Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 08/21/1985M I N U T E S
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 21, 1985
140 PRESENT
Bob Balch, Chairman X
Joan Mason, Vice Chairman
Imma Jeanne Alexander Members
Bill Rowland
Robert Seabury X
Roger McKinney, Director of Planning X
Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney X
Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator City Staff
Bernice Prchal, Planner II
Sammy Paschal, Plan Reviewer X
Barbara Bridges, Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Balch called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IIIW
It was moved by Mrs. Alexander, seconded by Bill Rowland, and carried unanimously
that the July 29, 1985 Minutes be approved.
BUSINESS ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARING
1. Case V-85-15. University Park, Sec. B, Lot 8, Blk 6 (4207 Randel St.)
- Request to build a carport in front setback area
This business item was tabled at the last meeting in order to provide the
applicant and City staff time to obtain more information. Mr. Mukerjee advised
the Building Inspection Department was contacted to determine if the applicant
had been advised the Zoning Ordinance would be effective in 2 days, and the
signature procedure for approval of a carport would no longer be applicable.
However, it was not possible, due to the number of permits issued to determine
on this one if the information was supplied. It was the general policy to do
so, and it is felt that the information was given, since there would only be a
2 day time period for the signatures to be obtained.
Mr. E.J. Krebs of Krebs Construction Co. addressed the Board. He stated the
signatures were obtained Easter weekend (although the date on the computer
printout was 05/21/85), and that he was not informed of this process being
changed until a building permit was requested. For this reason, and because
there are 3 other carports in the area constructed in the front setback, he
stated these are special conditions, and the variance should be granted.
Mr. Mukerjee noted there are only 3 carports in this block out of approximately
80 lots. Also, there was never a building permit issued for the carport, nor
was the carport under construction. Therefore, no financial hardship has been
incurred, and the staff recommends denial of the request.
!Lem
P ai1_
13
After lengthy discussion, Mr. Seabury stated he does not favor carports;
however, "these people got in a trap" by starting before the ordinance went
into effect. He felt the owner had a right to assume he could build a carport
because the average citizen would probably not be aware the Zoning Ordinance
had changed this. He moved that the Board approve the request. The motion
was seconded by Bill Rowland, but failed to pass due to 2 opposed votes
(4 affirmative votes are required for passage). Mrs. Mason stated she wanted
to go on record that she voted in opposition because she does not consider that
the time frame is a special condition. Granted, the Board has to give the
benefit of the doubt, but she believes the visual and aesthetic corridor would
be detracted, and it would not be in the best interest. Chairman Balch noted
the request was denied.
2. Case V-85-18. Barwise & Jalonick, Lot 5-A, Blk 7 (875 Eastside Drive
- Request to reduce exterior side setback area to 15' (Section 3290)
Mr. Mukerjee stated the applicant requested this variance in order to use the
existing slab; however, Sammy Pascal of the Building Inspection Department
advised this slab is broken and buckled, and probably does not contain the
required reinforcement bars, and therefore could not be used as a foundation
as it exists. Mr. Mukerjee noted the staff recommended denial of the request
as no special condition exists other than a possible financial hardship.
After discussion it was moved by Joan Mason that the variance be approved,
because she did not see that it would be contrary to the public interest, and
because a special condition does exist other than financial, with the existence
of the concrete slab. The motion failed due to lack of a second. It was then
moved by Bill Rowland that the request be denied. This motion was seconded by
Mrs. Alexander, and carried with 4 in favor, and 1 opposed.
3. Case V-85-19. Faith Village Unit III, Lot 3A, Blk 73 (4304 Kemp Blvd.)
- Request to reduce rear setback area of a through lot to 15' (Section 4230)
Board members reviewed the Staff Report on this request. Mr. Mukerjee advised
the staff recommended approval of the request since the lot in effect has two
street frontages, and since the property line along Wolfe Street is also a
zoning district boundary line, and a 6' privacy fence would be required.
Furthermore, the street provides a 50' separation between the business and
residential property. Mr. Seabury questioned why a conditional use permit
would not be obtained first, since he would like to know the opinion of the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the neighbors in the area. Mr. McKinney
noted there will be cases requiring action from the Planning & Zoning Commission
and the Zoning Board of Adjustment. In this case, the request was received too
late for it to be on the Commission agenda, so the first available date was
scheduled, which is the Zoning Board of Adjustment. After discussion, it was
moved by Mrs. Alexander that this business item be tabled until a conditional
use permit has been obtained. The motion was seconded by Bob Seabury and carried
with none opposed.
