Loading...
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: