File #: 18-615    Name: 18-12 BOA - 701 Elm Street
Type: Agenda Item Status: Regular Agenda Item
In control: Board of Adjustment
On agenda: 7/25/2018 Final action:
Title: Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on the Request by Bryant Knepp with Habitat for Humanity - Collin County, for the Consideration of Ten (10') Variance to the Side at Corner Setback Requirement of Twenty Five Feet (25,) in the Zoning Ordinance, for Property Located at 701 Elm Street, Lot 10, Block 6, Gerris Addition, McKinney, Texas
Attachments: 1. Application

Title

Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on the Request by Bryant Knepp with Habitat for Humanity - Collin County, for the Consideration of Ten (10’) Variance to the Side at Corner Setback Requirement of Twenty Five Feet (25,) in the Zoning Ordinance, for Property Located at 701 Elm Street, Lot 10, Block 6, Gerris Addition, McKinney, Texas

 

Summary

 

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE NUMBER:                     18-12

 

MEETING DATE:                     July 25, 2018

 

DEPARTMENT:                     Development Services - Building Inspections

 

CONTACT:                     Rick Herzberger, Chief Building Official

 

 

RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION:  Consider request based on the lot conditions and/or other conditions as stated in the ordinance.

 

ITEM SUMMARY:                     The applicant presented the conditions of this lot with history of ownership and lot of record changes and it was determined by the City and the Applicant that the lot did not need to be platted. This allowed the applicant to move the front to Elm Street and request only one variance.

 

ZONING:  RS 60 - Single Family Residential

 

EXISTING CONDITIONS:  A conforming vacant corner lot and applicant desires to build a new home on the lot. The corner lot does show minimum 50’ width by ordinance, yet newer platted subdivisions usually show a more than 50’ wide side at corner lot to accommodate the 25’ minimum setback for side at corner lot. The lot does have 125’ depth which is 25’ more than the minimum lot depth of 100’.

 

VARIANCE REQUESTED:

 

Zoning ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS

REQUESTED DIMENSIONS

VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE

 

 

 

SIDE AT CORNER - 25’

15’

10’

 

APPLICANT’S BASIS FOR VARIANCE: See description on the application and attachment.

 

PUBLIC SUPPORT/OPPOSITION OREQUEST:  To date, no letters of support and no letters of opposition have been submitted.

 

BOARD AUTHORITY:

 

Variances. The board shall have the power to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of this chapter as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of this chapter shall be observed and substantial justice done, including the following:

1.                     Permit a variance in the yard requirements of any district where there are unusual and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the carrying out of these provisions due to an irregular shape of the lot, topographical or other conditions, provided such variance will not seriously affect any adjoining property or the general welfare; and

2.                     Authorize upon appeal, whenever a property owner can show that a strict application of the terms of this chapter relating to the construction or alterations of buildings or structures will impose upon him unusual and practical difficulties or particular hardship, such variances from the strict application of this chapter as are in harmony with its general purpose and intent, but only when the board is satisfied that a granting of such variation will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but will alleviate some demonstrable and unusual hardship or difficulty so great as to warrant a variance from the zoning ordinance as established by this chapter, and at the same time, the surrounding property will be properly protected.

 

BUILDING OFFICIAL STATEMENT:  The request has been field validated and I agree that the Board has the implied authority to consider this variance, based on the lot and conditions presented by the applicant, and is not contrary to the public interest and general welfare of the adjacent property.