HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.29.2001 BA MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
5-29-01
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Willis, Max Browning
Ray Jameson, John C. Bickel, Jennifer Wright, and
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: John Castro, Director of Community Services, Larry
Gould, Chief Building Inspector, and Katy Seals, Community Development Secretary
OTHER GUEST PRESENT: Rev. Benito Hinojosa, Annabell Mirelez, Debra Salgado,
Susan Blackerby, and Jose Garcia
First item on the agenda: Approval of April 2001 minutes. Fred Willis made motion to accept minutes
as read and Jennifer Wright seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
Second item on the agenda: BA #1377, the request of William R. Sharks for a variance of five (5) feet ofthe
required eight (8) foot side setback as stated in Section 34 of the City of Plainview Zoning Ordinance to build a
13'4"X60" carport and breezeway in a Single Family Residential (R-l) Zoning District, and being Lot 8, Block
49, College Hill Addition, Plainview, Hale County, Texas and same being 902 Utica Street. Mr. Sharks is not
present. John Castro explained the reason for the 8 foot side setback is because this is an (R-l) Residential
Zone. He says Mr. Starks proposes to do is to build a carport that is thirteen (13) feet wide and there is sixteen
feet four inches (16'4') between here and the end of his property and obviously he needs a variance. He is
requesting five (5) feet of the required eight (8) feet, which would give him a carport that is about thirteen feet
four inches (13'4") wide. He wants to build the carport the length of the house. This board has approved that
in the past. The other thing he wants to do, and this is where staffhas a little bit of heartburn, is you'll notice he
wants to put it all the way across here and then continue it all the way back here. When Mr. Sharks first came to
see me on this request, I assumed that this building was existing. That building is not existing so therefore, shaft
does not see a problem with the variance for the carport, however, we do feel since that all this here is not
existing at the moment then we feel that can be moved over to where it doesn't encroach on the side setback. In
other words, his carport would be from here to somewhere around where the back of that ear is then everything
would move in to where you have your eight (8) foot side setback. John Biekel asked how much does Mr.
Starks have on the back and John Castro replied there is close to seventy (70) feet from the back of the house to
the back property line. The whole back yard is open. John Bickel asked where is the other house in relation to
Mr. Starks' house and John Castro replied even though that house has a 900 Utica address it faces Utica but
then it extends ft~her since it has a two car garage and it covers most of the lot. John Bickel asked if there
were any responses received in opposition and John Castro replied there were no responses received, either pro
or con. Fred Willis asked how close the neighbor's house is to the fence and John Castro replied that it is
somewhere between eight (8) and five (5) feet from the fence line. John Castro went further to add that a lot of
these houses were built way before the 1989 Ordinance and we don't know what the setbacks were then. He
said he attempted to do investigative reporting but the older Ordinances; particularly the 1977 Ordinance that
had to do with zoning did not address setbacks. Fred Willis then asked if there would be ten (10) feet between
the two structures if the variance is granted and John Castro replied there would be somewhere between eight
(8) and ten (10) feet between the two structures. He added that Mr. Sharks is building a carport and it would be
an open structure, not a solid wall. John Bickel asked about the building materials proposed to be used but
there was no information about what materials to be used was available. Ray Jameson inquired il'the 24X16'
building Mr. Starks has on the site plan is non-existent and John Castro told him the building as well as the
breezeway on the site plan is non-existent; it is all open. Ray Jameson then asked if Mr. Sharks was not asking
for a variance there and John Castro replied no, he is asking only for the carport on the variance. John Castro
added if the board decides to grant the variance, one of the stipulations would be the variance would be granted
for construction of a carport on the side of the building because when he comes back in to add the rest of what
is showing on the site plan then when the permit is issued we will indicate on the permit there must be an eight
(8) foot side setback. John Castro further added that if Mr. Starks insists to add it within the setback, he must
apply for another variance. John Bickel asked if the Board could approve the carport and the breezeway but not
the building? John Castro replied the Board could approve the carport and the breezeway or you could approve
just the carport and leave the breezeway and the building out of it completely. Fred Willis stated that all that
was being requested was the breezeway, he has not asked for the building. John Castro stated Mr. Starks hasn't
really asked for any building permits at all; what he has asked for is a variance from the side property line. The
way he asked for the variance and the way he drew it out on the site plan, he wants that variance all the way
through to the full building. Fred stated that sixty (60) foot goes all the way down the whole line. John Bickel
stated that Mr. Starks can actually have his building back and then he can put his roof overhanging into the
breezeway. Max Browning then stated Mr. Starks would have to apply for a variance to build the building.
