Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA 1982.pdf BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING: January 27, 1982 The regular January meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairperson Zahn, ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT Shirley Zahn, Chairperson Sharon Lawson Paul Pallmer Phil Hil Chan Tebay STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Max Bigby, Assistant City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There being no corrections: offered, motion by Ms. Lawson, second by Ms . Tebay and carried that the minutes of the November 18, 1981 meeting be approved as prepared. OLD BUSINESS: A. REVIEW OF PROPOSED BY-LAWS Mr. Bigby explained that the present draft of the proposed by-laws was based on the Board' s recommendations from prior review, and theby-laws may be adopted at this meeting f the Board so desires. Further explained that adoption of the proposed by-laws would directly influence the conduct of the election of officers. Specifically, adoption of the by-laws would result in the election of officers following the procedures outlined in the proposed by-laws. If not adopted, the election would be conducted based on the procedures established in the existing by-laws. Chairperson Zahn asked Board members for comments on the proposed by-laws.Ms. Lawson questioned whether the privacy act would be violated during public hearing procedure if the proponents in the audience given the opportunity to speak for or against an application were required to state their name, address and nature of interest in the matter for the public record. Further, questioned why such information was even important. Mr. Bigby explained that the purpose of taped minutes for Board of Adjustment meetings was to provide a verbatim transcript of the Board's actions. Such official record is essential to permit judicial or other review at a later date. For example, in terms of judicial review, unless a citizen states name, address and/or interest in the matter there may be no way to recall or subpoena a citizen for clarification of more information if such information is not given. Noted to Board members that if for any reason such information violated the privacy act or any other matter of public right, the by-laws would be amendmed. Board members Lawson and Pallmer questioned the clause addressing excused absence for an extended period subsequent to approval by the Board. Page 2 Board of Adjustment Minutes January 27, 1982 Mr. Bigby explained that since th.e Board is comprised of only five members, and three are required to obtain- A quorum,A proposed excused absence by any member for an extended period of time could greatly impact the Board's ability to consistently fulfill the quorum requirement. In this regard, Board approval would be based on the length of time the extended period of excused absence was proposed for, and whether remaining Board members felt this would be detrimental to their ability to consistently maintain a quorum and/or transact business. Therefore, the other Board members are authorized to approve or deny such. a request, by majority vote, and implicity are authorized to deem that the best interest of the Board may be in replacing such member if an excused or unexcused absence for an extended period of time is unavoidable. There being no further discussion by the Board on the matter, motion by Mr. Pallmer, second by Ms. Lawson and carried that the Board adopt the proposed by-laws as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (_NONE) NEW BUSINESS: (NONE) ANY OTHER BUSINESS: A. COMPLIANCE REPORT Mr. Bigby explained to Board members that Mr. Graham's sign remains standing and that the municipal court judge had fined Mr. Graham $50.00 on each of two counts for not complying with the 30-day time period to remove the sign. Since the sign remains standing, the city attorney has been asked to re- search the options available to the city in order to achieve compliance. Noted that the Rosencranz's appear to have worked out the problem with set backs regarding their mobile home and that the correction of this matter may possibly occur next month. B. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairperson Zahn asked for nominations from the floor for the position of Chairman for the Board of Adjustment for 1982. Mr. Pallmer nominated Shirley Zahn to be re-elected to the position. There being no further nominations, Chairperson Zahn closed the nominations from the floor and asked for a majority vote. Members unanimously re-elected Shirley Zahn as Chairperson for the Board of Adjustment for 1982. Re-elected Chairperson Zahn then assumed the duties of the chair and asked for nominations from the floor for the position of Vice Chair- man of the Board of Adjustment for 1982. Chairperson Zahn nominated Ms. Tebay for the position of Vice-Chairman. There being no further nominations, Chair- person Zahn closed the floor to further nominations and asked for a majority Vote. Board members unanimously elected Ms. Tebay as Vice Chairperson for the Board of Adjustment for 1982. According to the newly adopted by-laws, in the absence of Chairperson Zahn, Vice Chairperson Tebay would assume the duties and powers of the chair position. If both Chairperson Zahn and Vice- Chairperson Tebay were absent the senior member present would act as Chair- person Pro Tem. Page 3 Board of Adjustment Minutes January 27, 1982 There being no further business coming before the Board, Chairperson Zahn declared the regular January meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Max Bigby, Secretary Pro Tem Pasco Board of Adjustment BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING: March 24, 1982 The regular March. meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairperson Zahn. