CITY OF GRANBURY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

Transcription

1 CITY OF GRANBURY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Granbury convened in regular session on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Granbury City Hall, 116 W. Bridge Street, Granbury, Texas. Notice of said meeting giving date, place, and subject thereof having been posted as prescribed by Article V.A.T.C.S., with the following members present: Eileen Cate * Chairman Ernestine Shugart * Member Jim Leitch * Member Tim Bubel * Member Betty Jacobs * Alternate Sherri Reynolds * Alternate Also present were: Scott Sopchak Assistant City Manager/Community Development Shad Rhoten Planner Angela McCafferty Recording Secretary Chairman Cate called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Cate explained to the Board they had been called to act upon three requests for variances and one request for a special exception from the City of Granbury Zoning Ordinance Requirements. In order to grant a variance from a zoning regulation, the Board of Adjustment must make written findings that the variance creates undue hardship, using the following criteria: 1. That literal enforcement of the controls will create an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty in the development of the affected property. 2. That the situation causing the hardship or difficulty is neither self-imposed nor generally affecting all or most properties in the same zoning district. 3. That the relief sought will not injure the permitted use of adjacent conforming property. 4. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of these regulations. 1

2 Chairman Cate stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a variance shall not be granted to relieve a self-created or personal hardship, nor shall it be based solely on economic gain or loss, nor shall it permit any person a privilege in developing a parcel of land not permitted by this Ordinance to other parcels of land in the particular zoning district. No variance may be granted which results in undue hardship on another parcel of land. She also stated that each variance will be evaluated according to this established criteria. Chairman Cate stated that if requesting a Special Exception, proof of hardship is not required and the review of the application is not required to meet the four prong test used to approve a variance. The applicant bears the burden of fact justifying the granting of the Special Exception. ZBA , Request of The Helton Group LTD for a Special Exception to Section 11.7.B Exterior Building Materials, Roof & Articulation Standards. The applicant is requesting to not provide the required 30% masonry upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The property is located on N Plaza Dr., approximately 500 east from the intersection of Whitehead Dr. and includes addresses ranged from N. Plaza Dr. Mr. Shad Rhoten addressed the Board. He stated a certificate of occupancy application had been submitted to the city whereby an office use is proposed for a vacant tenant space within the existing multi-tenant building. The change in use requires the building to meet a 30% masonry requirement upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. There are currently 2 buildings located on the site which support various tenants. Both buildings are currently comprised of stucco. Building 2 is where the certificate of occupancy is being requested and is required to comply with the 30% approved masonry requirement before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Building 1 is not required to comply as no certificate of occupancy has been requested. The applicant is requesting the special exception related to both buildings for any future tenant changes. The applicant has stated a majority of the front façade is comprised of windows and that, because the front elevation is recessed, any additional masonry will be hard to see. The applicant has also stated there is currently no brick ledge along the side elevations to support the addition of brick and/or stone. The subject building has approximately 4,046 calculable wall area and would require approximately 1,213 square feet of masonry to comply with the 30% masonry requirement. It appears the building would still be short of reaching the 30% requirement if the board requires just the front elevation of the building to be clad in masonry. Ms. Janyce Helton and Mr. George Ferris addressed the Board. Ms. Helton stated the building is a great looking building in her opinion. Applying masonry to 2

3 the front would be a lost cause because of the 12 foot overhang of the porch. It shades so much of the building no one would be able to see the masonry. Also, the front is mainly glass doors and window. To meet the 30% requirement, masonry would have to be applied to the sides and rear. One side of the building cannot really be seen and the rear cannot be seen by anyone. Ms. Jacobs asked if the applicant would be agreeable to an approval with a term limit. She stated if approved as requested, the special exception would apply indefinitely into the future. Ms. Jacobs stated she understood the arguments for the request but did not like the exception lasting forever. Ms. Reynolds entered the Public Hearing. Mr. Bubel stated the Board could reduce the 30% requirement and require a masonry wainscot to a certain height. Chairman Cate stated she did not have a problem applying a term limit. Ms. Helton stated she did not have a problem with a five year term limit. Ms. Jacobs made a motion to approve the special exception as presented with a term limit of 5 years at which time the issue would need to be revisited upon request for a new Certificate of Occupancy or the building would need to come into compliance and that record be filed with Hood County Deed records showing the Special Exception. Mr. Bubel seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. (Cate, Leitch, Shugart, Bubel, Jacobs) MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. ZBA , Request of Jason and Kristy McReynolds for a Special Exception to Section 5.5.E Parking Requirements for Single Family Residential 10,000 District and Section 11.2 Off Street Parking & Loading Requirements. The applicant is requesting to enclose an existing garage. The property is located at 117 N. Cherry Ln. Mr. Shad Rhoten addressed the Board. He stated the applicants are the owners of an existing single family residence located on the property. The structure currently has a detached enclosed garage and the applicant proposes to enclose it to utilize as an additional bedroom. Based on the off street parking requirements for single family residential zoning districts, an enclosed, 2 car garage is required. The enclosure of the garage into a bedroom places the property in non-compliance with the zoning ordinance. An enclosed garage is required by ordinance. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow the garage to be converted into an additional bedroom. The enclosed garage 3

