Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2013-10-22 Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS OCTOBER 22, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jerry Henry at 7.00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Jerry Henry Jim Kemp Fonda Kunkle Bill Gibbs ABSENT Tom Duer Brian Crowson Robert Housewright CITY STAFF Director of Planning & Dev. John Pitstick Building Official Dave Pendley Senior Planner Clayton Comstock Recording Secretary Katasha Smithers Customer Service Asst. Cindy Garvin 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Jerry Henry led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 22, 2013 MEETING Bill Gibbs motioned to approve the minutes from the August 22, 2013 meeting. The motion was seconded by Jim Kemp and approved (4-0). BA 2013-03 A Public Hearing to Consider a Request from M.J. Wright& Associates, Inc. for a variance to the rear building setback line on Lot 2, Block 1, Wildwood Business Park, as specified in Section 118-394 of the City of North Richland Hills Code of October 22,2013 ZBA Meting Page 1 Ordinances. A 35 foot rear setback is required and a 25 foot rear setback is being requested. The property is located at 8609 Mid Cities Blvd. 6. BA 2013-04 A Public Hearing to Consider a Request from M.J. Wright& Associates, Inc. for a variance to the rear building setback line on Lot 3, Block 1, Wildwood Business Park, as specified in Section 118-394 of the City of North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances. A 35 foot rear setback is required and a 25 foot rear setback is being requested. The property is located at 8617 Mid Cities Blvd. Chairman Henry stated that the Zoning Board of Adjustment will have to have all 4 approvals from the board in order for the variance to be approved. He asks applicants if they still wanted to proceed Applicants say yes. Senior Planner, Clayton Comstock came forward stating there are two public hearings to be considered requests from M.J. Wright & Associates, Inc. for variances to the rear building setback line on Lots 2 & 3, Block 1 Wildwood Business Park, as specified in Section 118-394 of the City of North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances. A 35 foot rear setback is required on these two lots and a 25 foot rear setback is being requested. The properties are located at 8609 and 8617 Mid Cities Blvd. The commercial property requirement of section 118-394 is for a minimum 35 foot building setback from any property zoned residential. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 25 foot setback from residentially-zoned property. The applicant's justification for the request is based on multiple instances of oversight by City Staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council in previous approvals of a 25 foot building setback on the Zoning, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Site Plan, and building permit cases for the Wildwood Business Park. The requests are for two separate adjacent lots, 8609 & 8617 Mid-Cities Blvd. Background Information: Zoning Approval— December 10, 2007 The property was zoned from "I-1" Industrial to "CS" Community Service ("C-1" Commercial) by Ordinance No. 2967 on December 10, 2007. While the official ordinance's zoning exhibit showed a 35' building line along the north property line adjacent to the "R-1-S" Special Single Family Residential Zoning District property, Site Plan exhibits presented at the time showed a 25' building setback. Preliminary Plat Approval— November 15, 2007 The Preliminary Plat accompanied the zoning change to the November 15, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission, where it received final approval. The Preliminary Plat and all the supporting documents (Site Plan, Drainage Plan, Utility Plan, Tree Survey, etc.) showed a 25 foot building setback Final Plat Approval—April 14, 2008 October 22,2013 ZBA Meting Page 2 City Council approved the Final Plat for Lots 1-7, Block 1, Wildwood Business Park. The Final Plat was then filed with Tarrant County on May 23, 2008. The Final Plat formalized the erroneous 25 foot building setback in question. Building Permit Approval for 8605 Mid-Cities Boulevard— September 11, 2009 Going off of the erroneous 25 foot setback on the Final Plat, the City issued a building permit and Certificate of Occupancy for one of the first buildings in Wildwood Business Park at 8605 Mid-Cities Boulevard. Clayton Comstock also spoke with City Attorney before the case to confirm that the previous erroneous approval by the City does not justify continued approvals. Staff presented aerial photos and exhibits to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 5. Chairman Henry called the applicant forward and swore him in Michael J Wright, M.J. Wright & Associates, 8233 Mid Cities Blvd. NRH, TX presented the information on 8609 Mid Cities Blvd and 8617 Mid Cities Blvd. Michael also presented the City staff with existing plans of the 2 buildings he presented with us tonight. You can see rear elevations, how they are a low-minimum impact to the resident on the north lot. As well as additional package showing rear elevations on lot 4, the corner building with the site plan that was approved by the city and as well as permitted back in 2009. We were the architects in all the buildings in the office park and there is an existing building on lot 5. The current tenant on lot 5 is intending in leasing into lot 2 and with