HomeMy WebLinkAbout09202007 ZBA Minutes
OLM) City of West University Place
A Neighborhood City
® Recycled Paper ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIPAL BUILDING
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
MEETING MINUTES
September 20, 2007
6:30 p.m.
I MEMBERS Richard Wilson (voting), Stephen Stewart (voting), Jason Powers
PRESENT: (voting), Jeann Howse (voting), and Mark Plagens (voting,
arrived at 7:52 .m.)
II. MEMBERS ABSENT: David Theis and Frank Vargas, Jr.
,III. STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Scarcella, City Planner, James Dougherty, Jr., City Legal
Counsel
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. Debbie distributed for this meeting. Motion
Scarcella, City Planner stated all notices were was 2nd by Stephen • Stewart.
posted as required by city and state law. Richard Wilson, Stephen Stewart,
Swearing in of witnesses. Jason Powers and Jeann Howse
voted aye. Motion passed. Richard
Wilson administered the oath to all
witnesses.
2 Docket No. 07-06, Reid Wilson, attorney for applicant and Richard Wilson made a motion to
regarding property property owner, Scott Fraiser; 6505 Mercer, suspend the rules and hear
at 6505 Mercer introduced himself and gave an overview of the evidence and then deliberate on the
Street, West requests. appeal first. Motion was 2nd by
University Place, Richard Wilson, chair read the rules of Stephen Stewart. Richard Wilson,
Texas 77005, procedure and explained that there was a Stephen Stewart, Jason Powers and
including: (1) request to suspend the rules in agenda item two. Jeann Howse voted aye. Motion
Appeal of He then explained the procedure for passed Rules Suspended.
administrative suspending the rules and proceeding with the Jeann Howse made a motion to
decision regarding remaining docket. Scott Fraiser then gave an close the evidentiary portion of the
front street line and overview of the proposed construction and the hearing. Motion was 2„d by Stephen
rotated corner differences in site plans depending on the Stewart. Richard Wilson, Mark
building site issue. orientation of the front street line. Plagens, Stephen Stewart and Jeann
(2) If appeal is not Reid Wilson, attorney for applicant than made a Howse voted aye. Motion passed.
granted: (i) Request presentation on the question of Rotated Corner Jeann Howse made a motion to
for a special lots. Overturn (reverse) the decision.
exception to change Mr. Charles Van Buren, 3515 Pittsburgh asked Motion was 2nd by Stephen Stewart
,
the front street line about the disposition of the previous docketed Richard Wilson, Mark Pla ens,
3800 University Boulevard 0 West University Place, Texas 77005-2899 0 713066804441 0 www.westu.org
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 20, 2007 Meeting
2
from Pittsburg Street item 05-10, which had expired. Correspondence Jason Powers, Stephen Stewart and
to Mercer Street was received from residents at 6511 Mercer; Jeann Howse voted aye. Motion
under Section 8-110 6444 Mercer; 6445 Mercer; 6502 Mercer. No passed. Appeal granted.
of the Zoning one spoke in favor of or in opposition of the
Ordinance, which request. Debbie Scarcella, Building Official
also requires a gave the background and staff report as
special width for the follows:
street side yard (in Background The Appeal. The applicant's
this case, along appeal concerns the status of the property at
Pittsburg Street). (ii) 6505 Mercer as a "rotated corner" building site.
Variance to reduce A rotated corner building site is a site on the
the side yard width corner of two streets in the SF-1 District that
along Pittsburg has had the front street line "rotated" from one
Street. Suspension of street to another, usually as a result of the site
the rules to change being divided. In this instance, the original plat
the normal order of showed a building site fronting Mercer with a
proceedings. Public street frontage of 100' and a lot depth (along
hearing(s) regarding Pittsburgh) of 150'. At some point the site was
the preceding divided, leaving the Pittsburgh side at a
matters. Deliberation, dimension of 96'.
