Loading...
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