Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 03/20/20023 a MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 20, 2002 1 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date nck - o -- na BY P-C� Time ;'.bran PRESENT: Michael Norrie, Vice Chairman 0 Members Thomas Cross 0 Jose Garcia 0 Alternate Dawn Murer 0 Alternate Les Seipel 0 Linda Ammons, Council Liaison 0 Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0 City Staff Paul Stillson, Planner II 0 ABSENT: John Key, Chairman 0 Willa Burgess 0 Alternate Dana Mills, M.D. 0 Alternate J. D. Ruiz 0 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Norrie. II. REGULAR AGENDA 1. VARIANCE TO PROVIDE OVER 50% PARKING OFFSITE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EIGHTH AND BAYLOR CASE V 02 -02 Applicant ....... ............................... David Potter, Architect for the North Texas Neurology Associates, 1722 Ninth Street. Property ........ ............................... Eighth Street, Lots 16, 17 & 18, Block 1, Downing Subdivision Requested Action ........................ Variance from Section 6210(13) requiring that off -site parking shall not fulfill more than 50 percent of a use's parking requirement. The primary use is the North Texas Neurology Associates office on Ninth Street. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 Purpose ........ ............................... To provide more than 50 off - street parking on an off- - site lot. COMMENTARY: The applicant is requesting a variance to provide more than 50 percent of his parking on an off -site lot. The new parking will be across the alley to the north and will front on Eighth Street. The clinic also owns an additional off -site parking lot west of Baylor Street on Ninth Street. Additional parking is needed to serve a planned expansion to the applicant's neurology clinic on Ninth Street. The Eighth Street property is zoned Limited Commercial and the applicant has applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of the parking lot development. The approval of the site plan will be conditional upon the granting of a variance. 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: "Available land for parking is only available behind the office which is across the alley but cannot be joined to this facility." Staff response: The applicant's clinic is separated from the proposed parking by a public alley. A tract of land cannot be platted into a single lot if an alley or street divides the lot. An alternative solution would be to close the alley, however, this is not likely since adjacent property owners are using the alley. 2. Demonstrate the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement: "No additional land is available because it is a corner lot and next to other commercial lots that are not for sale." Staff response: The lack of additional land for sale is not in itself a hardship. However, a special condition could be the existence of the alley that cannot be closed and prevents the property being platted into one lot. 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: "We have off -site parking already and this new parking will be safer across the alley than across the street. " Staff response: Two reasons for the limit on off site parking are: (1) off -site parking lots are less safe where people must cross a street to use them, (2) off- site lots are generally not used as frequently because of the longer walking BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 distances required. 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. Applicant's statement: "This is just a continuation of off -site parking and we are making the site safer an more convenient for patients. We still maintain all other requirements." Staff response: If it were not for the alley, the property could be replatted into one lot, eliminating the need for a variance. Staff feels that 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. If this variance request were granted, the planned clinic parking lot will be safe and convenient. Staff feels that granting this variance will be in the public interest. 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 existence of the alley and the fact that it cannot be closed 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 Limited Commercial, a Conditional Use permit approval has been requested by the applicant. d. The granting of the variance: Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; The intent of the parking section limiting off -site parking to 50 percent of the total was to ensure the usability and safety of parking. Off -site lots that are remote from the uses they serve tend to be across streets with long walking distances that discourage use. The city's concern with off -site BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 parking is that on- street parking will be used instead, resulting in traffic congestion. The other problem with off -site parking is that remote locations may be sold off later resulting in parking deficiencies. Is in harmony therewith; The site plan must be modified to relocate the landscaping along Eight Street onto the property, and out of the right -of -way. The number of trees along Baylor should be modified to reflect one tree per 40 feet of street frontage. Currently no perimeter trees are shown. When modified, the site plan will be in harmony with the intent of the parking ordinance. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; The general area is zoned Limited Commercial. It is not anticipated that this use will create nuisances that will adversely impact the surrounding properties. 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: Staff feels that special conditions may exist because the tract cannot be replatted into one lot. As discussed above, the parking lot must be modified to meet landscaping requirements. If this variance is granted, a parking agreement must be executed restricting the new parking lot to serve only the clinic. This will insure that these off -site parking spaces will not be sold off separately causing a parking deficiency. The agreement will be approved by the City, signed by the property owner and recorded in the courthouse. Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of this Variance Request: Mr. Seese explained that an alley separates the parcel proposed to be used for parking. Mr. Cross made a motion that the applicant does meet the qualifying criteria for this case. Mr. Seipel seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Consideration of the Evaluation Criteria of this Variance Request: Mr. Seese briefly reviewed the evaluation criteria. Mr. David Potter, applicant, was sworn in. When asked if a fence would be installed on the east side of the parking lot, Mr. Potter stated that he was not aware of any BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 requirement for a fence. Ms. Murer asked that her personal pictures of this area be displayed. She stated that one of her concerns was the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. She commented that, even though the zoning is Limited Commercial, the area appears to be residential. She also stated she was concerned about the negative impact of a business "tearing down" houses. Mr. Potter stated that the natural transition on Ninth Street was businesses, parking, and residences. His goal is to make this transition as smooth and least obtrusive as possible. Mr. Seese reported that twenty surrounding property owners were notified of this variance request. One (1) replied in favor and one (1) was opposed. Mr. Seipel noted there is another parking lot on Warford Street for the businesses facing Brook Avenue. He stated that he did not view this request as being a problem. Ms. Murer stated that to her this neighborhood appears to be a housing area and she was unsure how a parking lot would fit in there. Mr. Cross stated that this area of the City is in transition. He felt it was admirable that the Clinic wished to expand and noted that it was on the fringe of the medical area. He further commented that Ninth and Tenth Streets are transitioning and are going to have businesses located there. Mr. Cross added that a developed parking lot with a buffer is an improvement over vacant lots with grass, cans, bottles, etc. Ms. Murer stated this (variance request) impacts Eighth and Baylor rather that Ninth and Tenth Streets. She continued by stating there are so many commercial areas with under - utilized vacant buildings. She did not think it was a good idea to encroach on a residential area. Fencing was discussed with Mr. Seipel stating that he believed that shrubbery would be a more esthetic buffer. Mr. Seese addressed the houses to be moved by stating that one has been moved and the other three are scheduled to be moved. They were purchased by the Clinic. Mr. Cross made a motion to grant the variance with the condition that the parking agreement be executed to serve only the clinic. Mr. Seipel seconded the motion. The vote was four (4) in favor and one (1). The variance for the North Texas Neurology Associates was approved. III. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m. Michael Norrie, Vice Chairman Date BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5