Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01181996 ZBA Minutes:~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES FROM JANUARY 18, 1996 REGULAR SESSION The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following regular members present: Chairman Sterling Minor, Vice Chairman Sue Porretto and Frank Billings. Alternate members present were Amy Chaisson Selig and Lee Huber. Members absent were Melinda Snell, Michael Neal and Ty Hutchins. Present from the City were Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official and Susan Thorn, Building Secretary. The Board Members introduced themselves and procedures were explained. No one was present for the hearing of residents. Notices were read and participants sworn in. Sue Porretto made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Frank Billings seconding and the vote for approval was unanimous. The voting members were: Sterling Minor, Sue Porretto, Frank Billings, Amy Chaisson Selig and Lee Huber. The first item on the Docket was 96-01, a request for a variance to allow a 1.2 foot • variance in the required front setback area for the property located at 4125 Tennyson. Craig Hughes stated he was the Architect and Builder for the project and he was at the meeting to represent the property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Larkin. Mr. Hughes provided the Board with a copy of a drawing with illustrated what the Larkins wish do to if the variance is granted. Mr. Hughes explained the Larkins house presently encroaches over the front setback line 1.2 feet and the Larkins are asking to build a covering over the existing front porch. The house is u-shaped, it has an east and west wing encroaching over the front setback line on both sides. The Larkins want to extend the front porch to support the covering. The porch would also encroach over the front setback 1.2 feet. The lot has a twenty (20) foot setback line and the house encroaches over it. Frank Billings stated in his opinion the cover would not be a porch, but really a part of the main structure of the house, because a porch can extend 10 feet in front of the house. Sue Porretto asked the Larkins what they would do if they were not granted the variance. Mrs. Larkin said they would only extend the porch cover 4.6 feet. Craig Hughes stated the porch is presently not functional, the porch does not have ~ enough room to sit on it and the support columns would encroach into the porch and , there would even be less room. Mr. Hughes stated the Larkins want a porch which provides a place to sit, for packages to be dropped off and provides protection from the ~ weather elements. At this time other work will be done to the house, such as the house being re-roofed and it would be a good time to go ahead with the porch renovation. Mrs. Larkin explained she and her husband had considered an awning, however an awning does not protect the door and the windows from the weather. Frank Billings asked when the house was constructed. Craig Hughes stated in 1936. Mrs. Larkin stated they purchased the house in 1987. Frank Billings explained the Zoning Board of Adjustment must meet the state statue for granting the variance. He asked the Larkins when they found out the house encroached 1.2 feet into the front setback. Mrs. Larkin said they found out when they contacted Craig Hughes about building the porch and a survey was provided with a survey. Mrs. Larkin explained they did not notice or understand the encroachment on the survey at the time they purchased the house. No correspondence was received in favor of the application. Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official gave the City's point of view. He explained the variance is needed to bring the entire structure into compliance. mr. Holm explained back when this strucutre was built there was a established building line, which meant • 25% of the lots were developed the houses could be lined up with the other houses. There were not forms surveys provided. The contractors just found the survey stakes and measured back. Mr. Holm stated he was seeking a variance to validate the location of the structure at the front, because the Larkins could put a porch on the structure legally, however the structure is not to the Zoning Ordinance in effect in 1936. Mr. Holm stated in order to bring the existing building into compliance this variance is needed. Frank Billings asked why the prio non-conforming status in the Zoning Ordinance did not cover this. Mr. Holm explained you can only extend the non-conforming status along the side setback, but the Zoning Ordinance never addressed the front setback. Frank Billings stated he thought the established building covered that. Mr. Holm stated it had been taken out of the Zoning Ordinance. No correspondence was received in opposition of the application. The second item on the Docket was 96-02 . • provides a place to sit, for packages to be dropped off and provides protection from the weather elements. At this time other work will be done to the house, such as the house being re-roofed and it would be a good time to go ahead with the porch renovation. Mrs. Larkin