Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2011 BOA MINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, August 17, 2011 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 17, 2011 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, Chairperson; Gerald Odum, Vice Chairman; Lloyd Martin; Duane Sanders; and Constance Yahwak. Board Members Absent: None Present from Staff. J. Michael Joyce, AICP, Development Services Director and Jimmy Schnurr, City Attorney. 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Chairperson McCright called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2.0 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 2.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the regular session of the March 16, 2011 Board of Adjustment meeting. It was moved by Board Member Odum to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Board Member Sanders and carried (5-0). 3.0 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 3.1 BOA11-0002 - 8232 Lindsay Gardens. Discuss and consider approval of a request for a special exception to allow an increase in lot coverage to construct a patio and arbor at 8232 Lindsay Gardens. At the request of the City Attorney, The Board of Adjustment convened into Executive Session at 7:02 pm. The Board of Adjustment re-convened the Regular Session at 7:10 pm with nothing to report. Mr. Joyce presented the staff report. Chairperson McCright asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. James Hartsough, Grand Homes, 15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75001, stated that this isolated case is not intended to set a precedence. Mr. Hartsough stated that the floorplan of this home is the same as a model home, however, the model home is set on a larger parcel. He continued in saying that the patio of the model home, Board of Adjustment August 17, 2011 Page 2 of 3 as well as the other homes built around the property in question all have large patios and are trying to mimic the same patio on the property in question. Chairperson McCright asked what size the neighbor's lot is that already has the large patio. Mr. Hartsough responded that the lots are the same size, roughly fifty feet wide by one- hundred feet long (50' X 100'). He continued in stating that the properties are pseudo- zero lot lines where the right side of the homes have no windows and are approximately three feet from the property line, which in turn, requires the left side of the home to be approximately seven feet from the property line. Board Member Sanders asked if the home is a spec home or if it has already been sold. Mr. Hartsough responded that the home has already been sold, however, the patio an option that is still being worked on and based on the Board's decision, the patio will be built accordingly. Board Member Sanders asked if the patio has already been promised to the buyer. Mr. Hartsough responded no and that the buyer is aware that he is speaking with the Board to get permission to build the larger patio. Chairperson McCright asked to verify that the property in question has the same lot size as the neighbor with the larger patio. Mr. Hartsough responded affirmatively. Chairperson McCright asked why the larger patio was built on the neighbor's property but could not be built on the property in question. Mr. Hartsough responded that the floor plan for the property in question is 3,195 square feet, whereas the neighbor's floor plan is 2,354 square feet. Vice Chairman Odum asked for Mr. Hartsough to explain what he meant when he said that the properties share space. Mr. Hartsough responded that pseudo-zero lot lines are where the right side of the homes have no windows and are approximately three feet from the property line, which in turn, requires the left side of the home to be approximately seven feet from the property line so that there is ten feet of space between the homes. He continued in stating that he is requesting to allow the patio and arbor to be six feet away from the adjacent property and can provide engineer reports for the arbor, patio and foundation. Mr. Joyce asked if the seven foot is an easement that is granted to the adjacent property. Mr. Hartsough responded that the three foot is granted to the seven foot side. Board of Adjustment August 17, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Joyce clarified that the area is like a maintenance easement. Mr. Hartsough responded yes, it is still a part of the property, however, the adjacent property will maintain the grass. Mr. Schnurr stated that a variance would still be required in addition to the special exception if the patio and arbor are proposed to encroach the adjacent property. Since an additional variance would need to be requested, Board Member Sanders moved to table the request; Board Member Yahwak seconded the motion. The motion carried (5-0). Being no further discussion, Chairperson McCright adjourned the meeting at 7:25 pm. r Donna McCright, Ch irp n 7 p ela Ko ording Secretary