Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 05/20/2026 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 20, 2026 PRESENT: Jose Garcia •Member Kerry Maroney •Member Richard Milhollon •Member Sam Pak •Member Kinley Hegglund, City Attorney •city staff Rita Miller, Assistant Development Services Director •city staff Christal Cates, Planner II ♦City Staff ABSENT: Brady Enlow •Chairman Blake Haney •Alternate Caleb Perkins •Member Councilor Whitney Flack •Liaison Teresa Rose •SAFB Ex-Officio I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Kerry Maroney called the meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Mr. Maroney introduced the board of adjustment members. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Maroney asked if there were any members of the public that would like to make any comments on items not listed on the agenda. No comments were made. IV. ADOPTION OF MINTES — NOVEMBER 20, 2024 Mr. Maroney asked Board members to review any revisions that may be needed to the minutes. Mr. Garcia made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 20, 2024, Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Milhollon seconded. The vote carried unanimously 4-0. IV. REGULAR AGENDA Case V 26-02 2409 Fillmore Street wp. Request for a variance Section 3100, § 3140.2 to allow for an 18-foot reduction from the required minimum 50-foot lot width in a Single Family 2 (SF-2) zoning district. Mrs. Christal Cates presented the case and stated the applicant and owner, Mr. David Park, had been proposing to defer, or deviate from our zoning ordinance Section 3140 — Development Regulations which requires a lot in the Single Family-2 (SF-2) Residential zoning district to have a lot width minimum of 50ft. Ms. Cates stated the owner Mr. Park would like to subdivide the two residential structures on the property and sell each one individually but would not be able to do so due the residence to the south being built almost center of the property, and not allowing for a minimum width of the northern residence. Ms. Cates stated platting of the property was important because it ensured safe & orderly growth by creating an official public record of exact lot boundaries, row, and utility easements that will prevent future property disputes. Mrs. Cates advised the subject property was centrally located in the city in the Heart of the Falls Neighborhood Revitalization Area the first revitalization zone that City Council has approved for incentives for new construction and/or rehabilitation of structures within that zone. It is one block east of Kemp Blvd, north of the Avenue 0 and Fillmore Street intersection. Mrs. Cates displayed an aerial map showing the surrounding neighborhood and the subject property that was originally subdivided in 1910 as part of the Highland Addition. A site plan was shown with the proposed property divided, with the northern lot having a width of 32 feet. Mrs. Cates showed photos of the properties that where developed in 1935 as well as the surrounding properties. A zoning map was displayed and showed the subject property was located inside a Single Family 2 zoning district and was surrounded by that same district, which covers residential uses in the area. Mrs. Cates stated staff notified 24 property owners in the surrounding 200sf. of the subject property and received two responses, both in favor of granting the variance. Mrs. Cates advised the variance would be presented in two phases, the first being the review of the qualifying criteria. By ordinance, the petition must meet certain criteria to be considered in phase II, the evaluation criteria. The questions asked and responses are listed below. 1. State special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other land, structures, or building in the same district. Applicant's statement. Need to subdivide the property to separate the two residential structures to sell. Mrs. Cates stated staff agrees that special conditions and circumstances exist at this property within the district.The current residential structures were built in 1935, 8 some 50 years prior to the City's adoption of zoning regulations establishing minimum lot size requirements for development. 2. Demonstrate that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement: 1 purchased the properties like they are currently. Mrs. Cates noted staff has verified that the conditions and circumstances surrounding this request for a variance are not the result of the applicant's actions. Mr. Park did not have anything to do with the location of the property and did not build the homes as that was done by a developer in the 30's. 3. State how a 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: I am stuck with two homes on one property. Mrs. Cates advised a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Ordinance would prevent the approval of a plat to subdivide the property due to the minimum width requirement not being met. Mr. Park could sell the property by meets and bounds but that would only pass this issue on to two other home owners that would not have an official document of exact lot boundaries. 4. State how granting the variance would be in harmony with the objectives of the Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege, which is denied by the Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Applicant's statement 1 would be able to sell the individual homes on their respective properties like other citizens. Mrs. Cates stated the variance would only grant privileges currently exercised by the surrounding properties by allowing the owner to subdivide the property for each residential structure to sell as a person would in this district and that Mr. Park would still meet all required setback requirements of the zoning district. Mrs. Cates allowed for members to review the qualifying criteria. Mr. Kerry Maroney stated discussion among the Board was open. Mr. Pak asked if there were other surrounding properties with widths that matched the subject property. Mrs. Cates *,, stated there were multiple properties within the area that would not meet the development regulations. Mr. Pak also asked if the lot could be made bigger. Mrs. Cates advised once a land surveyor had been contracted by the owner they would be 9 able to give the actual width of the property. Mr. Garcia made a motion to approve the qualifying criteria. Mr. Milhollon seconded the motion which passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0. Mr. Maroney advised the Board would next consider the evaluation criteria. Mrs. Cates presented the 2nd phase of the variance proposal which was the evaluation criteria that is reviewed by staff as listed below: 1. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. 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. 3. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land, which is not allowed by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The granting of the variance: • Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; • Is in harmony therewith; and • Will not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. Mrs. Cates said staff believes the reduction of the required lot width does not give special privilege because the owner will still be in compliance with all the other ordinances and setbacks for general development. Without the granting of this variance Mr. Park could still sell the properties by meets and bounds however, the new property owners would still not have an official public record of exact lot boundaries and right-of-ways. Furthermore, if in the future the property owner wanted to have a secondary structure such as a storage building, permits could not be issued due to the property not be platted and confirming property lines. This would still be a hardship that would only be passed to two other property owners. Mr. Maroney asked the owner and applicant, Mr. Park if he had any comments or anything he would like to present to the Board. Mr. Park stated he was there if the Board had questions, but that Mrs. Cates did a wonderful job and had nothing to add. Mr. Maroney asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Maroney stated that closed the portion of the meeting for the public to comment and opened up the discussion among the board members. Mr. Pak asked if we could change the request to say"a reduction of the required width up to" 18 feet rather than "a reduction of 18 feet". Mrs. Cates advised Mr. Pak the Board could make that change when a motion was presented. Mr. Pak made a motion to approve the variance to allow up to an eighteen (18) foot reduction from the required minimum fifty (50)foot lot width in a Single Family-2 (SF- 2) Residential Zoning district. Mr. Garcia seconded the motion which passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0. -400.0 10 V. ADJOURN Mrs. Cates advised the Board that staff had a potential petition to present next month's law meeting on June 17th, 2026. Chairman adjourned the Board at 1:53 p.m. .9___(.....D G- I1-Ur Brady , Chairman Date tea 6)- 17-fi2 F ede in AICP, Director of Development Services Date liew 11