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT ` Shirley Zahn, Chairperson (none) Sharon Lawson Paul Pallmer Phil Hill Chan Tebay STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Max Bigby, Assistant City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES There being no corrections offered, motion by Ms. Lawson, second by Mr. Hill and carried that the minutes of the January 27, 1982 meeting be approved as prepared. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. SPECIAL PERMIT: Correctional Facility Within in an R-1 Zone_ File No. 82-08-BOA Mr. Bigby explained the nature and location of the proposed use and noted that notices had been published in the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet as required by law. Chairperson Zahn declared the public hearing open. Mr. Harold Mathews , Franklin County Commissioner was present to speak for the request. Mr. Mathews explained some of the background that went into the preparation of the designs for the correctional facility expansion, noted that the design reflected the best of the correctional facility expansion around the state and that incorpiration of these features to th.e overall desi.gn theme was based on actual visitation. Noted that a single story facility would cost less than a multiple story facility and that the difference in cost would relate to the difference in materials required for multiple story structures and a difference in labor in getting the materials up two or three stories to the construction level . He explained that the cells in the correctional facility expansion would 'allow the existing cells in the public safety building to be eliminated and therefore free up more space for expansion of the county services. Such services might include moving of the district attorney's office and/or law library. Board members questioned Mr. Mathews on parking and landscaping. Mr. Mathews stated that landscaping would be provided around the entire correctional facility expansion and that special emphasis would be focused on Fifth Avenue. Also presented a revised parking lot plan and noted that the County was pursuing two options for additional parking to be provided off-premise yet within 500 feet and recognized that such facilities would require separate special permit. Page 2 Board of Adjustment Minutes Regular Meeting: March 24, 1982 Board members felt that parking facilities equal to that wh.ich. would be displaced by the proposed construction should be provided either on site or elsewhere prior to construction of the proposed facility. Further felt that the redesign of the private driveway on Fourth Avenue should be confined to consideration of design criteria on-site and not requiring the applicant to correct any portion of Fourth Avenue within a public right-of-way. After much discussion on other matters such as lighting of the parking lot, texturing of the building facade along Fifth Avenue, on-site storm drainage and related construction activities,. Board members were satisfied that a great deal of throught had gone into the design of the proposed use and that it would be a considerable improvement over what now exist. With no one else present to speak for or against the proposed use, Chairperson Zahn declared the public hearing closed. Motion by Ms. Tebay, second by Ms. Lawson and carried that the Board of Adjustment approve the request for special permit for a correctional facility within an R-1 zone on Block 6 and 7, Sylvester Park Addition, with the following conditions: 1 ) Landscaping be provided per the requirements for the Office Zone; 2) At least the same number of existing off-street parking spaces to be displaced by the proposed construction be provided in an approved location prior to issuance of a building permit for said construction; 3) Provision for off-street parking sufficient to comply with the total applicable code requirements for the total courthouse complex be approved prior to issuance of a building permit; 4) No construction activity shall occur prior to 7:00 a.m. nor subsequent to 6:00 p.m. 5) The private driveway resulting from the vacation of Henry Street at Fourth Avenue be modified to conform to City of Pasco's standard driveway design or be satisfactory to the city engineer; 6) Construction authorized by the Building Department shall substantially conform to the site and elevation drawings hereby approved; 7) Appropriate night lighting for the parking lot be provided and be shielded from the residents along Fifth Avenue. Page 3 Board of Adjustment Minutes Regular Meeting: March 24, 1482 ANY OTHER BUSINESS A. COMPLIANCE REPORT Mr. Bigby noted that the compliance report would be presented at the next regular- meeting of the Board. B. ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION: Side Yard Set Back alonq the Flanking Street of a Corner Lot Mr. Bigby explained that Section 22. 