Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 05/28/2003 • • 181g202722 co BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTEStfr NQS n aN(5, May 28, 2003 M RECE%VEC� ti N CITY SECRETARY S OFFICE <0 co Board Members Present: Peter Mahaffey, Chairman ��� pow Thomas McDonald, Vice-Chairman d)c Louis Alvarado Robert Broadway Gene Clancy(Alternate) Board Member Absent: Charles Schibi Staff Present: Miguel S. Saldana, AICP, City Planner Joseph F. Harney, Assistant City Attorney Erma Ramirez, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall and explained the procedure to be followed. Robert H. Corrigan,Jr.: Appeal No. ZBA0503-01 Request: A Special Yard Exception to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 9 feet along Santa Fe Street and four (4) feet along Fifth Street on Bayview Addition, Block 9, Lots 2B, 3, and 4, located between Santa Fe and Fifth Streets, approximately 100 feet south of Craig Street. Mr. Miguel Saldafia, City Planner, stated that the appellant, Robert H. Corrigan, Jr., is requesting a reduction to the front yard setback in order to expand the existing building located on Lot 2B. The existing structure will be removed and replaced by the new expansion. He presented a computerized slide presentation describing the surrounding land use. He also presented the site plan submitted by the appellant depicting the location of the parking lot and proposed addition. Because the existing structure is grandfathered and nonconforming, it is allowed to remain but any new addition is required to meet the 20-foot setback. Fifteen notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of the subject property, of which none were returned in favor or in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. SCANNED , Zoning Board of Adjustment Miles May 28,2003 Page 2 Mr. Morgan Spear, 225 S. Carancahua, representing Mr. Robert Corrigan, stated that the appellant plans to expand his office with a new building to the south of the existing structure which is located on Lot 2A, Block 9, Bay View Addition. The existing structure is not in compliance in reference to front yard setbacks, one being on Santa Fe and the other on Fifth Street. Because of the strange configuration of Block 9, the front yard setbacks prohibit the property from being developed for the use it is presently zoned. Mr. Corrigan plans to acquire Lots 2B, 3 and 4 of Block 9, Bayview Addition, and in doing so, he would add an office addition of approximately 3,000 square feet. The addition when added to the existing structure of 3,272 square feet would require parking for 31 automobiles per the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Corrigan proposes to provide parking on Lots 3 and 4 to meet the requirement. The Church located on Lot 1 A, the existing structure on Lot 2B, and the foundation that exists on Lot 3 are in noncompliance. He felt that the proposed addition would be an improvement to the area. Mr. Saldafia stated that since the plans continue the same type of development and landscaping, it will be an improvement to the area. Staff has no objection to the request subject to the submitted site plan. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Board Member McDonald, seconded by Board Member Broadway, that the request be approved as per submitted site plan. Motion passed unanimously. Our Lady of Guadalupe Church: Appeal No. ZBA0503-02 Request: A Special Yard Exception to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet along Virginia Street on Meadow Park Subdivision, Block 27, Lots 1, 2, 3A, 4, 14, 15, 16B, 17, 18, north 1/2 of Lots 3 and 6, and south %2 of Lots 5 and 13, located on the north side of Morgan Avenue, between Hiawatha and Virginia Streets. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant, Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, is requesting a reduction in the front yard setback in order to accommodate the location of an existing portable building. He presented a site plan depicting the location of the building in question. He added that there were two buildings and one would be relocated to comply with the minimum setback requirements. The other building encroaches 5 feet into the 25-foot front yard setback. There is a 25-foot front yard setback because the property is zoned "R-1B". The side yard setback for an institutional use, such as a church, is required to have a 25-foot setback to which the building exceeds. The only thing in question is the front yard setback. He described the surrounding land use by means of a computerized slide presentation. Fifty-two notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of the subject property, of which two (2)were returned in favor and none in opposition. , Zoning Board of Adjustment Miles • • May 28,2003 Page 3 Board Member Broadway inquired if it was the church's decision to move one of the buildings. Mr. Saldana responded positively. Board Member McDonald inquired if any permits had been issued for plumbing and electrical use. Mr. Saldana responded that Morgan Building had set the building in place and the Church assumed that everything was in order until it was checked by City inspectors. It was the Church's decision on Staff's recommendation to move the building closest to the property line and appeal to the Board for the encroachment of 5 feet on the building in question. Board Member Alvarado inquired if the building to be moved could be moved within the 5 feet. Mr. Saldafia responded that there is a building separation required by the Fire Code, so the building could not be moved any closer to the existing building. They would have to attach it which would run into more money or have to relocate to another place. