Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-7-99 BA MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 7, 1999 City Council Chambers A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on October 7, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. with the following members present: Board Member Bob Harris Board Member Mary Jowers Board Member Alvin Cook Board Member Lynn DeMary Alternate Member Ed Orr Alternate Member Georgine Guillory Board Members absent: Board Member Dohn LaBiche Alternate Member Lamar Roach Alternate Member Joe Ashy Also present: Stephen Richardson, Planning Manager; Murray Duren, Senior Planner; Tyrone Cooper, First Assistant City Attorney; Adina Abshire, Planning Technician; Jill Cole, Recording Secretary; Boyd Meier, Assistant Building Official and Councilman -at -Large Andrew Cokinos APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Roach made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 2, 1999 Public Hearing. Board Member Orr seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 5:0 . SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES PUBLIC HEARING 1) File 430-BA: A request for a variance to the required front yard building setback of an existing new residence in an RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) and RM-H (Residential Multiple Family Dwelling -Highest Density) District. Garage encroaches two feet into the 15 foot setback. Location: 6960 Reno Circle Applicant: Vernon LeBlanc BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 7. 1999 Mr. Richardson told the Board that the request was for a variance to the building setback of an existing new residence in an RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) and RM-H (Residential Multiple Family Dwelling -Highest Density) District. The variance will be from the required 15 feet to 13 feet. According to the applicant, a mistake was made when laying out the foundation, thereby creating the encroachment of a portion of the garage into the front setback. The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with Conditions A, B and C. Twenty-three notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet. One response in favor and none in opposition were returned to staff. Slides of the subject property were shown. (Board Member DeMary arrived.) Board Member Harris opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's comments. The applicant was not present. Board Member Harris asked if homes are inspected by the City before the foundation is poured. Boyd Meier, Assistant Building Official, addressed the Board. Mr. Meier said he reviews plans for building permits and that he reviewed this plan for the permit before it was constructed. The plan review showed it to be approved with a 15' setback, which is the setback requirement in a cul-de-sac. Building inspectors go out for code compliance -- inspections for the rebar and the depth and width of the beams to meet code compliance for that structure. They do not survey it and when the form boards are put up, the corner pins that the surveyor put in for these houses to meet the setbacks are removed. Inspectors do not inspect for setbacks because the survey stakes have already been removed and the only way they would be able to verify this is to have an as -built survey previous to the inspection given to the City before they go out and look at the slab and that has not been a requirement in the past. Board Member Harris asked if there was any way to know who made the mistake or how the mistake was made. Mr. Meier said it would be either the contractor that formed out the foundation or the surveying company that actually put in the corner pins or the offsets for the corners of the building. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 7, 1999 Board Member Cook asked if it was possible to require the owner or contractor to leave the pins in place until the City makes the inspection. Mr. Meier said that they could put in offsets and they could measure off those offsets to the corners, but when they actually put the beam into the ground, those pins are removed because that is the actual corner of where the concrete is to be poured. Board Member Cook told Mr. Meier that the Board has seen this type of problem in the past and at that time they did not know what the City's policy was as far as inspections. He feels that there should be some requirement for the contractor to leave a pin in place somewhere so this doesn't happen again. Mr. Meier said that when a site plan is submitted that says that the setback requirements have been met and they approve it that way, then they rely on some responsibility of the contractors and surveyors. However, if needed in the future, the City could require something else to be done so that this doesn't happen again. It may be an extra trip for the survey crew to put in something else where it can be verified. In response to Board Member Harris, Mr. Cooper said that to make that requirement would be through internal policy. Board Member Roach disagreed. He said that the cases that have come before the Board are cul-de-sacs and doesn't think the cost of another survey should be added to build on a normal piece of property. Board Member Harris asked for comments in favor or in opposition. No comments were made. Board Member Harris closed the public hearing. Discussion between the Board members followed. Board Member Cook made a motion to approve a variance to the required front yard building setback of an existing new residence in an RS and RM-H District from 15 feet to 13 feet as requested in File 430-BA. Board Member Roach seconded the motion. The vote on the motion to approve File 430-BA follows: Board Member Harris - For Board Member Cook - For Board Member DeMary - For 9 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 7, 1999 Board Member Roach - For Board Member Orr - For The motion to approve File 430-BA carried 5:0. 