Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06261997 ZBA Minutes (2). ~ .~, ~ • ~~P~~:~~~~ ~r~~f1/Rf1 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES FROM JUNE 26, 1997 The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Frank Billings, Melinda Snell, Michael Neal and Amy Chaisson Selig.. Absent were Sue Porretto, Lee Huber and David Mannon. Present from the City were Building Official Dennis Holm and Building Secretary Susan Thorn. Michael Neat made a motion to appoint Frank Billings Acting Chairperson with Melinda Snell seconding. Voting for: Neal, Billings, Snell and Selig. Voting against: None. The motion carried unanimously. The first item on the agenda was the hearing of residents. No one wished to speak. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Melinda Snell made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Mike Neal seconding the motion. Voting for: Billings, Snell, Neal and Selig. Voting against: None. The motion carried unanimously. The second item on the agenda was Docket No. 97-02, concerning property located at 4003 & 4007 Browning, Lot 9, and 10, Block 3, Bissonnet Place Addition. This was a request for a special exception to allow construction of four single family town homes with a zero width side yard attached by a common wall. This request was filed by Charles Buchanan, owner of the property. Mr. William Blum of Princeton Group, Inc. represented Mr. Buchanan's request. Mr. Blum gave the following as the reason for the request: Mr. Blum stated "I am here representing Mr. Buchanan owner of the property. We are requesting a special exception to construct four town homes with a zero-width lot line attached by common walls. One of the lots is 50 x 105 and the other lot is 47.5 x 105. I wish to divide the finro lots into four lots and build four town homes." Mr. Blum presented a preliminary plot plan to the Board Members. ~J ~ Mr.Blum explained "We wish to build two of the town homes with entrances on Browning and two entrances on the side with a courtyard effect. These are simifar to town homes - built by Lovett Homes on the 2600 block of Wroxton. Each unit has a four hour fire wall as required by the code." Frank Billings asked "Are the property owners for both lots the same?" Mr. Blum replied "Yes, Mr. Charles Buchanan owns both lots." Melinda Snell asked, "What surrounds this property? Mr. Blum stated "Across the street is the Eastern Star Temple and a vacant lot, behind the lots are single family residences. The lots face the Randalls Shopping Center." Melinda Snell asked, "Do you know of any other special exceptions granted similar to this request?" Mr. Blum replied "Yes, one was granted for 6010 and 6012 Kirby and one at 5914 and 5916 Kirby, in the Kirby Corridor." Ms. Snell asked additionally "Were those near Single Family Residences?, Mr. Blum "Stated, Yes." Ms. Snell then asked "Do you know how long Mr. Buchanan has owned these lots?" Mr. Blum stated " No." Ms. Snell asked "Where would the garages be located?" Mr. Blum explained "The garages would be front loading." No correspondence was received in favor of the application. • Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official gave the following staff recommendations: Mr. Holm stated "Mr. Charles Buchanan the owner is asking for a special exception to: Zoning Ordinance No. 1493, Article 7, District-Specific Regulations., Section 7-101 Regulations, Tables, Etc., (a) In General. Every use, building site and structure must comply with the regulations set out in the following tables: Table 7-2 yards or'setbacks') Note 4. common wall. In the TH, GR-2 and C District, the ZBA may issue a special exception for a zero- width side yard, but only upon application by both property owners and only if the special exception is conditioned upon the construction and maintenance of a common wall or continuously-abutting separate walls (in either case with a four-hour fire rating or better) along the property line. The applicant, Mr. Buchanan is asking for a special exception to Zoning Ordinance No. 1493. The City requests the requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 1493 be met or the request for special exception be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment." Mr. Holm stated the special exception is needed for the Common Wall. Town homes can still be built there, just not with the zero width lot line. Mr. Billings asked "What is exactly the GR-2 District.?" Mr. Holm stated "It is the General Residentiat District, which is even less restrictive than the Town Home Districts. You can actually go to multi-family type dwellings, it has a rather high density." Mr. Billings stated "It is my understanding the only requirement in the Zoning Ordinance to the ZBA granting the special exception is must be on the applications of both lots in • order to have a zero width lot line." Melinda Snell asked "So the only time in the past this 2 •J '~ has been granted it has been specifically been on the applications of the owner of the lot and that is the only requirement that has to be met?". Mr. Holm stated "They can still build ~ town homes they just cannot have common walls, basically the only reason the applicant came in is so they can obtain a special exception for a common wall." The Board Members reviewed the criteria concerning granting of special exceptions. Michael Neal read from the Zoning Ordinance: "Article 11, Section 11-102. Findings.(b) Special Exceptions. The ZBA (Zoning Board of Adjustment) may not issue or modify a special exception unless all of the following circumstances are present: (1) the ZBA has determined that the proposed special exception will not cause any significant increase in on-street parking, will not cause any substantial traffic congestion, will not cause any substantial increase in traffic or an unreasonable burden upon utility systems or upon any other public facility or public service. (2) the ZBA has determined that the proposed special exception will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance. Item (3) does not apply in this case., (4) the ZBA has made any additional findings and determinations required by a specific provision of this ordinance and (5) the special exception has been reduced to writing and includes any conditions prescribed by the ZBA or required by this ordinance for the special exception in question." Melinda then asked Mr. Holm "How recent are the other special exceptions been granted?" Mr. Holm answered "In the last year." • Steve Yarborough - 4008 Arnold spoke in opposition. Mr. Yarborough presented a petition and correspondence from 4019 Arnold. Mr. Yarborough explained "I reside at the property adjacent to the rear of one of the lots. I believe allowing the town homes to be built adversely affects the quality of living. If four town homes were to be built, there would probably be two cars per dwelling and i feel this would increase traffic congestion. This would also crowd too many people into too much space." Melinda Snell asked "Were you aware the lots behind yours were zoned for town homes?" Mr. Yarborough stated "No, I did not know they were zoned for town homes. I thought only the perimeter of the City was zoned for town homes." Ms. Snell asked "have you talked to Zoning & Planning at all about changing the Zoning?" Mr. Yarborough stated "No, I have not." Frank Billings explained "The Zoning & Planning Commission handles the changing of zoning of property plats and then passes them onto the City Council for approval. The Zoning Board of Adjustment only has the power to do certain things. One of those things is to grant Special Exceptions." Linda Smith of 6646 Community spoke in opposition: She explained "I would like to know if the 80% framed area rule would apply to the GR-2 district?" Mr. Holm stated "No, it ~ would not apply in this case." Ms. Smith then asked "Are there rules about open & 3 ~ ~ pervious area and height in the GR-2 district?" Mr. Holm stated: "Yes, there are rules, however they do differ in some ways." Ms. Smith asked "What does the Zero-width side • yard mean?" Mr. Holm stated: "It means the applicant is asking to have a common wall in order to attach the town homes together." Loys E. Vest - 4001 Arnold spoke in opposition and he also submitted a letter in opposition. Joe Russo - 3935 Arnold spoke in opposition: Mr. Russo explained "I am concerned about the additional traffic and flooding construction of these town homes would cause. We need more greenspace, not less." John Mahmarian - 4012 Arnold spoke in opposition. Bob Dorries - 4007 Arnold spoke in opposition: Mr. Russo stated "I feel these town houses create more population density and affects the quality of the neighborhood. These would deteriorate because of the increase in density. One letter was received in opposition from Colleen Gold of 4001 Arnold. Frank Billings explained: "There are only certain areas of the City where town homes can be built and that has been predetermined by the Zoning and Planning Commission and City Council." • Michael Neal made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing, with Amy Chaisson Selig seconding. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. The third item on the agenda was Docket No. 97-03, concerning property located at 4103 Riley, Lot 53 of Fairhaven Addition. This was request for variance to allow air-conditioning equipment to set in the required side setback. The request was filed by John Tsertos, owner of the property. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Amy Selig made a motion to approved the notices as posted, with Melinda Snell seconding the motion. Voting for: Billings, Snell, Neal and Selig. ~ Voting against: None. 4 'l '~ The motion was unanimous. Mr. Tsertos gave the following as the reason for his request: Mr. Tsertos stated, "My home is already constructed and fenced. The air conditioning units were placed per plan on the side of the house bordered by Academy Street. Our contractor received a"red tag" because these units are not allowed in the 5' setback. The units were shown on the approved plans and were not discovered to be in the wrong place until the driveway was already in place and the rough-in inspections were already made. I understand the units are not allowed in the side setback because of emergency personnel needing access, because of the noise and aesthetic reasons, however I am asking for a variance to allow them to remain. I have a copy of a bid sheet our contractor provided us showing the cost to move the units out of the setback. The driveway would have to be jackhammered up and the electrical and refrigeration lines would have to be relocated. The units in their present location are further away from other residences than if they were to be moved. They are already screened from view by a fence and the potential for noise is reduced because of their location. I met with Mr. Holm concerning this and he told me they were overlooked on the plans, however I feel they should have been noted during the rough in inspections." Melinda Snell asked, "Is this a safety issue?" Mr. Tsertos stated, "Given this is a corner lot there is ample space for access by emergency personnel." • Denise Beck - 4112 Ruskin - spoke in favor. Fredrica Erwin - 4035 Riley - spoke in favor. Mr. Holm gave the following Staff Recommendations: "The owners, Mr. John Tsertos and Ms. Angie Tsertos are requesting a variance allowing air-conditioning equipment to set in the required 5.39 foot side street setback. The property is at the southwest corner of Riley and Academy. The City of West University Place, Texas Code of Ordinances No. 1493, article 7. District-Specific regulations, Section 7-101. regulations, Tables, Etc. (b) Projections. Table 7-6.Projections Schedule, page iii, Type of Structure, mechanical Equipment, air conditioning equipment, pool equipment, and similar freestanding mechanical equipment; Side yard 0". The City requests the requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 1493 be met or the request for Variance be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment." Mr. Holm stated "I would like to clarify that at no time during a rough in inspection would the location of the equipment be able to be noted. I see no safety concerns regarding access by emergency personnel." No one spoke in opposition. No correspondence was received in favor or against. • •~ • '~ Amy Chaisson Selig made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing, with Michael Neal seconding the motion. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. The fourth item on the agenda was Docket No. 97-04, concerning property located at 3402 Bellaire, Lot 43, Block 1, West University Place First Addition. This was a request for a Special Exception to allow the construction for six town homes to be built with zero width side yards and attached by common walls. This application was filed by Shelby Ranley, owner of the property. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Amy Chaisson Selig made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Michael Neal seconding the motion. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings • Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. Shelby Ranley gave the following as the reason for her request: Ms. Ranley stated "I wish to construct eight town homes and attach them by common walls." Jack Cloud, Constru~tion Superintendent for the project presented a plot plan illustrating the layout of the proposed town homes. Mr. Cloud stated " We have tried to allow for two enclosed parking spaces and one additional guest parking space for each town home. In addition, there would be guest parking around the side." Ms. Ranley explained, "The property owner of the existing town homes that were built by Ted Anderson have given their consent to allow us to use their private driveways in order to alleviate traffic congestion on Bellaire Blvd. and Westchester. There are common wall town homes on one side and town homes on the other side. We have setback the town homes to create greenspace." Mr. Billings asked, "Are the lots owned by the same property owners?" Ms. Ranley stated "I own all the lots." Ms. Snell asked, "If the special exception were not granted what would you do?" Ms. Ranley stated "We have spent a lot of time trying to create more off-street parking by • providing additional guest parking that it would not be economically feasible to build them 6 • f. ~ otherwise." No one spoke in favor of the application. No correspondence was received in favor of the application Mr. Holm reiterated the same Staff Recommendations as for pocket No. 97-04. Mr. Holm also stated, "I do not know of any reason the special exception should not be granted." Mr. Billings asked "Does this meet the requirements for parking?" Mr. Holm stated "It exceeds the parking requirement by 1.5 parking spaces for each town homes. They could actually build nine town homes instead of the eight proposed." Tom Mackey of 6721 Westchester spoke in opposition: Mr. Mackey explained, "I am concerned the construction of these town homes will increase on street parking and congestion." No correspondence was received in opposition. Melinda Snell made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing, with Michael Neal seconding the motion. • Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings. Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. The fifth item on the agenda was Docket No. 97-05, concerning property located at 6638 Community, Lot 7, & 1/2 of Lot 6, Block 36, Colonial Terrace Addition. A letter from the property owners Mr. & Mrs. David Dow was presented requesting postponement to the next regularly scheduled Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. Michael Neal made a motion to postpone the meeting until the July 17, 1997 meeting with Amy Chaisson Selig seconding the motion. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings. Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. During the discussion of Docket 97-02 Frank Billings explained, "Town homes can only be built in specific districts. Table 7-2. Yards (or 'setbacks') Note 4. States The ZBA may • issue a special exception for a zero-width side yard, but only upon application by both 7 ,,. ' : property owners and only if the special exception is conditioned upon the construction and maintenance of a common wall or continuously-abutting separate walls (in either case with • a four-hour fire rating or better) along the property line. As previously indicated at the beginning of the hearing there also general requirements for the Board must meet in order : to grant the Special Exception. Most of the opposition to the granting of the special exception was based on something the Board can do nothing about. We cannot prevent the construction of town homes as the area (GR-2) is already zoning for town homes." Mike Neal suggested, "Lets go through the circumstances required to grant a special exception to see we can determine whether they have been met or not." Amy Selig asked, "The first item of 11-102. (b) (1) it