[1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on the Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on June 14, 2022.]
[00:00:06]
>> WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER WELCOME EVERYONE.
FIRST ITEM OF THE BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FROM JUNE 14. SECOND.
MINUTES STAND APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
NO PREVIOUS ITEMS CONSIDERED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS FIVE MEMBERS FOUR PRESENT AT EACH MEETING REQUIRED TO PROVE AND REQUESTS UNDER CONSIDERATION IF A SPECIAL VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THIS BOARD THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT IF ONE IS REQUIRED.
A LONGER TIME BY THIS BOARD IF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AT THIS HEARING THE APPLICANT MAY APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, AFTER THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED IT MAY NOT BE RECONSIDERED UNTIL 12 MONTHS FROM THE STATE APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS MAY BE MADE TO A BOARD OF RECORD, THE DISTRICT BOARD WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THIS DATE.
[2. BA-2022-03: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request from KeyCity Capital of a 13-foot variance from the minimum 60-foot lot width ordinarily required for MF (Multi-family) Zoning districts. ]
NEW BUSINESS FIRST ITEM IS RECEIVED THE REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST OF THE 13 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 60 FOOT LOT WITH ORDINARILY REQUIRED FOR MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS. ADAM.>> GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS ADAM.
I WORK FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT I WILL BE PRESENTING BA 20 2203. MINIMUM 60 FOOT LOT WITH ORDINARILY REQUIRED LOCATED AT 1734 NORTH SECOND STREET.
HERE IS A LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
A CURRENT ZONING MAP OF THE EXISTING PROPERTIES AND PROPERTIES IN NEIGHBORING CURRENTLY ZONING WITH THE FIRE STATION TO THE EAST WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH. CURRENTLY THE COMMERCIAL USED AS A SONIC AND VARIOUS OTHER BUSINESSES WITH SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY HOMES TO THE NORTH THIS PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE. WHICH INFILL DEVELOPMENT ZONE WITHIN CITY LIMITS TO PROMOTE AND FAIL.
WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATION LETTERS WITHIN 200 FOOT BUFFER RECEIVED NO RESPONSES. SUBJECT PROPERTY VIEWS CURRENTLY EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO THE WEST, SONIC TO THE SOUTH AND A FIRE STATION TO THE EAST.
CURRENTLY THIS PROPERTY IS VACANT.
A CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE A DUPLEX WITHIN THIS LOT AS YOU CAN SEE THEY WILL MEET THE SETBACKS REQUIRED IN MULTIFAMILY.HIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1442 OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS BEEN THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND THE CITY STAFF BELIEVES THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY SETBACK OF THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP RESULTING IN AN EQUITABLE USE.
STAFF BELIEVES THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTERESTS OR DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE.
GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND BUILDING CODE, PURPOSE OF LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS NO HARDSHIP IS CREATED. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THAT YOU HAVE FOR ME. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR ADAM?
>> JUST A COUPLE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LOT IN THE
WEST WHAT THE WIDTH IS? >> I BELIEVE IT IS A SIMILAR
[00:05:07]
THAT IS IT. >> SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE A FEW LOTS LIKE THIS ESPECIALLY IN THE OLD TOWN AREA THAT ARE BASICALLY SUBSTANDARD. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA TO WORK OUR WAY TO GET THEM TO DEVELOP.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE SOME MORE OF THIS PROPERTY JUST VACANT.
BECOME PRODUCTIVE. SO THANK YOU, ADAM.
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE COME FORWARD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. THANKS.
IF YOU ARE PLANNING ON PRESENTING A CASE TODAY IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AT THIS TIME.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> I WAS HERE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO PRESENTING A SIMILAR PRODUCT ACTUALLY THE EXACT SAME DUPLEX.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONTINUE TO DEVELOP IN THE EMPOWERMENT ZONE AND CONTINUE TO PROVIDE QUITE A FEW OF THESE OTHER ONES GOING UP THE ROAD SO WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THAT.
>> PROXIMITY TO SONIC HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR
DECISION? >> I AM SURE WE WILL BE EATING
THERE QUITE A BIT. >> PRETTY LOW RATES ON YOUR
FIRE INSURANCE. >> THAT HELPS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS CASE? ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING DISCUSSION. >> PRETTY CLEAR CUT.
