Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19920923 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 23, 1992 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 : 00 P.M. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Bill Martin, Charlie Paterson and Rick Head. Remo was excused. CASE #92-12 STEPHEN C. HACH & MARTHA E. AMES Charlie read into the record request for variance. (attached in record) Hach presented the affidavits of posting and mailing. (attached in record) Martha Ames: What you have in front of you is our request and we would like to build an open deck over the existing encroachment which is the front corner of our kitchen. Charlie: As much as you can tell us about your hardship in regard to this particular case the more and better for the Board to consider. Ames: I guess in terms of a hardship I would ask you to consider that the house was built legally--the front setback was not 25 feet as I understand it when the house was built. Also that the--we own half of a legally condominiumized duplex and the back of the duplex is identical to ours and basically in the design and the size and in the value. And yet because they are considered the back of the property they don't have an encroachment problem. The problem is ours because we are designated at the front of the property and have a 25 foot setback in the front. It has to do with the unusual way that the street slants and that is the way our setback turned out to be. Glen Rappaport, architect for the applicants: The scope of the work that is going in is remodeling the first floor. We were kind of aware of this problem when we started which is why the design kind of had this deck thinking that we could just have the deck there as open space. And then when we realized that even the amount of furring out just for the platform would be a problem that is kind of how we ended up here. It is hard to figure out exactly what the hardship is but there are a number of other anomalies in that have had similar problems as far as setbacks and things that have been changed. We just found ourselves kind of boxed in because the only option that we have was to go straight up and make another floor and to just kind of leave that little portion unbuilt seemed like a BAM9.23.93 strange thing to do. I guess that the only thing we could say is that the image of the community is something that has to be considered. And this is a standard kind of construction way to handle it. Hach. We believe that when it was legally built. The setbacks than were not as great on the original building. The setbacks then was 15 feet and when it was annexed the setback was changed. Charlie: Read a letter into the record addressed to us here from Cindy Hueben, a neighbor in support of the request for the variance. (attached in record) Rick: Is this encroaching in the front yard setback? Hach: Yes. Rick: The house is actually cantilevered a little like that? Rappaport: It was done to take advantage of the views so that the picture window from both units look south to the mountains. Also just to comment it is not living space. It is deck space. There is no roof over it. What is encroaching is deck space. Bill Drueding, Building Dept: clarification: According to the permit it was in the County at one time and was annexed as R-15. Rick: In years past this is something that we probably wouldn't have granted. My leanings are towards granting this at this moment. This is what we would call expanding the non-conformity. But based on this letter from Cindy Houben--and I wish she would take these ideas to Council and change the code--it is unfortunate that she feels this way with you but holds a different line when it comes to the rest of the public. Clearly this is something in my mind that needs to be addressed before Council and change the code to allow these kinds of things. Rappaport: We realize that it is current code--it is encroachment. It might not have been at the time it was built. Rick: To me it is clearly a minimal variance and one that doesn't upset me terribly. Bill: I have no problem with this. Ron: Is this subdivided? Rappaport: Condominiumized. 2 BAM9.23.93 Ron: So it is undivided interest in the land. So your FAR is granted for one piece of land for both units. We just had a case not too long ago where we had someone come in and wanted a variance because their neighbor took all their square footage. Hach: We are going just under half of the allowable square footage for the entire duplex. Charlie: They are adding about 20 square feet. That is all it is. Rappaport: We are also relieving that front entrance which is an impact on the front and that also is a over the doorway there is an extending roof out into the setbacks that will be taken off when we remodel. And we are taking the front entrance off altogether to minimize the impact on the front of the house. Rick: So you are actually trading off. You are taking a little impact away. Rappaport: That front entryway which is encroaching. That will disappear because it is going to be a flat front. Ron: This part of the building right now encroaches, right? Rappaport: Yes. It will be gone. And there wont be anything sticking out further here. Rick: Structurally all they are really asking for