Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/04/1981 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Port Angeles, Washington May 4, 1981 . I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Lacey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: James Clevenger, James Rexroat, John Lacey, Evelyn Tinkham Members Absent: William Lindberg Staff Present; Dan VanHemert, Louise Frost III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Tinkham moved to accept the minutes of the April 6, 1981, meeting as submitted. Mr. Rexroat seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. . IV COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. V VARIANCES V-80 (11) 36 & V-SO (.12) 37 - GERALD G. AUSTIN. Request for extension of variance reducing the required alley setback from 15' to 5'; to construct two additional office modules to an.existing nonretail professional office building. Location: 830 and 832 East Eighth St'r'eet .' . Mr. VanHemert reviewed the request for extension and the previous actions of the Board. Chairman Lacey opened the public hearing. Mr. Austin said that new prospective tenants for the pro- posed office modules would not require the 50-foot size originally planned, so the intrusion into the alley set- back would probably not be so great. Chairman Lacey closed the public hearing. . Mr. Rexroat moved to grant a six-month extension of the variance reducing the required alley setback from 15' to 5'. Mrs. Tinkham seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. Board of Adjustment May 4, 1981 Page 2 . V-81(5)14 - GEORGE C. RAINS, JR. Request for a variance to increase lot coverage from 30% al- . .lowed by Code to 33.2%; to construct a two-car garage. Location: 130 West Thirtee'n'th Street. Mr. VanHemert reviewed the staff report. Chairman Lacey read into the record a note from E. A. Hanowell, 131 West Fourteenth, in favor of the variance. He then opened the public hearing. Mr. Rains explained that the existing garage would remain; the new one is to shelter some of his nine vehicles. Mrs. Tinkham asked about the parking situation on the street and alley, and Mr. Rains replied that evenings and weekends the street and alley both are clogged with parked vehicles. If he can build this additional garage, most of his would then be parked under cover on his own lot. Chairman Lacey closed the public hearing. Mr. Rexroat moved to grant the variance to increase the lot coverage from 30% allowed by Code to 33.2%, citing the fol- lowing findings of fact: . A. The slope at the rear of the lot, together with the orientation of the existing garage, deny the property the use right of covered off-street parking and there- fore are special circumstances related to the property. B. Most residential lots in the vicinity and RS-7 District have either a garage or' carport, and some, particularly in the older, built-up areas, exceed the maximum lot coverage requirement. Consequently, the granting of this variance will not convey a special privilege to this property. C. The garage will not create a fire hazard, block a view, reduce air circulation, shadow adjacent properties, or otherwise have a detrimental impact on nearby prop- erties, utilities and the general public. Mr. Clevenger seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. V-81(5)15 - ROBERT W. ORTON. Request for vari- ance to reduce the rear yard setback from 25' re- quired by Code to 16'; to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence. Location: 3753 Canyon Circle. . Mr. VanHemert reviewed the staff report. In response to a question from the Board, he explained the purpose of the 25- foot setback in residential zones; i.e., adequate living space. Chairman Lacey opened the public hearing. Board of Adjustment May 4, 1981 Page 3 . Mr. Orton had nothing further to add to the staff report, so Chairman Lacey closed the public hearing. Mr. Clevenger moved to grant the variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 25' required by Code to 16', citing the following findings of fact: ... A. The lot shape and location of the house are special circumstances related to the subject lot which limit a normal structure addition to the building. B. Since the subject house is relatively small and other similar homes in the vicinity can construct additions conforming to the RS-9 Zoning, granting the variance ~snot a grant of special pr~vilege. C. The addition will not be materially detrimental to ad- joining properties, utilities and the public welfare because it will not be near a property line and in all other respects it will meet the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Re~roat:. seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. . V-81(3)8 - RONALD E. BRADSHAW. Request for vari- ance to increase the lot coverage from 30% to 42.5%; to reduce the rear yard from 251 to 181; and to reduce the corner yard from 13' to 2.21: for an existing nonconforming garage and deck, and for the construction of an addition to the existing single-family residence. Location: 1638 West Twelfth Street. Mr. VanHemert reviewed the staff report. Mr. Clevenger men- tioned that if the deck were concrete it would not be included in lot coverage: and then asked if the same people had lived in the house throughout the period. Mr. .VanHemert said that so far as Staff knew, the Bradshaws had lived there since the house was built. In response to a question, Mr. VanHemert explained that after problems were discovered by Staff, the Applicant has applied for a building permit for the original garage conversion. However, the City cannot issue a building permit for the existing gara~e without a variance first be- ing granted. Chairman Lacey noted that the Board could not address the proposed addition to a structure that is already illegal. He then opened the public hearing. . Mr. Bradshaw distributed a written comment on the Staff report, contending that staff had made errors in calculating lot cover- age. Mr. 