12-19-1996 Minutes
MINUTES
SALINA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COMMISSION ROOM - ROOM 107
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1996
4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Hardy,
Worth
Leek,
Ogborn,
Sterrett,
Umphrey
and
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Vest
STAFF PRESENT:
Andrew, Barker, and Peterson
#1.
Approval of minutes of regular meeting of November 21, 1996.
The minutes of the November 21 meeting were approved as submitted.
#2.
Application #V96-19, filed by Billie Berry, requesting a
variance to allow an oversized detached garage on property
legally described as Lot 10, Sweeny's Addition to the City of
Salina (aka 632 W. Iron Ave.). (Continued from November 21,
1996).
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is found in the case file.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of staff? Hearing none
would the applicant care to comment? Please state your name and
address for the record.
Bill Berry, 632 W. Iron, I don't have any additional comments.
Mr. Umphrey asked do you understand the two conditions that we
discussed?
Mr. Berry stated yes that is fine.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any comments from interested citizens
at this time? Hearing none I will bring this back to the Board for
additional comments and possible action.
Mr. Sterrett stated I have sensed that now we can live with what
Mr. Berry has proposed. Is that correct?
Mr. Andrew stated right with the reduction of the dimensions and
his agreement to go back and look at the spacing of the rafters and
looking at the roof supports.
Mr. Sterrett stated I take it he is going to do something with the
square footage.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Andrew stated originally it was it was 24' x 12' and I believe
now that we are talking about 8' x 20'.
MOTION:
Mr. Sterrett moved to approve Application #V96-l9 with
the two conditions recommended by staff.
SECOND:
Mr. Worth seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Motion carried 6-0.
#3.
Application #V96-21, filed by Rex and Mary Jo Lorson,
requesting a variance to Sec. 42-82(2) to allow a detached
garage to be located within the required 20 ft. front yard
setback on Leslie. The request also includes a 1 ft. front
yard setback variance on Gebhart and a maximum lot coverage
variance of 4% because the proposed construction and additions
exceed the 30% maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-l
District. The subject property is legally described as Lot
20, Block 4, Kraft Manor Addition No.2 to the City of Salina
(aka 1946 Gebhart). (Continued from November 21, 1996).
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is found in the case file.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of staff? Hearing none
would the applicant care to comment? Please state your name and
address for the record.
Rex Lorson, 1946 Gebhart, we have made some changes in the plans
that we previously submitted. We have made some reconfiguration of
the garage and the mud room and we have given consideration to, but
we can't connect the garage to the dining room directly without
something in between such as the mud room, if we put the mud room
inside the garage we lose the storage space we need and it is not
going to be practical to put the garage in there, if we make the
mud room any smaller there won't be any room to open up the doors,
one way to another and for safety reasons we think that is
necessary. One of the concerns that the Board had last time was
how close the vehicle was going to be to the street, if there was
one parked there, we have allowed 23 ft. from the garage to the
street and most vehicles are certainly not going to be any longer
than 15 ft. so that is going to allow at least 8 ft. There were
some concerns about what would happen if sidewalks were to be built
on Leslie Street, the way things are done in that neighborhood
right now, there are very few sidewalks in that whole area. On the
south side of Leslie there are sidewalks by the school, they are
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 3
directly adj acent to the street. It is our feeling that if
sidewalks are ever built on our side or on the north side of Leslie
that they are also going to have to be in similar fashion to the
school. The trees are planted there in that area if you want to
have any kind of setback from the street. The utilities are there,
there are light poles, cable TV poles, fire hydrants and the only
place that anybody could possibly build a sidewalk would be in the
same fashion as on the other side of the street directly adjacent
to the street. There are a number of houses, a number of driveways
on Leslie Street and on Charlotte Street which is directly north of
us which are significantly closer to the street than what we are
proposing. Those have not caused any problem as far as we are
concerned, there is no problem of vehicles overlapping sidewalks or
blocking the street or causing any problems like that. It is our
desire to stay there in this home this is something that we are
doing for ourselves, it is not for resale, it is not for rental, we
want to stay in the neighborhood. We have tried to come up with
something that will be compatible with the rest of the houses in
the neighborhood to preserve the integrity of the lot and allow us
also to try to keep the trees that we have growing in the backyard.
So we would ask that you make that allowance.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of the applicant?
Mr. Sterrett asked it is my understanding at the last meeting that
we voted to delay action because we were going to look at the
distance between the garage and the property line, the same as the
house, and from the house to the property line is 15.7 ft. and here
I am seeing 10 ft. which the way I interpret that is we are still
10 ft. in violation and we could go to the 15 ft. setback and being
as that was preexisting and that would work. We are still 5.7 ft.
closer to the street then what we desired at the last meeting. I
thought I made that specifically clear that we were looking at that
direction, that the garage needed to be set at least in line with
the house and then no closer to the street than the existing house.
It seems we are still 5.7 ft. from that goal?
Mr. Andrew stated what they are showing here is the garagre would be
5.7 ft. closer to the street than the house.
Mr. Sterrett stated and the existing house is on that and it is
actually 4.3 ft. closer to the property line than what the
ordinance allows.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 4
Mr. Andrew stated right when it was built it was in conformance and
then the requirement changed but at the time the house was built a
15 ft. setback was acceptable.
Mr. Sterrett stated and now we require 20 ft. The objective here
is to put it 10 ft. so in other words instead of the 20 ft. setback
you are talking a 10 ft. setback.
Mr. Andrew stated right.
Mr. Lorson stated I may stand corrected on this but I understand
that if we set it even with the house there is no nE!ed for a
variance.
Mr. Umphrey asked I was absent from the November meeting and I need
a clarification, on the northwest corner of your house there is
about an 11 ft. or so space between the corner of the house and
where you intend to add the new dining room, is that a bedroom
area?
Mr. Lorson stated that is the kitchen area.
Mr. Umphrey asked is there any chance that the new dining room can
be moved some further distance north of that?
Mr. Lorson stated we thought about that, where we are planning to
put the dining room now is where there is an existing door to the
back of the house, if we put it any farther north we block the only
window into the kitchen, we block the only window on that side of
the basement. That is also where the air conditioning unit is and
the piping is that would all have to be changed.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any other questions of the applicant at
this time? Hearing none have we had any correspondence from
neighbors or telephone conversations?
Mr. Andrew stated the only correspondence we had was the individual
who came to the November meeting who spoke and asked some questions
and was the property owner on Larson which is to the west of this
site.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any interested citizens here today who
would like to speak regarding this issue?