Fred Willis said Mr. Starks is not asking for the building variance at this time. John Bickel stated that what Mr.
Starks has on the site plan and what he is asking for on the variance are two different things; we can approve
what he is requesting and that building is not included. Fred Willis stated that if they approved the full sixty
(60) feet wouldn't the building be included. John Castro reminded the Board that they can grant the three (3)
foot side setback for the carport and the breezeway or they can cut it down; the only thing they can't do is
expand it. Fred Willis asked if the breezeway being requested was just a kind of covered patio. John Castro
explained the breezeway is kind of a patio that would connect the end of the carport to the front of that building
proposed to be built. Jennifer Wright made a motion the Board grant the variance only on the carport for the
length of the house. John Bickel seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
Third item on the agenda: BA#1378, the request of Jim Lindeman for a variance of fifteen (15) feet of
the required twenty-five (25) foot ~ont setback as stated in Section 34 of the City of Plainview Zoning
Ordinance to build a 20'X18' carport in a Single Family Residential (R-2) Zoning District, and being Lot 4,
Block 17, Unit 4, Thunderbird Addition, Plainview, Hale County, Texas and same being 2813 Lexington
Street. Mr. Lindeman is not present. John Castro stated from Navajo Trail all the way back to where it
cuts back west on 25th Street, there is not a single carport. This will be the first one. He added that Mr.
Lindeman proposes to make it eighteen (18) feet wide which means he is going to line it up with the edge
of the house and probably go a little bit over the driveway. Mr. Lindeman is thirty-nine and a half (39-1/:)
feet from the curb; the first twelve (12) feet is city right of way so that would put him at twenty-seven and a
half (27-½) feet from the edge of his property line. The way he is proposing to build the carport twenty
(20) feet deep and is offsetting the thirty-nine (39) feet, he really only needs about fifteen (15) feet total of
the front setback in order to make it the twenty (20) feet according to John Castro. There were four (4)
responses, three (3) in favor of and one (1) opposed to. The response received in opposition included the
following: "I am opposed any of the zoning ordinances ever being broken. Any time one is set aside, it
leaves the door wide open to other things being done that could greatly affect the appearance of the
neighborhood." The responses received in favor of the variance included the following comments, "I am
in favor the request. I am considering a carport for my own property." "I am in favor ofthe request. I may
want to build a carport later." John Castro reminded the Board that protecting a new car from the elements
is not a hardship the way the Board of Adjustments law reads. So what people before us did is they went in
and decided that perhaps carports shouldn't be a hardship but simply where the most logical and convenient
place to put the carport and not affect the property values within the neighborhood; and for this particular
case, the most logical place would be to put it in front of the garage and it is the only place the homeowner
has the ability to put the carport. John Biekel asked if the Board has any idea how he is planning to build
the carport, such as building materials. No information available for the building materials. John Castro
told the board when a building permit is pulled, staff tries to control the building material used. John
Castro stated staff has no problem with this carport based on the responses received. Fred Willis made
motion to approve the variance and Max Browning seconded. Motion carried 4-0.
Fourth item on the agenda: BA#1379, the request ofBenito I-finojosa on behalf of Iglesia Bautista Alpha
Omega for a variance for expansion of a non-conforming use of land and structure as stated in Section 35 and
37 of the City of Plainview Zoning Ordinance to enlarge a church building in a Single Family Residential (R-2)
Zoning District, and being Lot 34, Block C, I-Iiway Addition, Plainview, Hale County, Texas and same being
2515 Denver Street. Mr. ITmojosa and his daughter, Annabell Mirelez are present. Ms. Mirelez states they
have copies of the actual survey that was taken when they applied for the variance and the Board has copies.
