To: Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council
From: Matthew Cyr, Planner I and Julie Smith, Community Development Director
Subject:
Title
Consider a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and approval of a resolution by the City Council, for a Site Plan with seven variances requested by the property owners related to Complete Trailers (Tenant’s) use of the 1.73-acre tract of land including a 5,840 square-foot building, on the east side of South Main Street, approximately 400’ northeast of the South Main Street and Calverly Place intersection, being Lots 1 and 2, A.W. Crisp Jr Subdivision, addressed as 1425 South Main Street, and zoned Commercial (C). Woodall Properties, owner/applicant. (SP-20-0010)
Action Requested:
Consider a request for approval of a Site Plan with seven variances related to the property at 1425 South Main Street (commercial zoning district).
Background:
• United Rentals (tenant) left the property in early 2019. It has remained vacant in the interim and thus lost its grandfathered status. Due to the site being vacant for over six-months, the Unified Development Code requires the entire site and building to be brought up to Code.
• The property owners met with staff several times throughout 2019 and at least once with a potential tenant prior to Complete Trailers. Staff spent significant time explaining in detail to the owners what they would need to do to bring the property up to current code - including constructing the screening wall along the eastern property line adjacent to residential zoning and use - before a certificate of occupancy could be issued to a tenant.
• City Council approved an SUP (for outdoor storage) by a vote of 7-0 on August 6, 2019, for a new tenant, Complete Trailers. However, at that time, the owners still had not addressed the seven Code violations on the site despite staff’s repeated communications to the property owners that these had to be addressed PRIOR to a tenant using the site.
• The tenant shared with staff that he was unaware of these site violations. Of the seven violations, the tenant offered to address (at his own expense) all but the subdivision screening wall. Staff understands the property owners have declined the offer.
• Economic considerations, for instance the expense associated with constructing a subdivision wall, cannot be considered as the only basis for a variance. Specifically, Section 2.07(A)(1) of the UDC states the following:
“.…Variances will not be granted to relieve a self-created or personal hardship, and they will not be granted based solely on economic gain or loss….” [Emphasis added.]
Screening Wall Variance:
Variance Request #1: Eliminate the requirement for a screening wall on the eastern property line.
According to Section 8.13 (A) and (B) of the UDC, a minimum six-foot (6’) masonry screening wall is required between a non-residential development and a residential use or zoning district. In this case, the property immediately to the east is both zoned SF-36 and used as residential property. Because the construction responsibility lies with the non-residential development, the property owners of 1425 South Main are responsible for the screening wall.
The property owners are requesting that the variance be granted, because “there are already trees along this property line.” The property owner also thought that grading might be difficult, but Public Works confirms the topography is conducive to the construction of a subdivision wall.
Landscaping Variances:
Variance Request #2: Reduce the required 30-foot landscape buffer to 20 feet.
According to Section 8.08 (F) (1) (c) of the UDC a Minimum thirty-foot (30’) landscape buffer adjacent to all properties with residential uses or zoning is required.
The property owners asked for this reduction originally, because it would be “better suited for the property.” However, they later submitted a revised Site Plan which indicates a 6’ retaining wall running north and south, parallel to the eastern property line, approximately 20’ west from the property line. Consequently, staff supports this variance because the retaining wall is integral to the property and can’t be moved.
Variance Request #3: Eliminate the requirement for a ten-foot (10’) landscape buffer to the North (side property line).
According to Section 8.08 (F) (1) (d) of the UDC a Minimum ten-foot (10’) landscape buffer adjacent to side and rear property lines when adjacent to non-residential uses or zoning.
The property owners do not want to remove the existing pavement. However, the existing pavement is considered a self-created hardship under the UDC and is no longer grandfathered. Given the extensive pavement on the site, removal of this pavement would not interfere with the current tenant’s business.
Variance Request #4: Eliminate the requirement for a ten-foot (10’) landscape buffer to the South (side property line).
According to Section 8.08 (F) (1) (d) of the UDC a Minimum ten-foot (10’) landscape buffer adjacent to side and rear property lines when adjacent to non-residential uses or zoning.
The property owners do not want to remove the existing pavement. However, the existing pavement is considered a self-created hardship under the UDC and is no longer grandfathered. Given the extensive pavement on the site, removal of this pavement would not interfere with the current tenant’s business.
Variance Request #5: Eliminate the foundation planting requirement on the front and sides of building.
According to Section 8.08 (F) (3) (j) of the UDC a minimum five-foot (5’) foundation planting shall be provided along the front and sides of all buildings and parking structures.
The property owners do not want to remove existing paving.
Should the Commission and/or Council wish to consider granting this variance, Staff would suggest requiring the owners to install pots and planters and irrigation systems for the pots and planters in lieu of removing the concrete as has been done for several businesses along Keller Parkway.
Variance Request #6: Eliminate the requirement for landscape islands at the end of the parking aisles.
According to Section 8.08 (F) (3) (e) of the UDC the ends of all parking aisles must be terminated with a landscaped island.
The property owners do not want to remove existing paving.
Variance Request #7: Eliminate the requirement for one large three-inch (3”) caliper canopy tree to be planted on a Landscape island.
According to Section 8.08 (F) (3) (f) of the UDC an island the size of one (1) parking space shall contain one (1) large three-inch (3”) caliper canopy tree.
The property owners do not want to remove existing paving.
Staff Analysis:
Because the property is no longer grandfathered, the UDC is clear that it must come into compliance with the current Code requirements. This fundamental principle of zoning ensures that, over time, property will meet the requirements all property must meet in a given community while at the same time honoring the private property rights vested with continued use (or grandfathered uses). Here, the property’s vacancy forfeits the protection offered under a grandfathered status.
Variances may apply to grandfathered as well as straight zoning properties. Here, the retaining wall (which presumably provides structural support for the parking along the east side of the property) poses a special condition of the property which may be considered in terms of the two variances related to the screening wall and the landscape buffer reduction, as discussed above. Though the owners have not offered, staff would recommend the Commission and Council requiring pots and planters in lieu of foundation plantings if considering granting this variance.
There are no such circumstances related to the other (parking lot and buffer) variance requests, however, nor does the owner offer an alternative proposal to mitigate the results of leaving the impacted areas’ paving in place. In addition to the obvious drainage benefits of not permitting “edge to edge” paving, cities in the Metroplex strive to reduce ozone by mitigating or eliminating urban heat islands - thus the parking island, tree, and buffer requirements.
Surrounding Zoning:
North: Commercial
South: Commercial
East: Single- Family 36,000 square-foot lots or greater (SF-36)
West: Outside of City Limits
Variances Requested:
There are seven total variances being requested by the Applicant.
Summary:
Section 2.07(A.2) of the UDC, lists criteria for approval of a variance.
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other properties in the area.
c. That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
d. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a violation of any other valid ordinance of the City of Keller.
e. That strict compliance with the regulations, and/or that the purpose of the regulations will be served to a greater extent by the alternative proposal.
Citizen Input:
A Site Plan application, even with variances, does not require a public hearing, so no public hearing notifications were sent out to the surrounding property owners for this request. There has been no response from the public to this application. The public will have an opportunity to speak on this agenda item under “Persons To Be Heard”.
Alternatives:
The Planning and Zoning Commission has the following options when considering a Site Plan with variances:
- Recommend approval as submitted (with requested variances)
- Recommend approval with modified or additional condition(s)
- Tabling the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose
- Recommend denial
City Council Action:
City Council has the following options when considering a Site Plan with variances:
- Approve as submitted (with requested variances)
- Approve with modified or additional condition(s)
- Tabling the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose
- Deny
Supporting Documents:
- Aerial and Zoning Maps
- Exhibit A (1)- Application
- Exhibit A (2)- Site Plan