Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01161986 ZBA MinutesREGULAR MEETING ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 16, 1986 7:30 P.M. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of West University Place convened in regular session at the City Hall on Thursday, January 16, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Chairperson Billings, presiding; members Opal McKelvey, John Maloney, Sterling Minor, Robert Crain; alternate members John Pickul and Doris. Marshall. Chief. Building Inspector, Wayne E. Perry, and Assistant Building Inspector, ~- D. B. Gordon, were also present. Chairperson Billings ascertained from the secretary that Notice of p~ Meeting had been posted in the City Hall on Monday, January 13, 1986; Apq Notice To Interested Property Owners was mailedon December 27, 1985; Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Houston Chronicle on December 30, 1985. Chairperson Billings introduced himself and gave his address in the City followed by other members of the Board and administered the oath to all those present wishing to speak. Motion was made, seconded and carried to open Public Hearing to consider application ~~85-11 from Associated Properties, represented by W.H. Baker, to leave wing wall as constructed on west side of house on: Lot 4 Block 11 Virginia Court Addition 2723 Amherst Mr. Baker of Associated Properties presented to the Board photographs of the aforementioned property in connection with his request for an exception to the zoning ordinance to permit him to leave the wing wall as constructed. Mr. Baker stated the following reasons for his request: "In September of 1985, my company bought the property located at 2723 Amherst. The house was at a stage where it was trimmed out, cabinets were built, all electrical ,and plumbing was in, except the fixtures. After our pur- chase of the house, we obtained a building permit in our name so we could finish the house. We then found that the wing wall encroaced into the side setback and was too high. It was that-way when we purchased it, and until I was informed by the Building Inspector that it did not conform with the code, I had no idea that anything was wrong. Therefore, I would like the Board to give me a var- iance to keep the wing wall as constructed on the west side of the house." Board members then questioned Mr. Baker about the construction of the wing wall. 219 220 Those wishing to speak in support of Mr. Baker's application were given the opportunity to do so. There were none in support of the application. Speaking for the City in opposition to the application, Chief Building Inspector, Wayne E. Perry, stated that the original builder had lost the house and had been informed to keep the height of the wing wall down to eight (8) feet under the de- finition of a "fence". Evidently, the bricklayers got "carried away" and our Inspector, at that time, did not catch it until the wing wall was completed. Chairperson Billings then paraphrased what Mr. Perry had stated: Because the house is sitting appriximately on the 3 foot building setback line, you can't have any construction in that 3 foot, except a fence, and the fence can not be any higher than 8 feet. On the other side, it's not sitting on the 3 foot set- back line, therefore, you can have a structure and can go up to the 17 feet. Mr. John R. Ayres of 2727 Amherst, who owns the house just west of 2723 Amherst, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Ayres presented photographs to the Board showing that the wing wall is an integral part of the house structure and should not be allowed. Mr. Ayres also submitted the following letter addressed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment: "I am in receipt of the subject variance request dated December 16, 1985. First of all, the request is in error. The height of one half of the wing wall is really twelve (12) feet, or four (4) feet greater than the maximum fence height. As I understand, the original builder was told that. this wing wall was not permissible. He elected not to comply. The wing wall is an integral part of the house structure considering the brick and foundation. A picture is enclosed for you reference. There are two (2) pertinent ordinances that pertain to this appeal. First, Ordinance No. 1204, para. 24, states that on interior lots a space of three (3) feet must separate the house structure from the side property line with the exception of fifteen inches allowance for eave overhand or window treat- ments. It also distinguishes the difference of structures and fences. Secondly, Ordinance No. 1165 states that fences shall be no taller than eight (8) feet above grade. Applying the test for the subject variance to the above ordinances, there is no way that it can be considered a fence because it is integral to the house structure and one half of the projection is twelve feet high. If this precedent is permitted, it is conceivable that adjoining houses could be granted similar variances. This would give the illusion from the street of rowhouses or townhomes. I find this very objectionable and not conducive to the spirit of the building ordinances. I support the current building ordinances and object to this wing wall en- croachment into the side setback. I also trust that you will remedy the situation so that the side setbackas are preserved. Respectively yours, John R. Ayres, P.E." Chairperson Billings requested that the above letter be made a part of the record of this hearing. 