HomeMy WebLinkAbout06212007 ZBA Minutes
OLM) City of West University Place
A Neighborhood Cityry
® Recycled Paper ZO1vING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
MEETING MINUTES
June 21, 2007
6:30 p.m.
I• MEMBERS Richard Wilson (voting), Stephen Stewart (voting), Frank Vargas,
PRESENT: Jr. (voting), Jeann Howse (voting), Mark Plagens (voting) and
Jason Powers
II. MEMBERS ABSENT: David Theis
STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Scarcella, City Planner, Sean Landis, Chief Building
Official, James Dougherty, Jr., City Legal Counsel and Sallye A.
Clark, Planning Assistant
IV. CALL TO ORDER: 6:35 p.m.
Agenda Item Discussion Action
1 Call the meeting to Richard Wilson called the meeting to order at Jeann Howse moved to accept that
order and Protocol. 6:35 p.m. Richard Wilson asked all members all notices were properly posted and
Notices, Rules, Etc. and staff to introduce themselves. Sallye A. distributed for this meeting. Motion
Clark, Planning Assistant stated all notices was 2nd by Frank Vargas, Jr.
were posted as required by city and state law. Richard Wilson, Mark Plagens,
Swearing in of witnesses. Frank Vargas, Jr., Stephen Stewart
and Jeann Howse voted aye. Motion
passed. Richard Wilson
administered the . oath to all
witnesses.
2 Docket No. 07-03, Wajid and Fara Mira, owners of 3933 Amherst Jeann Howse made a motion to
Property at 3933 gave a presentation of the variance request. An close the evidentiary portion of the
Amherst Street, email was received from Peter Ehret, 3921 hearing. Motion was 2nd by Frank
West University Amherst in opposition to the request. No Vargas, Jr. Richard Wilson, Mark
Place, Texas 77005 correspondence was received in favor of the Plagens, Frank Vargas, Jr., Stephen
(Variance) Public request. No one spoke in favor of or in Stewart and Jeann Howse voted
hearing regarding the opposition of the request. Debbie Scarcella, aye. Motion passed. After
following matters: Building Official gave the background and staff discussion, Stephen Stewart made a
Framed Area. report as follows: motion to deny the variance request.
Applicant requests a Background Information Jeann Howse seconded the motion.
variance from zoning The applicant purchased a building site located Richard Wilson, Mark Plagens,
ordinance regulations at the southeast corner of Weslayan and Frank Vargas, Jr., Stephen Stewart
to exceed the 80% Amherst Street. The lot dimensions are 47.5' and Jeann Howse voted aye.
framed limitation by wide by 114' deep. The total lot area is 5415 Motion passed. Variance denied.
228 square feet. square feet. According to Table 7-4b of the
Deliberation, Zoning Regulations, the maximum-framed area
3800 University Boulevard 0 West University Place, Texas 77005-2899 0 713066804441 0 www.westu.org
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
June bF Meeting
2 M
decisions, other of all structures contained within a building site
action, etc. regarding is 80% of the lot area. Based on this table, the
the preceding matters. maximum-framed area allowed on this site is
4332 square feet. The applicant is proposing a
structure with a total framed area of 4560
square feet, or 84% of the lot area.
Staff Response
Staff believes that the intent of the framed area
regulation is to limit the size of buildings,
based on the lot area. Compliance with this
regulation affects the amount of open and
pervious areas on the building site as well as
light, ventilation and drainage of the site and
the surrounding properties and public spaces.
In addition, the framed area regulation limits
the overall density and intensity of land use,
which affects the number of residents (and
motor vehicles) and the burdens imposed on
public and utility facilities. The applicant and
the applicant's designer have met with staff
several times during the planning process. The
applicant and designer have asserted that, due
to constraints of lot size and proximity to
Weslayan Street, the proposed design of the
structure is the least intrusive that can be
accomplished.
