HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes2019-017 Sponsored by: Applicant
CITY OF SEWARD,ALASKA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 2019-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO COLE PETERSEN DBA C & J PROPERTIES LLC TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 12 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLING UNIT ON TRACT C-3, GATEWAY SUBDIVISION NO. 1,
LOCATED AT 100 BENSON DRIVE; WITHIN THE MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL(R3)ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Cole Petersen, on behalf of C & J Properties, LLC, has requested a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct and operate a 12 unit multiple family dwelling unit
on Tract C-3 Gateway Subdivision No. 1;and
WHEREAS,the property is in the Multi-family Residential (R3)Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Land Uses Allowed Table §15.10.226, Dwelling,
multi-family (three or more units) is allowed within the Multi-family Residential (R3) Zoning
District as a conditionally permitted use; and
WHEREAS, having complied with the public notification process; on November 5,
2018, the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission held the required public hearing on the
Conditional Use Permit application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Seward Planning and Zoning
Commission that:
Section 1. According to SCC 15.10.320.D., the Commission shall establish a finding that the
use satisfies the following conditions prior to granting a conditional use permit:
A. The use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter (the Seward Zoning Code) and
the purposes of the zoning district.
Finding: This condition has been met.
The property is zoned Multi-family Residential (R3). The R3 District is intended to
provide opportunities for a higher density residential setting with a mix of housing units
which are predominately multi-family units close to concentrations of public services,
employment and/or recreation. This district may provide a transition between more
intensive districts and lower density residential areas if sufficient screening and design
features are provided to protect multi-family residences from undesirable effects. A
multi-family dwelling is allowed in the R3 District by conditional use permit from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Seward Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution 2019-017
Page 2
B. The value of adjoining property will not be significantly impaired
Finding: This condition has been met,or shall be through the conditions.
The neighboring properties are all zoned Multi-family Residential (R3). The properties to
the west/northwest of the subject parcel contain two four plexes and two single-family
dwellings. The property to the east contains a single-family dwelling, and the adjacent
property to the south is the site of the Jesse Lee Home. In order to complete the required
sewer main connection, the grade of Tract C-3 will need to be raised with fill material,
approximately 5 feet at its lowest point, but leveling off in the northerly direction. In
order to prevent potential adverse impacts to neighboring properties, surface water
drainiage shall be directed to flow toward the Benson Drive right of way.
C. The proposed use is in harmony with the Seward Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: This condition has been met.
The proposal is in harmony with the Seward 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2017) and
Strategic Plan (1999)
Seward 2030 Comprehensive Plan (approved by Council,May 30,2017)
3.2.1 Promote residential and commercial development within the City of Seward and its
vicinity in accordance with community values(Page 13)
2.2.3 Continue to require landscaping plans for conditional
use permits as feasible. (Page 7)
Strategic Plan (1999)
The Strategic Plan promotes residential and commercial development inside the City
(Page 9).
D. Public Services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use.
Finding: This condition has been met, or shall be through the conditions.
Adequate water and power are available to the property as well as adequate fire, police
and solid waste disposal services. The parcel is not served by municiapal sewer. The
applicant has stated that they are working with an engineer on a sewer main extension to
tie in to the municipal wastewater system on Phoenix Drive. The applicant shall work
with the Public Works Department to obtain written approval of the proposed extension
prior to the issuance of a building permit, and file with the Community Development
Department.
E. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health or welfare.
Finding: This condition has been met, or shall be through the conditions.
Based on SCC 15.10.215, two parking spaces are required per dwelling unit, plus ''A
space for every unit larger than two bedrooms or greater than 1,000 square feet in size.
According to the application materials, the structure consists of twelve units less than
1000 square feet. Twenty-four (24) off street parking spaces are required for this
development. Animal/Bird (Bear) resistant dumpsters/containers are required by City
Seward Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution 2019-017
Page 3
Code. Landscaping and revegetation shall be required in all areas affected by
development and not utilized by the structures, parking areas and drive surfaces.
Landscaping shall facilitate the control of dust and the visual impact on neighboring
properties.
F. Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill the
above-mentioned conditions shall be met by the applicant. These may include but are
not limited to measures relative to access, screening, site development, building design,
operation of the use and other similar aspects related to the proposed use.
