Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/02/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment September 2, 1986 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All present except Alternate Members Julien and Swoboda STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Elmore, Assistant Zoning Official Johnson and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, then explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of Minutes - aeeting of August 5, 1986. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (Meyer & Ruesink approved as to form only as both were absent at the last meeting). • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. Mrs. Meyer announced that agenda item #5 regarding the request for variance to rear setback at 811 Avenue A had been withdrawn by applicant/staff following the determination that a variance would not be required. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to side setback as required in Table A Ordinance 1638 at the residence at 2913 Normand. Applicant is Mike Trojan. Mrs. Kee explained this variance request is being made by the applicant to allow the carport constructed on the side property line to remain in place. She passed around photos of the structure supplied by the applicant, then informed the Board of setbacks required and setbacks which have been provided, adding that although the applicant has shaded an area on his site plan which is closer than the required 15 feet from the adjacent structure, the entire carport sits within the required 7.5 foot side setback and therefore, the entire structure is in violation of ordinance requirements. Additionally she pointed out that if and when any side setback variance is granted, the Board is also allowing a variance to the required 15 foot separation between structures, as it is impossible to penalize the adjacent landowner because of a variance granted to a subject landowner. Mrs. Kee also referred to a comment from the Building Official regarding Building Code Fire Protection (fire wall) requirements which was included in the packet. • After questions for clarification from the Board, the applicant Mike Trojan came forward and was sworn in and requested permission to present letters from 3 neighbors which indicated they were in favor of the Board granting his request which would 1 allow him to leave his carport in its existing location. He then went through his • application point-by-point afterwhich he stated that he had checked with the "Zoning Department" to ask if he needed a permit to build a slab and was told he did not. He stated that after pouring his slab, he decided to construct a carport, and simply failed to check again to see if a permit was required for that. He went on to explain that although all his reasons for requiring this structure (variance) seem to be financial in nature, he believes they are valid reasons, and will serve as his conditions for the request for the variance. He then listed those condition as follows: (A) Storage for boat & trailer: (*)the overall length of the boat and trailer does not permit storage in the garage, (*}the boat & trailer cannot be maneuvered further into the backyard, (*)the boat must be sheltered from harsh weather. (B) Storage of the following items out of harsh weather: (*)lawn mower, {*)boat components & accessories, (*)fishing & hunting equipment & accessories, (8)fertilizer spreaders, (*)misc.garden items. (C) Improvement in appearance over previous conditions. (D) Aid in cooling of the southeast side of the house interior (the top of carport consists of heat repelling layer). (E) Provides shelter for two dogs. He then listed hardships involved by meeting the provisions which included exposure of above listed items to weather, appearance of property and difficulty in cooling interior of southeast side of house. Mr. Trojan continued by stating that the intent of the 7.5 foot side setback is to maintain a 15 foot building separation for the reasons of fire protection, motion of air, motion of light, adequate privacy and overall safety. He pointed out that the separation between most of his carport and the neighbor's house is greater than 15 feet, therefore, the only portion in violation is the part he shaded on the site plan submitted. • He then stated that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the material used for construction of the carport does not conduct heat or fire, that both ends of the structure are open to passage, the structure can be removed in about 2 minutes, the structure does not prevent motion of air or light, the structure does not create inadequate privacy and its presence causes no safety problems. He finalized his statements by stating there are other items which could be parked around the side of his house which could create more problem such as motorhomes or travel trailers, stacked woodpiles, heavy vegetation or even wood fences, all of which pose potential fire hazards and restrict passage between the fence and the house, and would also be harder to remove than the carport. Discussion followed regarding how long Mr. Trojan has lived in the house, when the slab was poured, when the carport was built, and when he was made aware of the violation. Mrs. Meyer asked Mrs. Kee if the slab is permitted and Mrs. Kee stated that it is, and that only the cover of the carport is in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Ruesink