Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12171992 ZBA Minutes: ~~ NOT" ~pp~OVEn ~ ~ . ~ ~- ~~ ~ ~~ C Q ~ N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • ~ THE ZONI G ~ DE EMBER 17 1992 ~ j MINUTES FROM C ~ / REGULAR SESSION ~f -~~~ , ~ 7:30 P.M. ' ~~, : ~.~~ ~.~ The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 P.M. with the following members present: Sterling Minor, Chairman, Robert McBride, Sue Poretto, Vic Hansen and Teresa Fogler. Ed Beasley, Build~ng Official and Alice Benson, Secretary were present from the city. Members introduced themselves and procedures were explained. No~residents were present to express opinions on items not on the agenda. The first case on the docket was # 92-16, concerning Intercity Investments and Judy Offman, current owner of 4003 Ruskin. Intercity Investments has requested a special exception to construct a parking lot using the property tentatively sold to Intercity Investments by Judy Offman as well as the property they currently own. This application requests the following: 1) a special exception under the Schedule PDD-TH6, paragraph (d) (relating to parking lot use in the Ruskin Townhouses P.D.D.) of the Zoning Ordinance and (2) to the extent necessary, variances under the following • provisions of said Zoning Ordinance: Section 10-101 (a) (6) (pervious area), 10-102 (dimensions of parking spaces) and Projection Schedule (relating to lampposts). Mr. Goldman, a resident, requested to speak first because he was ill. The Chairman authorized him to speak out of turn. Mr. Goldman implored the Zoning Board to refuse this request from Intercity Investments regarding the approval of an application for a parking lot. Mr. Goldman felt that Intercity,was not acting in the residents best interest and their were only'interested in their own financial gain. After Mr. Goldman finished, the notices and participants were sworn in . ~~ Bob Singleton, the attorney for Intercity Investments, stated that ~ Intercity Investments has a pending contract with Judy Offman to purchase her property if the Zoning Board of Adjustment approves this application. Mr. Singleton presented a drawing of the proposed parking lot that Intercity Investments plans to construct, provided they get approval from the Zoning Board. ;He proposal is to construct a 8' stucco wall with a front green space of 10' along Ruskin Street, with a single 25' tall lamp post to illuminate the parking lot. • Additionally, he proposes to make the parking spaces 8.5' in width inlieu of the required 9.0' to accommodate more employee parking slots. By having employee parking spaces in the rear, it will : ~ • .~ • alleviate some of the parking congestion in the front area of the shopping center. Dan Bryan, Property Manager for Intercity Investments, stated that he tried to eliminate the resident's concerns and felt that Intercity had tried to accommodate these problems. These problems involved ingress/egress, noise control, drainage control and lighting concerns. The issue of ingress/egress was addressed by proposing to purchase Judy Offman's property. By changing the ingress/egress to Ruskin Street from Stella Link, it would create a safer situation for the employees driving in and out of the parking lot. Regarding the noise factor, Intercity Investments redesigned the 8' wall which would span the length of Ruskin Street (approximately 200') to help absorb traffic noise. Intercity Investments also proposed to have a 6" curb control that would go to the underground drainage system. He also stated that there would be no surface drainage and would have three catch basins sloping to the parking lot interior to facilitate proper water control. Teresa Fogler inquired as to how Intercity Investments could ensure that only employees parked in this proposed parking lot. Mr. Bryan stated that all tenants signed a contractual agreement and would • conform to Intercity Investment's requirements. Sue Poretto inquired as to the foundation for the 8' wall. She was concerned about the long term maintenance of the structure. Mr. Bryan assured her that the wall would be maintained. Mr. Roy Roth, the lighting consultant for Intercity Investments, stated that he was asked to design a system with these parameters: have the best lighting available (regarding security, safety and visibility) with the least amount of money. After researching the situation, he proposed a lamppost to be situated mid-center along the front property line with 2 bulbs, mounted 25' high. This particular system would provide minimal reflection back to the residents although it probably would not be aesthetically p•leasing in having a pole extend 25' in the air. Mr. Roth presented a illuminance scale depicting the foot candles covering the property and the overall lighting value was questioned by the Zoning Board. Regarding opposition, Ed Beasley, Building Official cited items that were in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the proposed lamp post would be ~ithin 10' of a 5ingle Family Residence District. The actual height of the mounting pole should be 8' and not 25'. There should also be a 5' area of green space • around the perimeter~and not 10' along Ruskin with none at the back of the property. According to.the Zoning Ordinance, parking spaces need to be 9' in width. 