Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01092014 BSC Agenda Item 2 • 4111 D F 0 City of West University Place A Neighborhood City :: Recycled Paper Building & Standards Commission Located in the Bill Watson Conference Room, 3800 University Blvd, West University Place,Texas 77005 Meeting Minutes August 2, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Wilson, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, Denny Powers, (A-1) Muddy McDaniel, and,A.J Durrani. MEMBERS ABSENT: Kris Westbrook, David Flame, and Kirk Eyring STAFF PRESENT: Building Official John R. Brown, Legal Counsel Shelly Eversole, Permit Technician Mike Morris GUEST PRESENT: Residents Rien Westerfield, Charles Hurd, Dr. Shreekant Patolia [Call to Order] Richard Wilson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1. Notices, Rules, Etc. Richard Wilson welcomed BSC members, visitors and staff members to the meeting. There were introductions of BSC members, visitors and staff. 2. Meeting minutes. Laurinda Lankford made a motion to approve the July 12, 2012, meeting minutes. Denny Powers seconded the motion. AYES: Richard Wilson, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, (A- 1) Muddy Mc Daniel, and Denny Powers. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Minutes approved. Richard Wilson makes motion to suspend Docket item#3 and discuss item#4 to allow time for the applicant Shreekant Patolia to arrive. Denny Powers seconded the motion. AYES: Richard Wilson, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, (A-1) Muddy Mc Daniel, and Denny Powers. NOES: None. 3. Docket Number 2012-03, Property located at 3304 Sunset, West University Place, Texas 77005 regarding a variance to Chapter 18, Article VII, Section 18-202(a)(1). Locating a fence closer to the front street line than the front main wall of the building. Richard Wilson swears in John Brown. John Brown states that the Variance that is before the B.S.C. is the requirement for a fence that cannot extend beyond the front main wall of the main structure. John Brown states that in this particular case what has occurred is that there were two trees located on the property; Dr. Patolia would have been allowed to remove those trees had he paid into the tree trust or with replacement inches. John Brown states what he chose to do is to construct the new home back from the minimum setback in an attempt to save the trees. John Brown states that it was later determined that one of the trees was not going to live, and at that point was already committed to the placement of the home. John Brown states Dr. Patolia has purchased the vacant lot next to him, and in the vacant lot fencing requirement Dr. Patolia is allowed to build up to the front property line. Richard Wilsons states he can but he is not required to build to the front property line. John Brown states yes, what Dr. Patolia is asking for is to connect his house to an 18' of horizontal 3826 Amherst Street• West University Place,Texas 77005-2830 • 713.668.4441 • www.westu.org • • Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes August 2, 2012 fencing that is the section that connects to the home and the section that is the 30' building line on the adjacent property. Richard Wilson asks if you could tell by the diagram provided where the fence is going to abut the house. John Brown states the dashed line on the survey is what Dr. Patolia wants to do and the solid line that is set back 32'7" is the front building line. Richard Wilson asks if the solid line that shows a setback of 32'7" would be allowed with no variance requirement or special exception. John Brown states yes that is correct. Muddy Mc Daniels states that Dr. Patolia would be allowed to construct a fence at 30' on the adjacent lot. Dr. Patolia arrives and Richard Wilson states that the B.S.C. has already begun discussing the application. Richard Wilson swears in Dr. Patolia. Richard Wilson states the big issue for the B.S.C. is the restrictions placed by the State of Texas to follow mandatory findings which the B.S.C. is not authorized to grant a variance. Richard Wilson states to Dr. Patolia that in the presentation if he could focus on those factors. John Brown points out that he has already drawn a sketch that depicts the current and proposed fence location. Richard Wilson asks if the two properties have been declared a single building site. Dr. Patolia states he is not sure, John Brown states he would be still be allowed to construct the fence on at the 30' setback on the empty lot adjacent to the main structure. Richard Wilson asks if by doing that he would not be putting the fence in the front yard of another property. John Brown states he is not required to declare the two lots as a single building site, which would allow the fence on the vacant lot to be considered a side yard fence. John Brown presents various options in which Dr. Patolia would be allowed to do. Richard Wilson states that if the B.S.C. looks at the standards for granting a variance for 18' of fence with a 2'7" setback requirement then the difference is a trivial issue. Richard Wilson