HomeMy WebLinkAbout04161992 ZBA Minutes• ~ ~ ._ -
• , .. . ~
• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES FROM APRIL 16, 1992
REGULAR 5ESSION
7:30 P.M.
Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 P.M. with the
following Board Members present: Robert McBride, Vic Hansen, Joe
Webb, Sterling Minor, John Pickul and Frank Billings. Members
voting were: Robert McBride, Vic Hansen, Sterling Minor, John
Pickul and Frank Billings.
Present from the City were Ed Beasley, Building Official, Ed
Menville, Director of Public Works and Susan Thorn, Secretary.
Members introduced themselves and procedures were explained.
No residents were present to express opinions regarding any items
that were not on the agenda.
The first case on the docket was #92-03, Lot 13, Block 10, Colonial
Terrace, 4203 Swarthmore. Notices were read and witnesses were
sworn.
Robert Semands, owner of property at 4203 Swarthmore explained that
he is first asking for a variance to have larger columns on the
• front porch of his proposed residence that does not violate the
architectural integrity of the design of the house. Secondly he is
asking for a variance to have a rear window on the quarters on the
second story in order to match those on the rest of the house. He
felt he could live with obscure or opaque glass in the windows.
Frank Billings asked how many columns are on the plans. Mr. Semands
explained that there were only two columns and that under the
present ordinance he would be limited to 4" x 4" columns. He is
requesting that the columns be at least 8" x 8". In regards to the
window his main concern would be the light from the window.
Mr. Beasley, Building Official explained that the supporting
vertical columns cannot occupy more than ten (10) percent of the
porch's open perimeter according to the Projection Schedule 12(c)
on page 1727 of the Zoning Ordinance.
According to the projection schedule of the Zoning Ordinance 8(b)
on page 1726 and 1727, each projecting building must meet all of
the following criteria: "(b) It may have no window, door or other
opening above the ground floor that faces any boundary of another
building site with a SF district, if the window, door or opening is
with ten (10) feet of the boundary (whether on the side, rear or
otherwise)." Therefore a window would not be allowed on the
quarters on the second floor whether obscure, inoperable etc.
• Frank Billinqs made motion, seconded by John Pickul to close the
public portion of hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
:~ ! •
~ f ~ •
•
•
~J
The second case on the docket was Docket No. 92-04, 6610 Brompton,
Lot 5, Block 7, WUP lst Additfon. Participants were sworn in and
notices read.
Reid Wilson, Attorney for Dr. and Mrs. Medrano explained that the
Medranos are asking for tennis court lights that were issued by the
City in error remain.
Mr. Wilson explained that tennis court was built in 1987. In 1991
the Medranos determined that they would like to have lights for use
on the tennis court for when their daughters were takinq private
tennis lessons in the evening.
Bill Savard of Savard Electric reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and
the City issued the permit in December of 1991. Lights were
installed and inspected by the city and it was determined that
there was too much light spillage onto adjoining properties. The
Medranos had their contractor order custom-made baffles to limit
the spillage of light. The prohibition of tennis court lighting
was then discovered by Mr. Beasley, Building Official for the City.
The Medranos intended to fully comply with City ordinances and took
measures to make sure the Contractors researched ordinances.
Mr. Wilson explained that lights are prohibited on tennis courts,
but a basketball court would be allowed to be illuminated. The
Medranos would not use the lights later than 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.
Thirteen letters were received in favor of the variance from direct
neighbors of the Medranos. Four letters were received in
opposition to the variance (the Bells, next door and three others).
Reid Wilson, explained that he went by the Medranos to see the
lights at night and that the flood lights created more light
spillage in Bell's backyard than the light created by the tennis
court lights.
Dr. Medrano, owner of the property made a presentation of the
photos of the lights at night. He explained that he had taken
precautionary measures insuring all ordinances were to be complied
with. Austin Bower, the original contractor who built the tennis
court, was consulted and he recommended Savard Electric. Dr.
Medrano waited to make certain that no laws were violated. He had
his contractors research to make sure that lights would shine only
on~his property.
The tennis court lights have been on only 4 times. The first time
was for inspection, second when baffles would be installed. The
third time when Mr. Beasley made inspection and the fourth time to
take pictures. The pictures were taken without baffles.
