Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08022012 BSC Minutes 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- l) 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 • 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 I DAY OF ,74/Y , 2013 ■16.1■11 Aj■ Steve Brown, Chairman ATTEST: ��--y Mr. Michael W. Morris, Permit Technician Page 5 of 5