MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF RICHARDSON, TEXAS The Zoning Board of Adjustment met in session at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, in the Council Chambers, at the City Hall, 411 West Arapaho Road, Richardson, Texas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Walker, Chair Larry Menke, Vice Chair Chip Pratt, Member John Veatch, Member Shamsul Arefin, Alternate Jason Lemons, Alternate Brian Shuey, Member CITY STAFF PRESENT: Mohamed Bireima, Planner Sam Chavez, Assistant Director of Development Services Gwen Manigold, Administrative Secretary BRIEFING SESSION Prior to the start of the regular business meeting, members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment met with staff to receive a briefing on agenda items. No action was taken. REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING Opening comments: Chairman Walker introduced City staff and explained the staff serves in an advisory capacity and does not influence any decisions the Board might make. Chairman Walker summarized the function, rules, and appeal procedures of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 1. MINUTES: FEBRUARY 15, 2017 Motion: Vice Chair Menke made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; second by Mr. Arefin. Motion approved 5-0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZBA FILE V 17-03: A request by Richard Pascuzzi to allow a 5- foot variance to the 10-foot side setback to accommodate a generator (Article VII, Sec. 4(f)(1)(b)). The property was located at 111 Thompson Drive, Richardson, Texas. Mr. Bireima advised the property was zoned residential, was surrounded by single family homes on all side, and a notification had been sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. He added one phone call in opposition had been received and it pertained to the grading and drainage of the new home.
ZBA MINUTES PAGE 2 Mr. Bireima presented a proposed site plan and explained the requested 5-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard setback along the south side of the property. He added the applicant was citing the small size of the backyard and the grade of the yard as the reason for placing the generator at the rear of the home. Mr. Bireima concluded his presentation by showing photos of home and stating that if the Board approved the variance for the generator, staff would ensure the proposed generator would conform to the maximum noise level allowed by the R-1100-M Residential District. Mr. Lemons asked if there were any comments from the neighbors. Mr. Bireima replied that he had spoken to the neighbor on the south side when he was out at the property and the neighbor did not express any opposition. Mr. Pratt asked if the proposed equipment was for an air conditioner compressor or pool equipment. Mr. Bireima answered there was no setback requirements for AC units from an interior lot line; however, there was a 3-foot side setback for swimming pool equipment. Mr. Pratt asked if the major concern with the generator was the noise level and if the decibel (dbs) level at the property line was 56 dbs. He also wanted to know if staff knew the decibel level for the proposed unit. Mr. Bireima confirmed that the decibel level at the property line 56 dbs on an A-scale for a residential district. He added that based on the information provided to City staff, the unit was not in compliance and the applicant had been made aware that any proposed unit would have to comply with the sound level of the district at the time a permit application was submitted. Chairman Walker called for the applicant to come forward. Mr. Richard Pascuzzi, 1097 Edith Circle, Richardson, Texas, stated he and his wife were building a house at 111 Thompson Drive in Richardson, and had been residents of the city for over 30 years. He added they were designing and building a house large enough to accommodate their children and grandchildren when they visited, but that left them with a very small backyard. Mr. Pascuzzi explained they were requesting a generator to power the house in case of outages and were planning to fence the generator separate from the fence that would surround the backyard. Mr. Veatch asked if the noise level would be minimal and was it expected to be much noisier than an air conditioner unit. He also wanted to know if the applicant knew the decibel level of the proposed unit.
ZBA MINUTES PAGE 3 Mr. Pascuzzi replied they purchased the quietest unit possible keeping in an attempt to mitigate any noise issues and again stated the unit would be fenced. Regarding the decibel level, Mr. Pascuzzi said it was 60 dbs and again stated they had plans to fence the unit as well as cover it to try and mitigate the sound and come into compliance with the City s requirements. Mr. Arefin asked where the air conditioning unit would be located and would there be any drainage problems if the generator was located on the south side of the property. Mr. Pascuzzi replied they were planning on locating the air conditioning unit on the north side of the property and were planning to do some work on the south side to protect the existing slope. Vice Chair Menke asked if an engineer or anyone else could do some an evaluation to see if the decibels could be lowered since it is right at the property line. Mr. Pacuzzi replied that he has spoken to a couple of electricians and representatives for the manufacturer and was told that there were several things that could be done to lower the noise level. Mr. Pratt asked if the applicant had any discussions with the neighbor that would be impacted by the generator if approved and Mr. Pascuzzi said he had spoken with them and that there was no objection. Mr. Lemons asked if natural gas generators were fed through the gas line and Mr. Pascuzzi confirmed they were. With no other comments in favor or opposed, Chairman Walker closed the open hearing. Mr. Pratt asked staff if the height of the generator came under the Board s purview and Mr. Bireima confirmed the Board could limit the height. Vice Chair Menke stated that there was no opposition regarding the use of the generator and the City would insure it met the noise level requirements before installation was allowed. Motion: Mr. Lemons made a motion to grant the request listed in Variance 17-03 as presented and limited to those specifics presented in the case, specially limiting the generator height to five feet maximum; second by Mr. Veatch. Motion approved 5-0. Texas. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZBA FILE V 17-04: A request by Jeff Stegich to allow a 10-foot variance to the platted 40-foot front setbacks along Northlake Drive and Glen Cove Drive (Article VII, Sec. 4(e)(3)). The property was located at 1210 Northlake Drive, Richardson,
ZBA MINUTES PAGE 4 Mr. Bireima advised that the property was zoned residential and was surrounded by single family homes on all sides. He added that only one letter in opposition had been received after notification was sent out to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property and a copy of was presented to the Board members during the briefing session. Mr. Bireima presented a survey of the existing home on the property as well as adjacent properties and stated the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance required a 30-foot front setback, but the subject lot and the abutting lots were platted with a 40-foot front setback. Bireima stated that staff could not verify from City records how the lots were permitted to build with 30-foot front setbacks in-lieu-of the platted 40-foot setback. Mr. Bireima concluded his presentation by stating the existing 1,900 square foot single story home would be demolished and replaced with a two story home. He explained the applicant was requesting a 10-foot variance to the platted 40-foot front setbacks along Northlake Drive and Glen Cove Drive to accommodate the proposed home noted a hardship does not exist in the case. Chairman Walker asked if the request was for the side or the front of the home. Mr. Bireima clarified that because it was a corner lot the front setback applied to the side as wells as the front of the home. Chairman Walker opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Stegich, 413 Fall Creek, Richardson, Texas, stated that staff explained request perfectly and the new home would have the same footprint of the existing home, but would be a two story as opposed to a one story. Chairman Walker asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the request. Mr. Jay Clark, 923 Fernwood Drive, Richardson, Texas, stated he personally knew the applicant and the quality of his work and asked the Board to approve the variance so the proposed home would match others in the neighborhood. Vice Chair Menke asked Mr. Clark if the street his house was built had a 30-foot or a 40-foot setback. Mr. Clark stated his home had a 40-foot setback. The following individuals presented an appearance card in favor of this request, but did not speak: Laurie & Jay Cooke, 6 Brairwood Circle, Richardson, Texas 75080 Justin Pardy, 822 Brookhurst Dr., Richardson, Texas 75080 Chairman Walker called for comments in opposition.
