Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11301994 ZBA Minutes; ; I 4. •' MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 30, 1994 SPECIAL SESSION ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 pm. with the following members present: Rob Peterson, Arden Morley, Vic Hansen, Lee Huber and Sterling Minor. Absent were Frank Billings, Sue Porretto, Stephen Masera and Melinda Snell. Also present from the City were Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official and Susan Thorn, Building 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 only case on the Docket was 94-16, concerning the property located at 3031 Rice, Lot 9, Block 8, Rice Court, a request for a variance to allow a side setback to be 3 feet instead of the 5' required by the Zoning Ordinance filed by D& D Creations, LLC. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Arden Morley made a motion to approve the notices as posted. This motion was seconded by Vic Hansen. Voting was unanimous. • Sterling Minor recused himself from participating, as the applicants requesting the variance, D& D Creations, LLC are his clients. Mr. Minor left at 7:45 p.m. Arden Morley made a motion to appoint Rob Peterson as acting chairman. Lee Huber seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. David Pendleton, Attorney for D& D Creations, LLC. briefly explained his applicants request. .Daphne Lerner, 2712 Fenwood, one of the partners of D& D Creations explained that ~~~ ~~• she~and Marty Shroyer of Vision Homes d.b.a. Marco Development, Contractor project ~~ ~ had first contacted the Building Inspection Department on two separate occasions over the phone and asked questions about setbacks for the property at 3031 Rice prior the purchasing the property. She and Mr. Shroyer then met with Dennis Holm, the Chief Building Official for a preliminary plan check of the plans to built an addition to the existing residence consisting of a second story and an attached garage. Mr. Holm told them during the meeting that it was a remodel and that they would need to show that the home complied with the ordinances of 1938 when the original home was built. The plans were then submitted and approved by the Building Division. The construction on the addition began and the piers were drilled and inspected by the City. At the time that the steel was placed and they were ready for an inspection before pouring the • foundation it was discovered that there was a problem with the side setback. Ms. Lerner explained that they would have to substantanially change the design of the house if they did not receive the variance. . : ; • +. :.~. The Board Members asked if the applicants had a copy of the Zoning Ordinance. Marty Shroyer of Marco Development explained that he had previously obtained a copy of the Zoning Ordinance and that because this was basically a remodel instead of new construction they had called the City to find out the setbacks. He stated that he felt the error was made when moving forward the garage the 3' setback was maintained. Mr. Shroyer explained that the garage has 12' inside if they purchased in the garage there would only be 11' inside and it would be impossible to open a car door. There is also a problem with relocating the air conditioning units. Because of the location of the swimming pool the air conditioning units cannot go back in the same location. Constructing a porte cochere would not work because you would be unable to pull a car through because of the location of the stairs. Before the construction began they could have either removed the existing swimming pool or taken down the existing garage. Jack Hemer of the 3000 Block of Rice the neighbor to the west of 3031 Rice explained the he was not in opposition of the variance. Margaret Jarboe of 3000 Block of Rice, the neighbor to the east of 3031 Rice explained that she was not opposed to the variance. She explained that she would like the fence to end at the rear of the garage and turn inward to the garage. • Linda Beller of 3020 Rice explained that she was in favor of the variance, she explained that the house had been vacant for quite some time. She explained that she was glad that the house was being remodeled instead of torn down. Three letters were received in favor of the variance and are included as part of these minutes. Dennis Holm gave the City's point of view. He explained that the applicants are requesting a variance