1995-01-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

116 ORDINANCE: ROAD ALIGNMENT ADJUSTMENT - SHAMROCK ROAD (SALE/ EASEMENT) Mr. Larry McElwain, attorney for owners of the property at 115 Shamrock Road, explained that the property owners had reconfigured the property and had mistakenly misaligned the house so that it does not meet the required setback requirement of 13 feet. Mr. McElwain stated that the variance request to the Board of Zoning Appeals was denied and the options remaining to the owners are: 1) cut off 7 feet of the front of the house; 2) reconfigure the lot lines to gain additional rear setback and move the house; or 3) purchase a strip of land from the City, granting an easement for the land back to the City, which would bring the house into compliance with the setback regulations. Mr. McElwain stated that option #1 is not an acceptable option, and option #2 would be prohibitively expensive. In exchange for the strip of land, Mr. McElwain explained that the owners' original proposal was to complete the sidewalk construction on the remainder of the street, but this was found to also be prohibitively expensive when the City estimated the cost of sidewalk construction at $40,000 due to the need to build retaining walls and handrails. Mr. McElwain stated that the owmers are now proposing to contribute $15,000 to the City's sidewalk construction fund which would benefit the neighborhood, would maintain the integrity of the structure, and would help the City increase funds for sidewalk construction. Mr. McElwain noted that the owners are continuing to explore the cost of privately constructing the sidewalk and if the cost is substantially less than the $40,000 estimate then the owners would agree to either contribute the $15,000 or construct the sidewalk. Mr. Hendrix explained that Mr. Huja has recommended that the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals be upheld, but his recommendation and that of the City Attorney, is to either require the owners to build the sidewalk or contribute $20,000 to the City's sidewalk construction fund. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. McElwain estimated that the owners own approximately 15 other units, but he added that most units have been renovated and not newly constructed. Mr. Toscano asked where this sidewalk is on the list of future sidewalks to be constructed, and Mr. Gouldman replied that he was informed by Ms. Mueller that there are no immediate plans for the City to build this sidewalk due to the difficulty in constructing it. Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever about why Ivlr. Huja thought the ruling of the Board of Zoning Appeals should be upheld, Mr. Huja stated that while he sympathizes with the property owners, he is concerned that the decision of the BZA would be sidestepped and that a precedent would be set for future cases. Mr. McElwain explained that due to recent court rulings, the Board of Zoning Appeals did not have the authority to grant a variance in this situation. Mr. Vandever stated that he thinks it would be reasonable to require the property owners to contribute the $20,000 to the City or to build the sidewalk themselves to the City's specifications and made a motion to that effect. Ms. Daugherty seconded the motion. The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON SHAMROCK ROAD TO CRAIG PIC~RING AND RICH~ WARD," on the condition that the owners contribute $20,000 to the CitY's sidewalk construction fund, or construct the sidewalk on Shamrock Road to the CitY's specification," was carded over to the next meeting for consideration. ORDINANCE: CLOSING HEDGE STREET BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD STREETS Mr. Gouldman explained that the Planning Commission had recommended that the portion of Hedge Street between 2nd and 3rd Streets be closed on the condition that the City would reserve a 20 foot wide pedestrian access easement along the centertine, which easement shall expire if someone from the private sector fails to construct a 5 foot wide