Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 01/15/19867-1
M I N U T E S
do
CZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
January 15, 1986
PRESENT
Bob Balch, Chairman X
Joan Mason, Vice Chairman X
Imma Jeanne Alexander
Robert Seabpry X Members
Richard Sutton, Alternate #1 �
David Gossom, Alternate #2 X
William Kidd, Alternate #3 X
Syd Litteken, Alternate #4 X
46 Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator I
Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney X City Staff
Bernice Prchal, Planner II X
Barbara Bridges, Secretary
ABSENT
Bill Rowland
X Member
CCALL TO ORDER
Chairman Balch called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Joan Mason, seconded by Mrs. Alexander, and carried with none
opposed that the December 18, 1985 Minutes be approved.
BUSINESS ITEM - PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE
1. V-86-1. Request to reduce the exterior and front setback requirements in a
General Commercial zone (Section 3490)5)) at 2501 loth Street (aka
1100 Fillmore) Lots 1 & 2, Blk 39, Floral Heights Addition
- Mr. Mukerjee presented the recommendation of the staff for approval of the request
for several reasons, mainly, the lot is triangular shaped and bounded on all sides
by a public street. These two circumstances seriously limit the size and position
of any new building, especially with the new off-street parking requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. Also, the intent of the ordinance would not be jeopardized.
A consistency of open space along the public right-of-way will be maintained, as
many of the surrounding structures on all three streets abut the property line,
and the public welfare will not be harmed.
Jackie LeBow, architect, addressed the Board, stating his opinion that without a
variance the lot would never be developable. It was brought out his client owns
(_ a portion of the property involved, and would need and plans to purchase the
remaining property for his project, providing this variance is granted.
Item No. f _
Page No.
-24-
Mr. Seabury questioned if the Board could incorporate aesthetic standards into '
a variance, since the looks of the building would determine the advisability of
it sitting on the property line. For example, a metal building sufficiently
landscaped would be acceptable with a good setback, but would be more objectionable OW
on the property line. Mr. Mukerjee and the Assistant City Attorney advised this
could not be made a part of -the variance, because aesthetics is an arbitrary
issue, and cannot be supported on the basis of public welfare. Mr. LeBow main-
tained the building would be of a good design and construction material.
Mr. Mukerjee also advised there would not be a screening requirement on the
Avenue B side if the variance is granted, because this would then be a sight
obstruction. It is also felt that the people across the street would rather have
the view of the front of a building rather than a fence.
Dr. Sutton felt the triangular shape of the lot would not constitute a special
im
condition because the applicant would be aware of this prior to purchase. Also,
granting this variance might set a precedent for all the other triangular shaped
lots in town. Mr. Mukerjee noted any triangular shaped lot may result in a request
for variance, because the issue goes back to the premise of Reasonable Use of
the Property, and this hardship is not of the applicant's making, since the lot
has been this shape since the subdivision was platted in 1909.
After further discussion it was moved by Mrs. Alexander that the variance be
granted based on the conclusions listed (in the Staff Report). This motion was
seconded by Joan Mason, and carried with a vote of 4 in favor by Balch, Mason,
us
Alexander and Seabury, and 1 opposed by Dr. Sutton.
The meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
I
f _7
Bob Balch, Chairman
i
i
Item No. MIN5
Page No. �,