Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03201997 ZBA Minutes~+~oP ro v~ l~~Zl~ I97 ~ ~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES FROM MARCH 20, 1997 The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Chairperson Sterling Minor, Vice-Chairperson Sue Porretto, Frank Billings and . Michael Neal. Absent were Melinda Snell, Lee Huber and Amy Chaisson Selig. Present from the City were Building Official Dennis Holm and Building Secretary Susan Thorn. The first item on the agenda was the hearing of residents. No one was .present to speak at the hearing of residents. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Frank Billings made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Sue Porretto seconding the motion. Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings and Neal. Voting against: None The motion carried unanimously. • The second item on the agenda was Docket No. 97-01, concerning property located at 4038 Coleridge, Lot 20, Block 5, Bissonnet Place Addition. This was a request for a variance to allow a garage opening facing a side street line to be rebuilt with the opening less than 10 feet from the side street. This request was filed by Sheila Schmitt, owner of the property. Ms. Schmitt gave the following as the reason for her request: Ms. Schmitt stated "I propose to remove an existing garage which is attached to the house and another portion of the house and replace with a new addition with the same setback. The footprint of the house would remain the same as it is today. One issue which needs to be addressed is the existing slab underneath the garage is damaged and needs to be replaced." Ms. Schmitt submitted into evidence a copy of an engineers slab inspection report from Newman Engineers, Inc. with areas illustrating where the slab is failing. Joe White of Hou-tex Designs, Contractor for the project stated the following: "Because of the failure of the foundation underneath the garage the a second story could not be added to the existing structure. This portion of the foundation needs to be removed and replaced. In my opinion because the garage structure is attached to the main house, the structure should be grandfathered. We are proposing replacing 18% of the total structure which includes replacing 100% of the garage structure and 100% of the den area. If the garage is shortened by five feet in order to comply with the requirement for a setback of • 10 feet on a garage opening to a side street a car could not fit into the garage. A portion ;J ~ ~ of the main house containing the master bedroom and bathroom extend behind the garage space. Altematiives such as changing the entrance to the rear are not possible. A large tree is in the way and a proper radius to maneuver a car into the garage could not be obtained. The rest of the foundation for the house seems to be sound." Sterling Minor asked, "How long did Ms. Schmitt feel the the house would be there if the proposed remodeling were done to the house?" Ms. Schmitt stated, "I feel the house would be there for another twenty years." Sue Porretto asked "What do you feel your hardship would be if you had to repair the garage instead of replacing it if the variance was not granted?" Ms. Schmitt stated, "I am not sure if I have a hardship. I understand hardship is not the only reason a variance can be granted. I feel by replacing the garage and keeping the existing house it prevents the home from be torn down and later on someone building a new house." Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official stated the following in his Staff Recommendation: Ms. Schmitt is proposing to remove and replace the existing garage at its present location. She is requesting the ten (10) foot additional setback requirement be granted a variance or a Special Exception by the Board, since the original structure, including the garage area, is not being enlarged. As noted in The City of West University Place Code of Ordinances • the following is required by the Zoning Ordinance No. 1493, Article 12. prior Non- conformities, Section 12-103. Losing PNC Status. (fl Garages. If the PNC item is non- compliance with garage regulations, PNC status is lots if: (i) an existing garage is removed, destroyed or converted to a non-garage use, or (ii) space is added to the principal building so that is gross floor area is increased to 200 percent or more of its gross floor area on the 1987 effective date. As noted in the Zoning Ordinance No. 1493 the Board may by Section 12-105. Special Exceptions To Extend PNC status provide the following: The ZBA may issue a Special Exception to extend or reinstate PNC status for any item, upon application by the owner or someone with a substantial interest in the affected property, if the ZBA finds: (i) a substantial investment was reasonably made in the PNC item, or in reliance upon it, and (ii) extension of PNC status is necessary to allow a reasonable period in which to amortize the investment, or to avoid unreasonable waste of any remaining value of the item with PNC status. An extension may be for a fixed term or for an indefinite period. This section applies both to PNC items losing status by lapse of time and to PNC items losing status for other reasons. A Special Exception may allow the rebuilding, remodeling or modest enlargement of a structure which would otherwise lose PNC status and may allow the continuation of PNC status. The City is asking for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance or relief be granted by the ~ Zoning Board of Adjustment. 2 .~ •• ' ~ yo correspondence has been received in favor for or against the request. Sue Porretto made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing, with Michael Neal seconding the motion. Voting in favor: Minor, Porretto, Billings and Neal. Voting against: None. The motion carried unanimously. During the discussion which followed Frank Billings stated "I do not believe there is enough hardship shown to grant a variance. A Special Exception could be granted conditioned any further addition to the structure would be based on the prior non-conforming status of the structure as its exists on March 20,1997. Frank Billings made a motion to deny the request for variance, but to grant a Special Exception to allow the continuation of the prior nonconforming status with the square • footage of the structure as it existed March 20,1997. Michael Neal seconded the motion. Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings and Neal. Voting against:: None The motion carried unanimously. Michael Neal made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 19, 1997 meeting, with Sue Porretto seconding the motion. Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings and Neal. Voting against: None The motion carried unanimously. Sterling Minor submitted his resignation to the Board. Sue Porretto made a motion to adjourn the meeting with Frank Billings seconding the motion. • Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Billings and Neal. ~ 3 ~ 1~ ~ 1 A ~ ~ ~ • i Voting for: Minor, Porretto, Biilings and Neal. Voting against: None. The motion carried unanimously. • ~ The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m ATTES . retary ~~,~ CHAIRMAN 4 _ ~,: ~ , . CHAPTER 22 Urban Forest Preservation and Enhancement ~ Sec: 22.003. Tree disposition (for building permits); tree surveys (a) General require»rent. Every permit for developt~ient or pre-development activity must contain tree disposition conditions meeting the requirements of ttfis section. (b) Essentia! and mandatory conditions. Tree disposition conditions are the most important means of protecting the urban forest of the City+ from unreasonable hazm duting development and pre-development activity. Tree disposition conditions shall: (1) Prohibit removal of or damage to any large h'eE, exce~rt)= ~) removal of a tree which is diseased, seeerelY damaged or dead may be authorized; and (ri) damage to or removal of a tree which causes an unreasonable impediment to the use and eajoyment of the applicant's property maY be authar~~ ~d ('ui) damage to or reaioval of a low-value tree may be authorized- (2) Require replacement trees, to the extent provided in the criteria m~anual, for any large trces authorizsd to be Damaged or Removed. Exception: No replacement is required for low-value trees. (3) Require protection for large trees (and Critical Root Zones). The conditions may specify the methods of protection to be used. ~~e ~nditions (4) Require that anY authorized damage to trees be minimized and mitiga may specafy methods of mitigation to be used- • (S) Require, if there is major devdopment, that the aff~ subject site attaia a minimum planting standard of tree density as set forth in the ctiteria manual- (c) Procedure. The building officaal shall not issue any permit for atry developmeat or Pro- developmern Activity unless all the following have first occ~ured: .` (1) Tree Swvey. The applicant must have filed a tree survey, and the urban forester must have aPProved it for compliauce with this chaptea. . . (2) Trce Disposition Coaditions. Tree disposition conditions approved by the urban forester must have been inserted into the permit. The urban forester may require a11 Persons owning land - where a tree is located to agree to anY removal of or damage to the tree authorized by the conditions. (d) "Low-impact" exception. Except for the requirement to insert the mandatory conditions, this section does not apply to a subject site, project or othe,r activity thax will not have any significant, adverse effect upon any large tree, as determined by the urban forester. h:newtreef.orm ~