states that one of the requirements Dr. Patolia would have to meet is extreme hardship, and he feels this proposal does not meet that. Dr. Patolia states that once of the reasons for constructing the house at the 32'7" setback was to protect the magnolia tree. Dr. Patolia goes on to state that the foundation was placed the magnolia tree died and has since been removed. Dr. Patolia states that by constructing the house at 32'7" he was able to save the pecan tree. Dr. Patolia states that by allowing the fence to be constructed at the 30' setback it would remove the 2'7"jog that is currently required. Richard Wilson asks if the fence was constructed at 30' if it would be in front of the other houses. Dr. Patolia states the other homes on the street do not have front yard fences unless they own the adjacent lot. Laurinda Lankford states the adjacent house fence is located at the 30'setback. Laurinda Lankford points out the adjacent lots fence line on the photos provided. Richard Wilson asks Dr. Patolia if he would like to address any of the factors regarding the State of Texas requirements for granting a variance. Dr. Patolia states he was trying to save the two trees. Richard Wilson asks what the time line is in which Dr. Patolia acquired the vacant lot and the lot in which the home is being constructed. Dr. Patolia states he acquired both lots in October of 2010. And about six months of planning, construction began sometime in March of 2011. A.J Durrani states the conflict that Dr. Patolia is in is one that he voluntarily designed to protect the two trees. Laurinda Lankford states the definition of a front yard for this property has since been moved back to the 32'7" line. Richard Wilson states that one of the legal requirements is, no reasonable or feasible method is available and he feels 2'7" is both reasonable and feasible. Laurinda Lankford asks if the vacant lot was ever to be constructed how it would affect the current setback requirement. John Brown states it would depend on where the main wall would be located. Richard Wilson asks if Dr. Patolia has any plans on placing a pool on the vacant lot. Dr. Patolia states the pool is located on the property in which the house is constructed. Muddy Mc Daniels asks if the two trees were not located in the front yard what would be done. Dr. Patolia states he would have constructed the home at the 30' setback. Richard Wilson asks if Dr. Patolia plans on selling the lot or to use it as yard space. Dr. Patolia states currently he plans to use it as yard space, but may sell it sometime in the future. Richard Wilson asks if anyone else has any further questions. Page 2 of 5 S • Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes August 2, 2012 B.S.C. goes into deliberation. Laurinda Lankford states she is hesitant in granting variances for fences, particularly ones adjacent to another lot that can impact future buyers of the vacant lot. Laurinda Lankford states she agrees with Richard Wilson's findings that this does not meet the hardship requirement or reasonable and feasible requirement. Muddy McDaniel and Frank Griffin state that they agree, but are sympathetic to Dr. Patolias situation. Richard Wilson makes motion to deny the variance request. Denny Powers seconded the motion, Docket Number 2012-03, Property located at 3304 Sunset, West University Place, Texas 77005 regarding a variance to Chapter 18, Article VII, Section 18-202(a)(1). Locating a fence closer to the front street line than the front main wall of the building. AYES: Richard Wilson, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, (A-1) Muddy Mc Daniel,and Denny Powers. NOES: None. 4. Construction Code Updates. John Brown states the code cycles are set up for three years, and staff thought it best to skip the 2009 and wait until the 2012 code cycle arrived. John Brown states another reason is that in the 2009 Residential Code has a mandatory fire Sprinkler Code requirement for single family dwellings, which had a number of problems regarding the state legislation. John Brown states that the he got together with the city Fire Marshalls and that they decided with the close proximity of the homes being developed in West University Place that it would be wise to go ahead and require fire sprinklers and states it is an official ordinance but by State Law we cannot enforce it at this time. John Brown states the reason for holding off on the Fire Sprinkler requirement was to see if it was to be taken out of the Building Code and placed in the appendices portion, which can be adopted in local ordinances. John Brown states that it did not happen and that ether way West University Place needed to update the code due to I.S.O. requirements. John Brown states staff went through all of the significant changes in the 2009 and 2012 code, with emphases to residential, electrical, mechanical and plumbing. John Brown states significant changes have been compiled and presented to the B.S.C. John Brown states that the reasons for the changes are to strengthen the code and not to diminish it in any way. A.J Durrani asks John Brown that some of