Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 02/19/2014MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 19, 2014
PRESENT:
Jerry Beaver 0 Members
Jose Garcia, Vice Chairman 0
Kerry J. Maroney 0
Tyson Traw 0 Alternate #4
Steve Lane 0 Alternate #2
Annetta Pope - Dotson 0 Council Liaison
Kinely Hegglund, Senior Assistant City Attorney 0 Legal Dept.
James McKechnie, Assistant City Attorney 0
Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator 0members
Leo Mantey, Planner 1 0
Eric Kozielski, Planning Technician 0
ABSENT:
Dustin Nimz, Chairman 0 Members
Chad Hughes 0
David Lane 0 Altemate #1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Garcia called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
11. MINUTES
Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 16, 2013 meeting of
the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Beaver seconded. The minutes were approved with a
unanimous vote in favor.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 11
111. REGULAR AGENDA
1. V 14 -01
Request to approve a variance to encroach into the 25 ft. building limit line
along Kinsale Court in order to construct a 19 ft. x 23 ft. garage
1430 Deville Street
Scott Autin of A -Plus Construction represented the property owner, Barbara Majewsky.
This home was constructed with a diagonal orientation on a corner lot. The lot was
platted with a 25 ft. building limit line along Deville and Kinsale Court. Staff advised Mr.
Autin that residential corner lots are typically platted with a 25 ft. building limit line and a
15 ft. building limit line along the exterior side property line. Staff felt this property
appeared to meet all Board of Adjustment criteria and would qualify for a variance of 11
ft. into the exterior side setback.
Qualifying Criteria:
Special conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building.
Applicant's statement: [A special condition exists because of] the orientation of
the house with consideration given to the front and exterior side setback.
Staff response: Staff agrees the orientation of the house to the two streets
creates a special condition and a unique circumstance.
2. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the applicants' actions.
Applicant's statement: [There was a] pre - existing 25 ft. setback when the owner
purchased the house.
Staff response: The house was built in 1959; the owner purchased the home in
2013. The two 25 ft. building limit lines appear to have existed since 1959.
3. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the
applicants of a right commonly enjoyed by the other persons.
Applicant's statement: A 15 ft. [exterior] side setback would allow the garage
addition to be developed without the need for a variance
Staff response: Staff agreed with the applicant's statement. Current zoning
requirements of 25 ft. for the front building limit line and a 15 ft. exterior side
building limit line for residential corner lots would give this property owner the
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same neighborhood.
4. 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.
Applicant's statement: A 15 ft. [exterior] side setback is applicable in the
remainder of residential neighborhoods.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
Staff response: A variance would create a use that is allowed in a Single Family-
2 zoning district. The garage addition will be within the 15 ft. exterior side
setback (building limit line) which would also be consistent with the ordinance
and setback regulations.
Twenty -four surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) or 25.0%
responded in favor. No negative responses were received.
Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the Qualifying Criteria; Mr. Beaver seconded.
The variance passed with a unanimous vote.
Evaluation Criteria:
Mr. Mantey reviewed the Evaluation Criteria with the Board. In summary, staff
determined granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest; a special
condition exists other than a financial hardship, whereby a literal enforcement of the
terms of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. The
granting of the variance would not permit an activity which is not allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Mantey continued by 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.
Mr. Autin presented plans showing the building limit lines and easements. He stated he
would be making an addition to the existing garage by increasing a one -car garage to a
two -car garage.
Vice Chairman Garcia stated the Board indicates these plans are an official exhibit
submitted by the applicant's representative.
Mr. Mantey explained if the variance is granted the garage would not encroach into the
15 ft. setback. Mr. Autin stated the addition would not be as large as the plans show.
He stated there would not be an encroachment into the easement; the building would
be two feet from the easement. He continued by stating the building would be
constructed within the limits of the concrete drive. Mr. Autin commented the building
would be eight feet wide not using the entire 10 ft. of the driveway.
Vice Chairman Garcia asked if the building would be in the 25 ft. building limit line; Mr.
Autin replied it would extend three ft. It was noted on the exhibit. Mr. Steve Lane stated
this variance would reduce the building limit line back to 15 ft. He asked if there would
be an encroachment. Mr. Mantey replied the encroachment would be 10 ft. into the 25
ft. building limit line. The ordinance now requires a 15 ft. building limit line but in 1959
the plans erroneously showed two 25 ft. building limit lines on each street frontage.
Mr. Beaver stated it appears there are inaccurate dimensions. He stated it was not clear
what was being approved. Mr. Autin stated if the building limit line is reduced to 15 ft.
there would not be an encroachment. It was asked if this variance request should
actually be a replat of the property. Mr. Hegglund stated the applicant's drawings
appear to be different than the drawings staff created for this application.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
Mr. Maroney made an aryiehded motion for the variance of a 10 ft. encroachment into
the existing 25 ft. building limit line leaving a remaining 15 ft. at 1430 Deville, Mr,
Beaver seconded o n carried.
Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the Evaluation Criteria for the 10 ft.
tricroachment, Mr, Beaver seconded, The motion carried. (Original motion)
Dustin Nimz, Chairman Date