Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Ma'am?

Yeah, you in the back, sorry.

Are you here for the

I'm sorry, I don't turn mine on because I really don't need it. I can out yell this thing already without having it on, but I'm keeping him happy. Are you the happy guy? Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you, Tim. Thank you for clearing that up with me. Next item on the agenda is consideration of the May 4th Board of Zoning Appeal minutes.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay. And Jack, you can call the roll.

All right, Mr. Calhoun? Here. Mr. Clauser? Yes. Mr. O'Callaghan? Yes. Mr. Simmons? Yes. And Ms. Morrow? Yes. All righty.

And now I'm going to turn the, oh.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Excuse me?

Motion to approve the minutes.

We just did that.

Not really.

We didn't?

Not really.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. A couple of housekeeping orders. We ask that you limit your speaking time for three minutes. The board must have four members to approve any request. staff will introduce the end of the agenda item and Questions then we'll have questions for staff by the board Applicant called to speak to the board questions for applicant by the board and Persons on the sign-in sheet to speak and then the floor is closed. I will make a motion. I to request a discussion by the board members and then after if there's no discussion we will call the roll for a yes or no after a motion is made and seconded and with that I'm going to turn it over to Jack

All right, we have item four on the agenda. It's a request for a variance from Article 6, Section 64B2, related to the minimum front setback requirement for the property addressed as 2900 Burge Street. This property is zoned M2 heavy industrial, and it is also located within Council District 5. The applicant is seeking a variance from Article 6, Section 64 for the minimum front setback requirements. Section 64 specifies setbacks for M2 zone properties. For front yards, the required setback is 50 feet. Section 3 defines a front yard as a yard which is intended as a public front extending the full width of the front of a lot between the front street line or property line and the front building line. The site is approximately 140.9 acres. The applicant is seeking to construct a 500-square-foot storm shelter building on site in a location between the existing office and industrial buildings. The application notes that the proposed location provides the quickest and safest route for employees at both buildings during a potential storm event. Accordingly, the applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the front setback to 25 feet. For section 773 of the city zoning regulations, the board must make the following findings to grant the variance. One, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property. The application notes the proposed location provides proximity and connectivity to the existing buildings as there are several challenges regarding the grading of the property. Application also knows there are a number of grand trees on site and that meeting the standard front setback requirement would involve encroaching in to the canopy of grand trees Accordingly the application seems to imply the grand trees are extraordinary in exceptional conditions of the property Staff disagrees that the grand trees are an extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to this piece of property as many other parcels throughout the district also have grand oak trees on site and Staff also notes that encroachment into the canopy of grand trees is permissible when tree protections are installed and when a letter from a certified arborist or landscape architect that assesses the regimen of care for the grand tree or trees during and following construction is provided to staff during site plan review. Staff does agree that there are potential grading challenges on site, but notes that there are other feasible locations for the storm shelter that would meet the setback requirements. Number two, these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The application states that the grand trees on site are unique to this property and that other industrial properties in the area have very few trees that they would like to preserve the trees on site. Staff notes that although other properties in the area do not have as many trees as the subject property, many of the other nearby properties do have protected trees on site. Number three, Because of these conditions, the application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application states that strict compliance with the zoning regulations would require the storm shelter to be placed within the canopy of an existing grand tree and that a variance to the front setback requirement would allow for the storm shelter to be installed without impact to the grand trees on site. The application also notes that the proposed building location is on the highest ground elevation in the area and should be taken into consideration for a storm shelter structure. Staff disagrees that the front setback requirement unreasonably restricts or effectively prohibits the utilization of the property. Staff notes that the submittal of a letter from a certified arborist or landscape architect would allow for the storm shelter to be placed outside of the required front setback, both in the canopy of a grand tree. Staff also notes that the property is currently being used for both industrial and office purposes and may continue to be utilized as such, regardless of the front setback requirement. 4. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. The application notes that the granting of the variance will not negatively impact the surrounding properties or the character of the area in which the property is located. The application notes that the proposed variance is consistent with the industrial character of the area and states that other properties have structures within the 50-foot front setback. The application also notes that the granting of the variance would allow for the avoidance of impacts to any grand trees and therefore enhance the public good. Staff agrees. that the authorization of the variance would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or to the public good, and that the character of the district would not be harmed by the granting of the variance. Although staff does not view authorization of the variance as detrimental to the public good, staff does not find the green trees on site to be an extraordinary or exceptional condition that is unique to this property. Additionally, staff notes that the property is being utilized and may continue to do so without the approval of the requested variance. Staff also notes that the property owner may install the proposed storm shelter outside of the proposed setbacks, but within the canopy of grand trees if the trees will be protected and if the applicant provides a letter from a certified arborist or landscape architect, as previously stated. Accordingly, staff recommends denial of the requested variance from Article 6, Section 64 relating to the requesting to reduce the minimum front setback from 50 feet to 20 feet. Additionally, a copy of the staff report was emailed to the applicant on Wednesday, May 27th.

Any questions for the city?

Yes, one. Yeah. If the front setback is reduced for this project, is it reduced for the site across the board, or is it limited to this project?

I would say that it

I understand that, but I mean, it applies to all 140 acres moving forward for other projects that they do in the future, et cetera.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes.

Has staff seen any alternative site plans?

I have not.

Okay.

GS2 Inc, come on up. Sure. Sir, what is your name? Okay. All right. Eddie Gwynn, okay. Mr. Gwen, I'm going to ask you to go over here to the podium and turn on that. How do I turn that on?