16.090 authorized the Board to grant an Administrative Exception up to but not exceeding one foot pertinent to a side yard set back. without public hearing and without posting of public notices. Motion by Ms. Lawson, second by Ms. Zahn and carried that the Board grant an administrative exception up to but not exceeding one foot as requested. In other business Mr. Bigby explained that Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital had an option on additional property located adjacent to the property previously approved by the Board for use as off-premise parking across the street from the h.ospi'tal and that the h.ispital was requesting that the original special permit be amended to include the additional property. Noted that as a result of this option the hospital h.as requested the Board to consider the matter at a special meeting in April , earlier than th-e regularly scheduled meeting April 28, 1982. Board members unanimously approved April 14, 1982 as the date of the special meeting and authorized staff to proceed with public notice. Finally, Chairperson Zahn signed the By-laws that were adopted at the January 27th meeting of the Board of Adjustment. With no other business, coming before the Board, Chairperson Zahn declared the regular March_ 24th meeting of the Board of Adjustment adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respect lly submitted, Max Bigby, Secretary (Pro-Tem) Board of Adjustment BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING: April 14, 1982 The special meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairperson Zahn. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Shirley Zahn, Chairperson Chan Tebay (called in) Sharon Lawson Paul Pallmer Phil Hill STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Crutchfield, Community Development Director Max Bigby, Assistant City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Lawson asked that the minutes of the March 24, 1982 regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment be corrected to reflect her question about whether or not an administrative exception of one foot or less could be handled by staff rather than going through the Board. There being no further corrections offered, motion by Ms. Lawson, second by Mr. Hill and carried that the minutes of the March 24, 1982 meeting be approved as revised. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. SPECIAL PERMIT: Off-Premise Parking in R-3 Zone (File No. 82-12-BoA) Mr. Bigby explained the nature and location of the proposed use and noted that notices had been published in the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet as required by law. Also read into the record a letter received from Mr. Glenn E. Bledsoe, Jr. , President of the Columbia Basin Apartments, Inc. , 418 College Avenue, Cheney, Washington. The letter stated that he was unable to attend the hearing tonight but was in complete and wholehearted support for the issuance of this permit. Chairperson Zahn declared the public hearing open. Mr. Bill Cameron, representing Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital was present to speak for the request. Mr. Cameron passed out to Board members and staff a sketch showing one manner in which parking could be developed if the Board approve the request for special permit. Discussed briefly with Board members the aspects to be included in the parking area shown on the sketch.. Mr. Hill suggested that fencing rather than landscape be provided along the east line of lots 9-16 as well as the east line of Block A in Gerry' s Addition. Mr. Crutchfield noted to Board members that the purpose of a site obscuring treatment along the east line of the property is primarily to block headlights from automobiles circulating within the parking lot and that inthis regard site obscuring fencing would be just as appropriate as shrubs or other landscaping. Mr. Cameron agreed that a fence would probably be easier to main- tain than landscaping. Board members decided that a six foot high fence would be appropriate to keep headlights from shining into the residences next to the parking lots, except for the north 25 foot of the east line of the property which should be 42 inches as normally required by code in the front yard area of residentially zoned lots. Page 2 Board of Adjustment Minutes Special Meeting: April 14, 1982 Ms. Lawson and Mr. Hill were concerned about the apparent lack of uniform lighting across the entire area of the parking lot as shown on the proposed sketch. Felt that good lighting was cri'ti'cal for this parking lot since the hospital operates 24-hours a day, and the parking area would likely receive considerable late night use by employees. There being no one else present to speak for or against the request, Chairperson Zahn declared the public closed. After a brief discussion on the matter by Board members, motion by Ms. Lawson second by Ms. Zahn and carried that the Board approve the revised special permit for off-street parking for Lots 9-16, Block 1 , Sylvester Park Addition and the west 200 feet of Block A, .Gerry's Addition cancelling the previous special permit applicable to Lots 9-16, Block 1 , Sylvester Park Addition and subject to the following conditions: 1 ) The parking area be paved and include adequate on-site drainage; 2) Vehicular access to the parking lot be limited to only Nixon Street and no more than two separate driveways conforming to City of Pasco standards be provided; 3) Landscaping be provided in accordance with P.M.C. Chapter 22.82 requirements for the C-1 zone; 4) Site obscuring fencing 6-feet in height be provided along the east line of said property except for the north 25-feet of said east line where fencing shall be 42-inches in height; 5) Adequate night lighting directed away from the adjacent residential areas be provided throughout the entire parking area; 6) Wheel stops, curbing or landscaping be provded along the north, west and south line of the applicant's property sufficient to prevent overhang, from parked automobiles onto the adjacent right-of-way. NEW BUSINESS: A. REQUEST