Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 02/26/2003 • rit BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES CITYHIVN February 26, 2003 RECEIVED 02 SECRETA offlCE Board Members Present: Peter Mahaffey, Chairman Thomas McDonald,Vice-Chairman ^5 t,s 2 Robert Broadway Charles Schibi John Martinez Staff Present: Miguel S. Saldana, AICP, City Planner Joseph F. Harney, Assistant City Attorney Erma Ramirez, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall and explained the procedure to be followed. ONAC Developers: Appeal No. ZBA0203-01 Request: A Special Use Exception to reduce the required front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet on Bordeaux Place Unit 2, Block 1-A, Lot 1, located on the south side of Brockhampton Street at La Rochelle Way. Mr. Miguel Saldana, City Planner, stated that the appellant, ONAC Developers, is requesting a reduction of the front yard setback in order to develop the property with a single- family residence. Mr. Saldana described the surrounding land use by a computerized slide presentation and presented a site plan of the proposed development. He stated that the property is a triangular-shaped lot which was originally platted to be part of the Brockhampton Park. The Park Department no longer needed anymore parkland, therefore, the developer wishes to develop the property as a single-family residence to sell or lease. In order to develop as such, portions of the residence will extend into the required front yard setback as shown on the site plan. Approval of the encroachment will have minimal impact on the surrounding area. Nine (9) notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor or in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey asked if there were any other homes in line to where the setback would be shorter than the other homes beyond the front. Mr. Saldana responded that as the road is extended south, there might be some houses fronting on Brockhampton. Because the road curves,there would not be much of a difference. SCANNED Board of Adjustment Minutes • February 26,2003 Page 2 Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldara stated that because of the triangular-shaped lot, and since there was no opposition, Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the site plan. Motion by Board Member Broadway, seconded by Board Member Martinez, that the request be approved limited to the encroachment shown on the site plan. Motion passed unanimously. Guadalupe Garza: Appeal No. ZBA0203-02 Request: A Special Yard Exception to reduce the required front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet on Gardendale Subdivision, Block 5, Lot 11, located on the northwest corner of Cain Drive and Burton Lane. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant, Mr. Guadalupe Garza, is requesting a reduction of the front yard requirement from 25 feet to 15 feet in order to allow an existing encroachment, and to continue with the replatting of the property. Mr. Saldana described the surrounding land use by a computerized slide presentation and presented a site plan showing the layout of the property. He stated that the property is currently developed with a single-family residence that fronts on Cain Drive and has an existing extension on the side that was permitted because of the way the lot was oriented. It required a 25-foot setback along Cain Drive and a 10-foot setback along Burton Lane. The property is being replatted into two (2) lots which would create an additional lot requiring a 25-foot setback along Burton Lane which would be extended to the existing developed property,thus the request for a special yard exception. Twenty-five notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which two (2)were returned in favor and none were returned in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Alonzo Garza, the appellant's son, stated that the purpose of the request is to divide the property which is currently 102 feet wide by 300 feet deep. His father is proposing to divide the property into two lots. The newly created lot would be 100 feet x 102 feet which would be used to construct a new residence with 5-foot side setback lines and a 25-foot building line. On the existing lot is his father's home, for which there is no proposed construction. The porch to the existing house protrudes into what will be the new lot's building line, which was allowed before replatting. The request is to follow the perimeter of the existing structure. Everything else would stay at 25 feet. They are asking to grandfather the existing construction that impedes the new proposed 25 foot building line. Board of Adjustment Minutes • • ` February 26,2003 Page 3 No one appeared in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staffs recommendation. Mr. Saldafia stated that since the existing development currently complies with the setbacks and the encroachment into the 25-foot setback is only limited to the front area, it would not have any adverse impact to the new property to the north. In addition, no opposition was submitted, only in favor,therefore, Staff recommends approval. Chairman Mahaffey inquired if the plat was approved, and later the house would be torn down, would it revert to the 25-foot setback. Mr. Saldafia responded negatively stating that if it is built within one (1) year, then the encroachment would be allowed. The 15-foot setback could be continued, but if it takes longer than a year, then it would revert to the 25- foot setback regardless of what the plat shows. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Schibi, seconded by Board Member Broadway, that the request be approved limited to the encroachment of the existing structure. Removal, for any reason, of the encroachment will require full compliance of the 25-foot front yard setback. Motion passed unanimously. Nextel Partners, Inc.: Appeal No. ZBA0203-03 Request: A Special Yard Exception to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 3 feet, 10 inches on Allen Ross Subdivision, Lot B, located on the northwest corner of South Padre Island Drive and Allen Place. Mr. Saldafia stated that the appellant, Nextel Partners, Inc., is requesting a reduction in the front yard setback in order to allow an equipment shelter inside a portion of the 20-foot street right-of-way setback. He described the surrounding land use by a computerized slide presentation and presented a site plan of the property. He stated that Nextel Partners would like to colocate on the existing cellular tower, but in order to do that, they would have to put in another equipment building which would encroach into the front yard setback. Since this property is in a corner, and the back lot fronts on the side street, it has two (2) front yards. The request is for a reduction of the 20-foot street setback to 3 feet, 10 inches. Six (6) notices were mailed to property owners within the 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor and one(1)was returned in opposition. Board Member McDonald inquired if the screening could be done by a wood fence instead of a hurricane chain link fence. Ms. Saldafia stated that the problem he could foresee was that the adjacent property is on a cul-de-sac and the adjacent property is further back. Board of Adjustment Minutes • IP February 26,2003 Page 4 Mr. Saldara suggested that if the Board opted to approve the request, landscaping for buffering the area could be added to the motion. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Crane, representing Nextel Partners, stated that they need more equipment into this specific area to locate more antennas. He stated that up until now their existing locations that had been sufficient, but now they are developing a hole in their system in this specific area. They found three possible locations, but each location was not suitable due to not being built heavy enough to handle more equipment, or not having ground space for their shelter, or an existing tower being too short to attain the height they need. To avoid putting up another tower, they have focused on this site. He presented a site plan of the proposed location and stated that the site is already fenced in. They propose to build another shelter that would match the existing one allowing them to hook up to the existing tower. They would be happy to screen the property with slats in the existing fence, preferable to a wood fence because the wind will not blow it away. They could also landscape the area as long as they would not have to install a water system. Their main concern was not having to build another tower. Board Member Broadway inquired if there was a possibility of building a smaller shelter. Mr. Crane responded negatively stating that their shelters are prestuffed with their equipment and take up every bit of the shelter. He stated that changes are being made in the industry to where things will start being more and more miniaturized, but at this point, it requires that size building. No one appeared in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staffs recommendation. Mr. Saldana stated that based on the opposition received and the amount of land area that is included in the opposition, Staff is of the opinion that the request could adversely impact the area. According to the as-built land survey, there is area to the west that could be used as a possible location for the equipment shelter to avoid another tower. Staff cannot support the request. Board Member McDonald inquired as to what type of landscaping could be considered without a water system. Mr. Saldafa suggested palm trees or oleanders. Commissioner Mahaffey asked if slats between chain link fences are acceptable to the City, to which Mr. Saldaula stated that the City normally prefers a 6-foot solid screening fence. However, the Board in certain situations, has allowed chain link fences with either wooden or metal slats in the past. Staff would not recommend wooden slats because of breakage. He suggested that the Board be specific as to the type of slats they would allow, because if left up to Staff, a 6-foot solid screening fence would be recommended. Board of Adjustment Minutes 111110 ‘1110 • February 26,2003 Page 5 After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Board Member McDonald, seconded by Board Member Martinez, that the request be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. SCREENING: Existing chain link fence surrounding the leased site, must be fitted with vinyl slats to provide screening. Any missing or broken slats must be replaced within 48 hours of the slat missing or broken. 2. SITE PLAN: The encroachment into the front yard setback must comply with the site plan. NOTE: For detailed information on testimony, refer to the tape retained on file in the Development Services Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made to approve the January 22, 2003 minutes as written. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. PLN-DIR\ERMA\WORD\ZBA\M IN UTES\022603ZBAM INUTES.DOC