221 Following determination by Chairperson Billings that there were no others desiring to oppose the application and no otYier correspondence opposing the application, motion made,. seconded and carried, that the public hearing to consider application 485-11 be closed. Following a short recess, the meeting was reconvened. Motion was made, seconded and carried to open Public Hearing to consider application ~~85-12 from William F. and Jeannine Heavin to build a single family dwelling twenty (20) feet from the front property line located at: Lot 6C "~° Block 74 WUP 2nd Addition 5614 Mercer Chairperson Billings ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Public Hearing Q was published in the Houston Chronicle on December 30, 1985; Notice To Interested Property Owners was mailed December 27, 1985; introduced himself giving his address in the city followed by other members of the Board and administered the oath to all those desiring to speak. The. first speaker was the applicant, William F. Heavin, who explained his reason for requesting the twenty (20) foot setback was to have more allowable building space. Mr. Heavin also submitted with his application a letter from Jackson L. and Gail W. Nash, which is to be made part of the record of this public hearing: "To Whom It May Concern" Be advised we as adjacent property owners at 5612 Mercer have no objection to allowing any residence constructed upon the referenced lot to be sited within twenty (20) feet of the front property line of said lot.. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. We remain, Sincerely,- Jack L. and Gail W. Nash" Following a general review and discussion of application 485-12, Chairperson Billings then asked Mr. Heavin if his variance is not granted, what other alternatives would he have. Mr. Heavin stated that they would have to build a one car garage on the front of his property. Others wishing to speak in favor of the application were invited to do so; there were none in favor. Chief Building Inspector, Wayne E. Perry, stated the reason the permit was denied was because the house on the neighboring lot, the .two lots are key lots cut in back behind the two lots that are facing the two side streets, is at a setback of thirty-one (31) feet. The zoning ordinance states that lots having a depth of up to 110 feet must have a 25 foot setback, EXCEPT if a block is 25% built up, new buildings must line up with existing buildings, but in no case shall setback be less than 20 feet. The house that is in existence is setback thirty-one (31) feet. X22 Harold A. Smith, 3609 Robinhood, James M. Cole, 3523 Robinhood, Stephen D. Spencer, 3601 Nottingham, Mrs. Jackson, 3613 Nottingham, Deborah Dalton., 3615 Robinhood, Sue Cole, 3523 Robinhood, spoke in opposition to the application on grounds of lowering standards of the city, location of sewer and water line in easement on north pro- perty interfering with driveway construction, maintenance of existing setbacks aesthetically as well as maintaining status quo, corwded look would be enhanced. Chairperson Billings read the following letter received in opposition to the appli- cation docketed no. 85-12: "We, the undersigned, feel that approval of the proposed construction at 5614 Mercer, which would not align with the adjacent house, creates a negative environmental impact on our. neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. Aesthetics are jeopardized. The city was established with ordinances that created a community of aligned homes with plenty of front green space. We purchased homes here be- cause we, too, like the look of aligned homes with front green space. 2. Water drainage is jeopardized. Setback requirements help to maintain proper water run-off. We want to assure enough ground growth in our neighborhood for good drainage. 3. Traffic flow is jeopardized. A narrow setback limits off- street parking. Mercer is a narrow street because it is not curbed. .Parked cars on Mercer reduce street traffic to very narrow one-way.. Mercer parking is also a nuisance to property owners. across the street who would be forced to maneuver the parked cars when backing out of their drives. 4. The reduced setback creates a hazard for the adjacent prop- erty owners who would have their vision of Mercer impaired when backing out of their drives. 5. Current property values suffer. A typical lot in our area is 50 x 150, and a reduced setback on a small 50 x 100 lot such as the one at 5614 Mercer creates a "cluster home" look, which we find undesirable. 6. A precedent is set for the further reduction of building standards. The adjoining lot which fronts Robinhood could also be divided into two. If a similar variation were enacted there, the neighborhood would have four "cluster home" look houses where there are now two single family dwellings that meet the setback ordinances specifications. Whit Johnson Becky Cemo Deborah Dolgin Jerry Carter John Zahradnik Virginia Mithoff Richard Mithoff 3216 Nottingham 5604 Buffalo Spwy. 3615 Robinhood 3610 Robinhood 3614 Robinhood 3423 Sunset 3423 Sunset 1 ~J 223 James M. Cole 3523 Robinhood James Wagoner 3619 Nottingham Judy Sere 3618 Robinhood Dorothy Cole 3523 Robinhood Mrs. Troy Campbell 3519 Robinhood Helen Zachoriah 3619 Robinhood Mrs. C.A. Chitwood 3521 Nottingham Henri and Leslie Muth 3522 Robinhood Mr. & Mrs. David Dunwoody 3609 Nottingham Mrs. Donald Mathes 3610 Nottingham Sandra Spencer 3601 Nottingham Mr. & Mrs. Stallings 3614 Nottingham ~' Mr. & Mrs. G. Jackson 3,613 Nottingham