FOR SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR INITIATING SPECIAL PERMIT (File No. 81-29-BOA Mr. Bigby explained the background relating to the applicant's request, noting to the Board that the applicant had written a letter to staff stating that he was aware of the need to begin development of the parking lot for which the Board had issued a special permit, that h.e was having trouble getting clear title to the property and asked that the Board grant a six month. extension of special permit in order to give him time to gain clear title and initiate development of the parking lot. Mr. Crutchfield noted to Board that he is aware of the aggravation that the condition of the subject property has caused the adjacent poperty owners. Further, that in the four years that he h.as been here the applicant's request has been the only private interest to come forward with. a plan for use and therefore resolution of the current problem, and that if the Board denies the request for extension of special permit, the property would simply return to limbo status and for an uncertain amount of timelcontinue with the same problems that plagued adjacent property owners in the past. Page 3 Board of Adjustment Minutes Special Meeting: April 14, 1982 Mr. Pete Overley, adjacent property owner was present in the audience and wished to address the Board on this matter. Stated that he felt the applicant was simply a farmer from Walla Walla and did not really care about what happened in the City of Pasco that although not required by the City to treat the alley, felt that the applicant would receive more support from adjacent property owners for his proposal if he were to do so. Further, that he had lived with the problems that the dirt had caused in the past and now that he has retired feels that he can handle that problem on his own . As far as he is concerned, believes that the extension of special permit should not be granted, that the applicant should lose his special permit and be forced to start the process all over again when his plan for doing something becomes more firm. . Board members felt that they could not make a decision on whether the extension of time limit for initiating the special permit should be allowed without the applicant first providing a firm time line or schedule of events showing step by step how development of the parking lot is to be accomplished. Motion by Ms. Lawson, second by Mr. Hill and carried unanimously that the Board defer decision on extension of the Robison Investment Company special permit for Lots 1-5, Block 11 , Sylvester' s Second Addition until the regular May 26, 1982 meeting of the Board in order to give the applicant time to provide the requested information. ANY OTHER BUSINESS: B. COMPLIANCE REPORT Mr. Crutchfield noted to Board members that Jack Graham's sign was still up and that the sign for Sage 'N' Sun would remain up until 1983 but that two out of the four signs that the City was trying to get removed had been taken down. The Board then returned to the matter of whether or not an administrative exception of up to but not exceeding one foot for set back as provided in the code should be handled by staff members rather than Board. Mr. Curtchfield noted that it would be extremely difficult administratively to deny anyone such a request. After discusion on the matter, the Board decided not to recommend the code amendment on this matter to the Planning Commission. With no other business coming before the Board, Chairperson Zahn declared the special meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Gary Crutchfield, Secretary Board of Adjustment BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING: May 26, 1982 The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairperson Zahn. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Shirley Zahn, Chairperson (NONE) Sharon Lawson Chan Tebay Paul Pallmer Phil Hill STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Crutchfield, City Planner and Max Bigby, Assistant City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Ms. Lawson, second by Ms. Tebay and carried that the minutes of the April 14, 1982 meeting be approved as prepared. OLD BUSINESS A. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT (File #81-29-BoA) Mr. Bigby noted to Board members that the decision on whether or not to extend the special permit for off-premise parking was deferred from the special meeting of April 14, 1982. Also noted that the applicant who could not be at the last meeting was present in the audience. Reminded Board members that this was a non-hearing matter. Mr. Jim Robison, applicant, stated that the basic problem for causing the delay was that he had not yet obtained clear title from the American Armenian College located in LaVerne, California. The college had declined to sign off on the quit claim deed and as a result he still does not have clear title; however, all of the necessary documents are not in the hands of the Benton-Franklin Title Company in Kennewick and the matter should be resolved in a few short weeks. Noted that the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has finally agreed on the plans and they are now in the hands of several contractors. He is willing to develop the parking lot as the first phase and remodel the DSHS office building as the second phase. Ms. Lawson believed that the understanding of the Board was that he would develop the parking lot as soon as he received clear title to the property. Mr. Crutchfield stated that was staff's understanding essentially, and asked if date had been set? Mr. Robison