Recommendation
Staff believes that the ZBA has general
authority to grant variances, but according to
Section 11- 102, the ZBA may not issue a
variance unless all of the following
circumstances are present:
(1) The ZBA must make all findings and
determinations required by state law for the
granting of a variance, which are: (i) due to
special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
Zoning Ordinance provision would result in
unnecessary hardship, (ii) by granting the
variance, the spirit of the ordinance is observed
and substantial justice is done, and (iii) the
variance is not contrary to public interest.
(2) The ZBA must make any additional
findings and determinations required by a
specific provision of this ordinance that relates
to the variance.
(3) The variance must be reduced to writing
including any conditions prescribed by the ZBA
or required b this ordinance for the variance in
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 2 7 Meeting
3 alp (Y
question.
The burden is on the applicant to present
evidence to the Board to support each finding
and determination required for the issuance of a
variance. In this case, the information available
to staff, so far, does not support findings (1)(i)
and (1)(ii), above. For example, the "special
conditions" test normally requires something
unusual about the site (like shape, size, slope,
trees) that might be an impediment to
compliance with the applicable regulations.
Here, there does not seem to be any
impediment to a design that would comply with
the framed area regulations. Also, the
"unnecessary hardship" test cannot normally be
satisfied by circumstances that are personal or
self-created (such as design preferences).
However, the applicant is free to present
evidence bearing upon all of the findings and
determinations at the hearing.
If the Board grants a variance, the Board can
attach conditions. In this type of case, the
Board may want to consider conditions to
mitigate the impact of larger buildings, if
allowed. Examples: Special regulations on the
location, design, screening and buffering of
buildings. The Board could also consider
limitations on the time when a variance would
remain in effect. Examples: A fixed term of
years, or for as long as the existing principal
building is used as a residence.
3 Docket No. 07-04, Yean Sun and Burton Dickey; owners of 6514 Jeann Howse made a motion to
Property at 6514 Mercer Street gave a presentation of the close the evidentiary portion of the
Mercer Street, West variance request. They are also requesting an hearing. Motion was 2nd by Stephen
University Place, extension of 762 days for completion of the Stewart. Richard Wilson, Mark
Texas 77005 work to be able to stagger the replacement of Plagens, Frank Vargas, Jr., Stephen
(Variance) Public the units. No correspondence was received in Stewart and Jeann Howse voted
hearing regarding the opposition to or in favor of the request. No one aye. Motion passed. After
following matters: spoke in favor of or in opposition to the discussion, Richard Wilson made a
Equipment in Rear or request. Debbie Scarcella, Building Official motion to grant the variance to
side Yard. Applicant gave the background and staff report as replace HVAC units in their pre-
requests a variance to follows: existing location more than 14
replace HVAC units Background Information inches above the ground with the
in their pre-existing The applicant is requesting a variance to allow extension of 760 days from the date
location more than 14 the replacement of four outdoor air of the permitting for the completion
inches above the conditioning compressor units in the same of the work with the following
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
June W, Meeting
4 q]j
ground. Deliberation, location as the existing equipment, which is on conditions: This variance only
decisions, other a platform in a "niche" at the rear of a garage, allows replacement of the existing
action, etc. regarding about ten feet above grade. The garage projects HVAC equipment in its existing
the preceding matters. into the rear yard, and the edge of the platform location (the existing, specially-
is approximately 7.7 feet from the rear lot line. built deck on the rear part of the
Attached is a picture of the rear yard of the garage), provided that: (1) to
site. separate the equipment from the
One compressor unit has failed. The owner rear lot line, there must be installed
sought and obtained a temporary, conditional (and maintained) a substantially
permit to allow its replacement, subject to the solid, sound-absorbing wall at least
Board's decision in this case. Section 18-10(d) 12 inches higher than the highest
of the Code of Ordinances allows such permits. part of the equipment, which wall
The owner states that the remaining three units may be lattice-like, and (2) this
will require eventual replacement and asks that variance expires when the existing
the variance cover them, too. To allow garage is demolished, destroyed or
sufficient time for replacing them all, the re-built. Frank Vargas, Jr. seconded j
applicant asks for 360 days to apply for permits the motion. Richard Wilson, Mark
and 760 days to complete the work. Plagens, Frank Vargas, Jr., Stephen
The air conditioning contractor states that any Stewart and Jeann Howse voted
relocation of the units will result in loss of aye. Motion passed. Variance
cooling efficiency and degradation of the granted.
