Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 11/19/2014Wednesday, November 19, 2014 BOA Meeting Chairman Nimz called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Kerry Maroney Jose Garcia Steve Lane David Lane Leo Kinley James Bobby Eric Diane Loren Annetta Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 19, 2014 meeting. Mr. D. Lane seconded. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. Chairman Nimz stated the Board members would adjourn at 1:32 p.m. into the Executive Session under Texas Government Code § 551.071. The meeting reconvened at 1:42 p.m. 1. Case V 14-02 Request for a variance of 6 in. to construct a 2 ft.-6 in. x 3 ft. x 30 ft. wheelchair ramp in the front setback 1415 Hayes Ms. Jamie Arredondo requested a variance of 6 in. to construct a 2 ft. 6 in. high wheelchair ramp in the front of her residence on Hayes Street. This ramp will be 3 ft. x 30 ft., 6 in. higher than the accepted maximum of 2 ft. high allowed in the front setback. This is a one-story home built in 1927 on a corner lot in a single family residential neighborhood. The home has three doors, one at the front of the house and the other two on the north and south sides of the home. Planning staff advised Ms. Arrendondo that ideally ramps are recommended to be located on the side or rear of the house. In this case, the doors on either sides would not allow for a wheelchair ramp meeting with the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) standards. As a result, staff informed the applicant the evaluation criteria appears to be met and qualifies for a variance. Qualifying Criteria 1. State special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the land, structure or building which are not applicable to others in the same district. Applicant's Statement. "1 wish 1 could construct the ramp on either one of two doors on the side of the house, unfortunately those doors are not wide enough for a wheelchair entry and exit. Secondly, there is no space for expanding those doors. The height of the porch has been as it is since the construction of the house in 1927." Staff's Response: Staff agrees the other two doors on the sides of the house are not wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair. There is no room for expanding the door. Also the house was constructed in 1927, and has remained as such since then. All these items create a special condition and a unique circumstance which is peculiar to the house. 2. Demonstrate special conditions and circumstances do not result from applicant's actions. Applicant's Statement. "The house was built in 1927, the house and doors have been the same since 1927." Staff's Response: The house was built in 1927 and the property owner purchased and maintained the original form until now. The house is located in the West Floral Heights Historic District and therefore is required to keep its current form and design. The owner has since maintained the house as it is. 3. State how the literal interpretation of the provisions of the XXXXXXXX LOREN; ZOING ORD. OR WHAT ORD? Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the right commonly enjoyed by the other properties in the same district under the terms of the Ordinance. Applicant's Statement. "A two feet high ramp would allow the applicant to construct without a variance." The current ordinance will deny the applicant the opportunity to construct the ramp, hence preventing the disabled person from moving in and out of the house. Staff's Response: Staff agrees with the applicant's statement. Furthermore, the current zoning ordinance does not prohibit the construction of ramps in the front setback. ADA wheelchair ramps are backed by the Federal government and therefore allowed by right in the City's ordinance based on acceptable building and design standards. There are viable locations for the ramp [on this property] as explained earlier. 4. State how granting the variance would be in harmony with the objective of the XXXXXXX LOREN: Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege which is denied by the Ordinance to others in the same district. Applicant's Statement. "There is another ramp in [West Floral Heights Historic] District." The Landmark Commission has approved the ramp, hence making it compatible with the house and neighborhood. Staff's Response: The granting of the variance will not create a use that is not allowed within the historic district and the Zoning Ordinance. If the variance is granted, the ramp will be 2 ft. 6 in. in height, it will be screened and it would also be consistent with the overall intent of the ordinance and setback regulations. Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the Qualifying Criteria and Mr. D. Lane seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of the Qualifying Criteria. Evaluation Criteria 1. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. Special conditions exist, other than financial hardship alone, whereby a literal enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship to the owner of the land. 3. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The granting of the variance is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance. It is in harmony therewith and it will not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. Staff recommended approval of this variance. Eighteen (18) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) responded in favor and one (1) was opposed. Mr. Bobby Teague stated he is the Assistant Director of Community Development/Building Official. Mr. Teague was sworn to tell the truth by Chairman Nimz. He stated there are three exits, one in the front and the two on each side. These two exits are on outsets on the sides of the house. A 3 ft. door would be required for the exit. The sides do not have adequate room to accommodate a 3 ft. door. The only option available would be to create a door in the back of the house which would exit from a bedroom. Under the ADA standards, exiting from a bedroom which is not in compliance with ADA standards. The front exit is the only one feasible. Chairman Nimz stated creating an exit that would meet the width requirements would not be appropriate regarding the entrance and egress in emergency situations or accommodations. Mr. Teague agreed. Chairman Nimz continued by stating using the other doors or creating a new entrance would not be consistent with the use of the house in a normal manner. Mr. Teague commented the two side doors are unable to be widened to meet the requirements. Ms. Arrendondo was sworn to tell the truth by Chairman Nimz. She explained her 92 year old mother-in-law has recently come to reside in her home. The mother-in-law is currently unable to manage the steps to leave her home. With a ramp, she would have accessibility to get in and out of the house. Chairman Nimz asked if using the steps was a safety issue. Ms. Arrendondo commented that it was. Chairman Nimz asked if the mother-in-law's disability makes it a necessity to have the ramp to enter and exit the home; Ms. Arrendondo agreed. Ms. Arrendondo asked the Board for their consideration regarding the approval of the ramp. She and her husband are concerned about her safety if they are not at home. Mr. Maroney made a motion to approve the variance; Mr. D. Lane seconded. The vote was unanimous in favor of the variance. The Board adjourned at 1:58 p.m.