Decisions, other For corner sites, the administrative official
action, etc. regarding determines which street is the "front street line"
the preceding based upon the following criteria:
matters. 1. A special designation of the front
street line made by the ZBA;
2. A clear indication of the appropriate
front street line, based upon:
Subdivision platting pattern, traffic and access,
property size and shape, orientation of historic
development, and compatibility with nearby
sites and their uses.
3. For sites with SFR use;
If one street line is substantially sorter than the
others, otherwise, the front street line is the line
that is most compatible with nearby sites and
their uses. (emphasis added)
Two years ago, in connection with Docket #
05-10, the administrative official determined
that the front street line for this building site
was along the "short" side (Pittsburgh), making
it a rotated corner-building site. In Docket 05-
10, the ZBA granted a special exception and a
variance. With certain conditions and
restrictions, those decisions changed the front
street line from Pittsburgh to Mercer and
reduced the "new" street side yard depth (along
Pittsburgh) from 20 feet to 10 feet.
No one has applied fora permit under either
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 20, 2007 Meeting
3
decision in Docket 05-10, and the time to apply
for permits has expired. Both decisions are
therefore subject to modification or reversal by
the ZBA, without additional notice or hearing.
Earlier this year, the current owner asked the
ZBA for an extension of time to apply for
permits under the special exception (but not
under the variance). They proposed a building
"footprint" inconsistent with the drawing
attached to the variance decision from Docket
05-10. The ZBA did not grant the time
extension, but did indicate that an application
for a modification could be filed. The current
owner then sought a formal decision by the
administrative official about where the front
street line is located. On August 20, 2007, the
Administrative Official issued a formal
decision as follows:
Disregarding the special exception and
variance granted in Docket 05-10, the front
street line is determined to be the common
boundary of the site and Pittsburgh Street.
If the special exception and variance granted in
Docket 05-10 are extended, the front street line
is determined to be the common boundary of
the site and Mercer Street; and: (i) the street
side yard (along Pittsburgh) is 10 feet in depth,
and (ii) other conditions apply. However,
permits based on these decisions may not be
granted unless the allotted time is extended by
the ZBA, or the decisions are otherwise
modified to allow such action. (Note: The
owner/permittee has indicated that an
application for a modification is being
prepared.)
Generally, the Zoning Ordinance does not
regulate the location of front doors or mailing
addresses. It does regulate the dimensions of
yards, which heavily depend upon the location
of the front street line and the site street line.
Staff Response to the Appeal
The applicant has firmly asserted, based upon
the definition in Article 2 of the Zoning
Ordinance for "front street line," that this
building site is not a rotated corner. Therefore,
the applicant contends that the front street line
"naturally" falls along Mercer (which would
mean that no special side and would be
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 20, 2007 Meeting
4
required on Pittsburgh, and fences could be
built up to the property line on Pittsburgh).
Staff understands the reasoning behind this
belief, but since the ZBA basically upheld the
previous front-street-line determination of the
Administrative Official (in Docket 05-10), staff
should not change it; to do so would knock out
the underpinning of the ZBA's decisions in
Docket 05-10.
The applicant intends to ask the ZBA to
suspend its normal rules and hear evidence on
the appeal and then immediately decide the
appeal, before hearing evidence for the special
exception and the variance. If the appeal is
granted (to reverse the Administrative
Official's decision), additional hearing and
evidence for the special request and variance
would not be necessary.
3 Docket No. 07-07, Andrew Sullo, property owner, 2803 Sunset Jeann Howse made a motion to
Property at 2803 Boulevard presented the variance request. close the evidentiary portion of the
Sunset Boulevard, Correspondence was received from Chuck hearing. Motion was 2„d by Stephen
West University Guffey, 2809 Sunset in favor of the request and Stewart. Richard Wilson, Jason
Place, Texas 77005 from Jan Jordan, 2803 Nottingham in Powers, Stephen Stewart and Jeann
(Variance) opposition. No one spoke in favor of or Howse voted aye. Motion passed.
