Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 05/12/1995MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 12, 1995 PRESENT: Tom Hill, Chairman * Members Jane Hermann Roger Murphy Charles A. Peters, III Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator * City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II Marty Odom, Planner I Diane Parker, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Dr. Edwin C. Bebb * Member Bill Daniel * Council Liaison I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Hill. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Murphy made a motion to approve the April 19, 1995 minutes. Ms. Hermann seconded the motion. The minutes were passed with a unanimous vote. III. VARIANCES 1. V 95-07 Variance from required 30 foot setback 2200 Fillmore Applicant...........................................Charles Barr Address............................................2200 Fillmore Street Purpose............................................Variance to construct a 4-plex building closer to a Single Family boundary than the 30 feet required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant requests approval to locate the building 18 feet from the adjacent property. Existing Land Use ............................Vacant Zoning ..............................................Single Family-2, proposed Multifamily Zone. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: ..... N: Residences, Duplexes, SF-2 S: Residences, SF-2 E: Residences, SF-2 W: Party Town, LC PAGE 2 MAY 12, 1995 Commentary: The property owner requests a reduction in the 30-foot setback required when Multifamily zoning is next to Single Family. He is proposing to build a four-plex 18 feet from the single family lot line to the south. Related to this case is also an application to rezone this lot from Single Family-2 to Multifamily Residential. The requirement for the 30-foot setback is reproduced in a condensed form below: "4640 ADDITIONAL SETBACK Additional setback shall be provided by non -single family or non -duplex residential uses ... when these uses are located outside of an SF-1 or SF-2 zoning district, but abut an SF-1 or SF-2 district boundary line, no portion of the structure shall be closer to an SF-1 or SF-2 boundary line than: (1) The height of that portion, except that the minimum setback stated below shall apply: (2) Multifamily dwelling units, townhouses, condominiums, mobile home parks and subdivisions, civic uses, and commercial uses shall be set back at least 30 fL" Special Conditions/Hardships: The applicant has cited the following as special conditions/hardships: 1. "At the northeast corner of the proposed structure there is a mature pecan tree, approximately 16" caliper and being approx. 40 years old, that would have to be cut down if the 30 ft. is observed." 2. 'That I am currently purchasing the lots show that I did not plant the tree in its location." 3. "By having to use the 30 ft. setback, we would have to destroy the 40-year old pecan tree, depriving everyone of the aesthetic value of the tree as well as causing an unnecessary environmental loss." 4. "Granting this variance would only allow us to save the tree." Consistent With Zoning Ordinance Intent: The intent of the buffering provisions in the Zoning Ordinance is to accomplish the following: ...Provide residential areas protection from the impacts of non-residential uses by reducing the potential impacts through increased separation, construction of visual or noise barriers, etc. The City has adopted an increased setback and fencing requirements as the appropriate measures to accomplish these purposes. Conditions on the applicant's lot: The lot is currently vacant the previous structures have been demolished. Conditions in the general area: In the general area, there are single family residences with some duplexes and on corner lots, second dwellings in the rear. PAGE 3 0 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 12, 1995 Staff Analysis: The existing trees are shown on the applicant's site plan. Shifting the building over to gain the 30- foot separation would cause the removal of one or more trees. The courts have ruled that existing trees can be a special condition and that they could be the basis for a variance. In addition, the proposed setback of 18 feet will be greater than the height of the building (16 ft.). The applicant will construct the required privacy fence between the two properties. Recommendation: Staff finds that special conditions do exist and recommends that this variance be approved. Twenty-six surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Eleven (11) or 42.31 % replied in favor and two (2) or 7.69% were opposed. Mr. Seese presented a letter from Ms. Pat McClane to the Board (see Attachment "A") and read the contents. Mr. Peters inquired about the setback. Mr. Seese explained this case pertains to the 30 foot side setback, and not the rear setback. Ms. Doris Sullivan, property owner on Kemp Boulevard, was sworn in by Chairman Hill. She stated she wanted to take exception to a comment Mr. Barr made at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on May 10, 1995. She explained that, in her