ZONING BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND APPEALS Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska. MINUTES OF October 14, :30 PM

Transcription

1 ZONING BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND APPEALS Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF October 14, :30 PM A. ROLL CALL Present Excused Staff Kate Williams Anne Denny Jeff Raun Dean Karcz Timothy Vig Joanna Croft Joshua Fink Kenneth Burkhart Al Barrett Dave Whitfield B. MINUTES - None C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. Disclosures BOARD MEMBER RAUN disclosed in Items D(1)(d through g), Resolutions , , and that he was not in attendance at the August 26, 2010 meeting when these cases were initially heard and will abstain from voting on these resolutions.. CHAIR KARCZ disclosed in Items D(1)(h and i), Resolutions and that he was not in attendance at the September 9, 2010 meeting and will abstain from participating in these resolutions. BOARD MEMBER VIG disclosed in Item D(1)(a), Resolution that he was not present for the February 11, 2010 meeting when this case was initially heard and will abstain from voting on the resolution.

2 October 14, 2010 Page 2 of 11 BOARD MEMBER WILLIAMS will also abstain from participating in Item D(1)(a) as she was not yet seated on the Board. D. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Resolutions for Approval a. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (MPA) Variances from AMC G. to allow an existing structure (a garage) to encroach into the required yard setbacks. Poggas Subdivision, Block 6, Lot 10B. Generally located east of Brandon Street and south of Kruge Avenue. b. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (MPA) Variances from: 1) AMC A. to allow an existing fence to exceed the maximum 4-foot height; 2) AMC A. to allow an existing fence within the clear vision triangle; and 3) AMC G.1. to allow a deck to encroach into the front yard setbacks as required in the R-1 (single-family residential) zoning district. Hamilton Park Subdivision, Block 4A, Lot 33. Generally located north of Hamilton Drive and west Elmhurst Circle. c. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (MPA) Variance from AMC B. to allow less than the required 10 foot separation between principal and accessory structures in the R-1 (single family residential) zoning district. Granite View Subdivision, Block 7, Lot 8. Generally located north of South Circle and east of Claridge Place. Items D(1)(b) and D(1)(c) were pulled and heard immediately following the consent agenda. d. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (AWB) Variances from AMC fence height, AMC to allow a proposed fence on the property line to encroach the clear vision area and from AMC X.4. to allow turning and maneuvering in the public right of way and not on private property in the R-4 (multiplefamily residential) zoning district. Mt. Vernon Commons Condominiums. Piedmont Terrace, Tracts A, B, C & D. Generally located south of W. 32nd Avenue, east of Bering Street, north of W. 34th Avenue and west of Eureka Street.

3 October 14, 2010 Page 3 of Other e. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (AWB) Variances from AMC G. (yard setback requirements) to encroach the 50-foot front and rear yard setbacks in the R-6 (suburban residential-large lot) zoning district. Rabbit Creek Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 7A. Generally located west of Kelly Ranch Road and south of where Our Own Lane dead ends. f. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (AWB) A variance from AMC G.1. to allow a proposed structure (a house) to encroach into the front yard setback in the R-6 zoning district. Rabbit Creek Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 2. Generally located at 6841 Our Own Lane. g. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (AWB) A variance from AMC F.1. to allow for less than the minimum required lot width. Located within the S 1/2, N 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 10, T12N R1E and S 1/2, S 1/2, NW 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 10, T13N, R1E. Generally located east of Cumulus Road and north of Cirrus Way. h. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (FDM) Variances from AMC G. to allow an existing structure to encroach into the required yard setbacks in the R-2D (two-family residential) zoning district. Thunderbird Terrace Subdivision, Block 6, Lot 18. Generally located north of 18th Avenue, west of Valarian Street and east of Rosemary Street. i. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (AWB) Variances from AMC H.2, AMC I.1. and AMC C.2. to allow for less than the required amount of buffer landscaping for a day care center in the R-2M (multiple-family residential) zoning district. Thibodeau, Lots 8 & 9. Generally located south of Kimberlie Court and west of Wright Avenue. BOARD MEMBER VIG moved to approve the consent agenda. BOARD MEMBER CROFT seconded. BOARD MEMBER VIG pulled Items D(1)(b) and D(1)(c) for discussion.

