Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 05/18/198871 M M M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 18, 1988 PRESENT Richard Sutton, Chairman William Kidd Bill Rowland Adrienne Barker, Alternate #1 Richard Sutherland, Alternate #2 Edna Boren, Alternate #3 Roger McKinney, Director of Planning Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Paul Stillson, Planner II Barbara Bridges, Secretary ABSENT David Gossom Syd Litteken Burrell Lacey, Alternate #4 CALL TO ORDER Members City Staff Members The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Chairman Sutton. go APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Bill Rowland, seconded by Adrienne Barker, and go carried unanimously the March 16, 1988 Minutes be approved. ADD -ON Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson advised the request for summary judgment against Mrs. Padilla (1606 Phoenix) has been postponed due to the criminal trial schedule. The date now sched- uled is June 7th. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. A-88-04. Administrative appeal to definition of fence as it pertains to 4200 Sondra Drive The Board was addressed by Odes Brewer, applicant. Mr. Brewer claimed his 30" (211) two -rail construction in the front yard "is not a fence whatsoever, because it does not keep anything in or out." Also, there is a 16'-wide open entry for the driveway. Item No. Page No. i 86 717 Mrs. Mahon, 5202 Allegheny, appeared in support of Mr. Brewer's request, and also reiterated that the wooden divider' in her yard is a landscaping feature, and anyone should be allowed to add whatever is attractive to their yard. As at the last two meetings, it was explained to her that it was ruled the 'wooden divider' does screen the yard, and therefore is in violation of the ordinance as a fence in the front setback. rrr It was moved by Richard Sutherland that this appeal be granted for basically the same reasons he presented for the case at the last meeting, that the definition of a fence is inartfully drawn, and looking at the 'creation' involved in this request it appears that it does not enclose nor screen the property. This motion was seconded by Bill Rowland. Chairman Sutton spoke against the motion, noting that the Board should consider the intent of the ordinance that no fences are allowed in the front setback in single-family and duplex resiaw - dential uses. The motion failed by a vote of 3 in favor by Suth- erland, Kidd, and Rowland and 2 opposed by Sutton and Barker. Therefore the appeal was denied. No Mr. Brewer asked how the Board could approve the appeal at the last meeting (4305 Viewpark) when "it is not near as pretty." Chairman Sutton advised that no one had changed their voting or their opinion. However, the members present to vote on the pre- vious appeal were not the same members present to vote on this one. Lengthy discussion ensued on the fence issue. Mr. Rowland also questioned if the Board could approve one request one time and not the next. He felt the Board had set a precedent by deter- mining the other case was not a fence. Mrs. Barker stated the Board "does not need to be a rubber stamp." In her opinion this fence does screen the yard, and if she had been at the previous meeting she would have voted against that appeal, as she believes allowing people to put up fences in the front yard is a contradiction to the ordinance. William Kidd directed comments to Councilor Ron Buffum who was present, stating the Board is "just about to an impasse on this" and the issue needs to be addressed by the City Council. Mr. Buffum stated he believes "the matter is the definition of a fence," and assured Mr. Kidd he will carry the Board's concerns back to the City Council. 2. A-88-05. Administrative appeal to definition of fence as it pertains to 1609 Red Fox Road Marion Gwynn, applicant, also felt the Board should rule the same for him as for the appeal approved for the split -rail fence. His construction consists of 2' high wrought iron sections separated by 4' high brick pilasters, but does not extend across the front, only down the sides. Item No. Page No. 2�__ 87 77 Members of the audience who spoke in support of Mr. Gwynn included Mrs. Mahon, Carl Cook, Mark Woods, and Dennis McGowan. Mr. McGowan spoke in greater length on the issue, stating that since no one had objected to the fences, only to the ordinance, the Board should allow these variances. Chairman Sutton advised the Board cannot rewrite the ordinance. After further discussion Richard Sutherland moved that the appeal be granted. He felt the structure does not enclose. Also, "In my mind the structure neither separates or protects" --two defini- tions of the word screen found in Webster's Dictionary. However, he stated he did want to draw a distinction between the Mahon's wood structure and this one, because the wooden structure does screen. The motion was seconded by Bill Rowland. The votes and comments were as follows: . Barker - Opposed. Even with Webster's definition, this is used to separate one property from another, and does infringe on the visual corridor. . Sutton - Opposed. With regard to the definition in the zoning ordinance, the ordinance does not say enclose or screen completely, so this is a fair decision to say this does enclose and screen. . Rowland - In favor. . Kidd - In favor of the motion because "the whole ordinance is a travesty the way it is written." . Sutherland - In favor. go Therefore the appeal was denied by a vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. 