is this right here. That is basically it. Charlie asked if there were comments from the public. Patrick ?: I am on 73 and I am all for this. Ron: What is 73, please. Patrick: 72 Smuggler Grove. Sara ?: I own 28 Smuggler Grove and I look out at their house directly and probably the only one who does. And I am 100% for this. It will do nothing but improve out little neighborhood. Charlie: I just want to make you aware when there are 4 of us here you need all 4 affirmative votes. You may choose to continue to another date certain. That is after you have heard our comments. Charlie then closed the public portion of the hearing. BOARD COMMENTS 3 BAM9.23 .93 Bill: I have no problem with this. I think it is a legitimate request. I think they are improving their living condition by putting a second story on it and it is already a non-conforming. And I don't think this is aggravating the situation. Charlie: Ordinarily we wouldn't grant the variance if you had a non-conforming building. That wouldn't be enough for us to grant a variance based on that. We need to have practical difficulty or hardship. Ron: I think there are other ways of doing this addition that would not need a variance to do. Rick: I think what Bill is driving at is that maybe this is a practical difficulty in that it was rezoned after the existing encroachment already existed. And by virtue of that fact I think we probably have grounds to approve this minimal variance based on a practical difficulty. I am in favor of the variance. Charlie: I agree very much with Rick. The real hardship is the fact that it was rezoned and the building was built under the previous ordinance. To ask these people to cut off the bottom part of the building that exists now into this angle just to make it conform and make the upper part work would be considered not only a hardship but a practical difficulty. And that is what I would base my decision on. I would say that I would be in favor of granting this variance on that basis. It has nothing with whether they can or can't build the building. That has something to do with the fact that the zoning was changed after the building was built--the original building. Rick: I might also add that this letter of support from Cindy is certainly rates heavily with me and if a member of the Planning Office although it is not an official letterhead is in favor of this I would lean favorably as well. Ron: The rezoning was done for everybody in the neighborhood. Was this one unit deprived of any property right that was not everyone else in the same area deprived of at the same time. And since this building became a non-conforming - structure on the rezoning they actually had an advantage that other people who conformed did not have? Charlie: I don't really know what the neighborhood consists of but I am under the impression that there are quite a few double storied buildings around in that area that were build before the zoning was changed. And so therefore they have a property right that is enjoyed by others in the same vicinity and zone. They should have 4 BAM9.23 .93 the same property rights. And so what you are saying seems to be backwards because if other built afterwards they wouldn't have the right to do that. Ron: You are talking about hardship/practical difficulty as it pertains to rezoning causing that practical difficulty. And what I am saying is that it only exists if the problem is unique, the property is not shared by other landowners in the same district. They all went from R-6 to R-15. Now this property might have been the only piece of, property in that whole area that was non-conforming--became a non-conforming structure which, in effect, gave them additional rights that no one else had because they were allowed to continue to exist in a non- conforming state. No one has asked anybody to remove the non-conformity. What we are dealing with here is increasing a non-conformity. Charlie: Don't you feel that if the land has a shape that is a little difficult obviously there is something with this corner the way the building was built-- Ron: It was done to take advantage of the view for that specific piece of property and therefore it is better for them who own it because they have get better view. Charlie: And better light and sunlight etc. So it is more energy efficient. Ron: I cannot justify granting this variance on the basis of the fact that it was rezoned. But I think what we are doing here is we are minimizing or we are reducing a current non-conformity and we can't stop them from putting the second story on the building. They can do that by right. But what they are doing is at least in the spirit of the code not increasing the bulk within the non- conforming. I would like to grant the variance, Charlie--but not on your basis. -Charlie: - So -give us your-basis and that is fine. Charlie then reopened the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Rick: I move to approve a variance on Case #92-12 for approximately 20 square foot deck above an existing encroachment for the reasons expressed. Roll call vote: 5 BAM9.23 .93 Ron, yes, Rick, yes, Bill, yes, Charlie, yes. Variance granted. Rick made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 4:50 P.M. Janice Carney, City De ty Clerk 6