Loading...
2005-05-05 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTESZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING and PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2005 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL 3519 LIBERTY DRIVE PEARLAND, TEXAS I. CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER The Regular Meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm with the following in attendance: Vice Chairperson Donald Glenn Board Member Anne Talbot Board Member Marvin Elam Board Member Willard Briley Alternate Board Member James Lane Alternate Board Member Kerry Mohammadian Alternate Board Member Jim Daigle arrived during the New Business items. Absent was Chairperson Dale Pillow. Also in attendance were Planning Director Lata Krishnarao, Senior Planner Theresa Grahmann, Planner 1 Diana DuCroz, Deputy City Attorney Nghiem Doan and Planning Administrative Secretary Melisa Durham. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 3, 2005, and March 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes Board Member Marvin Elam stated that his name is incorrectly stated as James Elam in the March 3, 2005 minutes. Ms. Krishnarao stated that the February 3, meeting minutes were incorrectly added to this agenda, but need not be acted on, as the February 3 meeting minutes were approved during the March 3, 2005, meeting. On a motion by Board Member Marvin Elam, and seconded by Board Member Briley, the Board voted 5 — 0 to approve the minutes from the March 3, 2005, meeting, with the name change correction stated previously. III. NEW BUSINESS A. BOARD MEMBER TRAINING Vice Chairperson Donald Glenn stated that the Staff is going to present a brief training session for the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Krishnarao stated that Staff attempts to have a training session annually, and due to the recent alternate member Board appointments, Staff felt that it was appropriate to conduct a training session at this meeting. Ms. Krishnarao Page 1 of 7 - Minutes - May 5, 2005 presented a brief training session, focusing on the role of the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the development of the City, as well as explanations of zoning, variances, and planning in general. Mr. Doan explained the role and powers of the Board of Adjustment, specifically relating to interpretations of regulations, variances, and special exceptions. B. VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 0540 CALL PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER The public hearing was called to order at 6:40 pm. 2. PURPOSE OF HEARING The purpose of the hearing was read by Vice Chairperson Glen, as follows: A request by Jim Chilton, P.E., applicant for ShawCor Pipe Protection, owner, for a variance from the requirements of Section 21.5 Development Standards of Chapter 21 Parking Requirements of the Land Use and Urban Development Ordinance of said City, on the following described property, to wit: 15.175 acre tract out of Lot 84 of the W. Zychlinski Subdivision as recorded in Volume 29, Page 43 of the Brazoria County Deed Records, and is further described as being all of a 15.1656 acre tract described as Tract One in a deed to Energy Coatings Company, as recorded in Clerk's File No. 90788 558 in the Brazoria County Clerk's Office (Located at 4501 Knapp Road) 3. STAFF REPORT Ms. DuCroz gave the staff report, explaining the location of the subject property, the existing use of the subject property as a pipe processing facility, and the current zoning of the subject property. Ms. DuCroz stated that the applicant is requesting a variance regarding the paving of the new parking lot to serve a proposed building that is to be constructed on site. She stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow them to use a gravel parking lot on the site, instead of a paved parking lot as required by ordinance. She stated that the applicant has indicated as part of their application packet that the required paving would provide a burdensome cost to them. Ms. DuCroz stated that the variance would apply to the property forever, and that if the variance is granted, the parking lot would not have to comply with the above referenced section of the ordinance in the future. 4. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Jim Chilton, representing ShawCor Pipe Protection, 4501 Knapp Road, Pearland, stated that his requested variance is not as stated previously by Ms. DuCroz. He stated that the subject property does not have direct access to Knapp Road, but is only accessible from the pipe yards. He stated that they are requesting that no parking be required for the subject property, due to safety reasons and large trucks traveling through the site quite frequently. Ms. Krishnarao stated that, based on the applicant's presentation, if parking for subject parcel would be provided in the adjoining property, this variance is not necessary. The applicant stated that he would like to withdraw this variance from consideration by the Board. No further action was taken on this item. 5. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED REQUEST No persons spoke, due to the withdrawal of this item by the applicant. Page 2 of 7 - Minutes - May 5, 2005 6. STAFF / BOARD / APPLICANT DISCUSSION No discussion occurred due to the withdrawal of this item by the applicant. 7. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was adjourned by the Board at 6:54pm. 8. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF APPLICATION 05-10 No action was taken by the Board due to the applicant's withdrawal of the variance application from consideration. B. VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 0541 CALL PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER The public hearing was called to order at 6:55pm. 2. PURPOSE OF HEARING: A request by Tim Stovall, applicant for AmeriPak, owner, for a variance from the requirements of Section 22.6 Building Facades of the Land Use and Urban Development Ordinance of said City, on the following described property, to wit: Being a 3.2691 acre tract of land out of Lot 8, the Orange Grove Addition, recorded in Volume 2, Page 62 of the Harris County Map Records, also described in ROW deed found in Volume 3933, Page 394 of the Deed Records of Harris County, Texas (Located at 14525 Almeda School Road) 3. STAFF REPORT Ms. DuCroz gave the staff report, explaining the location of the subject property, the existing use of the property, and the requested variance. She stated that the building on the subject property was constructed several years ago, when the property was not incorporated into the City limits of the City of Pearland. She explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to the building fagade section of the ordinance, which requires that all sides of the building that are visible from a roadway are required to be 100 percent masonry or glass. Ms. DuCroz stated that all sides of the existing building would be visible from the adjacent roadways, and therefore, all sides of the building would need to comply with the masonry standard. Ms. DuCroz stated that the subject property is located within the Spectrum District, which is a mixed use district defined in the Comprehensive Plan that is a business park environment with specific design elements. She stated that the subject property is at a gateway to the City and is highly visible from Beltway 8. She stated that the applicant is proposing to leave the building with its current fagade. However, she stated that the applicant has proposed two alternative facades that exhibit partial compliance with the building fagade section of the ordinance. Ms. DuCroz stated that no public comment forms were submitted to the City on this item. 4. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Tim Stovall, applicant, 4320 Eastpark Drive, Houston, stated that one public comment form should have been received by the City from an adjacent property owner, because that property owner provided him with a copy of the public comment form and a letter expressing support of the variance. Mr. Stovall stated that this is a unique situation, Page 3 of 7 — Minutes -- May 5, 2005 involving a tract of land that was developed in 1999, and was constructed within the guidelines of Harris County. He stated that the existing building is considered "grandfathered" because he is opening a business that is similar to the previous business that was located within the building. He stated that this variance is not based on economic hardship, but on good business sense. He stated that one of the adjacent businesses is a sand pit. He stated that he does not have water and sewer service to his property, and that Almeda School Road is wide enough for a one-way street. Mr. Stovall stated that he would like to improve the appearance of the subject property. Mr. Stovall stated that he has proposed two different options regarding the fagade of the building. He stated that he provided the City with several exhibits, which are part of the packet that the Board is looking at. He said it could not make sense to enhance the building fagade on the building that faces the sand pit. Mr. Stovall also stated that Almeda School Road is not in the City's budget and would not be developed until 2015. He explained the proposed alternatives for the fagade, stating that one proposal is for diamond wall siding, which is more durable and stronger than EIFS, and EIFS is currently allowed by the City. He stated that he proposes an 8 foot high wall along the lower section of the building on the west, north, and east sides of the building. He stated that the second alternative proposes a 10 foot high wall along the lower section of the building on north and east sides of the property, and 100 percent masonry on the front of the building facing Almeda School Road. He stated that he does not wsh to install any type of different fagade on the south side of the building, facing the sand pit. 5. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED REQUEST Don Koontz, 2807 Country Club Drive, Pearland, stated that he drives by the building every day, and that this building is one of the nicer properties in the subject area and looks better than other buildings and properties in the area. He stated that the occupation of this building would enhance the value of properties within the area and encourage economic development in that area. 6. STAFF / BOARD / APPLICANT DISCUSSION Board Member Talbot asked how the City envisions the development of the area in the future. Ms. Krishnarao stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for the Spectrum District, and the City recently annexed over 400 acres of land between the subject property and SH 288. The Comprehensive Plan calls for guidelines for a Business Park for the area, and that the City just committed approximately 8 million dollars for the construction of Kirby Drive, with the help of developers within the area. She stated the Kirby Road construction will also bring water and sewer lines to the area. She stated that a lifestyle center is being proposed at the southwest corner of SH 288 and Beltway 8 by a developer. Ms. Krishnarao stated that these proposals will bring more developments to the area. She stated that Almeda School Road is designated as a secondary thoroughfare, and its construction would be initiated by development in the area, but Kirby Drive was built sooner than expected due to development in the area. She stated that Almeda School Road could be a major link in the subject area. Board Member Elam stated that this building has been there 6 years, and in another 10 years, which is not a long time, the area will grow and property values will grow in the Page 4 of 7 - Minutes -- May 5, 2005 area. Mr. Stovall stated that he is on the edge of the City and will be the last section of Pearland to develop. Mr. Stovall stated that to bring sewer to the area will take over a million dollars to bring sewer from Kirby Drive to his property, and would take 200 thousand dollars to bring water from Kirby Drive to his property. Mr. Stovall stated that if this area is the crown jewel in the Comprehensive Plan, why is construction scheduled for 10 years from now. Board Member Elam stated that it is still in the planning stages. Mr. Stovall asked the Board to come to a