Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 12/17/2014MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
December 17, 2014
PRESENT:
Jerry Beaver
0 Members
Jose Garcia, Vice Chairman
0
Chad Hughes
0
Kerry J. Maroney
0
Dustin Nimz, Chairperson
0
David Lane
0 Alternate #1
Steve Lane
0 Alternate #2
James McKechnie, Assistant City Attorney 0 Legal Dept.
Karen Montgomery- Gagne, Planning Administrator 0 staff
Leo Mantey, Planner 1 0
Christopher Guess, Planner II 0
Diane Parker, Administrative Assistant 0
ABSENT:
Tyson Traw 0 Alternate #4
Annetta Pope - Dotson 0 Council Liaison
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Nimz called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m.
11. MINUTES
No minutes were submitted by the deadline for the November 19, 2014 meeting.
111. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case V 14 -03
Request for a variance of 10 ft. in the required 25 ft. front setback to construct a single
family residence
2905 South Shepherds Glen
Eddie Holcomb, the applicant, is requesting this variance in order to construct a home.
This lot was platted without an exterior side setback due to the curvilinear nature of
South Shepherds Glen. The lot was platted with a 25 ft. building limit line along the
north and west sides of the lot leaving a small developable area.
Mr. Holcomb is requesting to build a single family residence of similar character as the
neighboring homes. The proposed site plan for the home will extend into the front
setback thus requiring a variance of 10 ft. from the existing 25 ft. setback, leaving him a
15 ft. front setback.
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: "The lot is oddly shaped and was platted with a 25 ft. BLL
[setback on the north and west sides of the lot]. We would like a 95 ft. BLL."
Staffs Response: Due to the irregular, triangular shape of the lot, the property was
platted without an exterior side setback.
2. Demonstrate special conditions and circumstances do not result from
applicant's actions.
Applicant's Statement: "The lot was replated in April, 2090 to increase the buildable
envelope for the adjacent residence."
Staff's Response: The curved shape of the lot and the 25 ft. building limit line is a result
of the original design and not a result of the actions of the applicant.
3. State how the literal interpretation of the provisions of the 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: "Other lots in the area do not have such an odd shape which
allows them a 95 ft. exterior side setback or 5 ft. interior side setback."
Staff's Response: Staff concurs the frontage of other lots in the immediate area are not
curved. Most parcels are rectangular in shape with lesser street frontage.
4. State how granting the variance would be in harmony with the objective of the
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. "The use of the lot will be single family residential and the use
will be identical to the other uses in the subdivision."
Staffs Response: The granting of the variance will create a use that is allowed within
the Single Family -2 zoning district and would be in harmony with the scale of existing
homes in the neighborhood. The variance would provide the applicant with the same
privileges shared by surrounding property owners.
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 recommends approval of this variance with the following conditions:
1. The lot frontage will extend 30 ft. from the adjoining property parallel with the rear
property line and shall adhere to the 25 ft. building limit line.
2. The lot's remaining front yard setback shall begin thereafter and be a minimum of 15
ft.
Chairman Nimz asked if the 30 ft. from the adjoining property was the amount on the
display from the left; Mr. Guess stated it was which would ensure this home is not
extending further towards the street than the homes on this block. The neighboring
home and the proposed development would have the same frontage towards the street.
Mr. D. Lane made a motion to grant the variance; Mr. Beaver seconded. The variance
was granted with a unanimous vote.
IV. New Business
Mr. Guess stated, on behalf of the Planning Division, he would like to thank Chairman
Nimz, Mr. Garcia, and Mr. Hughes for their service and their contribution of time to this
Board and the City of Wichita Falls.
V. Adjourn
The Board adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
03 is
Du6ili Nimz, Chairman Date