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Lorson stated I think we have obtained and you should have for
the record consent from all of the adjacent property owners from
the north, west and across the street to the east for our original
plan as submitted.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any other questions of the applicant?
If not we will bring it back to the Board for discussion and
possible action.
Mr. Sterrett stated I still have a problem with the two overhead
doors facing the street, the fact that the vehicles are backing out
of the garage are still going to be blinded from pedestrians that
may be walking here, we are talking 10 ft. from the propl~rty line.
If there is a sidewalk put in, generally speaking the sidewalk will
set in one foot off the line which means that this would be 11 ft.
from the garage door to the sidewalk. The vehicle backing out of
either one of those doors has very limited visibility as far as
seeing any pedestrians that may be behind them. Is it my
understanding from staff that we are also giving 2 1/2 ft. on the
west side or is it 5 ft?
Mr. Andrew stated well we have a situation here that in their
original plan there was a separation between the garage and the mud
room, so it wasn't physically attached to the house so if you have
a detached garage that is not attached to the house, it can be as
close as 3 ft. to the side property line, but this plan now they
have come back and attached the garage to the house, made it part
of the house and the side yard setback for an attached garage is 7
1/2 ft. the same as for a house, so what they would do is if this
were approved as requested they would get a variance to have the 10
ft. setback off the street and it would also require a 2 1/2 ft.
variance on the side to allow it to be 5 ft. instead of 7 1/2
because this plan attaches it to the house.
Mr. Sterrett asked so we are giving them also a foot to the front
yard is that how I understand it?
Mr. Andrew stated that is off the Gebhart side toward the 10 ft. x
14 ft. addition which I think has been modified to 17 ft. on the
front and that doesn't have anything to do with the setback, it is
just slightly longer, but it encroached very slightly into the 25
ft. setback.
Mr. Sterrett asked so we would have 35% lot coverage, we are a
little bit over that too, were we?
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Andrew stated when the inspection division counted up all of
the square footage of the proposed addition, it went over the
maximum lot coverage.
Mr. Sterrett asked so actually what we are asked to do here today
is to grant four variances?
Mr. Andrew stated right three of which we view as pretty minor and
I think the only point of issue or contention is how close the
garage should be from Wesley, the other ones are certainly open for
discussion but the one that we focused on was how close should that
garage be allowed to be placed from Leslie.
Mr. Umphrey stated in visiting the area I noted several variations
if not violations in the various setbacks in the way structures
have conformed to their placement and it seems to me that the minor
variation along the fence where the utility easement is and the
little bit in the front are of little or no consequence or concern
and certainly the lot coverage. We have an applicant herE! that has
a home in an established neighborhood and is desirous of adding to
it and increasing its value and also bettering the neighborhood in
the process so I think our only concern should be whether or not 10
ft. from the garage to the property along Leslie a total of 28 ft.
10 ft. from the curb is adequate.
Mr. Worth asked first of all what are the chances that a sidewalk
will be constructed there? With the relocation of utilities and so
forth probably very little chance.
Mr. Umphrey asked isn't the sidewalk on the other side right next
to the curb?
Mr. Lorson stated yes.
Mr. Worth stated I have walked this area and I have driven it and
I see no problem there as long as no sidewalk is there.
Mr. Peterson stated the likelihood of us installing sidewalks in an
established neighborhood that is not on a grade school route it is
usually relatively small. This is a middle school, you still have
a certain amount of pedestrian traffic to a middle school, you do
have a sidewalk on the other side. We don't typically get into
situations where we are asked to provide sidewalks on both sides of
a pedestrian route to school, so to answer you question Mr. Worth,
I think the likelihood of a sidewalk being required to be installed
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 7
in that neighborhood is relatively slim, so without the sidewalk
the pedestrian issue is diminished, an accurate point that if you
install a sidewalk, traditionally you install it on the right-of-
way side within one foot of the property line. It would be
approximately 11 ft. from the edge of the sidewalk to the garage
that is a short distance in which to try to react to people on the
sidewalk running or biking, walking typically isn't as big an issue
because they are moving slower they see you and you see them, but
the bikers and runners, that does create some conflict or skating,
but if in fact you are correct and I would make that observation as
well, that if a sidewalk was involved sometime in the future and it
was a curb side sidewalk that this difficulty or conflict between
vehicle and pedestrian or bicyclist is reduced. Now we are not
using curb side sidewalk so much anymore for a couple of reasons,
number one is they are not quite as safe because the distance
between the street and the pedestrian is the buffer and protection,
two, it is much more difficult for us to handle ADA accessibility
issues with a curb side sidewalk. So we are not using them unless
we absolutely have to because they are a bit difficult: to build
correctly. But in this case the possibility is not a likelihood.
MOTION:
Mr. Worth
revised.
moved
to
approve
Application
#V96-21
as
SECOND:
Mr. Umphrey seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Motion fails for lack of a majority 3-3.
Mrs. Leek asked say the garage would be moved back to
compliance, can you show me how much that would be?
be
in
Mr. Andrew stated in order to build a garage and not require a
front yard setback variance, they would either have to slide it
back 5.7 ft. or in some way reduce the depth of the garage which is
not very feasible because you have to have it deep enough for a
vehicle and still have storage.
Mr. Umphrey stated the thing that bothers me about this is over the
years we have had various and sundry side yard requirements
regarding corner lots sometimes in fact it used to be in this
particular zoning area 7 1/2 ft. the same as the side yard on an
inside lot line, and we have gone from 20 to 25 and 15 so it seems
to me to be a number that can for some reason be varied and I think
we addressed the safety concerns regarding this particular
situation rather well.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 8
Mr. Andrew stated from staff perspective on this application, one
of the findings of course that needs to be made by you is the
effect the variance would have on health and safety, public safety
primarily and that is simply a judgement call for the Board as to
what setback provides adequate safety for visibility and for
pedestrian and driver safety.
Mr. Sterrett asked the 23 ft. from the back of curb to garage, if
a sidewalk did go in there and chances are that means that on the
other side of the front of the house the sidewalk would joint to
the curb, we could speculate that this sidewalk here again would
probably go against the curb which would give us 18 ft. in between
the top of the sidewalk and the front of the garage.
Mr. Umphrey stated it is about 23 ft. it is 28.10 ft. from the curb
to the garage as they have drawn it and 5 ft. off of that would be
a short 24 ft.
Mr. Sterrett stated you are right so that would still be adequate
if there was a car parked there, that is what I was getting at was
if there was a car temporarily parked there it would still be
adequate room to do that. And that is one of the reasons why I
felt looking at the other structures in the area I have come to the
conclusion that it would work and appear relatively safe.
