Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 05/21/20030 MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 21, 2003
r
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date 5- q -��
By -rime 1 I
PRESENT:
Dana Mills, M.D., Chairman
0 Members
Thomas Cross
0
Jose Garcia
0 Alternate #1
James McNeil
0 Alternate #4
Les Seipel
0
Bill Altman 0 Mayor
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.
Mr. Clark swore in the new member, James McNeil.
Mr. Clark informed the Board that, within the Department of Community Development,
there has been a reorganization of duties and staff. Mr. Seese has been transferred to
the City's Transportation Department.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the March 26, 2003 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved by the
Board as submitted.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case V 03 -04
Reduce the Front Building Limit Line from 25 ft. to 15 ft.
Hill and Hill Heights, Section 2, Unit 2, Block 2, Lots 19 -24
Along Mattie Circle
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
Applicant ....... ............................... Elvin Dudley d.b.a. Keeter, Inc.
Property ........ ............................... Lots 19 -24, Block 2, Hill and Hill Heights, Sec. 2, Unit
2
Requested Action ........................ Request for a variance to allow a 15 -foot front
setback along six lots on Mattie Circle.
Purpose ........ ............................... Construction of single - family homes.
Zoning .......... ............................... Single Family -2
Commentary:
The applicant's property is located along of Mattie Circle, in the Hill and Hill Heights
Subdivision, Section 2, Unit 2. He is requesting a variance to allow a 15 -foot front
setback for six lots at the western end of the cul -de -sac. The variance will allow him to
construct larger homes than would be possible without the reduction. He states that the
larger homes will be more compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood.
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: "These lots are around the end of a cul -de -sac and due to
existing easements, the depths are much shorter than normal. Therefore to get a
house of a size compatible with the rest of the neighborhood, a smaller building limit
line is necessary."
2. Demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "This is the last undeveloped property in this section in Hill
and Hill Heights and Mr. Dudley has recently acquired it."
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: "A 25 -foot building limit line will not permit a house to be
constructed which is comparable to those in the neighborhood."
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 15 -foot building limit line would not affect the other
houses on the block since they are around the end of the cul -de -sac and visually the
closer offset would not be noticeable."
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
Surrounding this tract are developed lots and an existing easement that limits the
amount of available property. The tract is bounded on the south by a 25 -foot wide
water improvement district easement. No structures can be constructed on this
easement. Combined with the city's requirement for a 50 -foot street right -of -way, the
land remaining land has limited lot depth. Staff feels that based on the information
available, this request does qualify for a hearing by the Board.
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 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 existence of easements affecting lot size 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.
The property is zoned single - family, 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 setbacks is to preserve open space, provide a
visual corridor, and to prevent overcrowding. In this case the 15 -foot setback would
be along a cul -de -sac where the reduction would be less noticeable.
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;
Staff feels that this development would be compatible with the existing homes in the
neighborhood.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
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:
If the Board finds that special conditions or hardships exist, staff recommends adding
the following conditions:
1. Assure that driveways built on the affected lots have a minimum length of at least 20
feet to accommodate a parked car without overhanging the property line.
Sixteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two replied in favor,
two were opposed, and one reply was marked undecided.
Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of this Variance Request:
Mr. Seipel made a motion that the qualifying criteria is acceptable and the Board should
proceed to reviewing the evaluation criteria. Mr. Cross seconded the motion. The vote
was unanimous in favor of approval.
Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria of this Variance Request:
Mr. Elvin Dudley, applicant, was sworn in. He explained that in order to build houses in
this circle with similar square footage with the surrounding neighborhood, he is
requesting a variance for the houses on the south side. He assured the Board that the
driveways would be 20 feet long.
Mr. Seipel stated this Board has been lenient in granting variances on cul -de -sac
streets. He then stated he was hesitant to reduce the setback to 15 feet. Mr. Stillson
remarked that several cul -de -sac streets have had 15 foot setbacks with no visual ill -
effects. Mr. Stillson commented that there is a provision for reduced setbacks for
subdivisions with rear access; however, since rear access is only available on the
northern three lots, this situation is considered to be a special condition. Granting this
variance would help the applicant conform to the ordinance which states that both sides
of the street must have equal setbacks.
Mr. Cross mentioned that Lot 24 would extend beyond Lots 25 and 26 [with a 15 ft.
setback]. Mr. Dudley explained that smaller setbacks would allow the houses on the
southern side to have larger backyards.
