Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 06/25/2003 • • 2027 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES M NOV rt�U3 NN June 25, 2003 $ rITY RECEIVESRt,RY D ao 1FCETr1 � r Board Members Present: Peter Mahaffey, Chairman Thomas McDonald, Vice-Chairman Louis Alvarado Robert Broadway Gene Clancy(Alternate) Board Member Absent: John Martinez(Alternate) Charles Schibi Staff Present: Miguel S. Saldarna, 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. 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 %2 of Lots 3 and 6, and south 'A 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 explained that at the last meeting the request had been tabled in order to allow time for Staff to readvertise the request to indicate a 5-foot setback for an encroachment of 20 feet. He presented a site plan depicting the location of the building in question. 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. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. SCANNED Zoning Board of Adjustment Mikes • June 25,2003 Page 2 Rev. Manuel Hernandez, Pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, 540 Hiawatha Street, stated that he made the mistake of trusting Morgan Buildings in the setting of the portable buildings without the required permits. The reason for setting the buildings in an L-shape was to protect the children enrolled in the school from the drug addicts in the neighborhood. He added that the buildings are entirely closed in. He cannot afford to move the buildings; the money left is for railings, plumbing, and air conditioning. He spoke with several of his neighbors and they saw no problem or danger in having the buildings as they are. He asked for the Board's support in not relocating the buildings. Mr. Carlos Valdez, 7030 Ashdown, spoke as a parishioner of Our Lady of Guadalupe, stating that granting the setback reduction would be an asset to the City. The land in question would be used for good purposes. He supported the request and asked for the Board's approval. Sister Maria Cabriales, 4905 Cynthia, with the Religious Education Program, stated that the Church has 125-150 children enrolled in the program each year. Although some of the children do not enroll again, they hope that whatever instruction they received, will help keep them off the streets. No one appeared in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staff's recommendation. As originally stated, Staff has no objection to one building encroaching 5 feet into the 25- foot front yard setback. Staff does not recommend the other building to extend 20 feet into the front yard setback. A motion was made by Board Member Broadway, seconded by Board Member McDonald, that the request be approved for a 5-foot setback reduction. Motion passed unanimously. Glen Wells: Appeal No.ZBA0503-04 Request: A Variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 4 feet on Windsong Unit 5, Block 1, Lot 13, located on the north side of Windvane Drive, approximately 100 feet east of Windblown Drive. Mr. Saldafia stated that the appellant, Glen Wells, is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 4 feet. He explained that this request was heard on May 28, 2003. Since then, the appellant has hired another surveyor and the distance between the two foundations is not 10-1/2 feet as Staff had previously stated, but 9-1/2 feet. Even if the lot line would be moved over, it would still be in violation by approximately six (6) inches. Another factor is that the 5 feet is for a 5-foot utility easement. If the Board grants a variance to encroach 6 inches into the side yard setback, Mr. Wells would still have to go through the easement closure process and then replat to close that portion of the easement. Since this is a variance, there are very strict rules to how a variance can be approved. It has to be because of size, shape, slope,or extenuating circumstances. Zoning Board of Adjustment ivies ' June 25,2003 • Page 3 Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Glen Wells, the appellant, 145 Martha, stated that he would do whatever he needed to do to correct the situation. He asked for the Board's support. Board Member Alvarado asked if the Board approved the request, how would it affect the neighbor. Mr. Saldana responded that it would not affect it at all. Board Member McDonald inquired if there were no easement, would it still require replatting. Mr. Saldana responded negatively stating that the replat is only triggered by the easement closure. Chairman Mahaffey asked if the easement had to be closed, why was it before the Board. Mr. Saldana explained that because the property is encroaching into the setback, the Board has to grant a variance to replat or file the easement closure. If the Board does not approve it, Mr. Wells cannot request an easement closure. If the easement was 7-1/2 feet and encroaching a foot into the easement, he would still maintain the 5-foot setback. Because he is encroaching into an ordinance-established setback, he needs the approval of the Board before he can do anything else. No one appeared in opposition, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldana stated that Staff could not find any basis for approval, therefore, recommends denial. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Broadway, seconded by Board Member Clancy, that the request be approved on the finding that an extraordinary and exceptional situation exists. The off-set property lines on the subdivision to the north were mistaken for the subject property's corner rods. Motion passed unanimously. Peoples Energy Production—Texas L. P.: Appeal No. ZBA0603-01 Request: A Variance to permit a drilling rig to exceed the 50-foot height limitation by 87 feet on J. C. Russell Farm Blocks, Block 21, located south of Agnes Street and east of Joe Mireur Road (F. M. 763). Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant has requested that the case be tabled until the next hearing on July 23, 2003. After communicating with the Airport, they realized they had to move the tower to obtain the height they need. They also did not have FAA's approval yet. A motion was made by Board Member McDonald, seconded by Board Member Broadway, that the request be tabled until the July 23, 2003 meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Zoning Board of Adjustment Ales June 25,2003 • Page 4 Xavier Perez:Appeal No. ZBA0603-02 Request: A Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 34 feet on Oak Terrace No. 3, Block 3, Lot 4, located on the north side of Compton Road, approximately 600 feet east of Central Avenue. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant, Mr. Xavier Perez, is requesting a reduction to the front yard setback from 50 feet to 34 feet in order to permit the construction of his home. Mr. Saldarla stated that the subject property currently has the forms for a foundation set but when an inspection was made, it was found that the foundation was too close to the property line. The property is zoned a "RE" Residential Estate District which requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre and a front yard setback of 50 feet. He described the surrounding zoning and land use and presented a site plan of the existing property. Twenty-one notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which one(1) was returned in favor and one(1) was returned in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Victor Medina, 2460 Cricket Hollow, surveyor representing the appellant, stated that at the time of the foundation construction, Mr. Perez was told to measure 50 feet from the edge of the pavement for the building line. The contractor, thinking everything was in order, proceeded to set the foundation forms. It was not until it was inspected that they found out it was only 36 feet instead of the required 50 feet. The Homeowner's Association Architectural Committee has agreed to leave the foundation where it is. The appellant has also thought of taking off the porch which will eliminate 8 feet, and in turn, will only be 42 feet from the property line. There was no bad intent and Mr. Perez is trying his best to conform to the requirements. Otherwise, he would have to reset the foundation and plumbing which will be very costly. He asked for the Board's consideration. Mr. Medina added that the appellant did not hire a surveyor to set up their foundation. The plan that was before the Board was done after the fact. Mr. Charles Perez, 3601 Capri, presented a site plan of the lot in question. His lot is isolated from the rest of the neighborhood, so it would not stand out. He pointed to other lots that have odd-shaped configurations that would run anywhere from 50 — 100 feet deep. After talking with the architectural committee about removing the porch, Mr. Frank Allen, felt there would be no problem with the 42-foot setback. Mr. Perez added that he also took into consideration some existing trees in deciding on the location of the house. Upon having to move the foundation, he would have to remove about a dozen large trees. He stated that it was an honest error. Board Member Clancy stated that the right-of-way goes up to the property line leaving only approximately a third of what could increase the front yard setback. Zoning Board of Adjustment Ives 411110 ' June 25,2003 • Page 5 Mr. Medina stated that the 42 feet is from the right-of-way line, 18 feet from the street. No one appeared in opposition, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for the Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldana stated that since it is an interior lot, greater than 1 acre, Staff does not find a hardship where a variance can be granted. Staff recommends denial of the variance. A motion was made by Board Member Alvarado that the request be approved on the findings that extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions exist. Mr. Saldana stated that a specific finding had to be stated. Board Members Alvarado and Broadway stated that the specific finding would be the extra cost of moving the foundation. Mr. Saldana stated that a financial hardship is not applicable. Mr. Joseph Harney, Assistant City Attorney, read the specific wording of the ordinance: "The strict application of each regulation and restriction would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property." Financial difficulties are not included. It can be a possible consideration, but it has to go beyond that. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Saldana explained that on the previous variance appeal (Appeal No. ZBA0503-04), the wrong pins were used. In this case, the basis could be that the building line was measured based on the deed restrictions and not with the plat. The City does not recognize deed restrictions, only the plat. After a discussion, Board Member Alvarado amended the motion to read that the request be approved for a front yard setback reduction from 50 feet to 42 feet on the finding that a extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition exists, not based on financial hardship but on misinformation given to the builder. Seconded by Board Member McDonald. Motion passed with McDonald, Broadway, Alvarado, and Clancy voting aye, and Mahaffey voting nay. NOTE: For detailed information on testimony, refer to the tape retained on file in the Department of Development Services. Zoning Board of Adjustment dillittes 4160 • June 25,2003 • Page 6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made to approve the May 28, 2003 minutes as written. Motion passed unanimously. * * * * * * * * * * * Board Member Broadway stated that he would be out of town on July 23, 2003 for the next hearing. * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Saldana mentioned that the Peoples Energy Production — Texas L. P. case would be readvertised under the Joint Airport Board of Adjustment for the next hearing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:43 p.m. Zoning Board of Adjustmenttes • • June 25,2003 • Page 7 The June 25, 2003 Board of Adjustment Minutes were approved as written/amended on July 23, 2003. ATTEST: Peter B. Mahaffey, Chairman H:\PLN-DIR\ERMA\WORD\ZBA\MINUTES\062503ZBAMINUTES.DOC