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Rev. Manuel Hernandez, Pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church at 540 Hiawatha, stated that he was informed by Morgan Buildings that he did not have to take out any permits until after the building had been set. It was not until he was moving forward with the plumbing and electrical that he was told he was in violation. The building facing Virginia Street is quite a bit from the street and from the house. The reasoning behind moving the building was to protect the 150 children that attend the church from the drug addicts in the neighborhood. He asked for the support of the Board. Board Member Broadway asked if it was his choice to move one of the buildings, would he have considered moving the building at all. Rev. Hernandez stated that he would rather leave the building where it is because it is closer to the other buildings on site so he could better keep an eye on the children. He was told by the Building Division that the building had to be moved because it was 5 feet from the sidewalk. Board Member Broadway referred a question to Mr. Saldana inquiring if the building to be moved could be addressed, or only the building in question. Mr. Saldana stated that they could only address the 5-foot encroachment into the front yard setback. Chairman Mahaffey asked if the 5-foot encroachment was approved, could they consider the building being moved to be 20 feet from the property line. Mr. Saldana stated that it was up to the Board. All that had to be done was move the building 5 feet towards the center. Chairman Mahaffey was of the opinion that it would be a lot cheaper if the Church only had to move the building back in line to where it had a 5-foot encroachment instead of moving it all the way over. There would be two buildings with a 5-foot encroachment. Board Member McDonald stated that another appeal would have to be made and it would delay the opening of the church school. . Zoning Board of Adjustment iVl es May 28,2003 Page 4 Mr. Saldana added that new notices would have to be mailed out to advertise the encroachment. Rev. Hernandez stated that he could wait in order to petition not to have to move the other building. It would be very beneficial for them. Chairman Mahaffey asked what was the cost of moving the other building. Rev. Hernandez responded that it would be approximately$3,000. The public hearing was closed. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Broadway, seconded by Board Member Alvarado, that the request be tabled until the June 25th meeting so as to readvertise the request. Motion passed unanimously. Ro Wickham: Appeal No. ZBA0503-03 Request: A Special Yard Exception to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 1 foot on Padre Isles, Ports O'Call, Block 5,Lot 35, located on the south side of Eaglesnest Bay drive, approximately 150 feet east of Hawksnest Bay Drive. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant, Ro Wickham, is requesting a Special Yard Exception to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 1 foot in order to build a lap pool which will be used for therapy. He described the land use by means of a computerized slide presentation. He presented the site plan submitted by the appellant depicting the location of the swimming pool which would fall within 1 foot of the property line. Twenty notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of the subject property, of which three were returned in favor and none in opposition. The owner of the subject property submitted a notice in favor. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Ro Wickham, the appellant, stated that he lives next door to the Daner residence and have been advised of their request to reduce the side yard setback requirement for the construction of a lap pool one (1) foot from his property line. He was in full support of the request, as they have a very limited distance within the side yard, and to deny their request would cause a severe hardship in providing a usable pool for their family. The fence between the two properties stands at 12 feet. The planned lap swimming pool location would be limited to the larger side yard at the subject residence. This side yard is presently 12.5 feet wide. By reducing the side yard requirement next to the property line to 1 foot allows for a pool width of 8.5 feet, which is a minimum width for a lap pool. The adjacent property side yard is also 12.5 feet which gives an open area between the two houses a total of 25 feet. He has agreed to the encroachment with the stipulation that any damage to his property will be replaced. . Zoning