system in terms of optimum operation of the
units. The owner points out that the existing
equipment platform was specially designed to
accommodate the compressors.
Staff Response
Table 7-6, Note 6, "Equipment in Rear or Side
Yard", allows mechanical equipment to project
into a rear yard if the base of the unit is not
higher than 14" above standard base level. The
only area that could be considered compliant
with Table 7-6 is an open area adjacent to the
garage (interior lot side). Relocating the units to
this area would require extensions of the
refrigerant lines (approximately 80 feet),
affecting the overall efficiency and long-term
operation of the condensers. In addition, the
electrical code requires a 120-volt convenience
outlet and separate disconnect at the unit for
servicing, necessitating additional electrical
work. The request to extend the permit
application time from 90 to 360 days appears
reasonable to staff. The applicant should not
need more than 360 days following the issuance
of the permit (as allowed in Section 18-10a) to
complete the work.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
June, 07 Meeting
Staff Recommendation
Staff believes that the ZBA has general
authority to grant variances, but according to
Section 11- 102, the ZBA may not issue a
variance unless all of the following
circumstances are present:
(1) The ZBA must make all findings and
determinations required by state law for the
granting of a variance, which are: (i) due to
special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
Zoning Ordinance provision would result in
unnecessary hardship, (ii) by granting the
variance, the spirit of the ordinance is observed j
and substantial justice is done, and (iii) the
variance is not contrary to public interest.
(2) The ZBA must make any additional
findings and determinations required by a
specific provision of this ordinance that relates
to the variance.
(3) The variance must be reduced to writing
including any conditions prescribed by the ZBA
or required by this ordinance for the variance in
question.
The burden is on the applicant to present
evidence to the Board to support each finding
and determination required for the issuance of a
variance. Note: In this case, staff believes the
loss of open and pervious area, the reduction in
the system efficiency, the effect on the long-
term operation of the condensers, and the
impact of the additional electrical work
(considered cumulatively) could be considered
a hardship, assuming, of course, these
circumstances are all proved to the satisfaction
of the Board at the hearing.
If the Board grants a variance, the Board can
attach conditions. In this type of case, the
Board could consider conditions to mitigate the
impact of allowing mechanical equipment to
remain on the elevated platform. Examples:
Noise from the units must be controlled so that,
at no point outside the boundaries of the site
where the equipment is located, will the noise
ever exceed the decibel limits as prescribed by
city ordinance. Control measures can include,
but are not limited to, sound absorbing walls,
noise vibration isolators, and installation of
"quiet" units.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
June, 07 Meeting
6I~
To separate the equipment from the rear lot
line, there must be installed (and maintained) a
substantially solid, sound-absorbing wall at
least 12 inches higher than the highest part of
the equipment
4 Docket No. 07-02, Shannon and John Ramirez, owners of 2713 Jeann Howse made a motion to
Property at 2713 and and 2719 Werlein gave a presentation of the close the evidentiary portion of the
2719 Werlein Road, variance request. No correspondence was hearing. Motion was 2°d by
West University received in opposition to or in favor of the Frank Vargas, Jr. Richard Wilson,
Place, Texas 77005 request. No one spoke in favor of or in Mark Plagens, Frank Vargas, Jr.,
(Request to opposition to the request. Debbie Scarcella, Stephen Stewart and Jeann Howse
modify/amend Building Official gave the background and staff voted aye. Motion passed. After
Variance previously report as follows: discussion, Frank Vargas, Jr. made
granted/Extension of Background a motion to grant the variance to
Time Public hearing The applicant in Docket 07-02, 2713 Werlein, allow a swimming pool on Lot 17
regarding the is requesting modification of a variance without a principal building (and
following matters: originally granted on March 15, 2007. The not accessory to a principal
Accessory Structures; variance allowed an existing swimming pool to building) with the additional 90
Use and Density. remain on a building site by itself, without a days to apply for permits and and
