Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09151977 ZBA Minutes REGULAR MEETING OF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 15, 1977 The Zoning Board of Adjustment convened in regular session at the City Hail on Thursday, September 15, 1977, 7:30 p.m., with the following members pre- sent: Chairman Mike Casey, presiding; Members John Ayres, Frank Billings. and Richard Wilkins. Alternate member Dan Doughty had been designated to sit as a member in the absence of Mr. Bob Johnson. Alternate member Frank Burge was out of the city.. Mr. Casey advised those in attendance that the purpose of the meeting was to hold a rehearing of an application filed by Mr. Winfield Campbell, docketed 77-7, for permission to construct an elevated deck in the-rear yard area of his residence located at 6135 Fordham.~/ Mr. Casey introduced himself and identified his residence in the city, followed by each member of the Board. Mr. Casey ascertained from the .secretary that Notice of the rehearing had been posted on the City Hall bulletin board. on Monday, September 12,.1977,. in accordance with the provisions of Article 6252-17 V.A.T.C.S. and all legal requirements met for holding the rehearing. Mr. Casey advised those in attendance at the meeting that .the procedure to be followed would be testimony by .all those in favor of Per. Campbell's re- quest, followed by questions from members of the Board. Next, would be testi- mony by any persons in opposition to Mr. Campbel}'s request including the Building Inspector as representative :for the city. Mr. Casey administered the Oath to all t-hose persons wishing to be heard by the Board. Following a request that he present additional evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing on his application on August 25, 1977, Mr. Campbell introduced Ms. Debbie. Ratliff as his counsel. Ms. Ratliff stated that in part Mr. Campbell's request was for an appeal to the denial of a variance which requires a great showing on the part of the applicant of undue hardship and that the previously filed application should be considered as a request for a special exception under the provisions as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance permitting the Board to grant a special exception. Ms. Ratliff requested that if the request was denied that the ..Board interpret the Ordinance and advise what regulations, if any, had been violated. Mr. Robinson, architect who designed the improvements to Mr. Campbell's resi- dence, stated that in dealing with the deck itself, which is the construction planned between the existing house and the structure behind the house, it was initially begun to be a connection between the two, to allow passage to the utility. room. Mr. Robinson stated that three different levels of redwood con- struction had been planned, with the lowest being 6" above grade. The pro- posed elevated deck was to be 22' long at a height of ten to eleven feet, and on the approximate same level as the existing structure. 251 Ms. Ratliff advised the Board that, in .:her opinion, they could grant a special exception under the provisions of Section 30 (2) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance which provides, "Permit such modifications of the yard or open space or lot area or lot width regulations as maybe necessary to secure appropriate im- provement of a parcel of land where such parcel was separately owned at the time of the passage of this ordinance., an'd is of such restricted area that it cannot be appropriately improved without such modifications." Ms. Ratliff determined from Mr. Campbell that the property was .separately owned at the time of the passage of the Zoning Ordinance and that. with a lot valued at $55,000 you want to be able to improve your lot to the fullest ,.~ extent. Mr. Campbell stated that since the time .his application had been filed residents within two (200') feet of his. property. had received notice ~ of the hearing and that he had personally talked with all 'except three, and '-~ .had reviewed his plans for the proposed improvements. Mr. Campbell stated ~ that without exception. all of the residents approved .his plans. In response to additional questions by Ms. Ratliff, Mr. Campbell stated that residents with whom he discussed the proposed construction had signed a peti- tion., which Ms. Ratliff presented to the Board. Mr. Campbell also stated that he .had constructed a sidewalk on the side of his property which had not been required by the city. Mr. Casey read the petition presented by Ms. Ratliff: We, the undersigned, are. property owners in West University Place. We are familiar with Mr. Winfield M. Campbell's proposed plans for improvements on his property_,at 6135 Fordham,_for which he is currently seeking a building permit. If the proposed improvements contravene any City building ordinance or regulation, we all join in respectfully urging the Board to grant Mr. Campbell a special exception or variance allowing him to construct the improvements as proposed. -The proposed improvements will not in any manner injure the adjoining property, but rather will enhance both the general aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood and the value of the neighboring property. We believe that the type of improvements proposed by Mr. Campbell are .not only desirable but also-necessary to the appropriate de- velopment and preservation of the neighborhoods of West University Place. Such improvements enhancing our neighborhoods substantially serve the public welfare and convenience of all West University Place residents. For the foregoing reasons, we request that the Board grant Mr. Camp- bell the necessary approval to complete the proposed improvements to his property. Mr. Casey noted that the petition has 84 signatures and would be on