stated it was now in the hands of the Benton- Franklin Title Company and depended on how long it took them. Mr. Hill asked the applicant if he was aware that some margin of maintenance would have been desirable on the property? Mr. Robison stated that until he actually owned the property through clear title, that he did not want to be legally liable for any actions that might occur in the meantime. Further, that he was aware of Page 2 Board of Adjustment Minutes Regular Meeting: May 26, 1982 the use of the property as a parking lot, but felt that until he owns the property it was more a problem for the city and not him. Mr. Hill questioned the applicant about setting definite time frames for development of the property. Mr. Robison stated that he would like to get going by July, that the lease with DSHS ends June 30, and that he has not signed a new lease with them yet. Stated he had sent staff a preliminary copy of remodeling plans for the expansion and wanted to know how long it would take to get a response from the city once he submitted a full set of plans for a building permit. Mr. Crutchfield stated 15-days is the administrative time for review and that the applicant can expect a response at the end of that time. Mr. Robison stated at this point, if development drags on for months, it would cost too much more to develop anyway. Basically, if the Board does not grant the exten- sion, then the city would continue to have a dirty lot even if he doesn't get in. Board members generally agreed two and three months would be a reasonable amount of time to alot for the extension; however, were somewhat concerned that the parking lot be developed first before the remodeling take place. Mr. Crutchfield noted that once the permit was issued they would have to put in the parking lot before they could start the building remodeling anyway. Motion by Ms. Lawson, second by Ms. Zahn and carried unanimously that the Board extend special permit no. 81-29-BoA to September 1, 1982 as the deadline for the applicant securing a building permit. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SPECIAL PERMIT: Auto Body Shop in C-3 Zone (.File #82-14-BoA) Mr. Bigby explained the nature and location of the request. Stated that notice had been mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet and publised as required by law, and that no correspondence had been received. Chairperson Zahn declared the public hearing open. Mr. Robert Schatz, applicant, was present to speak on behalf of his request. Stated that he has owned the property for approximately six years and that he intends to build an approximately 4,000 square foot building for auto body shop use and office space. The building would be fenced but the vehicle sales yard area would not he. His time frame for development would be about four to five months, although the applicant does not intend to move into the building for about 14-months. Mr. Pallmer asked if the use was primarily for sales? The applicant responded yes and that a portion of the office space was planned later to be remodeled into a showroom for new cars. Ms. Barbara Ridgley, owner of the car wash immediately east of the applicant's property, stated the concern of paint drifting from auto body shop spray painting activities. onto the automobiles on`her property. Also was concerned about the potential unsightly appearance of wrecked automobiles stored outside of the auto body shop. Mr. Schatz noted that the painting of automobiles was rigidly regulated and that it would have to be conducted from within an enclosed room. Therefore, it was not possible for any spray to drift over onto her property. Mr. A. J. Duke, 1519 West "A" Street, located behind the Farmer's Market Page 3 Board of Adjustment Minutes. Regular Meeting: July 26, 1982 building stated that the Northside Garage has a slat fence. Stated the arrangement of this fence was a good one and that the auto body shop should be done this way or not allowed at all. Mr. Pallmer asked if the potential for noise was affected one way or the other by the orientation of the bay doors. Mr. Schatz stated if they faced toward the south or west that there would be a lot of dust, sand and other materials blowing into the auto body shop through the doors because they frequently need to be opened and closed during the normal course of work. With no one else present to speak for or against the request, Chairperson Zahn declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Gary Crutchfield then sketched the several options for building orientation on the blackboard for further review. Board members discussed the pros and cons of orienting the building in almost every direction as it would relate to noise emission and the impact of that noise on the adjacent apartments to the north. Mr! ,Crutchfield noted that the apartments were developed in a C-1 commercial zone and that due to recent code amendments apartments can no longer be built in a C-1 zone. Mr. Pallmer felt that since none of the apartment owners appeared tonight, it would seem that they did not have a problem with the potential noise. Mr. Hill noted that it would be tough to tell how sound emissions would come out of the building and did not feel comfortable with being in the business of noise regulation anyway, as it related to trying to pick which way the building should be oriented. - Mr. Crutchfield noted that a general condition on noise could be added to the special permit whereby the design would be worked out in the building permit process. After much debate on the matter, the applicant brought forward to