Mr. Hardy stated that 28.10 ft. is to the house not to the garage.
Mr. Sterrett stated right that is where I come up with the 23 ft.
in there and then by the time you take 5 ft. away you would have 18
ft. and the normal car is generally about 17 ft. so there would
still be a foot between the back bumper and the sidewalk which made
me feel relatively safe. Now had the car been protruding into the
sidewalk that was temporarily loading or unloading I would have had
more problem with it than with this particular distance where there
would still be a foot of buffer between the back of the car and the
sidewalk.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there further comments or other alternatives?
Mr. Peterson stated if you were to build the garage so that it was
even with the front of the house, in the blue line you would have
a 24 ft. x 23 ft. or 24 ft. x 22 ft. garage. The area that I tried
to hatch out which is here would be the size of the mud room inside
the garage. And then if you configure the doors in that manner
meaning one door swinging into the mudroom to the south and one
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 9
door swinging into the garage facing the west you will eliminate
the conflict of the doors. The problem is the dimension from here
this point to here, because it ends up being something in the realm
of 16 ft. or a little less from that wall to the front wall which
means you have a compact car parking space but not a full size.
You achieve all the goals the applicant has with the exception of
this half of the garage is not a full depth. Typically the inside
dimensions and as three of you gentlemen have recently built
garages the inside dimensions of 19 ft. is usually what we are
trying to achieve as a minimum to get a car in but to say that you
couldn't fit something in 16 ft. you also have the aspect of a
single larger door tQ offset the vehicles this direction and use
this as the workshop and storage area so you have some a11ternatives
inside the garage, but it is a tough fit and it is very tight if
you try to achieve the mud room, garage and the dining room you
almost have to give one of those concepts up to make that work.
Mr. Ogborn stated I think that I will bring up when we come to
these meetings a lot of times we focus on design problems and
alternatives, the Board is really not here to do that, the state
has laid down five things that we are supposed to find, 1the reason
that I was opposed to this variance was because this variance to
start with and this is the one I always say obviously this lot is
not unique to the area. The same side on the corner there are four
corners on every block that is what I cannot get past as far as
uniqueness. Now then I will help you with the design problem that
we always need to talk about. Why don't we take the mud room and
put it right behind the garage and stick it on the corner of the
dining room there, the garage could be back even with the house and
you can walk out into the mud room and into the garage and you then
have room for two cars and the dining room could have some little
corner windows to look out at the trees in your backyard and you
are talking about the same amount of space and you can change the
lot coverage.
Mr. Umphrey stated I think that these points are WE!ll taken,
however, you do have a valid reason for your concern and what we
are needing to decide is whether or not this 10 ft. setback from
Leslie is acceptable or if not, how much is. So lets get back to
that.
Mr. Lorson stated the alternative for putting the mud room on the
west side of the dining room was considered and the reason that we
eliminated that is that to the north we have an 8 ft. high wood
fence and our neighbors house and we want to put a large bay window
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 10
on the west side. With the mud room we would not be able to go
there and have a window with any kind of view so that is why we
scratched that out and also as Mr. Peterson suggested we thought
about putting the mud room into the garage and we ran into the same
thing, it would be too small for the cars practically and we would
lose most of the storage space that we need.
Mr. Ogborn stated I guess I will go back to my original comment, it
is not our place to consider design alternatives as far as I am
concerned. And I know of course that the corner lots have always
been considered unique lots and there is kind of a precedent so I
think that I am going against that a little but I still have to
consider that. .
Mr. Umphrey stated I agree with you I think the thing that makes
this job so difficult and there is an example right here in the
staff report. Across the street the house is 8 1/2 ft. from the
property line so even though we have these guidelines to go by why
is it fair for we as citizens to allow this one time and disallow
it another time. We didn't create the one at 8 1/2 ft. but we
still have to deal with this so we have to go back to the question
to simplify it one more time, is 10 ft. good enough or is there
another number. The other question about the 5 ft. on the west
side and the small differential in the front and the percentage of
total lot coverage are really of very little significance
especially taking into account the other houses. Those three
things I think are a wash and they certainly ought to be allowed so
all we are talking about is how much is enough for a setback for a
garage.
Mr. Hardy stated I think that we need to work with the variances
that are in the books today. Those variances change from decade to
decade and 8 1/2 ft. was probably ok, they probably did not require
a variance at the time the house was built. Today it would require
a variance so I think that all we can do is deal with those numbers
that are prescribed for the building codes as they are and work
with them. My only question is would it be possible to shorten the
garage a couple of feet to help increase the buffer?
Mrs. Leek stated the way that I am looking at it is that there are
just a couple of alternatives like a foot here and a foot there and
you can arrive at what you need the variance to be which we are not
talking four and five feet totally but if you take a foot off the
garage and a foot off the storage space and so on and so fourth you
are going to get just what you want and yet we will be able to say
we did the variance correctly. That is my problem.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 11
Mr. Umphrey stated actually the two suggestions you just made
indicated that we need to allow a 12 ft. setback one foot off the
garage and one foot off the storage shed.
Mr. Ogborn stated I don't have any problem with the design the way
it is laid out here, this proposal from a design standpoint, but
from a zoning standpoint I can't find a uniqueness of the lot and
I think it is great and they ought to be able to do it, but I don't
think our current laws allow them to do it.
Mr. Andrew stated I think Mr. Ogborn's point is well taken but the
door has already been left wide open and there is ten to twenty
years of precedent that says if you have a corner lot you are
unique because you are subject to two front yard setbacks whereas
no other kind of lot is subject to two front yard setbacks which
reduces the amount of area available to build on so whenever we do
a staff report on the corner lot we don't even talk about a
question of uniqueness because a corner lot is automatically unique
because of the two setbacks, so uniqueness wasn't an issue for us,
the effect on neighbors wasn't an issue because they have the
consent and approval of their neighbors, the hardship points that
has been made by them are the loss of the tree and the existing
configuration of the house that they had to work with. The two
hangups for us were the spirit and intent of the ordinance which is
to provide a place to park between the garage and the street and
the issue of safety and that is certainly within your prerogative
as a Board to say what is the minimal distance the garage should be
to be safe. That is why this item is before this Board for you to
exercise your judgement on that.
MOTION:
Mr. Ogborn I will with the staff's recommendation that
past precedent will be an acceptable uniqueness situation
and be acceptable to K.S.A. 12-715 and will move to
approve all four variances as proposed on the applicant's
plan.
SECOND:
Mr. Worth seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Motion carried 5-1 (Sterrett).
#4.