to allow the east interior side setback to be three (3) feet instead of the required five (5) feet. The reason for the request is the plans submitted were approved with a three (3) foot setback and not the required five (5) setback. Also, the plans approved were drawn to include the three (3) foot setback. The error was discovered by a Building Inspector after the piers for the new garage and been dug and poured but before the slab had been poured. An error was made in the acceptance of the plans by the Building Division; however, the error can be corrected. While the City acknowledges the mistake, it must oppose the request for variance. Mr. Holm explained that he felt this was a mixup between two inspectors when the plans came in for checking. No one else spoke in opposition. No correspondence was received in opposition. • Arden Morley made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing. This •' • • a • . . . motion was seconded by Lee Huber. Voting was unanimous. The evidentiary portion of the hearing ended at 8:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m. During a brief discussion of 94-16 Arden Morley stated that the hardship independent of financial would be the relocating of the air conditioning equipment, the replanting of trees and the pool equipment would have to be relocated because of being too close to the swimming pool. He further stated that it was not practical to rebuild the garage where it previously was. Lee Huber made a motion to grant the variance with the stipulation that the fence would only extend up to the garage and turn into the side of the garage. Arden Mortey seconded the motion. Motion did not carry and was withdrawn. After more discussion Lee Huber made a second motion to grant the variance. This motion was seconded by Arden Morley. Voting was unanimous. In favor: Huber, Peterson, Morley, Hansen. Against: None • Arden M el made a motion to adjourn. Lee Huber seconded the motion. Voting was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Secretary, ~ • S'n i ~_ • . I . • . ~ ' ,~ ~'~/ . . r` / ~ AICHARD DANGERFIELD QUAY ~ ~ ~'~ ' '%:' . • , , 3032 RICE BOULEVARD • ~ Q HOUSTON, ~XAS 77005 . _ (~/..t~- C~'~GuZ~; ~ Zo~' Ud~ ///3 d/~ y GU~~ ~~i,~ ~/a ~-.~ -~~ = . ' ~r ~~~'W `~~`~ ~~~ ~ ~~'~l~C a..~! . ~. . ~ ~ 3d.3~ ~-2 c~'~?~~ ~`i~~~~G aG~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 3a..~/ .r~ /~'a~.~ ~ ~ . ~'~ /( .~~~~~ ~~-~~ ~;~~~~~ f~ . . , ~~~~~e. ~ ~ d ~~ ~~.. ~.~~,~,,~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a,u~ ~~ ~c ~~ : il~il~~~ ~i ~ ~ ~/~~ ~t~ri °~~~ //~~~ /~/ ~/ . ~~ `~~~ /~orv"~- (~!" "- ~ ~,~(/`"~ i~I~X ' s ~ , . ~ - `/'~(Q~ G/~~ a v~~ .~ ~C~Q' ~ ' G~ "~/' ` ~ v ~ ~ ~~~r . ~'~ ~ / ~al~ ~ ~~~ ~- var~~ ~ . `~ ~ ~G`~J . ~f,, ~ (~ f/Q (r~aLcQ~2, Gti1'~ Gr ~%~~ ~G~ ~ D' '`~ , ~ ~ ,~ ~ ..,~. a i~k~r~.. ~ /~~ ~~ / ~ /~. ~-c~~l:~'~ ~~a~2cJ~-~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ G'~e ~ . ^ ~ ~ ~~~~~~`.-oa~~ ~ ~~.~ ~~d a~~ , ~ . ~ s~ ~~ ~-~~~~~~ .~~ * ~; ~ ~'~~~c.c' ~~~ '~ va~'c~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~ 7~ ~~ ~°~o ~e- ~~~~1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~P,Q. r~ ~h~~J r w~ ~ ~~~ f ~ . ~ ~~~~ • ~L~i~'I~A~Q Ow \~~A'~e'i ~. /V'T./ ~~(, ~ ~ . . ~t':. ~: _ ~~~~1' _ 1~ ~ . - ' . ~'_ • • - . ' ~,.':... ._. ~ .. r... •~"-~~ '~ • ~ I~` V . . C~~O~~I C ~. ~~y~ ' :°~J.• ~ ~ e~ ~.. : ~. ~ ~ . . .s~.s:~ ~ ~.,. . .: ; . , ... ~,~, ~.,..~: 663_ 336 s' .__t`~/J . ~ ~.. •~ ------ -- . • (/ ~ 4~/J~ ~~~ ~ ~ . ~~~C~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ . ... ,, . . ~~..~; . ~ ~ ~ ;, . . .. .. • .•'i•.':. • ____ _.. ... _.._ ...__~.__L~ ._ ~~!~?'-~ ._.._ ~ : t ___.-_~__ - - ~ _._....._- ~--•--~'•`n .._._ (~3Z,~!/`w ....._..._..--•-•----.._..~.W~...__~f!^_~_...._ . • __._ ---------.._ ' ~.3.~_... ~~ ~~ _-- __._ _,. -_____._..._Ql~.___.. ~~'~'~~--- ~~ _.~l . . . _ ___.___~____.~._~..__._~5_..._._~.. ~ Q . ' - . ~ . ~ ! ~ _ n,Y~r. D ~ .., . - - : _R~: ~ 30.31 '~..8c~ ___/~~ ; ~ -~ . ~ 4~'~- -------- -_.:-_-_ ~ Q%y~ _ . ~ ~ .' ~~ • ~ . ~~ 3a ho.~,+~~- q ~s... ~ ~01 g t~. l~G~. , . _ ' _ 1.~~- T~ ~ ~~ s ' l r' -~ _ ~ -~ z ~ ~ . . ~ ~ - --~ - i .. . .. ~ . ~ i ~ . .._.....~._...__...._.,....._._~_..._.. _.____._.._.._-___.___.- - --•--•- ----- ----- ~ __...-•_.---..___._.._...- ---------.._.•.- --._~..~-------- _....._ •-----.__..••---•---+~------•• ---~_ __...~___.r. ._ .._..._.~..