the Board a design resembling an inverted letter "L" that would meet his needs, act as a windshield and reduce but not eliminate the amount of noise directed toward the apartments. Ms. Lawson asked whether or not the outside storage night lighting for the proposed use would need to be shielded from the apartments to the north? Mr. Crutchfield noted that this is normally the case where a commercial use abutts residentially zoned property. However, because the apartments on the north side of the applicant's are in a C-1 zone it is not required, therefore, the Board needs to consider whether or not this should be a condition. With no further discussion by Board members, motion by Ms. Lawson second by Mr. Hill and carried unanimously that the Board grant a special permit for an auto body shop in a C-3 zone for property legally described as Lots 9-16, Block 8. Helm's Addition subject to the following conditions: 1) The building be so placed as to minimize noise and alley conflicts; 2) Yard and security lighting be shielded to avoid light (glare) beyond the north property line; Page 4 Board of Adjustment Minutes Regular Meeting: July 26, 1982 3) Outdoor storage be screened from the north side in addition to compliance with Chapter 22.82. ANY OTHER BUSINESS A. REVISED SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS Mr. Crutchfield explained that during the City Council's review of the proposed residential code amendments, Council decided it was more appropriate for the Council to hear appeals to special permits rather than the superior court. In order to accomplish this, staff revised the special permit process so that the Planning Commission would hear and decide special permits subject to appeal by City Council. Mr. Crutchfield noted that it was not uncommon for Planning Commissions to hear special permits. The Board would still hear variances and appeals to administrative decisions. As a result of the revisions, felt that staff should conduct workshops with the Board in order to go over the new residential regulations so that the Board becomes familiar with them in case of appeal and also to go over the administrative appeal process. B. COMPLIANCE REPORT Mr. Crutchfield noted that Mr. Crahan's sign was still there and that we would be looking at the Sage N Sun sign next year. Motion by Ms. Lawson second by Ms. Tebay and carried that the May 27, 1982 meeting of the Board of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:52 p.m. - - Respectfully submitted, Max Bigby, Secretary Pro-Tem BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING: September 29, 1982 The regular September meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairperson Zahn. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Shirley Zahn, Chairperson (None) Sharon Lawson Chan Teban Phil Hill Paul Pallmer STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Max Bigby, Assistant City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Ms. Lawson second by Ms. Zahn and carried that the minutes of the May 26, 1982 meeting be approved as prepared. OLD BUSINESS: NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. VARIANCE: Front and Side Yard Requirements in an RMH-1 (Residential Mobile Home) District (File No. 82-40-BoA, Clark) Mr. Bigby explained the nature and location of the request noting that public notice had been published in the paper and mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet as required by law, and no written correspondence had been received. Mr. Bigby sketched the applicant's situation on the blackboard and explained to Board members the present yard requirements in the RMH-1 district as well as the yard requirements contained in the private covenant attached to the property and filed with the%4oxor in 1969. Explained that the applicant desired to establish a 28-foot.imo i e home with attached 28-foot by 20-foot garage. Noted that because of the configuration of the property, the applicant could not get his desired use properly upon the property without violating one or more of the setback requirements for yards in the RMH-1 zone. Chairperson Zahn declared the public hearing open. Mr. John Clark, applicant, was present and stated that Mr. Bigby had summed up the matter fairly well. Mr. Johnny Geteller, 912 Empire Drive, wondered just how many other people have received permits for the same thing up there? Felt that Mr. Clark's mobile home was definitely an asset to the place. Stated that since only the corner of the house would be required to project into the front yard, felt the variance should be allowed. Board of Adjustment Minutes Regular Meeting: September 29, 1982 Page 2 variance should be allowed. Mr. Bill Edmonds, owner of Lots 14 and 15, stated he is not against the variance but felt he had to comply with everything and thought everyone else should too. Mr. Elmer Romferd, 916 Empire Drive, asked why we should bend the rules for one person? Board member Hill then asked Mr. Edmonds if he believes that if Mr. Clark went ahead with his proposal, if his property values would be impaired? Mr. Edmonds responded "NO". Board member Hill then asked Mr, Romferd if he believed that if Mr. Clark were allowed to complete his proposalkzs property would be impaired by that activity? Mr. Romferd responded "NO he doesn't see why it would. With no one else to speak for or against the request, Chairperson Zahn declared the public hearing closed. Board members noted that it appears no other property developed within Airway Heights complies with the present RMH-1 yard setback requirements. They noted that also because the