HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19961212BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 12, 1996
Charlie Paterson, Chairman, opened the special meeting at 4:05 p.m. Jim Iglehart,
Ron Erickson, Rick Head and David Schott were present. Dan Martineau and
Howard DeLuca were absent.
MINUTES
Charlie Paterson asked if there were any corrections or deletions for the minutes on
the continued public hearing case #96-11 from the December 12, 1996 meeting. He
asked for a correction on page #3 from pannaboat to
panabode.
MOTION: David Schott moved to accept the minutes from December
12, 1996. Jim Iglehart seconded. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CASE #96-12 WILLIAM D. SNARE 111 WEST HYMAN
Charlie Paterson opened the variance hearing noting the changes on the NOTICE
3
OF PUBLIC HEARING with the corrections of the height variance from 8 feet to
feet 28 feet
and 33 feet to . William Snare was represented by William Griffith,
Attorney. Paterson read from the application:
The GMQS approved the plans and
building in Ordinance 5, by the City Council, in 1993. At that time the height of
the proposed building was 33 feet. Present restrictions on height are a maximum
of 25 feet.
This project completes 4 duplex apartments on the subject property. For
uniformity in appearance, all should be the same height.
Therefore, the applicant requests a variance to permit the original height of 33 feet
to the ridge .
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, asked for Proof of Notice. Griffith stated
that the notice had been posted from November 21st until December 12th and
supplied two photos. He said that 120 property owners were sent copies of the
notice on November 13th with the list attached. Hoefer stated the affidavits
presented were in order and the board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Griffith noted that Mr. Snare was out of state and could not be present. Mr. Snare
has owned this property for about forty years and up to about twenty years ago had
a house on that property. Griffith said that three years ago they received PUC
approval for this project but the plans were not approved. He said that the plans
went to all the departments and there were changes made. He was not sure when
1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 12, 1996
the height change happened. This completes the project and showed the duplex
with two units and the third unit along with the proposal for the fourth unit. He said
if this was not approved, the fourth unit would not be a mirror image but about 3
feet lower.
Griffith said that two people were in favor of the project and two were opposed. He
said the error of 8 foot instead of 3 foot might have made a difference in the
objections. Ron Erickson read the G. Traggis and Ray Koenig into the
letters of
record regarding the negative impacts of this project and request the variance be
denied. Paterson read into the record the Will F. Nicholson letter supporting the
project.
Mickey Heron, Public, represents the owner of the half of the duplex next door who
does not support the application. He said there was a question of symmetry to be
taken into account. Heron asked that there be very strict restrictions if the variance
was granted.
Paterson asked the Board members for questions. Jim Iglehart and Rick Head had
no questions. Erickson asked why in 1993 this half of the duplex was not built. He
said now the code was changed. Griffith thought money may have been the problem
in 1993. Sara Thomas, Staff, answered that they received an allotment from the
Growth Management System in 1993, up to that point, that was what was needed to
obtain approval to build in that space. According to what was granted at that time,
there were 3 years vested for that Growth Management allotment with the deed
restricted Affordable Housing Unit. She said the vested interest expired in January
but they received their permit prior to that so the permitting process had been
extended. The plans were not vested or part of the review process that went
through zoning. She said if the plans had been approved three years ago the height
would also have been a problem at that time.
Paterson asked Thomas to read into the record her memo. Hoefer stated the copy of
the Community Development Memorandum was part of the record.
Head agreed with the Community Development Memo especially staff response:
that a structure could be designed in a manner that still blends with the
neighboring buildings, yet conforms with the existing height limit of 25 feet.
Head further agreed with
the structure could be designed and built at the required
He said that he would deny the
height limit, without requiring a variance at all.
variance and would move to do so.
2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 12, 1996
David Schott felt the same way Rick did after looking at the site and could not see
the practical difficulty for granting this variance. He said that 3 feet may not seem
like much, but the rule was a 25 foot height limitation.
Erickson commented that there should not be a problem designing a building that
conforms.
Iglehart said there was no practical difficulty or hardship in this situation. He
thought it could be built if it were re-designed to still look nice.
Paterson stated that it was up to the applicant that there be a practical difficulty and
a hardship in this case. He said that was what the Board had to consider. He noted
the Board could not consider the economics or the design problems unless the
applicant can show complete hardship.
Erickson asked if it was easier (as a point of order) to recommend approval of the
variance and turn it down or ask for denial. Hoefer stated that either way was fine,
it was up to the Board.
Griffith said that 3 feet was such a small variance and would not block anyone’s
view. He said that with the other 3 buildings already in there this one will be
shorter. He said all the building plans will have to be redone.
Paterson said the only thing to consider is that if this had been built originally for the
plans, he would have had every right to do so. He said the Board might consider the
ownership for all those years and the hardship was that the zoning changed.
Erickson commented that the land use code is a living document that is continually
changing and that is what brings most of the people in front of this Board. He said
the applicant is at fault here, because he had the opportunity to build this duplex
three years ago before the code changed. Hoefer said the applicant did not receive
vested rights for the development plan. Hoefer said the Ordinance did not reference
the building plan. Griffith said City Council approved and suggested if the referral
statements were complied with, then would gain approval. Thomas said that the
approvals given by GMQS are never on specific plans, and the specific plans were
never submitted for building permits. Thomas stated that even 3 years ago the
height restriction would have applied. Head noted that had he received the GMQS
approval, he still could not have built from those plans. Thomas stated all he
received was approval to build a structure. Paterson said it was like half a roof was
3
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 12, 1996
built and now the other half cannot be built to it. Erickson commented the duplexes
were different colors and could not see any continuity at all with the structures.
MOTION: Rick Head moved to deny the request for a three foot height
variance to allow for construction of a structure with a height of twenty
eight feet at 111 West Hyman Avenue, finding that the review standards
have not been met. Jim Iglehart seconded. Head, Schott and Iglehart
voted to deny the variance request. Paterson and Erickson voted to
approve the variance request. The denial did not pass in this motion.
MOTION: Rick Head mo ved to approve the request for a three foot
height variance to allow for construction of a structure with a height of
twenty eight feet at 111 West Hyman Avenue. Erickson seconded.
Iglehart, Head, Erickson and Schott voted against approval of the
variance and Paterson voted for approval. V ARIANCE DENIED 4-1.
Meeting adjourned.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
4