Loading...
Min - Board of Adjustment - 2017 - 09/11 - RegularI ;T�� CITY OF ALLEN Board Members Present: Gene Autrey, Chairman Deborah Angell Smith, 1" Vice -Chair Kimberly Clarkson, 2nd Vice -Chair Ken Barry Craig Gillis Bruce Howard, Alternate Dan Metevier, Alternate Absent: N/A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SIGN CONTROL BOARD BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 11, 2017 ATTENDANCE: City Staff Present: Lee Battle, LEED AP, AICP, Acting Director of Community Development Joseph Cotton, PE, ENV SP, Assistant Director of Engineering Madhuri Mohan, AICP, Senior Planner Ashley McDaniel, Building Plan Examiner Hayley Angel, Planner Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present With a quorum of the Board Members present, Chairman Autrey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers Conference Room at Allen City Hall, 305 Century Parkway. Consent Aeenda 1. Approve minutes from the June 5, 2017, Workshop Meeting. Motion: Upon a Motion by Board Member Gillis and a second by P' Vice -Chair Smith, the Board voted 5 IN FAVOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda. The Motion Carried. Regular Agenda 2. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for a variance from the side -yard setback which otherwise does not allow a built structure pursuant to the Board's authority under Allen Land Development Code Sec. 2.02.2.1(d) for Lot 8, Block T, Montgomery Ridge Phase I (and more commonly known as 1124 Lindenwood Lane); generally located south of Bethany Drive and west of Montgomery Boulevard. (BOA -060817- 0001) [1124 Lindenwood Lane) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SIGN CONTROL BOARD BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ' SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 2 Ms. Madhuri Mohan, Senior Planner, stated that the request is for a variance to the side -yard setback for a structure (attached deck and pergola) that was recently constructed and currently encroaches in the side - yard building setback. Ms. Mohan stated that the property is located at 1124 Lindenwood Lane in the Montgomery Ridge Phase I subdivision, generally located south of Bethany Drive and west of Montgomery Boulevard, and is zoned Planned Development (PD) 74 Single Family Residential R-7. She provided a summary of the surrounding areas: North: Zoned PD -105 Single Family Residential R-5, commonly known as the Angel Field West South: Zoned Agriculture -Open Space, vacant East: Zoned PD -121 Mixed Use (MIX), commonly known as Montgomery Ridge Phase 2A with a mix of single-family homes and urban residential developments. West: PD -105 Single Family Residential R-5, commonly known as the Montgomery Farm Estates Phase 1. Ms. Mohan stated that the subject property is more specifically located on the northern side of Lindenwood Lane and east of Mondamin Drive. She noted that most of the surrounding properties have been developed or are currently under construction. Ms. Mohan showed the Board the approved plat and Typical Lot Detail for the subject property, which illustrates a five-foot side -yard setback and a three-foot private drainage easement on the western property line. She stated that the request this evening is for a variance to the side -yard setback for a structure, ' specifically an attached deck and pergola, that was recently constructed and encroaches into the side -yard setback. Ms. Mohan showed pictures of the structure. She stated that the deck is approximately twenty feet long, four feet wide, and ten feet in height. She stated that the structure was built without a building permit. She noted that, had the applicant applied for a building permit, the permit would have been denied as the structure clearly encroaches into the five-foot side -yard setback in addition to the three-foot private drainage easement. Ms. Mohan reiterated the fundamentals of the case. She stated that there is a five-foot requirement for a side -yard setback and that the request tonight is to reduce it to a one -foot side -yard setback with a variance of four feet. Ms. Mohan stated that the Allen Land Development Code Section 2.02.2.1(d) enables the Board of Adjustment "to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of this Code as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Code will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of this Code shall be observed and substantial justice done." Ms. Mohan stated that staff is recommending denial and does not support the variance request. She stated that minimum setbacks are established to comply with building codes, fire codes, and engineering drainage requirements for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. She stated that the applicant has violated these requirements by building the structure without a permit and has created a ' self-created hardship. She stated that she appreciates the hard work and effort that may have been put into building the stmcture, but that the structure still does not comply with the basic requirements of the code. She stated that the main reason that staff is recommending denial is that staff has not identified any special BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SIGN CONTROL BOARD BUBLDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ' SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 3 conditions or any undue hardship. She noted that the structure could have been built elsewhere on the property or not at all. Chairman Autrey opened the public hearing. Janet Houston, the Applicant, 1124 Lindenwood Lane, stated that she has been a resident of Allen for over seventeen years. She stated that, in April 2016, she and her husband decided to downsize from their current home and move to the subject property. She noted that they closed on the property of April 2017. She stated that a friend, who work as a handyman, and her husband, began the construction of the deck and pergola prior to moving into the property. Ms. Houston apologized for their ignorance, stating that they had believed it was a small project that would not require one. She noted that, after the building inspector visited her property and asked if they had a building permit for the structure, her husband immediately went to City Hall to obtain one. She again apologized for not looking further into the process. Jeffrey Houston, the Applicant's son, thanked the Board for their time and consideration. He stated that his parents admit that a mistake was made but stated that there was a unique circumstance in relation to the drainage easement. He stated that there was no built structure on the southwest comer of the lot where the deck is located. He noted that the ground slopes toward the street and the structure is built off the ground. He noted that the only part of the structure on the ground are the ten support posts. He stated that, for these reasons, it would not impact drainage. He stated that, while there will never be a structure built there, they ' would agree to a stipulation that they would remove the deck should the drainage impede another structure. Mr. Houston stated that they may be asking for more of an exception than a variance given that it is a unique situation. He noted that, if an exception was granted, they would agree to certain stipulations, including removing the structure after its natural, useful life. He stated that they may be able to appeal the current code or law in order to allow exceptions for unique circumstances or add a clause to the current code or law to add an exception when drainage is proven to not be impacted. Chairman Autrey noted that there had been one letter received: • Odd Sandbekkhay, 1052 Mondamin Drive, SUPPORT Board Member Clarkson asked the applicant to explain why the friend, who was builder and helped construct the deck, did not know to obtain a building permit. Mr. Houston stated that the friend was simply a handyman, not a builder. He stated that the friend had done small projects around the previous home but was not a builder. Chairman Autrey asked the applicant if the subdivision had a Homeowners Association. Ms. Houston responded that there was a Homeowners Association. Chairman Autrey asked if there was a process with the Homeowners Association. Ms. Houston stated that the subdivision is new and that the subject property was about the tenth property built. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SIGN CONTROL BOARD BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ' SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 4 Ia0 Vice -Chair Smith asked the applicant if they had inquired with the developer. Mr. Houston stated that the developer was not involved and that there was an existing concrete pad. He noted that his parents wanted to enjoy privacy and shade outside. Board Member Metevier clarified that, when there is no active Homeowners Association, the developer steps in to oversee the by-laws and regulations until the Homeowners Association Board is put into place. Mr. Houston said that they did not check. Chairman Autrey stated that he went to see the property prior to the meeting. He noted that there was a courtyard in the front of the house and the back of the house is orientated to the street with a garage. He asked the applicant if there was a reason that they did not place the structure in the rear of the property. Mr. Houston stated that the driveway takes the width of the house and that there was a side door present. Ms. Houston stated that they toured a model home with a deck in the side yard. She stated that this is where the idea originated. Chairman Autrey asked the applicant if the structure at the model home was the same size. ' Mr. Houston confirmed that they were of similar size. 1" Vice -Chair Smith asked if the model home was located in Plano. Ms. Houston stated that she thought it was in McKinney. Chairman Autrey noted that this means it was outside the City of Allen. I" Vice -Chair Smith stated that it is not within the Board's power to change ordinances. She stated that it is within thew power to grant a variance or not grant a variance. She stated that the question for the Board to consider is whether there is genuinely a unique circumstance. She stated that staff feels there is not but that the applicant feels that there is. Thus, it falls to the Board to determine if it is a unique circumstance. She noted that if it was not, it would be difficult to grant a variance. She stated that the only potential unique circumstance would be the lot's position at the end of the row with no structures adjacent to the property. Ms. Houston stated that there is also the fact that the ground slopes toward the street. 1" Vice -Chair Smith asked staff to display the photos again. Chairman Autrey acknowledged that it was a unique situation for both the applicant and the Board, but that it is the Board's responsibility to look at the rules. Board Member Clarkson asked staff to display the picture of the plat. ' Board Member Clarkson asked about the location of the air conditioning unit. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SIGN CONTROL BOARD BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ' SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 5 Mr. Houston stated that the air conditioning unit is located behind the house between the driveway and the side yard. Board Member Clarkson stated that the air conditioning unit would have prevented the deck from being located in the back yard and that there would be no other location on the property that this deck could have been built. Chairman Autrey noted that it could not have been built in the front as it would have been in the common area. Ms. Houston stated that the deck was built within the property line and that the only portion of the structure that is on the ground are the support posts. She stated that this allows water to flow freely out from under the deck. Mr. Houston stated that it is a visually appealing deck and it is not a visual intrusion on the neighbors. Ms. Mohan stated that the request tonight is for the side yard setback. She noted that the drainage was a by- product of the encroachment into the side yard setback. She stated that the drainage easement is not required by code and that the Board's authority is regarding the side yard setback only. She stated that there is an engineering requirement that lots cannot drain from one lot onto another lot, even if that lot is a common area. ' Ms. Houston asked for clarification on the definition of a side yard setback. Chairman Autrey described it as the build line, and staff confirmed. Chairman Autrey stated that, similar to a front and new setback there was a side yard setback as well. Chairman Autrey closed the public hearing. Board Member Metevier stated that them are rules in the Allen Land Development Code for a reason. He noted that the structure was attractive, but he was concerned that an exception to this case may result in an exception to the neighbors. 2° Vice -Chair Barry stated that this concern was his issue as well. Chairman Autrey agreed and stated that he had been struggling with this concern since he received the information regarding the request. 1" Vice -Chair Smith asked staff if they felt there was a unique circumstance. Ms. Mohan confirmed that staff did not feel there was a unique circumstance. Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney, stated that, if the Board was to issue a variance, the Board would create a unique circumstance for other portions of the neighborhood, as the narrow lots were characteristic of the neighborhood. He stated that it was intentionally designed and zoned with narrow lots, which are heavily ' restricted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SIGN CONTROL BOARD BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION t SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 6 Additionally, Mr. Laughlin stated that he had reviewed the Homeowners Association documents and confirmed that the developer serves as an architectural review committee until enough houses have been built. Mr. Laughlin stated that the drainage easement is a private easement. He stated that a variance into this easement would be difficult because, as a private easement, it is not the City or Board's to grant. Chairman Autrey stated that his concern was that there are several lots still vacant and that he did not want to visit a similar case again. Board Member Clarkson asked the City Attorney to clarify his statement. She stated that as she understood it that a variance tonight would not create a precedence. Mr. Laughlin stated that a variance would create a precedence because there are several lots in the development that have similar narrow setbacks. Board Member Metevier asked the City Attorney what would happen if the developer finds that the subject property is not in compliance with the Homeowners Association's by-laws. Mr. Laughlin stated that the subject property would go through the architectural review committee process and they may possibly have to remove the structure. However, he stated that, in practice, the developers tend to follow the City's decisions. ' Mr. Laughlin stated that the Board requires four votes to carry a motion. He suggested that the motion be in favor to make the determination easier. Motion: Upon a motion by Board Member Barry and a second by Board Member Gillis, the Board voted 1 IN FAVOR, and 4 OPPOSED (Chairman Autrey, I" Vice -Chair Smith, tad Vice -Chair Barry, and Board Member Gillis) to approve the request to permit the variance from the aide -yard setback for 1124 Lindenwood Lane. The motion did not carry. Adjournment Motion: Upon a motion by 1" Vice -Chair Smith and a second by Board Member Metevier, the Board voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the meeting at 6:34 p.m. The motion carried. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SIGN CONTROL BOARD BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 PAGE 7 These minutes prepared and filed in the offices of the Allen Board of Adjustment, Sign Control Board, and Building and Standards Commission this 12a day of September, 2017. Lee Battle, P, AICP Hayley Ang P mer Acting Director of Community Development These minutes approved this LI i'11 day of I)e CCAN\\0er 2017. Deborafi Angell Smith, ChairHa ley e larmer 1