Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1979 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT '~ March 20, 1979 7:00 P. M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Harper, Hawley, DuBois, Ringer, Hughey. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jones VISITORS: Building Official Koehler, Community Development Director Calloway, Mr. Robert Nash, Mr. Glenn Wilcox, Mr. Don Broushard, Mr. Jerry Majors, Dr. Wallace McMath. Agenda Item Number 1 -- Approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 20, 1979: Ringer moved that the minutes be approved as presented. The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved. Agenda Item Number 2 -- Consideration of a request for a variance from Robert Nash,_ 301 Poplar Street: Harper reviewed the BoardTS previous considerations of the matter. (Hughey joined the meeting, but did not assume the chair). Mr. Nash explained his submissions and his absence from previous meetings. He explained that the position of major trees blocked vehicular access to a structure except in this location. He said that further expansions could be made without harm to the trees. Mr. Wilcox introduced his motherts letter of March 17, 1979 and said that their concerns were a possible restriction of use of their property and a deterioration of present value of their property due to crowding on the adjacent property. He said that there is room on the property for the construction within the setback requirement. Hughey asked what unique circumstance existed. There was no reply. Mr. Broushard pointed out his adjoining property and said that he had no objection. Koehler said that there would be no effect on adjoining setback, that he had no specifics about Mrs. Arnold~s objection and that he could see no detriment to the Cityts interest in the proposal. The Chair moved that the variance be granted because there was no detriment to the public interest. The motion was seconded by Ringer and failed by the following vote: FOR: None AGAINST: Harper, Ringer, Hawley, DuBois, Hughey Minutes ~ Page 2 Agenda Item Number 3 -- Consideration of a request for variance at 2817 Celinda Circle: Koehler said that he had not recommended to the applicant that 7 be present. The Board agreed that a representative of the appli- cant should henceforth be present in each case. Koehler explained that the discrepancy had been found by a serve and that it would be difficult to detect otherwise. He pointed out that the house was complete and City inspectors had not noticed the problem. Harper said that this appeared to be a serious breach of public open space. Hughey remarked that a variance prevented the City from making further complaint. Koehler explained that a complaint could be filed in Municipal Court against the builder for having deviated from plans, but that the trauma of a failure of closing when an encroachment is discovered renders further penalty superfluous. Ringer remarked on the hardship of removing a part of the structure. Harper said that if a variance is granted, the structure thence- forth assumes the status of a non-conforming structure and than any further building permits, except for the interior remodeling, must have the permission of the Board. The Chair moved that the variance be granted because a strict ~~row~~l ~r>: application of the ordinance would cause unnecessary hardshiy,>~ ' ~`~~~~ ~~~ ,1,~~- to the public interest. The motion was seconded by Hughey and ~,~~1~~`w' unanimously approved. Agenda Item_Number !~ -- Consideration of a reauest for expansion of a non-conforming use from Jerry Majors at 107 College Ave: Koehler summarized the proposal and explained the previous variances. Mr. Majors described his proposed structure and said that he had rented adjacent property for parking, but that his business wa.s mostly pedestrian. Harper asked about notification. Koehler said that it had not been sent for this proposal, but it was not required except by policy. He said that the notice trould be identical to that given for the last month's action and that the adjacent ot.ners were the lessors to this business. He remarked that any use of the property interfered with traffic and was, to that extent, detrimental to a public interest, but th at this would be so whether or not the extension is allowed. Harper remarked that the overall public interest is unclear in this case. Minutes ~ Page 3 The Chair moved that the extension be allowed because of the unique shape of the land and because no substantial detriment to the public interest can be identified. The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved. Agenda Item Number 5 -- Consideration of a request for variance from Agency Records Control: Dr. McMath brought to the Boardts attention that his firm had modified building plans to add 2000 square feet of building area and explained the effect on the previous variance to parking requirements. The Board concurred that the variance U1a.s not affected by the additional area. Dr. McMath said that his project designers were unaware of the restriction on detached signs. He pointed out that the size and configuration of his tract was such that the limit should not reasonably apply. He pointed out that if the properties u-ere seperately oumed more signs would be allowable. He said that his firm's operation was substantially different from retail uses and therefor unique, and that he could imagine no detri- ment to the public interest. He said that the distances invol- ved made any single sign ineffective and thus created a hard- ship. The Board discussed the question of the logic of the regulation and agreed that the proposal was not objectionable. They discussed the delay involved in obtaining an ordinance amendment. They agreed that the problem had to do with the provision of the ordinance not being appropriate or applicable to this size of tract, and that a variance would amount to changing the ordinance. Koehler recommended that the variance be denied in favor of recommending to the Council to change the ordinance because he could see no circumstance of this tract that ~*as not true of any substantial commercial tract in the City. He said that he felt that the public interest urould be served by change of ordinance rather than stretching the variance procedure. Hughey moved that the request be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board where the progress of an ordinance change could be evaluated. The motion ti,ras seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved. The Board asked the Council Liaison to convey to the Council and Commission their recommendation to consider a change in the ordinance in as early an action as possible.