Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 08/27/1986M I N U T E S 10 - - - - - - - ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 27, 1986 M PRESENT Bob Balch, Chairman Bob Seabury Richard Sutton Members 646 David Gossom, Alternate #1 Syd Litteken, Alternate #3 Adrienne Barker, Alternate #4 Roger McKinney, Director of Planning Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator * City Staff Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Paul Stillson, Planner II Barbara Bridges, Secretary ABSENT Joan Mason * * Members Bill Rowland William Kidd, Alternate #2 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Balch called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Bob Seabury, seconded by Syd Litteken, and passed unanimously that the July 16, 1986 Minutes be approved. BUSINESS ITEMS Chairman Balch noted the regular Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting had been rescheduled due to lack of a quorum. Busi- ness items were then considered as follows. as 1. V-86-16. Request for variance from Sec. 4220B to allow placement of a fence in the front yard at 1432 Kinsale Court war (Lot 18, Blk 8, Sunset Terrace) The Board was addressed by Mrs. Roberta Walton, the applicant. She advised fencing her front yard is necessary, as their grandson lives with them and needs to play in the front yard. Upon questioning, she stated the back yard is not suitable as it is filled in with chat rock, a boat, and various mechanical equipment. She noted a variance to - fence the front yard was granted on Harris Lane, and therefore stated the Board would be discriminating against her if her request was denied. us EPaage No. 01US -44- No. 1 Mr. Mukerjee outlined the circumstances involved in the vari- ance granted on Harris Lane, including the fact that there were several existing fences across the front setback on that block of Harris, whereas there are none across the front set- back on this block of Kinsale. Board members were provided a map of the block showing the existing fences which violate the front setback on the sides only, and are grandfathered. It was noted Mrs. Walton had not filled out Item 2 of her variance request: "Demonstrate that the special conditions and circumstances are not a result of the actions of the applicant." Mrs. Walton stated she did not know what she could do to demonstrate this. After further discussion it was moved by Dr. Sutton that the variance be denied in the absence of any special condition, as testified. The motion was seconded by Syd Litteken and carried unanimously by vote of Balch, Barker, Litteken, Seabury and Sutton. Chairman Balch advised the applicant she would have 30 days to remove the fence. 2. V-86-17. Request foot rear setback on 8, Blk 70. Faith Vil for variance from Sec. 4230 to allow a 15 a through lot at 4510 Kemp Blvd. (Lots 4- aqe, Sec 2 Chairman Balch noted this was the third time this request was presented to the Board. The developers - Plannah Scarbrough, C.W. Hoyer, and Robert Bollinger - were present, and later in the meeting Mrs. Scarbrough advised she had withdrawn her application which was approved at a previous meeting in order to "kill" a lawsuit. One point in the suit is that the approval was made at a special meeting; therefore, she had withdrawn the approved application in order to try to obtain approval at a regular meeting. Lengthy discussion was made concerning legal aspects of this business item. It was noted that, among other things, the fee for requesting a variance is so low it does not deter anyone from resubmitting a request. Mr. McKinney noted the Planning staff is reviewing all fees in order to prepare a fee schedule which will more adequately cover the actual expenses of pro- cessing all applications, permits, etc. Dr. Sutton stated his opinion the fees should be low enough that anyone needing to apply for a variance could afford to pursue it. It was also noted the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address the provision for calling special meetings, although State stat- utes designate this power. At the beginning of the consideration of this agenda item, Don Daugherity, architect, reviewed all the provisions made by the developers for this project including fencing, landscaping, alteration of plans to a 50o retail/50o office mixture (a requirement of the Planning & Zoning Commission), drainage improvements, and conversion of 600 sq. ft. of building space Item No. MiuS - 4 5 - Page No. �� am to courtyards. With this in mind, and also considering the fact that the lot cannot be used as a through lot, Mr. Daugh- erity requested approval of the variance to a 15' rear setback. Mr.. Mukerjee added that a 25' rear setback in this As case results in a "dead" 25' strip of land which cannot be