Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 09/19/2001MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 19, 2001
PRESENT:
John Key, Chairman 0 Members
Don McKinney 0
Michael Norrie 0
Les Seipel 0 Alternate
Thomas Cross 0 Alternate
Willa Burgess 0 Alternate
Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0 City Staff
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0
ABSENT:
Charles A. Peters, III 0
J. D. Ruiz 0
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Key.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the July 18, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as
submitted by the Board.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Variance to Reduce the Front Setback Requirements at #1 and #2 Trinidad
Court and 4921 Trinidad Drive
Case V 01-07
Applicant......................................R. J. Wachsman
Requested Action.........................Variance
Purpose........................................Application for a variance to reduce the front setback
requirement for #1 & #2 Trinidad Court, and 4921
Trinidad Drive. The applicant seeks a reduction in the
setback from 25 feet to:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
15 feet for #1 Trinidad Court
20 feet for #2 Trinidad Court
20 feet for 4921 Trinidad Drive
Property........................................Lots 12 & 13, Block 13, University Park, Unit 3,
Section F, and Lot 8, Block 7, University Park Unit 3,
Section F
Zoning ..........................................Single Family-2
Commentary:
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 3140(5) of the zoning ordinance
that requires a 25-foot front setback for residential uses. He is seeking approval for a
15-foot setback at #1 Trinidad Court and a 20-foot setback at #2 Trinidad Ct. and 4921
Trinidad Drive.
Qualifying Criteria
a. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the
land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other
lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.
Applicant's statement: "A combination of extra wide drainage and utility
easements and the shapes of the lots restrict adequate rear yard area."
Staff response: There are building constraints on the lots, especially at #2
Trinidad where a 30-foot drainage easement limits the back yard area.
b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "The applicant did not develop these lots and had to
accept existing easements and lot layouts."
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
Staff response: The original developer of the property was S. J. Knuckely,
President of Southfork Estates, who platted this area in 1994.
C. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive
the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Ordinance.
Applicant's statement: "The 25-foot building limit line deprives these lots of
adequate rear yards which are enjoyed by others in the area."
Staff response: The property at #2 Trinidad in particular has a limited area for a
back yard, the usable space being less than other lots in the area.
d. That the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with the
objectives of this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any
special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures,
or buildings in the same district.
Applicant's statement: "By granting the variance these lots would still have
smaller rear yards than most, if not all, of the other lots in the area."
Staff response: These lots do have limited area because of the lot configuration.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
Staff feels that this application may present sufficient evidence to support the claim of
hardship or special condition.
Evaluation Criteria:
In evaluating a variance request once it has been determined by the Board that the
request qualifies to be heard by the Board, the Zoning Ordinance Section 7340 requires
that the following criteria be used:
a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
Staff believes that it may be in the public interest to allow the reduction of the
front setbacks in this case. In at least one other similar case a reduction was
granted along a cul-de-sac where the lot depths were narrow.
b. Special conditions exist, other than financial hardship alone, whereby a
literal enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary
hardship to the owner of the land.
The limited size of the lot could be considered a special condition.
C. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land, which is not allowed
by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
The property is zoned Single Family. The proposed residential use is a
permitted use in the single family zoning district.
d. The granting of the variance:
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
The intent of the front setback is to create adequate space for a front yard
and to prevent incompatible projections into the front yard visual corridor.
On a cul-de-sac, or curve, variations in setback are less intrusive and less
obvious than on a straight section of street.
Is in harmony therewith;
In staff's opinion, theses reduction in setbacks will not be in conflict with
the goals of the ordinance.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
This variation in setbacks will not harm the visual corridor in this
neighborhood.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5
Or detrimental to the public welfare.
Staff believes that approving this request will not be detrimental to the
public welfare.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that this variance be approved.
Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria by the Board:
Mr. Seipel commented on Question B that he agreed that the applicant had no effect on
the lot sizes or setbacks. He did mentioned that a similar case was heard several
months ago. He asked if the Board's decision in this matter was beginning to set a
precedence when unique vacant lots are sold to another developer which would require
alteration of City standards prior to building. Mr. Seese stated that the original
developer had the right to present this situation to this Board when these lots were
platted, and he did not apply. He also stated that the changes in styles and sizes of
houses should also come into consideration; the features of house selling in 1994 when
the property was platted might not be the tendency in today's market.
Chairman Key asked Mr. Seese about the discretion used in the easements' locations;
Mr. Seese referred to applicant.
Mr. Randy Wachsman, applicant, was sworn in by Chairman Key. Mr. Seipel restated
his concerns then asked about the property owner's negative response relating to
obstruction of a view. Mr. Wachsman stated the only way to guarantee his view would
not be obstructed would be for the homeowner to purchase the lot next door. He
further commented that the windows are located in the rear of the house which would
present a problem with viewing regardless of the setback location. It was stated that
this particular topic does not pertain to the Qualifying Criteria.
Mr. Seipel further explained his concern by stating that perhaps the original developer
did not qualify to bring this case before the Board; however, now the new developer,
who was not responsible for the layout, could apply since he was not originally
responsible for the action (design of irregular lot unsuitable for house without setback
variance). Chairman Key asked how much control the developer has concerning the
location of the easements; Mr. Wachsman responded that the developer tries to work
with the utility companies and the City but some lots result in being too complex for
building purposes.
Mr. Seipel made a motion, based on the qualifying criteria, that this application be
heard by this Board. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6
Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria by the Board:
Mr. McKinney stated that he was concerned about a trend starting with allowing
variances on setbacks in cul-de-sacs. He responded to the negative citizen's comment
by stating that one does not usually expect a view from a side window. The view and
the breeze would still be obstructed if the building were to be moved back by ten feet.
Mr. Norrie made a motion to accept this variance request. Mr. Seipel seconded the
motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of granting this variance.
IV. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1:46 p.m.
John Key, Chairman
Date
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7