Ray Jameson inquired about the flood plain being so close how much would the structure have to be raised
when you go back. John Castro interjected that an elevation certificate has been obtained which is the first step
in issuing a flood plain development permit. He further pointed out an error in the legal description which
should actually be Lots 3 & 4 instead of Lot 34 and explained he conferred with the City Attorney and was
advised that since we put the sign on the property and it would not make a difference. The flood zone elevation
of this property is 3377 which means that the base elevation what is expected is 1/100 of a chance of any given
year it will flood up to 377 feet. If you look at the base elevation of the building, the grade is 3376.4. If they
were to construct this addition, the lowest floor of the building would have to be at 3378 in order to comply
with the flood plain requirements in order to get flood plain insurance. In order for us to issue a permit, they
would have to comply with all those. There was one response in favor of the request. John Castro said he
would like to go on record to explain to the board the reason it is expansion of a non-conforming use of land.
Any time you have a use in the City of Plainview that does not conform to the zoning ordinance it is either
illegal non-conforming or legal non-conforming. If the use here was a junk yard that would be an illegal non-
conforming use because there would not be any way you could have a junk yard in a residential area. The use
here is a legal non-conforming use because you can have a church in a residential area. You just need a little
piece of paper that the planning and zoning commission gives you that says they asked for permission to put it
here, they got permission, the response fi:om the neighborhood was in favor of all the request so they were
issued a specific use permit to have that church in that residential neighborhood. That would make it legal and
they could do anything with it. But since it is a legal non-conforming use the ordinance says you cannot
expand on a use; you cannot expand on the structure. If you expand on the structure, you are expanding on the
use. If you expand on the structure, it is the use of land and structure. In this particular case, not only do they
want to expand on the structure, but also if you will notice the proximity to the back property line which is two
foot seven inches (2'7"), the rear setback in a residential area is twenty-five (25) feet. If they wanted to comply
with everything they would have to scoot this building up in order to add to it and that is why they are asking
for expansion of non-conforming use of building and land. Based on the comments fi:om the neighborhood,
this church has been there quite a long time, dating back to the 1940's and staff does not have any problems
with approval of this request. We will ensure that if the expansion of the non-conforming use of structure and
land is approved all requirements of the flood plain ordinance are met. Ray Jameson inquired if the church
owned all ofLot 3 and Annabell Mirelez replied they do. John Castro pointed out a line on the site plan, which
is the fence, and then he points ont a carport that goes across the thick line that places it in the church's
property. At this point, Debra Salgado stated she has papers purchasing the home with the carport in question
fi'om Vernon Real Estate and she stated she was told there was ten (10) feet that was fenced with the yard and
nobody owned or claimed it and she was given affidavits telling her fifty (50)feet of her lot and that is the
reason for the fencing and carport being placed as they are. John Castro stated that is a legal issue between the
church and Ms. Salgado would have to resolve but it is not for this Board to resolve. John Biekel inquired what
was the plan to do with the variance and Ms. Mirelez responded they need a bigger fellowship hall and they
need to expand the kitchen area as well as relocate restrooms. Fred Willis asked if the area to the north was all
parking lot and yes was the reply. John Castro stated there is an existing house that is owned by the church as
well and they plan to eventually tear it down. Max Browning stated this would be an expansion ofthe church
and this makes logical sense that it fit in together rather than being set hack fi'om the alley and he moves the
Board grant the variance requested. Jennifer Wright seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0.
