Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 01/19/1994MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 19, 1994 PRESENT: ra Tom Hill, Chairman Dr. Edwin C. Bebb W. O. "Bill" Franklin Members Kenneth George Roger Murphy David A. Clark, Director of Community Development Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator Paul Stillson, Planner II City Staff Diane Parker, Recording Secretary I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Hill. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Franklin made a motion to approve the October 20, 1993 minutes. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. III. VARIANCE A. V 94-01 Variance request to construct an accessory dwelling 1914 Taylor Street Property Owner: Anna Priddy Requested Action: Variance Purpose: Reduce the minimum lot size required to construct an accessory residence from 10,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet Property: 1914 Taylor Street Lot 8, Block 99, Floral Heights Existing Land Use: Residence Zoning: Single Family-2 Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: North: Residences, SF-2 JUSTMENT JANUARY 19, 1994 PAGE 2 South: Residences, SF-2 East: Residences, SF-2 West: Residences, SF-2 The applicant, Mr. Creston Priddy, requests a variance to convert the garage at the rear of 1914 AN Taylor into a residence. In a Single Family Zone an accessory dwelling unit is permitted only on lots 10,000 square feet or greater (Section 6515 E). The applicant's lot is only 7,500 square feet; therefore, in order to receive a permit, he must first obtain a variance. Is Work has begun on this conversion, and according to the Building Inspection Division, inspections were made on the building; however, no building permit was issued. When Mr. Priddy applied for a permit, it was denied. SPECIAL CONDITIONWHARDSHIP The applicant has cited the following as special conditions/hardships: 1. 'The building is not in violation of my deed restrictions and does conform to the neighborhood. Will improve the neighborhood." 2. "Plumbing inspector approved rough -in and top -out and is plumbed with tub enclosure in place. I would not have continued work if I had known of a problem." 3. "All other property owners in the area are not denied two residences on corner lots. The existing building is not used to it best use." 4. "1 would not receive special privileges. My property would only conform to the neighborhood." CONSISTENT WITH ZONING ORDINANCE INTENT The intent of the restriction on second dwellings was to control the residential densities in single family districts. The ordinance authors reasoned that if a single residence was permitted on a 5,000 square foot lot, then lots over 10,000 square feet were deemed suitable for two residences. Conditions on the applicant's lot: There are two structures on the applicant's lot. The main residence is a 1,296 square foot structure built in 1926 and, in the rear, is a 640 square foot detached garage. It is this garage that he is converting to a dwelling. Along the rear of this lot is an alley. The lot is a regular -shaped lot (50' x 150'), 7,500 square feet in size, similar to many in the City. Conditions in the general area: There are two other lots with a second dwelling unit on them in this block. One is located at 1915 Fillmore and the other at 1901 Fillmore. Those units, both on comer lots, were built before zoning and are "grandfathered." In the past, second dwellings were sometimes built on the rear of comer lots, using the side street as frontage. After zoning was adopted, this practice was no longer permitted. There are several other accessory buildings in this block, however, staff could not enter the buildings to determine if they were dwelling units. Although the applicant received a plumbing inspection on his project, no building permit has been issued. A variance must be based on unnecessary hardship or special conditions. The applicant Is has not shown in his application that an unnecessary hardship or special conditions exist on his lot. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff chooses to offer comments on the applicant's contention of special conditions or hardships. �0 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 19, 1994 PAGE 3 responsibilities. Mr. Priddy replied that he talked with the Water Department and Mr. Tom Lofton said there were no water or sewer problems in that area. Mr. Lofton told Mr. Priddy there is a "Y" originally installed from the manhole and he could tie anything on it. Mr. Franklin asked if there were sewer facilities in the structure prior to his renovation. Mr. Priddy replied there was. When asked about water, Mr. Priddy stated there was water and electrical. Mr. Priddy stated he had planned to use the building for a residence then decided to test a new heating system. He then described how he would remodel the building. Mr. Priddy stated he talked with Ms. Doris Anderson (Sanitation) and she was not aware of any problems, but if there were they could be resolved with larger dumpsters. Mr. Priddy reported there is very little traffic with few accidents in that area. He gave several statistics from traffic counts and accident reports. He said Mr. John Cimarron from Police Traffic stated there were not any traffic problems in that area. Chairman Hill commented the only hardship he saw was a financial one. Mr. Seese explained that the State of Texas, not the City of Wichita Falls, sets the criteria for variances. Mr. Seese mentioned the effect on the area if a variance were granted and created a precedence for second residences throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Priddy and Mr. Seese discussed second residences with Mr. Priddy reciting several statistics from surveys he has done regarding the number of residences per lot. Mr. Franklin stated the procedures for the Zoning Board of Adjustment state that four items are considered when a variance is granted. Mr. Franklin asked Mr. Priddy to explain how he has changed the residence. Mr. Priddy replied that the slab was not even which he corrected; a. central