stated that an alternative to having this carport is to place tarp-type covers over the boat and leave it on the slab. Mr. Trojan said he could not cover all the items individually. Mr. Trojan went on to say that the 3 households who are most affected by his carport have signed letters to the effect that they do not mind the carport, and have all expressed their opinion that it really is a nice addition to the house. Mrs. Meyer explained that although the Board would like for him to be able to keep his carport, the problem is it must follow the regulations listed in the Zoning Ordinance, and in this instance it is hard to find a special condition which would apply as the alternative is to remove the roof and continue to use the slab for storage. Mr. Trojan again referred to his application where he listed good arguments ZBA Minutes 9-2-86 page 2 • and Mr. Ruesink pointed out they are good arguments for a carport, but none of them represent a special condition which this Board can consider. Mr. McGuirk stated that he cannot think of a single instance where this Board has allowed lot line construction in a single family residential area in the entire city, and this particular case seems to involve a self-imposed hardship, and granting this variance would certainly set a precedent. Maryann Trojan, wife of the applicant came forward and was sworn in, then stated that they had checked with the City before installing a slab and were told no permit was needed, so they thought they could also build the carport without a permit. They know now, after the fact, that they could not, but it is done, and the neighbors have given a favorable opinion of the structure, so why can't the variance be granted. Mrs. Meyer attempted to explain the requirements set by the ordinance which must be met before this Board can grant a variance, afterwhich Mrs. Trojan said that they live on a nice street, that no one in the neighborhood wants boats parked on the street, that they made a mistake and are now asking for a variance, adding that the mistake was not done intentionally, that the structure has been up for 3 months and that they have gotten used to it and would miss it. She added if a neighbor moved in and objected to the structure, they would try to do something about it then. Mr. Evans explained that this Board is not only looking at this individual case, but it also is charged with compliance with ordinances set by other people for the good of the entire community, and the removal of the roof would bring the rest of the project in compliance with ordinance requirements. He then went on to explain how the domino effect works, finalizing by stating that this structure is not in compliance, and this Board has been able to find no special condition which would allow the granting of a variance to allow this structure to continue in existence. Mr. Trojan then referred to a possible encroachment on the other side of his house which apparently was made when the house was built. Discussion followed concerning that possible encroachment with Mrs. Kee stating that a variance was never granted for this property as far as she could ascertain from old records. Mr. Gilmore offered a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) 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 this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Evans seconded the motion to deny the variance. Motion to deny carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to rear setback as required in Table A Ordinance 1638 on Lots 8&9 Block 4 Pearce Addition #2 subdivision (811 Avenue A). Applicant is Mike Herndon. This item was withdrawn from the agenda. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Consideration of a special exception to allow the enlargement of a non-conforsing use at the residence at 2823 Texas Avenue (Section 15.2.C.(b) of Ordinance 1638). Applicant is Bill Scasta. Mrs. Kee explained this request is for a special exception to allow the enlargement ZBA Minutes 9-2-86 page 3 of a non-conforming use, i.e. to build a garage as an acessory structure to a single • family residence in a General Commercial (C-1) zoning district. She explained that Section 15.2.C.(b) allows the enlargment of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidential to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non-conforming use more than 2586 and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. Following questions from the Board, Mrs. Kee explained that the entire use of this land is non-conforming, since the use is for a single family residence and the land is zoned for commercial use, and has been since July 1981. She pointed out that the house and existing shop cover 1860 square feet and the area of expansion will be only 465 square feet which is exactly 25~ of 1860 square feet. Bill Scasta, the applicant and representative of the owner of the land/residence came forward and was sworn in. He stated that the owner had originally planned to build a 24x24 garage which would accommodate managing handicap equipment as Mr. Buddig is in a wheelchair and has been for approximately 2-3 years. He pointed out that staff informed him he would not be able to build a garage that big, so he worked with staff to determine what the ordinance would allow him to build. Following questions by the Board to Mr. Scasta, it was determined that there had