No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/1992 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting February 13, 1992 Appeal 2012 --- 1513 Constitution Avenue 5 --- Petitioner: Ed and Thelma Fleener, owners --- Zone: RL --- Section: 29-133 ( 3) --- The variance would reduce the required setback from the Prospect Road property line from 20 feet to 1 foot for a 14 ' x 34 ' carport addition to a single-family home in the RL zone. (This appeal was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 14 , 1991 . However, upon appeal to the City Council, the Council remanded it back to the Zoning Board for a new hearing) . --- Petitioner' s statement of hardship: There is an existing concrete pad at this location. The owner desires to construct a carport to cover his 32 foot long motor home using the existing pad. See petitioner' s letter (Exhibit C) for additional comments. --- Staff comments: The Board unanimously denied this request on November 14 , 1991 , citing a lack of hardship. The ZBA decision was appealed to City Council and acted upon at the January 7 , 1992 Council meeting. The Council reviewed the record and received presentations from City staff and the appellants. After discussion, the Council voted 3-2 to remand the matter to the Zoning Board for a new hearing. On January 21 , 1992 the Council adopted Resolution 92-15, making findings of fact regarding their decision to remand the matter back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The resolution states in part that "the Zoning Board of Appeals failed to afford the appellants a fair hearing in that: a: the Board failed to consider the requested variance in the context of previously granted variance requests for other carports; b: the Board failed to properly consider all evidence relevant to its decision, including the location of other existing improvements on the appellants ' lot; and ZBA 1992 February 13, Page 2 consider the fact that the uately lot, which fact may c; the Board failed is a to e older corner appellants tional practical difficulties" present ,peculiar and exceptional of Section 29-41 of to the appellants within the meaning the City Code- ' the Zoning Board should follow and the new hearing consider all evidence In conducting roceedures and all normal P Membe to rs of the Board should which Were . issues which there information presented address the above-mentioned specifically the at b Council in their resolution. sucontained and the a identified y uestions or stateme may be other q want to address. exhibits that the Board may resented to the Board in order to ' sion-making process and to help identify The following exhibits are P facilitate the ec issues and questions: findings of fact regarding Exhibt A - Resolution 92-16 making eat back to decision of the City Council t new hearing- the de Board of Appeals for a the Zoning regarding previ°us requests Exhibit B - Background info a is during the last 5 years. for setback variances for carp submitted by the Notice of Appeal Exhibit C - Amended Council applicants to the City ZBA meeting Exhibit D - Minutes of the November 14 , 1991 appeal*this app regarding 71 1992 Council - Draft minutes of the January Exhibit E arding this appeal. meeting reg 1968 ZgA meeting in which Road setback variance was granted for - Minutes of the May 14 , Exhibit inal Prospect the original this property, owners which Exhibit G - Three letters from adjacent property he November 14th were not received by staff until after meeting- ZBA February 13, 1992 Page 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: To determine whether this appeal is similar to previously granted carport variances the Board should study Exhibit B and decide whether the conditions or hardships which existed on other lots are similar to those found to exist at 1513 Constitution. Resolution 92-16 contains the finding that "the Board failed to properly consider all evidence relevant to its decision, including the location of other existing improvements on the appellants ' lot. " The "other existing improvements" refers to the 14 ' x 20 ' boat house which is located at the west end of the existing pad, and which is approximately at the same setback location as the proposed carport would be. The boat house, because of its size, is regulated by the City' s Zoning and Building Codes. This means that a building permit is required and that it must comply with the required setbacks, meaning 20 feet from the Prospect property line. However, the boat house building was constructed without a building permit, meaning that its location on the lot was never approved by the City or the ZBA. In light of this, the Board needs to determine whether or not the existing setback of the boat house is relevant to the request to build a carport at approximately the same setback. Resolution 92-16 also contains the finding that "the Board failed to adequately consider the fact that the appellants ' lot is an older corner lot, which fact may present "peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties" to the appellants. . . " . The lot at 1513 Constitution is part of the Fairview West Fifth Filing Subdivision. This subdivision was platted in 1967 , and designed in compliance with the design standards of the subdivision ordinance which was in effect at that time. Those design standards are virtually the same as those contained in the present ordinance, so while this is a somewhat older corner lot, it is not unlike corner lots found in newer subdivisions. The lot area of 1513 Constitution is approximately 8200 square feet. The average lot area of the lots in the subdivision is 8412 square feet, with the sizes ranging from 7400 sq. ft. to 9700 sq. ft. All of these lot area dimensions are about 1000 square feet larger than those of a typical newer subdivision. It is not uncommon to find that lots were bigger in subdivisions platted from 1965 to 1977 . This is due in large part to the fact that zoning setbacks were different during that time period. For instance, the required front setback was 30 feet and the interior side setback was 7 feet, as compared to 20 feet and 5 feet respectively today. This meant that in order to accomodate the greater setbacks, the lots were slightly larger than those found in newer subdivisions. ZBA February 13 , 1992 Page 4 There is, however, a feature of this corner lot which the Board has addressed before on other corner lots. That being that on a corner lot, the front lot line is considered to be the shortest of the two street lines . In this case, the property line along Prospect is shorter than the one along Constitution. Therefore, the setback from the Prospect lot line is required to be 20 feet, whereas along Constitution, the setback is required to be 15 feet. If the distances were reversed, then Prospect would be the street side lot line instead of the front, meaning a 15 foot setback would be required and a substantial variance would still be needed in any case. The fact that the house faces Constitution creates a situation wherein the area between the house and Prospect actually functions as a side yard. The contractor who built the home in 1968 applied for a zoning variance to reduce the Prospect setback to 15 feet. The Zoning Board granted that variance because the house faces Constitution, thereby Prospect was really the street side lot line, which required only a 15 foot setback. This is the same type of reasoning that the current ZBA has applied to similar corner lot situations. Therefore, mention was made at the November 14 , 1991 meeting that the peculiar situation created by this corner lot had already been addressed by reducing the required setback from Prospect to 15 feet at the time the house was built. Other questions or statements from Council members and/or the appellants are found in the various exhibits. A few are listed below, but there may be others that Boardmembers believe are also important. Additional background information will be helpful in considering some of these other issues. For example, a council member inquired as to the effect of the future development of Prospect Road under the Choices 95 plan. According to the Engineering Department, the street will be widened at this location, but additional right-of- way will "probably" not be required. However, the sidewalk will be relocated further north so that the back of the walk will be right on the property line. This means that the carport will be 1 foot from the sidewalk and approximately 10 feet closer to the street than it is today. An issue which has been brought up by the appellants is the inability to gain access to the carport from Prospect Road, in part because of the location of the boat house, which has been discussed above, and also because Prospect is a busy street and it would not be safe. The Engineering Department and the Traffic Engineer have stated that access would be acceptable to the City. An inventory of lots on the north side of Prospect between Shields and Taft Hill, which is the area that includes the property in question, ZBA February 13, 1992 Page 5 shows that there are 36 lots which have some sort of lot frontage on Prospect. 18 of these lots gain their sole access from Prospect Road. The appellants also stated in their Notice of Appeal that the financial hardship was not taken into consideration at all. The Board should also address this issue at the new hearing.