Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/2010 BOAMINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 18, 2010 After determining that a quorum was present, the Board of Adjustment of the City of The Colony, Texas convened into Regular Session which was held on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located in City Hall, 6800 Main Street, The Colony, Texas, at which time the following items were addressed: Board Members Present: Donna McCright, Vice Chairperson; Cesar Molina; Duane Sanders; Constance Yahwak, Alternate; and Matt Armstrong, Alternate. Board Members Absent: Gerald Odum; Chairman, Aaron Barney. Present from Staff: J. Michael Joyce, Development Services Director; Andrew Sheridan, Senior Planner; Felicia Koppang, Development Services Coordinator; Jimmy Schnurr, City Attorney. 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Vice Chairperson McCright called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. 2.0 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 2.1 Conduct a public hearing, discuss, and consider granting a variance to Section § 18-605 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a fence to be located within a required sight visibility triangle, on developed property located at 4600 Larner Street. Mr. Sheridan presented the staff report. Board Member Sanders asked if the homeowner went through the proper channels of the city prior to the fence being built. He continued in asking if the City went out to the property prior to the fence being erected. Mr. Sheridan responded that the homeowner received a permit prior to the fence being erected. Mr. Joyce continued in stating that the permit was approved, however, the homeowner did not look at the notes referencing the visibility requirement on the permit when he received it. Board Member Molina asked what is the purpose of the thirty foot visibility clip. Mr. Sheridan responded that every zoning ordinance has a visibility clip requirement, however the standard visibility clip is fifteen feet. He continued in stating that in his opinion, a thirty foot visibility clip is a high requirement. Mr. Joyce included that in this situation, the visibility clip is for two local streets. Board of Adjustment August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 6 Board Member Molina stated that the intent of a visibility clip is so that oncoming traffic can see if a car is coming into the intersection. In his opinion, he believes that on a thirty mile per hour street, a ten foot visibility clip would be more than reasonable. He continued in stating that the visibility clip requirements might be something that staff should re-evaluate in the future. Mr. Sheridan stated that the traffic control devices (stop signs) at this intersection are for a two-way stop. He continued in asking if it were a four-way stop, should a visibility clip be required at all. Board Member Molina stated that it probably should not be required; however the visibility clip should be in place in case traffic runs through the intersection. Mr. Joyce stated that in the photo, the markings in the grass indicate where the required visibility clip is, as well as the proposed visibility clip. Visibility clips should take into account the speed of the road and the type of street. A thirty foot visibility clip would be understandable if it was not a local road but an arterial street. Board Member Sanders stated that the signage on the road appears as if a vehicle would have to stop, creep up and stop again, which is asking to be rear-ended. Mr. Joyce stated that when he went out to the property to take the photographs, he actually had to stop, creep up and stop again and during peak hours, there is a lot of traffic on the roads in question. Vice Chairperson McCright asked if there is a stop sign proposed for along Curry Drive. Mr. Sheridan stated no, and likely not in the future because the amount of traffic does not warrant the stop sign. Vice Chairperson McCright opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak in favor or opposition. Vice Chairperson McCright closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Board Member Molina to approve a visibility clip of ten feet by fourteen feet (10' X 14') as proposed by the applicant, seconded by Board Member Sanders and carried (5-0). 2.2 Conduct a public hearing, discuss, and consider a variance to Section § 10-721 of the Zoning Ordinance to replace an existing mobile home on a platted lot that currently does not meet minimum yard requirements with a manufactured home to be sited at a different location on the same lot, without conforming to the minimum yard setbacks established for lots within the MH district, located at 4345 Sunset Drive. Mr. Sheridan presented the staff report. Board of Adjustment August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Vice Chairperson McCright asked if the property in question is one piece of property or two. Mr. Sheridan responded one. Vice Chairperson McCright asked if on one piece of property, there are two houses. Mr. Sheridan responded that there is a mobile home and a half of another mobile home. Mr. Joyce stated that the second mobile home straddles the property line. Vice Chairperson McCright asked if the area of where the second mobile home is placed is the same property. Mr. Sheridan responded using a visual aerial map that the mobile home that is entirely within the property lines is the mobile home that is requested to be replaced with a newer, larger, HUD code manufactured home. The second mobile home, owned by the applicant's parents, was initially placed incorrectly on the north property line. Mr. Sheridan continued in stating the property was recently surveyed within the last six months. Board Member Sanders asked if the new home is fifteen feet longer, would the manufactured home be put closer to the street. Mr. Sheridan responded yes. The applicant is proposing to not put the new manufactured home in the exact location of the current home. Mr. Sheridan continued in stating the applicant wants to provide the maximum setback that is possible by changing the position of the manufactured home. Board Member Sanders asked if the applicant will be turning the manufactured home sideways. Mr. Sheridan responded, yes, roughly fifteen to twenty degrees. Board Member Molina asked if the new manufactured home will be placed parallel to the parent's mobile home. Mr. Sheridan responded yes, in order to maximize the setbacks from the front and rear property lines. Board Member Sanders stated that even if the manufactured home is turned slightly, one corner of the home will still be closer to the street unless it is turned completely sideways. Mr. Sheridan