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, September 26, 2006, 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: Ed Seilheimer * Chairman Glenda Pirkle * Vice-Chairman Eileen Cate * Member Cynthia Bell * Member Ernestine Shugart * Alternate Also present were: Scott Sopchak Director of Community Development Casey Oliver - Planner Alma Wells Recording Secretary Absent: Jim Leitch * Member Chairman Seilheimer called the Public Hearing to order at 5:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Seilheimer made a motion to approve the minutes of August 22, The vote was unanimous to approve. MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Seilheimer explained to the Board they had been called to act upon requests for two variances from the City 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. That literal enforcement of the controls will create an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty in the development of the affected property. 1

2 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 Seilheimer 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 Darrell Gregg for a variance to Section 5.15.C Height and Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to encroach into the required 20 side setback. The applicant would like to construct a 190 sq. ft. accessory structure approximately 6 from the property line. The applicant is also requesting a variance to Section Screening Fence Requirements to utilize an alternative screening fence material. The property is located at 1500 N. Houston St. Chairman Seilheimer opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Seilheimer stated the building was a car wash and a self storage building. He advised the building is being converted strictly to a car wash. Mr. Darrell Gregg addressed the board. Mr. Gregg advised he has added an automatic bay to the north end of the car wash and has taken down the storage building on the south end. He advised his customers needed to drive into the automatic bay from Rucker Street. He advised he has 10 ft. of storage building left standing because he has to have a storage area to house extra equipment, brushes, hoses, detergents and etc. for his business. He advised when he came before the board the first time, there was a misunderstanding and he did not realize he needed a variance on the little storage building he is requesting. He advised he was planning to build the storage building all along he just did not realize he needed a variance for it. Chairman Seilheimer asked if the storage building already had a slab. Mr. Gregg stated yes. Chairman Seilheimer asked if the variance was to be granted would he be removing the rest of the storage building. Mr. Gregg stated yes and they were to start removing it tomorrow. He advised the face of the storage building facing Houston Street, will be rock just like the front of the car wash is now, and the other three walls of the storage building will be brick. Chairman Seilheimer asked if it was the side setback or the rear setback in the request. Mr. Gregg stated the side setback. Chairman Seilheimer asked if the property adjoins what was previously the Wagon Yard 2

3 storage building which is basically a parking lot and an unused area. Mr. Gregg stated from the red square on the map, he is 6ft off the side property line and if he goes any further toward the rear of the property, he starts falling into the creek. Mr. Seilheimer asked if the topography of the creek and the fall off is his hardship for the request to place the storage in that location. Mr. Gregg said yes. He asked Mr. Gregg what is his request regarding the fence. Mr. Gregg stated that when he got the variance the first time, the creek had never been cleared and it was all brush. He advised now that the city has cleaned the area for the Hike and Bike trail and they have added a rod iron fence running along the trail area, he believes if a rod iron fence is in place, it will look nicer from both sides. He advised he would like to put in a 6ft rod iron fence to open up the area. He also advised he will be having a light installed in the creek area and he believes a rod iron fence for security reason would make his customers feel safer at his business. Chairman Seilheimer asked what the zoning is for the property on the other side of the fence and said he is surprised that there is a requirement for a screening fence. Mr. Oliver advised it is because the heavy commercial is abutting residentially zoned property. Chairman Seilheimer advised you would not be screening this from any residence and that actually, the creek is a good buffer. Even if there were to be residential development it would not be right up to the fence. He advised the rod iron fence would be more attractive and would comply more with the aesthetics and said he doesn t see the benefit of the screening fence. Ms. Cate advised this area is down at least 5 to 10 feet lower than this facility and you would be seeing the bank when looking from the hike and bike trail. Chairman Seilheimer asked if we had received any public feedback particularly responses from the adjoining property owner. Mr. Gregg stated he had just talked with the adjoining property owner and he advised he seemed pleased with the request. Mr. Oliver advised staff recommends approval of the variance request to encroach into the side building line. Staff feels the applicant has presented a valid argument related to the topography and existing built conditions of the property as it relates to the construction of a new storage facility. The site has limited level property to construct the necessary facilities to operate the car wash. Also, the granting of the variance will allow the applicant to remove the existing metal storage facilities located along Rucker St. and construct brick facilities at the rear of the property, away from the street frontages. The removal of the existing metal buildings will allow access from Rucker St. and improve maneuvering and vehicular circulation through the property. Mr. Oliver advised in regards to the installation of a rod iron fence, staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow for the installation of a rod iron fence along the western property line. Staff feels the opaque screening fence required by the Zoning Ordinance may cause some concern for customers during the nighttime hours. Also, Lambert Branch Creek runs along the western boundary of the property and provides a natural barrier between the car wash and surrounding residential developments. The nearest residential structure is approximately 200 to the west of the property. Chairman Seilheimer closed the Public Hearing. 3

