Agenda Item 3AAGENDA ITEM # 3A
AUGUST 8, 2011
August 1, 2011
ITur�t t "V 2NONM
TO: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jim Hanson
Cit
SUBJECT: Follow -up R port
Staff Report on Sign Ordinance The City Commission requested that a staff report be
prepared on the history and status of the sign ordinance and particularly the portion requiring a
phasing out of older, non - complying signs by September of 2012. Such a report is being
prepared, but will not be ready in time for the commission meeting on August 8 Instead, it is
staff's intention to have this ready for commission consideration at the next meeting on August
22
Complaint by Kenneth Wise about being denied a Building Permit for an addition to his
residence located at 66 West 7"' Street At the last City Commission meeting on July 25"',
Kenneth Wise complained that he could not get a building permit to construct a 12' x 12'
addition on the back of his townhouse at 66 West 7 Street. City staff had told him that it
violated various Code sections dealing with the construction of two - family duplexes and
townhouses and that it did not meet rear yard setback requirements.
A copy of a memo dated July 28, 2011 from Erika Hall to Jim Hanson is attached explaining the
staff's concerns with the proposed addition. To meet the setback provision would require an 8 1 /2
foot variance to the rear setback line and the provisions outlined in the City Code for granting a
variance do not appear to be favorable to Mr. Wise's situation.
On the provisions dealing with duplex and townhome construction, my understanding of the
Code is somewhat different than those previously expressed to Mr. Wise. The Code first states
that "Dwelling units attached by any type of solid continuous or connected roof... shall be
considered as a two- family dwelling or townhouse." It goes on to state that "Adjoining two -
family or townhouse dwelling units shall be constructed at substantially the same time or in a
continuous sequence unless an existing structure is being renovated within the same footprint ".
understand these provisions to apply to the initial construction of the duplex or townhouse, and
that they were not intended to apply to any minor additions. When these provisions were added,
a problem had been recognized where some residential property owners had added a second
AGENDA ITEM # 3A
AUGUST 8, 2011
residential unit to a single family lot by connecting the two with some kind of a roof and calling
it a duplex for the purpose of obtaining a building permit. Some of these second homes were then
sold to different owners. In some of these cases, the original homes had been built many years
prior to the addition of the second home and the owners were essentially exploiting a loophole in
the Code to allow them to increase density on what otherwise should be a single - family lot. The
new Code provisions were intended to plug that loophole.
If Mr. Wise still wants to pursue his request for a building permit, his next step would be to
submit a variance application for consideration by the Community Development Board.
owe
1k r ' -�
A I'. 4 �v ". k�+
L .0,
d JI A)
joi L
F�i. ; +fr 4. ��'L.•,�;r :�: '�,� � 'I� l �r�iSY" .��,de¢' •�'��'+
IMP
G.k.'
11-71 W,
�� � � +S - .' '- I r ti : - [r. 4!_+ 1 i
W49
4
I -," W.
:f •: I ?� �LA�.I,T .7 T ^S`i.�5.- "'�i -1 f�''r�� ; 21' -s •� ��� �'lvi i, '��* , �� ` ' y � .' I +.r.^ N � � .•��7= �.��75q;��/�`! '��,, F {,��� ?� ~+ `� -_ C: :.I ,i�y �'l.• :. aSl!':.I ,
S•Y J � - ' ' i; ~�"k'�'' ^, 'T"f - ` I.'7.' � r4`* .'!� _ S `�F;�� r • i.i 1 1�'.'� i
t�',�'>�,- _ a`�. I'� ; . r'4,1 "{ laJ'"�1=!� ' - ,�•r f + � .,i.;;7� � .ai�� 5 iil d ` � r.
T 4 1. 1 1. .
I
0! r
if
' �+I.p ; ., ' .i �'. f ,, •''r �I��I�` '� ��r ': F �';;r�}: 'L��e` '�,.': I {. �I�'A�`•A4 �� , - ry
tTi AF
, aa�r1���7 '�±1R+�.'D' +,��Y �r �.'IT�� � • ` - .eNk�c .te +• _ f} Iil + ` _ � �•. +F i _ �, lob :` 51 ' � "�•`.i i•� Y ' '.' it • .' r• q"_ __: •,• ';'i�' < €•_ •. .) ', -' -I I�•+II
At 1,01
AM
AGENDA ITEM # 3A
AUGUST 8, 2011
environment. The Wise property is the mirror image of the unit at 68 W 7 "' Street, and
units 66 -68 were developed identically to units 70 -72 and 76 -78, located to the west.
o (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared
to other properties in the area — There are no such exceptional circumstances preventing
reasonable use of the property. As mentioned above, this unit, along with the five
directly to the west and two others at the end of the block but fronting Orchid Street, are
developed as substantial two- family dwelling units, with each having a single -car garage,
three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and 1,506 total square feet of area (1,152 living area;
301 garage; 36 storage, 17 porch).
o (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the
property or after construction of improvements on the property — These units were
constructed in 1996, and there have been no changes to the land development regulations
affecting these properties since development.
o (5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration — The lots on which
these two - family dwelling units were constructed were standard rectangular shape, as
demonstrated on the Section H plat, found in Official Records Book 18, Page 34, Block
72.
o (6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for
reasonable use of the property — The four two- family dwelling units located on Block 72
of Section H, were constructed on six individual platted lots, with Lots 1 -5 being 50'
wide by 102' deep, or 5,100 square feet in area; and Lot 6 being 70' wide by 102' deep,
or 7,140 square feet in area. The units were constructed under a unified development
plan that considered the area of the entire block (345' wide by 102' deep, or 35,190
square feet or 0.81 acres) as well as the maximum allowable density (14 units per acre).
Though up to eleven (11) units could have been legally constructed on the property, only
eight (8) were. According to Section 24- 107(d)(1), the RG Zoning District requires a
minimum of 6,200 square feet for the construction of a two- family dwelling unit upon
lands designated as medium density, meaning that 3,100 square feet would be required
for each individual unit. The resultant dimensions of the Wises' "duplex" lot are 40'
wide by 102' deep, or 4,080 square feet, thus exceeding the minimum required.
Mr. Wise asserts that his family needs the additional space. However, according to Section 24-
64(c), Grounds for denial of a variance, "Variances shall not be granted solely for personal
comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situations
created by the property owner ".
Mr. Wise also claims that a precedent has been set because a sun porch has been constructed on
the rear of another unit to the west of his. Staff investigated the permit archives and finds no
approvals for that porch and has turned the matter over to Code Enforcement. Still, Section 24-
64(g) states "Nonconforming characteristics of nearby lands, structures or buildings shall not be
grounds for approval of a variance ".
According to Section 24- 107(f)(1), the maximum impervious surface allowed is 50 %. At 1,506
square feet, the existing structure covers 36.9% of the 4,080 square foot duplex lot. This total
does not include the impervious patio in the rear yard, the driveway in the front yard, or any
walkways that might exist in the front yard or around the house. Addition of a 12' x 12' room
would increase the impervious surface by 3.5 %, so it is possible that such an addition would push
the total over the maximum.
2