Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 07/18/2001MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 18, 2001 A I � CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date 09 - d L - 6 ( By 12C Time S:W PRESENT: Charles A. Peters, III, Acting Chairman 0 Members Michael Norrie 0 Les Seipel 0 Tom Cross 0 David A. Clark, Director of Community Development 0 City Staff Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0 Marty Odom, Planner 1 0 Diane Parker, Recording Secretary 0 ABSENT: John Key, Chairman 0 Don McKinney 0 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Chairman Peters. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Cross made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 20, 2001 meeting. Mr. Seipel seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote in favor. III. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Variance Allowing a 100 Foot Diameter Cul -De -Sac Instead of a 200 Foot Diameter Cul -De -Sac 7.762 Acres out of Blocks 8 & 17, Denton County School Land, League 1 Case V 01 -05 Applicant ....... ............................... John Denman, President, T -Bird Properties Requested Action . ....................... Variance Purpose ........ ............................... To approve a variance allowing a 100 ft. diameter cul- de -sac instead of a 200 ft. diameter cul -de -sac. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 Property ........ ............................... 7.762 Acres out of Blocks 8 & 17, Denton County School Land, League 1 Zoning ........... ............................... General Commercial Commentary: The applicant is requesting a variance from Section B (h) of the Subdivision Ordinance that requires cul -de -sacs in commercial and industrial areas to have a 200 ft. diameter right -of -ways. They are proposing a 100 ft. diameter cul -de -sac, for their medical park development on the north side of Kell Boulevard east of Barnett Road. A 100 ft. diameter right -of -way cul -de -sac is standard for residential street construction. Qualifying Criteria: a. That 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 buildings in the same district. Applicant's statement. "The developer of the property originally looked at a looped street through the development but because of the overall property depth of approximately 400 ft., lots were too shallow for any use. The idea of a cul -de- sac with a wide boulevard approach was explored for the primarily Medical Office Park Development. The 200 ft. diameter cul -de -sac makes the development impractical because it carves out too much of the property depth whereas the 100 ft. diameter cul -de -sac would allow ample access to the back of the property, for public access and services, especially since the boulevard access to the cul- de -sac would be less than 200 ft. to the neck of the cul -de- sac." Staff response: The requirement for the 200 ft. cul -de -sac for a commercial /industrial street has been in the subdivision ordinance for many years. Its purpose is to provide a bigger turning radius for large trucks and to allow sufficient space for emergency access to commercial /industrial sites. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement. "The circumstances in this situation deal with physical property size and access which already existed prior to the developer owning this property. No action has been taken by the applicant pending the hopeful approval of a variance by the Zoning Board." Staff response: The configuration and depth of the applicant's property is limited by the surrounding development. More land cannot be purchased north of here to increase the depth of the property because of the adjacent uses and lake. C. That 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: "Literal provisions of the ordinance requiring the 200 ft. diameter cul -de -sac would prohibit the development of this property into the intended and best use by denying well- designed and proper access to the back BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 property surrounding the lake currently enjoyed by other properties around the Lake Wellington." Staff Response: Staff can only find one other case where a 200 ft. cul -de -sac has been built. Commercial /industrial streets with cul -de -sacs are rare. The applicant may have a case that the requirements for the 200 ft. diameter cul -de- sac would be an unnecessary hardship if it can be shown that the 100 ft. cul -de- sac would accomplish the same purpose and would not harm the public safety or interest. d. That 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: "If the property were 200 ft. deeper (overall depth of 600 ft.) a looped street or a 200 ft. diameter cul -de -sac would be justifiable. Because of the physical size of the property, the reduced cul -de -sac size is necessary for proper development and would allow the developer to design and construct an aesthetically pleasing wide landscaped boulevard entrance to the medical office development. This design would provide a public "view corridor" of Lake Wellington, while allowing adjacent commercial development to occur. Granting this variance would not confer any special privilege upon the applicant, but would allow sound and environmentally sensitive commercial development (minimizing the amount of impervious paving) to occur in harmony with the adjacent mixed uses and Lake Wellington. Staff response: There are no other 200 ft. diameter cul -de -sacs in this district. Staff feels that this application may present sufficient evidence to support the claim of hardship or special condition. 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 believes that it may be in the public interest to allow this 100 ft. diameter commercial /industrial cul -de -sac. If it were to be approved, staff believes that it should be conditionally approved, pending an affirmative response from the fire and police departments stating that public safety and fire protection will be adequately served. 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. This site is limited to its current size by the surrounding development and lake. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 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. The proposed development would be in conformance with the GC zoning district regulations. d. The granting of the variance: Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; The intent of the 200 ft. cul -de -sac is to meet the need of larger commercial vehicles such as semi - trailer trucks and to provide greater access for public safety and fire protection. In this case the cul -de -sac will serve medical clinics and offices, with infrequent use by larger vehicles. Is in harmony therewith; In staffs opinion, this is not the kind of use that the larger cul -de -sac was designed to service. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; This street does not intersect with any other residential neighborhood or commercial district. The impact of the development will be limited to the applicant's property. Or detrimental to the public welfare. Staff believes that approving this request, provided that public safety and fire protection needs are met, will not be detrimental to the public welfare. Recommendation: Staff recommends that this variance be approved with the condition that police and fire department officials concur that the public safety will not be compromised. Mr. Norrie made a motion to hear the qualifying criteria for this variance request. Mr. Cross seconded the motion. Three surrounding property owners were notified of this request. No responses were received. Mr. Seese reviewed the qualifying criteria. The vote was unanimous in favor of approving the qualifying criteria for the case to be considered. Mr. Seese then reviewed the evaluating criteria. Mr. Dick Bundy, architect and planner for the applicant, was sworn in by Chairman Peters. He explained that the 200 ft. right -of -way encroaches on the productive use of the property because the lot is so shallow. He indicated that Falls Distributing had a BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 commercial use cul -de -sac that was 80 feet. If it's been proven that 200 ft. of paved surface is not needed, then why is must we comply with this regulation. He supported the concept of soft surface, plants, shrubs, etc., in that area instead of paved area. He explained that the productive development was diminished with the required cul -de -sac. Mr. Bundy also commented that the extreme parking requirements for a medical office of 1:200 would also be a challenge. When asked if the frontage road would be completed prior to the construction, Mr. Bundy replied it would not. It is in TxDOT's plan to have a crossing to CertainTeed, both the north and south frontage roads will also be extended to Fairway. Mr. Seese stated that the City has been working with TxDOT regarding the crossing and sewer line issues. Mr. Cross asked when Lot 5 is developed, would they be granted access to the property through the cul -de -sac. Mr. Seese replied if they wanted access via Kell frontage road, TxDOT would have to grant them permission for a curb cut. There could be a possibility to acces from the cul -de -sac, and Mr. Seese stated it would be preferred rather than to have a curb cut on the frontage road. Mr. Norrie asked if a larger cul -de -sac were to be needed. Mr. Seese stated the exceptions to this cul -de -sac are based on a medical facility; if the land use changed to a warehouse, the applicant would need to seek approval from this Board. Mr. Seipel made a motion to approve this variance based on the Fire Chiefs request that there is 100 foot of pavement for the cul -de -sac. Mr. Seese explained that when this plat becomes involved in the City's platting process the exact calculations will be known, such as the amount required for the right -of -way by Public Works. Mr. Seipel made a motion to approve this variance based on the findings of the Director of Public Works once this plat is involved in the City platting process. Mr. Norrie seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to grant the variance. 2. Variance to Construct A Privacy Fence of Metal Instead of Masonry and Wood 1730 City View Drive Case V 01 -06 Applicant ....... ............................... Syd Litteken Property ............ ...........................1730 City View Drive Requested Action ........................ Variance Purpose ........ ............................... Construct a privacy fence made of metal instead of masonry or wood. Commentary. The applicant is the architect for Piping Engineering (also known as Philip Services Corp). They are proposing a new warehouse /shop facility to locate behind their existing office building on their property at 1730 City View. Their property is zoned General Commercial and is adjacent to a single - family residential zoning boundary. The Zoning Ordinance requires a six foot tall privacy fence to be placed along a single - family zoning BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5 district boundary line when development occurs. The Zoning Ordinance calls for a six foot tall fence made of wood or masonry. They are seeking a variance in order to allow the fence to be constructed of metal instead of wood or masonry. QUALIFYING CRITERIA a. That 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: "The propety owner, Piping Engineering (also known as Philip Services Corp.) owns General Commercial (7.243 ac) next to a single - family property (Cyrus Property) which is a 28 ac. farm. The Cyrus property fronts on City View Lane for approximately 500 ft., is classified as agriculture property, and is currently under cultivation. The property line between these properties is 1456 ft, of which 635 feet requires a privacy fence." Staff response: The applicant is stating that currently there is no residential development adjacent to this property. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement. "The unique situation is that on fringes of the City limits where commercial property abuts farmland that is being cultivated. A masonry and or wood fence would be out of character. Especially 650 feet running through open farm land." Staff response: Staff agrees that under the present situation, a metal fence would not be out of character with the surrounding area. C. That 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: "In the ordinance, section 4600, buffering requires a privacy fence between Single - Family and General Commercial. A privacy fence is defined as a masonry or wood structure 6 feet minimum in height. In a residential atmosphere, this is an adequate fence. However, in the open countryside, where the wind blows hard, plowing is going on next to the fence and tumbleweeds are rolling into the fence, the literal interpretation of the ordinance does not seem to fit" Staff Response: Staff feels that the applicant has made some valid points concerning the environment surrounding this site. d. That the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with the objectives of this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6 special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Applicant's statement. " The owner would like to construct a stronger and more durable fence made of steel pipe, square steel tubing and 26 guage white ribbed metal to match the exterior of his building. We feel that the sketch attached describes a stronger, more durable and more aesthetically pleasing for the unique location, and circumstances." Staff feels that a variance should be considered based on special conditions of the surrounding area. 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 it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow a metal fence instead of a wood or masonry fence. 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. Although the applicant has not shown a specific hardship, staff feels that special conditions exist. C. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. A variance for a metal fence will not permit activities contrary to the Zoning Ordinance. d. The granting of the variance: Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; The intent of the regulation is to provide a compatible buffer for residential areas. Is in harmony therewith; The adjacent land is presently undeveloped. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; A variance for a metal fence should not be injurious to the neighborhood. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7 Or detrimental to the public welfare. Granting this variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that the applicant has proven that a special condition exists. Requiring a wood or masonry fence does not necessarily ensure compatibility with a residential neighborhood. Staff feels that under certain situations, a metal fence may provide an adequate buffer as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of this variance. Mr. Seese stated that there is sufficient criteria to warrant this case to be considered by this Board. Mr. Seipel made a motion based on the qualifying criteria that this application be heard by this Board. Mr. Norrie seconded the motion. The motion was voted unanimously in favor of approval. Mr. Seese stated this property has a length of 1,500 feet which requires buffering because it would be an industrial use next to single family zoning district. Staff feels there is sufficient evidence to warrant the granting of a metal fence instead of a wooden one. Mr. Syd Litteken was sworn in by Chairman Peters. Mr. Litteken stated he felt that as the development occurs along the city limit line in the northern part of Wichita Falls, there will be more situations similar to this one. He described the fence as being maintenance free and set above the ground to allow for commercial mowing and weed eating equipment to operate. He stated that with the winds in that area and the quality of wood, a metal fence would be more durable. He further described the construction of the building and with a white metal fence, it would make an attractive backdrop. Mr. Seese stated 18 surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) replied in favor and one (1) was opposed. The opposing response may have been confused thinking this property, named the Mobil Addition, was being developed for a mobile home park. Mr. Norrie made a motion to approve this request for a variance. Mr. Cross seconded the motion. The metal privacy fence was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. IV. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. John Key, Chairman Date BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 8