Based on the above findings and conclusions, approval of the CUP shall be subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Department to obtain written
approval of the proposed sewer extension prior to the issuance of a building
permit, and file with Community Development Department.
2. The applicant shall work with all City Utility Departments to complete any
required upgrades to the water, sewer and/or electric utilities prior to a
certificate of occupancy being issued.
3. Exterior lighting shall be approved during the Building Permit process in
accordance with SCC§15.10.215(h)(1).
4. Construction waste and debris shall be removed weekly, slash piles and
construction debris shall be removed upon completion of construction.
5. All parking and maneuverability shall remain on site for the life of the use.
Twenty-four(24)off-street parking spaces are required.
6. Surface drainage shall be directed away from adjacent properties and directed
toward the Benson Drive right of way.
7. The applicant shall provide landscaping to all areas affected by development
and not utilized by the structures, parking areas and drive surfaces.
Landscaping shall facilitate the control of dust and the visual impact on
neighboring properties.
8. Bear-proof / bird resistant containers shall be provided for all garbage and
refuse for the life of the use.
9. Per Seward City Code §15.10.325.F. an approved CUP shall lapse six months
from the date of approval if the use for which the permit was issued has not
been implemented or a building permit obtained. The Commission may grant
a six month extension upon finding that circumstances have not changed
sufficiently since the date of initial permit approval.
10. When a proposed use has characteristics of more than one use, the
Community Development Department has discretion to determine which use
category or categories are most similar to the proposed use for the purpose of
determining whether the use is permitted, and for the purpose of applying
development standards.
Seward Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution 2019-017
Page 4
11. Modification of final approval of a conditional use permit may, upon
application by the permitee, be modified by the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
A. When changed conditions cause the conditional use to no longer
conform to the standards for its approval.
B. To implement a different development plan conforming to the
standards for its approval.
C. The modification plan shall be subject to a public hearing and a filing
fee set by City Council Resolution.
Section 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the proposed use, subject to the
above conditions satisfies the criteria for granting a conditional use permit provided all
conditions listed on Section 1, Subsection F. are met by the applicant, and authorizes the
administration to issue a conditional use permit for a twelve unit multifamily dwelling to C & J
Properties at 100 Benson Drive, Tract C-3 Gateway Subdivision No .1 subject to the above
conditions.
Section 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that adherence to the conditions of
this permit is paramount in maintaining the intent of Seward City Code Section 15.10.320;
Conditional use permits, and authorizes the administration to issue a conditional use permit.
Additionally, the administration shall periodically confirm the use conforms to the standards of
its approval.
Section 4. This resolution shall take effect 10 days following its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Seward Planning and Zoning Commission this 5th day of
November,2019.
THE CITY OF SEWA
Cindy . cklund, Chair
AYES:Hatfield, Seese, Charbonneau,Fleming, Ecklund
NOES:
ABSENT: Swann, Ambrosiani
ABSTAIN: •�ver•aaacs?Rn
VACANT: none ,
•
ATT T: 0,47 .• -
SEAL
B enda Ballou, ��C • •
• 4
Cit
y Clerk % 40f l '�ry.•' �'
s. F OF A�-P .**
P & Z Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: December 3, 2019
Through: Jackie Wilde, Community Development Director
From: Charles A. Cacciola, Counsel for Community
Development Department
Agenda Item: Resolution 2019-017 Granting A Variance From Seward City Code
15.10.220 Development Requirements to Reed And Kelley Wiley Lane,
Permitting An Exception To The Zoning Code To Allow Structure Within
The 5 Foot South Side Setback On Lot 27, Block 27, Original Town Site
Seward, 512 First Avenue
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Applicants Reed and Kelly Lane have applied for a zoning variance form from Seward Code
15.10.222 Development Requirement to allow the placement of a roof within the 5' minimum
side yard setback development requirement on the along the south lot line of Lot 27, Block 27,
Original Townsite, more commonly known as 512 First Avenue.
Lot 27, like many of the lots created by the original townsite plat, is a 3,000 square foot lot. It
has a small structure with a foot print of approximately 402 ft2. That structure is situated on the
lot approximately 2.5' from the southern lot line, shared with Lot 26.
