Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2001 BOA · I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS HELD ON AUGUST 23, 2001 A REGULAR SESSION OF THE BOARD OF Adjustment & Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Rob Bauman Chairman Mike Catt Vice Chairman Robert Poynter Member Constance Yahwak Member Gary McClure Member Bruce Crutchfield Alternate I Gerald Odum Alternate With all members present, a quorum was established. Also in attendance were: Pat Dunlap, Director of Inspections, Designated Officer of the City Inspections Department; Sherry Hutchison, Recording Secretary. Chairman Bauman opened the with a review of Variance Procedures and Requirements. Chairman Bauman then asked for Staff, Mr. Dunlap and Applicant, Mr. House to be sworn in; then the following items were discussed: Item #1: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of three (3) variances requested by The Colony Masonic Lodge relating to expanding their current building facility at 4630 W. Lake Highlands, The Colony, Texas. (1.) The first variance request is for the expansion of a non-conforming zoning use. (2.) The second request for a variance is for 3.1 feet ITom the required 12.5 feet rear set back. (3.) The third request for a variance oflO.1 feet ITom the required 15 feet side yard setback. Item #2: APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION: Regarding a I request by Billingsley Development for partial occupancy of buildings #1, #19, & #20 of Parks of Austin Ranch, Phase II Apartment Complex. · I Item #3: APPRO V AL OF MINUTES: From the February 20,2001 meeting, a request for a variance to allow Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to add to an existing building that is encroaching the building setback line ofF.M. 423. Chairman Bauman then asked Mr. Dunlap for his Presentation. Case No. 02-01 Mr. Dunlap gave his Presentation to the Board of Adjustment & Appeals on three (3) variances requested by The Colony Masonic Lodge relating to expanding their building at 4630 W. Lake Highlands. 1st request relates to expansion of a non-conforming zoning use. 2nd a lesser setback of property lines required for 10% of lot depth. 3rd lesser set back of the side property line minimum required 15% of the lot width. Mr. Dunlap said the Masons, of The Colony Masonic Lodge have met there since 1992. Masonic Lodge occupies Block 7, Lots 8 & 9 of Garza Little Elm Lake Estates. Property is zoned PD 2 for residential use. The building for use of a Meeting Hall was granted by the B.O.A.A. on August 14, 1992. The variance request if approved will authorize the expansion of the existing building from approximately 1340 square feet to 3370 square feet in the meeting room area. I Mr. Dunlap asked if there were any questions. Member Odum - with expansion will it allow adequate parking. Mr. Dunlap - replied yes. Member Mcclure - what does an expansion of a non-conforming use mean. Mr. Dunlap - they are in a district that is specifically residential use, where residential housing is built only. This is a meeting hall and not a residential use. With approval from the zoning board in 1992 they were allowed to construct on this residential lot. They are still a non-conforming use and cannot do any expansion without the approval of the zoning board. Chairman Bauman, with the staff presentation having been completed, called on Bill House, of The Colony Masonic Lodge to make his presentation. Mr. House responded to the parking question by saying they are across from a Baptist Church and they both have an informal parking agreement to share parking. Adding on to the building would not interfer with where the members park now. Masons are I concerned with being good neighbors. Mr. House asked if there were any questions. 2 I Chairman Bauman - requested to have the hardship explained. Mr. House - they need additional space for the seating of their members as they are growing and need a larger room for all Brothers to be able to meet in the same room. To stay within the existing setback, would reduce the size of the meeting room by 450 square feet, which reduces the size of the new meeting room to basically what the old meeting room is. Chairman Bauman - he sees no safety issues. Mr. House - they went over the fire requirements with Fire Marshall, Van Wiese and the Police Chief, Joe Clark. Member McClure - did the Fire Department approve it. Mr. House - Fire Marshall had no problem with it. Just that they had to have a knox box on so they could have access to the old and new building. Chairman Bauman, with the applicant having concluded his presentation, asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in support ofthe request. I There were none. Chairman Bauman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against the request. There were none. Chairman Bauman asked for any comments for rebuttal. Mr. House had none. Chairman Bauman asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing for open discussion. Motion to close - Member Poynter; second - Member McClure. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. After a brief discussion on the three (3) variances, a Motion to approve - Member Poynter; second - Member Yahwak. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. I 3 I Chairman Bauman addressed Item #2 - Appeal of The Building Official Decision: Regarding a request by Billingsley Development for partial occupancy of buildings # 1, #19, & #20 of Parks of Austin Ranch, Phase II Apartment Complex. Chairman Bauman asked for the applicant Mr. Lucillo Pena to be sworn in. Chairman Bauman then asked Mr. Dunlap for his Presentation. Case No. 02-02 Mr. Dunlap gave his presentation by reading to the Board Members information on appealing a Building Officials opinion, and saying the decision of the Board of Appeals is final. A request made by Mr. Pena, President of Billingsley Development to allow individual sections of three separate apartment buildings to be leased and occupied before all sections of the respective buildings are completed was denied by the Building Official. Mr. Dunlap, spoke ofa letter from Mr. Pena, dated July 18,2001, states the reason for request of partial occupancy being, they feel (Billingsley Development) not being able to turn these buildings in sections will unduly hamper their leasing efforts. Mr. Pena is appealing the denial of his request which is the decision ofthe Building Official. I Billingsley Development is currently constructing Phase II of the Austin Ranch Apartments, a multi-building complex located along Windhaven Parkway in The Colony, Texas. The three buildings subject of this appeal, buildings #1, #19, and #20, exceed the maximum allowable building area established by the 1997 Uniform Building Code for the type and use of the buildings. All three buildings each have three contiguous sections separated by two hour fire-resistive area separation walls as required by code. Mr. Pena's intent is to lease out and allow families to occupy sections of each building while construction in the other portions ofthe building not being occupied are underway. Mr. Dunlap said the basis of the Building Officials decision is the issue of the safety of the families that Mr. Pena wants to move in while other sections of the same buildings are still under construction. Fire, health and safety are always the most concerns of the Building Official in making any decision. Fire in any building will always continue being primary concern, even after construction is complete. Plumbers soldering torches; uncompleted wiring systems, carpets, glues, shellacs and smoking construction workers add up to abnormal increase in fire potential. Mr. Dunlap talked about some other areas of concern being health: - contamination of the buildings water system. - building sewer lines and drain systems are often open. I - Construction blocking crucial exit doors. 