been a larger shop on this land, but part of the shop had been torn down as it became a hazard. Mr. Scasta did not know just when that portion of the shop was razed because he did not have anything to do with that project. Mrs. Kee then pointed out that a use, as long as it is continued and not abandoned for a certain amount of time regulated by ordinance, can continue no matter who is the owner. Mr. Evans stated that he is concerned that the proposed garage, which is smaller than 24x24, will not ~ • be large enough to adequately handle equipment for a handicapped person. Mr. McGuirk agreed and asked Mrs. Kee if there is any way approving the garage to be 24x24 can be justified. Mrs. Kee stated that she knows of no way as the ordinance requires keeping the expansion within 25~ of the size of the existing non-conforming structures, which consists of all buildings on the land. Clint Bertrand, 120 Millers Lane, came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Bertrand stated that he is an adjacent property owner and in here to speak in favor of this request. He stated that he believes that if the area of the shop which had recently been torn town was included in the total square footage figure, there would be enough total area to make a 24x24 addition and be within the 25~ limit set by ordinance. He replied in answer to questions that he could not identify the date the shop was razed, but it was within recent months. He added that the remaining part of the old shop is still in use and the slab for the part which was razed is still in place. Discussion followed regarding just how this former building could affect this request, with Mr. Gilmore asking staff if this request for enlargement of a non- conforming structure is approved for up to 25~ of the existing structures, and some extenuating circumstances are found at a later date which would affect that 25~ figure, could a different square footage than is being mentioned tonight be allowed, and Mrs. Kee stated that would depend upon the wording of the motion. Mrs. Meyer said that perhaps a determination could be made after further study that the square footage of the building which was razed could be used in the total figure. Mr. McGuirk stated for the record that this is the first time an applicant has come in for a special exception for a lesser use than is allowed by the zoning ordinance. • He then made a motion to authorize the enlargement of a building devoted to a non- conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building as shown on the aerial photograph and used by the owner, and does ZBA Minutes 9-2-86 page 4 i• not increase the area of the building devoted to a non-conforming use more than 25X and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use with the garage to be placed within the setbacks specified by code. The motion was seconded by Mr. Evans and carried unanimously {5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Other business. Mr. McGuirk asked why item 5 was withdrawn from the agenda and Mrs. Kee explained that the determination had been made that a variance was not required for the applicant to do what he wanted to do. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Evans made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously. APPROVED: -~ ~s~? - - ---- ~ irman, D r thy M er ATTEST: • City Secretary, Dian Jones i• ZBA Minutes 9-2-86 page 5 " ~~ A,/ • ZONINQ BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR NBOA?IYB MOTIONS Variances: Fros Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) _______sign regulations (Section 12) __.~___sinisus setback (Table A) _______parking requiresents (Section 9) frog the terse of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcesent of the proviaioas of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mot ion lade by __~~ ~___ (~, r/vt~Y~ - --------------------- Seconded by ___ -'-- ---- ~ ~ ------------------ Voting results: ---~~_ ~ -~e---- Chair si nature ~ ~~ g --J~~Z~-~- --~~~~~~- ~------------ Date _~'~7 _ ~~ ~~ ~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR P03ITIVS MOTIONS Non=Conforming Structures - From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize the a• _____substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. ~I Y•LS J'`jOWn o/i ~-G!P opt ~"' r b• _____enlargement of a building devoted,to a non-conforming /°°~J"y use where such enlargement is necess y and incidental ~^~ ~'~ to the existing use of such building nd does not dY #~P increase the area of the buil~ing devoted to a non- DwgP/' conforming use more than 25X and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such p operty to a conf rmi use. /~ / w~ ~ p ~, o. ~ ~~P~~~ P w/~~.~gt'~P ~~~S~s .spec~T~ P~ ~y Co~/~ c• _____recons ruc ion P ~~" non-co orming structure on the lot/ occupierd by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60X of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would • not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformity. Motion made by _/t/~C~(1)~ -------------------------------- Seconded by --CV~~VJ --------------------------------- Voting result ~ -~ - ~ -- O ----------------- ----- -- ~ - ----- ---_ ~ 2~ Chair signs use/ ---------------------- Date • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • DATE September 2, 1986 NAME ADDRESS 2. 3• 4. 5. 6. 7• 8. 9. ~ 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23- 24. 25.