SHOW LOW BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Minutes of the Special Meeting Wednesday, September 26, 2007

 

 

1. Call to Order. Chairman Shannon called the meeting to order at 3:06 PM

 

2. Roll Call.

 

Board Members Present: Chairman Dick Shannon, Vice-Chairman Lou Reynolds, Stephen Hair, Tom Jernigan. Frank Armanno was excused.

 

Staff Present: Justen Tregaskes, Planning and Zoning Director; Kane Graves, City Attorney; Katie Blakeslee, Community Development Specialist; Diana Hough, Administrative Assistant.

 

Guests Present: Bob Saner, and others.

 

3. PUBLIC HEARING - Request for a Variance to Section 15-1-57(D)(5&6) of the City Code submitted by Robert Stoner, on Property Located at 1101 S. 8th Drive, Show Low, Arizona, A.P. No. 210-35-158. (Justen Tregaskes)

 

A. Consideration of above request.

 

Mr. Tregaskes presented the following Staff Summary Report:

 

Robert Stoner has filed a variance application seeking relief from Show Low City Codes 15-1-57 (D)(5) & (D)(6) to allow for the placement of a manufactured home within the required street side setback. The applicant is requesting this variance to allow for the replacement of a 1972 mobile home with a newer manufactured home at 1101 S. 8th Drive, more particularly described as A.P.N. 210-35-158.

 

The subject property is located within the Show Low Heights subdivision. This subdivision was platted in 1972, prior to zoning taking effect within the city limits. The subject property is triangular shaped, with streetside setbacks of twenty (20) feet on three sides of the lot. There is an eight foot side setback on south end of property. One other lot within the Show Low Heights subdivision exhibits these same qualities. An existing mobile home is in place on the property. This mobile home actually extends beyond the property line on two sides and into the right of way. The applicant is requesting this variance in order to place a newer manufactured home on the subject property. A site plan showing the proposed placement of this manufactured home has been provided. The new manufactured home would be located entirely within the boundaries of the subject property but would protrude into the required streetside setbacks by approximately eight feet on one side and two feet on the other side of the subject property.

 

The existing home is run down and has reached the end of its projected lifespan and is classified as a nonconforming structure. The applicant would like to replace this home with a newer model. City code states, Should a nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of a structure be destroyed by fire, explosion, collapse, act of God, or act of public enemy, it may be repaired, replaced, or reconstructed within its original footprint or to a greater degree of conformity.

 

Section 15-1-35(E)(2) outlines the following required criteria for granting a variance:

1.      There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings which were not self imposed by the owner;

2.      Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the owner of the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same classification in the same zoning district;

3.      The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship;

4.      Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property, adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the City in general;

5.      In granting the variance, the board shall impose such conditions and safeguards as are appropriate to ensure that the purpose and intent of this Section will be fulfilled.

 

The Board of Adjustment may:

 

1. Grant the Variance. The Board determines a special circumstance or property hardship is applicable to the property which is not self-imposed by the owner or applicant. The Board may impose conditions on the granting of the variance to ensure the purpose and intent of the Ordinance is met. If the Board grants the Variance, the motion should include the justification for doing so.

 

2. Deny the Variance on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property creating a hardship that deprives the property from complying with the Ordinance.

 

The size of the current mobile home is 12 X 60, including the tongue.

 

Presentation by the Applicant.

 

Teresa Holladay, daughter of Mr. Stoner and sister-in-law of the current resident of the mobile, came forward to speak and was sworn in by the Chairman. She stated that her father is original owner of the property. The current mobile is approximately 35 years old. There was significant damage cause by a tree falling onto the mobile in the past. Repairs were completed, but the mobile was not completely restored. Her brother died in April. His small accident policy has allowed this opportunity to purchase a replacement home.

 

The square footage of the current home is currently 77% out of compliance with the city setback requirements. This new mobile would be approximately 7% out of compliance, with dimensions of 28 X 40. She also showed the Board a copy of a petition, signed by 27 neighbors, who support this variance request.

 

Ms. Holladay felt the variance met the criteria of a variance on several issues. This property presented special circumstances related to the size of the property. It does deprive the owner of the property normal property privileges. In seeking a minimum violation of the current zoning requirements, they do not believe there is a detriment to the request. The new home, a 1997 manufactured home, would be an improvement to the look of the property. Mr. Stoner would purchase the home and then deed it to his daughter-in-law.