Empire Drive right-of-way extends approximately five feet beyond the sidewalk that it appears none of the properties comply with the private covenants attached to the subdivision as well. Board members also noted that most of the mobile homes had attached carports or two car garages and that these structures often were only inches away from the property lines. Motion by Ms. Lawson second by Ms. Tebay and carried by roll call vote of 4 to 1 (member Pallmer voted "NO") that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to the front and side yard requirements of the RMH zone for Lot 13, Block 1, Airway Heights Addition with conditions as follows: 1) That the resulting front yard setback be no less than 14 feet from the sidewalk; 2) That the resulting side yard along the west property line be not less than five feet. 3) That the proposed development meet required 10-feet rear yard and 10-foot side yard along the east property line. ANY OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Bigby noted that the parking lot for Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (at 4th Avenue and Nixon Street) was finished except for landscaping and that the Robison parking lot at 7th Avenue and Brown was similarly finished except for landscaping. Also mentioned the present status of the County Courthouse expansion. Board of Adjustment Minutes Regular Meeting: September 29, 1982 Page 3 In other business, Mr. Bigby explained to Board member Hill that his term would expire November 19, 1982 and that he would need to write a letter to staff if he was interested in reappointment to the Board for another term. Mr. Hill indicated he would do so. With no other business coming before the Board, Chairperson Zahn declared the meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Max Bigby, Secretary Board of Adjustment BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING: November 24, 1982 The regular November meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order at 8:01 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Tebay. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chan Tebay, Vice Chairperson Shirley Zahn, Chairperson (prior commitment) Sharon Lawson Phil Hill Paul Pallmer STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Max Bigby, Assistant City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Ms. Lawson second by Ms. Tebay and carried that the minutes of the September 29, 1982 meeting be approved as prepared. OLD BUSINESS: (None) PUBLIC HEARING: A. VARIANCE: Fence Height in the _Front Yard of an R-2 Medium Density _ Residential District, File No. 82-52-BoA, Bearchum Mr. Bigby explained the nature and location of the request noting that public notice had been published in the paper and mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet as required by law and that written correspondence had been received on the matter. Mr. Bigby sketched the applicant's situation on the blackboard and explained to Board members the present requirements pertaining to fences in the front yards in the R-2 District. He also illustrated the topography of the applicant's property in relation to the topography of surrounding properties and presented the results of staff measurements of fence heights within the general vicinity of the property. Mr. Bigby noted to Board members that certain existing fence heights within the area already exceed the fence heights established in the R-2 district. Noted to Board members that in a majority of instances the topography of the property seemed to plan a significant roll in the height to which fences were constructed. Finally noted to Board members that because of the height of topography of the applicant's property the required three and one-half feet in the front yard would only result in a fence protruding approximately one foot above the average height of the applicant's property. Noted that such a fence would not seem to provide an effective containment barrier for either pets or children and therefore would be of little value to the applicant. Vice Chairman Tebay declared the public hearing open. Mr. Bruce Bearchum, applicant, stated that Mr. Bigby had adequately summed up the problem and noted that his property is considerably higher than other properties in the vicinity, and for security purposes as well as adequate containment barrier for children and dogs he would like a higher fence height than allowed within the R-2 district. Board of Adjustment Minutes Regular Meeting: November 24, 1982 Page 2 With no one else present to speak for or against the matter, Vice Chairperson Tebay declared the hearing closed. Board members noted amoung themselves that other properties within the vicinity under the same zone classification, and with topographical discrepancies similar to the applicants ' already have fence heights in the front yards in excess of the requirements of the Pasco zoning ordinance. Motion by Ms. Lawson second by Mr. Pallmer and carried that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to the fence height requirements within the front yard in the R-2 district for "Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, Fann`s Addition," with the following conditions : 1 ) The retaining wall be limited to a maximum height of one foot above curb grade; 2) Height of the fence, including the retaining will , be limited to a maximum of four and one-half feet (54") above curb grade. With no other business coming before the Board, Vice Chairperson Tebay declared the meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Max Bigby, Secretary Board of Adjustment