Applicant requests an principal building. After the variance was additional 180 days more in which
amendment or granted, the applicant received several to complete the construction with
modification to proposals to repair and upgrade the pool and the following conditions: This
variance decision, discovered that the cost was almost the same as decision allows demolition of the
docket 07-02, granted constructing a new pool. When the pool pre-existing house on Lot
March 15, 2007 to contractor contacted staff to verify the required 17 and either rehabilitation and
allow an existing pool document submittals for a new-pool permit, maintenance of the existing
or similar new pool to staff informed him that the original variance swimming pool (or construction
remain or be only allowed keeping the existing pool and that and maintenance of a new
constructed on the building a new pool would require a swimming pool) on Lot 17, without
building site without a modification of the original variance. The new a principal building, but only for so
lawful use of the pool is proposed to be constructed in a different long as the following conditions
principal building and location on the site, which would also require a are both present: (1) there must be
not accessory to the modification of the original variance. In perimeter fence or wall to enclose
principal building. In addition, the time allowed by the original and unify the house area on
addition, the applicant variance to apply for a permit will expire on adjoining Lot 16 with the pool area
is requesting an June 28, 2007. The applicant requests a time on Lot 17 (the fence or wall being
extension of an extension of an additional 90 days to apply for constructed along the west line of
additional 90 days to the permits and 180 days more in which to Lot 16, the south line of Lots 16
apply for a pool complete the construction. The applicant plans and 17, the east line of Lot 17 and
permit and an on complying with the other conditions of the the front yard line of Lot 17), and
extension of an original variance. (2) Lots 16 and 17 must remain
additional 180 days to Staff Response under common ownership.
complete construction Because the original variance only allows the Motion was 2nd by Jeann
of the pool. "existing" pool to remain on the property Howse. Jeann Howse, Frank
Deliberation, without a principal structure, staff believes it Vargas, Jr., Mark Plagens and
decisions, other would not allow a new pool. The proposed Stephen Stewart voted aye.
action, etc. regarding pool, although similar in shape and size to the Richard Wilson voted nay. Motion
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
June, 2007 Meeting
70
the preceding matters. existing pool, is slightly larger and will be more passed. Variance granted.
centrally located on the site. The perimeter
decking and patio area are also larger than the
decking of the existing pool.
Formal application for a permit has not been
made as of this date, but the conceptual plans
appear to meet the normal ordinance provisions
for setbacks, pervious areas, equipment
location and required perimeter walkway. The
proposed pool location will provide for a larger
permeable area in the rear and side yards than is
provided by the existing pool.
Recommendation
Staff believes that the ZBA has general
authority to grant variances, but according to
Section 11- 102, the ZBA may not issue a
variance unless all of the following
circumstances are present:
(1) The ZBA makes all findings and
determinations required by state law for the
granting of a variance, which are: (i) due to
special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
Zoning Ordinance provision would result in
unnecessary hardship, (ii) by granting the
variance, the spirit of the ordinance is observed
and substantial justice is done, and (iii) the
variance is not contrary to public interest.
(2) The ZBA must make any additional
findings and determinations required by a
specific provision of this ordinance that relates
to the variance.
(3) The variance must be reduced to writing
including any conditions prescribed by the ZBA
or required by this ordinance for the variance in
question.
The burden is on the applicant to present
evidence to the Board to support each finding
and determination required for the issuance of a
variance. In this case, the information available
to staff, so far, indicates that the circumstances
supporting the original variance may still be
present and could support the granting of the
requested modifications, assuming they are all
proved to the satisfaction of the Board.