3. V-88-06. Variance request from Section 4620 Screening Require- ments along Kenley Lane for property addressed at 1024 Central Freeway Richard Davenport, applicant, advised he is also requesting a curb cut on Kenley as well as a variance for the fencing require- ment. Mr. Mukerjee referred to Mr. Davenport's application, where he stated there are no existing fences on Kenley, and that there are some existing commercial curb -cuts. The existing commercial establishments were constructed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance, and therefore did not have to provide any screening. Additionally, most of the commercial establishments are located on the part of Kenley which has commercial zoning on both sides of the street, and thus no screening is required. There is an existing drainage ditch on the north part of the property, and no screening is being required along this section. Mr. Mukerjee advised granting the variance and construction of the curb cut would channel traffic through a residential area. Mr. Davenport noted there is only one home on Kenley which will face the restaurant, and it is next to a sewer pump station. Item No. =� 88 During discussion by the Board, Mr. Kidd agreed with Mr. Daven- port that a fence would block the view of traffic since the property line is 5' from the curb. After further discussion, Chairman Sutton stated he would make a motion only because no other members had, that the request be approved, with the intention of voting opposed. The motion was seconded by Adrienne Barker. Chairman Sutton then voted in opposition to the motion, because he strongly believes that separation measures between residential and commercial development need to be very vigorously pursued. Votes of the other members were 3 in favor by Rowland, Kidd, and Barker, and 1 more opposed by Richard Sutherland. Therefore, the variance was denied. Mr. Davenport said this decision "is ludicrous." He also noted he had turned in his request for last month's meeting, which was not held. Mr. Raul Vasquez, 2519 Brownlee, also protested this action of the Board, noting the fast traffic speed on Kenley. Mr. Sutherland stated his opinion to Mr. Vasquez that since a fence is required, there will not be a curb cut on Kenley, which would have contributed to the traffic. 4. A-88-06. Administrative appeal to allow a roofing company office in the Brook Avenue District at Lot 24, Blk 32, Southland Addition Applicant David Flores addressed the Board, with his main point that the use should be allowed because it is merely an office for the telephone and bookkeeping. "All work is contracted out, and there is no storage of heavy commercial equipment." Mr. Mukerjee explained the staff has determined the office is incidental to the roofing company, a use that is prohibited in the Brook Avenue district. It was also explained to Mr. Flores that even if his appeal is approved, the business still would not be allowed, as he cannot meet the off-street parking require- ments. David McGowan, 1706 Collins, stated the information presented by Mr. Flores does not reflect what is happening. He advised there are two dump trucks and a pick-up truck parked there during busi- ness hours. Mr. Flores stated these trucks "come around every so often" because the drivers are unfamiliar with Wichita Falls. Gary Hopkins, representing the Southland Homeowners Association, stated "this is a good example of why certain activities don't fit in." Chairman Sutton moved that the appeal be denied based on the fact that the office is related to and incidental to another use, and this is not permitted under Section 3842 of the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. 77 77 M M rn 77 M Item No. ,„is Page No. 4 99 777 ta 5. Review of proposed administrative procedures for the Zoning Board of Adjustment Board members were provided copies of a survey made by the Plan- ning Department on selected Texas cities regarding finding of fact, reapplication waiting period, and rules of order. Mr. Mukerjee noted any change regarding the first two items would require amendment of the ordinance. Ms. Thompson advised that if a zoning board does not require a finding of fact, it is harder for a decision to be overturned, because the court can imply a logical finding of fact to support the decision. However, if action of a board is arbitrary, a requirement for finding of fact is needed. Richard Sutherland stated he doesn't think the Board needs an official rule of order, as he is not convinced that "to reduce the Board to parliamentary procedure would best help people." Chairman Sutton asked the members to consider these issues, and action on them will be taken at the next meeting. 6. Add -on Due to a conflict of schedule Chairman Sutton asked if the next meeting could be held June 23rd. This was tentatively set as the next meeting date. He also suggested the regular meetings be changed to the fourth Thursday. ho The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. i Richard Sutton, Chairman Date Item No. M,NS Page No. S �r 90