BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
MONDAY,JANUARY 14, 2013, 7:00 P.M.
COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL
LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS
The Leavenworth Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met in regular session as a continuance to the November 26, 2012 BZA meeting. The following members were present: Chairman Mike Bogner,Felix Derezinski, Dick Gervasini, Carolyn Tillotson and Jim Thomas.Also present from the staff wereBerrin Nejad and Cheryl Bogner. The applicant, Mary Scott, Mr. Scott and their contractor, Justin Long were present.
Chairman Bogner opened the January, 2013 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and called for the staff report. Ms. Nejad began her staff report on 411 N 4th Street, however, Mr. Bogner returned to the first item on the agenda – the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. There was brief discussion among the board members about whether or not it was necessary to approve the minutes from the November 26, 2012 meeting as the agenda item had been tabled and continued until this evening. Minutes were tentatively approved at this time with final approval to be given at next BZA meeting along with this evening’s minutes.
Chairman Bognercalled for the seconditem on the agenda,which was to hold a public hearing on BZA-2012-04, a variance to the rear yard setbackand the side yard setback to allow for the construction of a carport at 411 N 4th Street upon application of Mary R. Scott, owner.
Ms. Nejad presented the staff report stating the application was made for 411 N 4th Street with applicant requesting a carport and reminded the board the request was first heard at the November 26, 2012 meeting. At the time the item was tabled, the Board/staff recommended the applicant make suggested changes to the proposal. The location of the property where the carport is to be constructed is in the area of 4th Street between Pottawatomie and Osage. Ms. Nejad provided aerial maps, drawings, elevations and photographs of the building and surrounding area. Additionally, she noted the revised plans now showthe carport moved seven (7) feet to the east.
Commissioner Derezinski asked if the applicant was now in compliance with setbacks. Ms. Nejad responded no, thus the reason they are still asking for a variance; rear yard should have 25’ setback, revised plans show 7’; and on the alley side which is side yard setback, they should have 20’ setback and plans show 18’. Mrs. Scott pointed out that even at only 18’ setback; they are still within their property line. Mr. Derezinski also asked if utility easements had been identified in the alley. Chairman Bogner commented that this was a zero lot line with no official utility easements, so it was a mute point. Commissioner Thomas wanted to clarify that the setback does include the alley and how the calculation was made at 18’. Ms. Nejad stated that if a building has a side entrance with parking, the full width of an alley can be used in the calculation (but in some cases, only half of the alley is considered in the calculation). Mr. Thomas commented that it seems to be different each time. Ms. Nejad referenced the 2011 Development Regulations in response to hisconcerns and offered to provide Commissioner Thomas a copy of the regulations regarding this matter.
Commissioner Derezinski questioned if in granting the variance, could the Board stipulate the carport could not be enclosed? Ms. Nejad commented the Board could make that stipulation.
Commissioner Gervasini moved to accept the staff report and seconded by Commissioner Derezinski. The motion carried unanimously.
With no further discussion, Commissioner Derezinski moved to approve the request for a variancebased on the Findings of Fact, with the exception it can never be enclosed, seconded by Commissioner Gervasini. Mr. Gervasini asked the applicant if lights would be installed in the carport and the reply was yes. Chairman Bogner asked Commissioner Derezinski to amend his motion to include the word carport after the term carport was defined as a structure with three sides and a roof. The motion carried with a vote of 4-1 (Commissioner Thomas abstained)
First, the meeting was adjourned at 7:12 pm, but after Commissioner Tillotston’sreminding, it was determined that the Commission did not review each Findings of Facts and reopened the meeting at 7:14 pm.
Chairman Bogner continued with the board review of the Findings of Fact as a request for a variance must meet all conditions. Mr. Bogner read the conditions:
- The variance requested arises from such condition which is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district; and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or applicant:
Commissioner Thomas questioned the reason for the variance request. The applicant, Ms. Mary Scsott, responded by saying the carport would provide protection from the elements for their vehicles and themselves. The carport would also protect the building from further water damage. Ms. Scott stated they had spent a considerable amount of money repairing water damaged walls. Mr. Thomas also asked if the carport would extend over the roof of the other building. Ms. Scott replied that the carport would not extend over the roof and added the one presently covering the door will be removed. All board members voted in the affirmative with the exception of Mr. Thomas who voted in the negative.
- The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents:
All board members voted in the affirmative, but added the language "based on changes".
- The strict application of the provisions of the Development Regulations of which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application:
All board members voted in the affirmative with the exception of Commissioner Thomas who voted in the negative.
- The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare:
All board members were in agreement and voted in the affirmative.
- The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the Development Regulations:
All board members voted in the affirmative.
Chairman Bogner concluded that based on the number of affirmative votes in each area, all items passed.
Commissioner Derezinski moved to grant a variance of a carport based on the Findings of Facts which was seconded by Commissioner Gervasini and approved 4-1 (Commissioner Thomas abstaining).
Finding no other items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:24 pm.
BN:cb
1