the codes he is familiar with having a minor changes then are followed by a major change and if the major change is what is being presented to the B.S.C.?John Brown states no and it depends on significant technology breakthroughs, but it really is about the code cycle changes every three years. John Brown points out that for example the Electrical Code was last changed in 2011 and that he waited so he could present all the significant changes at one time. John Brown states once the B.S.C. approves the code updates it is then presented to City Counsel and has a moratorium of thirty to sixty days before implementation depending on what City Counsel prefers, the code changes will be placed online, and a Builders Meeting will be scheduled. Richard Wilson asks John Brown if B.S.C. recommends all of the code changes and amendments to City Counsel at one time. John Brown states yes. Richard Wilson asks about the time line for recommendations. John Brown states he is currently working on outlining the more significant changes that are to be voted on. John Brown states the city interns did a study on other cities and jurisdictions in regards to fee schedules and where West University is in comparison with them. John States those will be presented to the B.S.C. as well as local amendments. John Brown states for example one of the more significant changes to the local amendment is in the plumbing code where, it allows for the use of P.E.X. piping, and C.P.V.C. piping. John Brown explains that in 2009 when he presented the change to B.S.C. they did not adopt the change due to product defects,but that it has since changed and is a superior product. John Brown goes on to explain Page 3 of 5 • • Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes August 2, 2012 the benefits for adopting P.E.X. and C.P.V.C. piping, and states that P.E.X. will more commonly be used over C.P.V.C. because it is easier to use. John Brown states the differences in the P.E.X. vs. C.P.V.C. and,installation examples of stability and convenience of P.E.X. A.J Durrani asks if there were any provisions in the 2006 code that were changed in 2009, meaning that there may be some kind of conflicts in the code. John Brown states the differences have been presented to the B.S.C. and that any changes between the 2006 and 2009 codes are either modified or changed to the 2009 code and that in 2012 that item may be deleted all together or adopted in another section. Muddy McDaniel asks John Brown if the change in regards to the clothes dryer vent length is a good idea. John Brown states there was already a provision in the code to allow a longer length as it was determined by the manufacturer of the dryer. A.J Durrani asks if the material changes does that determine and increase or decrease of length, John Brown states no. John Brown gives description for the proper installation for a dryer vent and reason of the current change that is presented to the B.S.C. Frank Griffin asks if the P.E.X. piping is rigid or flexible. John Brown states it is flexible and much more flexible than the current galvanized or copper piping that is currently required. John Brown goes on to state the installation requirements and practices when installing P.E.X. piping. Laurinda Lankford asks if the code changes apply to only new construction or retro fit construction as well, or if there is some way to limit it. John Brown state the I.C.C. and Electrical code state that anything you do has to meet the current code. John Brown states however there are exceptions to that. John Brown states an example is when you do an interior remodel the Residential Code(R313.2) which refers to smoke detector requirements. Richard Wilson makes a motion for a five minute recess to allow Mike Morris to contact the applicant Shreekant Patolia. Denny Powers seconded the motion. AYES: Richard Wilson, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, (A-1) Muddy Mc Daniel, and Denny Powers. NOES: None. B.S.C. reconvenes to allow further discussion of code updates. John Brown asks Laurinda Lankford if he finished answering the question regarding Smoke Detector requirements. Laurinda Lankford states after doing several renovations she does not necessarily agree with the requirement. Laurinda Lankford states the part that she does not agree with is when doing a renovation or addition one should not have to update the rest of the home to meet the smoke detector requirement. Laurinda Lankford states she also does not agree with the electrical code requirement for adding trip circuits. Laurinda Lankford gives an example when her remodel was taking place. Laurinda Lankford states if she was to renovate her laundry room she would have to move her water heater and her dryer because one would not be able to route lines through the exterior wall but rather through the attic, like the dyer vent and the drain. Laurinda Lankford states that when doing a renovation those are major requirements. John Brown states that what he tries to do is for example when adding a laundry sink in the laundry room,the only thing that need to come to code is that