Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 05/22/2013 � w
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
City Hall Council Chambers
1201 Leopard Street
May 22,2013
1:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS: STAFF:
` Bryan Johnson—Chairman Absent* Miguel S. Saldar3a,AICP,ZBA Administrator
Morgan Spear—Vice Chairman Elizabeth Hundley,Assistant City Attorney
Carl Hellums Absent* Catherine Garza,Recording Secretary
John Douglas McMullen Kris Carpenter,Planning Technician
Heriberto(Tony)Pifieda
Cliff Atnip(Alternate)
Taylor Mauck(Alternate)
I. CALL TO ORDER
Due to the absence of Chairman Johnson, Vice Chairman Spear was requested to chair the meeting. The
meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m.by Vice Chairman Spear and a quorum was declared.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. April 24,2013
Motion to approve minutes as written was made by Mr. Pineda and seconded by Mr. Atnip. All
were in favor and motion passed.
III. APPEAL—DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING
Mr. Carpenter read New Appeal Item "a" into record as shown below. He informed the Board a
correction to all three of the variances was made. The reduction from three feet is now changed to
be five feet; there is no change to the 15 points required in the buffer yard. The 15 points will be
retained by constructing a solid, six-foot tall, wooden screening fence. Several aerial views of the
subject property were shown.
1. New Appeal
a. Appeal No.ZBA 0513-01 (13-12500001)
John Kendall,on behalf of Rissco,LLC,requests three Variances to
reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to three feet,reduce the 2:1
slope building setback from 16 feet to three feet,and reduce the
required buffer yard from 10 feet and 15 points to three feet and zero
points.
The subject property is described as Lot 8, Block 2,Ellendale Gardens
No.3, located along the east side of Omaha Drive,approximately 560
feet south of Leopard Street.
Mr. Carpenter informed the Board the owner had already purchased the storage building prior to
the setback reduction, thus creating an economic hardship for him. As requested, the storage
building needs to be placed on the property so trucks may have access to an existing gas
cylinder/loading bay to an existing building. If the storage building is placed anywhere else on the
property,they will not have access to these areas nor will the 18-wheelers have a sufficient turning
radius. Mr. Carpenter stated one reply out of 32 notices was returned in favor, which was from the
residence located directly behind the subject property. Mr. Carpenter stated the area, for the
majority, is industrial; a 40-foot side and rear yard setback is required in an industrial district when
the property is abutting a residential district. After City staff's presentation, public comment was
opened by Vice Chairman Spear.
Board of Adjustment
Regular Meeting
May 22,2013
Page 2
On behalf of the owner, Mr. John Kendall at 5866 S. Staples, Suite 330, introduced himself and
presented several photographs detailing the interior of an existing machine shop on the property.
Mr. Kendall explained that placing the storage building in a different location on the property is
not a plausible option because of the complex layout of the machine shop which is also tapped into
the same gas cylinder;reconfiguring the pipe lines of the shop would be too extensive.
The owner,Jimmy Rissmiller at 658 Omaha, approached as part of public comment. He indicated
to the Board that the setbacks, for the majority of all other neighboring businesses along Baldwin
Boulevard,are uniform;the height of the storage building would decrease a lot of noise that would
be considered a nuisance.
Vice Chairman Spear then closed the public comment portion and asked for City staffs
recommendation. Mr. Carpenter recommends denial of the variance request due to the fact there
are no extraordinary, special conditions affecting the land, the need for the variance is not specific
to the property and it is the result of the applicant's own actions.
Discussion took place amongst the Board members to reach an action. In Mr. Atnip's opinion,the
placement of the storage building on the property is logical and finds it difficult denying the
variance request if he is trying to increase business and the neighbors have no objection
Mr. Pineda asked for an explanation regarding Section 3.25.3.A. Required Findings, more
specifically if the Board could divert from taking an action without all five findings. Mr. Saldana
and Ms.Hundley clarified it is mandatory to grant the variance request based on all five findings as
stated in the Unified Development Code. Upon this clarification, Vice Chairman Spear suggested
to the Board they discuss each finding one at a time to clearly come to an agreement that each
finding is met. The Board discussed each finding.
Vice Chairman Spears called for a motion. Board Member Atnip made the first motion to approve
the variance request. Mr. Atnip read the following motion along with its findings below:
In accordance with Article 3.25 of the UDC, I move that Appeal No. ZBA0513-01, a variance to
reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to five feet, reduce the 2:1 slope building setback from
16 feet to five feet, and reduce the required buffer yard from 10 feet to five feet on property
described as Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Ellendale Gardens No. 3, be approved, based on the
determination that:
1. Extraordinary Conditions: There are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the
land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this Unified Development
Code will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land.
2. No Substantial Detriment: Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the area, or the City in
administering this Unified Development Code.
3. Other Property: The conditions that create the need for the variance do not generally
apply to other property in the vicinity.
4. Applicant's Actions: The conditions that create the need for variance are not the result of
the applicant's own actions.
5. Comprehensive Plan: Granting the variance would not conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Board Member Pineda made the second motion; all were in favor. Motion passed with Board
Member Johnson and Hellums absent.
Board of Adjustment
Regular Meeting
May 22,2013
Page 3
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Spear and seconded by Mr. Pineda. Meeting adjourned at 2:12 p.m.
r
MigIVS. Saldafla, AICP, Senior Planner
Board of Adjustment Administrator
Catherine r
Recording Secretary
'N •
M rgan ar
Vice C an
K:\DEVELOPMENTSVCS\SHAPED\ZBA\2013\0513-01 JOHN KENDALL\0513-01 MINUTES.DOC