith, and would not be injurious to the neighborhood
or detrimental to the public welfare.
Ms. Coleman stated staff recommended approval of the variance request. If the
variance is approved, the applicants must adhere to the 180 -day period in which a
building permit should be obtained to prevent forfeiture or lapse of approval of the
variance granted by this Board.
Chairman Nimz asked how much the home would extend into the setback. Mr. Odom
showed a diagram and explained the new structure would extend 5 feet, 6 inches into
the setback.
Ms. Coleman stated twenty -one (21) surrounding property owners were notified of this
request. Three (3) or 14.29% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Maroney asked if the addition would be a carport. Ms. Coleman stated it was not a
carport but an addition to his house.
Mr. Lane made a motion to grant the variance for Case V 12 -04 at 1213 Glidewell
Avenue; Mr. Maroney seconded. The motion passed.
IV. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 1:42 p.m.
r�
3l I
Joe Garcia, Vice Chairman Date