Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20180809Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................... 2 1015 Waters Avenue – Variance Request ..................................................................................................... 2 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Mr. Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Farrey, Feddersen, Hopson, Frank and Bentzin present. Also present from staff Jessica Garrow, Kevin Rayes, Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Staff Comments None. Commission Comments None. Minutes Mr. Sandler moved to approve the minutes from March 8, 2018; seconded by Mr. Farrey. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Mr. Hopson stated he has a conflict on the application and will recuse himself. Ms. Feddersen stated she lives at 1050 Waters Avenue but is not an owner of that unit. She is moving out in October. This will not affect her or her decision. 1015 Waters Avenue – Variance Request Mr. Sandler opened the public hearing. Kevin Rayes, community development, reviewed the current conditions at the property. 1015 Waters Avenue is located in the R15 zone. It is a non-conforming lot due to the small lot size. The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. This lot is only 6,000. Currently there is a single family dwelling on the lot. Across the street is a multi-family complex. The property owner is planning to redevelop with a new dwelling. They hired a firm to design the new structure. This design complies with all the required setbacks of the R15 zone district. He showed images of the proposed design. It includes a 25 foot front setback and a 10 feet rear and side yard setbacks. In the south west corner of property is a 10 foot ditch easement. During the time of design, the architect was unaware the ditch was here. The proposed design is encroaching on the easement. The applicant is requesting to move the design 9 feet forward to comply with the ditch easement. This would leave a 16 foot front yard request opposed to the 25 foot required setback to now comply with the 10 foot ditch easement. The applicant is arguing that this combination of the undersized lot and the setback requirements of the zone district, as well as the10 foot ditch easement qualifies for the development hardship. Staff does not agree with this and are proposing denial of the variance. The land use code talks about standards applicable to a variance. Criteria #2 says grant of a variance is the minimal variance to make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Staff finds this is not met because even though there is a 10 foot ditch easement it is only in the rear corner of the lot and not impacting the entire rear of the lot. We feel the design can be accommodated by a modification. The second criteria we find not met is land use code part 3A which states special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure that are not applicable to others in same zone district, and which do not result from the actions of the applicant. Staff finds this Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018 3 not met because although there is a ditch easement in this yard it is not unique to this parcel. Other lots have things like steep slopes and trees they need to work around. Lastly, criteria 3B states granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied the terms of this title and the municipal code other parcels, buildings or structures in the zone district. Staff finds this criteria is not met because by granting this 9 foot variance this parcel would not comply with the setback requirements of the R15 zone district. Staff is recommending denial based on these criteria. We received two public comments over email. Both state opposition to the variance. The concerns were a lack of parking along Waters Avenue. They mention concerns with the view along Waters Avenue and how granting the variance would impact the view. I spoke with the City Forester and he mentioned there are a bunch of trees in the front yard and if the variance is granted the trees would most likely be removed. They are opposed to the removal of the trees. Mr. Frank asked if the other properties along Waters are R15 and undersized lots. Mr. Rayes replied he is not sure how many undersized lots there are in the R15 district but there are others. Applicant Gretchen Greenwood Greg Hemming, owner Chris Hendrickson, builder Ms. Greenwood said it is a non-conforming lot in the R15 zone at 6,000 square feet. There are a few 6,000 square foot lots on Waters Avenue. Most of the lots are larger than 6,000. Even though it is an R15 lot it has the same setbacks as a larger lot. It still requires the 25 foot front and 10 foot rear and side yard setbacks. There are unique characteristics that affect the design that it only has access to Waters Avenue. That changes the way you access the garage. It also has very steep slopes and the Wheeler ditch. Initially in designing the project there is no recorded easement for the ditch. I submitted this project to the building department on April 4th. This is our second land use application for this property. Our first application was to have a historic assessment of the grades when nothing was on the property because the city has a code to determine floor area based on the slopes of the site. We are already battling a 270 square foot reduction in FAR because of the rear slopes. At the time I met with engineering and planning on the site and we discussed the ditch. It never came