compromise to allow him to improve the building. Vice Chairperson Glenn asked about the alternatives and partial compliance stated within the staff report. Ms. DuCroz stated that the applicant is proposing two alternative that do not fully meet the 100 percent masonry requirement. She stated that the Board can allow the applicant to leave the building as is, choose one of the alternatives proposed by the applicant, or another appropriate alternative. Board Member Elam asked which alternative the applicant would prefer. Mr. Stovall stated that he prefers the one explained on Pages 6 and 7 of the exhibits. Board Member Talbot asked if the Board can grant a temporary variance that would allow the applicant to bring the property into compliance when Almeda School Road is constructed. Deputy City Attorney stated that the variance cannot be conditional, because the variance runs with the land forever. Mr. Doan stated that allowing one property owner to remain as is because it is a nice building, then the area would not improve because other neighbors would not want to improve either, and it needs to start somewhere. He stated that the legislative intent of the City Council in writing ordinance is to require all property owners to comply with the ordinances. 7. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was adjourned at 7:26pm. 8. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF APPLICATION 05-11 Board Member Briley made a motion to approve the variance to leave the building as it. Board Member Elam seconded the motion. The Board voted 0 — 5 on the motion. The variance was denied. C. VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 05-12 CALL PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER The public hearing was called to order at 7:27pm. 2. PURPOSE OF HEARING: A request by Tim Stovall, applicant for AmeriPak, owner, for a variance from the requirements of Section 17.4(2)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements of the Land Use and Urban Development Ordinance of said City, on the following described property, to wit: Being a 3.2691 acre tract of land out of Lot 8, the Orange Grove Addition, recorded in Volume 2, Page 62 of the Harris County Map Records, also described in ROW deed found in Volume 3933, Page 394 of the Deed Records of Harris County, Texas (Located at 14525 Almeda School Road) Page 5 of 7 - Minutes -- May 5, 2005 3. STAFF REPORT Ms. DuCroz gave the staff report, explaining the variance regarding the side yard setback. She stated that the existing building varies between 6 to 12 feet from the property line adjacent to Beltway 8. She stated that if the variance is granted, the variance will run with the land forever, and if the building were destroyed, it could be rebuilt as it currently is situated on the property. 4. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Mr. Stovall stated that the building was built in conformance with Harris County guidelines, and the hardship was not caused by him. He stated that he Wll leave the building in a unaltered, grandfathered state, since the previous item was denied. 5. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED REQUEST None. 6. STAFF / BOARD / APPLICANT DISCUSSION Board Member Elam asked why action was necessary on this item if the applicant is not altering the building. Ms. DuCroz stated if the applicant is not expanding the building, then the variance would not be needed, and the building is non -conforming. Mr. Stovall stated that he is not going to withdraw the variance because he paid the application fee to have it considered. Mr. Stovall stated that he is trying his best to be a responsible business owner in Pearland and is trying to improve the property and comply. He stated that if he improves the appearance of the building, it will still be non- conforming. He stated that if the variance is denied, the future expansion of the building could not ever occur. Mr. Stovall stated that the building was built so close to the road because of the location of the toll booths on the Beltway and additional lanes for the toll booths and feeder lanes. Ms. Krishnarao stated that if the variance if approved, the applicant has indicated any new expansion to the building would comply with the setback requirements. Mr. Stovall stated that the existing structure is the only portion asked for in the variance, and that all future expansions will comply with the setback. Mr. Doan stated that the applicant was advised to seek a variance due to the setback issue. Mr. Doan stated that the ordinance also allows the applicant to apply for a special exception, and the special exception would allow the applicant to enlarge the non -conforming building that would not further encroach into the setback. The special exception would not prevent the applicant from complying in the future. He stated that there may have been confusion as to which was best for the applicant to apply for, either the variance or a special exception. Mr. Doan stated that the Board should act on the variance as presented by the applicant, and Staff can work with the applicant on a special exception request. Mr. Doan and Ms. Krishnarao clarified the differences between the variance request and a special exception. Board Member Talbot asked if the Board is voting yes or no on the variance request as presented. Vice Chairperson Glenn stated that the Board needs to vote on the variance as presented by the applicant and as described on the agenda. 7. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was adjourned at 7:38pm. Page 6 of 7 — Minutes -- May 5, 2005 8. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF APPLICATION 05-12 Board Member Briley made a motion to approve the variance, which was seconded by Board Member Lane. The Board voted 4 — 1 to approve the variance. Vice Chairperson Glenn voted against the motion to approve. The variance was approved by the Board. II. ADJOURNMENT OF REGULAR MEETING The Regular Meeting was adjourned at 7:40pm. These minutes are respectfully submitted by Theresa Grahmann Senior Planner Approved as submitted and/or corrected this day of , 2005. Dale Pillow Chairperson Page 7 of 7 - Minutes - May 5, 2005