Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 02/17/1988In
M I N U T E S
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 17, 1988
PRESENT
David Gossom, Vice Chairman
William Kidd
Bill Rowland Members
Syd Litteken, Alternate #1
Richard Sutherland, Alternate #3
Edna Boren, Alternate #4
Roger McKinney, Director of Planning * City Staff
Paul Stillson, Planner II
Barbara Bridges, Secretary
ABSENT
Richard Sutton * Members
Adrienne Barker, Alternate #2
(The Board was composed of only eight members at the time of this
meeting.)
CALL TO ORDER
`} The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Vice Chairman
David Gossom, who presided in the absence of the Chairman.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Richard Sutherland, secondedanuary bO,William Mindd, and
carried with none opposed that the
be
approved.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. A-88-01. Administrative appeal for approval of a wooden
divider in the front yard for landscaping purposes
and not regulating it as a fence.
The Board was addressed by Jed Mahon, applicant. Mr. Mahon stated
his construction is not a fence according to the definition in
the Zoning Ordinance (an artificially constructed barrier of any
material or combination of materials erected to enclose or screen
areas of land), because it does not enclose his yard. It is to be
used as a divider and backdrop for roses and other landscaping.
Mr. Mahon stated this would not be detrimental to the neighbor-
hood, would not block the view, or hinder the delivery of mail.
ae ..
__j
77
Board members were shown pictures of what the staff termed a
fence, which is approximately 6' tall, tapering to 3'
tending to within 1' of the sidewalk on both sides of thend rd.
Vice Chairman Gossom noted you cannot see through an Yard.
this wooden divider. g Y Part of
After discussion, it was moved by Richard Sutherland that the
appeal be denied, because although the construction does not
enclose the entire yard, it does screen the property. The motion
was seconded by William Kidd and carried with none opposed, and 5
in favor by Litteken, Kidd, Boren, Gossom and Sutherland. Bill
Rowland did not vote, as he was not present at the beginning of
this business item.
2. A-88-02. Administrative appeal to allow removal of 4 trees
in the street right-of-way
The Board was addressed by W.C. Snodgrass, Jr., who was one of
the members present from Lamar Baptist Church. Mr. Snodgrass
explained the church plans to remove four trees from the street
right-of-way, and replace them with seven cedar elm trees in the
church setback area. The trees would be approximately 10' high,
which would be 4' higher than the required minimum height. Mr.
Snodgrass stated the request is made for several reasons, includ-
ing:
- This would be aesthetically more pleasing, as the proposed
trees "are far superior," and would complement a new building
being constructed.
- The old trees might interfere with the installation of a new
sprinkler system, and with potential growth of the new trees.
- What they are proposing is a reasonable alternative.
Mr. McKinney advised the staff has granted permission to remove
two of the trees, which are not healthy. However, keeping the
other two trees would not have any impact on the development or
landscaping plans, and this provision was included in the Zoning
Ordinance to protect existing vegetation.
Mr. Sutherland stated he did not see why it would be necessary to
remove two healthy trees. Mr. Rowland stated if it doesn't make
any difference what kind or where you plant trees, then why do
people hire professional landscapers. After further discussion,
Mr. Rowland moved that the request be approved. The motion was
seconded by Syd Litteken, but failed by a vote of 1 in favor by
Bill Rowland, and 4 opposed by Litteken, Kidd, Gossom. Therefore, the appeal was denied. Sutherland, and
2. V-88-03. Request to reduce the building setback from 25' to
for construction of a build
Sttreetin at 102 Henrietta
This business item was presented by Jack Tucker of Central Okla-
homa Freight Lines. Mr. Tucker stated that at the last meeting
ME
M
0
M
IM
0
13
0
13
M
=.No.�-r78
C3
(when the request was denied), the Chairman had questioned justi-
fication for the variance, so the company wished to address the
Board in more detail on the hardships they would be facing. He
advised the proposed building will be a shop for maintenance and
repair of the diesel trucks, which is needed, since Wichita Falls
is a key city in Texas for this business. Construction of this
building with a 15' setback will cut off 2 available doors to the
terminal. Construetion at a cutting setback
6 ould doorseC and ineeffect
turn-
ing the building parallel, cu
"wipe out one side of our terminal".
Mr. Litteken asked why the new building could not be attached to
the existing building. Mr. Tucker stated this would involve
removal of the overhang of the roof, along with a portion of the
steel girders and "we don't know what this would do to the roof."