up that there was going to be a prescriptive easement. We submitted to the building department the plan with the 25 foot setbacks and the engineering department came back and said we are calling a prescriptive easement on the ditch. That is not the hardship, that is just the city making up things as you go along. In designing this we thought it would be better if there was a reduction in FAR. Better for the neighbors and everyone involved. In terms of location, we have no problem giving the City an easement, but we have to shore because we are up against the hillside. That is one of the hardships, we need three feet of shoring. What that give us is a 16 foot setback. The garage has to be set back from the building 10 feet and is set back from the street 33 feet. Because of the code it does create additional parking on the site, but it is an odd design element to push the garage 33 feet back. The ditch is a hardship, the over dig we need to do, the 10 foot setbacks are all hardships. By granting a variance the front of the porch will be 16 feet and puts the bulk of the house closer to the street and allow for better views for both the neighbors. It is a win situation for everyone. I disagree that the email comments are negative. It seems like they are complaining about the neighborhood rather than this property. We can fit six cars on the property. The only person affected by the 9 foot variance is the owner. The site is complicated and has issues. The setbacks required on a small lot make it a difficult project and effect the development ability on this parcel. She does not agree with the city’s recommendation of denial. Mr. Sandler said the one thing we have learned is we try to look at these things as a perspective of balance and hardship as well as from a resident’s side. One the one hand you want to adhere to what the city is saying. On the other hand, you look at it from a common sense perspective. When these codes were passed for R15 and when the house was built has the code changed. Jessica Garrow, community development, said the code has changed a lot over time especially in this zone. Ms. Greenwood said multiple homes are located in the setback and one is over the property line. She said she sits on the board Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018 4 and they are for residents to represent residents, not the government. I’m of the same ilk as you and appreciate that comment. Ms. Feddersen asked about the trees. Ms. Greenwood replied they are being mitigated for and they are working with Aspen Tree Service. Mr. Sandler asked what will happen if you don’t get the variance. Ms. Greenwood stated we will load the FAR to the east side. There is no reason to push it back in to the hill side. Mr. Farrey replied other than the setback requirement. Ms. Greenwood said on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Farrey said if you went back and showed this development on an overlay of what is existing that would be helpful. Ms. Feddersen said the main issue with neighbors is they don’t want the front of the house to be closer to the road and create less parking. Ms. Greenwood showed an image of how the home would sit if they don’t get the variance overlaid on the current proposal. The front porch is midway past the garage. Adding 9 more feet to the back would benefit everyone and not affect the parking. Non-set back areas and set back areas have different requirements for what you can and cannot do in it. We would like to be granted the 16 foot setback for the front yard. None of the neighbors called me but I would have been happy to walk through the plan with them. We as a team think it is a better plan all together. Mr. Frank said you originally designed the house with the RDS and 25 foot setback in mind until the ditch easement was discovered. Ms. Greenwood replied I did. Honestly, I wanted to come in for a variance even before because it is better for the property if it was away from the ditch. Mr. Frank asked about the code on the easement. Ms. Garrow said the comments on the easement came from the engineering department. There are typical requirements that development needs to be set back from the centerline of any ditch in town. It does happen in other developments. Ms. Greenwood stated she has designed two developments on Waters and has never some across this. Mr. Sandler asked about the ditch. Ms. Greenwood said it is the water that supplies the mall. Andrea Bryan, city attorney, said it is a requirement especially for new developments where the property owner grants us an easement. If it is discovered that the easement hasn’t been recorded, we require them to grant a 10 foot on the centerline easement. This is not an unusual circumstance from that aspect. The city adopted certain engineering standards and water distribution standards and I assume that requirement is in there. Ms. Greenwood said we think it is a better plan if we just move the building forward. Mr. Farrey said I can respect that. The most telling thing is from the dimensional requirements from community development as far as the front setback, where existing structures have a 15 foot setback and you are proposing going a little bit further versus the 25 that it fall in to in the new code. Is it a foot further set back than the existing structure. To put it in front of the existing structure is not fair to the neighbors. Ms. Greenwood replied it is not in front of any property. It is back a foot and a half. The comment from the staff affecting the view, nothing is affected. Ms. Garrow said the purpose of zoning is when you are redeveloping that you are coming into conformance with the requirements that the city has outlined. This is a complete scrape and replace and it is why we feel pretty strongly it should be in conformance. This is a changing neighborhood. There are older structures that maybe don’t comply with the existing zoning but when they come in and apply to redevelop they will be asked to comply with existing zoning. We may have a different recommendation if this ditch was over a larger portion of the property. But it really is tucked within that corner. From our reading of the land use code and the criteria set in the land use code we don’t believe it is a hardship. Ms. Greenwood replied it is true what you say but it is a quarter of the property. Mr. Sandler opened the public comment. 