CITY OF GRANBURY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

Transcription

1 CITY OF GRANBURY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Granbury convened in regular session on Tuesday, April 28, 2009, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Granbury City Hall, 116 W. Bridge Street, Granbury, Texas. Notice of said meeting giving date, place, and subject thereof having been posted as prescribed by Article V.A.T.C.S., with the following members present: Eileen Cate * Chairman Ernestine Shugart * Member Jim Leitch * Member Paul Cocanour * Member Tim Bubel * Member Sherri Reynolds * Alternate Also present were: Scott Sopchak Director of Community Development Shad Rhoten - Planner Angela McCafferty Recording Secretary Absent: Christine Berryman Chairman Cate called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Leitch made a motion to approve the minutes of March 31, 2009 as presented. Mr. Cocanour seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Cate explained to the Board they had been called to act upon one request for a variance and two requests for a special exception from the City of Granbury Zoning Ordinance Requirements. In order to grant a variance from zoning regulation, the Board of Adjustment must make written findings that the variance creates undue hardship, using the following criteria: 1

2 1. That literal enforcement of the controls will create an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty in the development of the affected property. 2. That the situation causing the hardship or difficulty is neither self-imposed nor generally affecting all or most properties in the same zoning district. 3. That the relief sought will not injure the permitted use of adjacent conforming property. 4. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of these regulations. Chairman Cate stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a variance shall not be granted to relieve a self-created or personal hardship, nor shall it be based solely on economic gain or loss, nor shall it permit any person a privilege in developing a parcel of land not permitted by this Ordinance to other parcels of land in the particular zoning district. No variance may be granted which results in undue hardship on another parcel of land. He also stated that each variance will be evaluated according to this established criteria. ZBA , Request of the City of Granbury for a Special Exception to Section 11.7 Exterior Building Materials, Roof and Articulation Standards of the City of Granbury Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting to not provide the required 80% masonry on the exterior of the City Beach concession stand. The property is located southeast of the intersection of Cleburne St. and E. Pearl St. and is addressed as 601 E. Pearl St. Chairman Cate opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Keith Callahan, Director of City Services, addressed the Board. He thanked them for the opportunity to speak. He stated he would first like to discuss the development of the City Beach project. The old beach was shoddy and looked bad. He stated City Council and the Parks Board wanted to create a unique attraction for citizens and guests to Granbury. The new restrooms are 100% rock with a standing seam, roof, but the tiki hut, pavilion and picnic tables are considered a separate area, along with the splash park. He told the Board he had received many compliments on the look and environment of the new City Beach area and the response from the community had been very good. He stated the tiki hut is an engineered metal building and the bamboo is attached the metal surface. Bamboo is very eco-friendly and is used in flooring, furniture and window blinds. Mr. Callahan stated, as for the fire safety of the thatched roof, he tried to set some of the material on fire and it puts itself out. The City Council, Parks and Recreation Board and City Manager were all behind the City Beach concept to create something unique. Chairman Cate asked what zoning district the City Beach was in. Mr. Rhoten stated it was in a Light Commercial zoning district. Chairman Cate asked if the 2

3 use was compatible with the zoning district. Mr. Rhoten stated it was. Chairman Cate asked what the life expectancy of the thatch roof material was. Mr. Callahan stated it would depend on the number and severity of storms. However, the specifications of the product state it should last between years. Chairman Cate stated the Board had considered, in the past, for buildings that do not meet the masonry requirement, additional landscaping to try and meet the intent of the ordinance. She stated some palm trees along the back of the building, facing Pearl Street, might be a nice addition. Mr. Cocanour stated he had noticed a trend with recent City buildings. They seem to be stone with green metal roofs. He asked if that was an intentional plan by the City. Mr. Callahan stated the recent restroom facilities have been planned to be similar by design. The City Council and Parks and Recreation Board were trying to standardize the look of those buildings. Mr. Cocanour asked if the Parks and Recreation Board approved of the request for a Special Exception. Mr. Callahan stated they did. Mr. Cocanour stated he would like to know if the Mayor is in favor of the tiki hut design. Mayor Southern stated he is in favor of the current design. He told the Board his home practically adjoins the Beach property and he drives by it several times a day. After the building had been redesigned as a hut, he stated he learned a Special Exception had not been obtained and he directed City staff to begin the process. Ms. Reynolds stated her concern was that the materials would need constant treatment and maintenance to maintain the fire retardency. Mr. Callahan stated it is nothing more than normal maintenance, as with any other building with the City s Park system. The treatment of the bamboo and thatch material will require no more care than a typical painted area would require. Ms. Reynolds stated the material is splintering and is not safe to children who may run their hands along the material and get splinters. Mr. Callahan stated if there were maintenance issues that needed to be addressed they would be taken care of. He told the Board the beach itself could be considered a huge liability and safety concern. Mr. Leitch asked if there had ever been any consideration of the beach restroom being a tiki hut design. Mr. Callahan said no, they were trying to tie the tiki hut to the picnic tables and gazebo. Mr. Leitch asked if the project didn t begin with the restroom. Mr. Callahan stated the restrooms were built first. One was built on the north side of Pearl Street to be used by park patrons and people using the boat ramps. The other restroom went in on the west side of the beach, but is not exclusively used by beach patrons. It is open at times when the beach is not in use. Mr. Leitch asked if they didn t consider building the tiki hut with stone. Mr. Callahan stated the restrooms were built by a contractor hired by the City and was funded by a Texas Parks grant. The rest of the work on the beach has been done by City employees. Mr. Leitch asked what was under the bamboo material. Mr. Callahan stated metal was under the bamboo. Mr. Bubel asked if any chemicals were stored in the tiki hut. Mr. Callahan stated the only chemicals stored inside the tiki hut were general cleaning supplies. The chemicals for the 3