>> I AM ENCOURAGED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOTS THAT FIT ALL CRITERIA SOMETIMES. I THINK THERE IS ONE THING THAT ISN'T MENTIONED. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS FOR THIS LOT. IT IS BOUNDED BY THE ALLEY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE WEST WILL GIVE UP LAND.
ANOTHER THREE FEET TO MEET THE 50 ANYWAY CIRCUMSTANCES TO MAKE THIS AN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU ROBERT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
IF NOT ENTERTAINING MOTION. >> I MOVED WE PROVED THE VARIANCE AS STATED. BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE FACT THAT INFILL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME HERE CERTAINLY THE BEST USE OF LAND. APPROVED IT.
>> SECOND THAT. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE AS STATED BASED UPON THE FINDINGS FROM THE STAFF REPORT. MR. THOMAS.
>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES.
[3. BA-2022-04: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request for an 8-foot variance from the minimum 60-foot lot width ordinarily required for RS-6 (Residential Single-family) Zoning districts.]
>> SECOND CASE FOR CONSIDERATION IS BA 2022 Ã04.
HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON
[00:10:03]
REQUEST FOR EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 60 FOOT LOT WITH ORDINARILY REQUIRED FOR RS6 ZONING DISTRICTS.>> THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY IS PAUL, HE IS WANTING TO REQUEST EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 60 FOOT LOT WITH ORDINARILY REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONING. >> EASY FOR YOU TO SAY.
>> LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS 2811 ROBERT STREET.
WE SEND OUT NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED. THIS IS THE MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MAP SHOWS THE ZONINGS THAT SURROUND THIS PROPERTY ALL OF THEM BEING RS6 SINGLE-FAMILY WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATION 200 FEET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED.
SEVERAL PHOTOS OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AS YOU CAN SEE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ALSO RECEIVED A PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT SHOWING PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY STILL MEETING ALL THE SETBACKS UNDER RS LETTER SIX ZONING. A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE THAN THE REQUIRED SIX FOOT SETBACK. THE REAR SETBACK.
UNDER THE PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.4.4.2 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF BELIEVES THE APPLICATION OF THE LOT WITH, REASONABLE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE LAND.
LIKELY REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. ONLY OF VALUE TO THE OWNER.
WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, THE LOT INTENDED TO BE CREATED, EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LOT WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTS.
THE HARDSHIP AND EQUITY IS NOT CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?
>> APPROXIMATELY WHEN THIS WAS PLOTTED?
>> I DO NOT. BUT IT IS A VACANT LOT RIGHT NOW SINCE 1946 IT HAS BEEN VACANT AND HAS BEEN 50 FEET.
>> MORE THAN LIKELY BEFORE THE 60 FOOT REQUIREMENT.
>> A GOOD NUMBER OF LOTS IN THE PARK HEIGHTS ADDITION EAST OF ROSE PARK. SO THOSE DATES BACK TO 1925.
THAT IS REASONABLE. WE MAY SEE SOME MORE.
COULD COME BACK AGAIN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CLARISSA? THANK YOU MA'AM.
THIS POINT OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE REASON FOR YOUR REQUEST.
LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT A NO SHOW FOR THIS ONE.
ASSUME ALL NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT PROPERLY.
OKAY. WE ALWAYS PREFER TO HAVE THE
APPLICANT HERE. >> IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK
[00:15:19]
WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IN A MINUTE.TYPICALLY WE WANT THE PROPONENT TO COME.
WE WOULD PREFER TO SPEAK PERSONALLY WITH THEM I DO NOT THINK IT CHANGES THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE WOULD PHAVE FOR THE CASE. SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE A PROPONENT TO COME SPEAK FOR THE CASE ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF THIS CASE? SEEING NONE.
ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD SPEAK AGAINST THIS CASE? WAS THAT YOUR INTENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS CASE? WOULD YOU COME FORWARD PLEASE TO THE MICROPHONE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> 2742 S. 12TH. >> WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN?
>> LIKE I SAID THIS MEETING WHETHER IT IS APPROVED OR NOT.