Fifth item on the agenda: BA#1380, the request of Jose C. Gareia for a variance of twenty-five (25) feet of
the required twenty-five (25) foot front setback and two (2) feet of the required five (5) foot side setback as
stated in Section 34 of the City of Plainview Zoning Ordinance to build a 20' X 25' carport in a Single Family
Residential (R-2) Zoning District, and being Lot 13, Block 1, R.B. Jones Addition, Plainview, Hale County,
Texas and same being 1610 Oakland Street. Jose Garcia is present. John Castro states that Mr. Garcia wants
not only a front variance but also a side variance because he wants to build it within three (3) feet of the
property line and come out twenty (20) feet of the fi:ont setback and 2 feet of the side setback. John Castro
states that the neighboring house is very close to the side property line but this structure proposed is a carport,
which would be an open structure. He goes further to state that one of the reasons for the setbacks, particularly
when you have enclosed structures is air and light into rooms. If you get buildings too close to one another then
you're not going to have any air and light coming into those windows that are on those opposing walls; so when
you get into carports, it is usually not as extreme as a solid structure being constructed. There were three (3)
responses from the neighborhood, all of which were in favor of the variance. Only one response included a
written note, which reads: "If kept clean and not used as another address then it should be all right. John
Bickel inquired how close to the sidewalk the carport would be. John Castro stated that from the curb to the
front of the house is forty-seven (47) feet. The first twenty-two (22) feet is the city right of way and that means
that in any given 'block in the city, the City has X mount of feet of right of way. The most we have is one
hundred (100) and that is on 11th Street and some stretches of Ennis Street. There is one hundred feet (100)
from lot to lot that belongs to the city. The difference comes in that we don't pave every street as wide as the
right of way. The maximum streets that we have are maybe seventy-five (75) feet in some instances and those
are also along 11t~ and Ennis Streets. In this particular case, the right of way here is approximately seventy-five
(75) feet with a thirty-one (31) foot street so you have twenty-two feet left on each side of the street and from
that he has twenty-five (25) feet to the front of his house and if he comes out twenty (20) feet, he will be five
(5) feet back from the curb. John Bickel says he is wondering why Mr. Garcia needs three (3) feet of the side
for the variance: He says it appears that if he was to scoot the cars over and he could match up with the garage.
John Castro replied that if you look at parking spaces on the zoning ordinance, a parking space calls for nine (9)
feet wide and twenty (20) foot deep, so conceivably he could park two (2) cars in eighteen feet of space. He
further reminded the Board they have the say so if they think it is too much and they don't want to give him the
three 0) feet of the required five (5), then they can cut that back. Mr. Garcia wants his carport twenty (20)'
wide and twenty-five (25) feet deep. So he is asking for the twenty-five (25) foot setback. John Castro states
he is not sure if this Board has approved a twenty-five (25) foot setback aside from those on the side of a house.
He went further to state that he thought at one time there was something in the ordinance that limited carports to
20 X 24 but he couldn't find it. He thinks it is probably an unwritten rule the Board had been following. John
Bickel stated it looks like the neighbor's house is three (3) feet from the fence and they are already in the
setback and the house was most likely built before the ordinance. He adds it appears it is really crowding the
area. John Castro reminds the Board that on front property lines there is an imaginary line that nothing goes
beyond that and even if Mr. Garcia puts his poles on that property line the edge of that carport is going to be on
that property line because there is no aerial encroachment into the right of way. Fred Willis inquired if there is
any reason why Mr. Garcia wants the full twenty-five (25) feet. Mr. Garcia replies he just wants to be able to fit
both his cars underneath it. Fred Willis asked what is in the existing garage and the reply was '~othing". John
Bickel states that it looks to him like the homeowner has a garage and questions why he would need a
doublewide carport when he could put one vehicle in the garage. John Bickel moves that they don't grant the
side variance, they only grant a variance for the front of the house for the carport and then twenty-four (24) feet
back instead of the twenty-five (25). Jennifer Wright asks if he is proposing enough for a single carport. John
Bickel states he sees a garage there and doesn't see reason to be going Past the property line and going into the
side setback. Jennifer states he wants something for his two cars. Max states that eighteen (18) feet would
grant two parking places. Max Browning states he is moving that the Board grant 18 X 24 feet to keep it off the
sidewalk and can overhang to that property line. Max then states he would feel better if Mr. Garcia was more
than one foot off the sidewalk - preferable a couple feet. John Castro states he would be of the sidewalk - the
sidewalk is entirely within our twenty-two (22) feet of the right of way. Max states he could overhand for two
(2) feet beyond what the Board grants. If the Board grants for twenty-three (23) feet, it gives two (2) feet for
people who are walking more leeway there. Max Browning moves :that the Board grant eighteen (18) feet by
twenty-three (23) feet which gives two (2) feet between the sidewalk and the poles. John Bickel seconded.
Motion :carried 5-0.
Sixth item on the agenda: BA#1381, the request of Susan Blackerby for a variance of fifteen (15) feet of the
required twenty (20) foot rear setback as stated in Section 34 of the City of Plainview Zoning Ordinance to
build a 20'X 28' storage shed with an overhead door facing the alley in a Single Family Residential (R-l)
Zoning District, and being Lot 3 N17'- Lot 4, Block 16, Unit 4, Brock Addition, Plainview, Hale County, Texas
and same being 1309 Holliday Street. Ms. Blackerby is present. John Castro states the reason Ms. Blackerby
needs a variance is because she proposes to put an overhead in the storage building which is 28 X 14. The
ordinance says that anytime an accessory building/garage/or any type of building has access from the alley, it
has to be twenty (20) feet off the alley. Since she wants an overhead door and five (5) of fthe alley, she needs a
variance for that. There were four responses, two for and two against. The two responses for simply checked
offthe in favor of with no comments. One of the responses against made the comment of: "Why have rules if
they are not going to be enforced? Someone in their infinite wisdom determined that twenty (20) foot of
setback was appropriate. I hold their wisdom in high regards." The other response against made the comment
of: '%Vith regards to case # 1381 concerning a variance on the property located at 1309 Holliday, I am opposed
to the variance as requested because this will allow the construction of a 20 X 28 foot structure with an
overhead door facing the alley. This structure would seem to be out of proportion to other storage facilities
located in the neighborhood. I believe it would be a distraction and the overhead door would probably require a
relatively tall structure. Although I do not claim to be an expert in the evaluation of property, it seems to me
that such a structure will result in a decrease in the value of my property, which lies directly across the alley
from the property on which the variance has been requested." John Castro added that when it comes time to
pull a permit, height of a wall is discussed. If someone plans to build a structure that is higher than twelve (12)
feet, for every one foot they go over the twelve (12) foot, it increase their setback by one foot. One if the
reasons we didn't ask Ms. Blackerby what she was building is because she gave a photo of an example of the
building she is proposing. Ms. Blackerby stated she wanted to clarifij that she is requesting 14 X 28 not 20 X
28 as was given, She went further to add that one of the responses received opposing her variance has a storage
building that sits right on the alley with the edge of the building as part of the fencing and the finish of the
building is worn and degrades the neighborhood. Ray Jameson stated he doesn't believe the Board has ever
approved a variance for a door on the side of the alley where it sits back on the fence. John Castro said the
Board has approved some storage buildings in the back with access to the alley but not in this particular
neighborhood. Ms. Blackerby stated there are some on Floyd,ada Street because she checked out the situation
before she applied for the variance. John Bickel asked Ms. Blackerby if she is looking for access to the
building from the alley and she replied she is considering resale values of the house. She states she is trying to
put a thirty-three hundred 0300) square foot house's furnishings into the storage building from her late father's
estate. Max Browning asked if there is a wall between this twenty (20) and this eight (8) and she replied there
will be with double utility doors so if needed to access the other side from that side you could. Ray Jameson
asked what size would the doors be and she replied a single entry out door on the north side and the overhead
door on the west- going into the eight (8) foot storage area and then another door on the outside on the east
side going into the eight (8) foot. She then explained the drawing submitted is actually backward. She added
they are going to purchase a kit storage building and the paint will match her house. Ray Jameson asked John
Castro how much is allowable if that building is shifted toward the house. Ms. Blackerby asked if she could
answer that question since she already had that figured. She states, "He told me it had to be within ten (10) foot
or at least ten (10) foot away from the end of the house.., and the lot up to the house on that particular side is
forty-eight (48) foot and if the building is twenty-eight (28) foot then that allows twenty (20) feet with the five
(5) then that means we're about fourteen (14) to fifteen (15) foot from the end of the house." Ray asked what
that would give her back from the alley with the place she wants to put her overhead door. Ms. Blackerby
states if moved up it would give about nine (9) feet from the alley. John Castro asked if the building could be
turned in any way and Ms. Blackerby replied, "No, because of the sewer line, it can't. And besides when you
go too far to the north you're also going to run into the gas line," She says they considered putting it on the
other side but if anyone ever wanted to build onto the house or install a basement then it would be best put on
the other side because the house is on an uneven lot and it slopes down to the south side and the concrete for the
porch is uneven and it would be on a bedroom wall with no entry out from the house. Ms. Blackerby states the
main reason for wanting the overhead door is for convenience since they are moving furniture in and out of the
building. Ray Jameson states the Board's biggest problem with the variance is the overhead door and Ms.