4 October 14, 2010 Page 4 of 11 Williams, Denny, Raun, Karcz, Vig, Croft None The remaining items on the consent agenda were approved. Board Member s Vig and Williams abstained from voting on Item D(1)(a) Resolution Board Member Raun abstained from voting on Items D(1)(d through g) Resolutions , , and Chair Karcz abstained from voting on Items D(1)(h and i) Resolutions and ITEMS D(1)(b) and D(1)(c) b. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (MPA) Variances from: 1) AMC A. to allow an existing fence to exceed the maximum 4-foot height; 2) AMC A. to allow an existing fence within the clear vision triangle; and 3) AMC G.1. to allow a deck to encroach into the front yard setbacks as required in the R-1 (single-family residential) zoning district. Hamilton Park Subdivision, Block 4A, Lot 33. Generally located north of Hamilton Drive and west Elmhurst Circle. c. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (MPA) Variance from AMC B. to allow less than the required 10 foot separation between principal and accessory structures in the R-1 (single family residential) zoning district. Granite View Subdivision, Block 7, Lot 8. Generally located north of South Circle and east of Claridge Place. BOARD MEMBER VIG pointed out in the description of the public hearing date that it lists July 7, 2010, but the other resolutions cited a date of July 8, He confirmed the date the Board actually met was July 8 th, so the date needs to be corrected. BOARD MEMBER VIG moved to approve Resolutions and as corrected. BOARD MEMBER CROFT seconded. Williams, Denny, Raun, Karcz, Vig, Croft None PASSED E. APPEARANCE REQUEST - None F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS - None

5 October 14, 2010 Page 5 of 11 G. REGULAR AGENDA - None 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Other H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: (AWB) PETITIONER: Tommy & Barbara Robertson REQUEST: Variance for an encroachment into the required yard setbacks AL BARRETT presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality s Planning Department. BARBARA ROBERTSON provided a presentation on her own behalf. CHAIR KARCZ opened the hearing to public testimony. There was no public testimony. There was no rebuttal testimony. CHAIR KARCZ closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER RAUN moved in Case to grant a variance from AMC to allow an existing carport to encroach the required front yard setback by approximately 14.5 feet, and have a setback 5.5 feet instead of the required 20 feet, subject to Department Recommendations 1 through 6 on pages 9 and 10 of the staff packet. BOARD MEMBER CROFT seconded. BOARD MEMBER CROFT believes Condition 6 would not apply if the variance were granted, and offered a friendly amendment that Condition 6 not be included. BOARD MEMBER RAUN accepted the friendly amendment. BOARD MEMBER RAUN is not sure he will be supporting the motion and is hoping for additional discussion. He listed his findings for the seven standards as follows: 1. The potential for wetness and affecting the placement of the house on the lot and based on general knowledge, this part of town is most likely wet. He does not find, however, wetness to be unique to this property especially in comparison to the greater local area that it is found in. He is having difficulty finding this standard being substantially met, but depending on additional Board comments, he could see that it might be partially met. 2. In seeing the only potential for physical circumstances is the issue of water, he does not see this as substantially met. It appears as if the houses are located close to the street, and that is definitely not a unique characteristic of the lot in question.

