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