Application #V96-22, filed by Cynthia Larson,
variance to Sec. 42-160(2) to allow a dwelling
ft. front yard setback on Lambertson Lane. The
includes a rear yard setback variance to allow
yard instead of the required 20 ft. setback.
requesting a
to have a 20
request also
a 15 ft. rear
The subject
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 12
property is legally described as Lot 2, Block 12, Shalimar
Plaza Addition to the City of Salina (aka 2063 Lambertson
Lane) .
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is found in the case file.
Mr. Peterson stated a point of clarification, the rear yard setback
variance is from 15.5 ft. essentially to 15 ft. so it is a rather
small drop. Obviously the front one is quite a bit more, but the
buildable depth if you were to follow all of the rules on this lot
at mid point would only be 22 ft. I just thought you might find
those interesting figures. This is the first time in a long time
you have heard staff say this is a unique lot.
Mr. Umphrey stated I think it is unique and the fact that the other
houses in this particular block as well as the res"t of the
neighborhood were built some years ago in fact I have built two
houses in this very block and I think the reason I avoided it and
other builders who working there at the same time was because of
the actual uniqueness of the lot that and the fact that the lot was
smaller than the plot shows it to be and this would obviously be an
infill situation which we are always striving for within reason so
I think that all of those points should be considered. The house
to the north that faces Mission Road, do you know what its
northwesterly side yard is, would it be 20 ft. or less?
Mr. Andrew stated I believe that it is 15 ft. We would actually
have to pull that address file I know that we looked at it once but
it is less than 20 ft. and it is in the neighborhood of 12 ft. to
15 ft. The other thing I would point out to you is you have in
your packet an illustration of the house that is proposed by the
applicant. From our standpoint, that is an illustration that is
there to assist you, it is your prerogative to say it is more than
an illustration, this is what must be built, or you can treat it
just as an illustration but that is within your authority to say
this is what was presented, this is what will get built or you can
say this is a nice illustration.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there further questions or comments of staff?
Hearing none would the applicant care to comment? Please state
your name and address for the record please.
Harold Larson, 2121 Hillside Drive, the lot is irregular but I do
believe that it is unique and it is very attractive for a desirable
house. As mentioned the lot has been vacant since 1958 and it has
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 13
been used as a neighborhood dump site, the people to the west when
they moved in a number of years ago cleaned up the rubble and
concrete and planted grass and maintained it and mad,~ it very
attracti ve. The lot has been used as a playground. for the
neighborhood children in the past but it is not a public park some
people think it is. The proposed house does have a double car
garage to the top which is the east there are 22 1/2 ft:. between
the sidewalk and the face of the garage. It has an offset there at
the face of the house and the garage. The house is two story and
has a total of 1,400 sq. ft. in it. with the variance being
approved, you asked about the side yards of ours and we ~vould have
on one side 38 ft. and the other 37 ft. You mentioned how close
the one lot is to the backyard?
Mr. Umphrey stated no I asked about the house to the northeast that
actually faces Mission Road, I wondered if the side of it, if you
will, would be more or less in line with the front of the house
that you propose and obviously it would be.
Mr. Larson stated that house has a 10 ft. setback from the property
line.
Mr. Umphrey asked and your house would be back quite a bi-t further?
Mr. Larson stated twice that far. The house directly behind the
proposed lot has a backyard setback of approximately 12 ft. The
house on the west as Dean mentioned has a 20 ft. setback from the
face of the house, so all except for the corner lot and like I
mentioned we are 38 ft. away from the corner of that thing and I
don't believe that the setback would detract it from beinlg close to
the street as it is. The backyard setback if the variance is
approved from the 20 ft. would vary from 15 ft. to 24 ft. for a
backyard which is a sizable yard. The house being 64 ft. long and
would average a 20 ft. backyard. Dean mentioned the drainage off
of the site. The site right now all drain off that lot and goes to
the rear of that lot and is ponded on that lot as well as the
neighborhood lot, the three of them. We are proposing to put a
retaining wall on the back side with a fence and have 100% drainage
from the backyard around to Lambertson Lane which no added drainage
would spillover on any existing lots. We are going to have to
move a fence to get to access back there but other then that we
will be able to put the wall up which is no problem whatsoever.
Mr.
Umphrey
asked
are
there
any
questions
of
the
applicant?
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 14
Hearing none would any interested citizens care to comment on this
application?
Gary Seibel, 2066 Mission Road, and I own the adjacent property
basically behind this property. What you have in front of you, is
a drawing first of all that is basically a plot description of my
home. And the lines are the boundary lines and fence line are a
little bit in disagreement with what is shown there, my house sits
9 ft. from the property line and as measured to where the stakes
are in the last couple of days, the proposed construction from the
corner of my house to the corner of the proposed house to be
constructed is 22 ft. total. Whenever you take into consideration
the 2 ft. overhang of the eaves on my home and I assume possibly on
the home to be constructed they are at the closest point 18 ft. I
do disagree with the 15 ft. figure, the actual measurement from the
stake lines to my fence in the backyard in the last couple of days
shows 11 ft. between the proposed construction and my home. I took
the time to write a few of the reasons why I am opposed to this,
first and foremost it will directly affect the marketability and
value of my property, which I have not owned very long. My family
and I bought this home in late July this summer and what a time to
be buying a home, at the time of the purchase of my home the
assumed boundary was approximately 10 ft. longer than it is right
now on the south. The platted measurements as evidenced by Mr.
Larson's lot are not what is there. Things contributing to this
belief were the shrubs and bushes on the assumed property line, a
14 year old sprinkler system with a portion of it in the shrub line
there is approximately 6 to 8 ft. outside of my fence line. As
close as to what is going to happen here, unless someone is
absolutely desperate for a home, who is going to want to buy my
house if sometime in the future I want to put it up for sale? The
greatest distance from my house and the proposed construct.ion is 60
ft. that ranges down to 22 ft. at the closest point. The fact that
the building plans have been dropped here at least once and I am
not sure but I think possibly twice and this thing has been vacant
for 40 years it is obviously not enough room to build a home.
