Loading...
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 • •