~._ ............._._._ ..,....r :~.. ' ~ . G•-~ ~ •~. : . -~ . • City of West University • ~ 3800 University Blvd. 77005 Dear Sirs: ..• . . -'-+~_;r` "-- - - • •--~---° ._... __.... . .. I live two houses to west of the property you are considering for a variance. I was informed just this aftemoon that the addition of the side garage extends past the five foot setback by 2 feet It is obvious that the garage is not practicable without the width constntcted. I would ask you to consider several items when making your decision on this issue. First, the garage is set back from the front property line by at least half of the depth of the properly. It is a much better solution than the placement of the garage at the front facade, as I have seen done on several new homes in West University. If the concern is aesthetic, the construction has already~addressed that issue adequately, and is not ~~ ~~ a diminution of the street aesthetic in size or location. Second, several houses in the area park the second car on the street due to the lack of a garage. I would be pleased by any parking solution which removes a car from our too narrow street, to an off-street location. If the garage is not allowed, I am certain there will be an additional car in my commutiag path every morning. • Third, the project has been under construction for some time now, and siace it started, I have viewed it as a positive event for our block. Prior to the construction, the house was empty and not maintained for at the fifteen months we have lived here, so I have kept a keen eye on its progress. I cannot see how~anything that has been constructed is anything but an improvement to our block. ' It is my understanding the plans were presented and reviewed and approved initially, so nothing was hidden during the process. What has been built varies from what is allowed, and the alternative solution of removing the enclosed feafiure of the garage is not better than the "problem" of the two foot encroachment I would favor a variance. ~ 3107 Rice Blvd. . Phone: 66~3333 Form ZBA-201(04c:\wp5l\forms~zba201.54orig) ..;~ ! ' ~i • A ddress of site: Legal description of the site: Building Perm it No: 94-03224 Decision orAction Reguesled orProposed.• Perntiltee/Applicc~tt: D& D Creations, LLC. Contractor: Marco Development A request for a variance to allow a 3' setback instead of a 5' setback as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Notice, Heanng, Firtdings, Yote: ~IL (Property Owners) , PUBLISHING (Houston Chronicle) ( X j Required notice given by: POSTING (Municipal Building) • ( X)' Hearing held on: November 30, 1994, Wednesday ( X) Required statutory findings made (vaziance is not contrary to public interest;due to special conditions a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship;spirit of the ordinance is observed; substantiai justice is done.) ( ) Additional findings (if any): N/A (~ The vote: Peterson, Mor•lev, Hansen, Huber , for, none against. . Decision of the Zonirrg Boarrl of Adjustment (subject to a11 applicab/e appeals): Under and subject to the City's Zoning Ordinance and applicable law, a variance from Section 7-100 Residential District (1) (ii) of the Zoning Ordinance is granted to the permittee/applicant named above for the site identified above, subject to the following conditions (if any): . :.. ~ l. ~ ' None This variance is for an indefinite period unless a temporary period is indicated above. This variance remains subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the City, and it does not grant any property.right or vested right of any kind. Effective Date & Appeals: This decision takes effect on the date it is filed in the Boazd's office (c% Secretary of the Zoning Boazd of Adjustment, 3800 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77005), unless otherwise indicated above. Any appeals of this decision are subject to and governed by applicable ordinances and laws, including: t e Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 211, Tex. Local Government Code. Under Chapter 211, petitions for judicia r view m be resented within 10 days after the date this decision is filed in the oard's office. ~ BY~ A ttest: Acting Chairman, For the Zoning Board of Adjustment secretary ~File in the Bo ri~'s of ~ce on 19 d copies m d(see mailing list altached} on 19 By: Zoning Board of Adjustment City of West University Place, Texas ("City") DECISION TO GRANT A VARIANCE 3031 Rice Blvd. Lot No. 9, Block No. 8, Rice Court Addition