Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 03/18/1992rl- El FM M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 18, 1992 PRESENT Scott Cannaday, Chairman Tom Hill 11. 0. (Bill) Franklin * Members Roger Murphy Dr. Edwin C. Bebb David Farabee * Councilor Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator * City Staff Margaret Bussey, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chairman Scott Cannaday. Mr. Cannaday welcomed the new board members Dr. Edwin C. Bebb and Mr. W. 0. (Bill) Franklin. They were appointed January 1992. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Roger Murphy, seconded by Tom Hill that the October 16, 1992 Minutes be approved. Chairman Cannaday noted on Page 3, that Mr. Scott Lacey be changed to Mr. Burrell Lacey. With this correction the motion to approve was unanimously carried. V-92-01. Variance request to reduce exterior building setback and required separation from Single -Family Residential zone for Lot 14A Block 1 W E Wilson Addition (2215 Shepherd Street). Mr. Gene Stephens, Builder, Real Estate representing Robyne Ray Simpson Dallas, Texas. ,10 This property was purchased approximately 3 years ago. It was and is Limited Commercial. The variance requested is: 1. Reduction of the 0 separation from a Single Family Residential zoning boundary from 30 feet to 5 feet. (Section 4640 B, C) and 2. Reduce the exterior setback from 25' to 15' in an LC zone. (Section 3410 (5). The existing ordinance states that the setback from a single family residential zoning boundary must be 30 feet. The front setback must be 25 feet. This particular lot measures 50 feet. This would leave A a negative 5 feet for construction. The land was purchased as LC and it is implied that someone would build on it. Even with the 5' setback on the side and 25' setback it would be practically A impossible to construct a residence on this particular lot because it would only allow a 20 foot wide house. Item No. M1w1� Page No. _I___ reason to know certain setbacks were standard and that they did exist at the time the property was purchased. Those are the setbacks Mr. Mukerjee previously stated. Mr. Stephens would have reason to know at the time of purchase that there were setbacks related to a LC piece of property. That there is a set of standard setbacks. From a staff standpoint we have to look at the reasons cited by the applicant in asking for a variance. The reasons that are cited did ,,ot say that they didn't know about the restrictions. The reasons they have cited for this application is the size and shape of this lot and that is what we have to look at and not whether the applicant knew about it or whether they were unaware of the setback requirements. The evidence before you is the application which basically states the reasons to be the size and shape of the lot. Mr. Bill Franklin On the backside of this building would there be anything to distinguish it from a single family residence in construction. Mr. Gene Stephens responded no. As a matter of fact as it is to be constructed it could be a single family residence. Mr Bill Franklin asked are there any entrances to the back portion of the building that would front up against the adjacent residential property. + Mr. Gene Stephens resp:led none at all. There is an entrance on the east side from the carport into the structure. Part of the package is to construct a 6 foot fence the length of the property. Mr. Scott Cannadav asked if the submitted floor plan was the proposed floor plan for the building. Mr. Gene Stephens responded that there wasn't a working drawing and would not be one until approval had been obtained. Mr. Roger Murphy inquired as to when the property was purchased. Was this purchase before or after the zoning law. Mr. Subir Mukerjee stated the property was sold to a Mr. Kirkland in 1989 by the City. Mr. Simpson in turn purchased it from Mr. Kirkland that same year. This was surplus Kell right-of-way property. Dr. Edwin Bebb asked if there was any reason why the structure could not be built further from the fence line towards the frontage road. Im Mr. Scott Cannadav stated that the Board's position was not to change the submitted plans but to deal with the presented application for variance. Mr. Stephens interjected that if this was a requirement he felt sure the applicant would accept this requirement. Mr. Cannaday again stated that the Board only had authority to make a decision based upon the submitted application. Item No. Page No. -A _- Mr Subir Muker�ee said that is correct. 40 There was more discussion on the fence issue. Whether there are any restrictions on how close to a house a fence could be placed. There are no restrictions on placement, it can be placed on the property line even if the property line is one foot away from a structure. M_r. Scott Cannaday stated the fence issue is a condition of the adjacent properties and could be a problem but that is not really an issue for this board to decide. The issue before the board is a request to vary the zoning requirements of certain setbacks from the street and from single family residential zone to the northside of the property. The review criteria delineated in section 7340 which deals with the granting of a variance which would not be contrary to public interest. This would be in regard to special conditions other than financial hardship. It will not permit an activity on the land not allowed by the ordinance. It should be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. These are the four criteria available for the board to act on for this variance as presented by Mr. Simpson via Mr. Stephens. He asked for discussion among the Board. Mr. Tom Hill commented that it did not appear to be adverse to the neighborhood. The building appears to be residential in character and nice looking. The property line is the property line no matter what. The variance request meets the requirements for LC. He would be in favor of this variance. Mr. Bill Franklin stated that he sympathizes with the Blevins' plight but they had no objection at one time to the use of this property by Mr. Simpson. He agrees with Mr. Hill and can support the variance. Mr. Scott Cannaday asked if there were any other comments from the board. There being nonb, he entertained a motion for acting on this variance. Mr. Tom Hill made a motion that the variance V-92-01 be approved in accordance with the terms of 7340 as presented by Mr. Simpson. It was seconded by Mr. Franklin and the motion was passed unanimously by a roll call vote of Franklin, Hill, Cannaday, Bebb and Murphy. The meeting adjourned at 2:19 p.m. V: cott Cann 0 y, Cha' an 3 -zl-9L Date Item No. mIMS Page No. r-_