laundry sink, and if you add a receptacle then you would have to add a GFI where required,but nothing else. John Brown states same thing with the arch fault breakers. Laurinda Lankford states to John Brown that it puts John Browns reasonableness into the equation. Laurinda Lankford refers to the requirements imposed on her personal renovation. Muddy Mc Daniels refers to the water heater relief valve discharge requirement and asks if when replacing a water heater that the discharge would have to be brought to current code. John Brown states yes. John Brown states that in some instances the contractors will tell customers excessive code update requirements. Muddy Mc Daniels asks about the water heater requirement on page 2. From the 2009-2012 item 9 and states his concern is the 50' length requirement. John Brown states that the majority of the lots are only 50' wide, and that he does however understand his concern. Richard Wilson asks if B.S.C. will be voting on the code updates Page 4 of 5 • • , Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes August 2, 2012 this year, John Brown states yes. John Brown asks B.S.C. if they would agree to a work shop to go into greater detail on the current code updates, and to finalize the code recommendations for the September meeting and with the City Counsels moratorium of thirty to sixty days code could be enacted in November or December. A.J. Durrani states his concern with the environmental impact of Compact Florescent Lighting requirement. John Brown states that could be something that could be addressed in a local amendment requirement. Frank Griffin asks in reference to page 9 #12 if there is any current strap requirement. John Brown states yes there is a current requirement and the change is just a modification. Richard Wilson makes motion to suspend the meeting and go into hearing mode for item#3. Denny Powers seconded the motion. AYES: Richard Wilson, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, (A-1) Muddy Mc Daniel, and Denny Powers. NOES: None [Adjournment] Laurinda Lankford made a motion to adjourn. AYES: Richard Wilson, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, (A-1) Muddy Mc Daniel, and Denny Powers. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. PASSED THIS DAY OF , 2014 Steve Brown, Chairman ATTEST: Mr. Michael W. Morris, Permit Technician Page 5 of 5 • n F 0 City of West University Place A Neighborhood City Recycled Paper Building & Standards Commission Located in the Bill Watson Conference Room, 3800 University Blvd, West University Place, Texas 77005 Meeting Minutes September 6, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Wilson, Laurinda Lankford, Denny Powers, (A) Muddy McDaniel, (A) Kirk Eyring, and (A) Kris Westbrook. MEMBERS ABSENT: David Flame, Frank Griffin, and A.J. Durrani STAFF PRESENT: Building Official John R. Brown, Legal Counsel Shelly Eversole, Permit Technician Mike Morris GUEST PRESENT: No Guests present [Call to Order] Richard Wilson called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1. Notices, Rules, Etc. Richard Wilson welcomed BSC members, and staff members to the meeting. Alternate Voting members, Kirk Eyring, and Kris Westbrook. 2. Meeting minutes. Matters in the discussion and approval of the August 2, 2012 minutes. Richard Wilson made motion to approve with minor corrections. Laurinda Lankford seconds. AYES: Richard Wilson, Laurinda Lankford, Kirk Eyring, Kris Westbrook, and Denny Powers.NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. 3. Construction Code updates. Matters relating to discussion concerning updating the International Code Council (ICC) construction codes to the 2012 edition and the 2011 National Electrical Code and local amendment to the codes. a. Deliberation, decisions, other action, etc. regarding the preceding matters. Richard Wilson starts the meeting by asking John Brown to give the B.S.C. an overview on the previous work shops and anything else that needs to be discussed. John Brown states that he was asked by B.S.C. to go through the current local amendments and determine what might be obsolete or out dated. John Brown states he did and provided it to the B.S.C. via email. John Brown states one was in the electrical section 26-27, certain circuits and plugs were required. John Brown states he is not sure why the requirement was there and that independent circuits are not necessary to be placed in local amendments because the NEC addresses this already in the code. John Brown states that he modified the window unit air conditioners for that if it is a 220 VAC circuit it needs to be wired with #10 AWG wire. Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes September, 2012 3826 Amherst Street• West University Place,Texas 77005-2830 • 713.668.4441 • www.westu.org • John Brown explains that #12 AWG wire gauge is within our minimum requirement. Laurinda Lankford asks what a bonded Polarized plug is. John Brown states in a standard plug there is a hot, neutral, and ground. Polarized is when the hot tab of the plug is larger than the neutral tab in order for there to be only one way to install the plug into the wall receptacle, so you can't put the plug in upside down. Laurinda Lankford said she was confused and thought the reference in the local amendment was to the outlet. John Brown states the next one was in the International Mechanical Code where it talks about the local amendment where it states that air conditioner return air filters must be accessible without the use of a portable ladder. John Brown states that he changed that to say all return air filters shall be installed within the 24" of the finished floor or there must be a media type or electrostatic type air filter at the equipment. John Brown goes on to explain what a media filter is. Laurinda Lankford states that one thing that was dropped was the prior requirement that limits this to new construction. John Brown states that yes if return air ducting was to be replaced it would have to be brought to current code. Laurinda Lankford states the one thing that is hard is that if you are adjusting your air flow without replacing your a/c unit, it's hard to put electrostatic or media air filters in the exiting unit. John Brown states it is probably easier to do that than place a new return air system unless you are going to run it through the ceiling. Laurinda Lankford states her concern for remodel work that it is required to be brought up to current code requirements. Richard Wilson states that he does see that the new requirement is more absolute. John Brown states that in some cases it can be very difficult to comply with current code requirements when trying to add to an existing structure and can become very expensive. Laurinda Lankford gives an example of mechanical work that required adding additional duct returns. John Brown states that he would not have a problem with that because it does not diminish the effectiveness of the code. Richard Wilson asks why not go back to the old language. Laurinda Lankford states yes that or retain the phrase"in all new residential construction". Richard Wilson clarifies to leave in everything starting with the phrase "all new residential" including the end where it states "whenever possible in existing buildings". Laurinda Lankford agrees. John Brown states the next item is in regards to demolition. John Brown states that in some instances an organization like Habitat for Humanity has came in and asked for a deconstruction variance, due to the time line requirement for a demolition permit. John Brown states that what he has tried to do now is place the time line requirements for deconstruction in an entirely new section. John Brown states all of the differences in the deconstruction process versus the demolition process. Laurinda Lankford asks if deconstruction consists of removal as well. John Brown states yes due to the fact he does not want people trying to recycle old materials and place them or sell them on the lot. Laurinda Lankford, Richard Wilson, and John Brown discuss exact verbiage and punctuation of the deconstruction requirement. Richard Wilson asks to go on to discussion of the plumbing code. John Brown states that he did make a change from the B.S.C. work shop discussion in section 3a. where it states air admittance valves are only approved in an unenclosed structure. Laurinda Lankford asks if the 5 rating can be added in regards to the PEX. John Brown states that he wants to make sure that the 5 rating is not a proprietary number due to them not being allowed. John Brown states that if he finds that it is not a proprietary number he will include it. John Brown states Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes September, 2012 • • that he did make one other change which was to section D. John Brown states that in alot of instances people will make a manifold system which allows for multiple shut off areas such as just turning water off to the bathroom, the change is to make sure these systems are not placed in a wall shared with the garage. Laurinda Lankford asks in regards to 4b. is the type L or type K in regards to the PEX. John Brown states it is only for the copper. Laurinda Lankford, Richard Wilson, Denny Powers, and John Brown discuss various grammar and punctuation issues. John Brown states that he would like to go over the Existing Building Code in the Residential Building Code, which is contained in appendix J. John Brown states appendices are not enforceable unless specifically adopted. John Brown states in the International Building Code there is Chapter 34 which applies to existing buildings. John Brown gives examples as to when the Existing Building Code may apply. Laurinda Lankford states that when she reviewed the Existing Building Code she had noticed that it references A.D.A. accessibility a lot. John Brown goes on to explain the processes in regards to interpretation of the Code. John Brown explains and gives examples of minimum building permit requirements. John Brown explains the diagram provided shows the section of pipe affected by wet venting. John Browns states that the purpose of wet venting is to save venting though the roof. B.S.0 discusses various benefits in