Mr. Seipel agreed with Mr. Cross that Lot 24 did not require the full 15 foot setback. He
made a motion to approve this variance with the condition that Lots 22 and 23 have 20
foot driveways and Lot 24 not be included in the variance. There was discussion
regarding Lots 19, 20 and 21 which will have rear entry garages.
Mr. Stillson reiterated that if all lots [Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 24] had rear access there
would be no need for a variance because the setback could be reduced to at least five
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
feet from the front property line. A special condition exists because there is rear access
on one side of the street and not the other side. The purpose of this variance is to
establish minimum variances for these lots.
Chairman Mills restated Mr. Seipel's motion. Mr. Cross seconded the motion.
Mr. Dudley asked if the Board would consider a 20 foot setback for Lot 24 to enable
that house to have a larger backyard. Mr. Garcia noted that lot was 100 feet long
[which limits the buildable area].
The vote was none in favor and five opposed.
Mr. Seipel made a motion to approve a minimum of 15 -foot setbacks for Lots 22 and 23
with the condition that Lots 22 and 23 have at least 20 foot driveways and that Lot 24
shall have a minimum of a 20 foot setback. Mr. Cross seconded the motion. The vote
was unanimous in favor of approval.
2. Case V 03 -05
Reduce the Building Limit Line from 25 ft. to 20 ft.
Along A Portion of Wenonah Avenue
Applicant ....... ............................... Dennis Probst for Regency One Realtors
Property ........ ............................... 3304 Kell Freeway, Lot 1, Block 1, Regency One
Addition
Requested Action ........................ Request for a variance to allow a 20 -foot exterior side
setback along Wenonah Ave.
Purpose ........ ............................... Construction of an office
Zoning .......... ............................... Light Industrial
Commentary:
The applicant's property is located at the southwest corner of Wenonah Ave. and Kell
Blvd. He is requesting a variance to allow a 20 -foot exterior side setback along the
Wenonah side of his property. The variance will allow him use more of the property for
building and parking. As a condition of approval of this plat, the City requested a
dedication of five (5) feet of right -of -way along Wenonah, making the lot smaller.
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 triangular shape of this tract severely limits the
usable building area."
2. Demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGES
Applicant's statement: "The applicant is being required to dedicate an additional
five foot of right -of -way on Wenonah Avenue. This additional right -of -way
dedication requirement shifts the building limit line west which reduces the
usable building area."
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: "This tract was purchased from the City of Wichita Falls a
number of years ago. The applicant is not objecting to the dedicating a portion
of his land back to the city, but the resulting shift in the proposed building limit
line would create a hardship."
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: " Wenonah presently dead ends at the Lowes' parking lot.
Reducing the proposed building limit line for this property would not create an
adverse impact to surrounding property at its physical location."
The applicant's property is triangular in shape and is being further reduced in area by a
right -of -way dedication requirement. Staff feels that, based on the information
available, this request does qualify for a hearing by the Board.
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 triangular shape of the lot and right -of -way dedication requirement could be
considered special conditions.
c. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by
the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is zoned light industrial; office development is permitted in this zone.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6
d. The granting of the variance:
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
The intent of the requirement for setbacks is to preserve open space, provide a
visual corridor, and to prevent overcrowding. In this case the 20 -foot setback
would be along the side of the lot, where a five -foot reduction would be less
noticeable.
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;
Staff feels that this proposal would be compatible with the existing commercial
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.
Two surrounding property owners were notified of this request. No responses were
received.
Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of this Variance Request:
Mr. Cross made a motion that the qualifying criteria is acceptable and the Board should
proceed to reviewing the evaluation criteria. Mr. Garcia seconded the motion. The vote
was unanimous in favor of approval.
Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria of this Variance Request:
Mr. Dennis Probst, applicant, was sworn in by Mr. Stillson. Mr. Probst explained this
tract of land was originally purchased as right -of -way then sold back to the previous
owner as excess right -of -way. Before the land was sold, the Thoroughfare Plan was
changed at Wenonah to show an upgrade of a 60 foot right -of -way. The City is asking
for an additional five feet of right -of -way. This dedication would then move the building
limit line to the west which would reduce the buildable area. The requested reduction
would return the setback to its original place on the lot.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7
Mr. Cross asked if there would be a visibility problem on the Kell service road. Mr.
Probst stated the front of the building would be parallel to Wenonah and not cause a
visual problem.
Mr. Cross made a motion to grant the variance as submitted. Mr. Seipel seconded the
motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
Mayor Altman thanked the Board members for their time and service to the City. The
Mayor commended them on their diligent job in making decisions.
V. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Dana Mills, M.D., Chairman
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 8
Date