'Clevenger said that the Applicant is responsible for providing correct dimensions on the application. Mrs. Tinkham moved to table consideration of this matter un- til Applicant and Staff can work out their differences of Board of Adjustment May 4, 1981 Page 4 . opinion on dimensions. Mr. Rexroat seconded this motion. During discussion on this motion, Mr. VanHemert explained that the differences in the lot coverage raised by the ap- plication result from the inclusion of eaves and decking not included in the original application. Chairman Lacey reiterated the necessity for building permits and Mr. Brad- shawls knowledge of the requirements therefor. Mr. Bradshaw suggested that variances for existing structures should be settled tonight. Chairman Lacey closed the public hearing. Mr. Rexroat suggested that the Board review the dimensions presented by Staff and the Applicant. Mr. Clevenger re- viewed his calculations of the existing lot coverage as fol- lows: The existing house, including eave overhang in ex- cess of 30", totals 2,356 square feet; the existing noncon- forming garage is 24 x 24, or a total area of 576 square feet; and the porch comprises 150 square feet. The existing decking is not included. The total square-footage of struc- tures is 3,082 square feet, which, based on a lot area of 9,800 square feet, comprises 31.4% lot coverage. Mr. Brad- shaw agreed with these figures. . Mrs. Tinkham then withdrew her motion to table, and Mr. Rex- roat withdrew his second of that motion. Mr. Bradshaw said that he has now taken out a building permit for the conver- sion of the original attached garage into living space, and now needs a variance for the existing garage. Mr. Rexroat moved to grant the variance reducing the corner yard from 13 feet to 2.2 feet and increasing the lot coverage from the 30% allowed by Code to 31.4% in order to legitimatize the existing residential structure, porch and garage. The purpose for granting this variance is to allow the Applicant to obtain a building permit for the existing garage and make it legal. Mr. Rexroat does not consider this to be a grant of special privilege to the property; nor does he see it being detrimental to adjoining properties. Mr. Clevenger seconded this motion, stating that this is the only apparent way to solve a bad situation. This motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Tinkham moved to direct Staff to check with the City At- torney on the possibility of withholding building permits to contractors, such as the one involved in this problem, who have exhibited irresponsibility in the past. Mr. Rexroat seconded this motion, which passed unanimously. . with respect to the request to further increase the lot cover- age to allow construction of an addition to the house, Mr. Clevenger said he would not like to see such a large increase. Mr. Rexroat moved to deny the variance to increase the lot coverage and reduce the rear yard to construct an addition to the existing house because of the already existing excess lot coverage, citing the following findings of fact: Board of Adjustment May 4, 1981 Page 5 . A. No development right is being denied the property. There are no special circumstances related to the lot which prohibit construction within the Zoning Ordinance requirements. In fact, the lot is larger and wider than the usual corner lot and the standard City lot. B. The lot coverage (42.5%) and the yard variances re- quested will result in the conveyance of a special privilege of added lot coverage to this property not shared by nearby properties or those in the RS-7 District. The present ground level floor area of the dwelling unit alone, not even counting the deck- ing or garage, would be generally larger than that found for all structures on a lot in the neighbor- hood and RS-7 Zone. . C. The increase in lot coverage and the construction of additional enclosed structure (as compared to the slatted decking) will restrict exposure to the sun, air circulation, significantly reduce private recrea- tion space, and may impact storm water drainage. In these regards, the variances for the new structure will have significant detrimental effects on neigh- boring properties and the general welfare. Mr. Clevenger seconded this motion. During discussion, Mr. Rexroat observed that the existing deck had not even been considered in the portion of the variance request which had been granted. Mr. Clevenger said that the area consists of large lots, is a nice residential area, and the intent of the area appears to maintain the spaciousness. To allow 40% lot coverage to one person would encourage others to make similar applications. Mr. Rexroat said that it did not appear that the property was being denied any rights that other properties in the area had. On call for the question, the motion to deny passed unanimously. Chairman Lacey suggested that Mr. Bradshaw could enlarge the house by constructing a second story, perhaps over the converted garage area. . He further said that an increase of 10% over the allowed 30% lot coverage amounts to an addi- tional one-third more structural coverage. " VI STAFF REPORTS At the request of the Board, Staff will check on the Code compliance of other residential structures in the neighbor- hood of Mr. Bradshaw's house. . . . . Board of Adjustment May 4, 1981 Page 6 VIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. C .1) . V ()o> 4-.."'1-- C. D. VanHemert, Ass't Secy Tape condition: Satisfactory LF:CDVH:PDC:LF ...~.~. C rman . . CITY or ponT J\N~LLLS . NJ'TI:NDl\i'JCJ: ROS'fJ:R . 0 F Ai! I "il--lJ1 eL . Type ~f M cctin9: )~7Y.V"..Q S-i~f/ . Date: . Location: /3'-1 WesV- F7.07lY- SY-r~eo/- . . , , . . . ~ME . . ADDRl:SS/^GhHCY /t;:afMu~~) J ~ <~ ~4; );)l!> : . . . . --? -.. . ~~ ~ +~.~o-c . R'Ai~\~. . 312- I }-3o \.oJ ) . . j -:f0J3 '[Jr17J Jf . s7~~ '~~r{dJl {/rzcLC . I -' . - I . . f . . . I . . . . t . J . . i . I , . . . I . . ! . I . . . .' ... ;a' .- . i . . _I . . I . . t .; . . J f I . J , ! I I _OJ I . ; I I I . . i * ~_a._.....___~ ..__.._~.._-~... - --....---.-...-.