Loading...
1990-09-10 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 667 N. Carroll Avenue BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING September 10, 1990 7:30 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Art Sorenson, Chairman; Ernest Johnson, Vice Chairman; Members: Joe Bentley, Robert Downard, Stephen Apple. Alternate # 2, Fred Joyce was in attendance but not voting. PM ABSENT: Dennis Minder, Alternate #1. CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager, Curtis Hawk; Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy; Allen Taylor, City Attorney; Greg Last, W City Engineer; Building Secretary, Jean Bryson. Agenda Item #2 Approval of Minutes Mr. Johnson wanted the record to note that due to mechanical problems with the tape recorder and microphones, various items on the August 16th Minutes should be clarified. A motion was made for the Board to give contingent approval of the Minutes, subject to review of the corrected Minutes at the next meeting. Motion: Johnson Second: Bentley l.. Ayes: Bentley, Downard, Apple, Johnson Nayes: None Abstained: Sorenson Vote: 4-0-1 to give contingent approval of Minutes Item 2 was postponed for further review and will be reconsidered at the next scheduled meeting. Item #3 Administrative Comments Mrs. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, requested Item 6 on the Agenda be placed after Item 7. Also shared with the Board that the next regularly scheduled meeting will be October 8th. rr The motion was made to expend the rules and realign the Agenda by placing Case #109 to follow Case #110. Motion: Johnson Iii Second: Bentley Ayes: Bentley, Downard, Apple, Johnson, Sorenson Nayes: None Vote: 5-0 to allow Case #110 before Case #109 Sri Chairman noted Mr. Dennis Mender, Alternate #1, is an Air Force reservist and has been called to active duty for a minimum of 90 j days, with prospects of staying 180 days. The Chairman will be discussing the alternate member vacancy with Mr. Hawk and possibly the Council, to find a temporary appointment during the period of his absence. rr Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 2 6 No other Administrative comments from the Board. ON Item #4 Case #107 Request for variance. it A request for a variance to the setback requirements for the SF-20B zoning district to allow the original setbacks per Ordinance No. 161, "A-2" district. The property is located at 1347 Lake Drive, being legally described as Block 3, Lot 8, Dove Estates. Owner/Applicant is Mike Wrzesinski. A presentation was made by Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, who stated that fifteen (15) letters were sent to property owners within 200 feet. To date, received one response from Betty Jones rd Foreman, representative for Jinks Jones who owns the property across Lake Drive, was in favor of this request. On the plot plan that was presented it was noted that they had taken the liberty of placing a twenty-five (25) foot building line, which is one of the requirements of the 161 "A-2" district. Leaving a rear line of forty-nine (49) feet. If the SF-20B district was imposed on this, there would be a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet in the front and forty (40) feet in the rear with sideyards of fifteen (15) feet. Mike Wrzesinski, owner/president of Gallagher Homes, stated the current drawing shows the old setback requirements and pushing that line, because of the way the lot is shaped, taking another ten (10) feet out of that, the radius coming from Lake Drive would crunch the lot into a rather small building area. Mr. Wrzesinski was not W sure it would meet the sideyard requirements of the zoning ordinance, without putting the house all the way to the back of the property. Mr. Wrzesinski pointed out that the current set backs and rear yard requirements are inconsistent with the existing homes as well as new homes under construction. And to build to these requirements would look awkward on that lot and would take a good-looking lot and a potentially good-looking house and create a bad situation for not only the owner but the homeowner and the other homeowners in the subdivision. Public Hearing. With no support or opposition. W Public Hearing was closed. The Chairman entertained the motion to pass the request pending the development of the findings. Mr. Bentley moved the adoption granting the variances requested in accordance with the referenced previous standards in place. Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 page 3 Item # 4 continued. Mr. Bentley stated the finding that the requirements have been met by the applicant for a variance. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance and this variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land. In granting this variance it will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Motion: Bentley Second: Downard Ayes: Bentley, Downard, Apple, Johnson, Sorenson Nays: None Vote: 5-0 to Approve Item #5 Case #108 Request for a variance. A request for a variance to the setback requirements of the SF-20B district to allow the original setbacks per Ordinance No. 161, "A-2," district. The property is located at 3040 Flamingo Circle W being legally described as Block 2, Lot 38, Dove Estates. Owners `1 are Karen Kantak and Kevin Conte. ON Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, stated there were eleven (11) A04, letters sent to property owners within 200 feet. To date, there %00' have been no responses. Ms. Gandy presented a diagram showing the lot in relation to the iW other lots in the subdivision. Ms. Gandy explained to the Board that in the meeting packet the Board was to receive a plot plan OR from Burger Construction Company, however, because the first buyer withdrew their application for this particular lot, there is an application and no plot plan. Ms. Gandy stated there was a builder at the meeting that proposed buying this particular lot and he would provide the Board with a plot plan so that this variance could still be reviewed. It was confirmed that the second builder is the contingent and he provided exhibits for the Board. The question was raised if the Board wanted to proceed with this item in view of the absent plot plan. W Mr. Taylor, City Attorney, stated that the City had given required notice of the date and time of the hearing; of the subject matter of the hearing, which is a variance on the yard requirements on this lot. Adjoining property owners where not provided with a graphic description of the amount of variance requested so there is sufficient legal notice for the Board to continue the hearing and make whatever decision that the Board thinks will be just and appropriate based upon the information given by the the second builder. However, it is legally permissible for the Board to conduct the hearing and continue the matter to a time certain in the future if the Board feels more comfortable doing so. But the Board does have either legal option. W Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 4 C Agenda Item #5 continued. W Being no objection from the Board, the Chairman continued the discussion of the request for variance as presented above despite the lack of a valid plot plan. The builder, William Sims, presented his case in favor of the request and stated that basically, the existing zoning requirement is too restrictive to build a house of reasonable design on the lot and was simply asking for a variance, within reason, in order to be able to construct a home on the property. He explained to the Board that basically they tried to put up a house on a corner lot that would blend with most of the homes in the subdivision which are rectangular in structure and found it was encroaching about ten (10) feet into the existing building line area which is forty (40) feet, which makes the lot extraordinarily restrictive. Thus, requesting a variance to a twenty-five (25) foot building OR line. Mrs. Gandy reviewed the difference between the current and previous zoning requirements. The current regulations requires a 35 foot minimum in the front and 40 foot in the rear and 15 feet sides. Mr. Sorenson stated that this variance request be considered not just as a case to go back to the old A-2 requirements, but must consider a variance even on those old A-2 requirements and a variance from our now existing setback requirements. No one else from the audience spoke in favor of or opposing this action. Public Hearing was closed and the Board opened for discussion. Mr. Taylor (City Attorney) summarized the case, stating that basically the situation is the applicant (who is the property owner) was not present before the Board. The property owner requests the Board to vary the application of various yard requirements and the applicant, by filling out the application and making the request, was charged with knowledge of what would normally be required. The burden is on the applicant to come forward with sufficient facts and evidence to show why a variance is justified under these circumstances. He stated that as Mr. it Johnson had noted, it would be entirely permissible for the Board to continue this case until its next meeting if additional information was desired. But the applicant has not requested that the matter not be continued for any reason. And it must be presumed that the owner does know 'what the requirements would C otherwise be. 1 Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 5 Item #5 continued. During the Board's discussion, the following points were raised: 1. Is the request for a variance to the existing SF 20B setback requirements in Ordinance No.480 or to the A-2 regulations in Ordinance No. 161 as well. 2. The board discussed the definition of setbacks versus yard requirements. City Attorney Taylor suggested that the request referenced the language of the old ordinance (No. 161) and that today's ordinance (No. 480) refers to yard requirements. For the purpose of this discussion, the two definitions may be considered one and the same. 3. The lot is not the typical configuration as described in Section 4-12. The lot is pie-shaped. 4. The Board's charge is to consider a set of standards compatible with those in place at the time Dove Estates was originally developed. Individual site plan approval is not the issue. 