Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 11/18/2009MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 18, 2009
PRESENT:
Les Seipel, Chairman
0 Members
Michael Latham
0
Jose Garcia
0
Elvin Dudley
0 Alternate #2
Chad Hughes
0 Alternate #3
David Lane
0 Alternate #3
Jim Ginnings, Council Liaison 0
Kinley Hegglund, Senior Assistant City Attorney 0 Legal Dept.
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff
Leo Bethge, Planner II 0
Diane Parker 0
ABSENT:
Dave Lilley 0
Steve Wood 0
Dustin Nimz 0 Alternate #1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Seipel called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
II. MINUTES
Mr. Latham made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2009 Board of
Adjustment meeting. Mr. Dudley seconded. The minutes were approved with a
unanimous vote in favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case V 09-09
Variance to reduce the setback from residential use from 30' to 6' for a
storage building at 3022 Seymour Road
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
Qualifying Criteria:
a. The applicant is requesting the use of a 30' x 30' storage building to protect
customer cars from hail damage and theft. The Planning staff noted that this lot was
platted prior to the adoption of the 30' buffer requirement. The original building was
constructed at an angle which restricts expansion of his business.
b. The applicant stated that this property was designed in an unusual shape in 1957
[for a gas station] with limited space for storage. The Planning staff commented that
these lots in this area were originally platted prior to the adoption of the setback
requirement and were platted in a non -conventional shape which restricted usage for
future uses.
C. The applicant expressed that other [automotive] shops have the benefit of
storage buildings and he would also like to enjoy that benefit. The Planning staff
recognized that the applicant stores his cars outside which creates a concern for safety
and the potential damage from storms.
d. The Planning staff felt that a hardship could be based on the added burden of a
30' buffer used primarily for current development or parcels being platted. The applicant
stated that the building addition would be designed in the original architectural style of
the existing building and would complement the neighborhood.
Mr. Latham made a motion to accept the Qualifying Criteria; Mr. Dudley seconded. The
motion carried.
Evaluation Criteria:
Mr. Bethge reviewed the Evaluation Criteria with the Board.
Mr. Latham made a motion to accept the Evaluation Criteria and to grant the variance;
Mr. Lane seconded. The motion carried.
2. Case V 09-10
Variance to reduce the setback for a wind generator from 27' (height of
tower) from the northeast property line (alley) to 11'-10", and from the
southwest property line (Ninth Street) to 18'-5". This wind generator is
proposed to be placed on the top of the roof of the building.
812 Ninth Street
Qualifying Criteria
a. The applicant, Broadstar Wind Systems, is proposing to install a wind turbine on
the existing microwave tower base within the setback required distance. A special
condition may exist because the structure of the frame is tied to the building and cannot
be moved.
b. The microwave tower base is in place, structurally attached, and cannot be
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
moved. This framework met the building code and all zoning requirements at the time it
was installed.
Mr. Latham commented that the federal law setback for wind energy must be within the
property boundaries. Mr. Clark stated that the limitation is this generator is not placed
far enough back from the roof's edge to fall on the building. Mr. Latham stated that if
this is approved, he would like the City's Legal Dept. to review the case regarding the
federal requirements.
C. The applicant stated that locating the turbine on a different part of the roof would
be cost prohibitive because of structural modifications and would lower the performance
due to the reduced wind effect. The Planning staff reported that the ordinance was
written for the monopole -type wind turbines. This wind generator is unique and atypical
of the usual type encountered.
d. The Planning staff explained three factors in this case that would constitute
special circumstances: existing framework will structurally support the proposed
turbine; the support structure may be more structurally sound than for a typical
monopole type system; and, this turbine is more efficient locating closer to the roof's
edge.
Mr. Latham made a motion to accept the Qualifying Criteria "with a proviso it is
approved by the City's Legal Department and the Board of Adjustments is not usurping
Federal Law". Mr. Lane seconded. The motion carried.
Evaluation Criteria:
Mr. Bethge reviewed the Evaluation Criteria.
Mr. Clark noted that this case was also heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission
because a wind turbine requires conditional use approval. That Commission was aware
that this tower is significantly shorter than the previous one. This structure is similar to a
paddle wheel. P&Z did approve the case subject to the approval of this Board.
Mr. Lane made a motion to approve the Evaluation Criteria and to grant the variance;
Mr. Hughes seconded. Mr. Latham stated that he would like the City of Wichita Falls,
Times Record News, and TV stations to promote wind generated power. AT&T should
be commended for saving energy and other businesses should follow their lead. The
motion carried unanimously.
IV. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Dustin Nimz for Les Seipel, Chairman Date
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3