Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 05/31/2000MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 31, 2000
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date J -J-00
By _Time a
PRESENT:
Rainer Hanold, Chairman 0 Members
Don McKinney 0
Michael Norrie 0
Charles A. Peters, III 0
J. D. Ruiz 0
Willa Burgess 0
Luther Houston 0
Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0 City Staff
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0
ABSENT:
John Key 0 Member
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hanold called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
Mr. Clark introduced Ms. Lydia Torres, City Clerk to the Board. Ms. Torres swore in Mr.
Norrie, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Houston, and Ms. Burgess.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Mr. Peters to approve the minutes of the January 19, 2000
meeting. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.
Ill. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Administrative Appeal of the Interpretation of Section 6210 (7)
2108 & 2110 Kemp
Case V 00 -02
Applicant ............. .........................Jordan Gary
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
Property ........ ............................... Lots 5 & 6, Block 110, Floral Heights
Requested action ........ .................Administrative Appeal
Purpose ........ ............................... Appeal of the interpretation of Section 6210(7) of the
Zoning Ordinance providing that a required buffer
fence shall not allow vehicular access to off - street
parking facilities.
Commentary:
The applicant requests an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. He has submitted
plans to build a professional office with a garage opening onto the alley. The alley is a
single - family zoning district boundary. A privacy fence is required by ordinance along
this boundary where commercial uses abut residential zoning. Openings in the fence
for vehicular access are not permitted. Since an opening in the fence is necessary to
access the garage, staff did not approve the applicant's site plan. Staffs decision was
based on Section 6210(7). That section reads as follows:
"Where screening is required to address the intent of this Ordinance, no vehicular alley
access for ingress and egress to off - street parking facilities shall be permitted to break
or otherwise to provide openings in the required screen."
The applicant is appealing Staffs decision, he states that: "The ordinance seems to be
forbidding alley access to public parking. I do not believe that my proposed building will
violate the ordinance, because it is to be a private, single car garage for the sole use of
a handicapped tenant to access the garage to come and go once each day. Our public
parking facility will be accessible only from the front of the building from Kemp Blvd.
The garage in the rear of the building could certainly be expected in a residential area
such as this. It will not be a noise or visual problem for the adjacent neighbors. Several
of the immediate adjacent neighbors are using alley access to their property."
Staffs interpretation of Section 6210 (7) is as follows:
A. The term "parking facility" has two meaning in the Zoning Ordinance. (1.) The
Zoning Ordinance defines a parking facility as a space for the parking motor vehicle
or storage of automobiles for a fee. "Parking facility" as defined is a park- for -fee lot,
or parking garage, a separate land use. (2.) The term "Parking facility" is also used
in the ordinance as a more general term referring to a parking space or lot. For
example, Section 6210(8) states that "All parking and loading facilities shall be
located on the same site for which such facilities are required..." Staff determined
that the applicant's garage was an off - street "parking facility" as the term is used in
context of the ordinance.
B. Staff concluded that an opening in the fence accessing this parking facility is
contrary to the requirements of Section 6210(7).
C. The intent of 6210(7) was to reinforce Section 4620 requiring a privacy fence
adjacent to single family district boundaries. A privacy fence is intended to provide
visual screening and limit the impacts of adjacent commercial development,
including vehicles. A privacy fence does not, in staffs opinion, include openings for
vehicles.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
Staff agrees the applicant's proposal would have less impact than the typical parking
space and would be a particular and needed benefit to the occupants of the building.
However, there is no provision in the ordinance to allow a break in the fence for low
volume parking spaces. The ordinance is also silent as to physical impairments of
tenants as a basis for allowing special considerations.
Mr. Jordan Gary, applicant, was sworn in by Chairman Hanold. Mr. Gary stated that he
intends to build a professional office building on two lots for a CPA, State Senator, and
himself. His concerns are the handicap facility that resembles a garage with access
from the alley that would preclude him from constructing a buffer fence without a break
or opening.
Mr. McKinney made a motion for the Board of Adjustment to hear Case V 00 -02. Mr.
Peters seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor.
There was discussion regarding the difference between public and employee parking
and whether the Zoning Ordinance recognizes this under its parking regulations. Mr.
Stillson commented that the Zoning Ordinance specifies there should not be a break in
fencing but does not specifically address the issue of a gate in the fence that would be
open for a few minutes each day. If the fence has an opening, it will not serve its
purpose of screening.
Mr. McKinney stated that granting this variance for a specific tenant would be doing a
great service to the Senator; however, it would set a precedence. He inquired about
the garage if the Senator was no longer a tenant of this building. Mr. Gary explained
another handicap tenant would probably lease that space or it could become part of the
office. Mr. McKinney suggested that the office be leased to only handicap people.
Chairman Hanold asked if the appeal could be conditionally approved. Mr. McKinney
stated that in the past, this Board has granted approval with stipulations that if the use
of the property changes, then the approval would be null or should be reviewed. Mr.