used even for parking. At the advice of the Assistant City Attorney to the Board that they should consider this request as "Start from scratch", due to the withdrawal of the approved application, Mrs. Nell Stokes -Moser, intern architect with Daugherity & Glover, presented the plans for this project and provided Board members with illustrations. She also stressed the fact that this is a through lot which cannot be used as such due to the zoning district boundary, and also requested approval of the variance. as Chairman Balch called for anyone else who wished to speak on this business item. Dr. Sutton then presented his reasons for refuting each of the responses on the variance application to submitted. He maintained their reasons given are just a dif- ferent way of stating they will have a financial hardship, and a hardship must be other than financial. Chairman Balch also drew attention to the letters addressed to the Board (attached), one by Hank Rugeley, attorney, and one from Brad Morse and other residents on Featherston. Both letters urged denial of the variance. Mr. Bollinger began discussing the pump station which the developers plan to provide at their expense, and the station and sewer line are one consideration in determining where the buildings are to be located. Chairman Balch noted the pump station is not mentioned on the variance application, and again asked to go on record that applicants must be prepared to present all the evidence. Mr. Mukerjee stated his opinion the sewer line may not have a direct relationship to the setback, as all lots have easements and/or other limitations to be considered. After further discussion it was moved by Chairman Balch that the variance be granted based on the fact that a special con- dition exists in that there is a 25' setback requirement on a through lot that borders an LC and an SF2 zone, which renders the back portion of the lot unusable, and with the distance and trees and fencing, the developers have provided reasonable buffering between the two zones. This motion was seconded by David Gossom, but failed to carry by a vote of 1 in favor by Chairman Balch, and 4 opposed by Barker, Sutton, Gossom and Litteken. 3. V-86-18. Request for variance from Sec. 4620 requiring screening along an SF-2 boundary for 2647 Plaza Parkway (Lot 3 Blk 22 Midwestern Park Addition) iter: No. MiNs_ -46- Pay No. --3- J rr The Board was addressed by Kirby Crenshaw, the applicant. Mr. Kirby noted the fence is required because this property borders an SF zone, which is actually Sikes Lake and a recrea- tional facility for Midwestern State University. Furthermore, the Midwestern property is already fenced off by an existing chain link fence. Therefore, the privacy fence would be "placed in a 1600' run of chain link fence", which would be obtrusive to both properties. Dr. Sutton stated the provision of the privacy fence would be "silly"; however, it would not result in unnecessary hardship. Also, no special condition exists other than financial hard- ship alone. Mr. Mukerjee stated his opinion that in this instance the key word is "alone". Financial hardship is a consideration in this request; however, it is not the only consideration. After further discussion it was moved by David Gossom that the variance be granted on the basis that a special condition exists in that the property is abutting the Midwestern property and is immediately adjacent to the lake; and that it is unlikely that the small area could be developed as residential houses because it is such a small strip of land, and on the other side is bordered by the lake itself and would provide sufficient buffering between the two zones. Additionally, it would be an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship to require a privacy fence in this case because it would be to provide buffering for which there is no need. The motion was seconded by Adrienne Barker, but failed to carry due to a vote of 3 in favor by Balch, Barker and Gossom, 1 abstention by Litteken, and 1 opposed by Sutton. Dr. Sutton made a statement for the record to the effect that a variance is to provide relief only for a bona fide hardship. 4. V-86-19. Request for variance from Sec. 6741, Note 2, requiring 500 feet separation between off -premise signs, for a sign at the southeast corner of the intersection of Taft Blvd. and Southwest Parkway Chairman Balch announced this business item was withdrawn. 5. Add -on item Mr. Mukerjee advised the Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended both notification and sign posting procedures for variance requests. The issue will be considered at the second September meeting of the City Council. The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m. B6b Balch, hairm Item No. McuS -4 7- Page No.