Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01271983 ZBA Minutes11'7 REGULAR MEETING THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTP~IENT January 27, 1983 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of 6Vest University Place convened in regular session at the City Hall on Thursday, January 27, 1983, 7:30 p.m, with the following members present: Chairman Billings, presiding;: Members Fougerat, Fromen, Loftice and McCandless present. Mr. Billings entertained a motion to open the public hearing to consider ~, application #83-1 from John Helton at: °~ Lot : 13 Block: 24 College View Addition 4012 Ruskin Street to consider a variance in the three (3) foot set-back ordinance. Motion by Mr. Froman to open the public hearing. Seconded by Mrs. Frougerat. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Fougerat Fromen Loftice McCandless Chairman Billings introduced himself and gave his residence in the City followed by other members of the Board, wxplained the procedure to be followed, administered the oath to those desiring to speak on the application and ascertained from the secretary that proper notice of meeting, publication and notice to property owners had been made. Mr. .John Helton approached the Board and stated that a set of plans had been submitted to the City Inspection Department by their contractor Mr. Bob Sibbeson of Texas Decks, Inc. Mrs. Helton furter stated that a building permit was issued November 30, 1982. Revisions to the plans were made as requested by the Building Inspector, Mr. Perry and they thought that they were in compliance with all City ordinances because they had received the permit. She stated that the overhand in question was about 8" to 1' beyond the 2' restriction, however the supporting posts are only 14" away from the property line. She stated that they were requesting the variance as it would present a problem to move the posts as it would be in the middle of the egress, between the house and fence. Pictures of the overhand were shown to the Board. Mr. Bob Sibbeson, Contractor with Texas Decks, Inc. approached the Board and presented his set of plans showing construction of the deck and overhang. He stated that he felt that the plans were approved and preceeded to do the work. He did not notice at the time the permit was received that the overhand in question was not marked approved. This is all a misunderstanding he stated. Chairman Billings stated that Mr. Perry did not have the authority to approve any variances concerning plans submitted, only the Board of Adjustment 1 ~ ~ could approve such a variance. Ms. Fougerat asked Mr. Sibbeson if he had talked directly to Mr. Perry about the overhang. Mr, Sibbeson stated no. Mr. Sibbeson stated that all posts were set up and the overhang in place when the controversy began and he was informed of the violation. Ms. Fougerat asked how large a section would have to be removed if the variance was not granted. Mr. Sibbeson stated about 4' x 12', Chairman Billings asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the applicant, No response. Mr, Wayne Perry, Building Inspector with West University Place approached the Board and stated that he had not approved the overhang in question. He had not seen the. plans concerning the overhang, If he had he would have not stamped it a-proved. He further stated that the structure in question is constructed within fourteen (14) inches of the property line and Section 24, paragraph 3, Ordinance #111 states that no building or structure of any kind shall be constructed or erected within five (5) feet of the rear property line. On inside lots, no building or other structure of .any kind shall be constructed or erected within three (3) feet of the side property lines, Mr. Steve Ryan, Assistant Inspector stated that he was just driving by one day and noticed the posts and overhang extending beyond the three (3) foot set-back. Mr. Ryan reported to Mr. Perry and Mr. Perry and Walt Snitkin drove over the checked it out and found it to be in violation (Mr. Snitkin is the Chief of Police in Nest University Place). T7r, Perry stated that he met with Mr. Sibbeson several times after the violation was noticed and it was discussed in great detail. Now it is up to the Zoning Board of Adjustment as to what the outcome will be, Chairman Billings asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak against the application #83-1, Mr. Woodfield who owns the house next door to the Heltons located a.t 4010 Riley approached the Board. He stated that he had just found out this meeting was to be held and his objections were that if he decided to sett the house or borrow money or. it, the closeness of the structure could be a factor resulting in not being able to sell his house next door, Mrs. Muckelroy, duaghter of Mr. Woodfield stated that she felt the same as her father. She had vested interest in the house and objected to the overhang and posts being so close to their property line. She and Mr. Woodfield stated that they could become an injured party to this variance if granted. Chairman Billings entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Loftice made a motion to adjourn.. Seconded by Mr. McCandless. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p,m. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Fougerat Fromen Loftice McCandless 119 Chairman .Billings entertained a motion to re-open the meeting to consider application #83-1 at 8:20 p,m. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: None Fougerat Fromen Loftice McCandless All Board members began a general discussion concerning application #83-1. Ms, Fougerat stated that if denied it was not because of infractions to the adjoining property owner that would be the deciding factor, only that it was not in compliance with the set-back requirements of the City. ~~ Mr. McCandless stated that it definitely was afire hazard as he could see it. Mr. Loftice stated that it was the responsibility of each property owner to know the set-back requirements of City Ordinances. He stated that the posts in question could be put on an angle and not ruin the appearance of the deck, Chairman Billings stated that the only hardship to correcting the violation was monetary and that was really not sufficient reason to grant a variance. The deck and overhang could still be used and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. i~lore discussion and looking over the plans began. After some time Chairman Billings entertained a motion that due to the .fact the applicant John uelto~~ failed to show an .:undue hardship other than monetary in not meeting *he requirements of the Ordinance as far as a variance is concerned and it would be a detriment to the Safety .and Welfare of the other residents in the area due to a lack of space. between houses to allow structure and or equipment in the set back. area should a fire occur that the appeal in docket #83-1 to .allow the petitioner to encroach on the three (3) foot set-back on the side property line at: 4012 Ruskin Lot: 13 Block: 24 College View Addition be DENIED, Mr. Stanley McCandless noved the motion. Mr. Fromen seconded the motion. Voting Aye: Billings Voting No: 0 Fougerat Formen Loftice McCandless Motion Carried. All in favor. Chairman Billings read the minutes of tiie January 19, 1983 minutes and 1 ~ O the minutes were approved as read. Chairman Billings asked that the secretary place past minutes on next agenda. Chairman Billings stated that no further business was to be discussed so he would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Fromen made a motion.to adjourn the meeting. Mr. McCandless seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m, ~~ r J ~ ~ i ~, Chairman ATTEST e,~. ` ~-~ cretary ~~ ~~ 112 Addendum #2 The entry of my existing house, that was completed and occupied on June 19, 1936, before the Zoning Ordinance was enacted June 12, 1937, is the front building line of my existing structure and is approximately 25 feet 6 inches from the four property line. Our builder took the same plans to the City of tNest University Place Building Department and was given a permit on June 16, 1981. My architect on the set of drawings submitted for approval, used the term "porch" in describing the entry way of my existing house. The Building Department denied the completion of the addition by preventing the builder from installing permanent windows and security guards on approximately 6 feet of the proposed living room and insisted on the building of a sheetrock wall with a door approximately six feet back from the front of the new addition. Addendum #3 1. Security of my home. 2. Utilization of space as originally planned, including the 98 sq. ft. at the front of the house. 3. Making the exterior of the addition look completed, so as to enhance the look of the neighborhood. Mrs. Fougerat asked if anyone wished to speak out on behalf of the application. Mrs. De Laveaga 3317 Robinhood Stated she appreciated the architectural integrity of the addition and was in favor of the request. Audrey Schoenfield 3418 Robinhood Stated she was in favor and thought it was an addition to the neighborhood. James Cole 3523 Robinhood Stated he did not understand why the addition was not allowed to be completed. Elizabeth Bryan 3410 Robinhood She was impressed by the addition made to the existing house made by Mrs. Bennett and her daughter, Mrs. Hilderbrandt. Unfortunately, they were unable to finish the job. She stated that it would be great for the neighborhood and shw would be pleased if the Board would let Mrs. Bennett follow through with her plans for the house. Martha Davis 3414 Robinhood Stated she was in favor of the application. 