opinion, Mr. Barr inferred that since she did not live at the Kemp address, she did not have the right to say anything. She further explained that the McClane's do not live on Kemp, it is their business address. She stated the proposed plan could possibly put 60 cars in the alley directly behind the Kemp residences. She commented that if the lot were divided into four on Kemp and four on Fillmore and all are required to have rear entries, then it would make 64 cars in the alley. She further explained there would be traffic in the alley and traffic on Kemp. She stated the alley is quiet now. She explained that there is no one on Fillmore using the alley currently. If they begin to use it, it will put a tremendous amount of traffic on the alley. Mr. Charles Ban-, applicant, was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Barr stated that the traffic problems are not an issue regarding this variance request. Mr. Barr presented the Board with a picture of the large, 40 year old pecan tree on the property. He explained the tree would have to be removed if the variance is not granted. He explained in more detail the location of the tree and the setback problems with the aid of a larger version of the site plan. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Barr why the four-plex residents would have 60 cars. Mr. Barr explained some inconsistencies with Ms. Sullivan's testimony regarding traffic in the alley. Mr. Barr stated he is building four two -bedroom units and according to the City eight (8) parking spaces are required. The parking lot will be approximately 80 feet from Avenue L. He explained he did not anticipate any traffic from the other end of the block (Avenue M). Ms. Sullivan stated the pecan tree was old. She also remarked that there is an approach in place and he would not need to remove the tree. She explained that the 64 cars would result if she did the same thing he was doing. If the entire block did it, there would be 64 cars. Mr. Seese stated Mr. Barr is requesting a variance for an 18 foot setback and the parking issue is not pertinent to this case. Ms. Sullivan stated this is a single family area and not all the residents, including her, were aware of why they were "voting." She further stated she did not know what all the uses were. She explained that the neighbors were taxpayers and might want to keep their single family (zoning). PAGE 4 MAY 12, 1995 Mr. Murphy stated there were 26 property owners notified and 11 were in favor and two were opposed. Ms. Sullivan remarked that it (the City's notification to the property owners within 200 feet of the property of the applicant) should be for the entire Highland Addition because it effects the neighborhood. Mr. Seese stated there were signs posted on the site with the City Planning Division's phone number for interested parties to call. He also commented no phone calls were received. Mr. Seese explained that a recommendation to City Council was made at the May 10th P&Z Commission for an approval of the rezoning of this property. Mr. Seese commented that this site is constrained as to what can be built. Ms. Sullivan then stated that the alley is shared and if all the residents did what Mr. Barr is doing, 64 cars would be in the alley. Mr. Seese stressed that traffic is not an issue for this variance request. Then Mr. Seese emphasized the Board is discussing whether Mr. Barr should remove the pecan tree or the Board should grant him a variance reducing the setback in order to save the tree. Ms. Sullivan then stated that she knew that trees and owls were considered above people, and she thought people should be considered. Mr. Peters asked what business was located on the corner of Kemp and Avenue L. Mr. Barr responded that business is the Kemp Street Antique Mall with Party Town, next door. Mr. Peters made a motion to reduce the variance to 18 feet. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The variance was approved with a unanimous vote. V 95-02 Variance to allow an existing fence as a buffering fence 4600 Southwest Parkway Applicant.... Purpose ..... Property ....................................... Existing Land Use ....................... Zoning......................................... Surrounding Land Use & Zoning. Commentary: .....Richard Boyd, for Eckerd Drug Stores .....Variance from the provisions of Section 4620, to allow an existing fence on the north and west side of the alley to serve as a buffering fence. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a fence be constructed along the zoning boundary (the east and south side of the alley). .....4600 Southwest Parkway .....Commercial Strip Center .....General Commercial .....North: Residences, SF-2 South: Southwest Parkway, GC East: Commercial, GC West: Residences, SF-2 The applicant is designing the site plan for an Eckerd Drug Store at the northwest corner of Southwest Parkway and Fairway. They request a variance to use an existing fence on the alley's west and north side to fulfill the intent of buffering requirements. