Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 03/18/2015MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 18, 2015
PRESENT:
Kerry Maroney, Chairman
Jerry Beaver
Steve Lane
Warren Gardner
Dave Waddell
Annetta Pope -Dotson
Kinley Hegglund, City Attorney
Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator
Christopher Guess, Planner II
Leo Mantey, Planner I
ABSENT:
David Lane
Larry Ash
Casey O'Donnell
Tyson Traw
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Maroney called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
II. MINUTES
0 Members
0
0
0 Alternate #1
0 Alternate #2
0 Council Liaison
0 Legal Dept.
0 City Staff
0
0
0 Members
0 Alternate #3
0 Alternate #4
Mr. Beaver made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2014 and
December 17, 2014 meetings of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. S. Lane seconded. The
minutes were approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Case V 15-02
Request for a 12 ft. variance to construct a 15'/2 % high carport in the side setback.
4605 Sierra Madre
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • PAGE 1
4605 Sierra Madre Drive is owned by Donnie and Marilyn Hart. The owners submitted
the application and stated the contractor for the project is Rickey Mergerson. 4605
Sierra Madre Drive is a one-story single family residence that is bounded by an 8ft alley
and utility lines to the north of the property. The structures on site include: the primary
residential structure, travel trailer or recreational vehicle (RV), carport and a storage
building. The applicants/owners informed staff they would like to construct a 15 and a
half feet high carport to cover their RV located at the north end of their driveway for
safety and to protect it from the sun and inclement weather. The proposed carport
would be 25 ft. by 33 ft. in size. The side setback is 3ft from the front portion and
increases to 5ft in the back, due to the odd shape of the property boundary.
Upon consultation with the City Planning office, the applicants were informed that per
Section 6516 of the City's Zoning Ordinance; Side setbacks shall be five feet minimum
for buildings more than 150 square feet in area, except when the wall height exceeds
eight feet or the total height exceeds 15 ft, the setback shall be equal to the total height.
As a result the 15.5 ft. high carport would require a side setback of 15.5 ft., implying that
the proposed 3ft-5ft setback would not conform to the city's Zoning Ordinance. Planning
staff advised the applicants a hardship or special circumstance other than financial must
exist as well as other criteria for this request to meet the evaluation criteria, which
determines if a case satisfies all prerequisite criteria and can be presented before the
Board of Adjustment. Staff suggested placing the carport in the backyard with access to
the motor home from the alley on the northeastern boundary of the property. This was
impossible because the alley was too narrow for vehicular access, which made it
impossible for a RV of that size to have access to and from the property. Moreover
there were physical barriers (utility lines and box, and drainage canal) on the north end
of the property which would impede the movement of the RV in/out of the property if
placed in the backyard. As such the only suitable location that would allow easy
movement of the RV would be in the southeastern part of the property with its access
from the front double gate on Sierra Madre Drive. As a result, planning staff informed
Mr. and Mrs. Hart the evaluation criteria preliminarily appears to be met and advised
that this qualifies the request for a 12 ft. variance into the side setback.
QUALIFYING CRITERIA (Section 7320- Submission requirements)
1. State 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: "Cannot erect next to house due to roof overhang and
lack of space for the motor home. Storage buildings on property prevents
extension of driveway. Cannot use alley access due to alley structure, narrow
space and huge ditch next to alley."
Staff response: Staff agrees the narrow alley, utility posts and drainage canal
(ditch) next to the alley creates a special condition and a unique circumstance
which is peculiar to the land.
2. Demonstrate that the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • PAGE 2
Applicant's statement: "Cannot use alley entrance due to electrical posts,
dumpster, natural gas meter and lines, cable and telephone equipment, and low
hanging lines that extend across the backyard."
Staff response: Staff initially suggested constructing the carport in the backyard,
which will give the motor home access from the alley. However, staff agrees with
the applicant on how narrow the alley was; also the presence of physical barriers
such as the electrical poles, dumpster, natural gas meter, cable and telephone
equipment, and low hanging utility lines that extend across the backyard. Staff
believes all of these circumstances are not a result of the applicant's actions.
3. State how a 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: "Prevents erecting a cover to protect our vehicles and
motor home due to the need to be 15.5 ft. from property line"
Staff Response: Staff agrees with the applicant's statement. Carports are
allowed in the city. The literal interpretation of this ordinance will deprive the
applicant the right to build a carport due to the proposed 15.5 ft. height to
accommodate the RV.
4. State how granting the variance would be in harmony with the objectives of
the Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special
privilege, which is denied by the Ordinance to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district.
Applicant's statement: "Would allow in the house a cover over our motor home
and cars. It would also allow safety behind locked gates. Would allow protection
from sunlight and inclement weather. Would not interfere with any neighboring
property in any way. Planned carport would be same color as patio cover and
storage building"
Staff response: The granting of a variance will not create a use that is not
allowed within the Single Family-2 zoning district. Due to the carport being
located within the fenced property, if the variance is granted, staff believes it
would not have any adverse physical effect on adjoining properties.
Staff felt the qualifying criteria were met and recommended review of the
evaluation criteria.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • PAGE 3
2. 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.
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 this Ordinance;
• Is in harmony therewith; and
• Will not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public
welfare.
There are existing physical barriers including the location of the house related to the
existing driveway and property lines. Additionally, the location of the utility boxes,
power lines, and narrow alley prevents access for the RV via the alley. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the request of a variance from Section 6516 of Appendix B —
Zoning Ordinance of the Wichita Falls Code of Ordinances, which will allow the
construction of a 15.5 ft. carport with a 3.5 ft. minimum setback.
Marilyn Hart, applicant, reviewed the plans and discussed the photos presented to the
Commission.
Mr. Mantey stated that at this time the staff and the city officially tender to the
Commission the late file deadline response from the Kaznoff Family Trust and,
therefore, was not part of the official packet.
Ms. Hart responded that the structure they wanted to put up really did not affect the
Kaznoff property as that house sits more to the side and the view would not be
obstructed from that house, which is next door. The structure might be visible from the
backyard but not necessarily from the house. She stated the house is 4607 Sierra
Madre on the map. It has been vacant for 8-10 months, and is a rental house. The
fence is the Harts which they surveyed and installed and the structure would be 3 ft.
inside the property line.
Ricky Mergerson, contractor, stated the only way you would see the carport coming
down Summit east or west, would be directly in front of the property at 4605 Sierra
Madre.
Chairman Maroney asked if there were similar structures within the neighborhood. Ms.
Hart said there were. Mr. Mergerson said that the fourth house down had a 15 ft.
carport 6 inches from the alley. Mr. Mantey stated that in researching this application it
was discovered the other structure was built illegally so Code Enforcement is working
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • PAGE 4
with the other property owner to rectify the problem. Ms. Hart stated that they did not
know this was going to be an issue until their contractor told them they could not build
the carport. She added they were trying to do things legally.
Mr. Mantey requested that the specific height be included in the Commission's ruling.
Mr. Mergerson and Mrs. Hart stated the actual height should be 13 feet 6 inches.
Mr. Waddell made a motion to approve the request for a variance of 12 ft. on Case V
15-02 with the 15.5 ft. in height be the limiting factor. Mr. Beaver seconded. The
variance was granted with a unanimous vote.
IV. Adjourn
The Board adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Kerry Maroney, Chairman
Date
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES • PAGE 5