4 splash yard are stored in another location. Mr. Bubel asked if the fire retardant spray would be scheduled and if records would be kept of the treatments. Mr. Callahan stated the maintenance department would take care of that. Mayor David Southern stated he lives about a block away from the City Beach property and he thought the tiki hut matched the theme of the beach area. The roof itself is metal, similar to the restrooms and City Hall, the thatch is just decorative. The entire beach project has been more successful than anyone had imagined. He told the Board the City would plant as many palm trees as they wanted. Mr. Perry Wray, 511 S. Baker Street, stated he did not think the hut matched the theme. Driving by it looks tacky and out of place. All the buildings around the beach are brick or stone. He stated he did not think it fits Granbury. Ms. Barbara Boozer, Granbury Parks Board, stated she was born and raised in Granbury. She told the Board she thought the tiki hut met the criteria for a beach area. She stated rock structures do not belong on a beach and would look out of place. Ms. Cathy Kuban, Granbury Parks Board, stated she had been on the Parks Board for years. She stated the Parks Board has worked very hard to promote and improve the beach area. She told the Board she thought the beach was beautiful and was everything they had planned it would be. Ms. Jean Cate, Granbury Parks Board, addressed the Board. She stated when the Parks Board first started discussing the beach project and the tiki hut, they were not trying to draw in tourists, and they were trying to create a special getaway for the citizens of Granbury. She stated, as with any building, there will be maintenance. Mr. Peter Garland, 511 E. Bridge, addressed the Board. He stated he lives 1 block from the beach and he loves it. He thought the City and the Parks Department had done a great job on the beach area. He told the Board he and his 4 year old grandson had been on the beach in January and February and encouraged the Board to approve the tiki hut as it is. Ms. Barbara Klein addressed the Board. She stated she owns the yellow building across the street from the tiki hut. She told the Board she thought the hut was totally out of character. She loves the beach and was glad there was a beach that could be used, but was against the design of the tiki hut because it looks tacky and would need constant maintenance. She stated the motto of this town is Where Texas History Lives and she thought it should stay that way. 4

5 Mr. Keith Tipton, Granbury Parks Board, addressed the Board. He stated the hut was approved in many different stages and he thought it did fit the beach theme. He told the Board everyone he had talked to liked it. Ms. Vircy Macatee, 212 Turner Circle, addressed the Board. She stated she had heard the words, unique, different and exciting when describing the tiki hut. This area is typically oaks, elms hackberry and cedar brush. It is not historically appropriate to create a Waikiki Beach 1 block from the square. It is not historically correct. She stated Granbury is losing too much of its history because of all the Special Exceptions. Mr. Leitch stated he was concerned with the stone restroom in relation to the bamboo tiki hut. He thought the tiki did provide a themed beach area and the restroom does not fit into that. Mayor Southern stated part of the responsibility for that was his. The Parks Board wanted green roofs on all the buildings, hence the restrooms. Then it was decided to put a more historic silver roof on the Conference Center. The area in between (beach) was a transition. He stated they may add thatch to the roof of the restroom on the south side of Pearl St. to try and tie it all together. However, the restroom does operate independently of the beach area. It is open 24/7 at times when the beach is not. Ms. Reynolds stated she was still concerned with splintering and the welfare of children at the beach. Chairman Cate stated City Staff has expressed that they will maintain the material. Mayor Southern asked Mr. Callahan if he had received any reports of injuries. Mr. Callahan stated he had not received any reports of injuries due to bamboo splinters and there are hundreds of visitors there every weekend. Mr. Perry Wray asked what maintenance of the building would cost. Mr. Callahan stated he had enough material on hand to make repairs as needed. He added that vandalism costs the City more than maintenance of buildings and equipment within the park system. Mayor Southern stated the cost of maintaining it for the next 30 years would be less than applying stone to it. Chairman Cate closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Cocanour made a motion to approve the Special Exception as submitted. Mr. Leitch seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve (Cate, Leitch, Shugart, Cocanour, Bubel). MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. ZBA , Request of Lidia Reyna for a Variance to Article 8 Landscape Requirements of the City of Granbury Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting to not provide the required 20% landscaping at the subject property. The property is located at 5680 Acton Hwy. Chairman Cate opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Rhoten stated the variance request is to the minimum landscaping requirements initiated by a change in zoning request. The request is to not 5

