Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment December 6, 2005 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Josh Benn, Donald Braune, Graham Sheffy & Alternate Derek Dictson. MEMBERS ABSENT: John Richards. Alternates Denise Whisenant& Charles Taylor (not needed) STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planners Jennifer Reeves, Crissy Hartl and Lindsay Boyer, Senior Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Lance Simms. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order–Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goss called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. Mr. Richards submitted an absence request stating that he had a prior commitment. Mr. Benn made — the motion to approve the absence request. Mr. Braune seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action of a building setback variance for 1208 Walton, Lot2, Block 15, Third Installment of College Hills Estates. Applicant is Tres Watson. (05-204 CH). Crissy Hartl presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a carport. The applicant would like to construct a 2-vehicle carport 27.5-feet in width on the side of his house, thus the applicant is requesting a 4.5-foot variance to the side setback. As a special condition the applicant states: "the request is made due to the location of mature live oak trees located along the inside and at the end of the existing driveway and parking area." As a hardship the applicant states: "Due to the location of the trees, the carport and driveway cannot be moved without removal or possible damage to the trees." Staff recommends denial for this variance request. The applicant states that the trees on his property are a hardship that restricts the construction of a 2-vehicle carport. While the trees along the driveway are a constraint, they are not perceived to be a hardship for the carport. In staff's opinion, it is more of a hardship for the applicant to relocate the driveway that is not necessary for the construction of the carport; therefore, it is staff's opinion that this would be a self–inflicted hardship. In addition, the City of College Station does not consider the ash tree to be a specimen tree and therefore does not award development projects landscaping points for those trees. Additionally, it is the opinion Jf the staff that the variance is not ne ,sary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, nor do extraordinary or special conditions _ affect the subject property such that a strict application of City codes and/or ordinances deprives an applicant reasonable use of his or her property. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing. Tres Watson, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Watson spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Benn asked Mr. Watson if his concern is if the carport has to be built within the ordinance, the construction of the driveway might kill the Ash tree. Mr. Watson replied that he would either have to remove the tree or the driveway would be close enough to the tree where it might cause damage. Mr. Benn asked Mr. Watson if the variance was not granted, what he would do. Mr. Watson replied that it would allow roughly a 23-foot carport overall. He believed the eve has to also be out of the setback. If you add in the posts on either side he would probably have to take out a couple of feet. He figured that would leave him right at 20-feet. He added that that would be enough to get a car in if you came in at an angle. He was not sure how that would work. Mr. Dictson asked if you could overhang in a setback. Mr. Hartl replied that the eve can extend 18- inches into the setback. Mr. Watson ended by saying that he would accept a lesser variance as staff indicated as an alternative in the staff report. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. There were discussions among the Board Members as to what the special conditions and hardships were. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to not authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Dictson seconded the motion,which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, presentation, discussion and possible action of an Appeal to the Zoning Official's Interpretation concerning whether a specific use is appropriate in C-1 (General Commercial). Applicant is Clint Schroff, Clarke & Wyndham. (05-198). The Administrator issued a Written Interpretation stating that the use proposed by the applicant is not permitted in the C-1 General Commercial zoning district. Please see the attached letter of Written Interpretation issued on November 3, 2005 for background information and for the Administrator's final determination. The Written Interpretation has been appealed by the applicant, Mr. Clint Schroff, CCIM, Senior Property Manager for Clarke & Wyndham, Inc.