HomeMy WebLinkAbout05211992 ZBA Minutes~~~ ~
` ~ i ~ •
• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES FROM MAY 21, 1992
REGULAR SESSION
7:30 P.M.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:33 P.M. with the
following members present: Chairman Sterling Minor, Vice-Chairman
Frank Billings, Robert McBride, Vic Hanson, John Pickul, Sue
Poretto and Teresa Fogler. Present from the City were Ed Beasley,
Building Official and Alice Benson, Secretary. Members introduced
themselves and procedures were explained.
The first case on the docket was #92-05, 4230 Emory, Lot 23, Block
6, College Court Addition. Notices were read and witnesses sworn
in. This request for variance was filed by G. R. Burtner, to allow
a building to encroach into the front 20' setback.
Mr. Burtner explained that the original survey done prior to plan
submittal appeared correct and within restricted setbacks. The
second survey done prior to pouring the foundation also appeared
correct and within the setbacks.
The surveyor who did Mr. Burtner's two surveys explained that
because there are so few control points left from the original
• surveys done years ago that it is not uncommon to see property pins
shift when surveying small areas.
Only when the builder (who also is a friend of Mr. Burtner) next
door apprised Mr. Burtner of his survey showing setback
inconsistencies, did Mr. Burtner suspect a problem with the first
two surveys.
This survey (survey #3) done by Richmark Homes for 4236 Emory was
far more detailed and very costly. It depicted Mr. Burtner's house
encroaching in the front set back by approximately ten inches. Mr.
Burtner explained that Richmark Homes now does elaborate and costly
surveys because of a prior lawsuit. He goes that extra mile to
ensure he is within his building site setbacks.
Mr. Burtner stated that he did not deliberately build in the set
back area. Had he known there was a problem prior to forming the
house, he would have made adjustments. Since the house was
"dried-in" (framed and roof on) there was little he could do short
of tearing it down or cutting it back (which could create a stigma
of an unsound structure).
Ed Beasley stated that Mr. Burtner brought this problem to his
attention and has not received any complaints reqarding the
building. He stated that the builder could face substantial
• problems if he is required to cut approximately 10" off the front
of the building. He reiterated that although construction
technology allows one to saw cut a foundation and then repour with
reinforcements of dowels and epoxy, any builder could have a hard
time selling a home with such an adjusted foundation.
..~ ~ •
~`
~ Frank Billings made the motion to close the public portion of the
'hearing. Robert McBride seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
The second case on the docket was #92-06, 2720 Amherst, lot 17,
Block 7, Virginia Court Addition. Notices were read and witnesses
sworn in.
Chris and Anne Brown purchased the home in March 1990 and have
since remodeled the kitchen and now have plans to replace the
existing garage and add quarters. Taking the front property line
as being Amherst, the wide lot requires a side set back of seven
feet in lieu of the normal five feet. The current garage encroaches
into the rear utility easement. His proposed plans call for an
encroachment into the 7 foot side setback of approximately three
feet; therefore, his side structure would be four feet from the
property line in lieu of the required seven feet.
When asked if the variance was denied, what would be his alternate
plan? Mr. Brown state that without the variance, it would create a
hardship in parking vehicles, getting the car doors opened and
unloading items. The architect, Tim Rafety, said the additional
amount of space was needed to provide optimum access for the car
doors, etc.
• As for other alternatives, Mr. Brown stated that the present garage
is in disrepair; it needs a new roof, and the slab and driveway are
cracked. He told the board he is between a rock and a hard spot;
the old garage currently encroaches on the rear utility easement
and the proposed one encroaches on the side setback. If the new
garage is located any closer to the house, then he is faced with
'minimal clearance-much like a parking garage; workable but not
practical.
Several residents spoke in favor of the proposed addition.
Don Gilcrest and Tim Rosen stated that they do not have a problem
with the proposal as it stands.
Ed Beasley stated that since the house faces the longer side of the
lot instead of the narrow front and is not a rotated corner lot,
there is an exception that allows an accessory structure to
encroach into the setback area as allowed in Y-9 of the Projection
Schedule. Such an exception is allowed when the garage door is at
least 70 feet from the front property line. However, the depth of
the property is only 71'. Additionally, there can be no windows on
the second floor. As currently submitted, the proposed library
has two windows on that side.
Frank Billings moved to close the public portion of the hearing.
• John Pickul seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous.
After a brief discussion of #92-05, Frank Billings made the motion
to grant the variance provided the third survey done by Richmark
•~ .
A ~ •
~ ~• ~'~
.y
~ Homes is correct. If the third survey is incorrect, then there is
no need for a variance. Robert McBride seconded the motion.
Motion was carried by Sterling Minor, Frank Billings, John Pickul
and Robert McBride. Voting against the motion: Vic Hanson.
After a brief discussion of #92-06, Frank Billings made the motion
to deny the variance. John Pickul seconded the motion. Motion was
carried by Frank Billings, John Pickul and Sterling Minor. Voting
aqainst the motion: Vic Hanson and Robert Mc Bride.
Frank Billings made the motion to approve minutes from April 16,
1992 meeting. John Pickul seconded the motion. Voting was
unanimous.
Frank Billings made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 P.M.
and was seconded by Robert McBride. Voting was unanimous.
• ATTEST:
,
~.R1~
SECRETARY ~'~,3'y~
u