Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07171969 ZPC Minutes JOINT MEETING OF CITY COMMISSION, ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONIlVG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON THURSDAY JULY 17, lg6g, 8;00 P.M. The City Commission, Zoning and Planning Commission, and Zoning Board of Adjustment met at the City Hall on Thursday, July 17, lg6g, 8:00 p.m., with the following. members present: Cit Commission, Mayor Homer L. Ramsey, Commissioners Neighbors, Proctor, Scott and Wallin; Zoning and Planning Commission, Chairman David Hannah, members R. C. Hilton, E. Gene Hines and Edgar Lott; Zoning Board of Adjustment Chairman L. G. Livermore, members Donald Baker, Thomas W. Smith, Floyd Murphy, and Hollis Waldt. The City Building Inspector J. D. Allstott and City Manager Whitt Johnson met with the group. City Manager Whitt Johnson served as moderator and began the meeting with a defini- tion of the word "Zoning". Mr. Johnson stated that "zoning is the division of e community into districts for the purpose of regulating the use of land and buildings, the height '`and bolt of build'i'ngs, the proportion of the .lot that may be covered by them and the density of the population.. It is necessary to~'divide a community into districts, each with its special regulations, because of a single set of regulations would not apply to an entire community which would b"e<:d~'ference in-character and function". Mr. Johnson next directed attention to four things that Zoning is not: 1. Zoning is not nuisance legislation. It cannot be used to exclude~undesirable uses from a community. 2. Zoning is not a means of accomplishing racial segregation. It cannot be used to establish districts within which to confine particular races of people. 3. Zoning is not a retroactive measure. It does not prohibit the lase of land and buildings that were established prior to the passage of the zoning ordinance. 4. Zoning is not a means of esthetic control. It cannot effect esthtic control because what constitutes beauty to one person may not be bautiful to another. A number of items particular to the City of West University Place were then brought up for discussion: 1. Accessory buildings and hobby rooms. It has been an unwritten and unofficial .precedent heretofore established that the maximum size of this type building would be 8' x 10' without permission of the Zoning and Planning Commission and the City Commission. There is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance re- bulating size or specific use. Some of the requests received by the Building Inspector are for construction of hothouses; ceramic shops with electric kilns; woodworking shops; and others which may or may not be ,used commercially. 2. Utility rooms. What may be installed in a utility room? Can it only be a commode, wash basin or wash sink, but no kitchen facilities, shower or tub. Should existing 2-car garage be converted into utility rooms? 3• Servants quarters. Would it be better to delete the provision which makes it possible to construct servants quarters either over a garage or on the ground floor? .5 t 4. To what extent should non-conforming garage apartments be permitted to be removated, enlarged or rebuilt? 5. Standards for circular driveways? 6. The area of the front yard which may be covered with concrete, asphalt-,.rock, stone or decorative materials. The real problem appears to lie in .cases where yards are covered completely with concrete, and then used as automobile, boat, trailer or mobile home parking spcaes. 7. Location of garage with respect to front and rear building lines. 8. The conversion of a portion of a detached garage into living quarters where it ~ N would be located in the 20' rear building line. ~ The following are spme of the thoughts, questions and ideas;develope,d in general ~ round-table discussion of ,the above items: ~ , V ^. Would it be possible to grant permission for construct on of hobby rooms and accessory buildings provided there was the .necessary authority to control location and use? Would interpretation of the existing rear lot coverage provision of the zoning ordinance pravide authority to control location? Are we attempting to take care of enforcement by control of the ise of the build- ing at a future date? Are the garage aprtments located in the city on our tax rolls? Loss of food citizens because of inability to construct additions to their property in accordance with the .needs of their: family. Need specific rules in order to make equal provisions for all citizens. Has the City Attorney reviewed zoning ordinances of other cities that might .possibly cover some of our local problems? Has a comparison been made between deed restrictions and the zoning ordinance with regard to the occupancy provision. City Attorney has ruled that a garage apartment may be occupied only by an immediate member of the family - this does not include parents. Is one of our biggest problems fear of the future - are we trying to close the gate or catch the horse? Violation of the zoning ordinance by a garage apartment tenant is not the renting thereof but the occupancy. Duplication of all city services - police, fire, water, garbage, parking and ge neral conflict with density provision of zoning ordinance. Filing of charges is the only recourse when violations are discovered. ~~,? .There are approximately 14~/ non-resident owners in the city. General belief that garage apartment owners should be permitted to repair, renovate and keep up existing buildings - where do .you draw the line as to what constitutes, renovation, repair and upkeep? Would it be possible to utilize the utility companys as a tool for controlling multiple family occupancy? Following the round-table discussion it was the concensus of opinion that the Zoning and Planning Commission be requested to work on a program of implementation to amend the Zoning Ordinance, write an interpretation of revention and enforce- ment with regard to single family concept, provide clarif'cation of the current zoning and provide .guidelines. a Attest cretary