4 does help to contain automobiles within the property as opposed to migrating into the public right of way. Mr. Rhoten stated if the Board is in favor of granting the exception, staff would suggest imposing the following conditions: 1. Occupation of the structure shall be limited to immediate family members only. Any extended family members or non-family member residence is strictly prohibited; 2. Parking will be located on private property as required by ordinance. Ms. Kristi McReynolds and Mr. C.D. McReynolds addressed the Board. Ms. McReynolds stated the street her house is located on is large and most of the houses on the street do not have a two car garage. She stated there is plenty of room to park 4 cars in the existing driveway. Chairman Cate asked what the timeframe was for the project. Ms. McReynolds stated immediately. Chairman Cate asked the applicant if she had considered adding on the rear of the house. Ms. McReynolds stated she had considered it, but would like to keep the footprint of the house the same and she would have to remove several trees to add on to the rear. Mr. Bubel stated he thought allowing this would be taking a step backwards. He stated he did not like to see a house that is in compliance taken out of compliance. There appears to be 70 feet in the back to do an addition. Ms. Jacobs asked the applicant what the garage was currently used for. Ms. McReynolds stated they had a freezer there and the kids played in the garage. She stated they do not park their cars in there. Mr. Bubel made a motion to deny the request as presented. Mr. Leitch seconded the motion and the vote was 2 ayes (Bubel, Leitch) and 3 nays (Cate, Shugart, Reynolds). MOTION NOT CARRIED. Chairman Cate reopened the Public Hearing. Chairman Cate stated if the Board felt the applicant had made good arguments in regards to the mature trees on the site and there being enough off-street parking without the garage, the Board could make a motion including those elements. Mr. Rhoten stated he would also suggest the following conditions if the Board were to vote in favor of the request: 1. Occupation of the structure shall be limited to immediate family members only. Any extended family members or non-family member residence is strictly prohibited; 2. Parking will be located on private property as required by ordinance. 4

5 Ms. Shugart made a motion to approve the request as presented due to the mature trees at the rear of the property and the current condition of surrounding properties with the following conditions: 1. Occupation of the structure shall be limited to immediate family members only. Any extended family members or non-family member residence is strictly prohibited; 2. Parking will be located on private property as required by ordinance. Ms. Reynolds seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. (Cate, Leitch, Shugart, Bubel, Reynolds) MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. ZBA , Request of Don Murphy of Avalon Medical Park for a Special Exception to Section 11.7.B - Exterior Building Materials, Roof & Articulation Standards. The applicant is requesting to construct a new medical building and not provide the required 80% masonry material. The property is located at 1200 Crawford Ave. and is described as Lot 2R, Block 2 of the Crawford Place Addition. Mr. Shad Rhoten addressed the Board. He stated the applicant is proposing to develop the vacant lot for a future 12,800 square foot medical office building. A Special Exception is being requested to the City of Granbury Zoning Ordinance regarding the minimum masonry requirement for commercial structures. The building as proposed is approximately 60% stone and 40% hardi-board siding. The siding is proposed for the north elevation against the existing apartment complex, the remaining elevations will be comprised of stone. Hardisiding is not an approved masonry material as defined by ordinance. The special exception, if approved, would allow for the decrease in approved masonry material from 80% to 60%. Mr. Don Murphy addressed the Board. He stated the rear of the garages on the adjacent property were constructed with hardi-board. Mr. Murphy stated 100% of the front and sides of the proposed building will be Austin stone. Hardi-board was developed to replace wood as a more fire resistant material. It is made from cement, fiber and resin. No one will be able to see the rear of the building except a few grasshoppers. Mr. Murphy stated his main concern was getting the building dried in before winter. There are multiple improvements that need to be made to the property before the building can go vertical. The main issue is timing. It is much faster to install hardi-board than stone. Mr. Murphy stated he would wrap the stone around the corners at the rear; he would not stop right at the corner. 5

