Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 04/16/1997MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 16, 1997
PRESENT:
Rainer Hanold, Chairman
Don McKinney
Roger Murphy
Charles A. Peters, III
John Key
Bobby Redwine
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development
Paul Stillson, Planner II
Diane Parker, Recording Secretary
ABSENT:
David Seaton
James Heath
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:33 p.m. by Chairman Hanold.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
0 Members
0
0
0
0 Alternate #1
0 Alternate #2
0 City Staff
0
0
0 Members
0 Alternate #4
Mr. Peters made a motion to approve the December 20, 1996 and February 19, 1997 minutes. Mr.
Redwine seconded the motion. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
III. VARIANCE
A. V 96-02
Variance Request to Reduce the Rear Setback and Eliminate the Fencing
Requirement Along the Alley
2503 Grant
Applicant: Darryl Wood
Request: Variance to: (a) reduce the rear setback by five feet, and
(b) eliminate the fencing requirement along the alley.
Property: 2503 Grant Street
Existing Land Use: Vacant, LC
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 16, 1997 PAGE 1 of 3
Surrounding Land Use
and Zoning: N: Miniature indoor race track, LC
S: Residences, LC
E: Residences, SF-2
W: Sam Houston School, SF-2
Commentary:
The applicant is planning to build a 30 x 50 foot accessory building in the rear of a vacant lot at
2503 Grant. The proposed building will be next to the applicant's office, F & W Construction. The
applicant's site plan requires two variances in conjunction with this project: one would reduce the
rear setback by five feet, and the other would eliminate the fencing requirement along the alley.
The first request is to allow a 25 foot rear setback. Since there is a single family zoning boundary
along the rear property line, a 30 foot buffering setback is required. A 25 foot setback would allow
the building to line up along the rear property line with the applicant's building next door.
The second variance is a request to eliminate the required 6-foot privacy fence. The applicants
state that the back of the building would serve the same purpose as a fence to block visibility for
the single family residents.
Special conditions/hardships:
The applicant has cited the following special conditions/hardships:
1. "The building was built this way [5 feet from the rear property line] and [I] would like to keep
the appearance of the two structures alike."
2. "Other properties along the alley are constructed this same way."
3. "It would make the new building have a different appearance than the adjacent building."
4. "This would make all like buildings along alley similar [in] appearance."
Recommendation:
Staff finds that the existing pre -zoning building has established a rear setback of less than 30 feet
from the adjacent single family. If the applicant were allowed to continue the 25 foot setback on
the new building, it would not adversely impact adjacent single family residents.
Concerning the second request, staff finds that the wall of the building could serve as an adequate
visual barrier with the following conditions:
a.) A six foot privacy fence shall be constructed along the rear property line. The fence
shall be placed between buildings along the length of the applicant's three lots. This
would include constructing a fence along the back of the corner lot.
b.) The new building shall have no openings, vehicular doors, or windows facing the
alley. All access shall be taken from the interior of the lot, no alley access to the
building shall be allowed. Landscaping, as required by the zoning ordinance shall be
planted.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 16, 1997 PAGE 2 of 3
Staff recommends approval of this variance with the above listed conditions.
Conditions of building permit approval:
This development must meet all Planning and Building Inspection requirements.
Eighteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three (3) or 16.67% replied in
favor and none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Peters stated he had a concern regarding the required privacy fence. Mr. Stillson replied that
the fence requirement would be eliminated along the side of the storage building. To enhance
buffering for the residential area, one requirement would be a fence on the side of the vacant
house.
Mr. McKinney stated the applicant's proposed building would not be visible from the residential
area because of the large building next to it. He further commented that to require a fence would
only be an expense to the applicant and not justifiable.
The applicant, Mr. Darryl Wood, was sworn in by Chairman Hanold.
Mr. Wood stated he is planning to construct a privacy fence between the new warehouse and the
existing building. He stated he would install a privacy fence on the north side if necessary.
Mr. Key inquired about the City's reason for requiring a privacy fence. Mr. Stillson replied there is
a possibility of visibility from the second lot and to enhance the buffering and to ensure
compatibility with the residential area.
Mr. Peters inquired about the possibility of the storage house becoming a residence. Mr. Wood
replied it would continue to be used for storage. This warehouse would be used for more storage
rather than the yard.
Mr. McKinney made a motion to accept the variance of Case 97-02 with the setback changed from
30 feet to 25 feet and the privacy fence restriction be waived. Mr. Peters seconded the motion.
The variance passed with a unanimous vote.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:47 p.m.
Rainer Hanold, Chairman Date
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 16, 1997 PAGE 3 of 3