Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Adjustment-Minutes-3/12/2001Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 12, 2002 Page 1 of 5 -Approved on June ~~, 2002 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING -MARCH 12, 2001 TRAINING SESSION: The Zoning Board of Adjustment Member training session was begun at 6:15 p.m. and concluded at 7:00 p.m. All current and newly appointed Board members were present. REGULAR MEETING: Chairman McNosky called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. on March 12, 2002. Roll Call: Present: Rich Munson, Skip Reynolds, Jeff Byerly, Larry Henry, Dee McNosky, Alt. Clarence Bercher, Walter Shepard. Staff: Barry LeBaron, Tom Niederauer Approval of Minutes:. December 11, 2001 Skip Reynolds moved to approve the minutes. Larry Henry seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a unanimous "Aye" voice vote. Chairman McNosky explained the procedures of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and outlined the meeting format for the audience. Except for the two alternates, All present members will be voting members for the meeting and it will take a vote in favor by four of the five members to approve the variance request. 1. PUBLIC HEARING -Request of Andrew C. Oakley for a variance from Section 3.24.G - Schedule of District Regulations to allow the construction of a dwelling that would encroach approximately 5-feet into the required 15-foot side yard at 4409 Bowman Road, Lot 1, Block 1, Pelton Oaks, Case A-02-001. Tom Niederauer presented the case to the Board and reviewed the staff briefing. Rich Munson asked for clarification of the required width in R-20 and an R-40 Zoning District. Niederauer stated that 100 feet is the required width in R-20 and 150 feet in R-40. Chairman McNosky opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Those present wishing to speak in favor of the variance request were: Andrew C. Oakley, the applicant, at 1026 Kessler Parkway, Dallas, Texas presented the case for the owners, Dyke and Sheri Shipp. He explained that the need for the variance is to be able to site the new house design without encroaching on the existing pool, and to avoid the loss of many trees. He illustrated his point with site plans of the lot. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 12, 2002 Page 2 of 5 -Approved on June ~~, 2002 Munson asked for clarification of the widths of the subject lot, and the adjacent lots to the north and south. Niederauer stated that the subject property is 107 feet wide, the lot to the south is 100 feet and the lot to the north is 136 feet in width. Oakley helped to clarify this matter. Chairman McNosky asked if there was anyone else present to support or oppose the applicant that wishes to speak: Keith Chatham, 4413 Bowman Dr. spoke in opposition to the variance request. He lives directly to the north and would be the neighbor most affected because of proximity. His objection to this is not as much the trees or the environmental impact, although he selected this neighborhood because of the trees. A brief history: when he (Chatham) went to the City Staff to inquire about subdividing this property and to discuss the aspect of R-20. The staff said you must stay within the confines of R-40. Therefore, rather than attempting to subdivide his tract into three lots, he said he would continue to maintain his entire property which is 305 feet across -134 feet from the fence line (of subject property) to his home which allows for an R-40 setback. If at some point he chooses to replat and build another house next door he will still have that latitude, being well within the R-40 side setbacks, i.e. 15 feet on each side. The proposed house will encroach on that (Chatham's tract) which will adversely affect the property value. His main point is that to build an estate type look they are going to have to remove trees. This will be a great house, but it will impose on the buffer zone that we (Chatham's) created by design to save the natural heritage. But if we want to build a house there, we will come back and replat within the framework of R-40. Number one -the proposed structure will protrude closer to the street than the existing home by a great amount, and Number two -the house is two story which closes off the beauty that we have now with the existing house. What I see on the plat is detrimental to any future use that I have which adversely affects me. The Chair opened up the meeting for questions. Skip Reynolds asked how far it was from the neighbor's (Chatham) house to the applicant's lot line -fence? Chatham stated 134 feet. Reynolds said that his calculation would put Chatham's house right on the lot line (if he subdivided his lot). Reynolds also asked if Chatham has plans to replat and divide the lot? Chatham said plans -yes - he kept his house where it is in order to have future use of that property (i.e. Chatham side yard lot). (Reynolds) Other than the site location of the (proposed) house, do you have any other objections to that structure? (Chatham) No, a great house, but my objection is the proximity in many directions (pointing to site map) to the adjoining street. Chatham stated that there are no structures in the area with the garage in the front, and suggested that they should try to move that to the back out of view of the street. In order to get a house on that lot you will have to remove some trees. Reynolds asked if the garage is facing the front, and Chatham said - no the side yard. Reynolds asked if Chatham was objecting to the side yard or the front yard setback, or both, or neither? Chatham said his objection is the proximity of the garage and being closer to the property line with two stories. To answer your questions, moving those five feet over does not help me (Chatham) any, by no means. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 12, 2002 Page 3 of 5 -Approved on June ~~, 2002 Munson asked again for an explanation of the distances involved on Chatham's lots. Chatham stated that the first lot is 136 feet and his house is 15 feet further north and that the overall site is 305 feet wide. Chair, McNoskv told the applicant that he could have some time for rebuttal. Oakley wanted to clarify why they designed that house they way they did, i.e. the location of the pool, the west sun and the trees were all criteria. Reynolds asked how many square feet were in the house. Oakley responded about 6,000 s.f. including the garage, and the second floor is stepped in and part of the house is only 1-1/2 story. What is the setback on the south side? Oakley -16' - 2". We asked for a variance to be within ten feet of the property (on the north), although the house is designed at 11' from the property line, where the 15' setback would normally be. (Oakley describes some of the drawings). Reynolds -clarify for me -your setbacks are 11 feet on the north side (subject side) and 16' 2" on the south side. Oakley -yes it is designed. Reynolds -you could adjust the house over about one foot? Oakley, - I could move it a foot, but the pool is the concern - I have gotten so close to the pool - it is 12' from the pool and I could push it to 11' (describes drawings as he points out dimensions, etc.), and there are trees very close (describes on the tree plan which can be saved). The designs with the garages in the back lost 10 - 20 trees and in this design we only lose five. McNoskv suggested that planting trees along the lot line might mitigate the impact. Oakley - I haven't gotten that far but there will be trees planted. Reynolds -you asked for a cushion of five feet, but the design is for four feet. Reynolds asked Chatham if the lot were subdivided, his (new) lot would be 150 feet wide? Chatham said yes. Reynolds noted that that lot would be wider than this subject lot. What I see candidly - on the one hand I see a lot that was created by an action that permitted two lots to be chopped in half, with an existing structure that, at the time, was to close to the lot line and an existing swimming pool -the plan that they have shown us is a very nice house - it is hard to see how they could move the house without changing it because of the position of the pool - my belief is they have a hardship and a legitimate reason to request a variance. On the other hand you have the potential to create a lot about 150 feet wide that would give a buyer enough room to build a large handsome home that would not be particularly close to the lot line -for those reasons, I favor permitting the variance. Because there are two different points of view I feel I need to explain my reasoning. The applicant has a small lot and the house plan is very close to the pool. He believes they have a hardship, and also that they have a large (deep) lot and could build a much larger house if set much further back. Larry Henry stated that he believes that the house beingtwo-story is not relevant, and agrees with the variance request but noted that the house is designed at four-foot encroachment rather than five. He also noted that it would mitigate the impact if that side would be landscaped and screened with shrubbery. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 12, 2002 Page 4 of 5 -Approved on June 7~, 2002 Reynolds asked the applicant about the additional foot (i.e. the design is at four feet and the request is for five feet). Oakley stated that he needed flexibility since all of the design measurements are not yet complete, and I need it for leeway, but I could live with it and I think four feet would work. Munson asked it the applicant had a good tree survey and you know where the property line is to the corner of the house? Oakley said yes. Chatham noted that he could "live" with five feet variance. (flip tape - start at ooo~ Munson stated that he believes the hardship was created when the City Council approved the original plats for these two lots creating a narrow lot. Also you (Chatham) will be back for a variance if you wish to build on the other lot due to the location of your house and the lot lines. McNosky stated that she agrees, but also noted that the pool is very old and should not dictate the design of the house. Chairman McNosky closed the hearing and said that she would entertain a motion. Munson -move that we permit the five foot variance as requested with the stipulation that landscaping be provided along the property line adjacent to the house to mitigate the appearance of the encroachment of the structure on the north side. Henry - I would be opposed since they can live with four. No second. Reynolds - I am going to move the same motion except restricting the variance to four feet (versus five) on the north side -with appropriate landscaping. Henry second. LeBaron requested clarification of landscaping as to what the code enforcement officer should look for. Reynolds stated that he would accept a friendly amendment to require trees or shrubs. Reynolds asked Chatham what he would like, and he stated that because of the applicant's and owner's integrity and that they will do the proper thing, and in fact the four or five foot variance does not matter and that he didn't need specifics in the motion and additional paperwork. LeBaron restated the motion and McNosky asked if amendments are wanted. Munson asked the designer about landscaping. Oakley said he expects intensive landscaping because of the kitchen window, but we haven't designed this yet. Munson said we either get more specific or drop the landscaping. McNosky said it isn't wanted but should go back to the author of the motion. Reynolds said that at this stage I am persuaded enough that it (landscaping) does not need to be included. McNosky restates the motion "we are going with four feet with no landscaping condition, and it is still seconded"? Henry - "yes". Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 12, 2002 Page 5 of 5 -Approved on June ~~, 2002 Chairman McNosky called for the vote. The vote being: Ayes: Munson, Reynolds, Henry, McNosky Noes: Byerly ADJOURNMENT: Skip Reynolds moved to adjourn the meeting, and Rich Munson seconded the motion. The motion was passed by acclamation. They're being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Niederauer, Senior Planner Approved on: June 11, 2002 as written. m/min/z b a minutes for 3-12-02