07-21-1988 Minutes
110TION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
MINUTES
SALINA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COMNISSION ROOM
JULY 21, 1988
4:00 P. M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Christian, White, Strahan, Snyder and Gaines
Haug and Brown
STAFF:
OTHER STAFF:
Peterson, Andrew and Schempp
Bengtson
#1.
Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of May 19, 1988.
Mr. Christian moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of May 19,
1988, be accepted and approved as written.
Mr. Strahan seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous (5-0) in favor of the motion.
Mr. Peterson introduced new Board members, White and Gaines.
#2.
Application #V88-8, filed by Albert F. Stevenson, requesting a
front yard setback variance of 24' from 25' to 1', and a front
yard variance of 12.5' from 25' to 12.5' on property legally
described as: all that part of Lots I, 3, 5 and 7, lying North-
westerly of the northwesterly line of U. S. Highway 81 Bypass,
in Block 10, in Pacific Addition to the City of Salina, Saline
County, Kansas (aka 769 North Broadway).
Mr. Peterson gave the Staff Report, which is contained in the case file.
Mr. Peterson added we also thought the information was relatively accurate
and explained why. You'll notice on the drawing that from the curb line
to the property line is a 22' measurement. Ordinarily, with a 60' right-
of-way and 33' of street, that 22' rather then 22' is somewhere between
10' and 15', so we have more right-of-way here then we're normany used
to. Again, both the applicant and myself thought that this area here
came to a point, based on a site plan in our files from a previous appli-
cation from the 1950's. Instead, when Broadway right-of-way was purchased
and that land was used in the right-of-way, these lots or portions of lots
were granted to the City of Salina as right-of-way. That was not exactly
what our site plan in the file showed. As you can see, we had a distance
much greater then we anticipated. We had \'/hat we thought was ample space
and we thought we knew where the property lines were. Both the applicant
and owner, and the previous owner had worked with them to determine where
these property lines were. We did not, however, require a survey. The
reason was getting a survey of this particular property due to the shape
and time element involved was extremely difficult, so we presentE!d a plot
plan or what we thought was an accurate plot plan, the applicant did, and
we discussed it and decided to go ahead and issue the permit. All the data
seemed to match what we had in the file, but it was in error and that is
why the fee was waived. We had issued the permit believing that this
location was correct. Originally, the applicant had placed the building
the full length of it out into the City right-of-way. He had thE! plumbing
and the electrical hooked up and was all ready to go. That was the first
step because of the type of building it was, it had been built off-site
and brought in. We had him relocate it to his own property and that is
the reasoning behind the waiving of the fee. We felt like the applicant
had dealt with us in good faith. We felt like given the information we
had, we had all tried our best in getting it placed properly. There was
erroneous information and perhaps in trying to facilitate a good time
frame in trying to facilitate a reasonable process, we should have required
more information then we did and we felt like it would be not pnldent or
not fair to the applicant to require a payment of fee as well as this
relocation and having to wait for final approval. Mr. Peterson also stated
a 1 ittle further research was done after the Staff Report was sent out.
He suggested that a condition be considered limiting the variance to apply
to this structure and this structure only, if the decision was made to
grant the variance.
MOTION:
SECOND:
VOTE:
SALINA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
July 21, 1988
Page 2
Mr. Snyder asked if any correspondence had been received?
Mr. Peterson stated he had received three calls from surrounding property
owners and none objected. The owner of the property, of course, had no
objection at all.
Mr. Snyder asked if the applicant had any comments to make?
Mr. Stevenson stated that it would be impossible as things are now for me
to leave the building on this site without the variance approval. The
misunderstanding, as Mike said, was because the owner and previous owner
felt like the property \lent out to a point there that was vacated. The
confusion was they thought the whole point was their property, and in
fact, it was just the alleyway that the City had vacated.
Mr. Snyder asked the Board for discussion?
Mr. Gaines said that last comment that Mike made about it being conditional
on that particular building I think would be important.
Mr. Christian moved that Application #V88-8 be approved and under the con-
dition that this approval be granted only on this particular instance and
for this particular building and according to my findings, it meets all
of the five points under K.S.A. 12-715.
Mr. Strahan seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous (5-0) in favor of the motion.
Motion carried.
#3.
Other Matters.
Mr. Peterson said the only other business is that we do have a Special
Meeting on August 4th. The two items that are scheduled for that are
variance applications. One is for the Siler Building and one is for a
residential structure side yard setback variance.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:17 P.N.
Aff4~
Michael E. Peterson
Assistant Secretary
Approved: