Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01151998 ZBA MInutes~'" . . ~~ ~;,~T. ~ ZONING BOARD OF ADNSTMENT CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE ~ REGULAR SESSION MUNICIPAL BUII.DING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD. MINUTES JANUARY 15,1998 I. MEMBERS PRESENT: Frank Billings, Michael Neal, Darlene Haber, Mark Plagens, John C. Wray: MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Porretto, Steven Segal, David Mannon, Lee M. Huber GUEST PRESENT: Patrick Grimes, Lee Ann Grimes. II. STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Holm, Iris Conway III. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. Frank Billings Minutes of thc Meeting • Agenda Item Discussion Action Welcome Billings called the meeting to order. None required. Approval of Minutes Minutes will be provided in summary None required. form. Attention will be focused on inclusion of cridcal elements of discussidn and actions taken. Determination that Proper Notification of the Public Hearing Norices were Made and Posted Notices were mailed to all properties witlrin 200 feet. Nodces were posted at all three locations at the Municipal Building, as required. Jolm C. Wray made the motion to accept the nod- fication as having met requirements. Michael Neal seconded and the modon was unanimously approved. • -1- DRAFT ~ • • Agenda Item Docket No. 97-16, 3126 Wroxton E50' of Lot 17 & W 10' of Lot 18, Mondcello, A Request for a Variance to the Location of the Required Front Setback Area Discussion One correspondence were received in favor of the application. An opposidon of 12 names requesting that the ZBA reverse the permit denial, for the following reasons: 1) The townhomes have a rear driveway. The only entrance to and exit from addresses 3143 through 3121, is Buffalo Speedway. A fence beyond the 25' setback would seriously compromise the view of those vehicles entering and existing the driveway. 2) The most serious concem is for the safety of those pedestrians approaching the driveway from Wroxton. A fence placed parallel to the drive-way and ending at the sidewalk adjacent to the Buffalo Speedway property line would totally obstruct the vie~v of approaching pedestrians. 3) The appearance of neighboring property, or the integrity of W[JP that the City is fighting so hard to maintain. Action The owner, Patrick Grimes, offered the following justification for his request: 1) process of remodeling the house they have just purchase; 2) one of the reason they chose the house, they have small children and wanted to fence in the lot. To fence his property along its Buffalo Speedway side to a distance similar to the properties on the northeast and southeast corners of Buffalo Speedway and Albans. 3) L.ee Ann Grimes, wife, spoke and stated the survey indicated that Wroxton is the pmperty's front. The city contends that the Buffalo Speedway side of our properly is its front rather ihan its side; therefore, the city is enforcing a 25' setback on this street, 4) The difference in fencing, is not to fence in our part of the property; but, if we were only to take in 10' of Buffalo Spcedway, we would literally loose 970 square feet of yard and with two small children that is a -2- DIR A~T ~ Agenda Item Discussion Action football field and a garden (that is what we feel I,E our hardship). 5) Additionally, we feel the fencing will create a sound and visual buffer to the planned commercial development along Buffalo Speedway, north of Bissonnet. Frank Billings entertain a modon to close the public hearing. John Wray made the motion to accept the close. MichaeY Neal seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. Michael Neal made a motion to grant a special • exception which changes the front street line on this property to Wroxton street with the following conditions: To change the front line of building site from Buffalo Speedway to Wroxton on the condidon that no structure and no fence be buill closer than 12' to the building line on the Buffalo Spcedway property line and that in the event that this would make the building side a rotating corner lot that a variance be granted to allow a fence to be built, no closer than 12' to the Buffalo Speedway lot line. Mark Plagens seconded the motion to grant a Special Excepdon, which • was then unanimously -3- approved. t~RAFT ~ Agenda Item Discussion Action Discussion of Minutes Frank Billings requested that the draft minutes be presenled to Qie City Attorney for his opinion, regarding legally of the new drafl minutes in lieu of the regulaz minutes. He ask if the a~iorney could give his opinion that would be distributed to the board at the next ZBA meeting and after we received that material then the discussion item, would be placed on the Agenda again. Be Tabled Again at next meeting. Adjournment Frank Billing enteriain a motion to adjourn. Michael Neal made a motion to adjourn, Meeting adjourned at • The motion was seconded, by 9:00 p.m. Mazk Plagens, and voting was unanimous. • -4- ~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF WEST UNIVERISTY PLACE REGULAR SESSION MUNICIPAL BUILDING CHAMBERS 3800 UNIVERISTY BLVD. THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1998 MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1998 I. MEMBERS PRESENT: Frank Billings, Micheal Neal, Darlene Haber, Mark Plagens, John C. Wray MEMBERS ABSENT: David Mannon, Lee M. Huber, Sue Porretto, Steven Segal • GUESTS PRESENT: Patrict Grimes and Lee Ann Grimes II. STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Holm, Iris Conway III. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. Frank Billings Minutes of Meeting Agenda Item u Discussion Action 1. Welcome - Frank Billings called meeting to order - None Required 2. Hearing of Residents - No resident present to be heard. - None Required 3. Introduction of Board Member - Sue Porretto introduced members and - None Required explained protocol of [he proceedings. 4. Non - Agenda Items - None - None required. 5. Legal Notices - Notices were mailed to all properties - John C. Wray moved to within 200 feet. accept; Michael Neal seconded. All favored. Notices were posted at locations, as Ayes: Frank Billings, required. Michael Neal, Darlene Haber, Mark Plagens, John C. Wray; motion carried. 6. Matters Relating to 97-16, 3126 - No correspondence was received in - Frank Billings motioned to Wroxton E50' of Lot 17 & favor of this a lication. close the Public Hearin . • ~ W10' of Lot 18, Monticello, A Request for Clarification Concerning Previous Board Order on Fence Installation Along Buffalo speedway Side Street Setback at This Address The owner, Lee Ann Grimes, 3126 Wroxton caine before the Board to explain situation. Mr. Holm spoke and made comments. Mark Plagens seconded motion. All favored. Ayes: Sue Porretto, Michael Neal, Frank Billings, Mark Plagens, Steven Segal; motion carried. 7. Matters Relating to Docket No. 97-16, 3126 Wroxton E50' of Lot17&W10'ofLotl8, Monticello, A request for a Variance to the Location of the Required Front Setback Area Discussion among members. - One correspondence was received in favor of this application. The owner, Patrick Grimes, who is in process of remodeling this house, which they just purchased, offered owners explained situation Discussion among members. Dennis Holm made comments. Frank Billings made the motion to allow to Table this for proper request for Survey showing the distance from Buffalo Speedsay to the property line and distance from sidewalk to the property line. Mike Neal seconded. Allfavored: Ayes: Sue Porretto, Michael Neal, Frank Billings, Mark Plagens, Steven Segal; motion carried. Frank Billings motion to close the Public Hearing. Mark Plagens seconded. All favored. Ayes:Sue Porretto, Michael Neal, Frank Billings, Mark Plagens, Steven Segal; motion carried. Frank Billings made the motion to allow the present structure so long as nothing is built closer than 2.9 feet which is the present location of the existing garage, and that no new construction is built 3' of the West and South property lines. And further that no structure be built which would cover more than 60% of the total lot, as amended. No new construction be built closer than 10' to Bissonnet except for the new construction between the existing garage and existing house which shall be allowed to be built parallel to the existing garage wall on the Bissonnet side. I Steven Segal seconded ~ • ~ 8. Matters Relating to Docket No. 09-03, 3402 Amherst, E Half of Lot 6, Block 51, WUP Second. A Request for Variance to "Framed Area" Requirement of Zoning Ordinance #1493 As Amended - One correspondence was received in favor of the application. The owner, Diane Montagna, is requesting to place a permanent stairway to the third floor, as opposed to a pull down ceiling stairway. motion. All favored. Ayes: Sue Porretto, Michael Neal, Frank Billings, Mark Plagens, Steven Segal; motion carried. Frank Billings motioned to close the Public Hearing. Steven Segal seconded. All favored. Ayes:Sue Porretto, Michael Neal, Frank Billings,Mark Plagens, Steven Segal.; motion carried. 9. Discussion of Minutes 10. Adjournment (10:15 P.M.) Discussion among members. Mr. Holm made comments. More discussion among members. - Discussion among members Mark Plagens made the motion to deny the variance. Michael Neal seconded motion. All favored. Ayes: Sue P orretto, Michael Neal, Frank Billings, Mark Plagens, Steven Segal; motion carried. - Michael Neal motioned to accept the minutes as amended. Frank Billings seconded. All favored. Ayes: Sue Porretto, Michael Neal, Frank Billings, Mark Plagens, Steven Segal; motion carried. Sue Porretto motion to adjourn. Mark Plagens seconded. • • ZONING BOARD OF ADNSTMENT SPECIAL MINUTES REQUEST JANUARY 15,1998 MEETING FB: Suppose we grant a special exception to Code 110. If granted, we can make as a condition of granting this exception, the fence not be built closer than such and such and if the ordinance would consider this, we grant a variance to allow the lot fence be no closer than some number, which would cover both conditions. But before we consider, we need to consider the objections of these people. MN: If the lot were not as wide as it is, there would be no controversy about the lot size. FS: Correct. MN: Then the lot owner would have the ability to build a side yard fence to the lot lot line. The lot restricts this owner from doing what other owners can do due to the size of the lot. Now we have to consider the opposition regarding safety. FB: It is my understanding the lot will be 12 feet from the street. This should give enough clearance. • MN: Street visibility is okay. Sidewalk may pose a problem when you drive out. JW: Now if the fence were fifteen feet from the street it would probably give them visibility from the sidewalk. MP: If you drive around you can find other places like this but if we have to consider Code 110 we need to take safety into consideration. Are we saying you can do it by one thing and by another disregardi.ng the safety issue? FB: They are talking about an ending at the sidewalk adjacent to Buffalo Speedway property. It is my understanding they are not going to end at the sidewalk. JW: There is a fence there already that the people pulling out of the alley way are depending on but I wonder if these people build an eight foot fence I wonder how tail that existing fence is right there and how will they be able to see over it as it now exists to see pedestrians coming. MP: I am not concerned about the people coming out of here but its back here at the street corner of Wroxton and Buffalo Speedway. . JW: The fence will be twenty feet back. They would be able to see. MP: Yes but you will still have some viability issues, I think coming down Wroxton. JW: When they approach Buffalo Speedway they will have an additional twenty feet. - ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL NIINUTES REQUEST • JANUARY 15,1998 MEETING Page 2 MN: Plus when you are at that intersection, traffic is coming from your left. There is no traffic coming from this way but I think you get plenty of vision that way the traffic is coming from. MP: Right, I understand it is coming from that way but what if you are going to turn left: MN: You mean left off Wroxton? (unable to understand next statement) MP: My only concern pedestrians would be someone pulling out of the townhouses. The alley from the townhouses are right there essentially on top of the sidewalk where pedestrians are. You have got that wall and did you look at that picture? JW: Right, right. MP: It looks like it kind of gets right up to the sidewalk. • JW: Right, right (could not understand the rest). JW: That is what I am saying. There is already a wall there. I just wonder is this really going to affect the viability problem that already exists? (long silence) MP: Mike, I am not familiar with that area over there. Does this estimate go all the way down past Wroxton? MN: No, you can cross over. MP: Oh, you can cross over there? MN: Right. MP: And it does look like the easiest for this circumstance. FB: I guess the other thing we could require that within a certain amount of feet of that corner be shorter than the rest of the place. • JW: Or stagger it, you know, zig zag back or something, that will help. I do not know how _ much help that will be to the fence that is already existing (rest not understood). FB: Would you think the safety would be increased if the fence not 6e any higher than the " ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MINUTES REQUEST JANUARY 15,1998 MEETING • PAGE 3 existing fence? MP: What is that going to do? FB: I do not know. MP: Somebody is asking a question if you drop down to that I do not think that will make any viability improvement. (silence) FB: Do you think that will unreasonably interfere with sight lines or other safety factors? (silence) MP: In the front of the house on the Wroxton side I do not think so but now looking at this back here since there are people behind here in the townhouse district that line there, I mean, you are essentially going to closer that off. At an angle like that you are going to keep people from being able to see across there. • FB: That is right. That is what I am talking about. At least for a period of distance. JW: I guess they can chop off the corner of the diagonal section of the fence there that would allow someone approaching to exiting to Buffalo Speedway to have viability to the left to see the sidewalk. That could possibly be a requirement if you think it is aesthetically reasonable? MN: A fence is a structure, vegetation is a hedge or tree or something that could be place there. That would obscure things just as much. True? And that could become an issue. (silence) JW: I am not even sure how much sidewalk there is right there (rest not able to be understood). MN: Where the trees and bushes are, are they right up against the sidewalk? FB: You can take care of that with situations where garages are in the same position but they do not (not able to understand). • Does anyone want to make a motion? I am not sure of all the requirements . If I were going to make a motion that we grant a Special Exception to change the front line of the building site from Buffalo Speedway to Wroxton on the condition that no structure and no fence be built closer than twelve feet to the building line on the Buffalo ` ~ Z'ONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MINUTES REQUEST • JANUARY 15,1998 MEETING PAGE 4 Speedway side. MN: Building line or property line? FB: Which is probably the same. And that in the event this would make the building site a rotated corner lot that a special variance be granted to allow a fence to be built no closer than twelve feet to the Buffalo Speedway lot line. That is what I would make if I were going to make it. JW: I will make a motion we grant a Special Exception which changes the front street line on the property to Wroxton Street and that no fence be built within twelve feet of the Buffalo Speedway property line. FB: That is a condition? JW: Yes that is a condition. In the event this does not meet the requirements of A-110B a variance be granted such that a fence be built not more than twelve feet closer to the property line on Buffalo Speedway as a condition. • Did I get it right Frank? (silent response) MP: I thought the Wroxton side (rest not abte to be understood). JW: Well unless we grant this Special Exception to change the front street line to Wroxton than I do not believe they will be able to build a fence closer than twenty-five or twenty feet to Wroxton. By granting this Special Exception we are changing the front street to Wroxton no matter what. We just may not be effectively allowing them to build this fence closer to Buffalo Speedway. So the variance covers that. FB: Do I hear a second? MP: I second it. FB: Any more discussion or suggesNons. • All those in favor raiser your right hand (unanimously passed).