There just is not enough land. There has been quite a lot of
speculation and opposition to the proposed project by adjacent
property owners. Early on, I was not opposed to the construction
being done there, my concerns at first where how is this going to
affect the drainage from my home. Once the building was staked
out, that is when the red flags went up for me because it looks
very close right now. All of the adjacent property owners that I
have talked with have voiced concern over the new property boundary
as opposed to the boundaries that have been used since original
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 15
construction of the existing homes, as well as the effect that a
home constructed at the proposed site could have on the
marketability and value of their properties. I am the owner who is
most directly affected by the construction here. Wi th the
availability of lots to build on in Salina's present time it makes
no sense to allow a project that will diminish rather than enhance
the marketability of both the existing homes and the home being
constructed. Ms Larson's father is a builder and there is very
li ttle to keep them from deciding they don't want the property
after the house is constructed and selling it and going somewhere
else, I am probably going to be there for the long haul. My
proposal is just a question, why not take the savings from having
her father build the home and invest that in a more suitable lot
that will payoff in the long run. Your questions may be what will
become of the lot? I can't speak for all of the adjacent property
owners, but I would be extremely interested in purchasing part of
or all of that lot and using it for personal reasons, my yard is
not very large, my wife operates a day care from our home and we
could certainly use an additional backyard. Those are just some of
the reasons that I am opposed to this, like I said at first I was
not opposed to the construction taking place at all until I saw how
it was staked out.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of Mr. Seibel?
Mr. Sterrett asked you spoke of a lot of things and I want you to
know that I felt a lot of those issues were irrelevant, why didn't
you buy the lot prior to the Larsons?
Mr. Seibel stated I bought my home there in late July of this year.
Mr. Sterrett asked was that lot vacant at that time and for sale?
Mr. Seibel stated it had been purchased by Mr. Larson already.
Mr. Sterrett stated the biggest question I have here is if I am
looking at your illustration properly you are saying¡ that the
corner of your house sets 9 ft. off the line?
Mr. Seibel stated yes.
Mr. Sterrett asked and you have a problem with his sett.ing 15 ft.
off the line?
Mr. Seibel stated if I was doing it myself I wouldn't have it that
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 16
close. Whenever we did purchase the home, like I said there were
shrubs in the backyard in a line that is outside our currlent line.
Mr. Sterrett stated you understand that he has 8,015 sq. ft. and
that is a substantial lot size to build on from a builder's
perspective. The fact that you are only 9 ft. off and he is 15 ft.
off is kind of like living in a glass house and throwing rocks. I
can't get too concerned with what you are saying here, the man
bought the land and he has a right to build on his land as he so
chooses whether we give him a variance here or not is irrelevant I
think that he is still probably going to build here one way or the
other.
Mr. Seibel stated I agree, my problem is allowing a variance that
would put housing closer together when they should bE~ farther
apart, I agree with you, my home was built too close to the rear
property line, I really have no problem admitting that to you
freely, if I was doing that, I would not build there. We searched
for a home here in Salina, we moved to Salina when I started my new
job here and let me tell you this summer was not a lot of fun
looking for a home here in Salina, the market was crazy and
whenever we did look at the home the yard was not fenced the shrubs
and everything that we assumed were the boundary lines are now oh
anywhere from 6 to 10 ft. outside of the current boundary line so
whenever this thing was surveyed and I ruefully admit that I bought
the survey that made my yard smaller.
Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Seibel did you finance the home through a
financial institution?
Mr. Seibel stated yes I did.
Mr. Peterson asked did they ask you to provide or did they require
as part of that transaction a mortgage survey?
Mr. Seibel stated yes they required a mortgage
elevation and flood plain survey.
survey and
an
Mr. Peterson asked did you receive a copy of the mortgage survey?
Mr. Seibel stated yes I did.
Mr. Peterson asked you did and it was accurate?
Mr. Seibel stated yes it is.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 17
Mr. Peterson stated and I appreciate why a lay person would think
what you thought, but I just wanted to in my own mind clarify that
somebody hadn't given you bad advice as you went through those
steps but I appreciate why you didn't necessarily picture even the
mortgage survey even the way the reality was on your property.
Mr. Seibel stated let me explain a couple of other deadlines that
I was under, I am a school teacher, I switched jobs, we were trying
to close on this home I believe on the 22nd of July, at that time
we found out where we were at, in fact I was closing on the home
that I had sold in the town that I was living in before on the very
same day. There really was not. time for me to argue over a few
feet and to back out because I had to start work in less than a
month as well as to be moving the very next day or in fact that
same day.
Mr. sterrett stated but your inability for time should
interfere with Mr. Larson's ability to build on this lot.
not
Mr. Seibel stated I agree.
Mr. Worth asked are most of the homes in your neighborhood single
story homes or two story?
Mr. Seibel stated I believe that they are almost all single story
homes.
Mr. Worth asked and this home proposed is two story is that
correct?
Mr. Larson stated right there are approximately 15 two s1tory homes
within that three block area.
Mr. Worth asked is this home going to overshadow the other homes in
the neighborhood by being larger than they are, that was my main
question?
Mr. Seibel stated my concern is not really with the size of the
home and whether it is going to overshadow or anything else, my
concern with it is being so very close to the back of my home, that
is my concern, I realize that somebody that has a house that sets
almost on the very back edge of a lot does not have very much to
grumble about but I am still doing it.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 18
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any other questions from interested
ci tizens? Hearing none have we had any correspondence ;I:'egarding
the application?
Mr. Andrew stated we had correspondence before it was filed because
there was interest or concern in the neighborhood that something
was proposed to be built on this lot and we indicated to those
people that when in fact an application was filed that we would
then notify adjoining property owners by mail which we have done,
we have not received any phone calls or inquiries based on those
letters so I assume that the correspondence that you will ¡get is at
this meeting today.
Mr. Umphrey stated at this time we will bring it back to "the Board
and close the public portion of this application.
Mr. Larson stated on your drawings, just to clear up a couple of
things that Gary happened to say. The backyard, his yard, another
15 ft., there was a honeysuckle hedgerow and some trees and the
people that owned the lot and the house before Gary bought it
installed these and they had told me that Etherington had given
them permission to go ahead and put the trees in and I think Gary
assumed that the trees were in back and that would help thle size of
his yard, not only that, at the same time as when Gary purchased
the lot he had a licensed surveyor that also pinned his backyard in
the corners and they are remaining. I paid and had. another
surveyor resurvey the thing, first he acknowledged that the survey
pins were correct, there was still a problem with Gary and a couple
in the neighborhood, the pins would move overnight or disappear or
whatever. I paid for another person to have another survey just to
double check myself to where I would feel that I am safe on
anything that I would do and paid for it one more time and he
contended again that the first man was right and the second man was
right and that he was right. We had a meeting and we tried to talk
to Gary about it and explain why all the lots were less "than what
was platted and so forth, but he said well I underst;ood, the
realtor told me, I thought it was a park and I think I should get
a bigger yard. Gary also at the same time, in the mean1time with
this, has installed a chain link fence in the backyard tha't is over
on our property. Not on his lot, but on our lot approximately 3
ft. to 4 ft. at various places, but he does acknowledge that his
surveyor and the pins were correct, but I need a bigger backyard
and that still boils down to the old vacant lot it used to be a
park and the realtor told me that it would never be developed in
reality it was never a park and this is the one time that it is
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 19
going to be built on and I do think this house will enhance the
area and the 10 ft. that he says is 9 ft. is about 9 ft. to 10 ft.