allowing each one of the proposed code changes. John Brown asks if the B.S.C. wants adopt the Existing Building Code or adopt the existing Building Appendices in the Residential Code. Laurinda Lankford asks about the Appendix J if it applies to the Building Code. John Brown states no it is Appendix J to the Residential Building Code. Richard Wilson asks the general requirements for Appendix J. John Brown states that it covers existing residential buildings and structures. John Brown briefly goes over the Appendices that the Fire Department wishes to adopt. John Brown defines the property maintenance code and the requirements in Appendix A. John Brown goes over the benefits in adopting the proposed swimming pool code. Richard Wilson makes motion that the B.S.C. approves adopting of the 2012 International Codes including the International Building, Residential, Plumbing, Mechanical, Property Maintenance, Fire, Energy Conservation, Swimming Pool/Spa, 2011 International Electrical Code, along with the new City of West University Places local amendments, as well as continuing the City's local amendments currently adopted. Denny Powers seconds. AYES: Richard Wilson, Laurinda Lankford, Kirk Eyring, Kris Westbrook, and Denny Powers. NOES: None [Adjournment] Richard Wilson made a motion to adjourn. Denny Powers seconds. AYES: Richard Wilson, Laurinda Lankford, Kirk Eyring, Kris Westbrook, and Denny Powers. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. PASSED THIS DAY OF , 2014 Steve Brown, Chairman ATTEST: Mr. Michael W. Morris, Permit Technician Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes September, 2012 • • 0 City of West University Place A Neighborhood City Recycled Paper Building & Standards Commission Located in the City Council Chambers, 3800 University Blvd, West University Place, Texas 77005 Meeting Minutes July 11,2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, Denny Powers, and Muddy McDaniel (A-2) MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Wilson, David Flame, A.J Durrani, Kris Westbrook, and Kirk Eyring. STAFF PRESENT: Building Official John R. Brown, Legal Counsel Shelly Eversole, Building Inspector Clay Chew, and Permit Technician Mike Morris. GUEST PRESENT: Moria Bell, Judy McEnany, Jane Schoen, Jennifer Campo, Arthur Rogers, Charle Ghen, Diane Skylie, Nancy Stabiner, John Wolf, Radhiken Mander, Carol Bruce, Dru Nakine, Brandy Wolf, Frank Stagg, Gary Mosley, Henry Bergeron, and Louise Bergeron. [Call to Order] Frank Griffin called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1. Notices, Rules, Etc. Frank Griffin welcomed BSC members, visitors and staff members to the meeting. There were introductions of BSC members, visitors and staff. Alternate Voting member Muddy McDaniel. 2. Meeting minutes. Frank Griffin makes motion to suspend regular agenda and move directly into hearing mode. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Matters relating to discussion and approval of meeting minutes for August 2, 2012, September 6, 2012 and June 6, 2013. Minutes were reviewed. Frank Griffin makes motion to Approve meeting minutes for August 2, 2012, September 6, 2012 and June 6, 2013 with minor correction to the June 6, 2013. Laurinda Lankford seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Everyone testifying or speaking on any issue was sworn in by Frank Griffin. 3. Variance to Chapter 6, section 6-25(b)(1)(2)(3)(6) and 6-27 for a monument ground sign. Frank Griffin reads from staff summary explaining all five variances before BSC. Frank Griffin goes on to explain that be current meeting is the second meeting and a display was presented by 3826 Amherst Street• West University Place,Texas 77005-2830 • 713.668.4441 • www.toestu.org . • Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2013 the church. John Brown explains that he may have put too much emphasis on lumens portion of the variance request. John Brown explains that the restriction is located in the zoning ordinance. John Brown goes on to explain the reasoning for the zoning ordinance that was adopted in 2002. John Brown explains the intent of the zoning ordinance is to reduce the high intense lighting on a property. John Brown goes on to explain that the 4000 lumens rule is more of a defense to present in the case of a nuisance complaint to a limitation. John Brown reads Section 8-107. Frank Griffin asks staff if the request has been filed properly and a proper notice been given. Mike Morris states yes. Frank Griffin states staff has addressed all of the ordinances and given proper explanation. Frank Griffin would now like to hear from the public in regards to the proposed variances. Numerous residents give testimony in opposition to sign placement and express their concerns about the size, location, lumens and hours of operation. Residents also provide a petition sign by 29 residents in opposition of the proposed sign location. Frank Griffin states for the record that he as accepted the petition. Carol Bruce representative of West University Place Baptist Church thanks everyone for attending the meeting. Carol Bruce goes on