2) File 431-BA: A request for variances to the required 25' front yard and 5' interior side yard of an existing new residence in an RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) District. Location: 8015 N. Windemere Drive Applicant: Francisco J. Mendez Mr. Richardson told the Board that the variance to the front yard setback would be from 25' to 24' and the variance to the side yard setback would be from the required 5' to 4' 6". According to the applicant, a mistake was made when laying out the foundation, thereby creating the encroachments into the front and side yards. The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with Conditions A, B and C. Twenty-one notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 200 feet. Three responses in favor and none in opposition were returned. Slides of the subject property were shown. Board Member Harris opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's comments, comments in favor or in opposition. No comments were made. The public hearing was closed. Discussion between Board members followed. Board Member Roach made a motion to approve the variances to the required 25' front yard and 5' interior side yard of an existing new residence in an RS District at 8015 Windemere Drive. Board Member DeMary seconded the motion. The vote on the motion to approve File 431-BA follows: Board Member Harris - For Board Member Cook - For Board Member DeMary - For Board Member Roach - For Board Member Orr - For n u BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 7, 1999 The motion to approve File 431-BA carried 5:0. 3) File 432-BA: A request for a variance to the sign regulations of Section 30-28 (b) (1) to allow a 21 foot tall, 110 square foot owner identification sign in an RS (Residential Single Family Dwelling) District. Location: 8200 State Highway 105 Applicant: Cathedral Christian School Mr. Richardson informed the Board that the sign regulations now allow a maximum of 15 feet in height and 50 square feet. The Cathedral Christian School wants to construct an owner identification sign along the highway frontage. They feel that due to its location on the highway, the sign would be difficult to read at the required 50 square feet and 15 feet tall. The sign regulations for residential districts were recently amended to increase the maximum allowed sign area from 20 square feet to 50 square feet. Also, there was a decrease in the required setback and allowing internal illumination. The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with Conditions A, B and C. Forty-nine notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet. Four responses in favor and one in opposition were returned. Slides of the subject area were shown. Board Member Harris opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's comments. Mr. Billy Doornbos, Treasurer of Cathedral Christian Center, addressed the Board. He introduced Bill Smith and Cliff Larson of the school and Mike Johnson of State Sign Company. Mr. Doornbos distributed photos to the Board. Mr. Doornbos stated that Hibernia's name is at the bottom of the sign because they financed the school and a portion of the sign was paid for by them. Mike Johnson of State Sign Company addressed the Board. Board Member DeMary asked what the speed limit was on Highway 105 in front of the school and if there is a designated school zone. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 7, 1999 Mr. Smith said that the speed limit is 55 mph. The school tried to get a designated school zone but can't because there is only one student walking to school and that's not enough to designate a school zone. In response to Board Member Harris, Mr. Larson said that there were approximately 700 students at the school. Discussion followed between Board members. Board Member Roach stated that he will not support the request. He feels that the sign regulations are too new to be making exceptions. Board Member DeMary asked if having Hibernia's name on the sign allows the sign to fall within the guidelines of an owner i.d. sign or does it cross over into another category. Mr. Cooper said it is actually a hybrid sign. It's an owner identification sign with advertising. Mr. Doornbos again asked for the Board's approval, if not of the requested size then to let them know what they would approve. Board Member Harris closed the public hearing. Further discussion between Board members followed. Board Member Harris asked for a motion on the request. No motion was made, therefore, the variance request was denied. Board Member Harris asked if there was a size in excess of the current sign regulations that a Board member would approve by motion. There was no response, therefore, the request was denied. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Cooper distributed Ordinance No. 99-23 to the Board which gives the Board certain responsibilities in regard to the moving of houses within the City. The ordinance was designed to put some kind of restrictions and control on the moving of houses and where they are to be located. The ordinance requires a moving permit and upon applying for that permit, a $5,000 security bond is required. The criteria on moving these structures is that BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 7, 1999 you cannot move a structure into an area where the appraised value as set by the Jefferson County Appraisal District is less than 50 % of the average appraised value of the residential structures surrounding that location within 400 feet. In other words, if the value of the house that you are moving is not compatible with the area that it's being moved to, then the permit will be denied. This is supposed to be done prior to the moving of the structure. If the Building Official determines that the values are not compatible, then the permit will not be issued. This ordinance is a result of some things that have happened and the Board of Adjustment is the appellate body. If the moving permit is denied, then the applicant can appeal to the Board of Adjustment for determination as to value. After the house is moved, repairs have to be made within 90 days. Mr. Cooper informed the Board that there would be a case of this type on the November agenda. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. 7