The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12052002 BSC Agenda Item 7 .4 i • • 0 City of University West Place APPLICATION TO BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION STATE OF TEXAS ) ( TO THE HONORABLE BUILDING AND STANDARDS LOT NO. COUNTY OF HARRIS) ( COMMISSION BLOCK NO. i ADDITION Now comes .2"2/C ._._<4(,..y / appellant / own of the herein described property, and affirms that on the / 2bOZ 7 day of � f 1,.2_4 , 'e / she applied for a permit to __C 5 ,iuc.1 R new 4oc.e ata/r1-zVirnijz on a lot /,Z S feet by aO feet, in the....4.4s..6-7- %c"iz,tiau,—.c.,Z District, as shown to scale, with all existing structures on the attached staked survey and the Zoning Map of the City of West University Place, and to use the same as a /Zes,a/e.,ce . The permit, however was denied upon the following grounds: //to, -4,7c r e; fI Cil e .ov ,,`, ..4,4 ,,, agowe_cp 4el•l -- . r - i. • P e e4- : s measa/tta There, the appellant now appeals in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6 r ` ' • f 6 p �'�t to the Building and Standards Commission to grant the heretofore requested permit, variance or exception, and to permit him to use the completed premises as a 72as Jc/e,'.,c for the following reasons: .. .. a .. .. , , ! • . ' .. - .• -• .. . • _ ., Cos. • _-,r:• ,.. . •; ' •.i. .. /,I . h1 .L ae-1. . of QK M .. Respectfully Submitted, 7/3-r - 7-2-5-3 Telephone Number _ - -3 Xo3 /�TTiNGy,C M X�� t�A1" , Appellant & Owner Address / 713 -P351 7-25-Y / FAX AFFIDAVIT STATE OF TEXAS ) ( COUNTY OF HARRIS) ( ,Z-)Z./c— ___ ").Z..4 G7 , being duly sworn, deposes and says: I, the applicant named in this application have read the contents hereof, and all statements here contained are true and correct. Applicant �._�_- / Subscribed and sworn to before me this . 0 today of /900.(7 UC l Qlllllllll✓Yll!✓.Ylll!✓,r•/1.i6 �� k=.,,,,,,,,,o, LEE ANN CIS �i % (v 1 r NOTARY . RY PUBLIC,STATE OF TEXAS k /Notary Public in and for Harris county Texas "N 4, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES t____- ``ll5ll "eoFit# JAN. 10,2005 ti O„lllJlllr!!lJ!{1!!!!l _ c DATE FILED t on. DOCKET NO. 0 �� RECEIPT NO. q ` • • Executive Summary Subject Property: 3783 Nottingham Street. Lot 1,Block 1, Sunset Terrace Sec. 2 In August of 2002, I, Eric Silagy, the new property owner of the above listed residence, contracted with McKinnon & Associates to undertake a major landscaping project. Included in this project was the replacement of the old six foot high "contractor grade" wood fence and the construction of a new eight (8) foot high wood fence. The fence was specifically designed to incorporate a tiered,beveled crown that produces a shadow effect thereby creating an illusion of more depth and space. Additionally, the fence has been treated and stained and various plant material and guide cables attached to form a"living"wall. (See Exhibit 1) On September 19, 2002, the contractor filed for and was granted a permit by West University Place to construct the fence. Construction of the fence began shortly thereafter. During construction, the height of the fence was calculated using measurements from the ground level of the Subject Property. Unfortunately, the contractor, who was not familiar with the required method of calculating fence heights, did not take additional measurements from the adjoining property located at 3773 Nottingham. This oversight led to the inadvertent error of constructing the fence an average of four(4)inches too high. The adjoining property at 3773 Nottingham is an older property dating back to the 1940's. Over time, the driveway at 3773 Nottingham has subsided significantly creating a low-lying area that borders the new fence. As evidenced by the water stains on the home (See Exhibit 2), the driveway has subsided to the point where normal rainfall results in several inches of standing water at both the fence line and against the house. Accordingly, it only stands to reason that if/when the property is sold or the existing house is replaced, the property will require substantial grading which will elevate the property thereby significantly reducing, if not negating,the current fence height overage. With respect to drainage, great care was taken during the landscaping design and construction to ensure that the Subject Property would not negatively impact the adjoining properties. French drains were installed throughout the backyard diverting roof and ground water run-off directly to the street. I have contacted