6 October 14, 2010 Page 6 of Based on Board Member comments and responses from the petitioner, there appears to have been some knowledge for permanent requirements in the 1970s. Regardless of a Municipal s employee s response a few years ago, it is the landowner s responsibility, as indicated, to meet all code requirements. In that sense, he sees that the construction of this carport is self-imposed. 4. He agreed with staff this may be partially met, but would like more discussion regarding safety. 5. He agreed with staff that this is met. This, indeed, is a dimensional variance and not a use variance request. 6. The petitioner s personal circumstances have been noted, but in relation to the health, safety and welfare of the general public, he finds this standard is at least partially met pending the safety issue discussion. 7. This is a defining threshold level standard. In concert with his difficulty in finding that the other standards may or may not be met, he would like to discuss briefly. A reasonable use of the land is reflected by the fact that the house has a garage. The addition of a carport is, to him, in excess of that reasonable use idea, and eliminates the parity that this landowner has in comparison with its neighbors. BOARD MEMBER CROFT noted in regards to Standard 1, she does think the fact that the houses are pulled up so relatively close to the street does indicate there might have been problems in the rear of the yards down the center, so they were trying to deal with drainage issues. She does see that as a possible partial meeting of this standard. There is an attached garage, but looking at the as-built and depending if you are looking at the 1977 or the 2010 as-built, it is shown as either 8.8 foot wide or 10 feet wide, which can be a very small garage. The applicant did state that any passenger does have to vacate the car outside of the garage. That does not provide the same benefit that a regular, not a normal, but a regular size garage might provide. In that case, the location of this particular house on this particular piece of property, side to side, and the subsequent addition of a very small garage does seem like it might be unusual. She does not know the width of the other garages (not the carports), but the garages that are part of the house; and she does believe the garage that does exist is probably not meeting what is considered parity for others in Anchorage. This possibly meets Standard 1. In Standard 2, because of the physical characteristics there is not a protected driveway or enclosure that would allow them to have a reasonable use of their land for getting in and out of their car in a protected environment. It does bother her that this is 5-feet closer to the front property line than any other property that has received a variance at this point. It is only 20 feet long and she does not know how it could be much shorter and still have met the length of a car. If they can make that distance work then the potential safety issues would go away. Because of those issues, she does see that Standards 1 and 2 might be partially met, and Standard 4 might be more than partially met because she sees that as a current danger and not a possible right-ofway development issue in the future. CHAIR KARCZ indicated this is a tough case. Very often this Board hears cases that are before or after-the fact, and this is an after-the-fact variance. He tries not to sway his opinion one way or another due to that fact. The petitioner states they spoke to Municipal staff and expected them to be the experts, and while that is not necessarily the case, the burden does rest with the petitioner and the property owner to ensure all of the rules and regulations are being abided by. Regarding Standards 1 and 2, as he looked at the aerial,

7 October 14, 2010 Page 7 of 11 all of the fronts of the homes appear to have the same setback assuming it is 22-feet per this as-built. Any carport is going to require a variance of some kind, and it sounds as if there have been a number of variances granted, or nonconforming determinations made in this area. The carport was determined to not be overly excessive. The house was built in 1969, which is prior to areawide zoning in 1971; zoning regulations were not in place and it appears all of these houses were built the same. For those reasons, he is leaning towards supporting the motion. He finds the timing of the construction of the original house and its original footprint did not offer the opportunity to provide an adequate, or minimum, carport adjacent to the house, so the only location they could go was forward. With that, he feels the location of the house is an exceptional circumstance, and that also addresses Standard 2 that even though there was a carport there, it was not functional as a carport. Standard 3 is self-imposed, however if one looks at the placement of the house, and the timing of the zoning and how things have evolved with regard to construction practices in a winter city, the hardship is not necessarily self-imposed. He believes Standards 4 and 5 are met. Standard 6 as staff has indicated, appears that the back of the curb on the adjacent road is about 15 feet from the edge of the property, and while a 5 ½ foot separation from the existing carport to the right-of-way line exists, the distance to the road is probably closer to 20 feet. Looking at the development there is curb and gutter and not anticipating the road getting any wider, there may be a sidewalk added in the future, which would be the addition of another 5 feet. It is not any easy process to get sidewalks in existing subdivisions, even though everyone agrees they are a good idea. Everyone prefers to have them on the other side of the street. Standard 6 is met. In regards to Standard 7, this is the minimum variance for a possible reasonable use of the land having a house with a functional carport. He would appreciate additional discussion regarding Standard 3. BOARD MEMBER VIG noted with respect to Standard 3, the fact that in 1975 a permit was issued for a carport on the west side, but instead a garage was constructed. He is concerned because had it remained a carport, it could have functioned with adequate ingress/egress room from the vehicle, but it made it much more difficult when enclosed and a wall was built. The pictures show a preponderance of carports, so it would not have been out of place to remain as a carport rather than a garage in this neighborhood and could have been functional that way. Now that there is a carport in addition to the garage, he thinks the actions taken during the earlier construction limited their ability to make it functional. The pictures show a preponderance of carports, so it would not have been out of place to remain as a carport rather than a garage in this neighborhood and could have been functional that way. He is not too concerned about the safety aspects depending on the height of that wall adjacent to the new carport as long as it is able to be seen over that wall. He is still having a problem with Standard 3 and particularly Standard 7 because there would have been room for a carport on the west side of the house, which could have been constructed within the setbacks, and be in parody with the neighborhood. He felt a variance would not have been necessary at that point. BOARD MEMBER DENNY agreed with Chair Karcz that the positioning of the house is substantially to blame for not having any front yard for a suitable garage or carport. Even if they had built the carport on the right side of the house, it would still have the same footprint as the garage and still be limited in usefulness. She is also concerned with the safety of the occupants as Mrs. Robertson had stated that she is disabled, and having the