8 1/2' as proposed by Intercity Investments is violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Finally, the • • • ordinance requires the sidewalk to be new or in a like new condition. Numerous residents spoke in opposition and urged to deny this special exception. They cited that having a parking lot in lieu of townhouses would property values and look to the Zoning Boards to this type of situation. The residents expressed interest in having townhouses constructed instea~ parking lot. the Zoning Board the prospect of devalue their protect them from more of an 3 of looking at a Their feeling is that Intercity Investments overbuilt this area and are now being put in a position of compromising their property values by allowing this parking lot. Most residents also stated their basic distrust for Intercity Investments; they stated that they have been cajoled and bullied. In general, they now have negative feelings regarding their neighbor. Intercity stated that t in 1987. They said the for townhouses. Motion was made by Sue portion of the hearing. was unanimous. A short • 10:05 p.m. here were mistakes in the Zoning Ordinance area was zoned for a parking lot and not Poretto at 10:00 p.m. to close the public Teresa Fogler seconded the motion. Voting break was taken and the Board reconvened at The second and final case on the docket was 92-17, filed by Dr. David Cech, 2637 Amherst. He stated that he purchased the property next door (2641 Amherst) in December, 1991 with the intent of having a home for his housekeeper. After much deliberation, he felt the structure was unsafe/uninhabitable and then had it demolished. He then constructed a garage with an apartment on the rear portion of the property. His whole intention was to keep the two pieces of property separate and did not want to combine them. Public Works Department required him to have a separate water meter and sewer tap for his new construction. The Building department denied him separate electrical service. Ed Beasley, Building Official, spoke in opposition to this request for variance. He stated that the plans submitted did not show an installation of a separate electrical meter. Although Public Works required Dr. Cech to have separate utilities, it was the Building Official's interpretation that it was an error in having the extra utilities, but according to the definition of the Zoning Ordinance, there can not be multi utilities on one building site. He further stated that Public Works in unaware of why something is being requested; they just complete wo~k orders. • Teresa Fogler made the motion to close the public portion of the • hearing at 10:18 p.m. Sue Poretto seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. . c ~ • • The Board took a short break and reconvened at 10:24 p.m. and started deliberations regarding these two issues. On docket # 92-16, Teresa Fogler commented that the Zoning Board has the choice in deciding whether there should be a parking lot or townhouses and which would be the best for the residents. She further stated that she did not think they could protect them from parking lot. Teresa Fogler made the motion to adjourn into executive closed session at 10:44 p.m. Robert McBride seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. The Zoning Board reconvened at 11:02 p.m. After more general discussions, Teresa Fogler made the motion to deny the special exception at 11:19 p.m. Sue Poretto seconded the motion. Voting yes: Robert McBride; Teresa Fogler and Sue Poretto. Voting no: Sterling Minor and Vic Hansen. In Docket 92-17, the board discussed the issue of allowing a separate electrical service. Teresa Fogler made the motion to deny the request for variance at 11:21 p.m. Robert McBride seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. • Sue Poretto made the motion to approve the changes in the minutes for September 17, 1992. Teresa Fogler seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. Teresa Fogler made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Sue Poretto seconded the motion at 11:26 p.m. Voting was unanimous. Meeting was adjourned at 11:26 P.M. Chairman Attest: Secretary ., •