explained she and her husband had considered an awning, however an awning does not protect the door and the windows from the weather. Frank Billings asked when the house was constructed. Craig Hughes stated in 1936. Mrs. Larkin stated they purchased the house in 1987. Frank Billings explained the Zoning Board of Adjustment must meet the state statue for granting the variance. He asked the Larkins when they found out the house encroached 1.2 feet into the front setback. Mrs. Larkin said they found out when they conta~ted Craig Hughes about building the porch and a survey was provided with a survey. Mrs. Larkin explained they did not notice or understand the encroachment on the survey at the time they purchased the house. No correspondence was received in favor of the application. Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official gave the City's point of view. He explained the variance is needed to bring the entire structure into compliance. mr. Holm explained ~ back when this strucutre was built there was a established building line, which meant 25% of the lots were developed the houses could be lined up with the other houses. There were not forms surveys provided. The contractors just found the survey stakes and measured back. Mr. Holm stated he was seeking a variance to validate the location of the structure at the front, because the Larkins could put a porch on the structure legally, however the structure is not to the Zoning Ordinance in effect in 1936. Mr. Holm stated in order to bring the existing building into compliance this variance is needed. Frank Bitlings asked why the prio non-conforming status in the Zoning Ordinance did not cover this. Mr. Holm explained you can only extend the non-conforming status along the side setback, but the Zoning Ordinance never addressed the front setback. Frank Billings stated he thought the established building covered that. Mr. Holm stated it had been taken out of the Zoning Ordinance. No correspondence was received in opposition of the application. Frank Billings made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing, with Sue Porretto seconding, and the vote for approval was unanimous. The voting members were: Sterling Minor, Sue Porretto, Frank Billings, Amy Chaisson Selig and Lee Huber. • The second item on the Docket was 96-02, a request for a special exception to allow the driveway to be located differently from the driveway pattern rule in the Zoning • Ordinance in order to conserve a large qualified tree. Notices were read and participants sworn in. Sue Porretto made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Frank Billings seconding and the vote for approval was unanimous. The voting members were: Sterling Minor, Sue Porretto, Frank Billings, Amy Chaisson Selig and Lee Huber. The property owner Kathy Sanders was present to explain her request. Mrs. Sanders stated she had just purchased the lot at 3817 Browning. She explained was asking for the special exception in order to relocate the driveway and garage to save a large pecan tree in the rear. She stated she had spoke to Neslihan Tesno, the City's Urban Forester about this tree and the neighbors trees in how to protect the trees. Mrs. Sanders stated she felt very strongly about conserving the trees. Sue Porretto asked Mrs. Sanders if she would consider using pavers. Mrs. Sanders stated yes she would. Sterling Minor asked if Mrs. Sanders in relocating the driveway away from her pecan tree would be putting the driveway closer to the neighbors trees. Mrs. Sanders stated she would be putting the driveway closer to neighbors trees, but • she felt even if she used pavers by her pecan tree it would still hurt the pecan tree. No correspondence was received in favor of the application. Mr. Holm gave the City's point of view. He explained the Zoning Ordinance allows the granting of a special exception to allow the location of a driveway different from the driveway pattern rule if the other. location or design will prevent the destruction of a qualified tree. Mr. McKinney and Mrs. McKinney of 3813 Browning spoke in opposition. Mr. McKinney stated he lived next door to 3817 Browning and he had several large trees on the side of the property where Mrs. Sanders wished to relocate the driveway. He stated he felt that pecan trees were more of a nuisance because the pecan tree drops limbs and stains the driveway. He felt his trees were much more valuable. Mrs. McKinney explained she had spoken to Dave Baker at the Texas Agricultural Extension Service and was told if the driveway was located next to her oak trees he guaranteed the trees would die in three to five years. Mrs. McKinney explained at 1818 Sunset an address not in West University the exact same thing occurred. Dick Williams of 3832 Browning spoke in opposition. Mr. Williams stated he had ~ watched a lot of building of a two story garages where alot of limbs would have to be trimmed and even with pavers he felt it will jeopodize the McKinney's trees. r ' ~ • One letter was received in opposition from Jane Zoboray of 3809 Browning. Frank Billings made a motion to close the evidenc Mrs. McKinn ~' ~