file in the event anyone wanted to examine it. Mr. Gene McFadden, 2634 Amherst, advised- the Board that he lived across the street from Winfield Campbell and after reviewing plans for the proposed im- a~: provements thought they. were well thought out. and well planned, and certainly would not detract from the neighborhood. Mr. Roger Poser, 6106 Fordbam, stated-that this particular issue was of im- portant concern to Mr. Campbell, all residents, Board members and the city in general, inasmuch as it utilized a small unusually placed piece of land in an enhanced way. P9r. Poser also stated that it is necessary to increase the liveable space that can be made. of lots in West University and that the Board should consider every avenue to allow the requested improvements to be made. Mr. John Mitchell, 2908 Wroxton, advised the Commission that in West Univer- sity the price and value of land and the size of families that are .beginning to move back into smaller houses requires flexible ways to modify and use the property. Per. Mitchell. stated that he knew of other instances where owners had been prohibited from making improvements that would increase the size of home for the size of the family. Mr. Mitchell expressed concern re- garding .the 40% coverage of the rear lot that was questioned, stating that if the same area was covered with concrete it would be permitted and he per- sona lly felt that for the growth of trees and .flowers a redwood deck that would permit water to drain would be much more acceptable. Mrs. Lou Yeager, 6129 Fordfiam, stated that she had seen Mr. CampbelT';s plans and thought them beautiful and expressed her hope that the Board would per- mit Mr. Campbell to build according to his plans. Mr. Casey was presented .the following letter received regarding the applica- tion: The purpose of this letter is to support Mr. Winfield M. Campbell's request for a permit, a special exception, and/or a variance in con- nection with the proposed construction to his home at 6135 Fordham. I am a West University h"omeowner residing at 2901 Wroxton. I have seen Mr. Campbell's construction plans and it is my opinion that this proposed construction will add substantial value to Mr. Campbell's home, his immediate neighborhood, and to West Unver- sity as a whole. I will leave it to your good judgment to determine the proper classi- fication for approval of his request, however, I feel it is incumbent upon all West University residents to support those residents desiring to do quality improvements to their homes, and to assure them that they will be permitted to do so without undo difficulty or bureau- cratic red tape. Otherwise, qualified purchasers .seeking to buy older homes and remodel them will find areas other than West Uni- versity in which to invest their dollars, and all of us will be the losers. I regret that I am out of the city and unable to attend this evening's session.. Should you have any questions please contact me at 661-3496 after Sunday, September 18, 1977. Respectfully, Charles B. Owens 257 Inasmuch as there were no further persons wishing to testify in behalf of Mr. Campbell's request, Mr. Casey requested that Building Inspector Wayne Perry presented the city's viewpoint. Mr. Perry stated that provisions of the Zoning Ordinance require garages or other accessory buildings located in the rear yard area not to exceed 40% of the rear yard area. Mr. Perry also stated that inasmuch as Mr. Campbell's residence was on a corner lot and. the proposed carport, garage or structure, could not be located within ten (10') feet of the side street property line. When questioned concerning the proposed placement of support posts for the structure on the rear property line,~Mr. Perry stated a City Ordinance pro- hibited the construction o`f any structure other than a fence over the dedi- ~ cated utility easement along the rear 5' of the property. Mr. Billings stated that he would like to make it clear that Mr. Campbell's ~ original application had been a request for a specific exception, however, the Board did not believe that evidence had been presented which met .the re- quirements for granting an exception so, in fairness to Mr. Campbell, the application was considered for the granting of a variance. In response to a question regarding the purpose or intent of a provision requiring no more than 40% coverage in the rear yard area, Mr. Perry read Section 26(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows: Side and rear yards: The space in a side or rear yard shall be open and unobstructed except for a porte cochere and the ordinary projections of window sills, belt courses, cornices, eaves and other ornamental features. A building and any accessory building erected on the same lot shall for the purpose of side and rear yard requirements be considered as a single building, except that a pri- vate garage, or other accessory building not over twenty-five (25) feet in height may occupy not to exceed forty (40) percent of the rear yard area. In response to a question. from the Board regarding any alternative to placing support posts in a location other than as a part of the fence, Mr. Robinson stated that it would limit the design and intent of the construction. In a recap of the proceedings, Mr. Casey stated that there was no way legally the Board could grant a variance to leave the support posts in the rear 5' easement, and consideration would be given to the granting of a special ex- ception under the provisions of Sect ion 30 (2) Sub. (6) & (8) of the Zoning. Ordinance. Ms. Ratliff presented members of the Board copies of issues which she felt should be determined by the Zoning Board of Adjustment from the Building Inspector's denial of a building permit, as follows: I believe that in denying my application fora building permit the Building .Inspector misinterpreted and misapplied various provisions of the zoning ordinance. To determine whether the Inspector acted illegally or incorrectly in denying my permit request, it appears necessary for the Board to consider and decide at least the issues set out below regarding the correct interpretation of the zoning ordinance.. I thus request that the Board consider, decide, and make written findings on the following issues so that I may know if my present plans violate any zoning ordinance, and, if they do, whether and how I can feasibly modify those plans to comply .with the ordinance as interpreted and applied by this Board. I. What is the definition of a "structure", and where is it defined in the zoning ordinance? Relevant Sections:: #2(1), (6), °(18), (22); #26 (3), (4). II. Whether redwood decking 12" and 18" above grade, but no higher than the ground floor level of the main building, constitutes a "building" or "structure" rendering the space in a rear yard not "open and unobstructed"? Relevant Sections: #2(1), (6), (18), (22); #24(2); #26(3), (4). III. Whether the proposed extension from my existing accessory building over the present concrete driveway constitutes a "porte cochere" which is specifically allowed in a side or rear yard by Section 26(3)? IV. Whether anything not extending more .than 6" above grade is not a "structure" or "building", while anything higher than 6" above grade is a "structure" or "building" for purposes of the zoning ordinance? If so, which provision of the ordinance so provides? Relevant Sections: #2(1), (3),(18),(22), #24(2); #26(3)(4). V. Whether the relevant "rear yard" for purposes of Section 26(3) is the space extending the full width of the lot from the rear of the main .building to the rear lot line or only the rear twenty feet of the lot" Relevant Sections: #2(1), (22); #24(2); #26(3). VI. Whether the proposed Extension from my existing accessory building over the present concrete driveway is a deck, a balcony, a poste cochere, a carport or a "garage" for the purposes of the minimum setback requirements? Relevant Sections: #2(20); #3(3). VII. What is the definition of a "garage" for purposes of the minimum setback. requirements" Where in the ordinance is the term defined? Relevant Sections: #2(2); #3(3). VIII. Whether the forty percent rear yard coverage limitation in Section 29(3) was intended to apply only to private garages and other actual accessory buildings, while excluding floor-level decking, patios, etc." Relevant Sections: #2(1), (3),(6),(18),(20),(22); #24(2), #26(.3) (4). 1 u ~3 d'~ 0~ Qq GO Motion by Mr. Ayres, seconded by Mr. Wilkins, that the meeting recess for ten minutes. Voting Aye: Ayres Billings Casey Doughty Wilkins Voting No: None P1otion by Mr. Wilkins, seconded by Mr. Doughty, that the meeting~be called back to order. Voting Aye: Ayres Billings Casey Doughty Wilkins Voting No: None Members of the Board examined the following provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in consideration of granting a specific exception: Section 30, #2(6), (8). D 1 Motion by Mr. Billings, seconded by Mr. Wilkins, that the-Board not grant a special exception because the applicant has not shown that he falls within the exception to permit such modifications of the yard or open space or lot area or lot width regulations as may be necessary to secure appropriate im- provement of a parcel of land where such parcel was separately owned at the time of the passage of this ordinance, and is of such restricted area that it cannot be appropriately improved without such modifications. Nor has he shown that the erection of this addition is essential to the completion of an appropriate unit as set forth in Section 8, and that the Board has further looked at the other listed exceptions and does not feel that the applicant has shown that he falls within any of those exceptions. either. Voting Aye: Ayres Billings Casey Doughty Wilkins Voting No: None Motion by Pir. Billings, seconded. by h1r. Ayres,. that the Board in construing the Zoning Ordinance has construed that the item which the applicant wishes to build is a structure as specified in various places in the Zoning Ordi- nance. Motion withdrawn by Mr. Billings, with permission of Mr. Ayres. Motion. by Mr. Billings, seconded by Mr. Ayres, that in interpreting the Statute the Board considers the proposed construction over the existing driveway area as a structure. Voting Aye r Ayres Billings Casey Doughty Wilkins 1 Voting No: None Motion by Mr. Billings, seconded by Mr. Doughty, that the total proposed construction exceeds 40% of the rear yard area whether you interpret rear yard area as all area behind the main building or the 20' rear yard area. .Voting Aye: Ayres Voting No: None Billings Casey Doughty Wilkins Motion by Mr. Doughty, seconded by Mr. Ayres, in view of the above definitions, and the fact that there was no other new evidence presented this evening, supporting the granting of a variance, that the Board sustains its earlier ruling and denies a variance be granted. Voting Aye.: Ayres Voting No: None Billings Casey Doughty Wilkins In further discussion by members of the Board it was determined that all issues in this case which the Board is legally allowed to resolve have been resolved. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment on August 25, 1977, were presented for consideration and the following action taken: Motion by Mr. Billings, seconded by Mr. Wilkins that minutes of the regular meeting. of the Zoning Board of Adjustment on August 25, 1977 be approved as written. Voting Aye: Ayres Voting No: Pone Billings Casey Doughty Wilkins With no further business to come before the Board at this time, upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Chairman ATTEST: Secretary