Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 12/19/2001MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 19, 2001 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date By PRESENT: John Key, Chairman 0 Members Thomas Cross 0 Don McKinney 0 Dawn Murer 0 J. D. Ruiz 0 Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0 City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II 0 ABSENT: Willa Burgess 0 Michael Norrie 0 Charles A. Peters, III 0 Les Seipel 0 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. by Chairman Key. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the November 16, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved by the Board as submitted. III. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Variance to Remove Fencing Requirement and Variance of Flood Plain Requirements 3612 Iowa Park Road Case V 01 -09 Applicant ....... ............................... Jim Glasgow Requested Action .. ...................... Variance, Two Parts Purpose ........ ............................... (1) Application for a variance to eliminate the requirement for a 6 foot tall privacy fence along a portion of the east property line of 3612 Iowa Park Road, and, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 (2) Application for a variance to construct an addition to a building, which is 4.92 inches below the City's required floodplain elevation. Property ........ ............................... 3612 Iowa Park Road, Lot 1, Capital Addition Zoning ........... ............................... Residential Mixed Use Commentary: Part 1. Fence Variance The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 4620, Screening Requirements to eliminate the fencing requirement based on existing site conditions. Section 4620 (A) states that when a nonresidential use is adjacent to a single - family boundary, a six -foot tall privacy fence is required. There is a single - family boundary adjacent to a portion of the east boundary of the applicant's property. The applicant operates a truck service business and is adding to his building, therefore the screening section of the zoning ordinance requires a screen. Qualifying Criteria: a. That 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 buildings in the same district. Applicant's statement: "The proposed building addition in the front of Lot 1 and cannot be seen by any single family housing occupants because they back up to a vacant lot as shown in the diagram. The trees and vegetation along the concrete storm water ditch owned by the City of Wichita Falls obstruct view by single family housing occupants." Staff response: There is an existing drainage canal on the east side of the lot where the fence would be required. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement: "The trees and vegetation have grown up over the years before the current property owner took possession about two years ago. The trees and vegetation provide excellent cover in place of a fence, making it unneeded." Staff response: The canal was constructed as a drainage ditch some time ago. C. That 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: "With no building or activity in the area of the vacant lot that is beside single - family housing it deprives the applicant of his rights by BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 requiring a fence along the unused property that is a vacant lot. " Staff Response: The ordinance requires the fencing of property along the zoning boundary whether there is a structure or use in the immediate area. In this case the fence is required along an area where there is no development. d. That 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: "Granting a variance of the fencing requirement would not give any special privilege because the proposed building addition is no where near any single - family housing and would not cause them to lose any rights they have to be protected by fencing from a business wanting to expand." Staff response: The applicant's proposed fence would not screen the commercial activity which is south of where the fence would have to be built. Staff feels that this application may present sufficient evidence to support the claim of hardship or special condition. 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 believes that it may be in the public interest to grant this variance. 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. A drainage ditch occupies the east boundary of the applicant's lot. There are existing trees along the ditch that form a natural barrier between this property and the single - family boundary to the east. The proposed building expansion will not be adjacent to the portion of the property with the fencing requirement. The lot is about 830 feet deep; only that portion near Iowa Park Road being developed. 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 residential mixed use. This district allows repair services as a conditional use and the applicant has operated here for two years. The original business was established prior to the adoption of zoning in 1985. The proposed use is an expansion of an existing truck repair service. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 d. The granting of the variance: Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; The intent of the buffering section is to provide residential areas protection from the impacts of non - residential uses by reducing the potential impacts through increased separation, construction of visual or noise barriers, etc. Is in harmony therewith; In staff's opinion, omitting the fence would not be contrary to the goals of the screenng requirements, and would be in harmony with the intent of this ordinance. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; This variance will not be harmful to the neighborhood as the area to be developed is not visible from the adjacent neighboring lots. Or detrimental to the public welfare. Staff believes that approving this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Part 1 of this variance request be approved. Part 2. Floodplain Requirements Variance The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement to elevate an addition to his building one foot above the floodplain elevation. In March 1999 the City Council approved an amendment to the City's Floodplain ordinance, raising the required elevation within the floodplain to one foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Previously the ordinance required only that structures be elevated to the BFE. The applicant's building was built in 1973, before the City entered the National Flood Insurance Program. The initial identification of flood prone areas began in June 1974, with the first flood map being issued in October 1979. He proposes to make an addition to this building that will be constructed as an extension of the existing slab. The existing slab elevation is 961.59 feet, being above the current BFE requirement of 961, but it is less than the required one -foot above elevation of 962. Qualifying Criteria: a. That 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 buildings in the same district. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 Applicant's statement: "The existing building concrete slab height [of] 961.59 is above the minimum FEMA requirement. The existing building already has a 20 ft. wide by 70 ft. long concrete slab that ties into the building slab located directly behind the existing building." Staff response: There is an existing slab adjacent to the building. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement: "The existing building and addition proposed are used as a truck repair facility. The existing building and slab already in place necessitate [that] the proposed additional building concrete slab height be the same height. When moving trucks in and around the building and addition it would be unsafe to have the addition at 1 foot higher level. It would not be cost efficient either to waste a perfectly good existing concrete slab tearing it out and re- pouring it 1 foot higher. The existing building concrete slab and outside slab also already have drains and sediment traps in place built into the concrete." Staff response: The City's flood regulations require that the lowest floor of a building be built one foot above the base flood elevation. In this case it would require that the slab be built up 0.41 feet or 4.92 inches above the existing slab to achieve a 962 elevation. Staff acknowledges that a 5 inch change in grade could be a difficultly for vehicles and drainage in an repair shop environment. Using the existing slab does offer some practical advantages. C. That 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: "We feel if the variance is not granted by the City of Wichita Falls, we would be deprived of the right to expand and grow as a business. Due to some special existing building circumstances we feel this is the only way this can be done in a reasonable and economical way the business can afford. " Staff Response: Economic hardship or monetary considerations alone are not sufficient grounds for granting a variance. The applicant does have a pre - ordinance slab, which is elevated 0.69 feet above the BFE, but less than the additional city requirement of one foot. If the existing slab were to be used without elevation, it would not violate the flood insurance program requirements. The applicant should aware that there is an increased risk of flood damage by not elevating the slab the additional 4.92 inches, and that flood insurance premiums may be higher. d. That 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGES Applicant's statement: "Granting the variance would not be giving any special privilege to the applicant because the addition would be exactly like the building in place and not change anything except the size of the building. Staff response: We have here the existence a pre- ordinance slab that exceeds the minimum FEMA elevation. However, it does not meet the additional "one -foot above" requirement of the City. Staff believes that this is a fairly rare situation. If the slab did not meet minimum FEMA requirements, staff would oppose any variance from the requirements. Staff feels that this application may present sufficient evidence to support the claim of hardship or special condition. 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: E:� C. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Staff believes that it may be in the public interest to grant this variance. 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 original slab was constructed before any floodplain regulation was in place. Fortunately the slab is above the minimum flood elevation. It is 5 inches below an additional requirement adopted in 1999. 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 residential mixed use. and the applicant has operated here for two established prior to the adoption of zoning expansion of an existing truck repair service. The granting of the variance: This district allows repair services years. The original business was in 1985. The proposed use is an Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; The intent of floodplain regulations is to provide protection against flooding and its harmful effects. New or substantially improved structures are required have their lowest floor elevated above the predicted floodwater height. This height is known as the base flood elevation. Is in harmony therewith; BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6 In staff's opinion, allowing a structure to be constructed on this existing slab will substantially meet the goals of the regulation. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; This variance will not be harmful to the neighborhood in the area and will not present a danger to adjacent structures. Or detrimental to the public welfare. Staff believes that approving this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Part 2 of this variance request be approved. The applicant should aware that there is an increased risk of flood damage by not elevating the slab the additional 4.92 inches, and that flood insurance premiums may be higher. Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of the Variance for the Fence by the Board: Mr. McKinney stated recent rulings and evaluations of similar cases by this Board would preclude hearing the qualifying criteria. Mr. Cross agreed. Mr. McKinney made a motion, based on the qualifying criteria, that this application for the fence variance be heard by this Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cross then unanimously approved. Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria of the Variance for the Fence by the Board: Mr. Randy Blaine, lessee and potential buyer of the property, was sworn in by Chairman Key. Mr. Seese stated the fence would not accomplish a purpose because it would not be seen; the existing fence would screen the property sufficiently. Mr. Cross asked if the variance would apply to the undeveloped portions of the lot. Mr. Seese replied affirmatively. Mr. McKinney stated that the variance could be amended to include the undeveloped northern part of the property. Chairman Key suggested marking the plat to reflect that Exhibit A would be the portion of the property to which this variance would apply; Mr. Seese agreed. Mr. Cross made a motion to amend the original motion to include the only area to be considered for this variance is the area north and east of the currently installed fence which runs east and west across the property, known as Exhibit A on the attached map. Mr. McKinney seconded the motion. It was passed with a unanimous vote in favor. Mr. Blaine stated that he was hoping to move the fence back 100 feet; Chairman Key stated that it could not be considered at this time. Mr. Seese suggested waiting until Council reviews the changes to the screening ordinance in January. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7 A motion was made, and seconded, to grant the variance to the location referred to as Exhibit A of the property. The vote was unanimous in favor of approving the evaluation criteria for the fence. Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria for the Variance of the Floodplain Requirements by the Board: Mr. Seese commented that FEMA requires a BFE of 962' to 961', or flat property with a gentle slope. The City requires buildings to be constructed one foot above the BFE. He added that the existing building is above the FEMA requirements. He stressed that granting this variance would not endanger the City's floodplain program. If the addition were built at the level required by the ordinance (one foot above BFE), there would be a four -inch difference in the height. When hardships were discussed, Chairman Key stressed that an economic hardship cannot be the sole factor in granting a variance. Regarding this case, there are special conditions with the structure which was built to comply with the previous ordinance and the former FEMA requirements. Mr. McKinney stated the hardship appears to be economic. Ms. Murer asked if the variance were granted and the building floods, would there be repercussions. Mr. Seese responded that the City's flood rating would not be effected but the owner of the building would probably be required to pay higher insurance rates. Mr. Blaine stated that the hardship comes from the height of the existent slab. Mr. McKinney suggested if the proposed building complied with the required height, a ramp could bridge the differences. Mr. Ruiz made a motion, based on the qualifying criteria, that this application be heard by this Board. The motion was seconded and the vote was three (3) in favor and two (2) opposed. The motion carried with a simple majority. Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria for the Variance of the Floodplain Requirements by the Board: Mr. Seese reviewed this criteria with the Board. The question of an economic hardship was raised again by Mr. McKinney. Chairman Key stated that the floodplain elevation requirement is peculiar to the structure being built and is not financially based. Mr. Stillson suggested the Board place a condition that an engineering firm certify and document to the City that it meets the FEMA requirements. Mr. Cross stated that he would be in favor of granting the variance. Chairman Key asked the Commission to consider the hardship as being unnecessary since the FEMA requirements would be met, it does not effect the City's FEMA audits, it does not effect public interest, and it is only necessary because of the City ordinance. Mr. Blaine sited an example of pushing a 4,000 lb. engine up a 5% grade; it would be dangerous and be considered a safety issue. Mr. McKinney made a motion to grant the variance of the floodplain requirements with certification by an engineering firm or registered public surveyor that the slab meets the FEMA requirements; Mr. Cross seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 8 IV. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. John Key, Chairman BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 9 Date EXHIBIT A TRhS VACANTLOT NOT USED TREES TREES-- Z W= 61.5' FLNCF. BUILDING .J L x 7 ' EMISTING I ------961' BUILDING �- ATF FF..VC'F 3612 CONCRETE STORM WATER CITY OF W.F. SINGLE FAMILY _ HOUSING BOUNDRY HIiLUI \ry • "GRANTED AREA GRANTED A VARIANCE OLD Ipyp,9 PAP,-K RD ffl FIOUSE