Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 03/26/2003MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 26, 2003
RECEIVED IN
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date
By Time
PRESENT:
Dana Mills, M.D., Chairman
0 Members
Willa Burgess
0
Thomas Cross
0
Les Seipel
0
Jose Garcia
0 Alternate #1
Jerry Hutchins, seated in the audience
0 Alternate #2
Michael Norrie 0 Council Liaison
David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff
Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0
ABSENT:
James McNeil 0 Alternate #a
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Mills called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Seipel made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2002 Board of
Adjustment meeting as presented. Ms. Burgess seconded the motion. The motion was
approved with a unanimous vote in favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Variance to Reduce Building Limit Line from 25 Feet to 15 Feet
1810 Southwest Parkway
Case V 03 -03
Applicant ....... ............................... Martin Litteken for P & H Development Inc.
Property ........ ............................... Lots 7A, Block 9, Singleton Addition 3
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
Requested Action ........................ Request for a variance from the ordinance required
setback of 25 -feet at 1810 Southwest Parkway to
allow a 15 -foot setback along Southwest Parkway.
Purpose ........ ............................... Construction of a 10 -unit residential condominium
project.
Zoning .......... ............................... General Commercial
Commentary:
The applicant's property, zoned General Commercial, is a triangular lot located between
Lake Park Drive and Southwest Parkway. The applicant plans to construct a 10 -unit
residential condominium project on this property. He is requesting a variance to
establish a 15 -foot rear setback for the residences rather than the 25 -foot setback
required in the zoning ordinance.
Since residential condominium development is classified as a multifamily use rather
than a single family use, the zoning ordinance requires a setback of 25 feet from all
property lines that abut a street right -of -way. If granted, according to the zoning
ordinance, the applicant must obtain a building permit within 180 days from the date of
approval.
Qualifying Criteria:
1. Special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
structures, or building in the same district.
Applicant's statement: "Per the attached plat, the property is a truncated triangle
bordered on 2 sides by streets and crossed by a sewer main in a 15' easement.
The physical constraints severely restrict the ability to place multiple residential
units on the tract."
2. Demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances do not result from
the actions of the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "The physical shape of the tract and placement of the
easement were not a result of the owner's actions or choices."
3. State how literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would
deprive the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in
the same district under the terms of this Ordinance.
Applicant's statement. `The owner contemplates having the driveway access to
Lake Park Dr. which is most desirable for traffic safety. To other residential
areas the non - frontage street setbacks are 15 feet."
4. State how the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with
the objectives of this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant
any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands,
structures, or buildings in the same district.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
Applicant's statement: "The request is to reduce the BILL along Southwest
Parkway for residential use only. This will not confer any special privilege to the
applicant since 25 ft. [setback] would still apply to any commercial use."
Staff feels that based on the information available, this request does qualify for a
hearing by the Board.
Evaluation Criteria:
In evaluating a variance request, once it has been determined by the Board that the
request qualifies to be heard by the board, the Zoning Ordinance Section 7340 requires
that the following criteria be used:
a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
Staff feels that the public interest would be served if the Board decides to grant
variance based on a finding of a special condition or hardship.
b. Special conditions exist, other than financial hardship alone, whereby a literal
enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship
to the owner of the land.
The triangular shape of the lot could be considered a special condition..
c. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by
the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is zoned General Commercial. Residential development is
permitted in this zone.
d. The granting of the variance:
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
The intent of the requirement for setbacks is to preserve open space,
provide a visual corridor, and to prevent overcrowding. In this case it is
the rear of the property under consideration, and there would still be a 15-
foot setback. That is the usual rear setback for single - family residential
development. However, multifamily development would require a 25 -foot
setback.
If the Board determines that a hardship or special conditions exist, the
granting of a variance would be consistent with the intent of this
ordinance.
Is in harmony therewith;
Staff feels that this development would be compatible in appearance with
similar neighborhoods that back -up to Southwest Parkway.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
This is a residential development in a commercial zone, in a generally
residential area. This proposal should not be in conflict with adjacent
uses.
Or detrimental to the public welfare.
Granting this variance should not harm the long -term economic
development of the City or affect the public in the long -term through
function, appearance or layout.
Recommendation:
If the Board finds that special conditions or hardships exist, staff recommends the
following conditions:
1. Any wall or building shall be constructed in a manner that does not create a traffic
hazard. Representatives of TXDOT may assist in determining that no sight
obstruction is created.
Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of this Variance Request:
Mr. Seese gave a brief presentation then stated that this case meets the criteria to be
considered. Mr. Seipel made a motion that the qualifying criteria are acceptable and
the Board should proceed to reviewing the evaluation criteria. Mr. Cross seconded the
motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval.
Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria of this Variance Request:
Mr. Seese stated this case meets all the evaluation criteria to qualify for a reduction in
the building limit line.
Twenty -two surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Five replied in
favor and five were opposed. Mr. Seese stated that a letter was received from the new
owner of 4923 Lake Park Drive indicating that he would be in favor of the setback
reduction. This change would result in six responses in favor and four opposed. The
opposition stated concerns for traffic safety and visibility at the intersection of Lake Park
and Southwest Parkway.
Mr. Seipel inquired about the zoning if this multifamily residential development was not
constructed. Mr. Seese stated that any permitted use in the General Commercial
zoning district could be built at this location. He then stated that a residential use would
be the least intense of all the permitted uses for this triangular shaped lot.
Mr. Cross asked if a fence was required. Mr. Seese stated it is not required but a fence
is indicated on the site plan and should be considered as a condition of approval.
Mr. Martin Litteken, representative for the applicant, stated that the applicant believes
the best use for this property would be residential. He is requesting the reduction in the
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
building limit line on the Southwest Parkway side of the lot because of the unusual lot
shape and to obtain the maximum number of housing units. The setback variance
would only apply to this residential development and not for other General Commercial
land uses. The wall is being designed as a buffer for noise and to eliminate the
residents' view of traffic. It will be angled at the intersection for visibility.
Mr. Cross asked if this variance would be approved for this project or for any residential
project that might be developed on this property. Mr. Seese stated that the variance is
based on the site plan and is specific for this development. He suggested that the
motion should include the construction of the masonry wall as a condition of approval.
Mr. Mike Wood, 1808 Southwest Parkway, stated he objected to the project because
his commercial building will be sandwiched between two residential developments. He
stated that he was required to construct his building, which is immediately to the east of
this property, behind the 25 -foot building limit line. He commented that, additionally, he
has concerns regarding the fence and possible declining property values.
Mr. James Foster, partner in the proposed residential development, stated that the
residences on Mary Lane also have 15 -foot setbacks. If this variance is not approved,
he stated that the number of residential units could not be reduced for financial
reasons. He inquired about the length of time before the variance would expire; it was
stated that variances expire after 180 days.
Chairman Mills inquired about the exact location of the fence. Mr. Litteken stated the
fence would be four to five feet behind the property line to allow a grass strip between
the sidewalk and the fence and to allow for utility poles. Staff asked that the location of
the fence be approved by TXDOT prior to construction.
Mr. Seipel made a motion to approve the variance request contingent upon the
construction of a masonry fence. Ms. Burgess seconded the motion. Chairman Mills
stated, for clarification, that this variance is limited to this project or a similar project.
Mr. Seipel amended the motion stating the project shall be approved as presented and,
if there is a change other than the general layout of the residential units, the new project
must presented to this Board. Ms. Burgess seconded the amended motion. The vote
was unanimous in favor of approval.
IV. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Dana Mills, M.D., Chairman Date
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5