Blackerby asks, "Why is that a problem, I am just curious to know." Ray then says if the building were turned
another way it would make a difference. John Castro read the following: "Garages arranged so as to be entered
by a motor vehicle from an alley or an alley easement ... will be setback from the rear lot line or alley easement
line a minimum distance of twenty (20) feet." Ray states this is not considered as a hardship because there is
actually other places it could be put - again the biggest problem the Board has is the overhead facing the alley
with the building setting like it is without proper clearance. He says it is feasible to shift that building toward
the house to give the proper clearance. Max states it won't fit if moved up. Ms. Blackerby states the reason for
the additional eight (8) feet of storage building is for lawn supplies such as mowers, gasoline, etc. and they do
not want the smell of gas and grass clippings mixed in with the fttmiture to be stored in the other part of the
building. Fred Willis asked if it would be feasible to build a smaller storage building and put it another location
for the ordinance purposes. Ms. Blackerby replied that the on one side the side fence is blocked off and the side
of the yard the building is proposed to be placed is out of the way of the entry to and from the back of the alley
and all the activity of the yard is in the area not proposed to be used for the building. The side of the yard being
proposed for the building is basically wasted space due to the air conditioning unit and it not interfering with
the use of the remainder of the yard. John Castro reminded the Board they can grant the entire requested
variance or they can grant any variation thereof. He added that they have to decide if what Ms. Blackerby
wants to do is the only option. John added more by saying that when in the area of variance requests aside from
carports, there has to be a hardship or unusual and practical difficulties - those two are the options - financial is
not a harship, future planning for maintaining you property values is not a hardship; so now you look at unusual
and practical difficulties. When looking at the yard, due to the size of the yard, the building could go just about
anywhere and it is up to the Board to decide. Max Browning stated that when talking about property values,
the most logical place to put the building is as proposed. Ray Jameson again stated the problem is the overhead
door facing the alley and John Castro added it is the access to the alley by a motor vehicle. Fred Willis asked if
used a six (6) foot swinging door instead would make a difference and John Castor stated that door would not
pose a problem at all since the building could not possibly be used as a garage. Max Browning made a motion
to grant the variance under the basis of the practical difficulties and allow the variance as requested. Motion
was not seconded. Fred Willis asked Ms. Blackerby about fencing behind the building and she replied, "Yes,
the fence will stay intact. It will not be made into a swinging gate fence.., no change in the fence whatsoever."
Jennifer Wright asked if the fence would block the overhead door so you can't drive through the fence into
building. Fred Willis seconded the motion. Max stated it is being approved due to the unusual and practical
difficulties not a hardship since it is the most logical place to put the building. Three Board members voted in
favor of the approval of the variance, one was opposed. Ray Jameson voted in favor of the approval giving the
seventy-five percent (75%) majority needed to approve the variance.
Seventh item on the agenda: BA#1382, the request of John Castro for a variance of fifteen (15) feet of the
required twenty (20) foot rear setback as stated in Section 34 of the City of Plainview Zoning Ordinance to
build a 30'X 30' garage with an overhead door facing the alley in a Single Family Residential (R-l) Zoning
District, and being Lot 13, E/56'- 14, Block 87, College Hill Addition, Plainview, Hale County, Texas and same
being 3104 W. 4th Street. The case is presented by Larry Gould for John Castro. John Castro states he is going
to place two cars in the garage. He adds he applied for a variance in 1990 for six (6) feet ofthe required twenty
(20) feet when he built a metal building. Mr. Castro states his lot is one hundred twenty (120) feet wide and
one hundred seventy-two (172) feet deep. He goes on to state that his problem is that his house sits from the
front propereg line eighty-three (83) feet back, not giving him much of a back yard - approximately twenty-five
(25) feet from the furthest structure. Mr. Castro states he plans to get rid of the shed currently sitting on the
property. He states the back of his lot :faces a T Alley. There were two responses in favor of the variance and
none opposed. He states the building will still have eight (8) foot walls and a nine (9) foot peak because he
thinks anything higher than that would not look good there. John Bickel made motion to grant the variance due
to unusual and practical difficulties and Fred Willis seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
MEETING ADJOURNED
SECR]gT~Y