If the Board grants a variance, the Board can
attach conditions. In this case, the Board may
want to consider conditions similar to those in
the original variance, but with revised time
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 2007 Meeting
8►?
periods for applying for permits and completing
the work. (The requested time extensions
appear reasonable to the staff.)
5 Docket No. 05-10, Scott Frasier, property owner at 6505 Mercer Jeann Howse made a motion to
Property at 6505 Street gave the presentation of the time close the evidentiary portion of the
Mercer Street, West extension request. No correspondence was hearing. Motion was 2nd by Frank
University Place, received in opposition to or in favor of the Vargas, Jr. Richard Wilson, Mark
Texas 77005 (Time request. No one spoke in favor of or in Plagens, Frank Vargas, Jr.,
Extension Only). opposition to the request. The staff report was Stephen Stewart and Jeann Howse
Time Extension not read and not requested by ZBA however, voted aye. Motion passed. After
Request regarding the the following is what was provided in the discussion, Jeann Howse made a
following matters: meeting packets: motion to deny the time extension
Yards and rotated Background request. Frank Vargas, Jr.
corners. Applicant The applicant in Docket 05-10, 6505 Mercer, is seconded the motion. Richard
requests a time requesting a time extension to the variance Wilson, Mark Plagens, Frank
extension to apply for decision initially granted on August 18, 2005. Vargas, Jr., Stephen Stewart and
a permit relating to The ZBA granted a special exception to change Jeann Howse voted aye. Motion
Docket 05-10 the front street designation and a variance to passed. Time Extension denied.
(variance granted reduce the side yard setback. (Copies attached
08/18/05). Time in applicant's packet). After the decision was
extension is requested granted, the original applicant did not apply for
through July 1, 2007, permits within the specified time period of 360
an extension of 681 days. The applicant is requesting an extension
days. of that time period until July 1, 2007, (a total of
681 days, or 321 additional days). The original
decision imposed a deadline of August 18,
2008 to complete the construction. The
applicant does not believe additional time for
completion of the project is necessary.
Staff Response
The applicant proposes the construction of a
new residence on a footprint similar to the
existing structure. The original variance
allowed a 10' side yard setback upon the
condition that no structure is built on any
portion of the lot where the existing swimming
pool and any required walkways are located.
This condition was imposed to maintain an
open buffer area in the rear and side of the lot
adjacent to the adjoining properties. The
proposed plan substantially meets this
condition.
The original decision specified a time period of
360 days to apply for a permit and three years
to complete construction. The time to apply for
a permit expired on August 18, 2006 and the
time to complete construction will expire on
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
June 007 Meeting
9
August 18, 2008. The applicant is requesting a
time extension to July 1, 2007 to apply for
permits (a total of 681 days, or 321 additional
days). The applicant has applied for permits,
and the permit application is awaiting a
decision by the Board on the time extension.
The original variance specifically states that
time extensions may only be granted by the
ZBA.
6 Minutes. Frank Vargas, Jr. made a motion to
approve the minutes from the
March 15, 2007 meeting as
written. Motion was 2°d by
Jeann Howse. Richard Wilson, j
Mark Plagens, Frank Vargas, Jr.,
Stephen Stewart and Jeann Howse
voted aye. Motion passed. Minutes
approved.
Adjournment. Frank Vargas, Jr. made a motion
to adjourn the meeting. Motion
was 2nd by Jeann Howse. Richard
Wilson, Mark Plagens, Frank
Vargas, Jr., Stephen Stewart and
Jeann Howse voted aye. Motion
passed. The meeting was adjourned
at 9:35 p.m.
PASSED THIS q 4h DAY OF J 2007.
&b"
Richard Wilson Vice-Presiding Officer
ATTES7~
Sallye Clark, Pla ing Assistant