1. Mark Cindrich, owns adjacent property for 28 years with wife Melinda. In the winter and summer the neighborhood is filled with cars. There is a swale in front of the property. By Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018 5 moving the driveway they are capturing the whole swale and parking area. I feel bad they have a small lot but that’s what they have. We have a 6 foot setback. He would like you to take into consideration how this will affect the parking. The ditch has been there forever. Ms. Feddersen said they have a large parking area and I don’t see anyone parking there. Is it for public parking. Mr. Cindrick replied it’s supposed to be. 2. Melinda Cindrich said I didn’t know what they were doing. The neighborhood is special. I don’t want them to build some monster thing that is going to block our views and tear down the trees. Mr. Sandler closed the public comment. Ms. Greenwood said the existing garage is 15 feet. Our driveway will be 17 feet and the garage is set back 34 feet from the property line. That is not from where people park, that is from our property line. Ms. Garrow said the packet includes a resolution for approval and denial. The approval only varies the front setback all the other setbacks would remain. What I saw in the presentation was a request for a 19 foot setback. If the board agrees to grant approval you may want to talk about that rear setback and if it should be varied. Ms. Greenwood said it is just a tradeoff. We are not trying to put in a swimming pool or anything back there. We want to keep it all natural. I was just suggesting it as a tradeoff. We are here because we feel it is a better plan for the neighborhood. She showed an image of the existing garage. It is 16 feet. There is no parking here. We are only moving 17 feet over to the side. Anyone can park outside of the property line. We are also going to put in a fence. There is absolutely no change to the comings and goings of people and their cars. We feel it is a better plan for the neighbors. Pushing the house back affects those views in the back. The right place for the building is to have more open space in the back. Mr. Sandler asked Chris as the developer if he has anything to add. He replied the city has rules and we have to abide by them. If there are opportunities like this to have a variance that will actually make the house sit in the neighborhood and be the same as where the other houses are at it is where the variance should be applied. Ms. Garrow stated we recommend against. We don’t think it meets the criteria. Mr. Farrey said hardship is awfully hard to prove here and that is our first and foremost job, to prove hardship. The site presents its challenges. Your plan is specific to this site and thoughtful. When you do new construction, you have to come into conformity and that should come to no surprise to someone who inherits it or buys it. That is what is tough here. On the emotional side a lot of the issues revolve how this is presented in the front and you are doing a foot better than what is in place. That, addressed with neighbors a while back may have went a long way. That said, it is a new construction and not a remodel, it is no surprise you have to come in to conformity. You still get the same square foot. Your plan is 30 percent better. Within this neighborhood you have to conform to the new setbacks and that is no surprise. Mr. Frank said however unfortunate the timing of the ditch is, it is in the code. It is unfortunate it was missed so deep in to the process. Mr. Sandler said we always like to deliberate on the side of the citizen, but we need that hardship. For me it is the fundamental of the hardship. Ms. Greenwood said it is the non-conforming lot, large setbacks for a 6,000 square foot lot that are meant for a 15,000 square foot lot, small building area, slopes and one access in to the site. All create the hardship. Mr. Frank said any structure on this street that does a scrape will have to comply with the 25 foot setback. If we offer you a variance for a nearly 50 percent reduction in the setback and in 30 years your home is the sore thumb out on the street. Ms. Greenwood replied people won’t tear their houses down. They will Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018 6 go right to the 30 percent rule to remodel. Mr. Frank replied that option is on the table for you too. Ms. Greenwood replied that is not an option. We are presenting the right way to go. Mr. Frank moved to deny Resolution #3, Series of 2018; seconded by Mr. Farrey. Roll call vote. Feddersen, yes; Bentzin, yes; Frank, yes; Farrey, yes; Sandler, no. Motion carried. Mr. Sandler moved to adjourn at 5:35 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk