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 - 07/22/2020
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
City Hall Council Chambers
1201 Leopard Street
July 22, 2020
1:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Karaca called the meeting to order at 1:33PM and a quorum was established with no absence.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 26, 2020
Burris McRee made a motion to approve the minutes; seconded by David Walker. Motion passed
unanimously.
IV. APPEALS – DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING:
a. Appeal No. ZBA 0720-01, RIST Land Holdings, LLC.:
Variance to allow for reduction of the parking requirements for an existing radiology facility on
a tract of land addressed as 3226 South Alameda Street and described as Lots 33-45, Block
812, Port Aransas Cliffs, located along the north side of South Alameda Street, east of
Glazebrook Street, and west of Texas Trail.
Andrew Dimas, Development Services, gave the staff report. The applicant is requesting the
variance for an existing radiology facility. During the selling of the property to a new radiology
provider, the title company noted the discrepancy between the required number of parking
spaces as per the Unified Development Code (UDC) and what currently exists on-site.
According to the Nueces County Appraisal District (NCAD), the original medical office was built
in 1970. As per the UDC, the parking requirement for a medical facility is assessed at a ratio of
1 per 200 square feet of gross floor area. The existing office is 13,174 square feet in size.
Based on the size of the building, the requirement is 66 parking spaces. The site currently has
52 parking spaces. Therefore, there is an existing deficit of 14 parking spaces.
Mr. Dimas informed the Board that zero public notices were returned in favor or in opposition
to the request. The City’s UDC states that when reviewing a request (Section 3.25.3.A
Required Findings), no variance shall be granted unless the Board of Adjustment finds all of
the following:
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.
After review, City staff has determined that the proposed variance does meet the required
findings described in Section 3.25.3.A of the UDC.
1. While the subject property is not extraordinary, the use has been in operation before
the adoption of the UDC. Additionally, the subject property is constrained and does
not have the ability to gain additional property to expand the parking lot. Plan CC
encourages an “urban village” style of development. This particular commercial node
is in proximity to Doctor’s Regional Hospital, personal service uses, and older single-
family subdivisions. Reduced parking is consistent with the goals of Plan CC.
2. Granting the variance does not cause a detriment to surrounding properties. There
are other adjacent medical uses in the general vicinity.
3. While there is no defined “need” for the requested variance, it is at the request of the
new property owners. Adjacent medical offices are generally smaller in area than the
subject property.
4. The request is not a result of the applicant’s own actions. As previously mentioned,
the use has been in operation before the adoption of the UDC.
5. The granting of the variance is not contrary to Plan CC and the Unified Development
Code (UDC). The Board of Adjustment may impose.
Staff recommends approval of the variance with two conditions.
1. The variance will remain in place as long as the use remains a medical use as
defined by the Unified Development Code (UDC).
2. The variance will remain in place as long as the building footprint is not expanded.
There was no public comment for this item. David Walker made a motion to approve;
seconded by Burris McRee. Motion passed unanimously.
V. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Nina Nixon Mendez, Assistant Director, informed the Board of the upcoming Development Services
Task Force meeting to be held on August 5, 2020.
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 1:52PM
________________________________________
Andrew Dimas, Board of Adjustment Administrator