Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-02 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTESMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING VIA TELEPHONENIDEO CONFERENCE OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS. HELD ON JULY 2, 2020 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 3519 LIBERTY DR. The following Board Members were present: Mark Lewis, Chairperson Jerry Acosta, Vice -Chair Teresa J. Del Valle, Secretary Don Glenn, Board Member Gary Shrum, Board Member The following members were absent: Christopher Tristan, Alternate and John H. Gehring, Jr., Alternate City Staff: Lawrence Prowls, Deputy City Attorney; Martin Griggs, Planning Manager; Florence Buaku, Planner II; and Monica Aizpurua, Office Assistant. I. CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson, Mark Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 4, 2020 MEETING Conditions for approval; 1. Board member, Gary Shrum requested to add to the June meeting minutes an explanation of why he was unable to attend, due to him having technical difficulties. 2 Vice -Chair, Jerry Acosta requested to change item number 8, on the second to the last sentence, should read with a condition of the Engineering and Fire Marshall approval. Chairperson, Mark Lewis called to approve the meeting minutes during the next ZBA meeting with the changes requested. No motion made. III. NEW BUSINESS A. ZBA APPLICATION NO. VARZ 20-00007 VARIANCE FOR ENCLOSURE OF ENCROACHING PATIO STRUCTURE FOR SUNROOM 1. CALL PUBLIC HEARING TO ORDER Chairperson, Mark Lewis opened the public hearing for ZBA Application No. VARZ 20 Page 1 of 5 ZBA minutes 07/02/20 00007 at 6:06 p.m. 2. PURPOSE OF THE HEARING: A request by John P. and Sheila Greenwalt, applicants and owners, for a variance, as permitted by the Unified Development Code, Ordinance No. 2000 - T, to allow the enclosure of a 13'x14' patio, which extends more than the maximum 50% (10') into the required rear yard setback in the R-2 District, to accommodate a sunroom. (Section 2 6.1.1(f)(2)(d)), to wit: Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 12 of the Springfield Addition, an addition in the City of Pearland, Brazoria County, Texas, as amended by the replat recorded in Volume 19, Page 243-244 of the Plat Records of Brazoria County Texas. General Location: 4003 Spring Forest Drive, Pearland, TX 3. STAFF REPORT Mrs. Buaku presented the Staff Report with exhibits and information on the case. Mrs. Buaku informed the board that the variance was to allow the enclosure of a 13'x14' patio, which e xtends more than the 50% permitted, into the required rear setback. She informed the board that the structure was an existing structure and in section 2.6.1.1(f)(2)(d) of the UDC requirements, a maximum of 50% extension into the required rear setback for any attached patio sharing the roof line of the main structure was permitted as long as it is not fully e nclosed provided and it is not encroaching into any easement. She explained that the subject structure for the variance extended more than 50% into the required setback, encroached into the utility easement and was being proposed to be e nclosed to be used as a sunroom. Mrs. Buaku informed the board of the signed petition from property owners within 200' from the subject property as well as 2 written comments in support of the variance. Mrs. Buaku explained the history of the property, how the home was built in 1990, the patio structure was constructed in 2019 and according to the applicant, half way through the construction they found out that permits had not been pulled for the structure Furthermore, the structure was encroaching in the rear setback and utility easement Mrs Buaku explained how in November 2019 a ZBA had denied a variance (vote 0 to 4) under the classification as an extension of the existing building for 6'11" rear setback in lieu of 20', and in 2020 the applicant obtained encroachment agreements with the utility companies. The classification of the existing structure had also changed to a covered patio based on August 2019 UDC amendments. Mrs. Buaku e xplained the first part of the variance request for the current structure encroaches 13" roughly 65% in lieu of the maximum 50% setback requirement. She commented that the applicant had an easement encroachment agreement with the utility companies. Mrs. Buaku explained the second part of the variance request for the enclosure of the structure adding windows and doors to be used as a sunroom. Mrs Buaku concluded that the variance did not meet many of the criteria or have a hardship unique to the property, however staff had noted that it would not be detrimental to public health and safety nor effect the orderly use and enjoyment of the land. She explained that in spite of the criteria e ot being met, the applicants have been willing to remedy the situation, as such staff did Page 2 of 5 ZBA minutes 07/02/20 not have any recommendations. Staff however had the following conditions if the request was approved, (1) the sunroom could only be used as approved and could not at any point in time be converted into living space or a more intense use, (2) the sunroom could not be fitted with any plumbing or air conditioning, (3) the sunroom should be substantially transparent (minimum 50%) on every facade exposed to the outdoors. 4. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Applicant John & Sheila Greenwalt explained that they had done everything that the City had asked them to do and apricated being able to come before the board again. 5. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED REQUEST None 6. STAFF/BOARD/APPLICANT DISCUSSION Secretary, Teresa J. Del Valle questioned staff, if other than obtaining agreements from the utility regarding the easement, there was anything substantially different between the current application and from the one denied in November 2019. Mrs Buaku answered that the change was the reclassification from an extension of the main building to patio cover. Ms. Del Valle questioned if the criteria had changed from the November 2019 meeting to the current meeting. Planning Manager Martin Griggs explained that criterion 8 (the degree of variance requested is the minimum amount necessary to meet the needs of applicant and to satisfy the standards in this section) had changed. Ms. Del Valle questioned how the property appeared as of today, because the photographs looked like they were the same ones from the previous meeting. Mrs. Buaku answered that the photos were the same ones. Board member Gary Shrum asked the applicants if they would accept or would object to any of the three conditions provided on the staff report. Mr. Greenwalt answered that he did not have any problems with meeting the conditions. Mr. Shrum commented that he thought the applicants had done a great job in trying to work with the City to resolve a very complex and difficult issue, he would support the applicants. Vice -chair Jerry Acosta questioned staff about the UDC conditions for the new classification of the structure Mrs. Buaku explained that there were three requirements, (1) a patio cover could extend for 50% of the required rear setback, (2) not fully enclosed, (3) could not extended into any utility easement. Mr. Acosta questioned what type of utilities could be in the patio. Mrs. Buaku responded that it would depend on the applicant, but typically a patio would include electrical for lighting and a fan maybe plumbing for water if it had an outdoor kitchen. Mr. Acosta questioned the 50% transparency requirement and what that would include, since glass windows could be considered a walled enclosure. Mrs. Buaku explained that heating was required by the International Building Code (IBC) for the space to be classified as livable space, hence the condition of no plumbing for heating and air-conditioning to keep the space from being converted into living space. Ms. Del Valle asked if it would meet the requirements if it was simply a covered patio Mrs. Buaku responded no, it extends more that 50% into the rear setback, encroaches into the utility easement (had utility easement agreements) and fully enclosed by adding the glass windows and doors Deputy City Attorney Lawrence Provins recommended the board to have a discussion before making the motion. Mr. Lewis was on board with the staff recommendation Page 3 of 5 ZBA minutes 07/02/20 and conditions. Ms. Del Valle explained that it was obvious that the purpose for the sunroom was to be a living space, citing that the photos had what appears to be a fireplace, wooden doors, french doors pre -wire for electrical outlets, spaces for windows, it was currently setup to be a living space. She questioned how the City would ensure that it was not converted into living space in future Mr. Acosta agreed and did not see it as a patio, since the walls were built, and it would not take much for it to be closed and air conditioned into part of the living space. Board member Don Glenn would support the variance with staff conditions. Mr. Shrum commented that one of the primary reasons that the variance was denied in November was due to the encroachment into the utility easement that now had a utility agreement, he supports the variance due to the circumstances, but questioned if approving it, would not be opening the door to future encroachments into the utility easement Mr. Acosta reemphasized the issue with the setback encroachment. Ms. Del Valle explained that even if it was a covered patio it would still not meet the requirements because it extends further than 50%, she agrees with Mr. Acosta Mr Griggs explained that UDC allowed the 50%, hence the request for a variance to allow the additional 30% to get to where the installation was currently placed. He further explained that the maximum 50% permitted for a variance would allow an additional 5' Hence it would allow up to 15' which is more than what is currently being proposed. Mr Shrum questioned if Mr Griggs would agree or disagree on the variance. Mr. Griggs responded that he agreed with staff's presentation 7. ADJOURNMENTOF PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson, Mark Lewis adjourned the public hearing for ZBA Application No. VARZ 20- 00007 at 6:47 p.m. 8. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION Board member, Gary Shrum made a motion to approve the variance with all of staff's approval conditions. Board member, Don Glenn seconded the motion. The motion failed 3 to 2. Vice -Chair, Jerry Acosta and Secretary, Teresa J. Del Valle were in opposition. IV. ADJOURNM ENT Meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m. These minutes respectfully submitted by: Mon Office Assistant Page 4 of 5 ZBA minutes 07/02/20 a.e�/e�:': i -• on this 1st day of October 2020. Mar 'is, Chairperson Page 5of5 ZBA minutes 07/02/20