Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.24.2002 BA MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M1NUTES 6-24-02 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray Jameson, Fred Willis, John Bickel, Max Browning STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: John Castro, Director of Community Services, Katy Seals, Community Development Secretary OTHER GUESTS PRESENT: Johnny & Gloria Cerbantez, John Warrick, Thelma Sufley, Mike Mauldin, Alice Doyle First item on the agenda: Approval of May 2002 minutes. Max Browning made motion to approve minutes. Fred Willis seconded the motion. Motion carded 4-0. Second item on the agenda: The request of Mike Mauldin on behalf of Security State Bank for a variance of one hundred fortv-one (141) feet of the required two hundred and twenty (220) foot setback from a residential structure as stated in Section 8:3.7, Radio, Television, and Microwave Towers of the City of Plainview Zoning Ordinance to construct one hundred and ten (110) foot radio tower in a Commercial General Business (C-3) Zoning District, and being Block 1, Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19, Aiken Subdivision of the South Part of Block 88, College Hill Addition, Plainview, Hale County, Texas the same being 3000 Olton Road. Mike Mauldin is present. He noted that the requested tower could be built without seeking a variance, but it would be very visible and unsightly to those traveling on Olton Road. The tower will not be noticeable at the proposed location." The pole will be located on the West side of the building where it will be less noticeable. Mr. Mauldin stated he spoke to the residential neighbors and was informed the neighbor has a pace maker and that he was concerned with the tower maybe interfering with it. Mr. Mauldin said he told him Security State Bank has seven (7) other locations where customers have also questioned the safety of the tower in regards to their pace makers. He gave a comparison of the tower to that of a radio antenna on a vehicle - no ill health affects occur. He added the pole would be much like a telephone pole made of metal with what looks similar to a lawn chair at the top. He added that they had spoken to the neighbors to the west side of the building and noted they were "pretty well in agreement" with the request. He said that in five (5) of the other locations, the towers have withstood very strong windstorms of up to seventy-eighty (70-80) mile per hour winds. On a negative note, the tower in the Lorenzo location was struck by lightning. He added they do not want to do anything that would bring harm to neighbors nor anything that would be unsightly to Plainview. John Castro stated the following: "Even though this entire area is zoned commercial, there is a clause in the ordinance that says when you put up either a private tower or a public communications tower, it has to be two hundred (200) feet from a residential structure or two hundred (200) feet from a residentially zoned district." There is a residential structure within two hundred (200) feet and this is why a variance is requested. John stated there were four (4) responses against the proposal and two (2) were received in favor of the proposal. Of the responses received in favor of the proposal, one was from Mr. Surley who resides in the residential structure within two hundred (200) feet of the proposed tower. Mr. Surley stated he was in favor of the tower as long as it did not interfere with his pace maker. The four responses received against the variance were all from commercial entities. Just before the close of business today, a call came in from P&E Leasing, Mr. David Wilder, commercial property owner in the area, who was stuck in the Dallas airport who wanted us to note he is opposed to the proposal because it would be unsightly and a high tower is not appealing and his office is within one hundred-fifty (150) feet of the tower and he is concerned with bodily harm if the tower fell as well as concerned with satellite interference. Another opposition to the tower is from Melvin Bennett and Mr. Roberts, commercial property owners in the area, stating "just as soon see it somewhere else...too tall for residential area." John Castro stated that there is actually a residential structure in a commercial area. Another negative response came from Taco Bell, a commercial entity - stating, "doesn't approve of commercial towers in the city at all." The fourth negative response was from the Pizza Hut, a commercial entity, noting opposition but no comment. John Castro reminded the Board that the reason for the variance is due to the one residential structure and not the commercial structures in the area. If the residential structure had not been within the two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the bank would not have needed a variance, only a building permit to construct the tower. The residential owner is in favor of the proposed tower, but commercial entities are opposed. John Castro stated the tower will be one hundred-ten (110) feet high and will be buried eleven (11) feet in the ground and an engineer's drawing verifying the structural soundness of the tower has been received. He added that staff doesn't have a problem with the tower, noting pictures of the bank's towers at Abernathy and Hale Center. Fred Willis asked the advantage of using a pole opposed to regular communications. Mike Mauldin responded the speed of transmission and the ability to transmit more is better with this type of tower. Max Browning asked that if not granted the variance, will the bank build it at the site not needing a variance? Mr. Mauldin's response is "yes, we prefer not to, but we feel like we have to." John Warrick, a commercial property owner in the area, stated his only question was what was the purpose of the tower, and that question has already been answered, and with the information given, he is unopposed to the tower - noting he had not sent in his response. Mike Mauldin stated if the Board had a preference in colors to paint the tower, the bank would be willing to comply. Fred Willis asked if there would be no guide wires? Mike Mauldin stated none of the other sites of their bank towers have guide wires. John Bickel asked what the diameter of the base of the tower would be? Mike Mauldin responded that he "I could get my arms around it." Max Browning asked about staff recommendation and John Castro reiterated the staff has no problem with the request - noting they had rather see it behind the building as requested in the variance than in the middle of the parking lot. John Bickel noted no hardship for requesting the variance, since the bank can put it up whether they get the variance or not. Mike Mauldin again noted the unsightliness of the tower if placed where allowed without the variance. John Bickel said there would have to be barriers put around the tower to protect it. John Castro stated it would need a fence and landscaping. Mike Mauldin said there would be a six (6) foot fence around it. Fred Willis made motion to approve the variance based on no negative response from the residential neighbors and on the requested location being the best logical location without detracting from the area, the building, and occupying parking spaces and it being less unsightly than if placed without the variance. John Bickel seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Third item on the agenda: The request of Gloria H. Cerbantez for a variance of seventeen (17) feet of the required twenty-five (25) foot front setback and three (3) feet six (6) inches of the required five (5) foot side setback as stated in Section 34 of the City of Plainview Zoning Ordinance to construct a 20' X 20' carport in a Single-family Residential (R-2) Zoning District, and being Block 3, Lot 8, Boynton Addition, Plainview, Hale County, Texas the same being 200 SE 8th Street. Gloria and Johnny Cerbantez are present to answer any questions. John Castro noted the reason for requesting seventeen (17) feet of the front setback is that the front of the house is forty-two feet, six inches (42' 6") from the curb and fourteen feet, six inches (14' 6") of that is right-of-way which leaves twenty eight (28) feet in the front yard. They are only required to have twenty five (25) feet so they could technically build in the first three (3) feet. Since the requested carport is twenty (20) feet, they need seventeen (17) of the twenty five (25) foot setback. The carport will still be three (3) feet away from the front property line. On the side, they want to come within one and a half (1 V2) feet off the side property line. One of the reasons for requesting this is they want to put the carport outside the driveway so they don't have to crack' the driveway to put it in. Ray Jameson asked if the carport would be about the same as the fence line and John Castro agreed. There were two (2) responses received in favor of the variance. There are two existing carports in the neighborhood. Max Browning asked if the carport would extend out about the same distance as the other carports in the area and John Castro said yes. According to Johnny Cerbantez, the carport would be constructed of 4 X 4 stands and perlings, all steel and metal. Fred Willis asked if it would be wider than the driveway - and John Castro stated it would be about 4 feet wider than the driveway. Fred Willis asked if the carport would be next to the bay window on the house and Johnny Cerbantez stated it would. It was noted the tree next to the house might have to be removed. Max Browning made motion to approve tl~e variance based on this being the only logical location and lack of negative response from the neighborhood. John Bickel seconded. Motion carried 4-0.