5. The side yard was determined to be 10% of the width of the lot. Less than this figure would require a variance. The City Attorney agreed. A motion that the Board grant the application for variance to the side yard requirements altering those requirements to coincide with the previously applicable requirements of ordinance 161 in the A-2 ' district. Mr. Bentley offered as findings that the Board find that the ill requirements of the section had been met by the applicant for a variance. Further find that the reasons set forth in application WR justifies the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land. Further find that granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. iir Motion: Bentley Second: Johnson Ayes: Bentley, Downard, Apple, Johnson, Sorenson Nays: None Vote: 5-0 to Approve Item #7 Case #110 Request for Site Plan Approval it A request for Site Plan approval for two (2) canopies to be built go over the pump area and over the additive skid tank at the Fina Oil and Chemical Company site. The property owner is Fina Oil and Chemical Company. Their representative is BCI Architects. io OR it OM Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 6 Agenda Item #7 continued. w Mrs. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, stated The property is located at 2401 Highway No. 26 West, just north of Hwy 26, across the railroad tracks, across from Grapevine High School. It is legally described as Tracts 3A,3B1,3B2,and 4,C.B. McDonald Survey, Abstract No. 1013.Six (6) letters were sent to property owners within 200 feet. To date, have received no responses. Mrs. Gandy presented a diagram of the tract stating the property is bounded on the east by AG zoning, and I-1 surrounding property. The applicant has an approved site plan before the City. This is an amendment to that approved site plan. Mrs. Gandy called the Board's attention to the locations of the new canopies over the additive tank, which was previously approved and the new canopy over the pump area. The applicant does have the appropriate I-2 zoning and the appropriate Exception Use granted them for petroleum operations which have approved the site plans. ~!1 Mr. Cortez, with BCI Architects, a representative for Fina Oil and Chemical Co., presented the applicant's request to the Board for the site improvements to the facility. Both canopies are over sensitive areas on the site and are more or less rain covers for existing facilities. Mr. Apple, Mr. Downard and Mr. Bentley had no questions. 11 Mr. Sorenson, Chairman, requested Mrs. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, read the Chapter and verse of the provision of the Zoning Ordinance under which they were taking action in this case, which was found on Page 44-17, under Section 44.12TT,under "Petroleum Operations," Sub III, paragraph 3. It states, "No special exceptions shall be granted unless a development site..." iw Mr. Sorenson (Chairman) stated, for the record, he had a problem with the requirement for these petroleum operations of Southlake to come before the Board of Adjustments for relative minor construction like this, consistent with the already previously submitted and approved developments site plan. He stated there was no change in the petroleum operations going on and nothing changing the nature of their conduct of business. The way in which they do business, for that matter, as long as those two things were true, should not come before the Board. Even if safety was a question, there are departments more qualified than the Board to deal with those issues. fir Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 7 Agenda Item # 7 continued Discussion was held between the Chairman and the City Attorney regarding the basis for an issue of this type (a building permit) to be brought before the Board for action since the request is on a pre-existing developmental site plan, already approved. The City Attorney explained that the basis for this type of request to be presented to the Board of Adjustments was a decision by the Council when they adopted the current zoning ordinance, ordinance 480, that they wanted very tight restrictions on any construction activity other than the most routine maintenance, if it was in a petroleum til operation. Mr. Johnson submitted that on Page 27-8, paragraph 27.6 where it says, "a development site plan shall be required for a building permit within the I-2 heavy industry" is the basis for this request in that it is an I-2 area. The Chairman did concede that there was a basis in the requirements of the regulations that the case should be considered by the Board but that he still questioned the validity of the process. Public hearing was closed and it was open for discussion. on Mr. Bentley commented that the proposal was essentially compatible with the original site plan, the original Special Use permit and there is essentially a property improvement without any increase in impact. Chairman noted that this comment constituted the findings for this request and a subsequent motion was made. The motion was made to approve the site plan as submitted. Motion: Mr. Bentley Second: Mr. Apple Ayes: Bentley, Downard, Apple, Johnson, Sorenson Nays: None Vote: 5-0 to Approve The Vice Chairman, Mr. Johnson, entertained a short recess at 8:50 P. M. Meeting continued at 9 P. M. Item #6 Case #109 Request for variance wW A request for a variance to the strict application of the bufferyard requirements per Ordinance No. 480, Section 42. The applicant proposes adding a portable building onsite for additional office space. A specific use permit request and site plan approval are before the City Council on September 18, 1990. The applicant takes exception to the minimum bufferyard depth of ten feet (10') in the "B" and "F" bufferyards and the minimum depth of fifteen feet (15) in the "D" bufferyard as well as the 10001, extensive plantings/structure requirements of the "F" bufferyard. Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 8 rr "R C Agenda Item # 6 continued The property is located at 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, wl Texas, being legally described as a 3.0 acre tract of land out of j the Richard Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481, Tract 3C. The owner is the City of Southlake, Texas. A presentation was made by Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, who stated that the zoning is "community service." The surrounding zonings are; the Baird's tract to the north is C-3, the Fechtel tract to the east and to the south is C-3. The McHale zoning directly across the street (west) is 0-1. And behind that is SF-20A, a single-family subdivision. There were four (4) letters sent to these property owners. To date, there have been no negative responses. Spoke with Mr. Fechtel who offered no opposition. Mr. Fechtel was sent a copy of the site plan and have not received any negative comments, so must assume he had no opposition. on Mrs. Gandy reviewed the site plans for the Board and showed the proposed location of the portable building. To the north, in discussion of the bufferyard requirement, it would require an "F". The property to the north is already developed and this particular bufferyard would be an "F" buffer. That would be referencing Table One of the bufferyard requirement table. The property to the east and to the south is zoned, but it is not developed, therefore, Table Two applies to the type of bufferyard required. On the Land Use Plan it indicates a "mixed use." Table Two shows that for CS district, under an "office/retail," a "B" buffer is required. Mr. Johnson clarified that the reason that area (east and south) is defined as undeveloped is because it is not developed as its intended use in the Master Plan. Mrs. Gandy continued with the bufferyard requirements. Along Carroll Avenue a "D" buffer would be required because Carroll is proposed to be an eighty-four (84) foot arterial. According to im Table Three, CS zoning along an arterial would require a "D" bufferyard. This is a minimum of fifteen (15) foot depth. (Mr Johnson requested that on occasions where things like arterial or expressway or collector enter into the cases it might be good to indication that on the diagrams so that the Board does not have to locate the Thoroughfare Plans.) There were four (4) letters sent and no responses were received. Mr. Johnson questioned the City Attorney regarding the fact that ! the City was appearing before itself to decide what it can or can't do. He asked if special considerations apply and how would it differ if some other applicant who was zoned "CS" would appear before the Board? Does the City really have to obey these rules or not? 40 Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 9 Agenda Item # 6 continued The City Attorney, Mr. Taylor responded that first the City is w~ technically capable of exempting itself from its own zoning regulations. But Mr. Hawk, the City Manager, has stressed repeatedly to the City Council that the City should set the example wt in the city of Southlake and should honor the regulations that are applicable to everyone else in order to demonstrate our commitment to the fact that they are designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare and are there for the benefit of the citizens, not the harassment. So the City has chosen to operate in full compliance whenever possible with its own development regulations. The City Council could have exempted municipal buildings from the application of these rules, but when ordinance was adopted, the City Staff recommended that it not be done. In this instance is appearing on the CS zone out of an abundance of caution. The City is not certain that a variance is required in this case. The existing City Hall site is a legal non-conforming use. The five acre site was acquired quite a number of years ago by a previous Council. The City Hall was developed on the site then by the Council then sitting. The City of Southlake 'was much smaller, growth was slower. Growth has picked up phenominally, the City has grown very rapidly, and there has been a tremendous increase in the need for City services. In looking at the proposal and looking at the information contained in Chapter 6 of the zoning oridinance dealing with non-conforming uses of structures and of sites, there is an honest question that the entire five acre site is a non-conforming use of property. The building itself may or may not be permitted to expand within the existing envelope without expanding into the existing side yards where a buffer zone would normally be required. The City Hall was obviously developed at a time when the