4 Chairman Seilheimer called for a vote to approve the request per staff recommendations with the standard 90 day condition to remove the remainder of the storage building. The vote was unanimous to approve. MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE Ms. Bell addressed Mr. Gregg and stated she wanted to personally thank Mr. Gregg for making the improvements to the facility and advised she has used the car wash in the past and did not feel safe. She told Mr. Gregg she agrees with the new improvements he is making to the facility. Chairman Seilheimer closed the Public Hearing. ZBA , Request of YMCA for a variance to Section 11.2 Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to provide parking on an alternative surface material. The property is located at 833 Harbor Lakes Dr. Chairman Seilheimer opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Irene Smith, the architect on the YMCA project, addressed the board. Ms. Smith advised the whole project is in the process of change. She advised the parking spaces will be reduced from 90 spaces to 86 spaces. She advised the YMCA would like the variance to use existing roadbase for 3 years until they build a new facility. Chairman Seilheimer advised the plan shows a new paved parking lot. Ms. Smith stated they are wanting to do as little as possible and if they could not get the variance to use the existing roadbase, they would like to get the variance to use chip seal. She advised they use it for county roads. Mr. Oliver advised Bennett s Campers uses the chip seal on their parking lot. Ms. Cate advised that with the chip seal instead of loose gravel, it will be bonded. Ms. Smith advised the chip seal can also be striped. Mr. Oliver advised the chip seal does not meet the ordinance requirements. Chairmain Seilheimer asked Ms. Smith what, other than money, is the practical hardship the YMCA is claiming that justifies the variance. Ms. Smith advised the YMCA will not be using the facility very long and instead of making a parking lot that will last 50 years they are requesting something less expensive and that chip seal would still be a paved surface. Chairman Seilheimer asked how many parking spaces are required and Mr. Oliver advised 86. Chairman Seilheimer asked about the surface on the existing parking lot in front of the building. Mr. Oliver stated it is concrete and it is not a problem. Ms. Smith stated they were going to seal the cracks in the existing parking lot. Chairman Seilheimer asked if they were to grant a variance to allow some of the parking lot to be Chip Seal, could there be a mechanism that in three years, it would have to be removed or brought up to standard. Mr. Oliver advised you could make it so the chip seal parking lot surface would expire in conjunction with the masonry special exception. Ms. Cate asked if it would be possible that it could take longer than three years to get the memberships they would require. Ms. Smith stated that in the past they have generated sufficient memberships in one year. She advised they are negotiating 4

5 with the schools to acquire property and 3 years is the maximum time they will be staying at this facility. Ms. Bell asked if the Fire Lane could be paved and chip seal used on the remainder of the parking lot. Chairman Seilheimer stated he did not see any way this could work very well with either alternative for a Fire Lane. Ms. Smith stated the YMCA would certainly agree to use chip seal for the remainder of the parking lot and concrete for the Fire Lane. Chairman Seilheimer asked if you made the Fire Lane concrete and chip seal was allowed on the remainder of the parking lot would it be a significant savings. Ms. Bell stated she thought the cost of asphalt is higher than concrete. Ms. Cate asked which is a less expensive approach, chip seal or asphalt. Ms. Smith advised chip seal is less expensive. Chairman Seilheimer advised if you are going to do an asphalt parking lot it requires a 6 base with a 2 penetration requirement and stated these are the county road standards. Chairman Seilheimer asked if they had requested a variance on the landscaping provisions and Ms. Smith stated no and they still have the islands as indicated on the map. Ms. Cate stated she has a concern that it is being based on an economic gain or loss she is concerned that others requesting variances may say it is just a temporary situation and that they will be tearing it down in a couple of years. She said she is glad the YMCA is coming in and she wants to be a good neighbor to them, but it is her concern that they are not supposed to grant a variance based solely on financial situations. Chairman Seilheimer asked if the staff has a recommendation. Mr. Oliver advised the YMCA has again presented an argument related to the temporary nature of the use of the building. He advised staff recognizes the intent to vacate the structure within 3 years as well as the funding issues YMCA may face. Mr. Oliver advised that due to the assurances previously presented, and the fact that the applicant has stated that this request is financially motivated; staff recommends denial of the variance request as presented. He advised assurances were made to Council during the rezoning hearing, as well as ZBA during the masonry variance request that the parking lot would be paved and landscaped appropriately. Also, during the Council meeting, the applicant did state they would install curb and gutter and a sidewalk along Southtown Dr. Mr. Oliver advised YMCA is hoping the membership will increase, intensifying the use and frequency of parking and maneuvering on the gravel lot. He said the parking lot landscaping plan previously submitted allowed for a softening of the streetscape and ZBA was concerned with the aesthetics of the property when issuing the masonry variance, and considered the softening of the parking lot by improving the surface materials and additional landscaping. He advised by not improving the parking lot, the aesthetic improvement and softening of the streetscape would not be achieved. Mr. Oliver advised the fire inspector has also reviewed the variance request to not improve the gravel parking lot. He advised that during the review of the building plans and site plan, the inspector required a fire lane to be extended from Harbor Lakes Dr., through the parking lots and back onto Southtown Dr. (site plan attached). He said by not paving the northern lot, access to the property for firefighting purposes is limited. Chairman Seilheimer closed the public hearing. 5

6 Chairman Seilheimer asked for a vote on all in favor of granting the request for the variance as presented. No votes were in favor. MOTION DENIED. DISCUSSION Ms. Cate asked if the city has received any applications for the vacant board member position on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Director Sopchak advised applications have been sent out and he advised he did not know if any had been received from applicants. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, Chairman Seilheimer made a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M. 6