 

Board Member Hair confirmed the estimated 77% out of compliance. The mobile was placed on the property prior to the 1976 zoning.

 

Ms. Anita Branch, 1141 S. 8th Dr. came forward to speak and was sworn in by the Chairman. She stated that the new mobile would enhance the neighborhood. She wished to go on record as supportive of this variance request.

 

Board Member Jernigan asked if all adjacent property owners had signed the petition. The current resident, Dee, stated that there were a few people who had not answered the door when she contacted neighbors, but she thought approximately 90% of the neighbors had been reached and had signed the petition.

 

Vice-Chairman Reynolds asked if there was anyone present who was in opposition to the variance request. No one in the audience indicated an opposition.

 

Mr. Robert Stoner noted that the property map the Board was looking at was drawn up by a surveyor. If he can better center the home on the property, it might be as much as 11% out of compliance.

 

Vice-Chairman Reynolds asked about the location of the gas line on the property. Mr. Stoner stated that the meter was placed on the property line adjacent to the northeast corner of the house. Mr. Reynolds asked about safety issues with the city and the gas line. Mr. Tregaskes stated that the gas company made that decision. They usually placed the meter on the property line. It would not be necessary to contact the gas company. Line placement would be determined when the application was filed for a new meter. Mr. Reynolds stated he was concerned about the street gas line being so close to the home. Mr. Stoner assured him that no part of the residence would be placed over the main gas line. In fact, the new unit would be further from the gas line than the old one. He thought the gas company would install the new line.

 

Board Member Hair reviewed the steps of the process. If the variance is granted, then Mr. Stoner gets a manufactured home permit with inspection required. Then he goes through the utilities process.

 

Board Member Jernigan asked if there were any other non-conforming properties in that subdivision that have variances. Mr. Tregaskes noted that there were other properties in violation, but they would be easier to bring into compliance. Discussion was held regarding different size mobile homes available on the market. Ms. Holladay stated that they had actually found something that was affordable to them and that they felt would be appropriate for the property. She felt that anything small enough to comply with the zoning would either be a 5th wheel or a small park model, and again, available money was a factor. Mr. Tregaskes noted that a 40 X 16 would be the maximum size, which is smaller than what is there now (700 sq. ft.)

 

Mr. Tregaskes stated that the code referenced is for non-conformance should the home be destroyed. In other words, if it burned down in a fire, they could legally replace the structure just as it is placed on the property now. The applicant wishes to replace this structure prior to destruction. The mobile has already endured a tree falling on it, it is 35 years old, the proposed replacement structure is 25 years newer and would be in a much greater degree of conformance. Ms. Holladay stated she thought the home could probably be condemned and they would be allowed to pull in another one just like it. Mr. Stoner thought the wiring was copper and the insulation was fiberglass. The replacement structure had insulation that was good to -42 degrees.

 

Board Member Hair moved to grant the variance and give the city latitude regarding the centering of the new structure. The proposed replacement structure is 25 years newer, it definitely enhances the neighborhood, there appears to be no detriment to the property or the City, and it will come into a minimum of 66% greater compliance. Vice-Chairman Reynolds seconded the motion.

 

Vice-Chairman Reynolds wanted to go on record stating that the Board would not want any action they take today to be interpreted as permission for Mr. Stoner to go ahead and make a major investment and find that permits were not available.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

4. MINUTES:

 

A.     Consideration of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Show Low Board of Adjustment Held on November 2, 2006.

 

Chairman Shannon asked if there were any questions on the minutes. Vice-Chairman Reynolds asked if Ms. Clark has followed through on her commitments. Mr. Tregaskes noted that the code enforcement officer has checked on a few complaints. The problems have been taken care of. There are no outstanding issues with Ms. Clark.

 

Chairman Shannon moved to accept the minutes as attached. Board Member Hair seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

 

5. Adjournment. Chairman Shannon adjourned the meeting at 3:46 PM.

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

Diana Hough, Administrative Assistant

 

 

APPROVED:

 

 

Dick Shannon, Chairman

 

Date: _____________________