Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 02/21/1990El M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 21, 1990 PRESENT Ralph Perkins, Chairman William Kidd, Vice Chairman Burrell Lacey * Members Richard Sutherland Jane McCown, Alternate #2 Ron Buffum * Councilor Roger McKinney, Director of Planning Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney * City Staff Barbara Bridges, Recording Secretary ABSENT Edna Boren, Alternate #1 * Members Dana Barnett, Alternate #3 (Member Syd Litteken was present in the audience, but due to a conflict of interest did not participate as a Board member or vote.) (The Board was composed of only 8 members on the date of this meet- ing.) A CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chairman Perkins. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Richard Sutherland that the January 17, 1990 Minutes be approved, with the addition of the word 'effect' in the sentence on page 136, last paragraph, to read: "... no legal binding effect on what we do..." The motion was seconded by Burrell Lacey and car- ried unanimously. Mr. Sutherland stated his opinion that the Minutes should either be a summary without direct quotes, or a verbatim transcription. He asked the other members of the Board to consider if they want to be quoted in the Minutes. Chairman Perkins asked Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson if there is a policy on this. Ms. Thompson advised that this is a matter of preference for the Board. Chairman Perkins also noted that it has been an agreement among Board members in the past to disclose any contact prior to the meeting with people involved in the business items. He suggested that he and perhaps Mr. Sutherland meet with the staff to prepare a policy on these issues to present to the Board for possible adoption. There was no objection made to this suggestion. .Item No. /1?iX S 138 rage No. I The Chairman then asked members to cite any contacts made. Mr. Sutherland advised he had conversed with Dottie Murphy (the attorney concerned with business item A-90-01) concerning procedural aspects. Burrell Lacey reported that when he makes site checks of property involved with requests, he is often approached, and will answer questions concerning the procedures of the Board. BUSINESS ITEMS A-90-01. Administrative appeal to allow Deatherage Certified Optician to be classified as an Eve Clinic and be allowed to locate in the Brook Avenue District at 1605 Brook Ave. The Board was addressed on this business item as follows: Terry Deatherage applicant Mr. Deatherage claimed his occupation should meet the classifi- cation of clinic or medical office due to the following factors: - He is a licensed Guild Optician, and his practice includes dispensing contact lenses, filling prescriptions for lenses, and fitting protheses. - His patients are referred to him for the purpose of filling prescriptions. - His income is generated by professional fees, as evidenced by the fact that his sales tax for last year was only approxi- mately $200. - His business is unique and not to be considered in the same classification as TSO, etc. He considers himself a professional and a member of the medical community. During discussion with the Board, Burrell Lacey noted this business is listed in the Yellow Pages as Retail. Mr. Death- erage stated that was the decision of the phone company. Syd Litteken, architect for the project, and Southland Neighborhood Association member Mr. Litteken noted he was an officer of the Southland Neighbor- hood Association when the Brook Avenue district was created, and he stated the intent was not to keep professional offices out, but to prevent encroachment by retail establishments such as gasoline stations, and department and convenience stores, with negative impacts of extended open hours, constant traffic, and trash. Subir Mukerjee Development Coordinator Mr. Mukerjee noted that the Brook Avenue district was created after lengthy negotiations as a very specialized district. He noted the different classifications of ophthalmologist, optome- trist, and optician, and stated the staff opinion that an optical business does include retail sales, which would not be a permitted use in the Brook Avenue zone. Also, the Planning & Zoning Commission denied a request from Mansfield Eyewear to amend the Brook Avenue zone to include opti that they could locate at this same address. Item No. i/25 Page No. 0- 139 F1 Dottie Murphy, attorney, proposed tenant Ms. Murphy stated she had come to the conclusion that associ- ation with Mr. Deatherage would present a professional image after canvassing other professional offices, and finding out that sales are a part of their practice. For example: - a dermatologist sells various ointments and creams - a dentist sells braces and retainers - an orthopedist sells crutches, slings, special shoes, etc. Gary Hopkins Southland Neighborhood Association President 40 Mr. Hopkins stated he was present in order to observe and to report, not to express support or opposition. Upon question- ing, he stated he does believe this business is retail. After discussion, Mr. Sutherland stated his opinion that Mr. Death- erage's business is more akin to an office than retail trade, and that it is not the intent of the Brook Avenue district to limit professional services; therefore, the business would fit within the concept of that district. He moved that approval be granted. The motion was seconded by Burrell Lacey and carried by vote of 4 in favor from Sutherland, Lacey, Kidd and McCown, and 1 opposed by Chairman Perkins, who stated it is his opinion that this business is retail. V-90-02. Request for variance from Section 4620 Screening require- ment for the Campfire Council's office at 2412 2414 9th St. The Board was addressed by Bill Thompson, an officer on the Board of the Campfire Council, and by Syd Litteken, architect. They presented supporting factors for the request as follows: Adjacent businesses were developed with alley access and do not have fencing. Therefore requiring a fence for this business would deprive them of privileges of the existing businesses. - Construction of the fence would create a potential crime hazard according to Crime Prevention, and the Council is concerned for the safety of the children. - There is already a 6' fence across the alley. Mr. Mukerjee advised the staff agrees with the applicant, and recom- mends approval of the request. It was moved by Richard Sutherland that the variance be granted for the reasons that: - Adjoining properties do not have fencing because they were developed prior to zoning. - A fence in the middle of nowhere would serve no purpose. - Literal interpretation of the ordinance would be depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others. 140 ^io. The motion was seconded by Jane McCown and carried unanimously by vote of Sutherland, Kidd, Perkins, Lacey and McCown. The eet'ng a 'ourned at 3:00 p.m. i/' February 27, 1990 Pe ins, Chairman Date W 0 IN Y M Item NO. //Y� i'`'1, S 141 Page No.