HomeMy WebLinkAbout04151993 ZBA Minutes~ •
. . .' ,~
• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES FROM APRIL 15, 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: Sterling Minor, Chairman, Vic Hansen,
John Pickul, Frank Billings, Sue Porreto, and Teresa Fogler. 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 93-08, concerning 3805 Marlowe,
Lot 8, Block 10, Collegeview Addition Section 3, a request for a
side setback for a Porte-Cochere of less than five feet.
Notices were read and participants were sworn in.
Frank Billings made a motion to approve the notices as posted.
Teresa Fogler seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous.
• Mr. John Culpepper, the architect representing Mrs. Marilyn
Wolfe-Kirk and Mr. Harry Kirk, explained that they would like to
construct a nine foot Porte-Cochere that would be three feet off
the property line, but the existing chimney would then encroach
eighteen inches into the seven foot side setback. Mr. and Mrs.
Kirk ask that the variance be granted to allow the existing chimney
to encroach into the seven foot setback. Mr. Culpepper explained
that other options available to them would be to remove the
existing chimney or add another room in the back but would not be a
viable option because of the layout of the house and would incur
more expense.
Correspondence was received in favor of the application from
Mrs. Kathleen Bicon-McBride and Mr. Mark McBride who reside across
the street. No one was present to speak for or against the
variance.
Mr. Beasley gave the City's point of view. He explained that
Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum side setback
of five feet on each side of the property. Because this lot is
less than fifty-nine feet, the owners could choose the Three Seven
Rule if there was no fireplace. The Projection Schedule does not
allow the fireplace to project into the side yard, measurements
have to be made from the fireplace so the other side is required to
have a five foot setback. There are no changes to the Zoning
• Ordinance regarding encroachment to side setback scheduled to be
made.
Frank Billings made a motion, seconded by John Pickul to close the
evidentiary portion of the hearing. Voting was unanimous.
~
L J
~ ;..~ . .. '~;
~
r1
U
•
The second case on the Docket
Lot 1, Block 10, Belle Court,
fence columns and a gate to be
~
was 93-09, concerning 2702 Arbuckle,
a request for variance to allow two
located in the visibility triangle.
Notices were read and participants sworn in.
Teresa Fogler made a motion to approve the notices as posted. John
Pickul seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous.
Mr. Maury Shepherd, owner of the property, passed out packets to
all the board members and explained that he would like to have a
six foot sliding gate that runs along behind the fence and raise
the two two-foot columns to six feet within the visibility
triangle. There would be panels between the six foot columns along
the sidewalk and the columns along the driveway. The plans with
the fence on them were approved and the house was permitted prior
to the visibility amendment to the Zoning Ordinance being passed,
but the fence was permitted after the amendment passed. The
builder was aware of the ordinance being passed after speaking with
Ed Beasley, but failed to inform Mr. Shepherd and went on with
construction of the fence. Mr. Shepherd did not find out anything
was wrong until after the piers for the fence were drilled. Mr.
Shepherd stated that the piers for the fence were inspected at the
time the piers for the house were inspected, and were passed.
Mr. Shepherd explained that a swing gate could not be used because
of the slope of the driveway and the gate could not be moved up the
driveway five feet closer to the garage because he would be unable
to park a third car there and two brick columns would then be
aligned and cause a blindspot.
No correspondence was received in favor of the variance other than
what was in the packet provided by Mr. Shepherd.
Mr. Beasley gave the City's point of view. He explained that
Ordinance 1437 amending the Zoning Ordinance discussing the
visibility triangle passed on July 27th. The ordinance was passed
for safety reasons. All fencing material was taken into
consideration but Zoning and Planning Commission felt it was best
to eliminate everything within the visibility triangle. The
visibility triangle eliminates visibility problems of someone
backing out of their driveway and hitting a pedestrian on the
sidewalk. It eliminates anything higher than 24 inches or lower
than nine feet. There can be nothing in that range.
Mr. Beasley explained that the drawing submitted was incorrect, the
sidewalk appeared to be five feet from the property line, but is
only 18 inches away. Mr. Beasley explained that the piers
inspected by Cecil Boles on June 24th were for the house only, the
piers for the fence were inspected on December 21st and failed
because of the location of the columns in the visibility triangle
and would remain failed until the City received a letter from Les
Albin, the contractor, that nothing would be constructed higher
than 24" in the visibility triangle. The final fence inspection
~ •
~ ~ M
8... ~ .. ~
• made by Mr. Beasley, the columns in the visibility triangle were 30
inches in height, so they were in violation of the ordinance, the
stone caps were removed to comply with the ordinance and the fence
was passed. After the time of the final inspection for the
certificate of occupancy the stone caps were in place and in
violation of the ordinance.
No correspondence in opposition of the variance was received.
Frank Billings made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of
the hearing. This motion was seconded by John Pickul. Voting was
unanimous.
After a brief break at 8:30 p.m., the meeting was reconvened at
8:33 p.m.
After a brief discussion Frank Billings made a motion to deny
Docket No. 93-08, the variance to allow a setback for a
Porte-Cochere of less than five feet. The motion was seconded by
John Pickul. Voting was unanimous. Voting members were Sterling
Minor, Sue Porretto, Vic Hansen, John Pickul, and Frank Billings.
After a brief discussion Frank Billings made a motion to deny
Docket No. 93-09 a variance to allow two fence columns and gate to
• be located in the visibility triangle. The motion was seconded by
John Pickul. Voting was unanimous. Voting members were Sterling
Minor, Teresa Fogler, Vic Hansen, John Pickul, and Frank Billings.
Sue Porretto was unable to vote because she resides within 200 feet
of Mr. Shepherd.
Teresa Fogler made a motion to adjourn t meeting. This motion was
seconded by Frank Billings. Voting was nani ous. The meeting
adjourned at 9:02 p.m. 1~ n
/ // ..
ATTE$T:
$ECRETARY
r1
L J