ZBA MINUTES PAGE 5 Ms. Elizabeth Simpson, 915 Lakeview Drive, Richardson, Texas, stated that although she did not have a problem with the setback request, she was asking the Board to deny the variance because the proposed home was not similar in scale to other homes in the neighborhood. Vice Chair Menke asked if the speaker would want their neighbor s homes to be 10 feet in front of their home on both sides. Ms. Simpson replied she would never consider building a home of the size the applicant was proposing on the lot in question. Mr. Veatch asked to confirm if the speaker was opposed to the 30-foot setback or to the proposed size of the home. Ms. Simpson said her opposition was to the setback because a 4,700 square foot home would do well with a 40-foot setback as opposed to a 30-foot setback. She added that she did not want to deny the applicant their dream home, but felt it would be better situated on the east side of the neighborhood. Mr. Arefin said he thought any type of updating to the home would be a positive for the neighborhood. Mr. Jeff Selby, 1301 Cloverdale, Richardson, Texas, said he respected all the previous comments; however, his opposition was not to the variance but the precedence it would set and how that would change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Veatch said the fact that someone wanted to take down a house that was 50 to 60 years old and build a new one was nothing unusual, it happened all the time in the Richardson, but he did not think the character of the City would suffer because of it. Vice Chair Menke pointed out the scope of the hearing was whether or not to approve the setback and the size of the home was not part of that request. He suggested if those in opposition were concerned about larger sized homes coming into existing neighborhoods, contact could be made with the City Council to discuss changing local ordinances. Mr. Andres Arroyo, 1214 Northlake, Richardson, Texas, said that he had used a computer program to draw a conceptual picture of what the proposed house would look like with the requested setbacks and felt the scale would not match the character of the neighborhood. He also pointed out that in order to build the proposed house; two large trees would have to be removed. Mr. Lemons asked if the applicant had contacted Mr. Arroyo. Mr. Arroyo said he had not been contacted. values. Mr. Arefin said demolition of older homes and building of new homes had been going on for quite a while and there did not seem to be any adverse effect on the surrounding home
ZBA MINUTES PAGE 6 Mr. Arroyo said he was not so much concerned about the value of his home as he was more concerned with the quality of life while living in his home. Mr. Arefin acknowledged Mr. Arroyo s comments about quality of life, but asked him to look at the overall picture and how things change over time and improve. Mr. Pratt noted that most of the older homes in the neighborhood were built with windows on only one side so as to avoid looking into a neighbor s house and asked the speaker if that was the case with his neighborhood. Mr. Arroyo said that as far as he knew the homes in the neighborhood had windows on all four sides. Mr. Pratt also thanked Mr. Arroyo for his concern regarding the two large oak trees that would be lost under the current construction plan and suggested the neighbors speak with the contractor about alternatives to the horseshoe drive. He also suggested the neighbors look into the City s Overlay Zoning to preserve the character of their neighborhood. Ms. Sara Knowles, 806 Clearwater Drive, Richardson, Texas, stated that some of the neighbors had explored using the Overlay Zoning and found it was very difficult and time consuming process. She also thought any new homes being built in the area should adhere to the 40-foot requirement for the neighborhood. Mr. Veatch again asked if the speaker was opposed to the 30-foot setback or to the proposed size of the home. He also pointed out that it was the Board s responsibility to review and approve or deny variance requests and the existing neighborhood homes were all built with a 30-foot setback. Ms. Ellen Curnes, 1216 Magnolia Drive, Richardson, Texas, said that although the construction of a new home on the site would conform to the established setback it would be out of conformity with the neighborhood and would have a negative physical impact on the neighboring properties. Ms. Connie Hazelcorn, 1213 Northlake Drive, Richardson, Texas, said she thought the size of the lot was too small for the proposed size of the home. With no further comments in favor or opposed, Chairman Walker closed the public hearing. Mr. Arefin stated it was always a challenge when someone wanted to build a new home in an older existing neighborhood; however, because the location was a corner lot and the 30-foot setback applied to both the front and side of the home, asking the new homeowner to accept a 40-foot setback on both sides would be unfair. Vice Chair Menke concurred with Mr. Arefin and noted that although an error had been made many years ago by allowing 30-foot setbacks, he did not think it would be fair to require new construction to have a 40-foot setback.