122 Existing paving would have to be removed and new paving. The small protected yard between the proposed carport location and the existing house is the only secure play area for the children. The carport, if constructed as proposed, would result in reducing the required open area by approximately 120 square feed, 2.4% of the total area of the lot. The proposed carport cannot be reduced in size sufficiently to meet the 40% open area requirement in the rear yard and be of any practical value. Therefore, the residence would remain with- out any provisions for covered parking resulting in extreme inconvenience to the family, lack of protection to automobiles, and an adverse effect on property values. For the above reasons a variance is respectively requested. Mr. Fred Tooley submitted sketches of the proposed carport, his existing home and the accessory building now being constructed in his rear yard at this time. Pictures were shown to illustrate his proposed driveway/carport and a neighbors carport down the street with a similar carport as he desires. Mr. Tooley stated that he had no plans of selling any time soon and if the Board granted the variance the Board could feel free to so stipulate that no other structure could be built in the remaining yard. Mrs. Fougerat asked when he had become aware of the violation and Mr. Tooley stated he had become aware of the violation two weeks ago from this date. Mrs. Fougerat stated that the reason for the 20 ft. rear requirement is for the purpose of establishing guidelines for the control of density. Mr. Perry stated the reason he had denied issuing the permit to construct the carport was that it is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance #111, Section 26, Paragraph 3, which states that accessory buildings may not exceed the 40% coverage of the rear 20 feet of lot. Mrs. Fougerat asked Mr. Perry if he had any recollection of the carport being on the original drawings submitted by Mr. Tooley. Mr. Perry stated that Mr. Armstead was the person working in the Inspection Dept. who originally issued the permit. Mr. Tooley showed several indications where the carport was to go on the drawings but the word "carport" was not indicated on the drawing. The whole plan was part of a master plan that included the carport. Members examined drawings, dimensions under consideration. Mrs. Fougerat ,entertained a motion that the Public Hearing be closed. Fromen motioned to close the hearing. McCandless seconded the motion. Voting Aye: Fromen Voting No: None Fougerat McCandless Loftice Public Hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. Mrs. Fougerat entertained a motion to re-open the meeting. X23 McCandless motioned to re-open the meeting. Loftice seconded the motion. Meeting opened at 8:45 P.M. Voting Aye: Fougerat Voting No: None Loftice McCandless Fromen Loftice motioned that variance, docketed #83-2 be approved with further stipula- tion that no further construction be approved and/or built on the lot so that the plan as shown will maintain openess and furthermore, the stud wall as indi- cated on the east side of the carport not to exceed one-half the length of the ~° carport so that the. northern portion is maintained open. Presently, with the variance being approved he has 52.50 of his"lot covered, that no further con- struction to reduce that area will be approved. ~~ Motion diedfor lack of a second. Fromen motioned, seconded by Mrs. McKelvey, that application #83-2 from Fred W. Tooley at: Lot 15 Block 5 Virginia Court Addition 6031 Lake Street be denied, inasmuch as literal enforcement of the ordinance would not cause un- necessary hardship. Voting Aye: Fougerat Voting No: Loftice Fromen McCandless Three for - one against. Motion carried. The next item on-the agenda was the approval of past minutes. Loftice motion, seconded by Fromen that the January 27, 1983 minutes be approved as read. Voting Aye: Fougerat Voting No: None Loftice Fromen McCandless Motion carried. SEPTEMBER 15, 1982 McCandless stated the minutes need to reflect that denial of application No. 82-4 would not result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. Loftice was not present at the September 15, 1982 meeting. Motioned by Fromen, seconded by Loftice, that minutes of September 15, 1982 be approved as corrected. 124 Voting Aye: Fougerat Loftice Fromen McCandless Motion carried. AUGUST 18, 1982 Voting No: None Motion by Fromen, seconded by Loftice that August 18, 1982 minutes be approved as read. Voting Aye: Fougerat Loftice Fromen McCandless Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Voting No: None -~ Chairman ATTEST ~~ ~'~~~- Secretary n