Board of Adjustment Jibes 4111 • May 28,2003 Page 5 Chairman Mahaffey asked Mr. Wickham if he were to later sell his property and the pool would need repairs, how would repairmen get to the property with only 1 foot in between. Mr. Wickham stated that the only thing on his side of the property will be a foundation and a curb approximately on the property line. He could not think of anything that would be of any consequence to impede the repairs. Mrs. Doris Daner, 13725 Eaglesnest, owner of the property in question, stated that all of her husband's physicians suggest exercise as part of his therapy. Due to the seriousness of his illnesses, water exercise would be the best type of therapy for him. The request would allow them to put in a 9-foot wide pool, 38' long. Without the variance, it will not be feasible to do it. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Saldafia clarified that the Zoning Ordinance does classify swimming pools as accessory buildings which means they can be located within 3 feet of the side property line and 5 feet along the rear property line. It does not exempt from the 25-foot front yard setback or 10- foot setback in the island. In the front yard, they would have to meet the minimum requirement, but the side yards,they can go down to 3 feet. Mr. Saldara stated that Staff has looked at other swimming pools for the same therapeutical conditions, and being that the adjacent property owner is in agreement, Staff has no objection to the special yard exception. A motion was made by Board Member Broadway, seconded by Board Member Clancy, that the request be approved as per submitted site plan. Motion passed unanimously. Glen Wells: Appeal No. ZBA0503-04 Request: A Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 4 feet. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant, Glen Wells, is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 4 feet. The reason for a variance request instead of a special yard exception is due to the property not abutting permanent open space and not being located at an intersection. It is an interior lot, and by ordinance, needs to apply for a variance. The property is in a newly developed subdivision where the house and foundation were placed in the wrong location. The pins that were used to set the forms were the wrong ones, which were approximately a foot off. Mr. Saldana presented a site plan showing the four feet from the edge of the foundation. Twenty notices were mailed to property owners within 200-foot radius of the subject property, of which none were returned in favor or in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. . Zoning Board of Adjustment Ies • May 28,2003 Page 6 Mr. Glen Wells, the appellant and property owner, stated that only the back pin was wrong. The front pin was correct making the side yard fairly close to where it should be. Currently the back pin is at an angle. A mistake was made when staking out the corner of the lot in question. The corner of the lot was placed one foot over on the neighboring lot to the left of the subject property. It was reviewed and passed inspection. It was not found out until the foundation of the neighboring lot was poured. The problem was that their house was only four feet away from the property line instead of the five feet required. He was requesting a variance be granted to allow his house to be four feet from the property line. The overall impact on the space between both houses will be 9 feet 6 inches instead of the 10 feet required from foundation to foundation. Chairman Mahaffey inquired who was the surveyor. Mr. Wells explained that they did not have a surveyor because the pins were already there. He explained that the next lot was vacant when their house was being built. When the foundation was laid next door, the builder found a difference at that point. No one had caught the mistake before then. Mr. Saldana mentioned that he measured approximately 10 feet between the subject property's foundation and the adjoining property's foundation. A replat could be done to move the lot line and the request for a variance could be withdrawn. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Saldana stated that Staff could not make a specific finding to allow the request. Based on that, Staff could not support the variance. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Broadway, seconded by Board Member Alvarado, that the request be tabled until the June 25th meeting in order for the appellant to request an amended plat for the subject property and to have the property resurveyed. Motion passed unanimously. NOTE: For detailed information on testimony, refer to the tape retained on file in the Department of Development Services. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made to approve the April 23, 2003 minutes subject to revisions. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. H:\PLN-DIR\ERMA\WORD\ZBA\MINUTES\052803ZBAM INUTES.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment Nees 0 • ' May 28,2003 Page 7 The May 28, 2003 Board of Adjustment Minutes were approved as written/amended on June 25,2003. ATTEST: Peter B. Mahaffey, Chairman