responded that Board Member Sanders is correct. Vice Chairperson McCright asked if the ordinance states anything about two homes on one lot. Board of Adjustment August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Sheridan responded that the ordinance is silent in regards to two homes on one lot. Board Member Sanders stated with cars parked directly in front of the two homes on the property in question, the double street gets cut down to one lane, which is a traffic hazard. Mr. Sheridan responded that since it is a dead end circular street, most of the traffic on the street would be residents or visitors of the street. Board Member Sanders stated that he has seen people towing boats down Sunset Circle in the past. Mr. Sheridan responded that typically those are the people that are lost. He continued in stating that Sunset Circle is a narrow street, however, there is gravel on both sides of the pavement. Mr. Joyce stated Sunset Circle is an open sectioned street. Vice Chairperson McCright opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Joanna Amador stated that when her parents bought the two lots in 2000, the lots were surveyed together so they didn't know there were two lots or their sizes. When she decided to move home, she purchased the lot in question from her parents. She now has two children that need separate rooms, therefore, is now requesting the variance to allow her to place a newer and larger manufactured home, measuring twenty-eight feet wide by sixty feet in length. She originally wanted to purchase a single-wide manufactured home since they are cheaper, but they measure sixteen feet wide by seventy-six feet in length which would not fit on the lot. Ms. Amador continued in stating that there is a fence on the lot which is inside the side property line and will be moved back for more space within the property. Vice Chairperson McCright asked if the new manufactured home will be placed on cement. Ms. Amador responded no. Vice Chairperson McCright asked if it is required that the manufactured home be put on cement. Mr. Sheridan responded, no, the manufactured home can be put on piers. Mr. Sheridan added that the pier set that was provided with the site plan shows there will be a twenty foot front yard setback and a ten foot rear yard setback, which is five feet closer to the street and ten feet closer to the rear property line than required by ordinance. He continued in stating that if this property was not located at the boundary line of another zoning district or at the boundary of the City of The Colony and Denton County, the setback by ordinance would be ten feet. Vice Chairperson McCright asked if staff's recommendation is for approval. Board of Adjustment August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Sheridan responded that staff's recommendation is for approval, not based on minimum setback requirements, but based on Texas Occupations Code which permits the one-time replacement of a manufactured home with a HUD-code manufactured home. Vice Chairperson McCright closed the Public Hearing. Board Member Molina stated he was comfortable with granting the variance since it is a requirement to conform to state law. Board Member Sanders states that he doesn't know how the new manufactured home will fit on the property. Mr. Joyce responded that the manufactured home is sixty feet in depth, which means there is thirty feet in depth left on the property. There is a required twenty foot rear yard setback due to the fact that this property is adjacent to another zoning district other than a MH designation. If it was adjacent to another MH designation, the rear yard setback would only be ten feet. There is a required twenty five foot front yard setback requirement that will only be encroached upon by five feet with the angle the applicant proposes to place the manufactured home. Board Member Sanders asked if the City will go out and measure the setbacks when the manufactured home is placed. Mr. Joyce responded yes, prior to placing the manufactured home, the applicant will be issued a placement permit and they will have to indicate where the manufactured home will be placed. Either the surveyor will verify or an inspector will verify prior to placing the manufactured home. Board Member Sanders asked if the inspections on a regular house will be the same as the inspections on a manufactured home. Mr. Joyce responded that inspections are a little different since it is a manufactured home, but the inspectors will inspect the water hook-up, sewer hook-up and electrical hook-up. He continued that just as there are inspections for when a foundation is placed on a stick- framed home, an inspection will take place for a manufactured home and its placement. Board Member Sanders asked if the home is hooked up to butane gas. Ms. Amador responded yes, however the tank will have to be moved. Mr. Joyce stated to Ms. Amador that she would need to get in contact with the Fire Marshal for approval prior to moving the tank. Board Member Sanders stated that he hopes that other property owners in the area of Sunset Circle will follow suit and other homes will be replaced. He advised Ms. Amador that after the manufactured home is placed, he would like to go out to the property to see how it was done. Board of Adjustment August 18, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Board Member Armstrong stated that according to the report, the existing home is fifty six point seven (56.7) feet in length, so the new manufactured home is only a little over three feet longer. Board Member Sanders stated the new manufactured home is fifteen feet wider than the existing home. Board Member Armstrong clarified that the new manufactured home is three point three three (3.33) feet wider and 14 feet longer. Mr. Sheridan agreed. Board Member Sanders asked if the parents' mobile home is on the property in question, would that restrict the amount of area to place the new manufactured home on the lot. Board Member Molina stated it would be a side yard issue, whereas the variance request notes the front and rear yard setbacks require the exception. Mr. Joyce stated that the side yard requirements between units can be met. It was moved by Board Member Sanders to approve Item 2.2 as stated, seconded by Board Member Armstrong and carried (5-0). 2.3 Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. Board Member Molina nominated Donna McCright as Chair, seconded by Board Member Sanders and carried (5-0). Board Member Sanders nominated Cesar Molina, Jr. as Vice Chairman, seconded by Vice Chairperson McCright and carried (5-0). Meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm. Donna McCright, Vice Chai erson elici Kopp g, R o ding Secretary