Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 03/16/1988No M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 16, 1988 ON PRESENT go Richard Sutton, Chairman William Kidd �.. Bill Rowland * Members Richard Sutherland, Alternate #3 Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney * City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II Barbara Bridges, Secretary ABSENT David Gossom Syd Litteken, Alternate #1 Members Adrienne Barker, Alternate #2 * Edna Boren, Alternate #4 (The Board was composed of only eight members at the time of this meeting.) MW CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Chairman Sutton. am APPROVAL OF MINUTES No It was moved by Richard Sutherland, seconded by Bill Rowland, and carried unanimously the February 17, 1988 Minutes be approved. ADD -ON Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson briefed the Board on the status of pending cases: - Padilla Case (carport in front setback at 1606 Phoenix) A court hearing was scheduled for this morning, but had to be rescheduled for 3:00 p.m. March 28th. - Hopson Case (carport in front setback at 4631 Langford) A judgment is being drafted and approved as to form by both attorneys. It is believed "it would not be financially feasible on a carport" to appeal. go Item No. M,�s Pa 82 ge No. No 7E BUSINESS ITEMS Chairman Sutton noted that only a quorum of members was present. He announced that since both items on the agenda are controver- sial and were considered at past meetings, the Board has decided to recess the meeting until five members can attend and vote. It was moved by Richard Sutherland, seconded by William Kidd, and carried unanimously that the meeting be recessed until 1:30 p.m. March 22nd. Mr. Sutherland further explained that a quorum vote must be unanimous to pass a motion; therefore, a five member vote "would be better for the applicant," especially due to the con- troversial nature of the requests. The meeting was recessed at 1:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened by Chairman Sutton at 1:30 p.m. March 22, 1988. PRESENT Richard Sutton, Chairman David Gossom, Vice Chairman William Kidd * Members Bill Rowland Richard Sutherland, Alt. #3 Roger McKinney, Director of Planning Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Paul Stillson, Planner II * City Staff Barbara Bridges, Secretary ABSENT Syd Litteken, Alt. #1 Adrienne Barker, Alt. #2 * Members Edna Boren, Alt. #4 BUSINESS ITEMS V-86-22. Variance application to allow a fence in the front yard at 4305 Viewpark (Lt 2A, Blk M, City View Heights) Board members were provided copies of the excerpt from the Febru- ary 18, 1987 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes pertaining to this business item. The last action by the Board tabled this variance request for a period of 60 days, so that input could be obtained from the City Council. Mr. McKinney explained that vari- ous proposed amendments to the ordinance that dealt with types of fences were presented to the Council, and none of those were acted upon. At the last presentation to the Council, the issue was basically tabled. Various members expressed their disapproval that the Board had requested direction from the Council on this 71 7 M 71 7 Item No. Page No. z 83 71 0 OW issue, and none was provided. Mr. Kidd expressed his opinion this is governing by apathy." Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson advised that the Council action was to decline to amend the ordi- nance to allow this type of fence. OW The Board was addressed by the applicants, Mr.& Mrs. Paul Groves. It was noted they had checked the box for 'variance application'. However, their response on the application, that what they had constructed is not an enclosure, would indicate they were appeal- ing a staff decision. After questioning, the applicants stated they did wish this to be handled as an Administrative Appeal. They stated they do not have a fence because it does not enclose or screen their yard. It is open on two sides, and does not block the view. Lengthy discussion was made of the definition of 'fence' in the ordinance (an artificially constructed barrier of any material or combination of materials erected to enclose or screen areas of land). Mr. Sutherland stated his opinion "the definition is very inartfully drawn." Mr. Kidd stated he believes "these ornamental things need some type of distinction." The Board was also addressed by Mrs. Jed Mahon. The Board denied an administrative appeal to a fence ruling on her property at the last meeting. Among other things, she questioned that decision. It was noted that request concerned a 'wooden divider', and it:. was found that this did screen the property. After further deliberation, Richard Sutherland stated his opinion that the construction involved is not a fence in the context of the ordinance because it neither encloses or screens the prop- erty; therefore, he moved the appeal be granted. The motion was seconded by David Gossom, and carried with 4 in favor by Gossom, Sutherland, Rowland, and Kidd, and 1 opposed by Chairman Sutton. no Mr. Marion Gwynn, 1609 Red Fox, then addressed the Board, noting he has been cited with a zoning violation for his brick and Im wrought iron fence, and asked what he should do. Chairman Sutton advised him he may submit an administrative appeal, which would stay the proceedings until a decision is made on his case. A-88-03. Administrative appeal to continue to sell boats in a Limited Commercial zone at 1612 Kell West (Lt 8, Blk 46, Southland Addition) The Commission was addressed by Dickie Dixon, the applicant. Mr. Dixon requested approval to continue to handle repossessed boats. He stated he is not being paid to keep the boats on his property, but is paid a fee if and when a boat is resold. His main argument for continuing this arrangement referred to Section 3400 of the Zoning ordinance, Conditional Uses in a Limited Commercial zone. He noted retail sales is a listed conditional use, with certain exclusions, and boat sales and storage is not one of the exclu- sions listed. Mr. Dixon was referred to Sec. 1025 which states do Item No. ►A,,js .. 84 Page No. 3 C" "No land, building, structure or premises shall be used for any purpose or in any manner other than is permitted in the district in which such land, building, structure or premises is located except as provided below." Mr. Dixon stated he does not agree with this. The Board was also addressed by Attorney Hank Rugeley, speaking on behalf of the Southland Addition Homeowners Association. He noted that even if Mr. Dixon's position were correct, there has been no conditional use approved. Furthermore, outdoor storage is clearly prohibited by the ordinance in an LC zone. Mr. Rugeley also referred to a letter provided to Commission members from Gary Hopkins, President of Southland Addition Homeowners Associa- tion. Mr. Hopkins emphasized the point that a limited commercial zoning should buffer residential from retail activities, and boat sales and storage "would defeat the purpose of a Limited Commer- cial zone." After further discussion Mr. Dixon referred the Board to Section 3420 pertaining to the Limited Commercial district, which reads "... and no outdoor storage of any kind shall be prohibited." It was noted Mr. Dixon read from the latest printed ordinance, and the previously printed ordinance prohibits outdoor storage. Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson advised the version as adopted by the City Council would be the applicable one. She obtained this copy from the City Clerk's office, which reads "...- and outdoor storage of any kind shall be prohibited." Therefore, the latest print contains incorrect wording in that section. It was moved by Richard Sutherland that the appeal be denied based on: - Sec. 3420, Special Conditions, which prohibits outdoor storage in an LC zone, and outdoor storage is included in this request. - The definition for retail sales talks about the exclusion of products, and the sale of boats is for a product. The motion was seconded by William Kidd and carried unanimously. The Commission was then addressed by 'Judge' Smith, 804 Chance. He stated he has also received a letter about the construction of his fence, and asked what he should do. Chairman Sutton advised he may also file an Administrative Appeal. The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. r7 IA 3_ 2et Richard Sutton, Chairman Date 7 Item No. 85 Page No. �_