Okay. There we go. It appears to be on. Okay. can you see this okay so this is the parcel here in in a outlined in yellow and let's see so why place the building where we've where we've shown it and on this big skit on this big picture it's right up here close to Wilbur Street well the proposed building is a storm shelter And it needs to be near the work areas so that employees can get to it quickly. When the tornado threatens, you may only have minutes to reach the shelter. And the proposed location is between an existing office building and the existing manufacturing plant. I'll show you where that is. All right, question number two. Why not place the building in the big grass area out here? There's this big grass area on the site south of Wilbur Street. Why not put it there? And the reason is that that big grass area is about 12 feet lower than the bluff. The existing office building and manufacturing plant is on a bluff south of Wilbur Street. So all the water from Wilbur Street runs through the property then across the bluff, and then it goes down. It makes an abrupt drop into a drainage ditch. I'm going to walk over and show you this on a profile view. In order to get to the big grass area, you've got to cross that ditch. It's a big drainage ditch. And then you'd be 12 feet below the existing buildings. That's not good for getting people to a safe area quickly, especially in a storm. All right. But then really the more, I guess, relevant question to this meeting, why place the storm shelter inside the building setback? And somehow or another, just, is there a mic over there? If I stand over there, can I talk and be heard in that mic? Because I need to point at some drawings. Oh, yeah.

There we go.

That works. So let's start.

There's a lot of detail on this plan.

So I want to start by showing you what we're thinking. So these existing green dots, these are grand trees. This is a 65-inch live oak, a 47-inch live oak, a 42-inch live oak, a 54-inch live oak, and these are two water oaks out there in the right-of-way So what I'm highlighting here are the existing tree canopies. We don't use the tree canopies as an approximation of the tree root zone. The idea is if you impact the roots, it has a negative impact on the tree. So these are the existing tree canopies in this area.

Orientation. The existing office building is over here.

And then this is the existing plant building. So we're between the two.

This is an existing water main adjacent to this. This is where we're proposing the building.

Okay.

So what we've... Oh, there's one other thing I want to show you.

This is an existing building.

This is a fire pump, which is also very close. It's actually in the setback as well. That's an existing building. So what you can see here is that we've done our best to thread the needle between these existing tree canopies. We placed the proposed building so that it's here, here, here. We didn't move it up to there, which would be just perfect because there's a water line there. And as far as, you know, are we changing the character of the area? Well, there's an existing building here. So this is my cheat sheet on how to do that. So now why are we here? Let me draw that in yellow.

This is the setback line. This is the existing 50-foot setback line.

As you can see, our proposed building is on the wrong side of that setback line. It's too close to Wilbur Street. So what should we do? Well, we asked ourselves the question, how do we get this building on the correct side of the setback line? So let's move it down and to the right. What that does...

So if we move this building inside the setback and over here some we are

We're impacting these existing utilities and we're impacting considerably more of that 47-inch live oak canopy. Now, is it possible? Yes, it is possible. I don't disagree with staff that it's possible. All right. So what if we instead go down into the left? Another color. So these red lines... This is existing underground power. This is the main power source to the plant. These are existing transformers that power the plant.

So large power lines.

If we come inside the setback over here, now we're on top of those power lines. And those power lines are actually very much embedded, if we get over here, in the canopy of this existing tree. We impact more of the other side of that 47-inch live oak. But why not shift it over this way? Another problem, right? Because the drainage from Wilbur Street drains right here. In fact, that's one of the problems that CertainTeed has asked us to recommend a solution for is how can we keep the drainage from Wilbur Street from washing out this area right here? This is the drainage path. off from this street. So it doesn't make good sense to put the storm shelter in the natural path of runoff from Wilbur Street. All right. So I think that's enough from the why. I wanted you all to see What we're thinking. Why we're proposing what we're proposing. Because I don't take lightly that I'm disagreeing with staff here. So what about staff's concerns? Is it possible to place the storm shelter outside the building setback? Yes, it is possible. No doubt. Let me ask the question in a different way. Is it possible to meet the requirements of the city's zoning code? important question is, is the building placement that meets the requirements of the city's zoning code better or worse than the proposed placement? The reason that this board exists is to evaluate the strict application of the zoning code in specific situations. We contend that the best building placement, the preferred building placement, to relax the setback requirement and to allow the best solution.

We ask that you do so. Now, you asked a good question, sir.

We have no intention of reducing the setback for the entire property. It would be perfectly reasonable for me if you guys put a condition on this that said this only applies to the storm shelter structure. We're not looking to reduce the setback wholesale. We're looking to build the storm structure where it needs to be built. Any questions?

Any questions from the... Thank you, Mr. Nguyen. Thank you very much. Discussion? Discussion?

By the board?

Questions?

Questions? I maybe, yeah, I do have a question for Mr. Gawain. All of these utilities here crisscrossing the site, who's responsible for those? Are those running through easements or are those private to this property?

These would be, all right, so it varies on a utility by utility basis.

Let's just say the partner one's running through the middle.

The water is almost certainly the power because this is where the service, this is where the public power ends and it becomes private. So there's going to be an easement on that. Probably no easement on the communications. Let me think.

Probably no easement on the storm.

Oh, okay. That was my question. Thank you.

Anyone else? Mr. Klosser? No. Jack, you may call the roll. Motion, I'm sorry, sorry.

Do we have a motion?

Motion.

Motion to deny.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. Mr. Calhoun? Yes. Mr. Klosser?

No.

Mr. O'Callaghan?

No.

Mr. Simmons?

Yes.

Ms. Morrow? No.

Okay. Yes. And we can't do this. Am I correct?

So it's 3-2 in favor of denial. And so wouldn't it I'm sorry, I have not been in this situation before.

We have to have four votes. We have to have four. Do we want to try this again?

So it would just be a denial at this point, correct?

Yes.

Yeah, so it's just good. We don't need four to just make a decision.

Four to approve. Okay, thank you. All right.

So this is a denial.

Yes.

Your application has been denied. And with that, I believe we are concluded. Thank you.