Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 02/18/198771 M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 18, 1987 PRESENT Joan Mason, Chairman David Gossom, Vice Chairman Bill Rowland Richard Sutton William Kidd, Alternate #1 * Members Syd Litteken, Alternate #2 Adrienne Barker, Alternate #3 Richard Sutherland, Alternate #4 .46 Roger McKinney, Director of Planning Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney * City Staff to Barbara Bridges, Secretary ABSENT Robert Seabury * Member CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mason called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by David Gossom, seconded by Richard Sutton, and passed unanimously that the January 21, 1987 Minutes be approved. BUSINESS ITEM V-87-02. Variance from Section 4620, screening requirements, at 2647 Plaza Parkway The Board was addressed by Linda Muehlberger, applicant. Her main point stressing why the variance should be granted is that her property will back up to the MSU property, which is being used as a recreation area for the university students, not as a residential use. Midwestern has also placed Butler Buildings on their property, which would not be a residential use either. Furthermore, the lake separates her property from the university president's home by such a distance that her school, The Learning Tree, could not even be seen from the home. During discussion by the Board, David Gossom stated his opin- ion that the existence of the lake is a special condition in this case, and provides much more of a barrier between the two zoning districts than a wooden fence. It would not be common 60 sense to put a literal interpretation to this case, because the adjacent Midwestern property is not being used residen- tially. Mr. Kidd agreed the property is not residential, and "they" should ask for rezoning. Dr. Sutton noted this was the third time this request has come to the Board, having been denied at two other meetings. He felt there are no special circumstances of the applicant's property on which to base a variance, and a preference for a view of the lake is not an evaluation criteria. Mr. Mukerjee noted, however, that the lake does provide a distance between the commercial use and the residential property, which meets the intent of the ordinance for buffering. Therefore, the staff recommended approval of the request, believing the lake is a special condition to this case. After further discussion it was moved by David Gossom that the variance be granted, based on the special condition that the land is adjacent to the lake, and the use of the Midwestern property is not as a "traditional SF-2 zone", and for the rea- sons cited by Mr. Mukerjee. This motion was seconded by Bill Rowland, but failed to carry due to a vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. V-87-02. Variance from Section 4640, additional setback requirements, to reduce the required 30 ft setback, at 1814 Buchanan Street Board members were provided copies of a letter from Attorney Hank Rugeley, who stated the variance should be approved, mainly because the church is seeking to construct a building according to plans which were prepared long before zoning was adopted. The Board was addressed by Attorney Bill Browning. Mr. Browning also maintained the new church building could not be placed on the property, using it as anticipated, and meet the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Browning also refuted most of the opposing comments received in the notification re- sponse (14.80 opposed, 14.8% in favor). Two Buchanan residents, Tom Maddin and Herbert Sims, addressed the Commission concerning their objections to the proposal. Both men stated the church does have other options for the development, but has chosen this one, which would involve a variance. Upon questioning, Mr. Jack Pierce, who was there to represent the church, stated their plans are necessary in order not to have to tear down the old building first, because then the church membership would have to meet somewhere else all during construction of the new building. After discussion it was moved by be denied, based on the fact that and the conditions cited are the the applicant. This motion was carried unanimously. Dr. Sutton that the variance no special condition exists, direct result of actions of seconded by David Gossom, and 101 V-87-05. Variance from Sec. 4220 to allow construction of a carport, on the side property line, at 1660 Victory Avenue Mr. Mukerjee advised the applicant for this business item had to leave because of another appointment. Chairman Mason noted this item will then be postponed. V-87-06. Variance from Section 4220, to allow a carport to remain in the front setback area at 1606 Phoenix Drive The Board was addressed by Doug Baker, representing Mrs. Velda Padilla, the applicant. Mr. Baker maintained the variance should be granted because protection of the aesthetic corri- dors is not a purpose cited in the Zoning Ordinance, and the fence does not create a visual restriction. Also, there are numerous carports in this area. Mr. Mukerjee explained the staff recommendation for denial of is the request, noting that although there are two other carports on the same block, the number of carports is not substantial in terms of the number of homes. Granting a variance for an additional carport would perpetuate a situation the Ordinance explicitly seeks to resolve. Dr. Sutton noted that the finan- cial hardship incurred in this situation would have been avoided if the applicant had applied for a building permit, as it would have been denied. After further discussion it was moved by William Kidd that the variance be granted based on the fact that there are existing carports there, and he did not think this would be objection- able. The motion was seconded by Chairman Mason, who added she felt there would be no disruption of the aesthetic corridor, and the carport does not mar the looks of the neighborhood. This motion failed by a vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. V-86-22. Variance application to allow a fence in the front yard at 4306 Viewpark The Board was addressed by Paul Groves, applicant. Mr. Groves requested the Board to allow him to keep his fence at 4305 Viewpark. He stated his fence is a decorative feature im- proving the looks of his home, and is not an "enclosure" as described in the definition of a fence. He also had brought a petition signed by ten of the residents on Viewpark who are in favor of the variance. Mr. Mukerjee noted the issue of fencing in the front yard has been considered at length by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and a proposed amendment was sent to the Council at their meeting, to allow certain types of fencing in the front yard. However, this was not adopted by the Council. Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson provided a copy of the Agenda item 1 62 sent to the Council and a copy of the Minutes of the meeting when this was considered. Mr. Mukerjee advised that the factors included in this request for variance by the applicant pertain to the interpretation of the definition of fences; therefore, the staff evaluated it as an administrative appeal. Mr. Gossom agreed there was some merit to Mr. Baker's claim that his fence does not fit the definition in the ordinance. Dr. Sutton noted that chain link fences and split rail fences were presented to the Council "as a package deal", and perhaps this was why the amendment did not pass. After further discussion, Mr. Rowland stated that since the Council did not pass the amendment, this fencing is not al- lowed by the Zoning Ordinance, and moved that the variance be denied. After further discussion, he withdrew his motion. It was then moved by Dr. Sutton and seconded by William Kidd that the request be tabled indefinitely. This motion failed to pass by a vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. Mr. Gossom moved that the variance be tabled for a period of 60 days, so that input could be obtained from the City Council as to whether their disapproval was due to the chain link fence being denied with the split rail, or to the split rail as well. This motion was seconded by Dr. Sutton and carried unanimously. Mr. Mukerjee advised that the Board's request for input from the Council will be attached with the Minutes at the next Council meeting. Mr. Kidd asked that the applicants of this business item be notified of the meeting. A-87-01. Administrative appeal to use a garage building for storage purposes at 1509 Monroe Street Mr. Mukerjee explained the applicant has requested electricity for a garage at 1509 Monroe. The garage is now the only struc- ture on the lot, as the house was destroyed by fire. The per- mit for electricity was denied as it was considered the garage would therefore not be an accessory use in this single-family zone, but a primary use of a non-residential nature, and not in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. The Board was addressed by Bill Hagler, applicant. He stated he wants to use this garage for limited storage, but mainly as a location for his woodworking hobby. This work is done only for personal enjoyment and/or improvements to his own home at 1502 Monroe. Electricity is needed for his woodworking tools such as electric saw and drill. Eventually he plans to con- struct a home on the lot for rental property. After discussion it was moved by William Kidd that the Board approve the administrative appeal on the grounds that the applicant will not use the building for a commercial use, but a residential purpose. This motion was seconded by Bill Row- land, and carried unanimously. 63 Er WA The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. F" rl rl 17 n Mason, Chairman 64