to explain that she feels the proposed sign location is in the only location that will not affect the oak tree located in front of the property, and that the Church feels the current sign is out dated. Carol Bruce also explains that the L.E.D portion is not what the variance request was intended for, it is the location. Dr. Wolf goes on to reiterate other resident's opposition and explains his opposition of the proposed sign and he feels that it would affect his and every person(not just in the direct vicinity), and is not appropriate for West University Place. Resident Gary Mosley asks about other sign permits in the city of West University Place to see if they required a variance. John Brown replies yes if they did not meet the city ordinances. Gary Mosley goes on to say he is opposed to the variance as long as it is possible for the West University Place Baptist Church to comply with the ordinance. John Brown replies that he has provided examples of compliant locations for a proposed sign. Residents again give testimony in opposition of the proposed sign and sign location. Frank Griffin asks for a show of hand of who is opposed to the sign variance, 95 percent of residents in attendance raise the hands. Frank Griffin states the BSC will now go into deliberation. Laurinda Lankford asks John Brown if the proposed sign would be in violation of the ordinance in regards to lumens. John Brown replies no. John goes on to explain that if the Church moves the sign into the middle two thirds and does not have it facing and homes within two hundred feel it would be in compliance and not need a variance. Laurinda Lankford states she would like people to understand that the variance has to do with location and due to proposed location is why L.E.D is reviewed. Frank Griffin explains that the State of Texas has a very high standard to allow commissions to grant a variance. Frank Griffin goes onto read the ten required findings in order to grant a variance. Frank Griffin explains the findings of the manufacturers' demonstration that was previously presented to the BSC and the public located at the Church. Frank Griffin explains all five variance requests. John Brown explains the visibility triangle to the BSC. Laurinda Lankford states the proposed sign location even though not inside the visibility triangle does not comply with the required findings. Laurinda Lankford states that the urban forester has been out to the Page 2 of 4 • • Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes July 11,2013 site and assessed if a sign was to be placed in a compliant location that it would not kill the existing oak tree so long as it would be properly installed. Larinda Lankford expresses her concern in regards to enforcement if a variance was granted with particular restrictions i.e. hours of lighting ect. Muddy McDaniel explains he feels there are other options than placing a bright flashing sign at the corner for the Church to advertise activities. John Brown explains that if the sign face of the existing sign was alter or updated that it would not loose its non conforming status. Frank Griffin states that the BSC will review and discuss all five of the proposed variances. The BSC reviews all five variances 6-25(b)(1)(2)(3)(6) and 6-27 to see if the requests comply with all the state mandatory findings. The BSC unanimously agrees that each of the five variance requests do not comply with one or more of the state mandatory findings. Frank Griffin makes motion to return to meeting mode. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Frank Griffin asks for motion to grant variance 6-25(b)(1). AYES: None. Frank Griffin asks for motion to grant variance 6-25(b)(2). AYES: None Frank Griffin asks for motion to grant variance 6-25(b)(3). AYES: None Frank Griffin asks for motion to grant variance 6-25(b)(6). AYES: None Frank Griffin asks for motion to grant variance 6-27. AYES: None Frank Griffin makes motion to deny 6-25(b)(1)(2)(3)(6) and 6-27. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Frank Griffin makes motion to leave hearing mode and address meeting minutes. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Frank Griffin makes motion relating to discussion and approval of meeting minutes for August 2, 2012, September 6, 2012, and June 6, 2013. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Frank Griffin makes motion to approve meeting minutes for August 2, 2012. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Frank Griffin makes motion to approve meeting minutes for September 6, 2012. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Frank Griffin makes motion to approve meeting minutes for June 6, 2013 with minor corrections. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. Page 3 of 4 • • Building and Standards Commission Meeting Minutes July 11, 2013 [Adjournment] Frank Griffin makes motion for adjournment. Denny Powers Seconds. AYES: Denny Powers, Frank Griffin, Laurinda Lankford, and Muddy McDaniel. NOES: None. PASSED THIS DAY OF , 2014 Muddy Mc Daniels, Alternate ATTEST: Mr. Michael W. Morris, Permit Technician Page 4 of 4