states the ZBA must determine that the proposed special exception will not cause any significant increase in on-street parking, will not cause any substantial traffic congestion, will not cause any substantial increase in traffic or an unreasonable burden upon utility systems or upon any other public facility or public service." Frank Billings stated, "I do not see any evidence showing that there would be any increase in substantial traffic congestion etc." Melinda Snell stated "If the special exception were not granted then they would not be able to build as many town homes." • Michael Neal stated, "We have heard a number of comments regarding issues tonight not related to the matter before this Board. The request is for a special exception and its not about whether town homes should or should not be permitted in West University Place, its not about whether or not the amount of setback in adequate, its not about the rear setback, and its not about pervious areas or other items which were mentioned. As I understand the permissible amount of density is not an issue. Two town homes would still be allowed on each of these two adjoining lots. The issue before us is whether or not to grant a special exception to allow a zero-width side yard conditioned upon the construction and maintenance of a common wall or continuously-abutting separate walls. The Board should not look other issues other than the one before us." Amy Selig replied, "Yes, that is true, but this is a request for a special exception, and under special exceptions it states we may not grant a special exception unless all of these circumstances are present." Melinda Snell asked, "What are the other special circumstances besides traffic congestion?" Michael Neal stated, "If the special exception were not granted and the property were developed with a pair of narrower town homes would there be less parking required?" Frank Billings stated, "I do not believe parking requirements would be changed if the zero- width sideyard exception were not granted." Mike Neal suggested, "Lets go through the circumstances required to grant a special exception to see we can determine whether they have been met or not." • Amy Selig asked, "The first item of 11-102. (b) (1) it states the ZBA must determine that 8 '~ the proposed Special exception will not cause any significant increase in on-street parking, will not cause any substantial traffic congestion, will not cause any substantial increase in • traffic or an unreasonable burden upon utility systems or upon any other public facility or public service. Frank Billings stated, "I do not see any evidence showing that there would be any increase in substantial traffic congestion etc." Melinda Snell stated, "If the special exception were not granted then they would not be able to build as many town homes." Amy Chaisson Selig stated. "Please clarify how this will not cause substantial traffic congestion?" Frank Billings stated, "Most of the time when we consider this it is related to a commercial business." Amy Selig stated, "It is my understanding at this time there is one small house on the two lots and if the special exception were granted you would increase it to four town homes on the two lots." Frank Billings stated, "Any new construction built there will probably increase the parking. What you have to consider is the zoning district and determine whether the special exception would change the flavor of the district so to the extent that it would do these things. You do not need a special exception to build townhomes. I do not know any additional findings other than those in the ordinance. It must have the four hour fire wall and it must be agreed to by both owners." Amy Chaisson Selig stated, " So I take it that we have determined that under (1) its not going to pose any of these problems." Melinda Snell stated, "I think it is for each member to decide whether that believe it has or has not increased on street parking." • Frank Billings stated, "If I were convinced a denial of the special exception would accomplish any town homes being placed here or any other high density type of construction which would be allowed in this district, however l do not think this is going to happen." Melinda Snell asked "Why would that change your mind?" Frank Billings further stated "The result of our actions would not accomplish what we have been requested." Amy Chaisson Selig asked, "So, It is your feeling the opponents need to go to City Council or Zoning and Planning Commission?" Frank Billings said "Yes, they need to go to those boards and express the fact that they do not want anymore townhomes built there." Michael Neal stated "Article 3. Zoning Districts Established. (6) GR-2, the Second General Resident District. The purpose of this district is to maintain and protect the City's general residential area and to provide necessary regulations for buffering of adjacent ares with less-intensive land uses." Melinda Snell asked "What does buffer area exactly mean?" Frank Billings stated "The town home ordinance was intended to act as a buffer befinreen the City of Houston and act as a transition feature. You have the City of Houston then townhomes then single family residences." Michael Neal stated "I believe it was designed to act as a buffer area not just City of Houston, but City of Bellaire etc." Melinda Snell asked "If a zero-width yard is not allowed, then what kind of sideyard would the town homes have to have, is it five?" Michael Neal stated "The setback is three feet whether it be in the Townhome District or GR-2 District." Michael Neal made a motion to grant the request for Special Exception, with Frank Billings • seconding the motion. 