4 I Mr. Dunlap, having pointed out several valid reasons why it is not in the best interest of the public, to allow partial occupancy, asked that the Board consider the safety ofthe families and its obligation to the public and uphold the Building Official's decision to deny Mr. Pena's request for partial occupancy. Mr. Dunlap asked if there were any questions. Member Poynter - the three buildings, subject of this appeal exceed the maximum allowable building area established by the 1997 Ordinance, are they in vio lation of our ordinance. Mr. Dunlap - without the area separation wall, the two hour fire walls, they would be. The code recognizes area separation walls as being acceptable to limit. Chairman Bauman - this appears to be 100% safety issues. Mr. Dunlap - pointed out that this appeal is not based upon the building being illegal. It is not an illegal building. From his standpoint this is a safety issue and is based upon a lack of safety during a construction phase. Member McClure - is all the sewer and water lines connected together or is each building I separate from other buildings. Mr. Dunlap - each building has it's own dependent water system and it is his understanding the three buildings each have individualized sewer systems. Chairman Bauman, with the staff presentation having been completed, called on the applicant, Lucillo Pena, of Billingsley Development to make his presentation. Mr. Pena responded by saying he is President of Billingsley Development Company, and they are developing Austin Ranch. The portion being talked about is multi-family, a mix use community that has a strong emphasis on pedestrian activity. Building #20, has 10,000 square feet of retail on comer and will be other mixed uses in this area. This is not your traditional multi- family Building. The reason for being here tonight, is they are introducing unique building types to this city and they intend to build more. They are talking about these three buildings, but it really sets the tone of them moving forward. Mr. Pena spoke on the issue of hardship. They are trying to occupy as they build them. Normally every two weeks they release some product so there are new people moving in, as that is the nature of how the multi-family industry works. It would mean in this case, I they would have to wait when they would have 80% of the building completely finished, they would not be able to have anybody occupy or lease it. In regards to other cities this makes them less competitive. 5 I Mr. Pena then asked their Architect, Bruce Rachel, to speak. Mr. Rachel showed a diagram on where the buildings were and what they looked like. He spoke on area separation walls, which break them into three separate building walls. The time frame between which the individual buildings would be completed is approximately two weeks. Mr. Rachel asked if there were any questions. Member McClure - it was said, contractors are responsible for monitoring the safety on the projects, but who is responsible for monitoring the contractors. Mr. Rachel- the Building Official of the city is his understanding. Chairman Bauman - if the variance were denied, what would the delay time be between time of completion and the time you were able to rent, in terms of months, weeks, years. Mr. Rachel- asked for Mr. Pena's to answer this question. Mr. Pena - replied with each of the buildings, about a month. I Mr. Pena then asked for Dale Derieks, representing PBS 2000 Inc., an Engineering Firm of Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing to speak. After being sworn in, Mr. Derieks spoke on being active in various stages of design in projects from California, Florida and Massachusetts. They specialize in the types of projects like Mr. Pena is trying to develop in the Colony. He said he has not done a project across the whole United States, that he was not allowed to partially C. O. portions of these large buildings. He appreciates Mr. Dunlaps concern for life and safety, but it is their responsibility as Designers to be very careful when designing these projects that they do not endanger anyone. Mr. Derieks asked if there were any questions. Member Poynter - could you say each section is an entity in it's own self. Mr. Derieks - you could look at it as those are buildings that are completely separate and it just so happens that they are pushed very close to each other. Member Catt - when meeting with the Building Official through this process, was this issue not discussed. I Mr. Derieks - not knowing the interaction no one has ever said this could not be done. Mr. Pena - it has never been an issue, tonight is the fIrst time. 6 · I Member McClure - asked Mr. Dunlap, are there conditions that can be set for occupancy. Mr. Dunlap - yes, it can be done, but once a section is occupied, it is a real issue to getting it unoccupied. Chairman Bauman, with the applicant having concluded his presentation, asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in support of the request. There were none. Chairman Bauman asked if any anyone in the audience wished to speak against the request. There were none. Member Crutchfield asked to make a comment. With Children moving in construction sites, there are sharp edges, no rails on staircases, wires left out of walls and on appliances. He feels families with teenagers and kids add an extra level of risk. I Mr. Pena - answered by saying, they would block off sections still under construction. That is a safety precaution they always take. Chairman Bauman, asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing for open discussion. Motion to close - Member Catt; second - Member McClure. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. After a lengthy discussion on safety issues, Member McClure made a Motion to approve the request with a 95% completion. No second. Motion died. A motion to deny the request - Member Poynter; second - Member Catt. Motion passed with 4 yea's, 1 nay. Request denied. Chairman Bauman, addressed Item #3 - the approval of the minutes from the February 20,2001 meeting. Motion to approve - Member Poynter; second - Member Catt. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. Mee~Ded at 9:16 p.m. ¡í... V ~¥.~'t. :7-~~ Rob Baum,Ä Chairman ç/~~~ lp? oj I She hison, Recording Secretary 7