Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 06/19/1991M PRESENT M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 19, 1991 Ralph Perkins, Chairman Tom Hill r Burrell Lacey * Members Syd Litteken David Farabee * Councilor Roger McKinney, Director of Planning Greg Humbach, City Attorney * City Staff Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator Barbara Bridges, Recording Secretary ABSENT Scott Cannaday * Alternate (The Board was composed of only 5 members at the time of this meeting.) CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chairman Perkins. APPROVAL OF MAY 15, 1991 MINUTES Burrell Lacey referred to Mr. Porell's statement on page 170 of the May 15, 1991 Minutes, that he could not get his car into the back yard due to the location of a large sycamore tree. Mr. Lacey stated that he thought Mr. Porell had indicated that he intended to remove the tree, but the removal was a matter of sequence. Upon question- ing, Mr. Humbach stated that if in fact this was mentioned it could have some bearing on the issue of hardship. It was moved by Tom Hill that the minutes be approved, with the stipulation that the staff review the records of the last meeting and notify the Board if the minutes should be revised to reflect that statement. The motion was seconded by Burrell Lacey and carried unanimously. (Note: A review of the Recording Secretary's notes did not indicate the need to revise the minutes.] V-91-03. Variance request to reduce the required 30 ft. setback from a residential zone to 5 ft. and the exterior side setback from 25 ft. to 15 ft. for property at 2215 Shepherd St. (Lot 14A, Blk 1, W.E. Wilson Addn.) Gene Stephens, builder, attended the meeting to present this request to the Board. Chairman Perkins advised him of his option to proceed or not to proceed with only four members present, since four votes are required for any Board action. Mr. Stephens chose to proceed. Item No. LYb Page No. 172 Im He displayed the final plat on this lot which illustrated that with a 25' setback from Kell, and a 30' setback from the single-family zone on the other side, there is more setback than lot (a minus 51). If the owner is. required to meet these setbacks, it would completely deprive him of the benefit of the land, making it worthless. Burrell Lacey noted that the owner of this lot also owns the lot across the street, and the store could be constructed there without the need for variances. Mr. McKinney and Chairman Perkins advised at that this request only concerns whether or not this lot warrants a variance. Property owned across the street or anywhere else in the city is not a consideration. Mr. Stephens stated that there are no to plans for construction on the other lot, and the property is for sale. Mr. Mukerjee stated that this is a 'classic' case for consideration of a variance. The lot is irregular in shape, and if the setbacks are met, it results in a negative dimension, depriving the owner of the reasonable use of the property. Chairman Perkins noted that the construction of Kell Freeway created many irregular lots. He stated his opinion that this would be a denying of the use of the property when the shape of the lot would make it totally unusable without a variance of some kind. Burrell Lacey referred to the objections received last year from property owners opposing the reduction of the 30' separation from a single-family zone to 51. Mr. Mukerjee stated that the staff had reviewed this concern, and believe that due to the small scope and size of the development that it would not have an adverse impact on It the residential property. This is not a restaurant or club, and will not have late hours of operation, and the staff feels that the busi- ness would meet the intent of the ordinance. Syd Litteken asked what could prevent this business from being sold and then expanded. Mr. AW Mukerjee advised that this is the maximum size building which could be constructed on this lot, as any expansion could not meet the off- street parking requirements, and would not be allowed. After further discussion, Tom Hill stated that since the building is going to be a residential -type construction with a 6' privacy fence, he did not see how it would be objectionable. Also, the property was sold (by the City of Wichita Falls) as a Limited Commercial lot. He moved that the request be approved. This motion was seconded by Syd Litteken, but failed to carry by vote of 3 in favor by Hill, Perkins and Litteken, and 1 opposed by Burrell Lacey. Chairman Perkins advised Mr. Stephens that the request was therefore denied. I OTHER BUSINESS Discussion on permitting carports in the front setback area Board members were provided with copies of a Study of Carports in Front Yards, which has also been presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their consideration. Mr. McKinney advised that since this issue involves the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the report was being provided for information purposes. Item No. 1**5 173 Page No. �_ The study was prepared by the Planning Department at the request of Councilors Kirkham and Martin, who have received several calls con - AN cerning this issue. Mr. McKinney noted that requests for carport construction in the front yard (front building setback) have been received since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, usually from residents who have enclosed their garage. Presently the only option for allowing this is through a variance obtained from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and since a variance must be based on conditions of the lot rather than on the actions of the applicant, most variance requests have been denied. Of 10 such requests considered by the Zoning Board, 7 have been denied, 2 approved, and 1 withdrawn. Mr. Mukerjee also addressed the Board on the study concerning the various options which were listed. He noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission has requested further information on an option which would allow carports if property is rezoned to an SF-3 category. However, it was recognized that this might create the problem of an undesirable stigma on those areas. Burrell Lacey stated that the worst problem on this is when carports are allowed out to the street and then are closed in. Mr. Mukerjee noted that no option would solve all the problems. However, the option of no change would leave continuous pressure on the Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant variances for carports. It also would not alleviate the problem of the chance of liability for Al the Zoning Board of Adjustment and its members. Burrell Lacey noted that the previous Assistant City Attorney had advised the Board to always base a motion on the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance in order to avoid the possibility of suits. Chairman Perkins noted another 16 school of thought on this is not to cite any specific criteria, making it more difficult to prove that the Board acted in an arbitrary manner, since by law the Board is presumed to act in a is reasonable manner. Im Syd Litteken asked if the Building Inspector could make a decision without having the Board hear all these cases. Mr. McKinney assured Mr. Litteken that people are advised that carport construction in the setback is illegal. Consequently, perhaps 9 out of 10 cases are not seen by the Board. However, if a property owner asks what recourse there is, he is informed, and has the right to a hearing if he requests it. After further discussion, Chairman Perkins noted that the rezoning option is neighborhood derivative, and the opportunity for the public to voice their concerns has always been one intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The,r6ee1ting ydjoi/rneld at 2:35 p.m. Item No. Page No. 174