6 provide the required 20% landscaping at the subject property. The property is located on Hwy 4 and zoned Interim Holding. The property was annexed into the corporate boundary in June Upon annexation, all newly annexed land is zoned Interim Holding prior to receiving final zoning. The structure on site was recorded as vacant through a non-conforming Certificate of Occupancy sent to the property owner after annexation. The applicant is now requesting to rezone the property from its current classification to Light Commercial to allow the operation of a salon within the existing structure. A change in zoning requires the property be brought into conformity with the current landscape provisions as outlined in Article 8. The Zoning Ordinance requires that 20% of the total property area be landscaped with additional plantings per every 1,000 sq. ft. of required landscaped area. The applicant would also be required to install a 15 foot landscape buffer along the Hwy 4 frontage. Mr. Rhoten stated the landscaping required for the site was: Property Area = acres / 25,047 sq. ft. 20% of 25,047 sq. ft. = 5,000 sq. ft. of required landscaped area 40% of 5,000 sq. ft. = 2,000 sq. ft. of required front yard landscaped area Total Yard Requirements 3 caliper tree per 1,000 sq. ft. of landscaped area = (5) 3 caliper trees. ornamental trees per 1,000 sq. ft. of landscaped area = (10) ornamental trees (6) shrubs per 1,000 sq. ft. of landscaped area = (30) shrubs 3 caliper tree per 50 of street frontage = (2) 3 calipers based off 100 street frontage 15 landscape buffer required on Hwy 4 frontage Irrigation system required The applicant has submitted an argument that the property was developed to less restrictive standards prior to annexation into the City of Granbury. A majority of the property is currently paved with asphalt and used for parking. Ms. Lidia Reyna stated she would put as much landscaping in as she could. She told the Board there was a flower bed and a place she could put potted plants. The rest of the property is asphalt for parking. Mr. Bubel asked if the building was demolished and the pavement put in prior to annexation. Mr. Reyna stated she was unsure of the timing of the demolition. Chairman Cate asked how many parking spaces were required. Mr. Rhoten stated approximately 6. Mr. Leitch asked how many patrons were expected at a time. Ms. Reyna stated there could be 2 or 3 customers per operator and she planned to have 7 stylists in the salon. Chairman Cate stated she thought that this met the criteria when evaluating with the 4-prong test. Chairman Cate closed the Public Hearing. 6

7 Mr. Cocanour made a motion to approve the variance with the condition if the structure is ever removed, demolished, or replaced the variance is void. Mr. Leitch seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve (Cate, Leitch, Shugart, Cocanour, Bubel). MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. ZBA , Request of Johnny Hopper for a Special Exception to Section 11.7 Exterior Construction Materials of the City of Granbury Zoning Ordinance to not provide 80% masonry on the exterior of a proposed structure. The property is located at 1310 Weatherford Hwy. within the Park 51 Business Park. Chairman Cate opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Rhoten stated the applicant is requesting a special exception to not provide the required 80% masonry on the exterior of the proposed structure as required by ordinance. The applicant is proposing to utilize Hardie Plank siding for the structure s exterior material, similar to the existing adjacent buildings. The property is located within the Park 51 Business Park on Weatherford Hwy, north of the Granbury Square and directly west of Equibrand Corporation. The property is addressed as 1310 Weatherford Hwy. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,553 square foot structure to be utilized for the Christian Women s Job Corporation of Granbury. The structure will be located behind the existing Children s Advocacy Center building and the applicant is requesting to mimic the materials on the two adjacent structures. The applicant has submitted an argument that the proposed structure will be located behind adjacent structures in relation to Hwy 51. The new building will be located approximately 450 feet from Weatherford Hwy and have limited visibility. The applicant has also expressed that structures in the surrounding area consist of exterior materials other than masonry and the applicant desires to maintain a consistent look throughout the park. Mr. Justin Hopper addressed the Board. He stated he would like to use hardieplank siding as opposed to masonry on the proposed building. It will mimic the existing W.I.C and Children s Advocacy Center structures. The existing buildings look like homes and that is the look he would like to maintain throughout the development. Chairman Cate closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Leitch made a motion to approve the Special Exception request as presented with the use of Hardie-Plank siding on the exterior of the building as proposed. Ms. Shugart seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. DISCUSSION 7

8 ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, Chairman Cate made a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. 8