I LIVE ÃTHE WEST OF >> THERE ARE A LOT OF VACANT
LOTS. >> NOT A VERY GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD. I BOUGHT MY HOUSE 22 YEARS AGO.
PERSONALLY I WOULDN'T BUILD IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THAT.
>> NOT GOING TO CHANGE TOO MUCH IN THE TIME THAT I HAVE LIVED
THERE NOTHING HAS CHANGED. >> THIS SOUNDS LIKE A STEP IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. >> I GUESS IT IS.
OKAY.>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN AND COMING FORWARD.
>> YOU ARE WELCOME. >> THIS POINT I WILL CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION. >> SO SIMILAR TO THE OTHER ONE IT COULD HAVE ROLLED OVER. POSITIVE INFILL.
>> SIMILAR COMMENT. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IMPACT THIS, IT WAS PLOTTED ALMOST BEFORE THE 50 OR 60 FOOT REQUIREMENT. I THINK THAT IS THE REASON TO
CONSIDER THIS AS A POSSIBLE STEP.>> I HAVE A CONCERN THAT THE PROPONENT WAS NOT HERE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THEY ADDRESS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE OPPONENTS CONCERNS.
>> AS I UNDERSTAND SHE WASN'T AN OPPONENT.
>> SHE WAS NOT OPPOSED TO IT. >> SOME MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN HER AND THE DEVELOPER OR THE BUILDER.
THAT CONCERNS ME. >> OKAY ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT
[00:20:06]
CONCERN? >> I THINK HER MAIN CONCERN WAS WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS GOING BY THE BOOKS AS FAR AS GETTING STARTED PRIOR TO APPROVAL. AND I GUESS THOUGHTS ON WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A GOOD DECISION TO BUILD OR NOT.
I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENTS AS FAR AS THESE ARE STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTIONS WHY WE HAVE PROPERTIES LIKE THIS.
THE MORE WE CAN ENCOURAGE THE BUILDING OF PROJECTS IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS MIGHT BEGIN TO CLEAN THINGS UP AND PROMOTE A
BETTER WAY OF LIVING. >> ALL UNDERSTAND THE GOOD IN THIS THE FACT AN ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED THE REASON WE ALWAYS LIKE TO HAVE THE PROPONENTS HERE TO CLARIFY ANY ISSUES I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO PRESS ON I DO NOT SEE ANY NEED FOR HASTE AND APPROVAL IF THERE IS NOT MORE CONCERN BY THE PROPONENT TO SHOW UP FOR IT OBVIOUSLY IT IS NOT A FRONT BURNER KIND OF THING. I WOULD SUGGEST WE WOULD CONSIDER TABLING AND GIVE A PROPONENT A CHANCE TO HEAR AND OUR BOARD MEMBER HAVE HIS CONCERNS ADDRESSED.
>> SOMETIMES THINGS NOT NECESSARILY ERECTING INTO THE BOOK YOU KNOW COMMON COURTESY CALLS FOR DIFFERENT THINGS,
THAT IS MY CONCERN. >> REINFORCED, TWO LOTS UNDERDEVELOPED NEXT TO THIS ONE A TOTAL OF THREE LOTS.
IT MIGHT BE A GOOD THING TO HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER.
>> OKAY. >> WE TABLE THIS TO MEET A
SCHEDULE. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> TABLING IT TO THE NEXT MEETING?
>> I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE SCHEDULE IS.
WHENEVER IT IS CONVENIENT FOR HIM TO BE HERE.
>> THE CITY SCHEDULED THE MEETING.
WE TYPICALLY DO NOT KNOW WHEN THAT WOULD BE WE JUST SCHEDULE
TO A CERTAIN DATE. >> NOT TO DELAY THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IT BE UNTIL NEXT MEETING. A FAIR SHOT AT ATTENDING.
THAT IS THE REASON HIS DID NOT MOVE FORWARD TODAY.
>> TO THE NEXT MEETING. >> I WILL RESTATE IT IF NEED
>> A MOTION TO TABLE THIS REQUEST TO THE NEXT MEETING.
MADE BY THE COLONEL. MR. THOMAS.
>> THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIES. >> THAT IS ALL WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.