4. V-85-20. J.A. Kemp Addition, Lot 4, Blk 4 (607 Jalonick)
- Request to construct a fence in the front setback area (Section 4220B)
Mr. Mukerjee explained the applicant has had her property surveyed because her
neighbor had previously fenced in a portion of her property. In order to
recapture use of this area, she wishes to construct a fence along the side
23
M
M
13
Item No. RUt
Page No.
M
E
-10-
property lines. Mr. Mukerjee noted the visual corridor of the front setback
in the area has already been substantially violated with 3 fences in close
proximity, and the staff recommended approval.
After discussion it was moved by Mrs. Alexander, seconded by Mr. Rowland,
and carried with none opposed that the request be denied.
5. V-85-21. Faith Village Unit II, Lot 20, Blk 63 (2908 Boren Avenue)
- Request to construct a carport in front setback area
Mr. Mukerjee advised the applicant cites a special condition is that the house
and existing garage are built 25' from the property line or on the building
limit line (BLL). Therefore, the carport must extend into the front setback
if constructed in front of the garage to utilize the existing driveway. Mr.
Mukerjee noted the staff recommended denial of the request, as no special
condition exists constituting hardship, there is only 1 carport in the area
extending the full length in front of the BLL, and a reasonable option is to
locate the carport in the backyard.
'! After discussion it was moved by Bill Rowland, seconded by Mrs. Alexander, and
passed with none opposed that the request be denied, based on the fact that no
special condition of hardship exists, and it would be detrimental to the public
welfare if it were built.
6. Case V-85-22. Hebert Subdivision, Lot 1, Blk 1 (4221 Seymour Hwy & 2107 Winann)
Request to reduce the front and exterior side setback areas to 15'
(Section 3490, subsections 3 & 5)
Mr. John Morrison, architect, addressed the Board on this business item. Mr.
Morrison stressed the fact that a sewer line bisects the property and that the
lot is irregularly shaped are special conditions creating the need for the
reduced side setbacks.
Mr. McKinney advised the Public Utilities Department would not approve reloca-
tion of the sewer line because this would involve crossing the lot twice and
3 would be more difficult to maintain. Mr. Mukerjee explained the staff recom-
mendation that the front setback line abutting Seymour Hwy be reduced to 15'
based on:
AN
- The sewer easement restricts the width of the building and creates a hardship
in designing the site.
- The reduced setback area has been established along Seymour Highway by
existing structures.
The staff recommended the exterior side setback line abutting Winann Street be
established at 25' with the northwest corner of the proposed warehouse being
allowed at 15' from the property based on:
- The irregular shape of the lot and the location of the easement restricts the
position of the building.
- The encroachment will extend for only a portion of the structure.
Chairman Balch stated he felt the irregular shape of the lot was more of a ground
for special conditions than the existence of a sewer easement.
After discussion it was moved by Joan Mason that the variance be granted (as
outlined). This motion was seconded by Mrs. Alexander and carried with none
opposed.
Item No . _ t&WS!
Page No. _ _ i
-11-
13
7. Case V-85-23. Midwestern Park, Lot 39, Blk 2 (2401 Marika Circle)
- Request to construct a carport in exterior side setback area (Section 4220)
Al Saikowski, builder, addressed the Board on this business item, He stated
the irregular shape of the lot (curving in to the backyard) places the proposed
portico in the side setback. The portico is planned to accommodate the
property owner who will be in a wheelchair and will find it difficult to
enter and exit the house through the garage. It was brought out the physical
condition of the applicant does not constitute a special condition.
Mr. Mukerjee presented the staff recommendation for denial of the request,
as the neighborhood is developed with no similar encroachment, and although
the lot is an irregularly shaped parcel, it is of adequate size to develop as
a single family residence.
After discussion it was moved by Joan Mason that the request be denied because
there are no special conditions and the structure would violate the setback
area. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Alexander, and carried with one abstention
from Mr. Seabury, due to a conflict of interest.
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Bob Balch, Chairman
EM
13
13
Item No • t4 K
Pa e Pvc. —4—