8 October 14, 2010 Page 8 of 11 ability to have better footing in inclement weather and more cover, she intends to support the petition. BOARD MEMBER RAUN appreciated the additional discussion as it has enabled him to see that Standards 1 and 2 are partially met. If indeed that is the case, Standard 3 would also be at least partially met. The wetness of the lot had some affect on the placement of the house, which in turn limited the ability to create something in front of the house. It is not the Board s responsibility to find a remedy for the landowner s as there may be some alternatives available, if in fact that garage was built as a carport and then enclosed. The hardship is not the carport itself as discussed that a carport in front of the house would require a variance request. The hardship is related to the condition of the land and placement of the house. He now intends to support the motion. Williams, Denny, Raun, Karcz, Vig, Croft None PASSED 2. CASE: (MPA) PETITIONER: Joel Wagner REQUEST: Variance for an encroachment into the required yard setbacks DAVE WHITFIELD presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality s Planning Department. JOEL WAGNER provided a presentation on his own behalf. CHAIR KARCZ opened the hearing to public testimony. There was no public testimony. There was no rebuttal testimony. BOARD MEMBER DENNY moved in Case to approve a 52 percent variance from AMC F.2. to allow an external staircase and roofed 8-foot by 8-foot landing, greater than 30-inches above grade, to encroach 13.1 feet into the required 25-foot setback in the R-10 SL district, subject to Department Recommendations 1 through 4 on pages 13 and 14 of the staff packet. BOARD MEMBER VIG seconded. BOARD MEMBER DENNY concurred with staff that Standards 1 through 7 are substantially met. BOARD MEMBER VIG complimented staff for a very thorough job explaining the standards in this particular situation. He intends to support the motion and addressed the standards as follows: 1. Extraordinary physical circumstances of the avalanche area, which this lot is subject to, and the difficulty in determining where that actually is located do exist.

9 October 14, 2010 Page 9 of 11 Safety is a concern for a landing and stairway and he can appreciate the need to have a safe and covered route to exit the house. 2. This is substantially met as stated by staff. Strict application would create an undue hardship. 3. Although it was a self-imposed situation, it appears as though the lineation of the avalanche zone did change. The applicant s dedication of the initial setback easement on the adjacent property is worth noting. 4. It does adversely affect the use of adjacent property, but this property owner has created a dedication for that, and anyone seeking to purchase that property in the future would be aware of that additional setback requirement. 5. This standard is met. 6. This standard is met. 7. This standard is met. Williams, Denny, Raun, Karcz, Vig, Croft None PASSED 3. CASE: (AWB) PETITIONER: Rodney & Tami Powell REQUEST: Variance--ZBEA, for an encroachment into the required yard setbacks AL BARRETT presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality s Planning Department. RODNEY and TAMI POWELL provided a presentation on their own behalf. CHAIR KARCZ opened the hearing to public testimony. There was no public testimony. MR. BARRETT and MR. POWELL provided brief rebuttal testimony. CHAIR KARCZ closed the public hearing. The Board agreed to split and act on each variance individually. BOARD MEMBER CROFT moved in Case to grant a variance from AMC in the R-10 district to allow an existing house to encroach the side yard 25-foot setback by 2.1 feet, a setback of 22.9 feet, subject to Conditions 1 through 3 with Condition 1 being modified to strike the words, and other structures shown on page 12. BOARD MEMBER VIG seconded. BOARD MEMBER CROFT believes this is a de minimis encroachment, and the staff packet indicates that this could have been granted an administrative variance, except that the