ZBA MINUTES PAGE 7 Mr. Pratt said he could sympathize with those who spoke in opposition, but noted the Board was charged with looking specifically at the requested variance. He reminded the audience that decisions by the Board were not precedence setting and the current home had a setback of almost 23 feet, so if the variance was approved it would be setback an additional 7 feet. Mr. Pratt acknowledged the home was out of scale with other homes in the neighborhood, but restated that the Board was charged with reviewing the variance only. Mr. Veatch concurred with Mr. Pratt s comments and asked those in the audience to look at the merits of the individual case and pointed out the Board had no reason to deny the variance. Mr. Lemons stated he applauded those who were trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood, and even though the Neighborhood Overlay process may be a little cumbersome, he suggested that may be the most productive path to take. Vice Chair Menke asked staff to insure that conceptual drawings better reflect what was being proposed by an applicant citing the drawing for the circular drive and how the drawing made it look like they were proposing a dead-end driveway, which was not allowed in the City. Mr. Arefin assured the audience that city code would control the land use for the driveway. Motion: Mr. Arefin made a motion to grant the request listed in Variance 17-04 as presented and limited to those specifics presented in the case; second by Vice Chair Menke. Motion approved 5-0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZBA FILE SE 17-01: A request by Troy Whatcott for approval of the following special exception to the City of Richardson Code of Ordinances: Chapter 6, Article IV, Sec. 6-209(2), to allow a side yard fence to extend three feet and seven inches (3-7 ) into the 20-foot front building line. The property is located at 2311 Clear Lake Circle. Mr. Bireima explained that when the home was built in 2015, the 6-foot fence was built 3 feet and 7 inches into the 20-foot front building line and the applicant was requesting a special exception to the City s Fence Ordinance to allow a side yard fence to encroach into the 20-foot front building line. He added the Fence Ordinance allowed a maximum eightfoot high fence to be built along the side property line from the rear property up to the front wall of the building or up to the building line, whichever was the greatest. Mr. Bireima said the applicant indicated the justification for his request was the fence would align with the neighbor s gate area and provided additional privacy to the side yard. In addition, the fence allowed for full view of the property from the street and did not impede the line of sight at the end of the cul-de-sac. In concluding his presentation, Mr. Bireima noted that a hardship did not exist, based on the information, but the applicant simply wanted to maintain the privacy they have in their yard.
ZBA MINUTES PAGE 8 Vice Chair Menke asked if the retaining wall was stone or a wooden fence. He also wanted to know is there was a maximum height for a retaining wall above grade. Mr. Bireima replied it was a stone retaining wall and presented photographs confirming the type of material and confirmed that 3 would be the maximum height for any fence in the front yard. Mr. Arefin asked the maximum height allowed for a fence beyond the building line. He also wanted to confirm the special exception was being request only for the wood fence, Mr. Bireima replied the special exception request was only for the wood fence and the maximum height for any fence that is past the building line was three feet. Mr. Pratt noted the allowable maximum height of a fence in the City was 8 feet, but a retaining wall was not included. Mr. Bireima replied the height of a retaining wall was taken into consideration when calculating the height of a fence and if a grade change was involved, the measurement was taken on the high side of the fence. Mr. Pratt asked if the Board could limit the height of the fence above grade of the existing driveway, as it currently existed. He also wanted to know if the fence would block any windows on the side of the house. Mr. Bireima said it was within the purview of the Board to limit the height of the fence and retaining wall, and the garage was on the fenced side of the house. Mr. Veatch asked to confirm the request before the Board was to leave the existing fence as is, and had the fence been built to code. Mr. Chavez replied that the fence was not built to code and it was after it was built the City determined it encroached into the setback. Chairman Walker opened the public hearing. Mr. Troy Whatcott, Shaddock Caldwell Home Builders, 3868 Johnson Drive, Carrollton, Texas, said 6-foot fence was built on top of the retaining wall and it was not discovered until after the construction was finished that the fence encroached past the building line. He said they were asking on behalf of the homeowner to leave the fence as is. Chairman Walker called for further comments in favor or opposed and with no comments, closed the public hearing. Motion: Mr. Pratt made a motion to grant the special exception listed in SE 17-01 as presented and limited to those specifics presented in the case including allowing the height of the fence to be 6 feet above the retaining wall; second by Mr. Veatch. Motion approved 5-0.
ZBA MINUTES PAGE 9 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Larry Menke, Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustment