Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-2-21 BA Minutes * M I N U T E S * BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 2, 2021 City Hall, 801 Main Street A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on December 2, 2021 and called to order at 3:02 p.m. with the following members present: Chairman Dana Timaeus Board Member Jeff Beaver Board Member Joey Hilliard *arrived at 3:17 p.m. Board Member Tom Rowe Board Member Rogers Sorrell Jr. Board Members absent: Alternate Board Member Christy Amuny Also present: Demi Engman, Senior Planner Sharae Reed, First Assistant City Attorney Catherine Allen, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Beaver moved to approve the minutes for November 22, 2021. Board Member Rowe seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes carried 4:0. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES All witnesses were sworn in at 3:04 p.m. Chairman Timaeus informed the applicants that with only four (4) members present, an approval would require a unanimous vote. He stated that one more board member was expected to attend so the board would recess until the fifth board member arrived. The meeting was recessed at 3:05 p.m. Board Member Hilliard arrived at 3:17 p.m. and the meeting resumed at that time. PUBLIC HEARING 1) File PZ2021-403: To consider a request for a Variance to the required lot width, lot depth and lot area minimum in a GC-MD (General Commercial - Multiple Family Dwelling) District. Applicant: Richard Faust for Lisa Revia Location: 1610 Washington Blvd and 2996 Avenue C Mrs. Engman presented the staff report. Richard Faust with Faust Engineering is requesting a Variance, on behalf of Lisa Revia, to the required minimum lot area, width and depth requirements in a GC-MD (General Commercial - Multiple Family Dwelling) District. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 2, 2021 Mr. Faust intends to split one track of land into two parcels. The first lot with the address of 1610 Washington Blvd is an appliance retail shop and will have a proposed lot area of 5,401 square feet, depth of 81.16’, and width of 66.59’. The second lot is an existing residence and will have a lot area of 4,589 square feet, depth of 66.59’, and width of 68.87’. The intention of the lot split is for the owners to sell 1610 Washington Blvd and keep their residence at 2996 Avenue C. By strict compliance with the City of Beaumont Zoning Regulations, the GC-MD District requires a lot area minimum of 7,500sqft, a lot depth minimum of 100’, and a lot width minimum of 75’. Sec. 26.05.002 (b) (1) Exemption for lot splits states “the requirements of this chapter shall not apply to the resubdivision of industrial lots, commercial lots, multiple-family lots (or portions of such lots), or condominium or “townhouse” regimes in subdivisions legally platted and filed for record in Jefferson County when the resulting lots meet all the minimum lot area, width and depth requirements of the zoning ordinance.” Approval of this request would allow Mr. Faust to complete recordation of the lot split through metes and bounds. Slides of the subject property were shown. Twenty-five (25) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. Zero responses were received in favor or opposition. Chairman Timaeus asked for clarification on the two (2) lots and the variance and Mrs. Engman explained that both lots would need the variance. Chairman Timaeus asked for more information on the property being in a conservation and revitalization area of the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Engman explained the conservation and revitalization designation and the comprehensive plan. Chairman Timaeus asked about parking requirements for the proposed business on one of the lots and Mrs. Engman stated that the City Engineering department will review the parking during the inspection and permitting process. The public hearing on this request was opened. The applicant was present. Richard Faust, representing Faust Engineering and Surveying, 5550 Eastex Freeway Suite O, addressed the Board. He stated that he is working with the property owner on this project. Mr. Faust stated that the variance would be needed to correct the issue of two (2) structures being on one lot. He added that the property owner is attempting to sell the property and would need to have this issue resolved. He also stated that they attempted to separate the lots evenly, but there was 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 2, 2021 just not enough land available to meet the setback requirements for both lots. Finally, he stated that if the variance is granted, both lots would have street access from existing concrete driveways. Gerald Henry, 2990 Avenue C, addressed the Commission. He stated that he received a property owner notice from the City about this request. He also stated that he lives next door to the subject property. Mr. Henry stated that he came to the meeting because he was unsure of the plans. Finally, he added that he would prefer to not have a business directly next to his house. The public hearing on this item was closed without further comment. The board discussed the case amongst themselves. Board Member Beaver moved to approve the request for a Variance to the required lot width, lot depth and lot area minimum in a GC-MD (General Commercial - Multiple Family Dwelling) District, as requested in File PZ2021-403. Board Member Rowe seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Chairman Timaeus-No, Board Member Beaver-Aye, Board Member Hilliard-No, Board Member Rowe-Aye, Board Member Sorrell-No. The motion to approve failed 2:3. 2) File PZ2021-404: To consider a request for an appeal of a determination made by an administrative official that a business allowing on-premise consumption of alcohol with a proposed seven (7) “bar stools” and four (4) table seats, not operating as an eating place, is determined to be a drinking place. Applicant: Baptiste Brunner Location: 8180 Eastex Fwy, Suite B Mrs. Engman presented the staff report. Baptiste Brunner has requested that the Board hear an appeal to a decision made by an Administrative Official of the Planning Division. Section 28.02.005(c) of the Beaumont, Texas Code of Ordinance allows for such an appeal and states: Appeal process. Appeals to the board can be taken by any person aggrieved or by an officer, department, or board or bureau of the municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time after the decision has been rendered by the administrative officer, by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board, a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed was taken. August 17, 2021 Staff inquired on a request to serve alcohol at 8180 Eastex Freeway. It was stated the “Daiquiri Shop” will have a drive through. If they have a drive through with no customer seating they are classified as a convenience store, which is accepted without a Specific Use Permit (SUP) in most commercial zoning districts. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 2, 2021 On November 13, 2021, Staff reviewed a commercial alteration permit for a “Daiquiri Shop” at 8180 Eastex Freeway, Suite B. The floor plan showed seven (7) bar stools and four (4) table seats, including an area to play dart board games. The Planning staff’s interpretation of the ordinance is that the use of Suite B is classified as a drinking place. Additionally, Staff has confirmed with Mr. Brunner that no food will be sold at this facility, just wine-based daiquiris. The property is zoned as GC-MD (General Commercial – Multiple Family Dwelling) district. A drinking place within that zoning district requires an approved specific use permit prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Sec. 28.03.023 Permitted Uses. Again, this is a request for an appeal of a determination made by an administrative official that a business allowing on-premise consumption of alcohol with a proposed seven (7) “bar stools” and four (4) table seats, not operating as an eating place, is determined to be a drinking place. Slides of the site plan, permitted use table and “drinking place” definition were shown. Four (4) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. Zero responses were received in favor or opposition. Chairman Timaeus asked for the definitions of both “drinking place” and “eating place” and Mrs. Engman read the definitions from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. Mrs. Engman provided a history and rationale for the determination of the project as a “drinking place.” The applicant had originally been defined as a convenience store, which did not require a specific use permit. However, when the floor plan was submitted which included indoor seating and games, staff changed the designation to “drinking place” which requires a specific use permit. Board Member Beaver asked for the meanings of the letters in the permitted use table and Mrs. Engman explained that “P” means permitted, “S” means specific use permit needed and no letter at all means not permitted. Board Member Rowe asked if ensuring adequate parking was the intention of requiring a specific use permit for a drinking place. Mrs. Engman answered that she thought this to be the case and that the notification requirement of the specific use permit process would also be part of the intention of the ordinance. Chairman Timaeus asked about exactly what the question before them would be, if they were simply deciding whether the determination of “drinking place” stands or if they were deciding between “drinking place” and “eating place.” 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 2, 2021 Ms. Reed explained that the board would either affirm or overturn the determination of “drinking place” and that if overturned, it would be returned to staff for a new determination. She added that any potential future staff determination should not be a part of their decision. Chairman Timaeus stated that thus the question would be if the applicant can meet the burden of proof to show that the determination of “drinking place” is incorrect. Brief discussion followed about the historical information about the case and how much of it could factor in the decision. The public hearing on this item was opened. The applicant was present. Baptiste Brunner, 8180 Eastex Freeway Suite B, addressed the board. He stated that he is the owner of CEHB Enterprises LLC which looks to open Daiquiri Boom. He added that he is also a financial advisor with AIG Retirement Services. He asked if the board had enough time to review the case and that he would like to start by answering any questions. Chairman Timaeus stated that they have had time to review the case and they would like his presentation without a lot of history. Mr. Brunner read from an email thread between him and city staff and stated that he was initially told that he did not need a specific use permit and then later told that he did. He added that because he was told he did not need one, he did not apply and has now had to wait, causing him to have lost $15,000. Mr. Brunner stated that the property straddled the GC-MD and LI districts and questioned if he would need a specific use permit if his business was in the other suite. He stated that his business will provide economic growth in the area and will be one of the only food or beverage providers within a two (2) to three (3) mile radius. Next, he stated that his business will not impede the surrounding neighborhoods. He read from a letter from his architect. Additionally, Mr. Brunner stated that his TABC license requires him to have indoor seating or he would not have it. He also stated that he will not be serving food and that the drinks will be to go, so it is not a drinking establishment because it is not primarily engaged in on-premise drinking. Mr. Brunner added that he does not intend there to be congregating in the business. He read from a letter from his distributor. Mr. Brunner stated that he has previously worked in bars and does not want to have that type of environment. He invited the board members to visit at any time to ensure that people are not congregating in the establishment. He stated that the games are only there to take up space. Also, he stated that there will be a one drink limit for drinks inside and posted signs that the drive-thru is the priority. He added that he plans to close the indoor area at 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. depending on the day. He mentioned that the drive thru can be considered a Covid-19 precaution. Finally, he thanked the board for their consideration. Chairman Timaeus asked if Suite B was part of the convenience store. Mr. Brunner stated that it will be a part of the gas station, but will have a wall separating it. Chairman Timaeus asked if there will be a door or if it will be totally separate and Mr. Brunner stated that it will be separate, but he could add a door if requested. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 2, 2021 Board Member Rowe asked about the state requiring seating and Mr. Brunner stated that seating is required for his TABC permit. Board Member Rowe asked if he had his TABC permit already when he applied with the City and Mr. Brunner stated that he had applied for it, but it has not yet been granted. Board Member Rowe asked about what was submitted during the application process with the City and Mr. Brunner stated that he applied in August without a site plan and that when he provided the site plan, he was told that he needed a specific use permit. Mrs. Engman added that part of the permitting process is a review to check for schools, churches or hospitals within a two hundred (200) foot radius. Mr. Brunner again reviewed the history of the process and stated that he has had to miss meetings of the Planning Commission because he was not initially told that he would need a specific use permit. Board Member Rowe asked the applicant if he had looked into the specific use permit process. Mr. Brunner stated that he was told that he did not need one and then was told that he did so he decided to pursue the appeal process. Board Member Hilliard asked about the games in the establishment. Mr. Brunner stated that there will be two (2) dart boards, but that they are just to take up space. Brief discussion followed about the seating required. Board Member Sorrell stated that having bar stools and games will eventually encourage people to congregate. Mr. Brunner stated that they are taking up as much space as possible with storage, utility area and oversized bathroom and office to limit seating. He added that people congregating inside is not his goal. Board Member Rowe stated that the applicant needs to prove to the board that his business does not meet the definition of a “drinking place” and Mr. Brunner stated that it did not because it is not primarily for on-premise drinking. Board Member Hilliard pointed out that the applicant has more than the minimum seating required and that he does not understand why a dart board would be needed. He added that the apartments being within walking distance would likely lead to a lot of walk-in traffic with people wanting to play the games inside. Mr. Brunner stated that he could remove the dartboards if that would help. Chairman Timaeus stated that he appreciated this offer, but that the decision they make will be permanent and future owners may not adhere to promises he makes today. He also added that the decision before them is just about the definition of “drinking place.” Board Member Sorrell reiterated that bar stools, a bar and games will encourage people to drink inside the establishment. 