Peters suggested that he would approve this appeal; however, if a tenant moves in
without a handicap, then the structure should be removed.
Mr. McKinney made a motion to grant the administrative appeal of Case V 00 -02, 2108
& 2110 Kemp, including the following provisions:
1. An electric gate with material matching the fence both in height and
in appearance, and
2. Garage door which shields the visibility of the automobile, and
3. An electronic device for the gate and garage door, and
4. Any future use of tenants of that building:
a. Only handicap (handicap windshield placard or license
plate) tenants are allowed usage of the garage, or
b. If there are no handicap tenants, then the area is sealed
off and the building must comply with the ordinance
regarding fencing.
Mr. Peters seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of granting the
appeal with the above listed conditions.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
2. Variance of Street Dedication
Rathgeber Road Along High Point Village
Case V 00 -03
Applicant ....... ............................... Dennis Probst, Corlett, Probst and Boyd
Property ........ ............................... Preliminary Plat High Point Village
Requested Action ........................ Variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 9
B1(a).
Purpose ........ ............................... Limit right -of -way dedication on West Rathgeber
Road to 30 feet from the street, thereby providing for
a total right -of -way width of 60 feet.
Commentary:
The applicant is requesting a variance in the High Point Village Subdivision to allow a
30 -foot rather than 32.5 -foot street dedication adjacent to Rathgeber Road. The
Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 32.5 -foot dedication requirement when
this plat was considered at their March meeting.
The requirement is based on a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance Section 9 B1 (a)
providing that street dedications shall be based on the latest Thoroughfare Plan. The
latest plan shows Rathgeber Road as a Major Collector Street with a 65' -70' width.
Since the High Point Village plat dedicated one -half the street, the requirement was to
dedicate 32.5 feet, one -half of the minimum 65' dedication.
The applicant requests a variance based on prior dedications in the area of only 30 feet
on either side of the centerline, resulting in a 60 foot wide right -of -way.
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: "This property fronts on the portion of West Rathgeber
Road located between State Highway 79 and Old Jacksboro Highway. The
property comprises approximately one -fourth of the road frontage."
Staff response: The property does represent a significant portion of the
Rathgeber frontage. Staff recognizes that a 30 -foot dedication was approved on
adjacent properties. The special condition in this case is an established trend of
dedications of 30 feet instead of 32.5 to 35 feet along this section of road.
b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions
of the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "Approximately one half of existing road frontage is
comprised of platted property or property with an approved preliminary plat
dedicating 30 feet from the centerline of Rathgeber Road. The preliminary plat
of this property was prepared under the reasonable assumption that this pattern
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
would be continued."
Staff response: Staff agrees that the approval of other plats with dedications less
than 32.5 feet was not the result of actions of the applicant
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: Approval of preliminary plats for two of these properties
(Arbor Hill and Lot 6, High Point Village, Sec. 1) with the 30 foot right -of -way
dedication was granted in 1998 and 1999 when the current Thoroughfare Plan
designation for West Rathgeber Road was in effect. These properties comprise
almost one third of the road frontage.
Staff Response: Staff acknowledges that there is a pattern of development of 30-
foot dedications on adjacent tracts. However, under the Subdivision Ordinance
Section 9 61(a) staff was obligated to require the 32.5 -foot dedication. Staff
determined that the correct process for reducing this requirement was a
variance.
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: "Granting this variance would provide equitable
enforcement of the thoroughfare plan."
Staff response: Staff agrees that adjacent tracts were required to dedicate less
than the 32.5 feet.
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.
In practical terms the additional 2.5 feet will not be particularly useful, since it
would not continue on either side of this tract. It will be a small "dog leg" of
limited value for public improvements.
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.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGES
The dedication in this location will not serve its function and would not have
much practical value.
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 provision requiring minimum street dedication widths is to
allow for adequate space for future street expansions. The Thoroughfare
Plan provides an overall plan for these dedications.
Since there have been previous dedications of 30 feet and less, waving
the 32.5 -foot dedication in favor of a 30 -foot dedication will have little
impact on the ability of the city to implement the Thoroughfare Plan.
Is in harmony therewith;
The variance would allow this dedication to be in harmony with adjacent
tracts with similar dedications.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
Granting this waiver should not negatively impact adjacent tracts or
neighborhoods.
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, based on:
1. The previous right -of -way dedications along Rathgeber Road are sufficient to
accommodate the requirements of the Thoroughfare Plan.
2. Staff feels that this dedication requirement would pose an undo hardship on the
development of these properties, and would conflict with neighboring properties by
creating unusable configurations.
Mr. Dennis Probst, Corlett, Probst, and Boyd, reviewed the request to limit the right -of-
way dedication on West Rathgeber Road.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6
The board felt that this case met the qualifying criteria and that the case should be
heard.
Mr. Norrie made a motion to approve this variance request with Mr. McKinney
seconding the motion. The variance passed with a unanimous vote in favor.
IV. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:34 p.m.
Rainer Hanold, Chairman
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7
Date