Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 03/20/2013MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 20, 2013
qEC[-.I\rLD IN
C'siY CLERK'S 0F94�1
DA E: r
�r J
E3`r -1'IME:
PRESENT:
Jose Garcia, Vice Chairman 0
Jerry Beaver 0
Chad Hughes 0
David Lane O Alternate #1
Kerry J. Maroney 0
Scott Stillson 0
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 0City Staff
Marty Odom, Planner III 0
Monique Coleman, Planner II 0
ABSENT:
Dustin Nimz, Chairman 0 Members
0 Alternate #4
Tyson Traw
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Garcia called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
II. MINUTES
Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2012 Zoning
Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Lane seconded. The minutes were approved with a
unanimous vote in favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Case V 13-01
Request for a variance of 15' to construct a 34'8" x 60' two-story single family
dwelling unit within the 25' front building limit line on a vacant lot
4816 Tortuga Trail
Ms. Coleman stated 4816 Tortuga Trail is a vacant lot owned by the uncle of the
applicant, Derek Carroll. Mr. Carroll had this property surveyed and discovered it abuts
a zero -lot line which would require his property to be set back 10 feet from the interior
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
side property line. This lot is slightly sloped and in order for Mr. Carroll to construct a
two-story 2,400 square foot house he would need to place it in front of the toe of the
slope and out of the 10 foot interior side property line.
These conditions combined with the require encroachment into the 25 foot front setback
resulted in the need to request a variance.
Qualifying Criteria:
a. Special conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building.
The applicant stated "Irregular lot. Hill in the back of house."
Staff's response was in addition to the irregular shape and slope of the lot, the
property is also adjacent to a zero lot line property, which further restricts
development due to a 10 foot setback requirement from the zero lot line
property.
b. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the applicants' actions.
The applicant stated "The subdivision was created in 1992. The current owner
purchased the land after 1992. The cliff on the land was pre-existing."
Staff responded stating the shape, slope and adjacent property setback
requirements are not a result of the applicant's 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 applicant stated "Strict enforcement does not take into consideration the
unique shape of the lot and contours of the land."
Staff affirmed that the curvilinear frontage and topography of the other lots in the
immediate neighborhood are not impacted in the same manner as the applicant.
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 applicant stated "the use will be a single family residence."
Staff responded stating the granting of a variance will not create a use that is not
allowed within the Single Family -2 zoning district.
Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the Qualifying Criteria; Mr. Beaver seconded.
The motion carried.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
Evaluation Criteria:
Ms. Coleman reviewed the Evaluation Criteria with the Board. In summary, staff
determined granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. There is
a special condition 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.
If this Board feels the Evaluation Criteria is met, staff recommends approval of this
request which will allow an encroachment of 15 feet into the front setback. This
recommendation is justified due to the shape of the lot, the interior side setback
requirement and the topography. It should be noted the applicant has a 180 day lapse
of approval for this variance.
Mr. Odom stated in 1984 the Cimarron Subdivision had narrow lots which were to be
developed into zero lot line houses. These lots had a 20 foot setback. This area was
replatted to combine these lots to eliminate the zero lot line lots to accommodate larger
homes. The code at that time specified 25 foot setbacks. A few zero lot line homes
were constructed. Two of those are adjacent to this lot. This becomes an additional
factor for this case.
The applicant, Mr. Carroll, stated this approval of the variance will permit the house to
be constructed in front of the hill. Vice Chairman Garcia asked if there would be ample
room to divert the [rain] water away from the house. Mr. Carroll stated the water off the
hill would run that way (to the north). Some water would travel down the side of the lot
into the street. Vice Chairman Garcia stated Building Inspections will require the water
to run away from the home; Mr. Carroll said he was aware of that requirement.
Two concerns were raised regarding blocking the access to the open space lot, Mr.
Odom showed the Board that there would be access off Tortuga as well as Turtle
Creek. Mr. Lane stated from the opposite end of the street there would be access to the
rear of their properties; Mr. Odom replied it is possible but he was not sure if there were
curb cuts.
Mr. Lane made a motion to approve Variance V 13-01; Mr. Maroney seconded. The
motion carried.
IV. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 2:04 p.m.
vet
Jo e Garcia, Vice Chairman
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
172 v L3
Date