No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 04/28/2021 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI VIA WEBEX VIDEO CONFERENCE APRIL 28, 2021 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Shawn Karaca, Chair Andrew Dimas, ZBA Administrator David Walker, Vice-Chair Buck Brice, Assistant City Attorney Burris McRee Catherine Garza, Agenda Coordinator Gordon Robinson Nina Nixon-Mendez, Assistant Director Ricardo D. Barrera, Jr. Joann Salinas, Management Assistant Danny Graves (Alternate) David Stallworth, Senior City Planner I. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Vice Chairman Walker called the meeting to order and a quorum was established with Chairman Karaca absent and the Alternate member, Danny Graves, was seated. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 24, 2021 A motion was made by Mr. Robinson to approve the minutes listed above and it was seconded by Mr. Barrera. The motion passed. At this point, Chairman Karaca joined the meeting at 1:34 p.m. and Mr. Graves was unseated as the alternate. IV. APPROVAL OF ABSENCES: Chairman Karaca A motion was made by Mr. McRee to approved/excuse the absence listed above and it was seconded by Vice Chairman Walker. The motion passed. V. APPEALS – DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING: a. Case No. ZBA 0421-01: AK, LLC.: A request for a variance regarding the installation of a 7-foot wall as part of a required zoning district buffer yard on a tract of land addressed as 6729 Everhart Road and described as Lot 1, Block 1, Foxwood Estates Phase 1, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Everhart Road and Grand Junction Drive. Andrew Dimas, Development Services, presented item “V.a” for the record as shown above. For location purposes, Mr. Dimas presented an aerial view of the subject property and an Existing Land Use map along with a site plan. The Unified Development Code (UDC) within Section 7.9.5.A provides the standards for zoning district buffer yards. As the property is zoned “CN-1” District adjacent to a “RS-6” District, a Type B buffer yard is required which consists of a 10-foot wide buffer yard and at least 10-points. Additionally, Section 7.9.8 of the UDC states that if one or more of the following noise generators is adjacent to a single-family district a 7-foot wall must be constructed within the respective buffer yard. In this scenario, the proposed car wash has the following noise generators: a dumpster located in the area between the building and the shared property line and a service alley stacking vehicles queuing for service by the automated car wash. As an example, Mr. Dimas presented photos of other car wash locations throughout the City that have complied with the wall construction. He informed the Board that of the seven public notices mailed, zero notices were returned in favor or in opposition. After review, City staff has determined that the proposed variance does not meet the required findings described in Section 3.25.3.A of the UDC. To summarize the required findings: 1. The subject property is not extraordinary, as there is no physical condition of the property that prevents the construction of a wall. 2. Granting the variance may cause a detriment to surrounding properties as it would limit the amount of noise protection to adjacent single-family townhouse residences. 3. While there is no defined “need” for the requested variance, multiple uses throughout the City have installed walls based on the requirements of the zoning district buffer yard. 4. The request is a result of a self-created hardship as the applicant chose to construct an automated tunnel car wash on this specific site. 5. The granting of the variance is contrary to Plan CC and the Unified Development Code (UDC). Plan CC specifically states within the goals and strategies of Urban Design, “Encourage the design of commercial centers in a manner that minimizes the impacts of automobile intrusion, noise and visual blight on surrounding areas.” The Board of Adjustment may impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of a variance consistent with the purposes stated in this Unified Development Code. After Staff’s presentation, the floor was opened for comments/questions from Board members. After questions concluded, the public hearing was opened. The applicants, Kevin Busenlehner and Allen Lebleu, addressed the Board in support of their case. They began by stating they would like to change this request and did not understand that it would be considered a variance request; they do not agree with the UDC. They stated that the location of the dumpster can be moved anywhere on the property. They felt that the subject property does not have a loading zone or service alley, nor does it have a drive-thru like a restaurant. They stated the hours of operation will not cause a disturbance (8 a.m. to 7 p.m.). They contended that the wall should not be required as the main noise generator (i.e. air dryer blowers) of the automated tunnel car wash is approximately 240-feet away from the shared property line and faces Everhart Road and therefore will not impact the adjacent townhome development. They stated there is an existing wooden fence between the two properties and constructing another wall right next to it is redundant. They also presented photos to the Board showing examples of other car wash locations in which a wooden fence was constructed and not a concrete wall. Mr. Dimas pointed out that the construction of the wooden fence of one of the car washes included in those photographs (located at Cimarron Boulevard) was based on a former Director’s misinterpretation of the code. This fence should have been a concrete wall and has remained a persistent issue of noise complaint amongst adjacent residents; this issue has been escalated to City Council involvement. He pointed out in another photo provided that the car wash is adjacent to an apartment complex (multifamily) in which a wall is not required. Mr. Dimas emphasized to the Board that a determination in this case would need to be judged by its own merit just like any other variance request. He informed the Board that an email communication did take place with the applicant explaining the difference between a variance request and an appeal of an administrative decision. After that, Mr. Dimas received a response from the applicant confirming a variance request. Chairman Karaca stated his concurrence with Staff’s recommendation along with Mr. Barrera and Mr. Robinson. Vice Chairman Walker made a motion to deny the variance request as it does not meet the required findings as previously stated by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. McRee and the motion passed. VI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT: None. VII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. ______________________________________ Andrew Dimas Development Services Administrator