Public hearing opposition to the request. Debbie Scarcella, After discussion, Jeann Howse
regarding the Building Official gave the background and staff made a motion to grant the variance
following matters: report as follows: request. Stephen Stewart seconded
Garages. Applicant Background the motion. Richard Wilson, Jason
requests a variance to Table 7-4a establishes the minimum and Powers, Stephen Stewart and Jeann
allow a two car garage maximum criteria by which the required Howse voted aye. Motion passed.
instead of the number of garage parking spaces per dwelling Variance granted.
maximum allowed on unit are determined. Each dwelling unit is
car garage based on allowed a maximum of one garage parking
the total building site space per 2500 square feet of building site area.
square footage. The building site at 2803 Sunset Blvd. contains
Deliberation, 4725 square feet. Based on the building site
decisions, other area, only 1 garage parking space is allowed for
action, etc. regarding this dwelling unit.
the preceding matters. The applicant applied for a building permit to
construct a single-family residence at 2803
Sunset Blvd. The plans were not approved
based on a double car garage and non-
compliance with driveway dimensions and curb
cuts. (Maximum driveway and curb cut widths
are based on the number of garage spaces and
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 20, 2007 Meeting
5
orientation of the garage on the building site).
In order to facilitate the issuance of a building
permit, the applicant revised the plans to
comply with the regulations, but decided to
pursue a variance request to allow two garage
parking spaces.
Staff Response
Determining the historical reason for imposing
a limit on garage sizes-particularly on sites
smaller than 5,000 square feet--would require
some extensive digging in the archives.
However, it is clear that the limit does control
the size of garage structures, which are usually
accessory structures in single-family residential
districts, where overcrowding, light and air can
be problems. However, it is worth mentioning
that there are very few single-family detached
building sites smaller than 5,000 square feet.
The applicant owns one of them.
By limiting the number of garage spaces, the
width of the driveway in some cases is also
limited. A wider driveway (especially for a
side loading garage on a corner site) might help
deter parking in the adjacent street areas and
reduce interference with public sidewalks.
The Zoning and Planning Commission is
working on a proposed amendment to this
section of the zoning regulations to require at
least two parking spaces per dwelling unit, plus
one additional space between the garage and
the street. The proposal would also impose a
minimum garage size (10 x 20 feet per parking
space).
Although the applicant revised the original
garage and driveway plans to comply with the
regulations, a two-car garage is more
practicable for a corner site, side-loading
configuration. The driveway width is allowed
to be wider, therefore accommodating more on-
site parking area, and, in the two-car-family
oriented society we live in, a one-car garage
does not provide adequate enclosed parking.
Staff believes that the ZBA has generally the
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:
The ZBA must make all findings and
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 20, 2007 Meeting
6
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. The ZBA must make any additional
findings and determinations required by a
specific provision of this ordinance that relates
to the variance. 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. 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 a larger garage.
Examples:
Limiting the overall size or width of the garage
space (but note that the ZPC proposal would
impose a minimum garage size of 10 x 20 feet
per parking space).
Limiting the width of the driveway and curb
cut.
Limiting the variance to a specific structure,
defined by a sketch (no non-conforming
rebuilding allowed).
Submission of revised garage and driveway
plans within 30 days of the date of the decision.
4 Docket No. 07-08, Mark Plagens arrived at 7:52 for this agenda Jeann Howse made a motion to
Property at 3757 item and Jason Powers recused himself from close the evidentiary portion of the
Sunset Boulevard voting on this item. hearing. Motion was 2nd by Stephen
Road, West Dr. David Sorley property owner, 3757 Sunset Stewart. Richard Wilson, Mark
University Place, Boulevard and Jeremy McFarland, designer and Plagens, Stephen Stewart and Jeann
Texas 77005 builder presented the variance request. Howse voted aye. Motion passed.