bufferyard was not required. The City may not in fact need a variance, and may not in fact need review from anybody to put on this relatively small portable building addition to the current structure. But to insure that it was attempting to cooperate with the spirit of municipal development regulations in Southlake, the City Staff filed a request, in essence, before the Board of Adjustment to resolve any questions as to what the City it proposed to do and to address the applicability of the bufferyard in the C-3 zone. At the same time the City also filed for a Specific Use permit review, which is not even a listed Specific Use permit, before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The purpose of all these filings was to insure that letter notice was given to all adjacent property owners so that if any citizen or property owner felt that they 'were being prejudice or their property 'was being rrr negatively impacted, they could seek a hearing here and present their position. Technically, the City is not sure a variance is required. But the City asked for one to make it clear on the record that the City is proceeding both thru the Board of Adjustment and the Planning & Zoning Commission on specific use A"k permit to insure the City has honored the intent of the zoning ordinance. Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 10 Agenda Item # 6 continued Greg Last, a land planner with the City Engineers office, who prepared the site plan answered questions regarding what was existing out there, how it relates the the future development. During the Board's discussion, the following points were raised: 1. City Hall site developed prior to bufferyard requirement. There is a pre-existent non-conforming use on the site (i.e. maintenance yard is not being considered for expansion.) 2. All other uses compatible with "CS" zoning district and surrounding C-3 districts to the North, East & South. Community Facilities permitted use in C-3, C-2, C-1 & 0-1 W districts. 3. Economic hardship on all citizens of Southlake. Need for additional space for staff. Budgetary constraints and length of budgeting process. Approximately $30,000-$60,000 for full compliance with all the required planting and fencing requirements. Would require cut in city services to finance these improvements. Could represent as much as 0.01 cent on the city tax rate. w City hall maybe located on another site before surrounding properties are developed. 4. Nonconforming use being created by paving within 5 feet of North property line when a 10 foot bufferyard is required. am 5. Would the board be using the same logic if the applicant were a private kindergarten or a sewage treatment plant me (also in the "CS" district). 60 6. Bufferyard section is not clear cut in the requirements, there are shades of gray. Need to define the word 00 "Developed". Does it mean zoned, zoned and platted, structures in place in conformance with the zoning district? In section 42.4(a), what does "in conformance" mean? 7. Bufferyards should be a shared responsibility between the two property owners. A motion that this Board find that there is no requirement under Ordinance 480 that existing nonconformities in the bufferyard section be brought into conformance in order for this site plan to receive approval as it pertains only to expansion of conforming use and structure. This would limit the whole problem down to just the area on the strip of parking. Mr. Sorenson said since this finding #1 of this particular case is unformatted let's discuss the finding as we go along. He asked if there was any discussion on this particular finding. It was agreed. Board of Adjustments Meeting September 10, 1990 Page 11 rr Mr. Bentley stated that he would offer then, an additional finding: that a required bufferyard on the north perimeter where it is adjacent to the depicted new parking of paved surface, and adjacent to the Baird property on the north, the required bufferyard there should be bufferyard "B" from Table Two, pursuant to Table Two, as opposed to bufferyard "F" as presented in the original presentation. Mr. Sorenson said this was on the assumption that, for lack of a better word, the property to the north is undeveloped, or underdeveloped. All agreed on that finding. j Regarding the remaining strip of land, we must still specify some reasonable bufferyard requirement that would represent a variance to the bufferyard rather than an absolute repeal or evaporation of the bufferyard. It was noted that there is a "natural barrier of existing trees to the North and that the City and property owners to the North would work jointly when the northern tract was further developed. It was further stipulated that this variance be limited to the present use of the land and not remain with the land when the use is vacated. Motion: Bentley Second: Apple Ayes: Bentley, Downard, Apple, Johnson, Sorenson Nays: None Vote: 5-0 to grant the Variance Agenda Item #8 Meeting Adjourned. The meeting adjourned 11:00 P. M. 1f11 Arthu . Sorenson, Chairman an Bryson 4P ttended meeting and prepared minutes do ,`,,d11mmn111"Oe Arl go A elk N andra L. Le rand =r': City Secretary v~ A ~ N U A i W H A z Q 1 a~ N zo ~ N Olt= OWN d z ~ Y N 1 W _ Ca Z N ~ ~ N N tl _W z w