Loading...
08-19-1993 (Zoning Board of Adjustment) Minutes MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS August 19, 1993 5 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gerald Clark called the meeting to order with the following regular members present: Jeff Payne, Glen Graves, and Marilyn Herrera and alternate member Michael Cole. Ray Capley was present but not voting pending being sworn in and as 10 a full board was already present. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGN MUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENING APPLICATION FOR T REUTHINGER FOR A VARIANCE TO THE MI OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW LESS THAN 60 FEET OF FRONTAGE AT 15 705 S. BALLARD Ms. Tommy Reuthinger told the Board that she planned to subdivide the existing lot and build a home on one lot while repairing the existing burned home on the other. She stated that repairs on the existing house�s issue,lbhe publiche ext two weeks.hearing was closed. 20 there was no one else present to address Graves confirmed with City staff that with the subdivision, Reuthinger would still be required to meet all setback and other zoning requirements in the ordinance. Payne stated that the burned building should be removed or repaired prior to construction of 25 the additional building on the newly created lot. Graves made a motion to approve the variance to allow a 57 foot wide lot where the existing structure stands, require a 60 foot wide newly created lot, and requiring that the variance expire if reconstruction doesn't begin within 90 days. Cole seconded the motion. The motion was voted on and passed unanimously. 30 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST PARKAING AND CINDY HAMM REQUIREMENTS FTO A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM OFF-STREET ALLOW LESS THAN A TWO CAR GARAGE AT 125 FAIRMOUNT 35 City staff explained that the Hamms were requesting a variance to allow them to permit a garage enclosure that was built as a part of tornado reconstruction. Upon the Chairman opening the public hearing, Laurie Strait, 104 Windsor, stated that she was in favor of the request as the construction was done in a state of confusion after the tornado and there wasn't time for the Hamms to check codes and verify zoning. Robert 40 Neuland, 127 Fairmount, stated that he favored the request as he lived next door and the enclosure had not caused a decrease in his property value. Thomas Hamm stated that four to six cars would still fit in his driveway and wouldn't increase parking on the 1 street. As there was no one else wishing to address to the request had been submittedS closed. Clark noted that four letters of opposition 45 Clark stated that the unusual circumstances merited approval of the request. Graves stated concern about the appearance of setting a precedent and other similar applications being submitted as a result of the approval. Cole stated that the letters of opposition submitted stated concern regarding limited parking which was not a problem 50 in the Hamm's case. He also stated that no precedent was being set. After er add)ido al ) for a discussion, Graves made a motion to deny the request. The motion of second. Clark made a motion to approve the request based on the unusual circumstances that caused the damage and the reason for reconstruction and the additional parking available. Payne seconded the motion. The motion was voted on and 55 passed with all in favor except Graves. PUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST FROM STUARTT LLISO1 N FOR A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS A 60 Allison explained that his lot at the corner of Marble and Keefer was approximately 95 long by 58 feet wide and approximately 5500 square feet which did not meet SF-3 zoning requirements. Allison told the board that he was unable to sell the lot and unable to build on it. Graves confirmed that the agenda notes stated the dimensions as 87 feet by 56 feet. Allison stated that he had not had the property surveyed so his application —65 was based on the plat used by the City which did not reflect current property lines. Graves confirmed with the applicant that Allison was unable to acquire additional property to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. David Brundidge, 109 N. Keefer, stated that the lot was not big enough for a 70 single family structure, but that he had been negotiation with Mr. Allison regarding purchasing the lot. Graves confirmed that if Brundidge purchased the property, it could be replatted as a part of Brundidge's existing lot. • • Graves stated that he was concerned about granting a variance when the Board 75 was not sure how much of a variance they were grating. He further noted that if a variance was granted for certain dimensions and the The Board plat compared smaller the lot dimensions approved, the variance would be void. estimated to the SF-3 zoning requirements: 80 Minimum Lot Width 60 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet Minimum Square Footage 7200 square feet Cole made a motion to table the request pending submission of an accurate survey. 85 Herrera seconded the motion. The motion to table failed with only Cole and Herrera voting in favor of the motion. 2 Clark stated that the survey was not a factor as the lot was still much too small for SF-3 zoning. Allison suggested that the zoning be changed to a townhouse or zero lot line zoning but the City Secretary noted that such spot zoning was not likely to be 90 approved. Graves made a motion to deny the request. Payne t Hereconded the motion. The motion was voted on and passed with all in favor p ra. 95 ADJOURNMENT As there was no further business to come before the Board of Adjustments, the meeting adjourned. 100 APPROVED ATTEST • MEMORANDUM August 20, 1993 TO: Steve Norwood, City Manager FROM: Mary Nichols, City Secretary RE: Board of Adjustments Meeting August 19th Attached are the minutes of the Board of Adjustments Meeting last night. The Board recommended approval of two of the three cases submitted. The case denied was one requested by Mr. Stuart Allison. Mr. Allison requested a variance to allow him to construct a single family home on a lot estimated at 5500 square feet. Mr. Allison has expressed an interest in appealing the decision of the Board. By statute (L.G.C. 211.010), the only appeal process is to a district court. The statute states that any person aggrieved by the decision of the board, any taxpayer, or officer, department, board, or bureau of the city may appeal the decision within 10 DAYS of the date of the decision. I am, therefore, providing the City Council, Board of Adjustments, and Planning and Zoning Commission with copies of these minutes.