9 •t '~ Voting for: Neal and Billings. Voting against: Selig and Snell. The application failed because there was not a majority of four votes. During the discussion of Docket 97-03, Frank Billings stated "I do not want to be in the position of placing the burden on the City to make sure they catch all of the Zoning violations when something is built, with that comment I do feel this would not further the City's Zoning Ordinance by requiring the removal of these air conditioning units. In past years this Board saw a lot of variance requests for placing the units in side setbacks, however at the time many people were remodeling and many houses did not have central air and there was no where else to place the units. Unlike most of those, these units are not going to be outside somebody's kitchen door." Michael Neal stated "Variances may be granted when all of the following are established: 1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest; 2. A special condition exists for which enforcement of the ordinances would present unnecessary hardship; and 3. The spirit of the ordinance is preserved. The Board has no authority to grant a variance: 1. to enhance the property's aesthetics; 2. to provide additional living space; 3. to enable the city to receive more ad valorem tax revenue; 4. because neighbors support the request; 5. because others have done what you are requesting; 6. because large sums of money must be expended if the variance is denied; or 7. because a city building inspector did not detect the violation at the time plans were • submitted. My understanding of the requirement for not allowing mechanical equipment to be placed in the sideyards is partly to allow sufficient ingress and egress for fire and safety reasons because the air conditioning units in the five foot sideyard would not necessarily allow someone to go in and out or a ladder to be placed, the other reason it places something potentially noisy very close to someone elses property. In this particular case, while its unfortunate that a design was created that placed them improperly and also unfortunate it wasn't caught by the Architect or Building Inspector it is perhaps fortunate that the location is on a side street rather than on adjoining property. The issues of egress and ingress, safety, or adjoining property owner for which potential noise or view are not a problem. A fence screens the mechanical equipment in its present location." Michael Neal further explained, "The issue before us is the unnecessary hardship. Usually hardship cannot not be financial." Frank Billings stated, "The applicant did indicate another hardship in that the construction is completed, but would have to redone in order to relocate the units. However, again the lot is over built, therefore there is no where else to put the units." Melinda Snell stated, "The right focus is on the unnecessary hardship in order to move the units, although it should have been considered when the original plans were put together." Amy Chaisson Selig stated, "I agree with you that the focus needs to be on unnecessary hardship and I think there is to more to hardship than monetary problems. If the units were required to be moved it would involve time delays etc. I realize that each decision this Board makes is not supposed to set a precedent, however I would not want Builders to think that just because something was okayed on plans and no one • caught it that they can get away with this." Frank Billings stated, "I do not think it would 10 . -,; ': accomplish anything to literally interpret the Zoning Ordinance." Michael Neal made a motion to grant the request for variance to allow the air conditioning units in the side setback subject to the condition that adequate screening be installed and maintained that shields the mechanical equipment from view and that condition be made a part of the real property records. Melinda Snell seconded the motion. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings. Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. During the discussion of Docket 97-04 Michael Neal stated, "This is another request for special exception to allow a zero-width sideyard provided there is a continuously abutting or common wall with four hour firewall. This plan exceeds requirements for town home parking." Frank Billings stated "The applicants have made an attempt to provide off-street parking." Michael Neal also stated "They have also provided move than adequate greenspace." Melinda Snell stated "In this case there is more property to work with in order for them to provide those things." ~ Michael Neal made a motion to grant the Special Exception, with Amy Chaisson Selig seconding the motion. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings. Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. Michael nominated Sue Porretto as Chairperson with Melinda Snell seconding the nomination. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings. Voting against: None. The nomination was unanimous. Melinda Snell nominated Michael Neal as Vice Chairperson, with Amy Selig seconding th~ nomination. • Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings. 11 F y . ~ ~ v .S Y . Y '. Voting against: None. • The nomination was unanimous. . Melinda Snell made a motion to approve the minutes from March 20, 1997 with Amy Chaisson Selig seconding the motion. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. Melinda Snell made a motion to adjourn the meeting, with Amy Chaisson Selig seconding the motion. Voting for: Snell, Neal, Selig and Billings Voting against: None. The motion was unanimous. • The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: SECRETARY ~ CHAIRPERSON • 12