Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06171993 ZBA Minutes• • r-~ U • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES FROM JUNE 17, 1993 REGULAR SESSION 7:30 P.M. The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: John Pickul, Acting Chairman, Vic Hansen, Robert McBride and Joe Webb. Also present from the City were Ed Beasley, Building Official, and Kym Radley, Building Secretary. Members introduced themselves and procedures were explained. No residents were present to express opinions regarding any items that were not on the agenda. The first case on the Docket was 93-11, concerning 3221 Carnegie, Tract 7A, Block 40, West University Place, Section 1., request for variance to allow the principal building to be located within the 20 foot rear setback. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Vernon Kuhn, son of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Kuhn, was present to represent the Kuhns. Also present was Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Kuhn, owners of the property. Vernon Kuhn stated that the Kuhns would like to situate part of the building 10 feet off the south property line but Amendment 2 (passed November 23, 1992) states that that portion may not be located there. Vernon Kuhn stated that Mr. and Mrs. Kuhn would like to place the garage in that area facing Carnegie which apparently complies with Amendment 2. Vernon Kuhn stated that this is the logical way to situate this building on this property without having to add on in the future. At the.time the plans were made they conformed to code prior to Amendment 2. If the variance is granted it would allow the living area to face the pool and patio area in the south section of the property. The proposed building would not encroach on the neighbors on th'e Rutgers side it would be 23 feet of the property line. The plans for the building with 20 foot setbacks on both streets and a 5 foot rear setback, unless there is a bedroom located in the setback then the setback would be 10 feet, was finalized and the Kuhns received verbal approval from the Building Department before passage of Amendment 2. Permits were never pulled for this building. The architect came to the Building Department for a final check in January and was i~formed that the plans could not be approved as drawn with 10 foot rear setback. Alternate plans would call for the garage to be located in the rear setback and Mr. Kuhn feels this would mar the view from U-shaped living area or they could cut 10 feet off the building and he would lose a bedroom and most of his T.V. room. The lot is 75 x 100. J h~v. • • • No correspondence was received in favor of the applicant. George Kuhn of 6707 Rutgers spoke in favor. Mr. Beasley gave the City's point of view. He explained that the lot in question is a rotated corner lot and Amendment 2 states that any building that projects into the rear setback be associated with a garage with the idea to try to keep the rear yard open and promote rear loading garages not a front loading garage. Mr. Beasley feels that the plans could be flip flopped with the pool located in the interior of the lot. The City is opposed to granting the variance. Before Amendment 2 was passed there was a 5 foot rear setback now it is a 20 foot setback unless there is a garage then it could go to the 5 foot line. No correspondence was received in opposition of the applicant. John Cochren of 3615 Carnegie spoke in opposition. Joe Webb made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing. Vic Hansen seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. The second case on the Docket was~93-12, concerning 4121 Judson, Lot 12, Block 3, College Court Addition, a request for variance to • allow 5 foot side and 10 foot front setback. Notices were read and participants sworn in. Mr. Jay R. Solomon and Crystal E. Moore, owners of the property, were present. Mr. Solomon stated the lot is unusually shaped and the setbacks make it impossible to build a new structure. The existing building is 1300 square feet and the proposed building would be 1020 square feet and triangle shaped based on the setbacks. The existing garage is located 1 1/2•feet off the west property line and the breakfast area sits 2.3 feet from the west property line, the kitchen and breakfast area is 4 1/2 feet off the west property line, the rear bedroom sits 4.8 feet from the south side property line. Mr. Solomon spoke with several neighbors and they are in favor of granting the variance. Ms. Moore stat~ed that they requested 10 foot setback from the front, 5 foot setback from the side and 5 foot setback from the rear. Mr. Solomon stated they do not have a building plan based on the setbacks they are requesting. No correspondence was received in favor. Mr. Beasley gave the City's point of view. He explai,ned that if 20 foot front setback, 20 foot back~setback and 10 foot~side setbacks are applied, 1206 square feet would be the buildable area. The city does not oppose.some type of reasonable variance. If front • and rear setbacks are changed to 15 feet and the side setback left at 10 feet the buildable area would be approximately 1880 square feet. It would still be in the shape of a triangle. The garage could fit into the rear setback. ~~ . .-_> • ! • ~ Paul Daigle of 4203 South Judson spoke in opposition of granting the variance without a proposed building plan. Correspondence was received from Mr. William E. Watson representing Ms. Lois Walter Hatch of 4114 Bissonnet in opposition of the application. Robert McBride made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing. This motion was seconded by Joe Webb. Voting was unanimous. After a brief break at 8:35 p.m., the meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p.m. After a brief discussion, Vic Hansen made a motion to deny Docket No. 93-11 a variance to allow the principal building to be located within the 20 foot rear setback. The motion was seconded by Robert McBride. Voting was unanimous. Voting members were John Pickul, Vic Hansen, Robert McBride, and Joe Webb. After a brief discussion, Joe Webb made a motion to deny Docket No. 93-12 a variance to allow 5 foot side and 10 foot front setbacks with the stipulation that if Mr. Solomon and Ms. Moore reapply they must have a site plan with a proposed building. The motion was • seconded by Joe Webb. Voting was unanimous. Voting members were John Pickul, Vic Hansen, Robert McBride, and Joe Webb. Robert McBride made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Joe Webb. Voting was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY •