Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Adjustment-Minutes-6/12/2001Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -June 12, 2001 Page 1 of 4 -Approved on O8/~4/O~ Vice Chairman Henry called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on April 10, 2001. Roll Call: Present: Skip Reynolds, Jeff Byerly, Jerry Birkes. Rich Munson, Larry Henry Absent: Cheryl Feigel ,Dee McNosky, Staff: Tom Niederauer, Jan Levy Approval of Minutes: May 22, 2001 Skip Reynolds moved to approve the minutes as amended to include a statement by Mr. Howard in the Reynolds/Howard dialog. Jeff Byerly seconded the motion. The motion was passed by an "Aye" voice vote. Vice Chairman Henry explained the procedures of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to the audience. All present members will be voting members for the meeting and. He outlined the meeting format for the audience. PUBLIC HEARING - A variance from Section 3.26.D Fence and Free Standing Wall Setback Requirements of the Colleyville Land Development Code to provide for the construction of a fence overthe front building line on Lot 14, Block 4, Windview Addition at 4008 Stonehaven Drive, requested by Larry McKillop. Case A-01-004 Staff presented the case to the Board and reviewed the staff briefing. Vice Chairman Henry opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Those present wishing to speak in favor of the variance request were: Larry McKillop, his wife, and his daughter were present. Larry McKillop, applicant, presented a tetterto the Board from James and Shannon LaRue in support of the variance request. The letter was read into the record. Mr. McKillop, an architect by profession, gave the background for his case and he gave the architectural interpretation of the intention for setbacks. He used large drawings to help present his case to the Board and spoke about: lot shape; limited back yard; the need to create a play area; current landscaping; optimal location of a fence; and views from the neighboring lots. Mr. McKillop spoke about views and vistas and displayed pictures that were submitted for the packet. He spoke about safety hazards and how not fencing would create a hazard for his child. Skip Reynolds asked Mr. McKillop if the house was on the lot when he bought it. He said that it was, however he did not have an idea about needing a play yard at the time he bought the house. Jerry Birkes asked Mr. McKillop about his architectural background. They discussed the difference between a building setback and fence line. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -June 12, 2001 Page 2 of 4 -Approved on O8/~4/O~ Larry Henry asked Mr. McKillop about the size of the area available for a play set on the side of the house. There was no one else present wishing to speak in favor of the variance. Those present wishing to speak in opposition were: Adelheid Miller, 2110 Stonehaven Drive, said that they are for maintaining the integrity of vistas within the neighborhood and the proposed fence would be visible from their front windows and block their view. She said that Windview Estates has lots with large lawns and gardens and the need to be maintained. Ms. Miller said that the current trees that are on the lot are not an obstruction and they represent natural beauty, but a stockade fence would not provide for that. Ms. Miller spoke about safety concerns as this lot is at the intersection and it is uphill for approaching traffic. She said that the fence would create a visibility problem and children or anyone around the corner could not be seen. Larry Henry said that the existing fence that was built over the building line on a corner within the neighborhood and exhibited in a picture by Mr. McKillop is truly a corner lot and is allowed to be constructed over the building line. He said that this corner did not present a visibility concern. The Board discussed the idea that this is a side yard fence and if the road did not curve, this would be the side yard where the fence is being proposed. Vice Chairman Henry closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Jerry Birkes said that he has heard discussions about being a good neighbor, but at the same time they have all the objections to the building of this fence. He said that there was mention about the market price of the property and it may have sold at a lower price because of the shape of the lot, but you get what you pay for. He said that the comparison of a fence made over the line is a poor example because it is on a straight street and not a safety hazard. He said that the mention of architectural integrity of a neighborhood is vital and the Board always hears about it every month. Mr. Birkes said to the other Board members that they have never had a case presented to them in this manner that is in his opinion a flagrant safety hazard to the neighborhood. He said that there are cars being driven at speeds other than what children walk or ride bikes at. He said that the comment by the applicant regarding the safety of his child while putting other children's safety at risk is something he has never heard while on this Board. He said that in his opinion it is a horrible request to put children's lives in danger as they come around the curve. Mr. Birkes said that the lot is not on a corner, but on a curve and children don't come back and there is absolutely no way he could support this request for a variance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -June 12, 2001 Page 3 of 4 -Approved on O8/1/4/O~ Rich Munson said that he drove back and forth in front of the house several times Sunday in his truck which is quite a bit higher than a car and he had some difficulty seeing around that corner. He said that he does have some concerns about visibility. Mr. Munson said that he thought a fence in this particular area in this particular neighborhood would not be in characterwith the rest of the residential structures, and he could not support the request either. Larry Henry said that it seems to him that the proposal before them is really two proposals and the best way to address it is if a variance should be granted at all, then what line it should be granted at. Skip Reynolds said that it appears that procedurally they do not have two members who do not support the variance, so they don't have the votes to carry forward even if they have a motion in favor. Vice Chairman Henry said that they would have to take it to a vote and Skip Reynolds responded that they have to have a motion before they can vote. Jerry Birkes moved to deny the variance request as presented. Skip Reynolds said that he is sympathetic with the desire of the McKillops to enhance the use of their property in a way they think would make it more useful and safe for their child. He said that he suspects there may be other ways to accomplish that goal through the use of other types of fencing. Mr. Reynolds said that he has concerns about visibility. He said that they have seen an excellent presentation with photographs and plats, and what he perceives is that although there may be trees and vegetation, someone walking or driving down the street now has a field of vision that will in fact be closed of by building the fence. He said that in his comments he is not going to raise concerns whether this will add to or subtract from the aesthetic beauty of the community. He said those are legitimate questions, but he is not going to address them. Mr. Reynolds said that likewise, he is not going to address whether or not this fence would at to or subtract from the value of the property. He said that it seems to him, even though this is not a proposal that has been brought before the Board so they can't vote on it, they might have a much different situation is the proposal was to build a wrought iron fence. He said that an alternative fence could be three feet high and keep a young child from being able to get out of the fenced in area without restricting the view in the same way as the proposed fence. He said that he would find it impossible to vote in favor of this particular proposal and his perception is they don't have the votes here even if they had a motion. Mr. Reynolds said that he feels a bond of sympathy with the McKlllops in wanting to enhance the use of their property for their child, but he doesn't think he could vote for this particular plan. Jeff Byerly seconded the motion. Jeff Byerly made a friendly amendment to make the motion to approve it as it makes things much clearerwhen they vote. Jerry Birkes said that he has a motion to deny and it was seconded. He asked how does one amend a denial? It was explained that if a Board member votes yes, it would be a yes vote to deny the variance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes -June 12, 2001 Page 4 of 4 -Approved on 08/114/O~ The vote being: Aye: Byerly, Birkes, Munson, Henry Noes: None Abstained: Reynolds Skip Reynolds stated that the reason for his abstention was because he doesn't want to affirmatively vote against this and he probably would have likewise abstained from a motion to approve. He said that as he stated before, he has some sympathy with the desire of the McKillops and also has concerns about the safety issues. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jan Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: August 14, 2001 m/min/z b a minutes for 06 12 01