Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board Of Adjustment - 11/19/2003 4411, 44.0 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES fag 1011 y213 November 19, 2003 c3 aFC n Board Members Present: Peter Mahaffey, Chairman I elly m Thomas McDonald, Vice-Chairman . �t?� 7 n`D, Robert Broadway ° ' FI S �tio Charles Schibi oc%, Gene Clancy(Alternate) 'eft 5Z • Board Member Absent: Louis Alvarado 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 for the Zoning Board of Adjustment at 1:33 p.m. and explained the procedure to be followed. John and Lynne Pezzi: Appeal No. ZBA1003-02 Request: A Special Yard Exception to reduce the 20-foot rear yard setback and 15-foot restrictive building line to 0 feet on Padre Isles, Section D, Block 1, Lot 9, located on the south side of Granada Drive, approximately 800 feet west of Leeward Drive. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellants, John and Lynne Pezzi, are requesting a Special Yard Exception to reduce the 20-foot rear yard setback and 15-foot restrictive building line to 0 feet. The appellants are proposing to develop a vacant tract of land with multi-family development similar to existing uses in the area. The reason for the reduction in the rear yard setback is to build a concrete retaining wall and a swimming pool beyond the rear building line. Mr. Saldaiia described the location, land use, and zoning by means of computerized slides. He presented a site plan of the proposed development. This case was originally heard on October 22, 2003, at which time the case was tabled due to the appellant not being present. There was opposition from the owner of the existing condominium complex to the west of the subject property. Forty-four notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor and one(1) in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. SCANNED • Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes November 19,2003 Page 2 Mr. Taylor Muck, architect with Island Architects, representing the appellant, questioned why an appeal was needed for the swimming pool. The Zoning Ordinance states that swimming pools can be built as close as 5 feet to the property line. Mr. Saldana explained that the Building Division has classified a pool as a structure, and as such it is required to comply with the building setbacks if there is a platted building line. The platted building line and the platted restrictive building line supercede the Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is a platted lot with a restrictive building line. Mr. Gary Graham, Managing Agent for the Sand Dollar Condominiums adjacent to the subject property, appeared in opposition. He stated that they had no problem with the swimming pool. Their concern was the 0 lot line on the side yard because the building would be too close to their balconies. Once Mr. Graham was reassured that the appellant was not asking for a side yard exception, Mr. Graham withdrew his opposition. No one else appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldafia stated that Staff has no objection to the request limited only to the swimming pool and its retaining wall. Motion was made by Broadway, seconded by Clancy, that the request be approved limited to a swimming pool and its retaining wall and subject to the attached site plan. Motion passed unanimously. Lynda Achsa Janell Jones: Appeal No. ZBA1003-04 Request: A Special Yard Exception to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 1 foot on Lindale Subdivision, Section 3, Block 29, Lot 1, located on the northwest corner of Vaky Street and Reid Drive. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant, Lynda Achsa Janell Jones, is requesting a Special Yard Exception to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 1 foot in order to allow an accessory building to go beyond the 10-foot side yard building line setback. Mr. Saldana stated that this appeal had been tabled at the October 22, 2003 meeting. There had been questions as to where the building was in relation to the property line. There were also concerns over the home occupation use. Since then, he had met with Ms. Jones and had agreed on what materials could be stored, and the art would be done in the main structure. Ms. Jones had also agreed to move the garage wall away five (5) feet from the property line and build a solid wall. The existing trellis would remain at its current location since it does not 4110 1410 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes November 19,2003 Page 3 encroach into the right-of-way. He presented a site plan depicting the location of the structures. Twenty-six notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which four(4)were returned in favor and one(1)was returned in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Ms. Lynda Jones, 602 Vaky, the appellant, stated she is requesting to move the garage wall 5 feet from the property line and a 2-foot overhang for the roof. The garage would have a single door facing Vaky, not Reid Drive. She had also been made aware of the storage materials allowed. The garage door would serve as storage only,not for an art studio. In answer to questions regarding the home occupation, Mr. Saldafia explained that a home occupation should be in the main structure, not in an accessory structure. The garage is a detached accessory structure. When asked how the construction originated, Ms. Jones explained that there was already an existing concrete slab in her back yard so she hired a contractor to build an art studio, not knowing she needed building permits. When she asked her contractor, he told her she did not need a permit for the structure. She felt the structure would help secure her property having it go up to the fence. No one else appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldafia stated that since Ms. Jones had amended her request to a reduction from 10 feet to 5 feet and has agreed to relocate the garage door, Staff had no objection to the request. Motion was made by Schibi, seconded by Clancy, that the request be approved for a reduction of the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for the garage structure and allowed the trellis to remain in the side yard setback, subject to the attached site plan. Motion passed unanimously. SANCO Construction, Inc.: Appeal No. ZBA1103-01 Request: A Special Yard Exception to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 7.5 feet on Wood Estates Unit 2A, Block 48, Lot 28, located on the southeast corner of Beal and Teal Drives. Mr. Saldafia stated that the appellant, SANCO Construction, Inc., has requested a Special Yard Exception to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 7.5 feet to allow a newly built home. The request is for a 2-1/2 foot encroachment on the left corner of the home due to a construction error. He described the land use, zoning, and location of the subject property by use 111110 *INV Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes November 19,2003 Page 4 of computerized slides. He presented a site plan showing the encroachment of the home. There were twenty notices mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor or in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Dolores Sanchez, builder of subject property, stated that he constructed the home from a plat received from the Neighborhood Association. When the property was staked, it was measured 25 feet from the curb instead of the sidewalk. The mistake was not caught until a survey was done upon selling the home. Mr. Saldafia explained that the Neighborhood Association measures from the curb line, but the City plat which is recorded with the Nueces County Records is measured from the property line. Broadway excused himself from further consideration of this case due to personal conflict with the builder. No one else appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldafia stated that since no opposition was received and since the encroachment was for only a small corner of the lot, Staff has no objection to the request provided it is limited only to the encroachment shown on the plat. Motion by Schibi, seconded by Clancy, that the request be approved limited to the encroachment as shown on the site plan and subject to a replat. Motion passed unanimously. DWH Construction: Appeal No. ZBA1103-02 Request: A Variance to reduce the 5-foot side yard setback to 2.9 feet on Windsong Unit 5, Block 1, Lot 25, located on the east side of Wind Hollow Drive, approximately 250 feet north of Wooldridge Road. Mr. Saldafia stated that the appellant, DWH Construction, is requesting a Variance to reduce the 5-foot side yard setback to 2.9 feet in order to allow a newly constructed home. He described the land use, zoning, and location of the subject property by means of computerized slides. He also presented a site plan depicting the location of the home. Mr. Saldafia explained that the property lines to the east are offset from the property lines on the subdivision. Upon measuring,the builder used the wrong pins. The error was not found until after the fact. . 110 4100 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes November 19,2003 Page 5 Eighteen notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor and one(1)was returned in opposition. Chairman Mahaffey opened the public hearing. Mr. Dub Huddleston, 2418 Wind Hollow, builder of the subject site, stated that the pins could not be found until the construction of the home next door was too close. A survey was made after they found out there was a problem. No one else appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldana stated that since the lot is rectangular in shape and a standard size residential lot, Staff recommended denial of the request. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Broadway, seconded by Schibi, that the request be approved on the finding that the back lots have a different property line and the pins do not line up straight because the wrong pins were used. The request was approved limited to the encroachment as shown on the site plan. Motion passed unanimously. CSN International: Appeal No. ZBA1103-03 REQUEST: A Special Use Exception to erect a 100-foot telecommunication tower on Brandywine South Unit 1, Block 1, Lot 2, located on the south side of Saratoga Boulevard, approximately 400 feet west of Rodd field Road. Mr. Saldana stated that the appellant, CSN International, is requesting a Special Use Exception to erect a 100-foot telecommunication tower to be used for a church broadcasting station. He described the land use, zoning, and location of the subject property by means of computerized slides. He stated that he had not received a site plan, therefore, he did not know the location of the tower in relation to the property lines or street. Forty-seven notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius, of which none were returned in favor and two (2)were returned in opposition. Kent Mason, 3021 Saskatchewan Dr., representative for CSN International, stated that he had delivered the site plan. He did not know why Mr. Saldana had not received it. He stated that the actual tract of land is 12.5 acres and the tower is set back 400 feet west of Rodd Field Road. The tower is situated to where the fall radius is well within the property line. Mr. Bill Oglebie, 10538 Horseshoe, engineer for KSGR, stated that the tower is a self- supporting lattice-type tower. It is set in a substantial concrete base and is a Zone C classification engineered for coastal areas. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes November 19,2003 Page 6 No one else appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Mahaffey asked for Staff's recommendation. Mr. Saldana apologized for not having received the site plan. He stated that it was difficult to make a recommendation without a site plan, but since the appellant states that the tower would be located within the property and would sustain 130 mph sustained winds, Staff had no objection. After a brief discussion, a motion by Broadway, seconded by Schibi, that the request be approved subject to a submitted site plan and the tower designed to withstand 130 mph sustained winds. 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 October 22, 2003 minutes as written. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:43 p.m. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes November 19,2003 Page 7 H:\PLN-DIR\ERMA\WORD\ZBA\MINUTES\111903ZBAM INUTES.DOC The November 19, 2003 Board of Adjustment Minutes were approved as written/amended on December 17, 2003. ATTEST: Peter B. Mahaffey, Chairman