Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 06/02/198677 M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MEETING June 2, 1986 PRESENT Bob Balch, Chairman X Imma Jeanne Allexander X David Gossom Bill Rowland Members Robert Seabury Richard Sutton Roger McKinney, Director of PlanningIN X Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney X Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator X City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II X Barbara Bridges, Secretary A ABSENT AN William Kidd X Syd Litteken Members Joan Mason X r, CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chairman Balch. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Mrs. Alexander, seconded by Robert Seabury, and carried with none opposed that the May 21, 1986 Minutes be approved. BUSINESS ITEM - V-86-9. Request to reduce the rear setback along Featherston Ave. to 15' for Lots 4-8, Blk 70, Faith Village, Sec. 2 Mr. Mukerjee outlined past actions concerning this request. Ile noted this item was disapproved at the May 21st meeting, primarily due to concerns that the residential properties would face the rear of the proposed commercial development. The developer has submitted a new application which addresses that concern by planting 12' tall trees along the Featherston Avenue facade. Mr. Mukerjee explained the reasons for the staff recommendation for approval of the request as follows: Special Conditions/Hardships These lots are on a zoning district boundary between SF-2 and LC. No access will be permitted off Featherston. In addition, a six foot privacy fence must be erected and maintained along this property line. This fence will essentially eliminate any commercial activity on Featherston and serve as a barrier to prohibit use of this area as a front yard. Thus, although these lots technically have "frontages" on Featherston Ave., these frontages do not exist from standpoint due to the above requirements. Item No. `5 Page No.40 -36- M Intent of Ordinance The intent of Section 4320 was to ensure adequate setback areas on both sides of a through lot since either side could possibly be used as the front. A 6' fence will be constructed along Featherston Street, and all access will be from Kemp Blvd. These factors will eliminate the possibility of using this property line as the front area, and will render its use as the rear yard. Additionally, the screening and buffering requirements require 30' of separation between a commercial and residential use. This provision of the ordinance will be more than adequately upheld by the 90' separation between the residential and commercial structures. Conformity All development requirements for a limited commercial zone will be met. Variances for 15' rear setbacks have been previously granted for two similar applications for Allen's Boot Store (4300 Kemp) and Nacol's Jewelry Store (4304 Kemp). Public Welfare The property line along Featherston Street will serve as a rear property line, which will be fenced. Additionally, ten 12' tall trees will be planted along Featherston Avenue. Development of the site according to the attached site plan will not adversely impact the neighborhood. The Board was then addressed by Nell Stokes -Moser, an intern architect with the so firm of Daugherity-Glover. She presented an architectural illustration of the proposed construction, and provided further information on the development. The developers - Plannah Scarbrough, C.W. Hoyer, and Robert Bollinger - were also at present in the audience to answer questions from the Board. During discussion by the Board, Mr. Seabury stated his reasons for favoring the variance, summarized as follows: I believe this development would be in the good of the community and the area. The property itself is not residential and nobody wants to live there, so it should be built commercial. The parking requirements have cut the building down, and if it is cut down an additional 10', it would not be viable. Since there is already a 90' separation I think as the Board of Adjustment we are to make a reasonable judgment, and I think this would be reasonable. I don't think having trees on one side of the street and homes on the other would be a disservice to the neighborhood. It seems Wo to me that requiring the additional 10' would deprive the developers of a reasonable return, and placing the burden on these people for want of 10' when the development will already be 90' from the homes would be foolhardy. Dr. Sutton debated his reasons for denying the request, summarized as follows: The Zoning Ordinance includes specific provisions on the setback require - go ments for through lots. If special considerations are to be made, they would have been included in this ordinance. This request cannot meet any of the evaluation criteria. Specifically, no special condition exists. This situation is not unique, as there are many lots having the same circum- stances, particularly on Southwest Parkway, and continuing on Kemp. The fact that the residents will face the back of these lots should ensure that the boundary "needs to be defended," rather than reduced. Also, their appli- cation is in error, as there has never been a variance granted on Featherston. Item No. MSS t -37- Z As Chairman Balch stated the question to be considered by the Board is whether or not the denial of rear access due to other provisions of the ordinance constitutes a special condition on which to base the variance. Mr. Mukerjee advised this is the opinion of the staff. Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson advised this circumstance has not yet been upheld as a special condi- tion in the courts. However, a basis which has been upheld is, 'Is the property Ai owner deprived of the reasonable use of the property?' David Gossom noted the applicant had cited the narrow lot as a special condi- tion, and the Planning Department has determined this is not an eligible qualification. He therefore questioned whether the Board should decide on the criteria determined by the Planning Department. Ms. Thompson stated it is her opinion the burden of proof lies with the applicant. Chairman Balch stated that as a quasi-judicial board, members could consider everything put before them. Mr. Mukerjee stated the Planning Department cannot tell applicants to "go hire a lawyer" to fill out the forms. Their questions are answered by the staff; however, the application is never filled out by the staff. Mr. Gossom advocated a procedure that would preclude cases like this where the staff presented the reasons to the Board, as he felt it provided the oppor- tunity for bias. Mrs. Alexander and Mr. Rowland both agreed most people would need some help "since we are not all lawyers." Chairman Balch asked to go on record that applicants need to be prepared and have evidence ready to present to the Board, because the basis for granting a variance is very limited, and financial hardship alone cannot be considered as a factor. After further discussion, it was moved by Robert Seabury and seconded by Bill go Rowland that the variance be approved. Chairman Balch stated this motion would include the condition of the buffering requirements. The motion carried with a vote of 4 in favor by Seabury, Rowland, Alexander, and Balch, and 1 opposed by Dr. Sutton. Mr. Gossom also voted in opposition, although his vote could 40 not count in the carrying of the motion. M After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. 9 i Bob Balch, Iffiairman t' -38-