Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860828 CITY-OF-AsPEid BOARD-OF-AJI<S AUGUST 28, 1986 City Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. A--G_-E- #-.D_-A I. MINUTES June 12 , 1986 August 7, 1986 II. OLD BUSINESS Case #86-16 / Frank Peters III. NEW BUSINESS Case #86-17 / Troyer, THE RANCH Case #86-17 / Gleason, Ute Chalet IV. ADJOURNMENT Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 28, 1986 Case #86-17 The Ranch Chairman Remo Lavagnino read the requested variance that the property is located in the C-1 zone district; the building is already over-signed. Section 24-5.10 (2) "the aggregate sign area permitted along any one street shall not exceed 1 square foot of sign area for each 3 feet of lot line frontage. Applicant appears to be requesting a 10 square foot sign variance above the limit. " The applicant did not receive a packet of procedure and did not post the sign of hearing on the premises. The adjoining property owners were notified; however , the applicant was not told the post a sign. Lavagnino said the Board cannot hear the case unless the sign has been posted. Lavagnino requested this case be renoticed and signed property and rescheduled. Case #86-18 Gleason Chairman Remo Lavagnino said this is located at 861 Ute Avenue, George & Mary Gleason. Applicant wishes to enclose their patio, located in R-6 PUD zone category. Section 24-3 .4, Area and bulk requirements; side yard setback is 5 feet, rear yard setback 15 feet. Applicant appears to be requesting to enclose a deck that currently encroaches into those setbacks. Section 24-13.3 (a) No such non-conforming structure may be enlarge in a way that increase its non-conformity. George Gleason presented the affidavit of posting requirement. Gleason told the Board they built this house in 1961, retired tow years ago and have been living in the house full-time. Gleason requested at variance to enclose a 10 by 32 patio deck. Gleason said living in the existing structure is subjecting them to practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships. Gleason said the special circumstances have not resulted from their action and that special circumstances apply to their property which do not apply to neighboring properties. Gleason stated granting of a variance is essential to the enjoyment of basic property rights enjoyed by other neighboring properties. The granting of this variance will not adversely effect the comprehensive general plan. Gleason told the Board letters were sent out to adjacent property owners. Gleason showed what the house looked like in 1961 and the surrounding properties. Gleason said at the time the house was built, this property was zoned AR/tourist and the setback requirements were 10 feet from the rear lot line and 5 feet from the side lot line. Seven units could have been built on the property at that time. Downzoning in 1974, this was zoned duplex and the Gleasons decided to put a studio unit in the downstairs. Gleason presented approved building plans from 1974. Whitaker asked if the property lines were still in dispute. Gleason said 1 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 28. 1986 they are. Gleason told the Board when the house was built, they used the McNeil 1889 survey and the 5 yard side setback requirement was met. Gleason told the Board he is within the setback on one side of the house and not on the other side because the house is skewed. Bill Drueding, building department, told the Board in R-6/PUD a single family is exempt from PUD review, a duplex is not . Drueding said he was not aware this structure was a duplex and assumed it was a single family house. Drueding said a duplex with a PUD overlay, has to go through a specified review process. Francis Whitaker said under a PUD overlay, setbacks can be varied. Drueding said these can be varied by --------------- and the Board of Adjustment has no jurisdiction over that. Drueding said the Board can hear this variance reqeust if the house is returned to a single family dwelling, which can be done be removing the kitchen and bathroom. Drueding suggested the applicant can change the house to a single family dwelling and have the Board of Adjustment hear this case, or they may apply to go through PUD review as a duplex. Gleason said to the south they are less than 15 feet, which is what the R-6 zoning requires. The house was legitimate at 10 '6" when the house was built under the AR/tourist zoning. On the west side, the house is 2 feet from the property line according to Johnson ' s survey. Gleason told the Board he has two other surveys, each showing different property lines. Gleason said is not of their doing and has put the house closer to the lot line than is allowed by Code. Gleason showed slides of the house, surrounding properties, and the effect the enclosed deck would have. Mrs. Gleason pointed out the hanging rod closets , which they plan to replace. Gleason said the house is 860 square feet without a single closet; this variance would allow them to have six closets . The Gleasons showed slides of the proposed addition. The slides show a spiral staircase, which will be replaced for safety reason. The addition will allow solar heating. Gleason told the Board they would tear out the deck and start from scratch, pouring a slab. Gleason said they will be adding about 330 square feet. Rick Head asked why the house wa not extended to the north. Mrs. Gleason said they would have had to re-route a stream and cut down a lot of cottonwoods. The Gleasons showed slides and map of the cottonwoods and the stream. Jim Markalunas , water department, told the Board this stream is part of the Durant Mine water springs and is adjudicated by the city and the applicant cannot change the stream without getting into litigation. Markalunas told the Board when the Gleason ' s applied for a building permit in 1961, the survey situation was very uncertain. 2 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 28. 