Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 05/20/2009V MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 20, 2009 PRESENT: Les Seipel, Chairman 0 Members Michael Latham 0 Jose Garcia 0 Steve Wood 0 Dustin Nimz 0 Alternate #1 Elvin Dudley 0 Alternate #20 Chad Hughes 0 Alternate #s David Lane 0 Alternate #4 Jim Ginnings, Council Liaison 0 Kinley Hegglund, Senior Assistant City Attorney 0 Legal Dept. David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff Marty Odom, Planner II 0 Diane Parker 0 ABSENT: Dave Lilley 0 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 April 15, 2009 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Wood seconded. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote in favor. III. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case V 09 -03 Request for a variance to allow a lot to be platted with a 30.16' frontage width instead of the required 60' frontage 1151 Fell Lane David and Mary Bowling requested a variance to reduce the street frontage in order for their property to be platted with a 30.16' frontage instead of the required 60'. The MAY 20, 2009 PAGE 2 current configuration of this property was established prior to annexation in 1999. The applicants are proposing to build a new home on this property which is zoned Single Family -1. Seven (7) surrounding property owners were notified of this request; no (0) responses were received to be in favor or opposed. One (1) response was received that was marked undecided or no opinion. Qualifying Criteria: a. The applicants' have a special circumstance of a 30.16' frontage for access to their 10 acres. This land was subdivided prior to being annexed by the City. b. The applicants' purchased this property prior to annexation and the 30.16' was sufficient to the ingress and egress to this tract. A 60' frontage is a requirement in the City limits but not in Wichita County. C. The applicants would like to build a new home. They will not be able to accomplish this construction without a variance. d. The applicants are not subject to any special privileges. The access needed is 30.16'. Most of the lots in this area have 60' of street frontage. Mr. Latham asked why a duplex requires a 50' frontage while a single family residence requires more with a 60' frontage. Mr. Odom stated that most zoning districts require 50' frontage with one exception, Single Family -1 where the requirement is 60'. Mr. Latham made a motion to approve the Qualifying Criteria; Mr. Nimz seconded. The Qualifying Criteria was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. Evaluation Criteria: Mr. Odom reviewed the Evaluation Criteria with the Board. Chairman Seipel asked what triggered the plat to be filed; Mr. Odom responded it was the construction of the new home. Mr. Latham made a motion to approve the Evaluation Criteria; Mr. Hughes seconded. The variance was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. 2. Case V 09 -04 Request for a variance to reduce the exterior side setback from 15' to 11.2' to allow a duplex to be constructed on a corner lot 1233 32nd Street Mr. Odom stated Mr. Ralph Garza requested this variance for a side setback reduction on a corner lot to build a duplex. In order to accomplish this construction, he will need an 11.2' setback to fit the building on this lot. Twenty -six (26) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three (3) MAY 20, 2009 PAGE 3 responded in favor and none (0) were opposed. Qualifying Criteria: a. The lots in this area were originally platted for single family homes. At that time, the 15' exterior side setback requirement did not exist. b. These lots were platted prior to the adoption of the setback requirements. C. The proposed duplex would be an improvement to the neighborhood. There are many new homes that are being built or remodeled in this area. A significant number of existing homes built on exterior lots within this neighborhood do not meet the 15' setback. d. Staff feels that there may be a hardship based on the added burden of a 15' exterior side setback required for a corner lot that was platted prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Dudley asked if there were special provisions for these older lots. Mr. Odom stated there is some relief in the subdivision ordinance that permits lots on the same side of the block or structures on either side of a building to use an average of the existing front setbacks. In this case, there were no structures from which to derive an average. Mr. Latham inquired about the safety aspect of building into the setback. Mr. Odom explained that, in this general area, there are structures built into the 15' setback and he did not feel it would be unreasonable to allow this request. To questioning Mr. Odom responded that, if there are no sidewalks, Mr. Garza would not be required to construct sidewalks. Mr. Garcia stated a concern for the number of lots this size potentially asking for this same request in the future. Mr. Odom responded that this is a common request throughout the state in cities with Boards of Adjustment. Various cities have older neighborhoods with these smaller residential lots. Mr. Latham made a motion to approve the Qualifying Criteria; Mr. Lane seconded. The Qualifying Criteria was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. Evaluation Criteria: Mr. Odom reviewed the Evaluation Criteria. Mr. Odom presented a map of the neighborhood which showed the setbacks to be less than 15 feet and some structures were built on the property line. The structure behind this lot is less than 15 feet according to scaling on the map. Chairman Seipel asked if the setbacks on corner lots could be reduced in certain neighborhoods. Mr. Odom stated that it is preferable to have it on a request basis because there might be situations where it would not be advantageous to do so. MAY 20, 2009 PAGE 4 Mr. Nimz made a motion to approve the Evaluation Criteria; Mr. Hughes seconded. The variance request passed with a unanimous vote in favor. IV. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.m. ///z Z4�/ ichael Latham for Les Seipel, Chairman Date RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 r ii]Y�� Date ` w By Time 10 ag-