Mr. Litteken suggested a built-in gutter construction for the
roof rather than the overhang. Mr. Tucker replied that the cost
for that would be very high, and Mr. Edsall stated it would also
involve relocation of the electrical system. Mr. Tucker also
referred to conditions brought out at the last meeting, including
the fact that there are other buildings in this area within the
setback, and Jalonick dead -ends at Mill.
Mr. McKinney advised the existing setback in this area is approx-
imately 18'. Of the 20 notices mailed, 5 in opposition have been
received (1 property owner, 5 properties).
After further discussion by the Board, Richard Sutherland moved
that the variance be granted based on:
- the reasons presented at the last meeting, that Mill is
essentially an untraveled dirt road parallel to the railroad
tracks, and Jalonick ends at Mill.
- the proposal for the building does not appear to be incon-
sistent with the intent of the ordinance or injurious to the
neighborhood.
there are unique circumstances createdthe b ,
by ildin and
by the fact that there is little traffic on ad
would not
permit an activity on the land not
_ variance wou
the
v arian
j allowed by the ordinance.
This motion was seconded by William Kidd and carried with none
by Rowland, Litteken, Kidd, Sutherland and
opposed and 5 in favor
Gossom.
4. V-88-04. Variance request to construct a 5 ft. tall wrought
iron fence with brick ilasters at a distance of 25
ft. from the propertV line at 3106 Hamilton Blvd.
The Board was addressed by James Cunningham, applicant, hou d be
and by
Don Daugherity, architect. They stated this variance
Item No.
'age No.
79
granted for the following reasons:
- The request "is in harmony with the objectives of Code
3080," with regard to the setbacks.
- Nothing is being requested that "is not in accord with the
rights enjoyed by others." The adjacent property and other lots
in the district have a fence at the property line.
- The fence is 90a open.
Discussion centered on the fact that the building setback for
this lot is 150'. Mr. McKinney explained that when the building
limit line is established on a plat, this distance must be used
for the setback, rather than the minimum required by ordinance.
For instance, there are several subdivisions in town with a 30'
setback. The difference in this request and others which have
been submitted to the Board is that the fences were near or even
on the property line.
After further discussion it was moved by Mr. Sutherland that the
variance be granted based on:
- his understanding that the setback has been prescribed in
this instance of 150' as opposed to the Zoning Ordinance
(minimum) requirement of a 25' setback; therefore, there are
special conditions that exist.
- there would not be anything injurious to the neighborhood,
and the fence will be placed in such a way so as not to obstruct
the traffic view or create a problem on the intersection.
This motion was seconded by William Kidd, and carried with none
opposed and 5 in favor by Rowland, Litteken, Kidd, Sutherland and
Gossom.
5. V-88-05. Variance re(
aistance of 2
st to construct an addition at a
rom
increase the lot�coverateetoear 45%pertatp4510 Barbadosd
Sydney Seligson, applicant, presented his request to the Board.
He cited various reasons for approval of his variance including:
- Deed restrictions established the 35' setback on my lot. If
it were 25' I would not need a variance (for the setback).
- My lot is only 118' deep whereas the lot behind mine is 142'
deep, and most of the lots in the area are deeper than mine.
- The addition will provide a bedroom for my handicapped
mother-in-law, and a studio for my wife, who is a painter and
needs the north light.
M
LM
0
La
0
U
Item No. ;1�4 i!
80 Page No.
13
M
rya
E
- There are other lots in this subdivision with construction
in the setback.
I am not exceeding the maximum lot coverage by very much.
- The distance would not violate the spirit of the ordinance,
or hurt my neighbors.
Board members were provided information on existing violations of
the setback in Colonial Park. It was noted the greatest number
of the building permits were issued after the tornado, and all
occurred prior to zoning. There are no setback violations in Mr.
Seligson's block °onBerbadgs�heAlso,
maximumthere
lot are
coverage known violations
in colonial Park
Vice Chairman Gossom explained to Mr. Seligson that because the
property is not large enough to accommodate his plans, this does
not constitute a special condition. After further discussion it
was moved by Syd Litteken that the request be denied based on the
fact that there are no "unique conditions for this particular
property the owner cannot live within." This motion was seconded
by Richard Sutherland
dekena xiaaleautherlandnone
and Go� sod ,and 5 in
favor by Rowland,
4. Add -on
Mr. Gossom stated that Chairman Sutton asked him to note that
procedural guidelines for conducting the meetingsare needed. g with the
r.
McKinney advised the Planning staff is currently w
Legal Department on this matter.
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
vid Goss;
ce Chairman Date
f %.:
Item P+o. ,.'�
rage No.;
No