HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 06/24/2009 MINUTES RECEIVED
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AUG 1 7 2009
City HaH, 1201 Leopard, Corpus Christi,Texas
1'floor,City Hall Council Chamber CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE
Wednesday, June 24,2009
1:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS: STAFF:
Taylor Mauck,Chairman Shelly Shelton,City Planner
Dan Winship,Vice Chairman fvfic R.aasch,AICP, Zoning&Code
Enforcement Administrator
William Tinney Jay Reining,Legal Counsel
Ben Molina Deborah Brown, Legal Counsel
R. Bryan Johnson Debbie Goldston,Recording Secretary
Thomas E. McDonald(Alternate)
Morgan Spear(Alternate)
I. CALL TO ORDER
A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order by Chairman Mauck.
H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 27,2009 Meeting
Chairman Mauck asked for understanding and clarification on page 5 of 5, third line from the top.
Shelly Shelton explained that under the current ordinance, alternative mounting structures 100 fl.
or less in height that are also used to provide lighting to parks, stadiums, athletic fields, school
playgrounds, tennis courts, and other recreational areas are permitted by right in residential
districts. Chairman Mauck wanted to know if two towers could be put up in the same compound
in a residential area. Ms. Shelton answered that, in.general, monopole cell towers in a residential
district must be granted a Special Use Exception by the Zoning Board of Adjustment but the
spacing between towers other than those more than 180 feet in height is not addressed in the
Zoning Ordinance. Deborah Brown, Legal Department Representative, agreed with Ms. Shelton
ani stated that s ie vwould look olio it herself and report back.
Motion to approve the minutes from the May 27, 2009 hearing was made by Mr. Spear and
seconded by Vice Chairman Winship.
IIL APPEALS
I. New Appeals
a. Appeal No. ZBA 0609-01
Crown Castle International: Special Use Exception to extend the bei ht of
a cell ,hone tower to 96 feet
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 2 of 8
June 24,2009
The site is a 1,350 square foot area out of Washburn Meadows Unit 2, Lois
5 and 6,located approximately 730 feet south of the intersection of Weber
Road arid Staples Street.
Shelly Shelton presented a PowerPoint presentation for ZBA 0609-01. Subject Property: 4102
Weber Road. Appellant has applied for a special use exception to extend the height of an existing
cell phone tower from 78 feet to 96 feet. The zoning and existing land use are "B•1"
Neighborhood Business District Regulations, allowing neighborhood retail and personal service.
The use of the subject property is commercial and is surrounded by Professional Office and Public
Semi-Public uses. Recommended future land use for the subject property is commercial and
surrounding properties are recommended for Professional Office and Public Semi-Public Uses.
If the Zoning Board of Adjustment approves the appellant's request the following conditions
should be applied: The location of the cell phone tower must be consistent with the site plan
submitted to the Board of Adjustment. The existing tower shall not be extended beyond 96 feet.
The project must comply with Article 27C. Special Use Exception shall expire within 12 months
of the date of this hearing if construction of the project is not commenced. A building permit is
required before construction commences.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
In favor:
Ramiro Gonzalez,the applicant, 1715 S. Capital of Texas Highway, Austin, Texas. Mr. Gonzalez
is the representative for Crown Castle International. He stated there are currently three
collocations on this tower (T-Mobile, Sprint, and Cricket). He presented a Power Point
presentation which showed that there are businesses all around the subject property. The structure
is over 314 feet away from any residential structure. Board Member Johnson inquired if the
existing structure will remain and add height to it, or if another tower is to be installed. Mr.
Gonzalez answered that the request is to add an additional 18 feet to the existing tower. Mr.
Gonzalez answered that the existing structure will remain and eighteen feet will be added to it.
Board member Tinney asked for information on the notices that were sent out to the surrounding
200 feet of the subject property. Ms. Shelton said that 17 notices were sent out and that none were
retm _`_.._._. _. . ... . _._._ . ._. ._. . .
In opposition:
No one came forward in opposition.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion statement, in accordance with Section 29-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, Board Member
Molina moved that Appeal No. ZBA 0609-01, a request for a Special Use Exception to extend the
height of a cell phone tower to 96 feet,in a 1,350 square foot area out of Washburn Meadows Unit
2, Lots 5 and 6 be approved, based on the finding and that in the Board's opinion and as a matter
of fact, such special use exception will not substantially affect adversely the uses of adjacent and
neighboring property permitted by the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions:
•
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3 of 8
June 24,2009
1. The existing cell tower shall be extended from 78 feet to 96 feet.
2. Special Use Exception shall expire within 12 months of the date of this hearing if construction
of the project is not commenced.
3. A building permit is required before construction is commenced.
Motion for approval was made by Board Member Molina and seconded by Board Member
Johnson. Motion passed unanimously.
b. Appeal No.ZBA 0609-02 WITHDRAWN
Crown Castle International: Special Use Exception to replace an existing
cell tower with a new mono•ole cell tower 110 feet tall
The site is a 2,500 square foot area out of Yorkwald Acres, Lot 13 located
approximately 350 north of the intersection of Waldron Road and Yorktown
Boulevard.
c. Appeal No.ZBA 0609-03
Skip's Service, Phillip Gray: Special Use Exception for an objectionable
use for the crushi t and rec din:, of rock concrete and broken asihalt.
Also, the applicant is requesting an Interpretation of an Error in the
determination of an administrative official and the enforcement of the
ZoningOrdinance for landscaping, screening fence, and dwellings or I-IUD-
code manufactured homes for resident watchmen and caretakers employed
on the premises.
The site is Roblex Industrial Area, Block 6,Lot 1 Iocated on the east side of
Flato Road approximately 1,200 feet south of Agnes Street.
Shelly Shelton presented a PowerPoint presentation for ZBA 0609-03. Subject Property: 230
Flato Road. The appellant requests a special use exception for an objectionable use for the
crushing and recycling of rock, concrete,brick,and asphalt. The appellant also requests that the
existing vegetation satisfy the landscape requirement. It is requested by the appellant that the
existing vegetation substitute for screening along Flato Road. Lastly,the appellant is requesting
]cnt.....t,.1-...an 4on 1 minis s. Zoning ands --
tlrc use of an RV -_-es: and-earetsl�:r� � s� --
Existing Land Use includes: "I-3" Heavy Industrial District and Heavy Industrial Use surrounded
by Light and Heavy Industrial uses. Recommended Future Land Use for the subject property is
Heavy Industrial. Recommended Future Land Use for the surrounding properties is Light and
Heavy Industrial. The front yard setback requirement is 20 feet.There are no setback
requirements for side and rear yards unless there is adjacency to a residentially zoned district. Of
the 12 notices mailed out,one was returned in favor, which was the owner of the property,and
two in opposition.
Ms. Shelton explained that of the four requests made by the appellant, three are appealable to the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. The request for a special use exception for an objectionable use for
the crushing and recycling of rock, concrete, brick, and asphalt, alternative compliance with
Article 27B. Landscape Requirements in special cases, and the type of screening along Flato
Road. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is not authorized to grant relief for determining errors of
Ike
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 4 of 8
June 24,2009
interpretation when the Zoning Ordinance is explicit on the requirements and certification for
HUD-code manufactured homes for resident watchman and caretakers employed on the premises.
Recently, a citizen complaint and subsequent investigations by various City Departments brought
to light that Skip's Service has been operating as a concrete,brick, asphalt, and rock crushing and
recycling facility. Skip's Service has been in operation without obtaining a Certificate of
Occupancy (C of 0). According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ),
Skip's Service was issued a temporary permit in June, 2007. In December of 2007, a complaint
was made to TCEQ from an adjacent property owner who stated he could taste concrete and was
breathing concrete.The appellant applied for a permanent permit for the crushing and recycling of
rock, concrete,asphalt,and brick after an on-site investigation by TCEQ. The permit was issued in
February of 2009 so for one year and eight months the business was operating with inappropriate
permitting, a C of O. In reviewing the documents in the database of Development Services, an
application for a Certificate of Occupancy for the primary use was not applied for. To obtain a
Certificate of Occupancy for this type of use a Special Use Exception for an objectionable use
from the Zoning Board of Adjustment is required.
The appellant applied for Building Permits for an office and quarters for a resident caretaker,
which are recorded in the database. These applications were for two accessory structures to the
primary industrial use. The first application dated June 22, 2007 was for a modular building which
was permitted, however, several final inspections were not requested by the applicant(s) upon
completion of the project(s), the building permit issued in June of 2007 expired. The applicant
applied for another Building Permit on April 28, 2009 in conjunction with a Building Permit for
the night watchman/caretaker's quarters located on the subject property. Final inspections and C of
Os will be required for these as well as a C of 0 for the crushing and recycling operation which is
the primary use for the subject property.