Mr. & Mrs. R. L. Stone 3618 Nottingham Astrid Sheil 3524 Nottingham" gg wee The following letter was also received in opposition to the application: "Mr. Frank Billings, Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustment 3123 Sunset Boulevard Houston, Texas 77005 Re: 5614 Mercer, Lot 6G Block 74, WUP 2nd Appeal No. 85-12 Dear Mr. Billings: This letter is in response to the notice regarding the application filed with the Board of Adjustment by William F. and Jeannine Heavin on the above referenced lot. Since I am unable to attend the Public Hearing on January 16, 1986, I wish to voice my opinion herein. I feel that this application should be rejected since it does not meet the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.. Sincerely, Kenneth G. McCann, Jr. Trustee, Estate of K. G. McCann, Sr." After ascertaining that there were no other speakers, motion was made, seconded and carried, to close Public Hearing on application docketed no. 85-12. Following a short recess the meeting was reconvened. Motion was made, seconded and carried, to open Public Hearing to consider application 485-13 from John and Janice Kling to allow an addition to extend approximately 9.6 inches into the side setback on Lot 17, Block 4 Monticello Addition 2936 Albans 224 Chairperson Billings ascertained from the secretary that Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Houston Chronicle on December 30, 1985; Notice To Interested Property Owners was mailed December 27, 1985; introduced himself giving his address in the city followed by other members of the Board and administered the oath to all those desiring to speak on the application. Janice Kling explained the addition is at the site of a pre-existing side porch, that the property was surveyed before construction began and foundation was poured based on the survey; that afterward a visual sighting brough the discrepancy to their attention; that making the room smaller would practically make it worthless for use; that the adjoining property is 6 feet from its property line so that appear- ance of crowding would be nil. The following correspondence was read into and made a part of this record: "January 14, 1986 Mr. Barton McLaughlin Mrs. Jan McLaughlin 2926 Albans Houston, Texas 77005 City of West University Place Zoning Board of Adjustment 3800 University Boulevard Houston, Texas 77005. Re: 2936 Albans Lot 17, Blk. 4, Monticello Appeal No. 85-13 Dated December 27, 1985 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: In reference to the above Hearing to the Board of Adjustment of the City of West University Place by Mr. John Kling and Mrs. Janice Kemp-Kling, the new construction on this lot is located next to our home at 2926 Albans. At this time we would like to make you aware of the fact that the construction and/or building is of no inconvenience to us, nor do we have any objections to the construction being done. Sincerely, Barton McLaughlin Jan McLaughlin" Building Inspector Perry stated that the addition extended approximately 9.6 inches into the side setback which the zoning ordinance specifies to be 3 feet. He stated that both he and contractors used the stakes of the survey. Motion was made, seconded and carried, that Public Hearing be closed. After a brief recess, the meeting was reconvened. 225 II A II 1 Board members reviewed application ~~85-11 concerning wing wall with discussion centering on definition of fence and whether or not this construction was to be considered a fence or part of structure. Motion by Mr. Minor, seconded by Mr. Maloney, on application ~~85-11 from Associated Properties/W.H.'Baker involving Lot 4, Block 11 Virginia Court Addition 2723 Amherst for a variance of a wing wall extending into side setback be denied and the ordinance construed that the structure would be considered as a fence and a fence cannot be higher than 8 feet. Voting Aye:. Billings Abstained: Crain Maloney McKelvey Minor Board members reviewed application X685-I2 discussing strict application for front setback when in this instance only 2 residences are involved, impact on neighbor- hood since subdivision of lot has created three building sites and utility easement effecting construction. Motion by Mrs. McKelvey, seconded by Mr. Minor, on application ~~85-12 from William F. and Jeannine Heavin involving Lot 6C, Blk. 74 WUP 2nd Addition 5614 Mercer to construct a single family dwelling 20 feet from the front property line instead of in line with adjoining house (5612 Mercer) at 31 feet from front property line be denied, inasmuch as literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause no undue hardship. Voting Aye: Billings Crain McKelvey Minor Voting No: Maloney The Board reviewed application 485-13 discussing the effect of the adjoining property and construction problem in meeting ordinance requirements. Chairperson Billings entertained a motion that application ~~85-13 from John and Janice Kling involving Lot 17, Block 4 Monticello Addition 2936 Albans to permit extension of construction 9.6 inches into the side setback be granted. Motion died for lack of a second. 22~ Motion by Mr. Minor, seconded by Mrs. McKelvey, that variance be denied inasmuch. as on evidence presented literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause no undue hardship. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Crain Maloney McKelvey Minor With no further business to come before the Board, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ~i ~ <~ ~ SECRETARY I I 1