both neighbors who are affected by the new fence and have informed them that the newly constructed fence exceeds the current height restriction. As evidenced by the attached letters of support (See Exhibit 3A & 3B), both the Eason's (owners of the adjoining property to the East) and Dr. Anderson (owner of the property to the South) have no objections to the fence remaining in its current state and fully support this application for an exception. Finally, I have requested from the landscaping contractor a cost estimate to bring the fence into compliance (See Exhibit 4). As you will see, the estimated expense of approximately $3,500.00 is prohibitive. This large expense is due to several factors including the destruction and then replacement of the detailed crown molding, the disassembly of the wire guides and removal and replanting of some planting material and the likely requirement that in order to maintain consistency in coloring,the entire fence would have to be re-stained. Additionally,this work will take many weeks, will likely result in the loss of some plant material and will disrupt the use of the backyard area of both myself and,to some extent,my neighbors. Therefore, I respectfully request that my application for a variance be granted in this case thereby permitting the fence to remain in its current form. • • Exhibit 1 , � RQ . t v 1 ;�. ...mss,...Y.. , y • • It �3a ry r� 1 : • r �. a %, s"a I • Exhibit 1 $.�Z 1.kl il el .,;' e'�'$ 6 V". • 333 .r s ryfi , • ■ ' ! 'i;- nt, . •-• ,I1Sr* , . . ipeiRI?i,t • An . . - . �r+ 'fi WMClifiMK / ..\ r I 1 1,,,/ 1 , 1 . N/ N 1 1 i 1 , , \ , , , , .. .. , ; . , x , , \ ,� N . ,,,.. ., , , - . _ 4 0 • Exhibit 1 4 a a.„'` y� i r es ' 1'kV *.` V { F. '''''..it' As a! 1 .$ 1 i Ij )" i / k 1 • • Exhibit 1 'u ■ 1 t a� I t. 4f` i I ' a ) ' ' ■ I pp ,t5, a7' r ii �� •, � • I,r kF . 1 it III • ' Exhibit 2 l a 0.w w •A •.,. •• i; t 'i�4'_r�''" k ny 4 A0 'sA ' j "W-" M , ' r. . ► 1,2:''''''.',,'5,, ;.;"::: .': ,. „ , , Top of Water Line Stands at 6 inches •t ar4.spnr r ,M+ {. MKT. ," . . 4, A 4011011i'' 4* • 0 w io s -"" • FIB/B /% 34 November 20, 2002 City of West University Place Building and Standards Commission West University Place, Texas Dear Commissioners: As the owner of the property that immediately adjoins the"Silagy Property" located at 3783 Nottingham, I am writing to formally extend my support for an exception or variance, whichever is appropriate, to be granted by you for the fence that was recently constructed. I fully understand that in its current state, the fence exceeds the maximum height permitted by West University Place standards. Nevertheless, I find no objection to the fence remaining in its current state and therefore support Mr. Silagy's application for an exception/variance. Sincerely, •1/ • • firnr 3� November 20, 2002 City of West University Place Building and Standards Commission West University Place, Texas Dear Commissioners: As the owner of the property that immediately adjoins the "Silagy Property" located at 3783 Nottingham, I am writing to formally extend my support for an exception or variance, whichever is appropriate, to be granted by you for the fence that was recently constructed. I fully understand that in its current state, the fence exceeds the maximum height permitted by West University Place standards. Nevertheless, I find no objection to the fence remaining in its current state and therefore support Mr. Silagy's application for an exception/variance. Sincerely, 3 3- 8(-f R olo i v, ko o ct St. 1-1OV-08-02 10 : 10 AM MCK•ON, ASSOCIATES 713 0531 P. 02 MCKINNON ASSOCIATES FXH 15 17- 41 Intimated Cost to lower fence and gates :1t Silagy Residence 3783 Nottingham FENCE 1. Remove vine and aviation cable from fence 2. .Remove top cap 0 3. Remove trim boards 4. Saw off pickets 5. Remove top Rail and pull nails 6. Saw off posts 7. Reinstall top rail and trim 8. Renail pickets 9. Reinstall top cap 10. Touch up paint where needed 11. Reinstall aviation cable and vines Price 51272.00 to 51455.00 Misc. replacement wood S300. x GATES 1. Remove top cap 2. Remove top 6 x 6 • N 3. Remove top rail and trim 4. Saw off pickets 5. Remove gate and saw off bottom 6. Saw off 6 x 6 posts 3 7. Reinstall top rail and trim 3 8. Reinstall top 6 x 6 9. Rehang gate 10. Touch up paint where needed Price $732.00 to 51098.00 Misc. replacement wood $125.00 CD Repaint entire fence and gates to ensure paint matching fiBC0.0tt 0 n 3 • • �( • '/ 11/08/02 09:11 TX/RX NO.1344 P.002