Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03081956 ZPC Minutes~2 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF Z(1NING & PLANNING HOARY MARCH 8, 1956 the Zoning & Plarn~ing Board convened in regular session at the City Hall on Thursday, March 8, 1956, with the following members presents Mr. E. R. lla,~i.s, presiding; Messrs. A.G.Davias, Hannah, Maley and Wilson:. Mr. Halbertxas absent. Mr. N. E. Zachariah 61 Robinhood .appeared with a request for. approval to build a 2 x20 Ft. Guest Cottage behind the garage on his 100 x 150 Ft. lot be ng , oc , es nlversity Place 2nd Addition. The Board dis- cussed Mr. Zachariah's request with him and suggested that he make arrange- ments to add the required accommodations to the main structure of his present house, as building the cottage in the manner h® requested would be 3n viola- tion of the Zoning Ordinance restricting the lot usage to single fa~ily occupancy,' No fonrial vote was taken. Mrs J. ~. Max'aueri 2616 Amherst. again appeared before the Zoning Board. The Commission has previously approved Mr. Marquer's request for adding 16 x 32 Ft. building to the present structure an Lot 5, Black 13, Virginia Court Addition. (Present building occupies portions of Lots 1 and 3a Block 13, and i.s 29 x 33 Ft. outside dimen~ians.) Mr. Marquer submitted an alternate proposals namely, toad.~d.~ as an integral part, this 16 x 2 Ft. bui_~ as an extension to the east side of the present house now on ots and 3. ` Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Maley, that the Board recommend approval of the alternate proposal as requested by Mr. Marquer, Voting Aye: All Nos bane Recommendation by the Zoning Board for the approval of Mr. A4arquerfe alternate proposal is based on the recognition that the East boundary lines of Lota 1 and 3 are, by usage, the actual. side lot boundaries. The dwelling faces Amherst Street. ibis is consistent with the majority of other dwellings now occupying similarly located lots in this block, Where the dwellings theran face differently from the lot frontages themselves, With no farther business to come before the Board at this ti.~e, upon motion duly made, aecorxied and carried,, the meeting was adjourned. i n ~~*j~,~ *T SECRETARY U ,;. a~, ~/ ~ ;~ v ..s~c~~%~' -~TA~~ AI31~'DBM Tf? MIT~tI'T&S QF ZONIlO'G BQARD MARCH 8, 1956 The Zoning Board Further considered the request From Triar~le Refineries to erect an addition to .the resent structure with the west building line to be approxima . was rom it y ive and. the addition of two or more floors over the entire new. structure. The Board was also advised they had acquired the adjacent single family dwelling and lot directly to their west and north and would convert the existing single family dwelling into a club room or auxiliary building and world provide a landscaped open space between the existing single Family house. end the proposed 180 fit, building line. The request was considered and discussed at great length and the Following action takers Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. A. G. Davis, that the request as submitted by the Triangle Refineries be denied by the City Gaeimissioa. voting des All PTo: Bone The reasons agreed upon by the Board members for this recommendation to the City Commission eras (1) Approval of this request would require spot ;- rezoning which the Board believes would tend to weaken the Zoning Law atsd would establish an undesirable precedeat (2) to recoamlend favorably on the request would require an amendment to the present ordinance tc~ permit extension of all building lines in the area more than 164 Ft. From Kirby Drive, as presently provided for in .the Ordinance; and the Board feels that to authorize this general extension of the building lines xould lead to undesirable commercial encroachments into the present single family dwelling area; (3) in recommending refection of this request the Board is being consistent with its policies and attitude reflected as a matter of record in dealing with previoas cases of a similar nature where eztensi~ of the building lines more than 160 Ft. from Kirby have been requested, In all such previous cases the Board has refused to recommend such exten- sion; (4} the. Board Felt that even though Triangle Rsfineri.es had agreed to provide a landscaped and beautified area bet~reen the purchased single Family dwelling and the adjacent lot to the west, this-space to be a mini- mum of 20 Ft. in width, that this lot could no longer actually be con- sidered suitable for a single family occupancy as now provided For under the Zoning .Law arbd would in effect, from the usage to which it would be put, be tantamount to extension of the commercial area into the residen- tial area a distance of this ox~e lot. ~x ~~-