And the 15 ft. in the back, I don't really think that is a problem,
it is on the garage corner side where he is talking about, there
won't be any activity on that side basically, the livin¡g quarters
are approximately 45 ft. from the main portion of his house to the
back main portion of the house proposed, 45 ft. is a long ways.
Mr. Umphrey stated we will now close the public portion of this
meeting and direct it back to the Board for further discussion and
possible action.
Mr. Sterrett asked on the utility easement back there where we are
talking, is that 15 ft. off the line and that is the corner where
the garage is?
Mr. Andrew stated the utility easement is actually 7 ft. wide and
the corner that they are proposing for the garage would be 15 ft.
from the property line so you would have 7 ft. for the easement and
then another 8 ft. to the corner of the garage for a total of 15
ft.
Mr. Sterrett asked so what are we actually giving on the variance
as far as that corner is concerned?
Mr. Andrew stated according to my calculations it is about 1/2 a
foot or 6" because the rule is 25% of the depth of the lot and we
have calculated the depth and the average depth is 62 ft. and so
that means that he could have a 15 1/2 ft. setback without a
variance and he is going to 15 ft. and because of the sensitivity
of this lot we have decided to include that as a variance request
just so there would be public notice of what was being requested.
Mr. Sterrett stated I see that the lot tapers in you say you took
an average figure when you computed that Mike?
Mr. Peterson stated the depth of the lot is actually defined as
"from mid-point of front to mid-point of rear" and you draw a line
across it and it is 61.896 or some number like that.
Mr. Sterrett stated but if you went to where the garage actually
sets he would be within the limit of 25% right, if you went back up
to the garage.
--
Salina Board of zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 20
Mr. Peterson stated yes but that is not how you compute the depth.
He is technically 6 inches within lot depth or within rear yard
setback requirement. The 6 inches whether it be in the front or
the back at this point, 6 inches is so minimal that had that been
the only issue you would have never seen this application but our
issue was more the front yard setback so if you want the house 6
inches closer to the street to maintain the full 15.5 fit. in the
rear, it certainly is within your purview to move it a little
closer to the front to preserve the extra 6 inches in the back.
Mr. Sterrett asked but we are also giving a variance in the front?
Mr. Peterson stated yes you are being asked to do that already.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any further questions or comments at
this time? Hearing none I would entertain a motion.
MOTION:
Mr. sterrett moved to approve Application #"96-22 as
submitted.
SECOND:
Mr. Hardy seconded the motion.
Mr. Peterson stated Mr. Chairman if you don't mind I have a
question for you to consider when you vote on this, the issue of
drainage has been brought up. Mr. Larson pointed out to you that
he intends to build a retaining wall that would drain his entire
property to Lambertson Lane. Mr. Larson and I have experienced
this same configuration on another lot in another neighborhood.
This solution, although a valid one for Mr. Larson's lot does not
solve the problem for the neighborhood. By any means in fact it
could intensify the problem although that is not Mr. Larson's
responsibility but I would certainly recommend that it is within
this board's purview to attempt to ask Mr. Larson and these other
neighbors to consider a solution where they would all create,
partly on their lot and partly on the neighbors' lot a swale to
drain this rear area to the street. Now granted if Mr. Larson
cannot achieve a compromise with his neighbors to allow that to
happen you cannot bind him to that, but certainly an attempt ought
to be made before Mr. Larson's house is built to try and solve this
drainage problem while there is still time because once the
retaining wall is built and Mr. Larson's house is built the
solution is not practical at all, it is not very practical today
but it is certainly more practical before Mr. Larson builds his
house than after he builds the house. They as a group need to put
aside some of the other issues and solve this drainage problem
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 21
while they can. I would ask you to add that as a comment at least
in your decision. What I drew and Dean is going to show you, is if
in the blue line these three, four and five neighbors would get
together and try to create some small drainage swale to take this
water to Lambertson and perhaps Sarah, this is the only time that
they might be able to solve this problem well. It only gets worse
from here it doesn't get better.
Mr. Umphrey stated I think that is a point well taken however we do
have a motion before us and we might make it a part of the record
that you have made that request and I will deviate from our normal
procedure for one moment and ask Mr. Larson to comment.
Mr. Larson stated I would be glad to work with the neighbors on
this thing, the reason for the retaining wall is the adjoining
property in the back of that easement is approximately 2 1/2 ft.
lower than the existing curb and gutters at their frontages and as
well as mine on Lambertson, I don't have any way basically of
draining their land to their street. But I would be glad to do it
at anytime, I am going to have dirt left over.
Mr. Umphrey stated you might approach them with using the excess
fill from your excavation.
Mr. Larson stated right, they can do it and drain it in some way
shape or form.
Mr. Umphrey stated then you are saying that you are 1{lilling to
discuss it with your neighbors.
Mr. Larson stated right.
Mr. Peterson stated the Engineering Department for the city will
also be willing to meet with this group if they request it to try
to point out potential solutions.
Mr. Larson asked will this hold up the building permit portion of
this?
Mr. Peterson stated no, it is a suggestion that we hope everyone
will try to work out a positive solution to.
Mr. Larson stated it is a water problem that we do need to solve
because in the past there have been some neighbors lifting up sewer
lids and letting water drainage off of backyards go down the public
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 22
sewer and this is a real alarming situation even though guys in
their homes put back flappers and cranks on the pipes they may go
to visit their grandmother over the weekend and how many times do
you go down and turn the valve off and this will happen and it does
happen and I am scared of that in a sense knowing that there are
people in the neighborhood that would do something like that and it
does need to be solved and we will work with the people.
Mr. Sterrett asked are you saying there is a sanitation s,~wer back
there?
Mr. Larson stated sanitary sewer.
Mr. Sterrett stated because I was going to say somE~ of the
neighborhoods that I have worked in on Manchester for example all
of the block gathered and had the City bring in a pipe in the
middle in the back and then drained it to an overflow sewer drain
and that solution seems to have worked well in other neighborhoods.
Mr. Umphrey stated I am going to call for the question, "thank you
for your comments Mr. Peterson and I am also going to exclude
myself from the voting to avoid any possible conflict of interest
regarding this issue as I was the builder of the house that Mr.
