Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 08/15/1990M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15, 1990 PRESENT Ralph Perkins, Chairman William Kidd, Vice Chairman Burrell Lacey * Members Dana Barnett, Alternate 13 Tom Hill, Alternate #4 Roger McKinney, Director of Planning Jim King, Code Enforcement Supervisor * City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II Barbara Bridges, Recording Secretary *. ABSENT Syd Litteken Richard Sutherland * Edna Boren, Alternate #1 Members Jane McCown, Alternate #2 David Farabee * Councilor CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Perkins. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Burrell Lacey, seconded by Dana Barnett, and carried unanimously that the Minutes of May 16, 1990 be approved. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. V-90-06. Variance request from Section 2030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory building in excess of 50% of the principal structure at 5221 Lake Shore Drive This request was presented to the Board by Kristy Malone, the appli- cant's daughter. She advised that the proposed construction is for storage of a motor home, boat, and two vehicles. When her father retires, he plans to construct a larger home, and then the accessory building will not be more than half the size of the house. Mr. McKinney advised there has been no response received from the notification process. After discussion it was moved by Tom Hill, seconded by Burrell Lacey, and carried unanimously that the request be approved by vote of Hill, Kidd, Perkins, Lacey and Barnett. 2. V-90-07. Variance request from Section 2030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory building in excess of 50% of the principal structure at 3222 Southwest Drive This request was presented by Tony Gilleland, applicant. Mr. Gille- land stated the planned garage is needed to store his tractor, riding Item No.S 147 Page No. �_ lawn mower, 3 cars, and lawn and garden tools. He understands the building could not be used for commercial purposes, and has no desire to do so. The building will be a nice -looking construction of concrete masonry, and there is plenty of room on the lot to accommo- date a second building (approx. 32 acres). Mr. McKinney provided the notification response of two property owners who opposed the request because they thought the building would be for commercial purposes. Mr. Gilleland has been advised that this would be in violation of the ordinance. After discussion it was moved by Tom Hill, seconded by Bill Kidd, and carried unanimously that the request be approved by vote of Hill, Kidd, Perkins, Lacey and Barnett. 3. A-90-02. Administrative Appeal on the definition of "Outdoor Storage" in Ordinance 45-88 as it applies to 4400 Cunningham Drive This request was presented by Charlie Chastain, attorney for the applicant, James Roy. Mr. Chastain described the condition of the vehicles cited by the Code Enforcement department, and referred to the definition of outdoor storage in the ordinance: Outdoor Storage - Any material, vehicle, or equipment that has been used, discarded, damaged, or partially dismantled and is stored or held outside as inventory for future sale, processing or use. such articles shall include, but not be limited to: Automobiles or automobile parts, appliances, boxes, crates, pipe or pipe fittings, paper, metal, tires, furniture, fixtures, machinery, motors, lumber, buildings or portions of buildings, building materials, barrels, or clothing. (Section 19 114-1) Mr. Chastain claimed this definition would not apply to Mr. Roy's vehicles, as they are not discarded, damaged, or being held for future sale. Also, they have not been permanently dismantled, but will be reassembled when Mr. Roy has finished their repair. Jim King, Code Enforcement Supervisor, advised that Code Enforcement had investigated 4400 Cunningham in July due to a complaint, and had cited Mr. Roy for the two vehicles in the front yard which were partially dismantled, and without current tags or inspection stickers. Mr. Lacey asked how Code Enforcement determines if vehicles are being stored or only parked. Mr. King stated one way to decide is if they are drivable, and to his knowledge these cars have not been moved since the original time of inspection. Board members were provided pictures showing the state of the automobiles. After further discussion, Tom Hill stated he had site checked this property, and it appeared that the vehicles have been there a long time, and are running down the neighborhood. He moved that the Board decide in favor of the staff and deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Dana Barnett and carried unanimously by vote of Hill, Kidd, Perkins, Lacey and Barnett. Item No. 1 *n S 148 Page No. _ The meeting adjour ed at 2:05 p.m. a ph Per ins, Chairman bat Item No. � / /?- 149 Page No.