Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 11/26/1985i
71
M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PRESENT
Bob Balch, Chairman
Imma Jeanne Alexander
Bill Rowland
Richard Sutton, Alternate #1
William Kidd, Alternate #3
Syd Litteken, Alternate #4
November 26, 1985
X
X
Members
X
Roger McKinney, Director of Planning X
Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney X
Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator X City Staff
Bernice Prchal, Planner II
Barbara Bridges, Secretary
ABSENT
Joan Mason
Robert Seabury Members
David Gossom, Alternate #2 �
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Balch called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
BUSINESS ITEM
V-85-33. Request for variance from Sec 4640B of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce
the required 30' additional setback for an office expansion at 2500 Brook
Avenue
The Board was addressed by Jim Biggs of Biggs & Mathews Consulting Engineers, the
applicant for this request. Mr. Biggs stated the prefabricated building to be used
as an addition to the office needs to be placed at the reduced (28.5') rear
setback due to the mistake: "I measured off the slab instead of the property
line. The forms are set and the plumbing in. I've got this prefabricated
building lying in the yard, and I'm pretty well stuck with it." He felt a
variance should be granted because the building will back up to a house used as
apartments, and because the alley would act as a buffer.
Dr. Sutton stated his objections to granting the variance. A summary of his
objections includes:
The house referred to which is being used as apartments is a nonconforming
use, but no exterior changes have been made to distinguish it from a single
family dwelling. The Zoning Board should vigorously protect residential
development that abuts commercial. It would be a mistake to compromise
Z3
M
r
77
Item No.
gI�}5
Po —
I
-19-
Page EN. 4=
M
41 this house which might be turned back into a single family use, and a
variance might encourage the property to remain used multi -family. This
is an unfortunate situation, but it doesn't meet any of the criteria.
Actually, you are asking us to grant a variance because of the mistake
resulting in a financial hardship. If an applicant came in with a similar
request without the project in progress the petition would be denied. I
don't think it is our prerogative to rewrite the ordinance, and I don't
think anything has been presented to justify a variance.
Mr. Mukerjee explained the staff recommendation for approval of the request:
Special conditions exist in that a multi -family use is adjacent to the
lot rather than a single family dwelling, and that the addition will be
adjacent to an alley. If the adjacent property was zoned as it is being
used, the rear setback would be met.
- The intent of the ordinance - to protect single family residences - will
not be jeopardized.
- The public welfare will not be impacted with a 1.5' reduction.
During further discussion, Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson stated her
opinion that granting this variance could not be considered as legally setting
a precedent.
After further discussion it was moved by Bill Rowland that the variance be granted
for the reasons as outlined in the staff recommendation. This motion was seconded
by Mrs. Alexander, and carried with 4 votes in favor by Rowland, Kidd, Alexander,
and Chairman Balch, and 1 opposed by Dr. Sutton.
The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
r]
El
Ell
rl
Bob Balch, Chairman
M
Item No. S
Page No. �_
-20-