Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 03/17/2004MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 17, 2004
PRESENT:
Dana Mills, M.D., Chairman
0 Members
Thomas Cross
0
Jose Garcia
0
Michael Latham
0 Alternate #3
James McNeil
0 Alternate #2
Les Seipel
0
Steve Wood
0 Alternate #4
Michael Norrie 0 Council Liaison
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0
ABSENT:
Willa Burgess 0
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Mills called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the October 15, 2003 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting were
approved by the Board as submitted.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case V 03-07
Reduce Lot Width from 50 Feet to 49 Feet
906 — 910 Gerald Street
Applicant: Martin Litteken, Jr., for Habitat for Humanity, of Wichita Falls
Property: 906-910 Gerald Street, two tracts in the W.E. Wilson Acre Block
Addition
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
Requested Action: Request for a variance to reduce the required lot width from 50 feet
to 49 feet.
Purpose: To allow two tracts with a total of 147.3 feet width to be divided into
three lots for the construction of single-family residences.
COMMENTARY
The applicants are requesting a reduction in the minimum lot width from 50 feet to 49
feet in order to plat three lots with a total width of 147.3 feet.
QUALIFYING CRITERIA
1. 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 building in the same district.
Applicant's statement: "The `acre blocks' as defined in the original subdivision
plat (1942) were 149.8' wide. Apparently 50' & 49.8' tracts were conveyed out of
the 'blocks' over time. The Applicant is acquiring a 100' and a 47.3' tract from the
City after a tax sale."
2. Demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances do not result from
the actions of the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "Applicant seeks to combine 2 unplatted tracts into 3
useable lots that are in character with the existing neighborhood and which
substantially comply with the subdivision ordinance. Applicant is acquiring tracts
that were subdivided by prior owners without platting."
3. State how 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: "Application of the 50' frontage width would result in two
75 ft. lots that would be 1 1/2 times larger than surrounding lots. These larger
lots would be larger than required for the standard housing needs [and also]
requiring more maintenance [than a smaller lot]."
4. State how 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: "The nonprofit applicant will receive no special privilege
with the granting of this variance. The variance would benefit the community by
providing an additional low-income dwelling."
The applicant's property is an unusual width, if the property were divided into only two
lots; they would be larger than the average lot on this street. Staff feels that, based on
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
the information available, this request does qualify for a hearing by the Board.
Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria by the Board:
Chairman Mills briefly reviewed the criteria.
Mr. Cross asked if Mr. Foster replatted the lots into the present configuration. Mr.
Stillson explained that the lots were replatted before Mr. Foster purchased them. Mr.
Stillson presented photos showing the proposed fence which is 15 feet from the
property line and in front of the building limit line
EVALUATION CRITERIA
In evaluating a variance request, once it has been determined by the Board that the
request qualifies to be heard, 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 feels that the public interest would be served if the Board decides to grant a
variance based on a finding of a special condition or hardship.
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 odd dimension of the width of these lots is a special condition. Considering
the degree of variance sought being less than one foot, only 2 percent less than
the requirement, the impact of this variance on surrounding properties should be
insignificant.
C. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land that is not allowed by
the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is zoned single family residential; residential development is
permitted in this zone.
d. The granting of the variance:
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
The intent of the requirement for minimum lots widths is to provide a lot
wide enough for development. If the Board determines that a hardship or
special conditions exist, the granting of a variance would be consistent
with the intent of this ordinance.
Is in harmony therewith;
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
Staff feels that this proposal would be compatible with the existing
residential development in the area.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
This proposal should not be in conflict with adjacent uses.
Or detrimental to the public welfare.
Granting this variance should not harm the long-term economic
development of the City or affect the public in the long-term through
function, appearance or layout.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this variance.
IV. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at p.m.
Dana Mills, M.D., Chairman
Date
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4