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