HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - memo from Planning Director identifying problem with interpretation of code OFFic-E,
_E February 27,TO Rex Tavlor - Actin Citv Man' ?E-rr DAT 1976
-j____ - _n
Patric�-__J. Switz, Jr. Dirc�ctor 0"
SUBJECT ZoninQ Code
The problem for which I am. about to jS of serious miaa,7uitude and, believe
that it is requiring of CoiLncil 's _J,,-.-..eJLat,,e attention and final
As recently as ,January 20 1976, Mr. John Lticnan, Building Official, issucd
a combination of zoning and building Per,nits for the erection of a one-story
storage
e building to be located at 316 South Third Street. This property is
in the C-2 General Coi-gqercial District and the proposed use is a permitted
use. The permits as issued indicated rear and side yard setbacks of 8" and
a front yard setback of 60 feet from the centerline of South Third Street.
Even if the developyintent proposal had indicated zero sidevard and rear yard
setbacks, the perunits would have been issued.
Not too long after these permits were issued, a question arose as to inter-
pretation of Section 38-1033 of the Zoning Code. While looking at this Section
one can discern that under C-2, General Comriercial, the letter (1) applies in
establishing side yard requiref-aents for constniction in this District. The
letter (1) states simply that "Require--,-Ones of the "R-4" District shall be
applied as a Trdniml_n." This, of course, leads to referencing of sideyard
• requirements under R-4 where there is indicated the letter (c) . The letter
(c) says: "Side yard shall be a minimui-,i of six (6) feet for one story buildings,
ten (10) feet for three (3) story buildings, twelve (121) feet for four (4)
story buildings and an additional four (4) feet for every story over four (4) ."
These regulations when applied to the proposed develoPT-.ent at 316 South Third
Street 11O.Duld See:-a to imply that a Six foot -side vard would be required. And
this is the opinion of the City Attorney as -orc.i.7:ided in a to Steve
Veitch ar.,I Donn Luchan, dated 11, 1976. (copy attached)
As is nc.- c--n+,-rar-vr to this ,,Ost t,7,
r-,)r e t of the CoLic, "Ir. TI-.I;-_`-:-_..,.,.
IL
for at least the last three anl-ll or-O-z -ho-If ye-ars SinCe T111%. of 1�7 '�
ever 0 .
the letter (1) first anpearei-) as the Code to rieon that thz� siri-
, n. - 1 1! L
yard require.�ent only applit�d to re5_-*._-I-_--:-.t-i-1 bu i idl s being built In th- C-2
I
Di�trict. Mr. Luchan is un.:ible to this interpretation alnd :1 z; o 11 y
able to relate that he hashir�Solf by an earlier ij. -L-inreSSon of pry
I
interpretat-jOIT-1 Dur-ivo, these_j i h
past three and. one-half years, 'fr. has iniiicated to rie that he h,-iS
issued 28 zoning and build-ii-jo perdt cc-:i7:-D-Lnat1ons for ccin-siruction of &D,,�;_i ial
buildings in the C-2 District an,! of those 28, 11 possess less tl,an the
side yard within the cont -xt of the City Atror-ney"s recent 'rile
fact that 17 of the pen-dt-s reflect coF.,nliq-ic-_ io;ith miniritu.-U si-.---Le yanls is
coincidence.
Up to this point I have not introduced sore of the in the S,:ctic)n 38-10,33
chart which are per: 7'-jul.:ve to the con'Euslon in ma'K.Ino cle,�ir int- e-, r -
ri cl ""t r, L-I L Z, : I
tion of the Lntent of tie c-I.-Io. Looking once again to the C-21 alicr-c.-it �-,ri theI'D
chart and referrin't: to rv-a-, V�ffd roquire-entS, the letter (d) app,_.rs. 1.etter
I I
(d) says that "No side yard re+_,.Uired except on the side of a lot adjoininc, on
"S-111, 'IS-211, 11R-ilf, "R- 0`11, ",'Z-311, or "?1-4" District in Side ,'and
re n.,lations of tho d`_<tr f- k,- Id, . - - .
ict w"-!;":,il it 'Ilioilis shall :-, --.Iv. ."J "
2
except on the rear of a lot abutting an ff A-1rf If, S-111 if S-Zrf31 ff R-1ff "R-2ff fr R-3ff,
• or "R-4" .District in which case the rear yard revelations of the district which
it adjoins shall apply." It is interesting to note that while the letter (d)
symbolizes rear yard requirements on the chart, the explanation of (d) includes
requirements or exceptions for both side and rear yards. This anomaly is
explainable because prior to July 25, 1972, or when the Code was amended, the
letter (d) was also denoted under sideyard requirements on the chart only to be
replaced with the letter (1). Given the insertion of (1) it would seem
appropriate that all reference to side yard reauirerrfents would have been eliminated
under the (d) explanation. Or just speculating, could it be that the letter (1)
under sideyard requirements was not really intended in the first place and that
it was a typographical error! What is most puzzling under the (d) and (1)
arrangement is that there is conditional but clear exception given to requirement
of rear yards for presumably all types of construction, but no exceptions pro-
vided whatsoever for side yards, unless of course, as Mr. Luchan has interpreted,
that the regulation applies only to residential construction. The fact. that rear
i yards may not always be required but that side yards always would be seems
incongruous compared to C-1 and C-3, which allow no exceptions leading to zero
building lines on either the rear or side yards. Perhaps the authors meant to
eliminate the chart symbol (d) under rear yards too, and substitute an (1) also,
thus eliminating the incongruity.
In an effort to understand both the City Planning Commission's and City Council's
intentions by incorporating the letter (1) in side yard requirements, minutes,
resolutions, and ordinances effectuating such changes have been examined with no
resultant enlightenment of purpose. The Building Official, City Planner, and
City Attorney do not possess vivid recollections of motivating factors contribut-
ing to chart changes, as is also the case with former Planning Commission members
having tenure during the time the change was made.
What, perhaps, is most regrettable about this situation is that permits have been
issued for construction at 316 South Third Street, and in view of new interpreta-
tions of the Code should be considered as revocable. Such revocation would
appear to create hardship to the owner-developer since construction materials
(a systems building) have been laid on the site. The owner-developer has in-
dicated that the intended construction is infeasible if sidevards would be re-
quired.
This whole circumstance as I am now relating it to you has been discussed with
the landowner and representatives. They, naturally, feel that they have been
issued the privilege to build, as they have, and they are fully cognizant of the
difficulties in our interpreting the Code; and are furthermore aware, since my
intentions were expressed to that effect; this matter would be taken to City
Council for its deliberation and decision.
Once again, this is a most regrettable situation for which I believe nobodv is
personally at fault. I would have much preferred to have taken this matter to
the Planning Commission first to obtain a recommendation for action (which I
realize Council may wish to do in the final analysis) but due to a nebulous
code coupled with possible administrative necessity of revoking a permit and
the need to move quickly, I strongly suggest that this matter be brought to
Council's immediate attention.
dw
cc: John Klaus, City Attorney
John Luchan, Building Official
Ronald t1�ooldri.f1-e, Chief Planner