Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 07/20/1988rl * PRESENT David Gossom, William Kidd Syd Litteken Bill Rowland Burrell Lacey, M I N_ U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 20, 1988 Vice Chairman * * * Alternate #4 Roger McKinney, Director of Planning Subir Mukerjee, Development Coordinator Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney Paul Stillson, Planner II Barbara Bridges, Recording Secretary ABSENT Richard Sutton 19 Adrienne Barker, Alternate #1 Richard Sutherland, Alternate #2 Edna Boren, Alternate #3 Ron Buffum * * * * * Members City Staff * * * Members * * Councilor CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Gossom, who presided in the absence of the Chairman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Syd Litteken, seconded, and carried unanimously the June 23, 1988 Minutes be approved. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. V-88-06. Variance request from Sec. 4620, Screening require- ments, along Kenley Ave. for a proposed restaurant at 1024 Central Freeway (Lt 4A, Ed Woodall Sub. #2) Mr. Mukerjee advised this variance was disapproved at the May meeting. The applicant has requested this be resubmitted, as the photographs and neighborhood no -objection letters were not pre- sented then. Richard Davenport, applicant, explained his request to delete the requirement for fencing, and also to allow a curb cut from Kenley. He referenced the no -objection letters (from 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1233, 1235, 1237 & 1239 Kenley). He advised these were obtained prior to submission of his request, and none of these people want to see a fence put up. Mr. Lacey advised he had talked with a few of the residents, who agreed they did not want a fence, but were anticipating trees to be planted instead. Mr. McKinney advised the provision of trees will be an ordinance requirement if the fence is deleted. Item No. �N s 94 Page No. 4.. Vice Chairman Gossom asked the staff if it is expected that new residences will be built in this area. Mr. Mukerjee replied he did not foresee this happening; however, businesses might be developed south of the existing Hampton Inn. Mr. Davenport stated El Chico has already acquired adjacent property. Mr. Lacey expressed his concern about truck traffic on Kenley. Vice Chairman Gossom forwarded comments from Chairman Sutton, who requested the Board to consider the protection of the residential area, as he also believes the variance "would push commercial traffic onto Kenley Lane." Mr. Davenport stated he "can live without the driveway, but I really don't want to put up the fence." He showed Board members an alternate plan if the driveway is denied. After further discussion, Mr. Kidd stated his opinion that small business ventures should be encouraged. He moved that both the variance and the curb cut be approved, as the public welfare would not be adversely impacted. The motion was seconded by Bill Rowland and carried unanimously. 2. Add -on Vice Chairman Gossom asked the staff for an update on the fence issue. Mr. Mukerjee explained the staff prepared a new defini- tion, which was recommended for approval after a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A separate section of the proposed amendment was also prepared, which would allow or disallow certain types of fences. 3. Proposed administrative procedures for the Zoning Board of Adjustment Board members were again provided copies of a survey made by the Planning Department on selected Texas cities regarding finding of fact, reapplication waiting period, and rules of order. These issues were considered separately. Finding of Fact Assistant City Attorney Jeanie Thompson again provided legal counsel on this issue. Mr. Mukerjee advised the staff recommends not requiring this, in as much as the legal counsel has advised the Board is "on stable ground the way it is." Mr. Gossom stated his opinion that requiring a finding of fact might result in applicants needing to hire an attorney to present their requests. Mr. Lacey felt it might also result in the need for an attorney "sitting beside each one of us." Mr. Kidd noted if this would make it more difficult to present, it might make the applicants more prepared, or even reduce the number of requests, because the applicants would know more about what is involved. Mr. Mukerjee stated the staff advises an applicant as much as possible on the procedures and as to what constitutes a hardship. Item No. M,A)C_ 95 Page No. z Uilm M After further discussion it was moved by Syd Litteken, seconded by Bill Kidd, and carried unanimously that a finding of fact not be required, but to leave the procedure as it is. Reapplication Waiting Period It was brought out that an applicant must now wait 30 days, and must pay the fee again in order to resubmit a request. It was moved by Bill Kidd that a reapplication waiting period not be required. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Rules of Order Bill Rowland stated it has been a previous consensus that no rules of order be adopted. Syd Litteken agreed this would make meetings more difficult. After further discussion it was moved by Bill Kidd that no rules of order be adopted. The motion was seconded by Bill Rowland and carried unanimously. Meeting Date The Board also considered the proposal of changing the meeting date to the fourth Thursday. Mr. Mukerjee reported the poll response included 3 in favor of the fourth Thursday, 2 preferring leaving the date on the third Wednesday, and 2 no preference. Mr. Lacey noted the Council Chambers have already been reserved for the year, and the schedules prepared. It was moved by Bill Kidd, seconded by Bill Rowland, and carried unanimously to maintain the present meeting date (third Wednesday). The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. vid Gossom, Vice Chairman ri Date E Item No. M,us 96 Page No.