Seibel now occupies.
VOTE:
Motion carried 5-0 (1 abstention Mr. Umphrey).
Mr. Andrew stated what Mr. Peterson was trying to make clear is
that the retaining wall and the retaining wall concept, was not
staff's idea or recommendation.
Mr. Umphrey stated I think Mr. Larson understands that there is a
drainage problem and will try to cooperate with the neighbors to
remedy this situation. It sounds like they do need some fill back
there.
#5.
Application #V96-24, filed by Darlene Dinkel, requesting a
variance to Sec. 42-58(l)c. to allow an oversized detached
garage on a residential lot. The subject property is legally
described as Lot 4, Block 10, Oakdale Addition to the City of
Salina (aka 1010 East Iron).
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is found in the case file.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of staff?
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 23
Mr. Ogborn asked is the house one story or two story?
Mrs. Dinkel stated one story.
Mr. Ogborn asked is there a finished basement or attic?
Mrs. Dinkel stated no.
Mr. Ogborn asked when you interpret this do you interpret by sq.
ft. of total living space or by sq. ft. of building fo01:print?
Mr. Peterson stated sq. ft. of footprint.
Mr. Ogborn asked so a person can have an 1,800 sq. ft. house and a
900 sq. ft. footprint and you are not going to let them build a
bigger than 900 sq. ft. garage?
Mr. Peterson stated that is correct, although the garag'~ could be
two story.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any other questions of staff'? Hearing
none would the applicant or representative like to comment? If so
please step forward and state your name and address for the record.
Frank Norton, 215 S. Santa Fe, I represent the applicant. Realize
first of all that this is perhaps the worst possible position a
person can be in where there was construction of somethin9 with out
a building permit. In 1995 the applicant employed Hartman Sales
Company that does business in this part of the state and had them
construct a carport attached to an existing garage. She paid them
and thought that everything was fine and she assumed tha"t whatever
was necessary in terms of permits and that sort of thin9 had been
obtained and of course as the report shows a building inspector
noticed that there had been an addition and called attention to the
0 f f ice that this had occurred. So that is the history of this
thing. She is not aware of an owner looking into this when she
felt she hired a competent contractor so that is how the thing got
there. It is used in connection with parking under shelter of
vehicles of people who come to the house. She owns the adjoining
property to the west and they do have an acceptablE! security
business operation in connection with it and the people -there come
in connection with the business operation. Clarification,
regarding the interpretation issue, and it is somethinq I simply
personally don't understand how the interpretation applies for this
reason. To me we are talking about the relationship of one
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 24
building to another. When we talk about relationships we
ordinarily talk about percentages in my world, if you say something
relates to something else it bears a percentage to something else,
therefore if one looks at the 360 sq. ft. to the 3,000 sq. ft. you
are talking about 12%, but in applying the interpretation as I
understand the history has been, that is not the way it is applied.
If you go beyond a multiple of 360 sq. ft. to the multiple of 3,000
sq. ft. if there is one foot more on one side you would have to go
to 3,000 ft. on the other side. That is like saying to me that if
we had a sales tax and you purchased anything over $12.00 then they
would charge you $13.00 worth of sales tax in other words it goes
in those multiples rather than percentages. I have difficulty
understanding the reasoning of that and I am just pointing that
out, not by way of criticism but by way of simply pointing out why
I don't understand the calculation that is made because I would
look at it different. Essentially that is it. The carport is
there, we obviously have a use for it, this matter of how big the
out buildings ought to be I guess goes back to the farm situation
and you ask the farmer how big a barn he ought to have and farmers
have different ideas and the idea is to make reasonable use. I
think if you will look at the area and my home built in 1915 was at
1040 E. Iron about a half a block away, I know this area like the
back of my hand and it has varied uses and I don't feel that this
is in any way offensive to the area or inconsistent with its
general use. Quite a bit of the area of course is business as you
go in.
Mr. Umphrey asked are there any questions of the applicant?
Mr. Hardy asked where is this contractor located?
Mr. Norton stated Hutchinson. I have spoken with them and I asked
didn't you understand that this was necessary and they said our
experience is that it is not in respect to carports. And. I didn't
ask the number of experiences that they had.
Mr. Peterson stated I might put out that that is not the answer
they gave me. I don't want the Board to think that is a valid
answer. They have done the same incorrect construction in
Hutchinson and they are being held accountable for that there as
well. So there seems to be a bit of a history and it is too bad
that they did what they did. Your client was trying to do the
right thing and the contractor did not.
Mr. Norton stated we didn't know this before the fact.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 25
Mr. Peterson stated hindsight is always 20/20 and I agree we didn't
know that either.
Mr. sterrett asked so it is my understanding that you m~ed to get
with them and the Kansas Consumer Protection Office and submit the
issue and we pretty well are assured that this won't happen again.
Mr. Peterson stated they failed to discharge their responsibilities
correctly and I think that we can all probably agree on that.
Mr. Norton stated, Mike everything else you know you can sue
forever, and there are all kinds of suits that we can string out
but that doesn't answer anything.
Mr. ogborn asked can I ask a question about the accessory business
on the lot to the west. What kind of business is it?
Mr. Norton stated Mid-West Security.
Mr. ogborn asked and is this a residential lot Mike?
Mr. Peterson asked by use or by zone?
Mr. Ogborn stated by zoning.
Mr. Peterson stated yes it is.
Mr. Ogborn asked is it required to
Certificate or Conditional Use Permit?
have
a
Home
occupation
Mr. Peterson stated one or the other would normally be required but
it is our understanding and the applicant's contention that the
business may be preexisting and nonconforming. I can't verify
that, we have not done that sort of research.
Mr. Ogborn stated I guess what I am getting at here is if she owns
both lots and we go back to where we talked about Mr. Berry and
combined the two lots and would it then be conforming?
Mr. Peterson stated I think that is certainly a possibility. I
think the issue of lot size to garage size ratio is solved. I
think you are going to have to make an interpretation about that
never larger than the principal building on the lot. That is
another issue for us, of course let me just point out, that Sec.
42-57 also says that in no case shall an accessory building be
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 26
larger than the principal use. You would need to make the
interpretation that you also consider the two houses as your
principal uses and if the applicant would be willing to tie the two
together you have in fact solved the issue of larger than the lot.
Mr. Norton stated Mrs. Dinkel does in fact own both properties so
the ownership exists.
Mr. Sterrett stated but then we go through the confusion of the
existing garage on the other lot and we start comput:ing that
throwing two garages together and two houses and the total square
footage.