10 October 14, 2010 Page 10 of 11 applicant s are builders/contractors. The petitioner did indicate that this is not extensive and given the fact that it is only a 3 square foot encroachment, she believes it should be granted because it is so small. BOARD MEMBER VIG concurred with Board Member Croft. The fact that this would otherwise qualify for an administrative variance is worth considering. He is glad the applicant mentioned his relatively limited experience in the building trade as that is a factor. Under the context of Standard 3, this is a very small encroachment. Standards 4 through 6 are substantially met. In regards to Standard 7, he believes it is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land and is substantially met. He intends to support this motion. CHAIR KARCZ also intends to support the motion. He feels Standard 3 is met due to the addition being constructed in generally the same elevation, graphically, as the existing house. Williams, Denny, Raun, Karcz, Vig, Croft None PASSED BOARD MEMBER CROFT moved in Case to grant a variance from AMC in the R-10 district to allow an existing 11 x 24 square foot satellite TV receiver, tower, and fence enclosure to encroach the side yard 25-foot setback by 20 feet, a setback of 5 feet, subject to Conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5 with Condition 1 being modified to read, to allow an existing accessory structure BOARD MEMBER RAUN seconded. BOARD MEMBER CROFT finds this variance more difficult to deal with than the first variance. Based on the information in the staff packet, she was initially inclined to not support this motion. However, the petitioner has provided additional information and she is reconsidering her decision. The standards are addressed below. 1. This is a sloping lot. One condition that was not discussed is the height of trees on surrounding properties, and the ability to establish clear air space in order to get reception. For this particular use, this is an unusual lot and an unusual location because most of the problems seem to be the trees on the adjoining properties, not just the location of this particular property. She feels this standard is met. 2. The petitioner has commented how it has been difficult to get reception in the area and had attempted it three different times moving upward each time. This standard is met. 3. The Board prefers to see building permits and inspections done in a timely manner. It does seem as if the petitioner attempted to find locations that would work because she is confident they really did not want to build a 20-foot tower. 4. Comments were received from the property owner most affected stating they do not have any objection to this. She does believe if the Board allows this to remain, it needs to be assured that it is structurally safe and Condition 5 did address inspections and getting it properly permitted. 5. This standard is substantially met.

11 October 14, 2010 Page 11 of This standard is substantially met. 7. There might be another location on the property where it could be shorter, or smaller. This standard is still questionable in her mind. BOARD MEMBER RAUN does not intend to support the motion. He has some questions regarding the premise before finding that Standards 1 and 2 are at least partially met. Discussion was heard and he is not a satellite dish expert, but the petitioner had shown that building a taller tower resolved some earlier problems. Perhaps relocating and building a taller tower may alleviate those problems, but in terms of only a single conforming location on this lot, he is not certain that is necessarily the case. Standard 4 is also a concern. The current property owner that would be most affected has stated no objection, but that is the current property owner s view, and future use of the adjoining property is just as affected as the current use of the property. Standard 7 is also a problem area for him in that the function that this accessory structure provides is just that, an accessory above and beyond what meets, his definition in this case, of a reasonable use of the land. He finds that Standard 7 is not met. BOARD MEMBER DENNY concurred with Board Member Raun and with staff that the tower could be placed in a conforming location. She also does not intend to support this variance. CHAIR KARCZ does not intend to support the motion for the same reasons. He does find that if the petitioner had applied for a building permit, as staff had indicated, the setbacks could have been indicated at that time and another location could have possibly been found. Croft Williams, Denny, Raun, Karcz, Vig FAILED I. REPORTS - None 1. Chair 2. Secretary 3. Committee J. BOARD MEMBERS' COMMENTS - None K. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no objections, the meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.