1986 Markalunas said the structure wa since compliance with the zoning regulations at that time. Erickson asked if they planned to remove the brick wall. Gleason told the Board this will become the new wall of the addition. Lavagnino said closet space is not a reason to grant a variance. The safety aspect of the spiral staircase is a valid reason for a variance. To bring a dwelling up to code is beneficial for the homeowner and for the community. Lavagnino pointed out the solar can be installed without a variance. The Board does not deal in conveniences. Lavagnino said he feels the valid reasons for a variance outweigh the convenience reasons. Lavagnino agreed this applicant is asking very little compared to the lodges surrounding this property. Whitaker said the applicant is requesting to enclose a deck . Whitaker said it seems they are not really tearing down a deck but starting from scratch. Whitaker said this case is being submitted on the condition that it revert to a single family dwelling. Whitaker said he feels there is a hardship because of the surveys. Whitaker said he would be in favor of the 10 foot setback , but is concerned about the 5 foot side yard setback because of the neighbors . Whitaker said the setback is for protection of the neighbors. Erickson said the Black Swan may have been build to the old survey and the setbacks are correct, even if the lot lines were not. Donna Fisher, representing the Black Swan property owners, told the Board they are against having this deck enclosed. The owners feels this is very close and will block a window in one unit and will be very visible from other units. The owners feel this request will effect their property and this addition will be very visible. Erickson asked if it is possible to jog the deck rather can come straight back. Drueding said it wold still require a variance. Gleason said the area is small , only 8 feet by 10 feet, taking 3 feet away is a lot. Lavagnino suggested adding the 3 feet on the street side so they have the same square footage. Mrs. Gleason said they could do some more research into which survey is correct. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Josephine Mann said the applicant has demonstrated there are practical difficulties. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant because of the variation in the surveys ; however , in that area many property owners have difficulties with their surveys. The granting of a variance is essential to enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by all properties in the same vicinity. Ms. Mann said she feels that is very strong in favor of a variance in this case. The 3 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 28. 1986 granting of a variance will not adversely effect the purpose of the land use plan. Ms. Mann agreed with this because of leaving the trees, contour and the stream. Francis Whitaker said the only problem he has with this case is the 5 foot setback. Whitaker said he would be willing to grant the variance on a hard ship basis with a 10 foot rear yard setback but maintain the 5 foot side yard setback. Whitaker said there is plenty of room to extend to the east, there is 12 feet left. The building could be shifted over and expanded that way. Whitaker said he would like to see the 5 foot setbacks maintained both east and west. Whitaker said this variance is conditioned upon this becoming a single family dwelling. Lavagnino agreed the Board has no jurisdiction unless this is a single family dwelling. Erickson said eh would approve both side and rear yard setbacks. Erickson said the distance between the two buildings does not change , regardless of the survey. Charles Paterson said he agrees with Ms. Mann. He does not feel the Board should redesign the house , and should grant the variance the way it is being asked of the Board. Paterson said the building is already encroaching in the setback , and 3 inches will not make any difference. Paterson said he is willing to grant a variance based on the old survey. Head said he is willing to grant the variance as applied for. Head moved to approve the variance in its present form; seconded by Paterson. Roll call vote; Whitaker, no; Paterson, yes ; Ms. Mann, yes; Head, yes; Lavagnino, no. Motion NOT carried. Whitaker moved to grant a variance the rear yard setback along the line of the existing wood deck as far east as the 5 foot side yard setback but not to encroach on the west side yard setback, denying the side yard setbacks; Head seconded. All in favor, motion carried. The Board requested a drawing be made to attached to this case to illustrate the variance granted. Whitaker also requested the city attorney 's office draft a resolution for this case. Ms. Mann moved to adjourned at 7: 25 p.m. ; seconded by head. All in favor, motion carried. 4 GLEASON / 86-18 George Gleason said they had come to the Board on August 28, 1986 asking for a variance. One of the problems was that they were too close to the rear setback. They wanted to add on a deck 10 ft. by 32 ft. They were 10 and 1/2 ft. It was 10 ft. when they built the house 25 years ago and the zoning has been changed to 15 ft. The board agreed that that would be ok. He said they were too close according to the survey they had to their west lot line. This was done by Johnson. He said the Board' s advice to them at that meeting was that if the Gleasons could get a survey that showed they were 5 ft. from the west lot line, then they would not have to jog the house. When Mr. Gleason made that remark the Board members agreed they did remember that. With the advise that they might want to get another survey, Gleasons went to Schmueser, Myer and Gordon who were surveying that part of town at the time and asked for a second opinion on the location of the corners of their property. They came back with 5.1 ft. from the west property line which means we would not have to jog. Mr . Gleason then asked the Board if they could recall their advise was to them that night. Did they indeed recall telling the Gleasons that if they could get a survey showing they were 5 ft. from the west lot line, they would not have to jog their house. Ron Erickson asked if they conform to the 5 ft. setback and the Building Department buys your survey then where was the problem. Mrs Gleason said that since this did not appear in the minutes, the Building Department said they want the Gleasons to get Johnson to agree with Schmueser. That is not what this board instructed them to do. This board said if we could get a second survey that showed we were 5 ft. from the lot line we would not have to jog the house. We just want to get that into the minutes if indeed you agree you said that. Ron Erickson stated he remembered saying they should get another survey. Francis said he remembered it very clearly. Charlie Paterson then asked for a motion that we insert this new information into the minutes which would grant the Gleasons the variance without the jog. 1 Erin reminded the Board this is not new evidence showing they are within the setback. You all agreed that if Gleasons had a survey showing they were 5 ft from the setback that they did not have to put a jog in the house. That was part of your ruling, part of your variance. It simply did not get into the minutes. What we could do is have this attached to the minutes. You could say "to amend the minutes of August 28, 1986 to include the provisions concerning the west side setbacks. " Ron Erickson made a motion to amend the minutes of case 86-18 of August 28 , 1986 to reflect the additional comments made concerning a west side 5 ft. yard setback and the possibility of a new survey reflecting they were within those legal setbacks. Rick Head seconded the motion with all in favor. Anne Austin made a motion to adjourn the meeting with all in favor. The time was 4 : 55. 2