1)OBJECTIONABLE USE
Another citizen complaint prompted an inspection on May 6, 2049 by the Zoning/Code
Enforcement Administrator and the Building Official. During their inspection and subsequent
investigation, they determined ten violations (see attached letter), some of the violations are
appealable to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. First,the appellant requests that the Zoning Board _of Adjustment-grant-a sp�.iai-use-exception for-arrobjeetienable use to crush-end-reeycle-reel.
concrete, brick and asphalt (Article 29 Board of Adjustment, Section 29-3 Special Use Exceptions
and Article 21 Heavy Industrial District, Section 21-3 Objectionable Uses) which is the primary
use of the land or subject property.
2) LANDSCAPING
Other violations found during the inspection which the applicant is appealing, were the lack of
landscaping and screening along the street frontage. Screening is required for uses with outdoor
storage. On the application submitted, the appellant requests to use the existing scrub trees to
screen rather than constructing a screening fence; if this request is the intent of the appellant then
no Zoning Board of Adjustment action is authorized because exceptions to the fence requirement
are granted by City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission not the Zoning
Board of Adjustment as stated in Section 27-3.01.06(2). Following are the requirements for
landscaping in Light and Heavy Industrial Districts, it is clear in the ordinance that when screening
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 5 of 3
June 24, 2009
is not provided the total 20 acre site is considered the street yard. The required landscaping for the
total street yard is 15 percent plus 0.02 landscape points per square foot of street yard area, making
the requirement over 17,000 points. With this many landscaping points as a requirement the most
feasible solution is for the appellant to follow the Zoning Ordinance and screen with trees and/or
shrubs of varieties that will mature to at least eight (8) feet in height. This planting shall not be
provided within the visibility triangles of driveways or streets.
If in fact the appellant wants to request Alternative Compliance,the Zoning Board of Adjustment
has the authority to apply adjustment through alternative compliance to these requirements. In the
Land tJse Statement the representative of the appellant states that the subject property is already
landscaped and that a landscape plan was turned in with the building permit application in June
2007 for a modular building. Staff has not been able to locate plans denoting the industrial use
planned for the development or an application for a Certificate of Occupancy for the primary use;
crushing and recycling rock, brick, concrete, and asphalt. Now that the primary use of the subject
property is known, it is within the realm of the Zoning Board of Adjustment's authority to apply
some elasticity to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to landscaping requirements but the appellant
must qualify for Alternative Compliance. Financial hardship is not a qualifier,obviously the land
can be used for the intended purpose if it is landscaped, there may be practical difficulties in
meeting the landscaping requirement that are unknown to staff but the subject property is a
rectangle in shape, the size of the property is 20 acres or the appellant would not be operating on
this piece of property, and it is not topographically unique,such as;a hill, a canyon,etc. It is at the
discretion of the Board to determine if alternative compliance to the landscape requirement will
adversely affect the neighboring properties, the general public, or the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3)SCREENING:
On the subject property, materials are stored before and after they are crushed. Outside storage is
an allowed use in"I-2" Light Industrial and "I-3" Heavy Industrial Districts. When materials are
stored outside screening is required along all abutting streets. A screening fence (six feet in
height) is specified throughout the Zoning Ordinance, in the first of the following excerpts from
Article 20: it not explicit that the screening must be provided with the construction of a solid fence
of six feet in height; in the second excerpt from Article 21,referencing the requirement to screen
- a-fenee-eshrubbery,-oratty-reasonable-substitute-is-required.Ne-adjust nt✓eara-
be made for the screening requirement only the type of screening, which can he a fence,
shrubbery,or any reasonable substitute.
4)WATCHMAN/CARETAKER RESIDENCE
Last, the appellant is requesting an interpretation to the determination made during the on-site
inspection by the Zoning/Code Enforcement Administrator and the Building Official.While at the
site, they determined that the Recreational Vehicle (RV) being used as the resident
watchman/caretaker's quarters was not a HUD-code manufactured home. The use of the RV as
resident watchman/caretaker's quarters was found to he in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The
Zoning Ordnance is explicit in regard to this and the manufactured home must have the
appropriate sticker from HUD. After another inspection, it was determined by the Building
Division that the RV is not a 1.111D-code manufactured home with the appropriate sticker. The
*110
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 6 of 8
June 24,2009
determination is not a determination which can be interpreted by the Zoning Board.of Adjustment,
The Zoning Ordinance and HUD requirements are clear.