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 2, 2021 Board Member Rowe explained the specific use permit process and stated that it is not burdensome. He admitted that it does take time, but did not see it as such a hardship. He added that the specific use permit process serves the intended purposes of the ordinances. He stated that the applicant is asking the board to ignore city ordinances. Mr. Brunner stated that he does not want to throw out city ordinances and that he is worried that a specific use permit will be denied. He restated the reasons for his appeal and thanked the board. The public hearing on this request was closed without further comment. The board discussed the case amongst themselves. Board Member Beaver moved to deny the request for a an appeal of a determination made by an administrative official that a business allowing on-premise consumption of alcohol with a proposed seven (7) “bar stools” and four (4) table seats, not operating as an eating place, is determined to be a drinking place, as requested in File PZ2021-404. Board Member Hilliard seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Chairman Timaeus-Aye, Board Member Beaver-Aye, Board Member Hilliard- Aye, Board Member Rowe-Aye, Board Member Sorrell-Aye. The motion to deny carried 5:0. Board Member Rowe addressed Mr. Brunner to let him know that the City is not against his business and encouraged him to pursue the specific use permit process. 3) File PZ2021-405: To consider a request for a Variance to the required minimum pavement setback to be reduced from 2’ to 10.5” in an RM-H (Residential Multiple Family – Highest Density) District. Applicant: April Simoneaux for George Fontenot Location: 2708 Sabine Pass Avenue Mrs. Engman presented the staff report. April Simoneaux with Byrdson Services, LLC is requesting a Variance, on behalf of George Fontenot, for the property located at 2708 Sabine Pass Avenue. She has requested that the paved surface be reduced from 2’ to 10 1/2” from the exterior side property line. Ms. Simoneaux is requesting this Variance for Mr. Fontenot so he may keep his existing detached garage where it is currently situated on the property. Section 28.03.024 (c) (18) states all paved hard surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, driveways, pool decks and patios shall be a minimum of two (2) feet from any side or rear property line. Byrdson Services, LLC is a local company. They have participated in the General Land Office (GLO) Disaster Recovery Program to facilitate building structurally sound homes and mitigate future flooding hazards for citizens’ homes that have been affected by natural disasters. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 2, 2021 The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all three conditions necessary for approval have been met: A) That the granting of the Variance will not be contrary to the public interest; 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 hardship 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 owner’s actions; and C) That by granting the Variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done. Slides of the subject property and site plan were shown. Twenty-nine (29) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. Zero responses were received in favor or opposition. Discussion followed concerning the site plan and pavement setbacks. The applicant was present. April Simoneaux, representing Byrdson Services, 1245 W Cardinal Drive, addressed the board. She stated that this home is part of a Texas General Land Office Harvey project. She added that they plan to demolish the home, but that the homeowner wants to keep his detached garage. Ms. Simoneaux added that the GLO requires an ADA parking pad which is larger and causes the need for the variance. Finally, she stated that this required the setback to be 10.5” instead of 2’. Discussion followed concerning the GLO requirements. Board Member Hilliard moved to approve the request for a Variance to the required minimum pavement setback to be reduced from 2’ to 10.5” in an RM-H (Residential Multiple Family – Highest Density) District, as requested in File PZ2021-405. Board Member Sorrell seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Chairman Timaeus-Aye, Board Member Beaver-Aye, Board Member Hilliard-Aye, Board Member Rowe-Aye, Board Member Sorrell-Aye. The motion to approve carried 5:0. OTHER BUSINESS None. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:34 p.m. 8