6 Mr. Bubel made a motion to approve the request as presented. Mr. Leitch seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. (Cate, Leitch, Shugart, Bubel, Jacobs) MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. ZBA , Request of Granbury ISD for a Special Exception and Variance to Section 11.2.A Off Street Parking & Loading Requirements. The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum required parking stalls and to not provide parking on an improved hard surface. The property is located at 210 N. Jones St. Mr. Shad Rhoten addressed the Board. He stated Granbury Independent School District is requesting a special exception and variance to accommodate Weatherford College opening a campus within the existing facility addressed at 210 N. Jones St. The building was previously an elementary school then an alternative behavioral campus and is identified as Building 8. The building is currently used for storage, offices and the Behavioral Transition Campus. Classrooms for the Behavioral Transition Campus will be relocated to Building 2. The variance request is regarding the minimum number of off street parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. There are currently 226 parking spaces on site to serve all the existing buildings. 52 additional spaces will be striped on existing asphalt cover located to the north of building 8 and building 1, thus the total number of parking on site will be 278 spaces. Calculated by ordinance, the addition of college classroom space would require an additional 157 spaces to support the proposed use. The variance request, if approved, would reduce the total required parking spaces from 435 to 278. The special exception is request is regarding the hard surface required for all parking and maneuvering. Of the 278 spaces that will be utilized, only 193 currently meet the hard surface requirement. The remaining 85 spaces are located on road base material. Granbury Independent School District, in conjunction with Hood County, also proposes to lay additional road base to support approximately 50 more spaces in the future. The special exception, if approved, would allow for the use of road base on the 85 nonconforming spaces as well as any future spaces utilized on road base. Mr. Ron Mayfield, Granbury Independent School District Superintendent, addressed the Board. He stated there is not one area in any of those buildings being used as originally built. Currently, only 86 district employees are located in those buildings. Next year, that number may drop to 78. That leaves about 192 extra spaces. Chairman Cate stated she would like the Board to consider a term limit. If school enrollment explodes, she stated she would like the Board to be able to reassess the situation if it becomes a problem on adjacent streets and businesses. 6

7 Mr. Bubel made a motion to approve the parking variance as presented with the condition the approval is limited to a term of 5 years or if parking demand for the entire site exceeds 200 spaces. Ms. Shugart seconded the motion and the vote was 4 ayes (Cate, Shugart, Bubel, Reynolds) and 1 nay (Leitch). MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. Mr. Mayfield stated the County would be putting material down between building 8 and the parking lot with 30 parking spaces, north of building 7 to allow extra parking. The lot will not be concrete or asphalt, but will provide extra parking. Mayor Rickie Pratt addressed the Board. He stated he was concerned about parking lot 40. He stated he understood the County would be providing paving material to improve parking and he would like to encourage the applicant to resurface that lot as will. It is in pretty poor condition. Ms. Jacobs stated she thought with the variance to the number of spaces the available spaces should at least be useable and striped. Mr. Bubel made a motion to approve the special exception as presented. Mr. Leitch seconded the motion and the vote was 4 ayes (Cate, Shugart, Bubel, Reynolds) and 1 nay (Leitch). MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. Mr. Bubel left the Public Hearing. ZBA , Request of Bill Collins for a Variance to Section 6.1 Planned Development District. The applicant is requesting to encroach into the 10 rear building setback established by the Planned Development to construct a screened porch. The property is located at 1017 Teresa Ct. Mr. Shad Rhoten addressed the Board. He stated the Heather Place Subdivision was platted and zoned as a Planned Development to allow for a 10 rear building setback. Both single-family and duplex zoning districts require a 30 rear building setback. During the approval of the Planned Development zoning, the developer requested a variance from City Council to reduce the rear building setback to 10. The 10 rear building setback was placed on the plat for reference. On June 26, 2007, the developer and home owners within the subdivision joined together to request a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow the encroachment into the rear building setbacks for the construction of patio covers. On July 31, 2007, the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a variance for those property owners who currently had a patio encroaching and granted a variance to allow the remaining applicants, who planned to build patio covers, to encroach no more than 8 into the building setback notated on the plat. Now, an additional 7

8 homeowner has submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment requesting to construct a screened porch within the rear building setbacks. This homeowner was not the property owner during the original and subsequent variance submittals. The variance being requested is to encroach 2 into the rear setback line establish by the planned Development. The applicant proposes to construct the screened porch within 8 of the rear property line. The proposed porch is approximately 20 x 14. Mr. Bill Collins addressed the Board. He stated the property owner would like to install a screened porch. He will also be rerouting drainage spouts to correct a drainage problem on the property. Mr. Leitch made a motion to approve the request as presented. Ms. Reynolds seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. (Cate, Shugart, Leitch, Jacobs, Reynolds) MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 22, 2011 and April 26, 2011 Ms. Shugart made a motion to approve the minutes of February 22, 2011 as presented. Ms. Reynolds seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. (Cate, Shugart, Leitch, Jacobs, Reynolds) MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. Mr. Leitch made a motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 2011 as presented. Ms. Shugart seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to approve. (Cate, Shugart, Leitch, Jacobs, Reynolds) MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE. DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, Chairman Cate adjourned the hearing at 6:00 P.M. 8