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the fence be built on the zoning boundary which is the east side and south side of the alley. A buffering fence between commercial and residential uses is required by Section 4620: "4620 SCREENING REQUIREMENT Uses other than single-family detached, duplex or two-family, or zero -lot -line dwellings shall provide and maintain a six (6) feet high privacy fence at the property line in the following manner: (a) When such uses are located in a zone other than SF-1 or SF-2, such fence shall be placed along the SF -I or SF-2 zoning boundary." Special Conditions/Hardship: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 12, 1995 PAGE 5 The applicant has cited the following as special conditions/hardships: "To meet parking requirements it is necessary to have several parking places with access off the alley. A fence on the property line would prohibit this. Existing fences effectively isolate this property from abutting residential property." 2. "This commercial property abutting a residential property has existed like this for several years and the privacy fence on the residential side of the alley provides an effective barrier between the two." 3. "Requiring a privacy fence on this property line would eliminate several necessary parking spaces and the drive -through facility, both essential to this particular use." 4. "The commercial property will be effectively screened from the adjacent residential lots by privacy fences on the residential side of the alley, hereby meeting the intent of the ordinance." Consistent With Zoning Ordinance Intent: The intent of Section 4620 is to accomplish the following: a. Buffer residential uses when they are next to a nonresidential use by requiring a six- foot tall fence. Conditions on the applicant's lot: The site is now developed as a shopping center. The existing building will be demolished and a new Eckerd's store will be constructed. Conditions in the general area: There is one lot along this alley next to Eckerd's that has no existing privacy fence. Staff Analysis: The purpose of Section 4620 is to buffer residential from commercial uses. The commercial use existed before zoning and had no fencing requirement. Although constructed using the existing fencing as a buffer, the new Eckerd's store will be set back according to the Zoning Ordinance requirements: 30 feet from the residential property line. The existing fence will serve the intended buffering function. However, one property, 4601 Western Hills Drive, behind the existing building does not have a screening fence. Eckerd's would be required to install a fence along the zoning district boundary line. The prior (existing) shopping center had no provisions for access of the alley, and no parking was used at the north and west corner of the lot. The site plan presented by the applicant does increase the intensity of the use from what previously existed. This increased intensity is evident on the site plan. The drive-in window is another element which never previously existed. Staff agrees with the applicant's contention that an existing fence would serve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, regardless of who owned the property. Staff feels that substantial negative effects to single-family/commercial adjacency have been compounded by the proposed parking lot configuration, addition of the drive-in window facility and increased traffic movement between the store and residential property where none previously existed -except for solid waste collection. Due to the new parking lot layout and residential adjacency, staff recommends that a site plan detailing proposed lighting standards be submitted to further evaluate the effects of this lighting on adjacent residential properties. PAGE 6 MAY 12, 1995 Recommendation: Staff finds that special conditions do exist and granting this variance would be in conformance with the intent of the ordinance. However, due to neighborhood objections and staff concerns, staff arranged a meeting between Eckerd's and the neighborhood residents on the evening of April 7, 1995. As a result of the meeting, the staff recommends the variance be approved with the following conditions, as negotiated with Eckerd's: An eight -foot board and batten fence as follows: a. Metal post set on 6-foot center, set in concrete. b. Bottom of fence 3-4 inches off the ground. C. Minimum post size H-21. d. Constructed of Red Cedar. e. Gates to be located by property owners. f. Metal post side of the fence to face Eckerd's. 2. Eckerd's will be responsible for maintaining the fence for five years. a. Note however, that City Ordinance requires Eckerd's to be responsible for maintaining the physical barrier, including replacement of damaged or broken sections for the life of the project. 3. Eckerd's is requested to double -side the fence in order to improved the appearance of the site. 4. Fence shall be constructed prior to demolition of existing structures. 