.. . ~~ - ! : . ~
•
William Savard of 118 Warwick, Friendswood, Texas, Electrical
Contractor explained that he read through the ordinance with Mr.
Beasley to make sure that lights would be allowed and what type of
lights would comply. He then went to manufacturer to make sure
that they understood what type of baffle was needed. The Medranos
sacrificed illumination by using baffles on the tennis court
lights.
Austin Bowers of 503 Court, Katy, Texas, Contractor explained that
there were different requirements in smaller cities unlike those in
Houston. The lights chosen were illuminares mounted 21 feet in
height. He explained that he measured the light with a light meter
twelve feet away and that the light was twice that of a full moon.
He explained that Dr. Medrano only wanted 4 poles in the beginning
and that 2 more were added because it was necessary in order for
both players to see the ball.
Mr. Bowers explained that with the baffles now in place there is no
light spillage onto other yards. The City was asked for advice and
granted the permit.
Ed Beasley, Building Official explained that Mr. Savard contacted
him in November 1991 asking if tennis court lights could be
• installed on an existing tennis court. Mr. Beasley reviewed the
ordinance for types of lighting allowed, and because the tennis
court was already installed only Section 7-700 was consulted for
lighting ordinances and not Article 2, Section 2-102, page 1682
which gives the definition of a tennis court (3) "It is open to the
sky but enclosed and screened on all sides and never lighted for
play".
The permit was issued and the lights were installed. When the error
was discovered, Mr. Beasley contacted the City Manager and the City
Attorney. The City Attorney suggested that the Medranos bring it
before the Board, asking for a variance. Mr. Bower was contacted to
.install the baffles in order to cut off light at the fence line.
Mr. Beasley explained that in the Zoning ordinance only tennis
court lights are prohibited. If this were a swimming pool,
basketball court, etc., this type of lighting would be allowed.
When he was with the City of Highland Park if ordinance allowed
tennis courts and lights. When he was with the City of Plano its
ordinance did not regulate lighting on residential property. Mr.
Beasley explained that only high output lighting devices were
regulated. Flood lights do not fall into this category.
~
~• ' . ~
•
Val and Sherry Bell, 6620 Brompton spoke in opposition. Mr. Bell
explained that when he purchased his house he thought that in a
residential district tennis courts, etc. would be prohibited. He
felt that the city provides ample public tennis courts. Mr. and
Mrs. Bell are asking that the lights be disallowed and taken down.
They feel that a restrictive variance that would require the tennis
court lights to be turned off by 10:00 at night would not be
enforceable. Mr. Bell explained that when the tennis court was first
installed, the nets remained up all the time.
Susanna Wong, 2950 Carnegie spoke in opposition. She felt that
when the lights are on they are very bright. She feels that the
houses are so close to each that any such type of lighting not be
allowed.
Rick Griner, 3021 Cason spoke in opposition. He stated that there
is light spillage over large distances.
David Crawford, 2716 Albans spoke in opposition.
Jay Taylor, 3106 Albans does not feel that lights would be
sufficient to play tennis with.
Bob Bueller, 6624 Brompton spoke in opposition.
Valerie Griner, 3021 Cason spoke in opposition.
Frank Billings made motion to close the public portion of the
~ hearing at 9:05. Motion carried unanimously.
During a brief discussion of 92-03, 4203 Swarthmore, Robert
McBride suggested that if a window for lighting was a concern, a
skylight could be of use. Frank Billings explained that if the
porch would be 20 feet in width 8" x 8" columns could be used.
Frank Bfllings made motion on the grounds that this request does
not meet requirements for hardship and that application for
variance be denied. Robert McBride seconded. Motion carried
unanimously.
During a brief discussion of 92-04, 6610 Brompton, Frank Billings
explained that he was philosophically opposed to ZBA giving a
variance to someone just because permit was issued. He indicated
that granting a variance would not be in compliance with the spirit
of the ordinance, given that the ordinance states "would never be
lighted". Frank Billings made motion to deny variance to allow
tennis court lights to be used. Motion was seconded by Vic Hansen.
Motion carried unanimously.
•
~ + L ~ ~
. ~ ' ~ ~
~• 0 e
~
Frank Billings made motion to approve minutes from March 10, 1992,
seconded by John Pickul. Motion carried unanimously.
Frank Billings made motion to close meeting, seconded by John
Pickul. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ~~ `
ATTEST:
Secretary
•
•