(Variance) Correspondence was received from Chuck After discussion, Jearm Howse
Public hearing Guffey, 2809 Sunset and Mary Lou Gullett, made a motion to grant the variance
regarding the 3701 Albans in opposition of the request. No request. Stephen Stewart seconded
following matters: correspondence was received in favor of the the motion. Richard Wilson, Mark
Front Porch Height. request. No onespoke in favor of or opposition Pla ens, Stephen Stewart and Jeann
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 20, 2007 Meeting
7
Applicant requests a to the request. Debbie Scarcella, Building Howse voted aye. Motion passed.
variance to exceed the Official gave the background and staff report as Variance granted.
maximum front yard follows:
projection height of 25 Background
feet. Deliberation, Table 7-6 establishes the parameters by which
decisions, other certain structures or parts of structures may
action, etc. regarding "project" into the minimum established yards
the preceding matters. (setbacks). Generally, very few structures with
a height of more than 6" are allowed in the
required front yard. Note 1.2 to Table 7-6
allows front porches meeting certain
requirements to project into the front yard. One
of the requirements, Note (iv), requires that the
maximum height of the projecting portion of
the porch not exceed the depth of the required
front yard. For the building site at 3757 Sunset,
the required front yard depth is 25', so the
maximum height of a projecting front porch is
also 25'. The front porch is proposed to be
approximately 32' in height.
According to the evidence submitted to staff,
the applicant began designing the proposed
structure in February 2007. The applicant
states that, at that time, the zoning regulations
did not restrict projecting front porches to the
depth of the front yard. Ordinance 1840 was
adopted by City Council on April 23, 2007 and
became effective May 12, 2007. This
ordinance added a requirement limiting the
height of projecting front porches to the depth
of the required front yard. According to the
final report of the Zoning & Planning
Commission, the principal purpose of
Ordinance No. 1840 was to impose a porch
height limit "based on the size and scale of the
site." Such a height limit, the report continued,
should "help prevent overcrowding and help
provide adequate light and air."
The applicant applied for a permit on August
20, 2007. Staff spotted the problem with the
porch height and issued a plan correction
notice.
Staff Response
The applicant did invest time and effort into
preparing a plan that complies with the
regulations except for the height of the
projecting porch. Section 12-102 of the zoning
regulations recognizes that construction
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 20, 2007 Meeting
8
projects inevitably will be at varying stages of
completion during a zoning amendment
process. It allows new or remodeled buildings
to acquire Prior Nonconforming (PNC) status if
they are built (or permitted) before the effective
date of an ordinance amendment. Section 12-
102(c) even allows a principal building to
acquire PNC status after the effective date of an
amendment, if certain criteria are met. One of
the criteria is completion of the plans and filing
of the permit applications on or before the
ninetieth day following the effective date of the
amendment. The effective date of this
particular amendment was May 12, 2007, and
ninety days following was August 10, 2007.
Since the applicant did not file the permit
application until August 20, 2007, this project
did not meet all of the required criteria to
acquire PNC status under Section 12-102(c).
Staff believes, based on the evidence seen, that
substantial progress had been made in the
design of the structure and had the applicant
been aware of the effective date of the
amendment and the time limits on acquiring
PNC status, the applicant would have taken
action to comply.
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:
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.
The ZBA must make any additional findings
and determinations required by a specific
provision of this ordinance that relates to the
variance.
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 resent
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 20, 2007 Meeting
9
evidence to the Board to support each finding
and determination required for the issuance of a
variance. 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 a higher porch.
Examples:
Limiting the overall height of the porch-- or
parts of the porch--that may exceed 25 feet.
Limiting the width or depth of the porch, or the
parts that may exceed 25 feet.
Minutes. Jeann Howse made a motion to
approve the minutes from the
July 19, 2007 meeting as
written. Motion was 2°d by
Stephen Stewart. Richard Wilson,
Mark Plagens, Stephen Stewart and
Jeann Howse voted aye. Jason Powers
abstained. Motion passed. Minutes
approved.
Adjournment. Jeann Howse made a motion
to adjourn the meeting. Motion
was 2nd by Stephen Stewart.
Richard Wilson, Mark Plagens,
Jason Powers, Stephen Stewart
and Jeann Howse voted aye.
Motion passed. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:00 .m.
PASSED THIS DAY O~J
Richard Wils n residing Officer
ATTEST.
Sal y A. Clar , lanning Assistant