5. All lighting shall be directed away from residential areas. Twenty-five surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) or 24.0% replied in favor, one (1) or 16.67% was opposed, and one (1) or 16.67% responded with other comments. Mr. Joe Pearson with Commercial Net Lease Realty, developers of the Eckerd's Drug Store, was swom in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Murphy asked what the length of time would be for Eckerd's to maintain the fence. Mr. Pearson responded that it would be for the first five years. Mr. Seese stated the Zoning Ordinance requires the fence be maintained as long as the business is there. Mr. Pearson stated that for the length of time that Commercial Net Lease Realty owns the building, the fence would be maintained. Chairman Hill inquired about the lighting. Mr. Seese explained that the lighting would be directed away from the residential area. Mr. Murphy asked about the opposition from the neighborhood responses. Mr. Pearson stated he would be willing to discuss the concerns and meet any objections. Ms. Hermann asked for a clarification of the fence. Mr. Pearson stated that the entire length of residences (from Fairway to Southwestern Parkway) would be separated by a privacy fence. Ms. Hermann stated that, from the responses, it appears the residents would like to have full use of the alley and use of their entire yards. She asked Mr. Pearson if he could comply. He stated that gates would be constructed in each yard. He remarked that most yards have gates and he did not want to change the way people are living. BOARD Of ADJUSTMENT MAY 12, 1995 PAGE 7 Mr. Peters asked if there were documentation that the neighbors agreed. Mr. Seese replied that the response forms were mailed to them and two of which were different. The one opposed was invited to the meeting but did not attend. The response marked "other" did not specify if he was in favor or against. Staff called this resident who indicated that he did not want to lose any property and he wanted to be reimbursed for changes in the fence. Mr. Seese stated they would not incur any expenses. The resident also indicated that Eckerd's should be responsible for the fence, which Mr. Seese agreed they would be. Concerning the alley and dumpster, Mr. Seese commented they would have full use of both. Mr. Peters asked if there were proper documentation for the acceptance of responsibilities (from Eckerd's). Mr. Seese stated page 10 of the agenda book (Recommendations in the Staff Report) are the guidelines by which an occupancy certificate is issued. Mr. Peters asked for clarification regarding the maintenance of the fence. Mr. Seese stated that item #2.a. states that the City ordinance requires them to maintain the fence for the life of the project. Chairman Hill remarked that this situation would be better than the existing fences. Mr. Seese commented that the site plan shows this store will complement the area and the corner. Mr. Pearson stated that Eckerd's is constructing free standing, monument stores. This store will be 9,504 square feet, masonry, glass and metal with a flat roof. There are sixty being built each year. He further stated that three are proposed for Wichita Falls, with this store being the first. Ms. Hermann made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. Peters seconded the motion. The variance was passed with a unanimous vote. 3. V 95-06 Variance from parking requirements 3307 Buchanan Applicant...........................................Gene Newton, for the Association of Retarded Citizens, Wichita County Purpose............................................Variance from parking requirements for an addition to be constructed without providing additional parking. The 940 square foot addition would require adding three more parking Existing Land Use: ......................... Zoning............................................ Surrounding Land Use & Zoning .... Commentary: spaces. .Offices and membership club for retarded citizens. .Limited Commercial N: Libra foundation, LC S: Residences, child care, LC E: Commercial uses, GC W: Residences, SF-2 The property owner requests a variance from the parking provisions for their planned 940 square foot addition. The zoning ordinance requires that parking be provided for all additions to existing buildings. Special Conditions/Hardships The applicant has cited the following as special conditions/hardships: "Needed square footage not available without expansion to minimum allowable setback from alley. Parking not needed because many members come to facility by van or public transportation." "Services and programs offered by the Association for Retarded Citizens have resulted in need for additional space for dances, fund raising, etc." PAGE 8 MAY 12, 1995 3. "Literal interpretation would result in unnecessary parking spaces. Due to special needs of persons we serve, most are unable to drive." 