Mr. Peterson stated we have almost equal sides. You are looking at
probably 20,000 maybe 21,000 sq. ft. of lot, if you were to use
3,000 sq. ft. on 21 that is 7 x 360 = a potential garage size of
2,520 sq. ft. and that other garage is 24 ft. x 18 ft.
Mr. Sterrett
building?
asked would the
shed be considered an accessory
Mr. Peterson stated it would but it wouldn't create anything
different for the garage with all things considered. It is small
enough that we would consider it a storage shed. To answer your
question adding the two together I can get the garage that faces
the front is too small to get a car in or if the doorway were
altered this is typical. If the doorway was altered on a 12 ft. x
17 ft. garage then you do meet the criteria, 2,432 sq. ft. and the
allowance was 25.
Mrs. Leek asked is this a solution then.
Mr. Peterson stated I think it certainly makes your granting a
variance a possibility.
Mr. Worth asked would the applicant be willing to work on that
basis and see if they could work something out?
Mr. Norton stated I understand that this does exist and common
ownership and it just a matter of making that work. I would say it
exists but it is up to you if this is acceptable.
Mr. Hardy asked you talk about combining the properties then would
it be just as easy to separate these properties the following day?
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 27
Mr. Peterson stated it could be the issue, if you were to approve
a variance to allow construction of this garage based on the fact
that the two properties are as one then what we would do is once
the variance has been approved we would file that as a
miscellaneous record on the deed so that there would be indication
that the two deeds would need to stay combined together to make the
garage legal, therefore notifying potential future buyers that
separation of the two properties would create an illegal garage.
That is typical of what we do when we get into a situation this
complicated. Just to notify future buyers that that is not
appropriate. Obviously if Mr. Norton and his client can agree to
that issue and if they in turn should sell it to someone in the
future we want some way on record for that next buyer to understand
they have a commitment to keep those two combined. Dean and I were
talking about the need for the variance, using the rationale of the
two lots being as one ownership, which they are and using that as
the rationale for wanting a larger garage and therefore if you
decide that you want this particular garage to be allowed to remain
granting the variance is still probably the appropriate way to go
because we have the issue of multiple garages and storage sheds and
so forth. It certainly makes the case for the variance stronger if
you look at the two lots combined. Also the issue of being larger
than that.
Mrs. Leek stated also because it is already there then this just
smooths that away and because she was naive and did not know that
so that is not her fault either.
Mr. Sterrett asked is it my understanding that that existing shed
that this lean to is on is 40 ft. x 30 ft. approximately. We are
talking 1,200 sq. ft.?
Mr. Peterson stated this was built prior to the requirement of the
limitations for garages.
Mr. Sterrett stated then as it stands then today we are talking
1,080 sq. ft. and this thing would be just the existing 1,200 sq.
ft.
Mr. Peterson stated right over what we have now.
Mr. Sterrett stated then we are adding on another 20 ft. x 40 ft.
and another 800 sq. ft.
Mr. Peterson stated that is correct.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 28
Mr. Sterrett asked well even if you combine them you are not going
to be close are you?
Mr Peterson stated yes if you combine the two lots together and
think of the two garages as one by 100 sq. ft. you meet the
criteria of 360 sq. ft. of garage.
Mr. Ogborn asked are you the same size or smaller with the two
houses together?
Mr. Peterson stated I believe that you would be smaller than the
two houses put together but if this were not in existence by an
owner who did not consciously create the condition I wouldn't do
anything to encourage you to grant the variance. If it were here
I certainly would not encourage you if the owner had knowingly been
involved in the process I would not encourage it, but I have dealt
with this contractor and it is my sincere belief that they are the
responsible party, they are the ones who failed to do their job
correctly. This owner was naive to their responsibility and was
not aware that this person did not do their job correctly.
Mr. Ogborn asked does this contractor hold a city license?
Mr. Peterson stated no.
Mr. Hardy asked is the carport necessary for the conducting of
business that takes place in that large garage.
Mr. Norton stated desirable yes I absolutely necessary,
always a question with any structure like that.
that is
Mr. Hardy asked well I was just wondering is it more of a hardship
to force the combination of the property that are single entities
at the current time or to go and take some action against the
contractor?
Mr. Norton stated action against the contractor wouldn't get us
anything but a tear down.
Mr. Sterrett stated if you go 35 ft. x 45 ft. you are looking at
1,620 and then you have a 20 ft. x 40 ft. and that makes it 30 ft.
x 40 ft. that is another 800 without the 1,620 sq. ft. and the
other garage is 18 ft. x 24 ft. you have another 432 sq. ft. you
are at 2,400 to 2,500 sq. ft. and I just don't see the house coming
up no where near 2,500 sq. ft.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 29
Mr. Peterson stated the existing garage carport is a 40 ft. x 30
ft. which is approximately 1,200 sq. ft. then we have added 20 ft.
x 40 ft. so you have 2,000 sq. ft. of garage and 24 ft. x 18 ft.
that is 432 sq. ft. so it looks like about 2,500 sq. ft. I don't
disagree with you, I did not do the square footage on the houses
yet, you may be correct, the two garages combined most certainly
could be larger than the two houses.
Mr. Umphrey stated excuse me gentlemen but the hour grow's late and
the numbers are confusing to those who haven't picked up our own
pencils and I think we understand the issue, there is too much
garage, carport, outbuildings and what have you for the house or
houses no matter which way you do it, what we have to decide is are
we going to allow this already built carport or are we not. So
that is what we need to proceed on for a decision. Are there any
other comments or questions for the applicant's representative Mr.
Norton? Hearing none I will bring this back to the Board for
further discussion and possible action to resolve this.
Mr. Hardy stated since the applicant is agreeable to combining the
properties that is a solution, it is too bad that this happened but
that would at least enlarge the area that they are talking about
and make it look less gargantuan.
Mrs. Dinkel stated but you don't see the garage from the front.
Mr. Hardy stated I am just thinking in terms of the square footage.
The issues that we would have to deal with the next time something
comes in. The next applicant won't care about what you can see
from the street.
Mr. Norton stated we would consent to that.
MOTION:
Mr. Hardy moved to approve Application #V96-24 provided
that the properties are combined and that that is made
part of the record as a miscellaneous addendum to the
deed.
SECOND:
Mrs. Leek seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Motion carried 6-0.
#6.
Other matters.
Salina Board of Zoning Appeals
December 19, 1996
Page 30
Mr. Andrew stated there are no other matters to discuss and at this
point we have nothing filed for our January meeting.
There being no other business the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Dean Andrew
Assistant Secretary
/kb