the future intention of expanding into lot 3. Bill Gibbs asks are the 2 buildings the same? Michael J Wright said they are the same, they are a mirror image. The floor plans are different but the exterior is the same. Jerry Henry asks the buildings are the same side by side and you are asking for the same variance but we have to officially have 2 motions, one for each lot. Sounds like testimony from city staff and from you. We are going to run this concurrently unless there is difference between the 2 buildings that is substantial. Michael J Wright says as it not affects the rear, the front there is 3 entrances on lot 3 and 2 entrances on lot 2 The intent is the owner intends to lease out on lot 3 individual tenants until lot 2 owner takes over the second building. So we created a professional office, 3 different office plans for the building on lot 3 The elevations are the same, the entrances are slightly different. Chairman Henry asks as City staff is there any reason why we can't hear this concurrently? Senior Planner Clayton Comstock stated I don't think so the only difference is the proximity to the actual residence itself. Lot 3 is closer to the residence but that is the only observation. October 22,2013 ZBA Meting Page 3 Chairman Henry asks the set back is the same and still affecting the same property? Senior Planner Clayton Comstock says correct. Michael J Wright also inputted that the rear elevation is the same mirror image on both of them. My different points I like to make; number 1 we designed all existing buildings during the Office park and number 2 since 2008 we have been involved with the design and met with the city staff on numerous occasions on lots 2 & 3 & as well as lot 1 because it gets more visibility from the street However, due to the market people wanted to develop the lots 5 & 6 first. In no case, was the 25 foot built line was ever an issue and then we designed the building for lot 4. It went through the site plan process through the staff and as well as building permit and in no case that was issue at the 25 foot built line. We just followed the same plat and everything that was approved prior and that was 6 years ago. The current owner purchased the lots based on current development and the existing buildings that already located there as well as City approved plat. Another point is that the land owner has an agreement to lease the building on lot 3 with intention to moving to lot 2 and expanding on that in the future. The owner has agreed to lease 3600 square feet which is the size of the building on lot 2 for office space and the current zoning does allow a 2 story building and we have the ability to do a 2 story building with a 2 story wall at the 35 building line with glass all the way across that building line at 35 feet which would be more of an impact on the neighbor to the north rather than do a single story, low impact minimum windows. We also maintain the same single story look of the office park so we can create that under the current zoning but to me it would be more of a detriment to the property owner to the north to have windows overlooking that property line, even though it's at 35 feet. The owner also is willing to plant additional trees beyond the landscape code in 15 foot landscape buffer or within the 25 foot building line should we have the 2 story building. The client's representative has contacted the broker of the property owner to discuss the options we have under the current codes. Their response was that they did not want to discuss it but in addition we do know that they are marketing the lot to the north as office land not only on signs but as website as well. I can address the alternatives to the buildings about revising the building to keep the same square footage use into the 2 story building with the 2 story wall. It is not what we want to do, to me that seem to have a more of an impact than doing single story. There is not an intention to add 2 lots into making a building of 7200 square feet. It would be additional costs to sprinkle and so forth. Revising the zoning isn't capable because we don't have enough land and we have to get 100% of land owners to agree that as well since there were several different loaners involved in this current property. We would appreciate your favorable recommendations and I am here to answer any questions. Bill Gibbs asks the proposed 2 buildings are they architectural the same or almost the same to the existing building? October 22,2013 ZBA Meting Page 4 Michael J Wright stated that they are similar in character to lot 5. That is the farthest south on the corner. It has the same window treatment, the same roof pitch, and the same similar materials. All brick no stucco, garden office. Chairman Henry asks if there are any other questions, with no further questions Chairman Henry states that we are hearing the cases concurrently and asks if anyone else here would like to speak for either case. Seeing nobody, Chairman Henry asks if there is anyone here would speak against either case presented tonight. No one steps up. Chairman Henry closes the public hearing and opens up to discussion and motion by the board. General Discussion begins between City Board Members APPROVED Bill Gibbs motioned to approve the variance BA 2013-03 and BA 2013-04. Fonda Kunkel seconds the motion to approve. (4, 0) 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm. Chairman Tom Duer October22,2013 ZBA Meting Page 5