4. "Almost all programs are held after normal business hours. All neighbors have offered their parking lots for our use if need be. Need would be highly unusual. Addition could be constructed so that building could be brought back into compliance if ever sold." Consistent With Zoning Ordinance Intent: The intent of the parking provisions in the Zoning Ordinance is to accomplish the following: ...to ensure functionally adequate, secure off-street parking and loading facilities and to limit the number of curb cuts along major streets to an amount conducive to reasonable safety standards. Development regulations and design standards are intended to ensure the usefulness of the parking and loading facilities, to protect public safety, and, where appropriate, to mitigate potentially adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Provide residential areas protection from the impacts of non-residential uses by reducing the potential impacts through increased separation, construction of visual or noise barriers, etc. The City has adopted a parking schedule giving types of uses and the parking requirement for each as the appropriate measures to accomplish these purposes. Conditions on the applicant's lot: The Association has its present office on this lot and is proposing a 940 square foot addition. There is not room on this lot for additional spaces. Conditions in the general area: The general area is a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Staff Analysis: The parking schedule consists of a list of uses and required parking for each type of use. Staff classified the proposed 940 square foot addition as 'other non-residential." The standard requirement is one space per 300 square feet of building. The special condition is the needs of the members, since few drive and most are brought to the center in vans. Therefore, the usual parking requirements do not apply. Recommendation: Staff finds that special conditions do exist and recommends that this variance be approved. Seventeen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three (3) or 17.65% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed. Ms. Sue Digiampaolo, advisor to ARC, was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Murphy stated the other businesses have offered to let ARC use their parking lots if there were an overflow problem. Chairman Hill complimented Ms. Digiampaolo on the good work her organization does. Mr. Peters inquired about the objections. Mr. Seese stated there were none. Mr. Murphy made a motion to approve this variance. Mr. Peters seconded the motion. The variance was passed with a unanimous vote. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 12, 1995 PAGE 9 4. V 95-08 Variance to reduce street frontage requirement 4982 Old Windthorst Road Applicant.......................................... Purpose........................................... Existing Land Use ........................... Zoning............................................. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning ..... Commentary: Lonnie D. Barry & Becky J. Barry To allow development of a residential lot that only has 30' of street frontage Residence (mobile home) Single-Family-1 North: Vacant, Mobile Home, SF-1 South: Mobile Home, SF-1 East: Old Windthorst Rd, Agriculture, SF-1 West: Vacant, SF-1 The applicants request a variance to construct a new home on their residential lot that is only 30' wide when measured at the building limit line. This lot is zoned Single -Family Residential (Large Lot) and requires a minimum of 60' of lot width as per the developmental regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. This lot was first subdivided in 1978 prior to the annexation of the property into the City in 1989. They wish to remove the existing mobile home after completion of the new home. (This is a "panhandle" lot, with the "handle" being 30' wide. The remaining lot is of sufficient size.) Special Con ditions/Hardships: The applicants have cited the following special conditions/hardships: 1. "Road frontage of land is 30' and was before annexation by City. Existing residence (mobile home) is deteriorating rapidly and is not safe for a family of five, including three children." 2. "When the land was purchased (eight years ago), it was already set and surveyed to its existing shape and size by previous owners." 3. "It (the Zoning Ordinance) deprives us of building a nice new home with more room for the kids on the land we have homesteaded and have been living on for eight years." 4. "It (the variance) would allow us to build a nice, new, and up -to -code home for a single family residence. I believe this is not a special privilege, but a right of any American who wants to work hard and earn it". Staff Analysis: The lots in this area are rural in nature and some were initially subdivided using access easements rather than right-of-way dedications. Since this particular lot was outside of the city limits when it was subdivided, it was not subject to the developmental requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Recommendation: Staff finds that special conditions do exist and recommends approval of this variance. Mr. Lonnie Barry, applicant, was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Murphy asked if Mr. Barry was currently living in a mobile home on the property and was proposing to build a house. Mr. Barry responded that was correct and he had lived there PAGE 10 MAY 12, 1995 approximately eight years. Mr. Barry stated he lived on the property two or three years prior to zoning. Mr. Murphy made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. Peters seconded the motion. The variance passed with a unanimous vote. IV. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 2:02 p.m. Tom Hill, Chairman Date BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 12, 1995 PAGE 11