Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-3-92 BA Minutes'MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 3, 1992 City Council Chambers A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on September 3, 1992 with the following members present: Board Member Jayne Eisen Board Member Gerald Farha Board Member Ron Lanier Board Member Bill Lucas Board Member Kevin Fuller Board Member Howard Close Board Members absent: Chairman Milton Bell (excused absence) and Board Member Charles Thompson (excused absence). Also present: Kirt Anderson, Planning Director; Nicholas Karavolos, Planner; Tyrone Cooper, First Assistant City Attorney; Ilona Baker, Drafting Technician I; Patsy Ellis, Recording Secretary and Bruce A. Craig, applicant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Lucas made the motion to approve the minutes of the March 5, 1992 Public Hearing. Motion was seconded by Board Member Lanier. The motion to approve carried 6:0. PUBLIC HEARING At this time, Board Member Lanier excused himself from discussion of this case. File #352-BA: Consider a request for a variance as permitted under Sec. 30-37 E.3 from landscape regulations of Sec. 30-31C Code of Ordinances (Landscaping & Screening Requirements). Nicholas Karavolos introduced the case: Mr. Bruce Craig's application for variance relief concerns an irregular shaped, narrow commercial tract of land located at the northeast corner of Washington Boulevard and IH- 10S. Mr. Craig plans to open a used car lot (Dynamic Cars) on the property. He reasons that he needs high visibility to display his wares, and that six foot trees and a three foot high BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 3, 1992 Public Hearing bern, hedge or fence along each abutting street as required will hide his product (cars) from the public view. He feels that a used car dealership is a business that depends upon potential customers driving by and observing what he has for sale. The landscaping ordinance requires certain percentages of all parking lots to be landscaped, planted with trees and screened from view along any side of the lot facing an abutting street. Mr. Craig has chosen not to challenge the ordinance with an appeal, but proposes to exceed the landscaping requirements on his property regarding the total square feet of landscaping, the number and size of required trees and the density of the tree plantings. A VCR film of the area in question was shown and narrated by Mr. Karavolos. Mr. Karavolos stated that six notices was sent out to adjoining property owners with one returned in favor of the proposed development. Acting Chairman Eisen called on Mr. Bruce Craig, applicant, to explain his reasons for requesting a variance. Tyrone Cooper, first assistant city attorney, swore in Mr. Craig. Mr. Craig explained that to build a three foot hedge or fence would hide his inventory from the public, which is the reason he chose the location that he did choose. At this time, Kirt Anderson, Planning Director, explained the landscape codes and regulations for the benefit of new members. He then turned the meeting back over to Nicholas Karavolos for explanation of Requirements for a Variance. Mr. Karavolos stated: The Board of Adjustment is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance when the Board finds that all the following conditions have been met: Condition A: That the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Condition B: That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation or physical condition unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions. Condition C: That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed. and substantial justice will be done. Mr. Karavolos continued: The applicant proposes to landscape his property in a manner K BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 3, 1992 Public Hearing that will not screen the automobiles from view of the public driving by on the IH-10 South surface road and Washington Boulevard. However, he proposes landscaping and trees which will exceed the number of trees and total landscaping required. The applicant wishes to plant and install a hedge of dwarf youpon and indian hawthorne around the perimeter of the car dealership abutting streets with a maximum height of 18 inches. He proposes oversized trees at the driveway entrances and 23 trees in a landscaped buffer along the back or east side of the tract. Twelve of these 23 will exceed the 2" caliper widths required. In addition, he plans to provide landscaped islands within the lot totaling 4,486 sq. ft. which will amount to 10.2% landscaping inside the lot. The regulation only requires 3,219 sq. ft. for 7.5% landscaping because he will have 100 parking spaces. All of the trees inside the lot will exceed city size requirements. Landscaping along the street sides will total 10,091 sq. ft., in addition to the proposed 18" high hedges. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. This is an irregular -shaped tract of land. There is approximately 400' of frontage along the freeway but the tract is narrow, with about 100' of frontage along Washington and only 44' at the north end of the property. The applicant feels he will suffer unnecessary hardship if he is forced to screen his property from the street as required. He depends upon open display of his cars and drive -by observation by potential customers is important. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would impose a severe hardship on the applicant. The applicant proposes 34 trees and several larger trees and 14,577 sq, ft. of landscaping on his 1.047 acre tract. This exceeds the total minimum landscaping required by Sec. 30- 31 for a parking lot containing 100 spaces. The applicant's site plan demonstrates that the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done if the variance is granted. Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance because applicant has met the conditions required. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because trees along the abutting streets will obscure sight of the cars for sale. The applicant's prepared landscape plan will result in the spirit of the ordinance being observed. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 3, 1992 Public Hearing SMking in Opp9sition of the Rqquest Russell McCready American Building Materials Beaumont, Texas Mr. Russell McCready stated that he was there representing his employer at American Building Materials on Washington Boulevard. He said that his employer wanted him to come to the meeting and make sure that landscaping was done on Mr. Craig's property. He stated that they had spent $300,000.00 on their building and they landscaped there. Acting Chairman Eisen asked him if he was satisfied with the landscape plan. He answered that as long as there was going to be landscaping done he would be satisfied. He said that he was told that there was going to be no landscaping, only a portable building installed to sell used cars. Board Member Lucas made the motion to grant the variance, the applicant having met Condition a, b, and c. The motion was seconded by Board Member Fuller. Motion to grant the variance carried 5:0. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. 4