heating and air conditioning system has been ordered; cabinets have been made; and electrical has been installed. Mr. Priddy stated there are no bathroom facilities in the building. The previous tenant used the room as a game room. Mr. Priddy replied to Mr. Franklin's question that he has owned the building approximately five years. Dr. Bebb asked if having the plumbing and electrical in the building would ameliorate the problem. Mr. Seese replied that there can not be two residences on lots that are 10,000 square foot or smaller. Mr. Priddy added that the utilities were installed in this building in 1926. Mr. Clark stated when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted density was a major concern. He mentioned the building was obviously built as a workshop since a rest room and kitchen were not installed, and not a residence. He stated staff recommends denying this request since the only hardship seems to be financial. Mr. Franklin commented he is not sure of the original usage of the building. He expressed concern about the structure having utility service. He agreed with the staffs recommendation. Mr. George asked if the property was purchased by Mr. Priddy after 1988. Mr. Priddy discussed grandfathering rights and the structures that have been burned in the neighborhood. Dr. Bebb stated that zoning plays an important part in our community and restricts rampant utilization of property. He expressed concern in issuing this variance because it might start a precedence. Dr. Bebb mentioned he was sympathetic towards Mr. Pdddy's problem. Mr. Priddy asked the Board to suggest uses for the building. Mr. Clark replied that it is an accessory building for the residence and it could be used as a garage, storage building, work room, etc. Mr. Priddy stated the plumber he contracted did take out a permit. Mr. Priddy applied for an electrical permit and was denied the permit; he did not need a building permit since the changes involved plumbing and electrical. 0 ,DJUSTMENT JANUARY 19, 1994 PAGE 4 3 F] A zoning ordinance would supersede any deed restriction which would allow accessory dwellings. In this case, no accessory dwellings would be permitted because of applicant's lot size. Applicant's contention that this accessory unit would improve the neighborhood is, in staffs opinion erroneous. Increasing residential densities in a neighborhood have detrimental effects upon traffic circulation, utility usage and solid waste handling. A plumbing inspector is called to inspect work to a building to insure compliance with local building codes. No requirements are placed on them to ensure compliance with zoning restrictions. do 3. All property owners in a neighborhood, unless grandfathered, are denied accessory dwelling units on a single lot under 10,000 square feet in lot size. 4. As previously explained there are two such accessory buildings in this neighborhood. Although grandfathered, they are still incompatible with the neighborhood In other words, just because they exist does not make them compatible or in conformity with adjacent or neighborhood properties. RECOMMENDATION The applicant has not demonstrated that special conditions exist on this lot; therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of this request. Mr. Priddy stated he has owned the property for several years. He said he would like to take issue with the items the Planning Division recommended against issuing the variance. He stated no building permit was issued because there was already a building (60 years old) on the property. Mr. Priddy commented he needed two inspections (plumbing and electrical). He then stated an inspector responds when a permit is issued. If an inspector declined to give him a permit on the property, then he should have "caught the first one." Mr. Priddy added that the accessory building was not intended to be used only as a garage. It is 40 feet long, has plumbing, electrical, cabinets, etc. He also stated the comment in the Staff Analysis #4 ("...where development of this lot would only be possible under a variance showing unique hardship") is incorrect. This lot was developed in the 1920's. All residences except two (including his lot) have two residences on each lot. Mr. Priddy reported his results from driving through the neighborhood and finding lots with more than one residence. Mr. Priddy stated the Zoning Ordinance supersedes the deed restrictions and there are not any (deed restrictions) in that area. Mr. Priddy remarked any time there was a vacant building in the neighborhood it would be a detriment. He stated there is a vacant two story apartment building in the next block owned by the City. If the City would improve their building it would improve his building. If a variance were to be granted, Mr. Priddy said he would be like everyone else on the north side of Avenue J. He stated he is the only comer residential lot without two residences. Mr. Priddy asked if the Zoning Ordinance overrides the deed restrictions. Mr. Seese replied deed restrictions address many issues in a neighborhood. Generically, the Zoning Ordinance does override the deed restrictions. Mr. Priddy asked what kinds of hardships would be considered since financial hardships do not apply. Mr. Seese stated an example of a hardship would be an irregularly shaped lot where setback standards were reduced. Hardships include restrictions from the Zoning Ordinance that prohibit general use of property. Mr. Priddy stated increasing residential density, which Planning cited as a reason to deny this variance, did not have anything to do with the questions on the application and those were City ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 19, 1994 PAGE 5 Mr. Franklin made a motion to approve the variance request as outlined under Section 7348 of the Zoning Variance Ordinance. Mr. George seconded the motion. The members voted as follows: Mr. Rogers - no; Dr. Bebb - no; Mr. George - no; Chairman Hill - no; and Mr. Franklin - no. IV. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Tom Hill, Chairman Date DJUSTMENT PAGE 6 JANUARY 19, 1994