Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 06/21/1995MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 21, 1995 PRESENT: Tom Hill, Chairman Roger Murphy Charles A. Peters, III Jane Hermann Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator Cameron Harrison, CAD Operator Diane Parker, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Dr. Edwin C. Bebb Bill Daniel I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Hill. * Members * City Staff " Member • Council Liaison II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Peters made a motion to approve the May 12, 1995 minutes. Ms. Hermann seconded the motion. The minutes were passed with a unanimous vote. III. VARIANCE A. V 95-09 Variance of the 50 Foot Minimum Lot Width Requirement 1304 Holliday Applicant: A.E. Probst, Jr., Surveyor for William H. Clement, property owner Requested Action: Variance Purpose: Variance to plat a lot (proposed Lot 2-A) 33.4 feet wide rather than the required 50 feet Existing Land Use: Vacant Zoning: General Commercial Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Dairy Queen, GC S: Popeye's Chicken, GC E: Ray Cannedy, GC W: Residence, GC PAGE 2 JUNE 21, 1995 r11 Commentary: The property owner is re -subdividing land at the southwest corner of 13th and Holliday. He is selling the north half of this property and keeping the south half. His half, proposed as Lot 2-A, is only 33.4 feet wide at Holliday Street. In a General Commercial zone, a lot must have a minimum width of 50 feet. Therefore, he requests a variance to plat Lot 2-A. This property was originally platted as two lots (Lots 1 & 2) facing 13th Street. During the 1950's the prior owner subdivided the original Lot 1 in three pieces, creating a 33.4' x 52' parcel next to the alley. That parcel and the south one-half of Lot 2 are being replatted into Lot 2-A. The middle portion of Lot 1 is not owned by the applicant. Special Conditions/Hardship: The applicant has cited the following as special conditions/hardships: 1. "Many years ago tract was sold out of the middle of Lot 1 prior to present owner's purchase. The remaining frontage on Holliday south of the sold tract is only 33.4 feet." a 2. "Sales causing the problem were made prior to the present owner's purchase." M r7 3. "Failure to grant variance would make proposed Lot 2-A useless as no adjacent property is available (alley on the south, another owner on North.)" 4. "Lot 2-A is ell -shaped and 83 feet wide at the back. Average width of lot is over 50 feet wide." Consistent With Zoning Ordinance Intent: The intent of a minimum lot width is to assure that parcels are large enough to be developed. Sufficient width is necessary to provide space for buildings, parking and driveways. Fifty feet is the required width for all lots in the General Commercial zone. Lot width is measured at the building limit line. The building limit line is a line parallel to, and 25 feet back of the street property line. Each lot must also have an area of at least 5,000 square feet. Conditions on the applicant's lot: Lot 1 is subdivided into 3 non -conforming parcels; its shape is the result of previous sales. Conditions in the general area: There is a similar property with only 37 x 50 feet on the opposite side of Holliday. Staff Analysis: Although Lot 2-A is only 33.4 feet wide at Holliday, the west part is 83 feet wide. In addition, the 6,304 square foot lot is larger than the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. Staffs main concern is driveway access to this lot. There is not enough room to put a two-way driveway (requiring 24-30 feet) within the 33.4 foot space available along Holliday. A drive must be seven feet from an adjacent property and 17 feet from any alley approach. One possible solution would be to enlarge the alley driveway to 24-30 feet and use that for an approach. Any approaches would have to be approved by the City and the State Highway Department. r- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 1995 PAGE 3 Recommendation: Staff finds that special conditions do exist and recommends that this variance be approved. Mr. William H. Clement, applicant, stated the property to the north had been sold to a small fast food establishment. He then gave a history of this lot and the L-shaped lot. Mr. Seese explained that, after the Board of Adjustment's approval, the applicant would need Public Works and the State Highway Department's approval. Mr. Peters inquired about the results of the request if it were disapproved. Mr. Seese stated that building could not occur on this property if it were disapproved. Mr. Murphy asked if that would effect Lot 1-A. (Lot 1-A will not be effected by any decision this Board makes to Lot 2-A.) Mr. Seese stated the street frontage requirement is being considered by this Board. Mr. Peters asked for an explanation of the additional 20 feet of alley. Mr. Seese stated the ordinance reads the minimum frontage must be 50 feet. The variance will allow the applicant to reduce the 50 foot requirement to 33.4 feet. There will be a two-way driveway onto the lot which must be at least seven feet from the adjacent property and 17 feet from the adjoining alley, according to the ordinance. The total of the width of these requirements is 48 feet wide. Mr. Seese further stated that, to fulfill the intent of the ordinance, access to the property could be gained from the alley. This would eliminate the 17 foot requirement (distance away from the alley). Ms. Hermann stated that since the applicant does not have any plans for development this is a speculative venture. She restated the developments of this case. She asked if this action was being done to release the land to the owners of Lot 1-A. Mr. Murphy asked why this variance would effect Lot 1-A. Mr. Seese stated it would not. Ms. Hermann commented that this action would make Lot 2-A usable in the future. Chairman Hill stated this lot has a 33.4 foot frontage and 84 feet in the rear of the lot. This lot has 6,300 square feet. He commented that he approved of this variance. Mr. Peters remarked that the Board is considering approving a request when the land use has not been determined. He stated there could be a major problem with traffic at that location. He commented that the double driveway would use the alley and commercial businesses do not use alleys. Ms. Hermann inquired if this situation would be worse that Popeye's or McDonald's, both having the same width driveways. Chairman Hill remarked that would be the City's responsibility and this Board is considering only this variance request. Ms. Hermann made a motion to approve this request for a variance. Mr. Seese stated a site plan would be required for any development on this lot prior to construction. Chairman Hill commented that the State and Public Works would also need to give approval prior to building. Mr. Peters seconded the motion. The variance passed with a unanimous vote. IV. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 1:47 p.m. Tom Hill, Chairman .s is Date IME mm PAGE 4 JUNE 21, 1995 PAGE 3of3