Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 07/19/1989M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A July 19, 1989 PRESENT Richard Sutton, Chairman * William Kidd, Vice Chairman * Members Bill Rowland Richard Sutherland Burrell Lacey, Alternate #2 * Councilor Ron Buffum Roger McKinney, Director of Planning * Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Coordinator * City Staff Subir Mukerjee, Development Julie Black, Planner II Barbara Bridges, Recording Secretary ABSENT Syd Litteken Edna Boren, Alternate #1 * * Members Carl Wilson, Alternate #3 Harold Arnett, Alternate #4 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sutton at 1:40 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Richard Sutherland, seconded by Burrell Lacey, and carried unanimously that the May 17, 1989 Minutes be approved. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. V-87-06. Reconsideration of a variance request from Sec. 4220 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a carport to remain in the front setback area at 1606 Phoenix Drive The Board was addressed by Marty Cannedy, representing Velda Padilla, applicant. Mr. Cannedy noted the Padillas converted their garage into living space 8 to 10 years ago. After enactment of the Zoning Ordinance, the carport was constructed. Factors Mr. Cannedy cited as supporting the claim that the variance should be granted included: - Mrs. Padilla works an 11:00 to 7:00 shift, and the carport offers a measure of security and personal safety. - There is no alley behind the home; therefore rear alley access with a carport in the back is not an option. Item No. Page No. 117 - There are several other carports in Sunset Terrace, includ- ing one next door to the Padillas, and another two houses down. Her carport is similar to the ones previously constructed in the area. Therefore, her carport would not affect the neighborhood any more than it already has been. - The trees on this street and also the van parked in the carport block the view of the carport. - Approximately 30 residents in the area have signed a state- ment that they do not object to her carport. - The practice has been established in Wichita Falls of converting garages to living spaces and building carports. Chairman Sutton called for any comments from the staff concerning this request. Mr. Mukerjee noted the existing carports in the area in violation of the setback were all constructed, to the best of his knowledge, prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Since adoption of the ordinance, only 2 carports have been approved by the Zoning Board in the setback area. One was begun prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance and allowed to be finished, and one was allowed in a General Commercial zone which abutted an out- door storage area. Mrs. Padilla was also present. She stated most of the carports in this area were constructed on larger lots which could meet the setback requirement; however, not all of them were. It was noted that if there are other carports in the area constructed in the setback after adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, they are existing illegally. Mr. Sutherland asked if the fact that there are two or three other carports on this street would determine that there has been a vio- lation of the visual corridor. Mr. Mukerjee replied the question here is if there are special conditions regarding the lot on which to grant a variance. Mr. Sutherland asked if the fact that there is no alley access is a special condition. Mr. Mukerjee stated if this is used as a criteria, the ordinance would need to be amended to allow carports on every lot which does not have alley access. It was brought out at this meeting again that the carport was constructed without a building permit, and if Mrs. Padilla had applied for one it would have been denied. Therefore, the condi- tions and circumstances for needing the variance are specifically the result of the actions of the applicant. Mr. Sutherland stated the applicant did not know when the garage was enclosed that a carport would not be allowed in later years. Chairman Sutton noted that with zoning, a carport is still allowed, but encroach- ment into the setback for a carport is not. Some discussion was held on the process prior to zoning for construction of a carport into the setback if approval of the neighbors was obtained. Lengthy discussion was held concerning the review criteria, and on the issue of setting a precedent. Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Item No. 118 Page No. e Im Thompson referred members to Sec. 7835 of the ordinance concerning a variance: To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of this Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship and the granting of the variance would provide substantial justice conforming with the spirit and intent hereof. After further discussion, Mr. Sutherland stated it is his opinion that "a visual corridor in this neighborhood doesn't exist," and therefore granting a variance would not be contrary to the public interest. He stated specific conditions do exist in that there is no rear access, and also that when the garage was constructed there was no way of knowing that in the future a shelter could not be built for a vehicle. Granting the variance would not be incon- sistent with the intent of the ordinance, injurious to the neighbors, or detrimental to the publiabout ut nthe by the fact that no one has ever appeared complaining carport. For these reasons he moved that the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by william Kidd. Chairman Sutton stated that the application fails to meet all four of the review criteria which the Board has been charged to con- sider. It was his opinion that no special condition has been cited which would merit granting of the variance, and this would not be in harmony with the objectives of the ordinance. Rather, allowing a carport to be put in without a building permit, and in violation of the setback, would be specifically at odds with the ordinance. On a call for the vote, the motion failed to carry by 3 in favor from Sutherland, Kidd, and Rowland, and 2 opposed by Sutton and Lacey. 2. v-89-06. Request for va along the west Blk 61, Southl iance to delete the fence requirement 50 ft of the property for Lot 22 A, .,a Addition The Board was addressed by Donna Adams, applicant. She advised that the screening requirement would result in 50' of fence behind her building connected to no other fencing, as only half of her lot requires a fence, and adjacent commercial properties are not fenced. Also, alley access is allowed on half of the lot, and con- struction of the fence would only impede entrance and exit. Mrs. Adams explained she has offered to provide an 8' cedar fence on the back of the lot on the other side of the alley at her own jee expense, and the property ownerags in agreeme reement the property owner utorthe presented the letter o Board. Mr. Mukerjee noted that signilock prior to zoning, ficant commercial developmewithnt t the occurred on the applicant's b buffering fence and with alley access. Therefore, requiring 50' Item No. Page No. 119 of fence now would not accomplish the objectives of limiting vehicular traffic and providing a visual screen between commercial and residential zones. Mr. Mukerjee was asked if fencing could ever be required of the adjacent businesses. He noted this could be required only if a business was completely demolished and a new one constructed. During discussion by the Board it was explained that the variance could not be predicated on the promise to construct the fence on the other side of the alley, as this would be a private agreement. Also, the City could not enter into such an agreement. After further discussion, it was moved by Burrell Lacey that the variance be granted, because with the shape of the lot, a fence would not contribute anything to anybody. The motion was seconded by Bill Rowland, but failed to carry by vote of 3 in favor from Rowland, Sutton and Lacey, and 2 opposed by Sutherland and Kidd. The meeting/�d�journed at 3:07 p.m. 72� Richard4-Z�SnuMtn�,Cha�irm,�n��� Date Item No. 120 Page No.