Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO.S: Consideration of front setback variance at 7704 Sherman Court, lots 3 & 4, block 1, Raintree Subdivision. Applicants are Laurie & Boyd Sorrell. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of a new garage. The applicant wishes to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550 -sq. ft. (22'x25') garage to replace the one that is to be renovated. The applicants propose to construct the new garage in front of the existing garage space. This location however, calls for approximately 350 square feet (14'x25') to extend 10 feet from the property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 15 -foot variance to the front setback. The applicant states two special conditions as: 1) the property has several large, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the garage was placed at a different location and; 2) a pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that would be added to the side of the home. The applicant states two hardships as: 1) cannot build behind the house due to the lack of space, utility lines and no drive access and; 2) cutting down the trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board Members pictures of the property. There were discussion among the Board Members about the pond, wood deck and the trees. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Boyd Sorrell, the applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Sorrell presented the Board a petition from the neighbors on the street that are in favor of the request. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that he and his next door neighbor are some of the original Raintree residents. Mr. Sorrell explained that the project was designed to not destroy any of the trees on the property as well as to have the addition set back far enough from the street. Mr. Sorrell explained to the Board pictures that he had taken of the property. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that TXDOT has easements that run through the pond and therefore the pond cannot be covered up. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that the addition would conform to the existing home. Mr. Sorrell ended by telling the Board that if this addition required the removal of many of the native trees they would chose not to build the addition. The cul-de-sac and the pond limit what can be done on the lot. Dr. Bailey asked if the proposed garage doors would open on to the street or a driveway. Mr. Sorrell replied that they would open on to a driveway. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell if he was familiar with the alternatives the city staff had for his plan. Mr. Sorrell replied that the alternative of placing the garage on the left side of the house, that is the side where the bedrooms are and city codes requires that all bedrooms have windows to the exterior. Mr. Bond questioned the alternative of removing the wood deck adjacent to the house. Mr. Sorrell replied that was not possible because there is not enough area and there are huge oak trees there that would have to be removed. Mr. Sorrell stated that area in the back where the wood deck is; the highway department will not allow any fill toward the pond where they have their easement. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell how far into to his property do the TXDOT easement extends. Mr. Sorrell replied that the easement runs through the cannel of the pond that runs through both his lots. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell how many total trees would be removed for this addition. Mr. Sorrell replied that only 1 tree would have to be removed for the proposed garage. If the garage were placed some other place on the lot it would be at least 7 or 8 trees. Dr. Bailey asked if the trees are all native. Mr. Sorrell replied yes. Mr. Searcy stated that the staff report listed an alternative for the Board to grant less than what is requested. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell if that would be feasible if the variance was less. Mr. Sorrell replied that the garage door was planned for 22 feet but it could easily be cut down to 20 feet. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: a TXDOT easement makes this the only feasible plan; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the destruction of mature native trees; and such that the plan is not changed. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-1). Mr. Bond voting against granting the variance ZBA MINUTES April 4, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a front setback variance at 7704 Sherman Court, lots 3 & 4, block 1, Raintree Subdivision. Applicants are Laurie & Boyd Sorell. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicants are requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a new garage. The applicants wish to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550 sq. ft. (22' x 25') garage to replace the one that is to be renovated. The applicants propose to construct the new garage in front of the existing garage space. This location however, calls for approximately 350 sq. ft. (14' x 25') to extend 10 feet front the property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 15 -foot variance to the front setback. The applicant offers two special conditions. 1. The property has several large, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the garage was placed at a different location. 2. A pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that may be added to the side of the home. The applicants have identified the following hardships. 1. Cannot build behind the house due to the lack of space, utility lines and no drive access. 2. Cutting down trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Boyd Sorrell, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was swom in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Sorrell told the Board the he and his neighbor are the last of the original residents of Raintree. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that the reason for the home addition is to make room to take care of a 90 -year-old mother. Ms. Sorrell explained that they had an architect draw the plans and one of the concerns is saving the trees. The aesthetics of the lot and neighborhood are also a great concern. Mr. Sorrell explained to the Board pictures he had taken of the property and the layout of the proposed garage. The Board had several questions for the applicant. The questions were for clarification purposes in regards to the pictures he had presented. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the unnatural lot size and presence of a pond and trees limit the location of the proposed addition; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: a significant loss in the ability to provide a living space to an elderly family member; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: there are no changes in the existing site plan. With no second, the motion died. Mr. Happ received an emergency phone call, which required him to leave the meeting Chairman Alexander explained to the applicant his options: 1. He could proceed with the variance request, however it would require all four voting members to vote in favor of the request to pass. 2. A special meeting could be called by the Board to rehear the case. 3. Table the item and schedule it for the next regular meeting of the Board. Mr. Sorrell stated that he would wait for the next regular schedule meeting of the Board. Mr. Hill made the motion to table the item. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (4-0).