Ms. Shelton commented that if the Board denies the request for the SUE,the property can still be
used for outdoor storage and other uses permitted by right in the"I-3"Heavy Industrial District.
The crusher and conveyors can no longer be used. Ms. Shelton stated that if the Board approves
the request for the SUE, along with Zoning Board of Adjustment approval for a special use
exception for an objectionable use a Certificate of Occupancy is required for the use. The
appellant must apply for a Certificate of Occupancy within 30 days of the Board's Action. As
required by Development Services, the first inspection must be called for within 60 days and all
inspections must be called for within 180 days. The Special Use Exception shall expire 12 months
from the date of the Board's action if due diligence is not exercised and the permitting and
inspections process completed.
If the Board determines there is no hardship to meet the requirement for a variance for alternative
compliance with landscaping,there is a feasible alternative which is the site may alternatively
have a continuous screen of trees or shrubs planted adjacent to the property lines abutting the
street frontages so that such site is totally screened and plantings should be eight(8)feet in height
at maturity.This planting shall not be provided within the visibility triangles of driveways or
streets.
Board members asked for a summary of staff comments.
1. Objectionable Use: The subject property and surrounding properties are zoned for heavy
industrial uses.The operation of rock,concrete,asphalt, and brick crushing and recycling requires
Zoning Board of Adjustment approval of an objectionable use with a special use exception. If
granted a special use exception,the appellant must then apply for a Certificate of Occupancy with
Development Services for the use.Due diligence of the appellant is necessary to fulfill the
requirements for finalization of all the proper permits.
2. Landscaping: Verbally, the representative of the appellant, Mr. John Kendall, stated that the
appellant has already landscaped and the existing vegetation is providing the screening. The
Zoning Board of Adjustment has the authority to grant Alternative Compliance (Section 2713-4
_Alternative–Compliance) for thP_landcCping requirement_Requirements__£ox_.telieftt eloatd— ———
through Alternative Compliance are:
(A) That satisfying the requirements of the landscaping requirements would prohibit an
owner of property from using land for a use that the zoning ordinance expressly permits;
(B) That the practical difficulties of meeting the landscaping requirements of the
landscaping requirements arc unique to that property,and not general in character;
C) That the alternative compliance will not adversely affect: the adjoining property; the
health, safety and welfare of the general public; the purpose and intent of the landscaping
requirements; or the Comprehensive Plan; and the alternative compliance is done in the
public interest.
(D) Financial hardship due to meeting the requirements of this chapter is not sufficient for
alternative compliance.
1111110 41111,
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 7 of 8
June 24,2009
If these findings arc not present, no Alternative Compliance may be granted,the landscape
requirements must be met.Therefore,feasible compliance with the landscape requirement is: the
site may alternatively have a continuous screen of trees and shrubs planted adjacent to property
lines abutting ...street frontages so that such site is totally screened from .., streets. The trees
and/er shrubs shall.be of a variety that will mature to at least eight(8)feet in height. This planting
shall not be provided within the visibility triangles of driveways or streets.
3. Screening:Mr.Kendall contends the Zoning/Code Enforcement Administrator erred when he
determined that a fence six feet in height is required for screening so interpretation of a
determination made by a City Official was requested. The Zoning Board of Adjustment has the
authority to determine what type of screening is required.The Zoning Ordinance reads, "I-2"
Light Industrial District regulations,Section 20-2(4) i All outside storage shall be screened from
view from the at-grade public right-of-way;and in"I-3"Heavy Industrial District Regulations
Section 21(4)(l)The screening requirement must be met by a fence,shrubbery, or any reasonable
substitute. Whether screening is required is not within the realm of the Board's authority,simply
what type of screening must be provided by the appellant can be determined by the Board.
If the Zoning Board of Adjustment determines there was no error made in the interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance and a fence is required for screening rather than shrubbery or any reasonable
substitute, then the Board does not have the authority to grant a fence exception. The Zoning
Ordinance is clear, only the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission
has the authority to grant fence exceptions.