Existing Nonconforming Structure
By all accounts, the structure's present location predates the City's first adoption of a zoning
code in 1989.1 Accordingly and as a result of the approximate 2.5' encroachment into the 5' side
yard setback, it is a nonconforming structure as defined by § 15.10.315. All other aspects of this
structure(prior to the applicant's 2019 modification of it, addressed below)are believed to in
conformity with current code requirements.
A pre-existing nonconforming structure means the property is in conformity with the zoning
code. No variance is required for the Lanes (or subsequent owners)to own and maintain Lot 27
and the primary structure thereon in its (original) nonconforming condition. Modification of
nonconforming structures is,however, restricted. As stated in the zoning code:
It is the intent of[Chapter 15.10] to permit [] nonconformities to continue until
they are removed,but not to encourage their perpetuation,and to eliminate the
nonconformities as rapidly as the law permits. It is further the intent of this
chapter that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended,
1 By 1992 warranty deed conveying Lots 26 and 27 from David Campbell to Lynda Tuer,
"Grantor certifies that said property has never been used as a family residence."Warranty Deed
(January 28, 1992), recorded in the Seward Recording District at Book 63, Page 840.
101103
Planning and Zoning Agenda Statement
Resolution 2019-017
Page 2 of 9
nor used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the
same district.'
To achieve this intent, nonconforming structures are subject to restrictions relating to
maintenance of and addition to the structure:
(1) A nonconforming structure may not be enlarged or altered in a way which
increases its nonconformity;
(2) Should a nonconforming nonresidential structure or nonconforming portion
thereof be damaged by any means to an extent of more than 50 percent of its
replacement cost at time of destruction, as determined by the City Manager or his
designee, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of
this chapter;
(3) Any nonconforming residential structure being used as a primary residence
that is destroyed may be rebuilt provided that all provisions of this chapter,
excluding lot size and width, are met-,and
(4) On any nonconforming structure or portion of a structure containing a
nonconforming use, work may be done, in any period of 12 consecutive months
on ordinary repairs, to an extent not exceeding 50 percent unless said repairs are
in conformity with all other provisions of this cha ter or are required by any
official charged with protecting the public safety.
Project.Background
On March 21, 2019, the Lanes submitted an application to construct an arctic entry on the main
structure on Lot 27. The proposed artic entry consisted of a 5' X 8' addition on the west side of
the main structure, facing First Ave. As part of the application process, a site plan was submitted
to the Community Development Department. Finding that the arctic entry conformed to all
zoning requirements and that, despite enlarging the structure, it did not do so in any way that
enlarged or altered its nonconformity, Planning Director Wilde approved the site plan. Building
Permit 2019-08 issued. Construction of the artic entry appears to have commenced and been
completed without incident and there is no known code non-compliance related to the artic entry.
In August, the Fire Department became aware that unpermitted construction—roof work—was
taking place on Lot 27. A stop-work order issued on August 28, 2019 and was posted in a
conspicuous place on the premises.
On or about August 28, 2019, the Lanes submitted a request for a building permit for
"replacement of a failing structural roof(husband fell through), at this time w/engineered planes
we are replacing 50% with plans to replace other 50% in the future."4 With that application, the
z § 15.10.315(a).
§ 15.1.0.315(f).
4 Residential Building Permit Application, submitted by Kelley Lane
111103
Planning and Zoning Agenda Statement
Resolution 2019-017
Page 3 of 9_
Lanes submitted truss drawings prepared by MiTek under the direction of a registered
Professional Engineer. These drawings depict a roof that will extend approximately 24"beyond
the external wall of the structure. The building permit is states "WORK MAY NOT BEGIN
UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED."
Over the next two weeks, the Lanes communicated with buildings safety officials and the
Department regarding insufficiencies in the building permit application dated August 28, 2019,
with city officials informing the Lanes what steps and submissions were required for the work to
be lawfully performed and to come into compliance with the zoning code. The building inspector
had concerns regarding the design of the proposed structure and its ability to withstand wind
shearing and snow loads. Additionally, the proposed structure would have expanded the
nonconformity of the nonconforming structure, and the Lanes had not obtained a variance that
would allow them to further encroach upon the 5' side yard setback.
The Lane.,, Undertook (and seemingly completed)the roof repair work without a building permit
and withcnit the required variance. It is not entirely clear when the Lanes began construction on
the un-permitted roof or when they completed the work, including whether or not the continued
work after the stop-work order issued.
By letter dated September 13, 2019, the Lanes were informed that there were code violations
occurring on Lot 27 and that to bring the Lot into compliance, the Lanes would need an approved
building permit for the modified structure and that in order to comply with setback requirements,
the Lanes could"rejoin" Lots 26 and 27.5 At this time, the Lanes were not informed of other
alternatives to bring the property into compliance such as returning the structure to a condition
that would allow it to continue as a lawful nonconforming structure or seeking a variance that, if
issued, would allow the building official to issue a building permit if all other building code
provisions were satisfied.
5 In 1975, Lots 21, 22,23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of Block 27 were conveyed to Donna Lantz.
In 1977,. Lots 26 and 27 were conveyed to Jack Butler. Since that 1977 conveyance, Lots 26 and
27 have always had the same owner notwithstanding several conveyances to new owners. Each
time both lots were conveyed by one deed. Similarly, when the properties have served as
collateral for loans, the deed of trust encumbered both lots. This pattern continued when the
Lanes acquired Lots 26 and 27 by warranty deed on October 16, 2015.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough treated both lots as one tax parcel for the purposes of real
property tax. It appears that the Lanes asked the KPB to "sever" Lots 26 and 27 into two
individual tax parcels in 2019.
Although the transaction history of Lots 26 and 27 and KPB real property tax records
tend to treat the two lots as one parcel, they are legally two separate lots according to the 1905
original Seward Townsite plat. No re-plat or other instrument of record legally consolidated the
lots into a single lot. They were and remain legally separate lots.The Lanes' request that the
KPB treat each lot as a separate tax parcel does not constitute a subdivision of the lots. For the
purposes of the City's zoning ordinances, Lots 26 and 27 have been and are separate lots.
12/103
Planning and Zoning Agenda Statement
Resolution 2019-017
Page 4 of 9
(To date, no enforcement action for engaging in construction without a building permit,
continuing construction after the issuance of the stop-work order,or the zoning code violations
has been undertaken. The Community Development Department and building inspector first
sought to work with the Lanes to bring their property into compliance. The City intends to
initiate enforcement action following resolution of the variance request.)
Following receipt of the Planning Director's September 13, 2019 letter,CDD and the Lanes
resumed discussion of ways the Lanes could bring Lot 27 into compliance. On November 5.
2019, the City received the Lane's Application for Variance. The variance seeks exception to
§15.10.220. Site plans were included in the submission, but the application did not explicitly
state what aspects of§15.10.220 they sought variance from and for what structures on the site
plan. The Lanes later clarified that they "are requesting a variance to change their existing home
roof line to be one foot from lot line' .
Public Notice and Comments
Property owners within 300 feet of the property were notified of this proposed variance. Public
notice signs were posted on the property, and all other public hearing requirements of SCC
15.01.040 were satisfied.
At the time of submission of this report, the Community Development Department has received
no public comments. If any comments are received after submission and prior to the December
3, 2019 meeting, they will be presented to the commission at the meeting.
Staff Comment:
Staff has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit application the following comments were reported.
Department Comments No NIA
Comment
Building Department
Electric Department Application is
incomplete/incorrect and/or
contains errors, please have
applicant make corrections
Fire Department
Harbor Department X
Police Department
Public Works Department
Telecommunications
6 Rissie Casagranda email to Charles Cacciola (November 20, 2019 9:08 PM); see also
Kelley Lane email to Boyd, Chandler, Falconer& Munson, LLP(November 08, 2019 4:01 PM).
131103
Planning and Zoning Agenda Statement
Resolution 2019-017
Page 5 of 9
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that Resolution 2019 be denied because
the applicant has not shown appropriate special conditions or circumstances exist which are
peculiar to the land or structures that would necessitate justify the near zero-lot line structure.
The basis for this recommendation is more fully explained below.
§15.10.325(d) Review Criteria & Analysis
CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST: Yes No N/A
Seward Comprehensive Plan (2030, approved by Council May 30,
20r7):
Section 7 — Housing. The Plan expresses a goal of developing
reasonably priced housing within Seward. This variance relates to that
1. goal, but it is difficult to say whether it furthers or inhibits the goal. On x x
the one hand, it could be viewed as improving the present availability of
housing on Lot 27. On the other, continuing a nonconforming use could
be viewed as delaying the development of superior, conforming housing
Lon Lot 27 or inhibitingthe development of qualityhousingon Lot 26.
2. Strategic Plan (1999):
1. The proposed action must he consistent with all of the general conditions required
for a conditional use permit.
As explained below, general use conditions required for a conditional use permit are partially
satisfied, but granting the variance would authorize significant deviations from generally
accepted zoning and planning principles contained in the code. The recommendation to deny the
request flows from these inconsistencies.
a. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of this chapter and the
purpose of the zoning district.
This condition is partially satisfied.
Development Requirements: As explained below, this property has nonconforming status. It is
the express intent of the chapter"to eliminate the nonconformities as rapidly as the law permits.
It is further the intent of this chapter that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded
or extended, nor used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the
same district.'7 The proposed modification to the nonconforming structure would enlarge the
nonconformity, in direct conflict with the purpose of the chapter and the zoning district.
§15.10.315.
14/103
Planning and Zoning Agenda Statement
Resolution 2019-017
Page 6of9
Parking: Seward City Code 15.10.215 requires that single-family dwellings have two parking
spaces per dwelling unit. Lot 27 has sufficient off-road parking for two vehicles.This
requirement, of particular importance in the downtown area, is satisfied.
Flaadplain status: This property is not located in a flood hazard area.
b. The value of adjoining property will not be significantly impaired.
It is uncertain if this condition is satisfied, but the circumstances mitigate its relevance. Lot 26 is
the adjoining property where the value could potentially be impaired. However, applicant owns
both Lots 26 and 27 and would therefore incur the burden of any such loss, to which applicant
presumably does not object. Accordingly, the recommendation proceeds as though this condition
were fully satisfied.
c. The proposed use is in harmony with the Seward Comprehensive Plan.
It is uncertain if this condition is satisfied. The Plan expresses a goal of developing reasonably
priced housing within Seward. This variance relates to that goal,but it is difficult to say whether
it furthers or inhibits the goal. On the one hand, it could be viewed as improving the present
availability of housing on Lot 27. On the other, continuing a nonconforming use could be viewed
as delaying the development of superior, conforming housing on Lot 27 or inhibiting the
development of quality housing on Lot 26. Owing to the uncertainty, little weight is given to this
factor in reaching the recommendation.
d. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed site.
This condition is satisfied. Adequate water, sewer, and power are available to the property, as
well as adequate police, fire, and solid waste service. The enjoyment of this variance would not
require any change or increase to the use of public water, sewer,or power utilities.
e. The proposed use will not be harmful to the public safety, health or welfare.
This condition is not satisfied. Deputy Fire Chief Crites expressed concern that reducing the
potential space between adjacent structures would interfere with emergency response by
precluding the placement of ladders and would increase the risk of fire in one structure spreading
to the adjacent structures
As explained by Building Inspector Nilsson, to inhibit the spread of fire, the 2012 International
Residential Code, adopted by the City by reference,9 requires a minimum fire separation distance
8 To evaluate the health and safety concerns presented by the proposed variance,CDD
assumes the full and complete lawful enjoyment of Lot 26 by its current, and any future, owner,
which includes the right to place a structure within 5' of the lot line. The City cannot satisfy the
safety requirements by compelling Lot 26 to absorb the full combined setback requirement for
the benefit of Lot 27.
9 § 12.05.021.
151103
Planning and Zoning Agenda Statement
Resolution 2019-017
Page 7 of 9
of greater than 5' for exterior walls that are not fire resistance rated and a 2' separation from the
lot line for any overhangs.10
These safety concerns are a significant reason for the recommendation that variance request be
denied.
f. Any and all specific conditions deemed necessary by the commission to fulfill
the above-mentioned conditions shall be met by the applicant. These may
include but are not limited to measures relative to access,screening,site
development,building design, operation of the use and other similar aspects
to the proposed use.
This condition is not directly applicable.
2. Special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or
structures involved and which are not applicable to other lands and structures in
the same district.
The applicant provided the following statement as explanation of the special conditions of
circumstances justifying the requested variance.
It is unknown whether or not past earthquakes shifted the 80+year-odd-home into
the setback or if the home existed in the setback prior to the city creating the
codelordinances/pdat, etc. that make this home an illegal, nonconforming property
today.
As explained above, CDD assumes that the structure(at least prior to the applicant's 2019
modification of it) is a lawful nonconforming structure. Prior to the 2019 modification for which
the variance is sought, the structure did not constitute a violation of the zoning code nor was a
variance required to maintain the structure.
Seward City Code § 15.10.315, which governs pre-existing nonconformities, makes clear that a
lawful, pre-existing nonconforming structure cannot serve as the basis for requesting a variance
that would increase the conformity. "Nonconforming structures are subject to the following
restrictions:A nonconforming structure may not be enlarged or altered in a way which increases
its nonconformity'.�� The owners of a property containing a nonconforming structure may
maintain the structure in conformity with the code,l2 but they may not increase the
nonconformity.
iQ 2012 International Residential Code Commentary Section R302 Fire-Resistant
Construction.
§15.10-315(f)(1).
12 See §15.10.315(f)(2)-(4).
16/103
Planning and Zoning Agenda Statement
Resolution 2019-017
Page 8 of 9
It is the intent of this chapter to permit these nonconformities to continue until
they are removed, but not to encourage their perpetuation,and to eliminate the
nonconformities as rapidly as the law permits. It is further the intent of this
chapter that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended,
nor used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the
same district.13
Given the codified intent of the zoning code and the express prohibition on increasing the scope
of an existing nonconformity, nonconforming status cannot constitute"special conditions or
circumstances peculiar to the land or structures involved and which are not applicable to other
lands and structures in the same district"that would merit a variance.Granting a variance on
such basis would violate the express intent of the code.
Moreover, the applicant has not shown that the structure cannot be adequately maintained
without increasing the nonconformity and the commission is prohibited from granting a variance
on the basis of financial hardship of inconvenience.
The failure to satisfy this condition is a major factor in the recommendation that the requested
variance be denied.
3. The special conditions and circumstances were not cause by actions of the applicant.
To the extent the property's nonconforming status is asserted as the special condition or
circumstance causing the need for the variance, nonconforming status was not caused by the
applicant. But nonconforming status cannot serve as the basis for granting a variance.
To the extent the applicant asserts the prior completion of the proposed work as a special
condition or circumstance, this was caused by the applicant.
Because this report concludes that the applicants did not state special conditions and
circumstances that can be validly considered, relatively little weight is given to the applicant's
responsibility for the conditions.
4. Financial hardship or inconvenience shall not be a reason for granting variance.
Any loss of property value that may have occurred in the absence of roof repair work is not
considered in making the recommendation because(i)the applicant has not shown that the roof
could not be adequately repaired without increasing the nonconformity,and because(ii) §
15.10.315 contemplates that such loss may occur in the case of nonconforming structures, with
subsection (f) setting the standards by which those potential losses may be mitigated.
Moreover, the recommendation expressly avoids any consideration of expense the applicant
incurred by performing the proposed work prior to obtaining a building permit or that such
§15.10.315(a).
17/103
Planning and Zoning Agenda Statement
Resolution 2019-017
Page 9 of 9
expense may be wasted if the violation is ordered to be abated.14 Similarly, potential costs of
abating the violation(s) are not considered because this criteria disclaims such consideration and
because the applicant ought not be benefitted by sums expended in violation of the City's
building and zoning codes.
5. Other nonconforming land uses or structures within the district shall not be
considered as grounds for granting a variance.
The recommendation is not based on other nonconformities within the district.
C. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to permit the reasonable
use of the property.
This condition has not been satisfied. The applicant has not shown the reasonable use of the
property is not possible without the variance and superficially have not shown that the roof of the
nonconforming structure cannot be adequately repaired without increasing the nonconformity.
The failure to satisfy this condition is a significant, but not primary,reason for the
recommendation that the variance be denied.
7. The requested variance will not permit a land use in a district where the use is
prohibited.
This condition is satisfied. The requested variance does not relate to any changed use or
prohibited use.
14 Nor does the recommendation take into account that the applicant proceeded with
construction work without a valid building permit and may have continued to work even after a
stop-work order issued. These facts, if proven, may be relevant to zoning code violation
enforcement and penalties,but are not among the criteria to be considered when evaluating a
variance request.
18/103