4. Watchman/Caretaker Residence: The Zoning Board of Adjustment is not authorized to grant
relief for determining errors of interpretation ma
nufactured ufachtur Zoning Ordinance
for resident watchman and
requirements and certification fo
caretakers employed on the premises.
The Chairman opened Public Hearing.
John Kendall, 6618 Vienna Rd., Corpus Christi,Texas, representative for Skip's Service. Mr.
Kendall began giving a background on this case. In July of 2007,the company applied for a
building permit and was granted the permit. At that time,the landscape plan was approved by the
City when the permit was issued. The facility receiyed an air quality permit from TCEQ effective _
July 31,2008. Mr. Kendall explained that construction debris such as concrete and rock are
brought into the facility and crushed and recycled for use as fill material for roads and that type of
thing. He explained that the material in the back of the facility that was referred to earlier in the
meeting is a requirement of the TCEQ. The air quality report Was given to the Board Members as
well as a report stating no violations were noted at the site. I•ie stated that the City's issues are
mainly noise,vibration, and dust. Mr. Kendall stated that the crushing operation is over 1,000 feet
from Flato Road. Any noise from that is going to be drownedaa��arefia lot of ok traffic rom Plato
pen fields. He
Road. The actual operation is in.the back of the property
explained that the crushing operation itself, generally run from half an hour to up to three hours a
day. The longest run was four hours. In the letter to Skip's Service,Mic Raasch,Zoning and
Code Enforcement Admisistrator, could feel the vibration of the ground. However,Mr. Kendall
stated that he placed a container of water on the ground and didn't see or feel any vibration
himself. Mr. Kendall said that TCEQ has found the site in compliance with the dust dissipation.
Mr. Kendall said a water tank truck travels around the site and water is sprayed on the roads,
which will also help the vegetation. Also, a series of water sprinklers are in place to spray the
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes page 8 of 3
June 24,2009
piles of concrete to keep the dust down. There are spray bars en the conveyer belt of the machine
to wet the material down as it comes out.
Mr.Kendall said that when the City began investigations on this case in April it was hot and
windy in April and some of the dust could have come from the agricultural fields behind the
facility. In the photos provided,there are concrete walls for shell
to contain dust within thef sitet FIe
eet all
in the back. The side yards have walls which are 25-35 feet tall
reiterated that the TCEQ has no problems with the air quality of the site.
Mr. Kendall said that regarding the screening issue,there are many other businesses along the
street which do not provide screening,including a siteoperated
to the the City of Corpus n 2007 and that Christi. Mr.
Kendall stated that the site's plan for screening was submitted
was approved. Board members said that according to the site plan of 2007,
the trees do not appear
to have been planted along the street but planted in various other places. He said that the property
was all brush when the site was developed and the trees were planted back from Flato Road as a
safety feature so as not to obscure the view for the trucks entering and leaving the sitp Alternate
p
Spear asked if there was any problem with building a fence along the front of the property.
Chairman Winship suggested the planting of oleanders as screening since they grow so tall.
Ernest Hernandez, 633 Bernice Drive, Corpus Christi,Texas, representative for Allis-Chalmers
Tubular Services,a business located north and abuttingth�subj t property. The reasonfrom
that
their company has come forward in opposition is the thatealt they
the subject property. He said that the crusher has been in operation from 10:00 a.m.to 4:00 or
5:00 an occasionally up to 7:00. The noise is a factoris a asslafetyh issueostetnmk g from al p employees 1 a large
he dust
quantity of dust daily. Mr. Hernandez also feels there
that is breathed by the employees at this company. Mr. Hernandez suggested one solution would
be a mesh screen around the subject property.
The Chairman closed the Public hearing.
taine
Board Member Winship made a motion that action eswill be mled til more ade thatinformation is a representative bof th c
More information is needed from TCEQ and a request
TCEQ be present when the case is scheduled to go before f dust. MemberJohnson ZBA again. It was also seconded
that the owners present a plan to reduce the nuisanceBoard -_
_ a motion passe masumousl-y,
III. ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment was made at 3:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
n .
• ,
0. ,
Debbie Goldston
Shelly Shelto, Record+ng Secretary
City Planner
Zoning Board of Adjustment Administrator
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
July 22, 2009
The June 24,2009 Board of Adjustment Minutes were approved as written/amended on
July 22, 2009
ATTEST:
M ckChairman
Taylor ,