Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZONING B(1ARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER .~ DATE December 1, 1987 NAME ~, 1 . ~~ ADDRESS ~ 2 ~ ~ U C/ tr 2 . IC ~~ ~ ~ ~ M ~.,~t~w l.N 4 . C~(l ~ W ~ N?A2t~ vJ 2 ° 3 h/. p V. W B~iM! 5. 6. 7• 8. 9• 10. • il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. , 25- MINUTES • CITY OF COLLBGB STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment December 1, 1987 7:00 P.M. MBMBBRS PRBSBNT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Thompson, Gilmore, Gentry, Baker and Council Liaison Gardner MBMBBRS ABSENT: Members Renry & Alternate Member Julien STAFF PRBSBNT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITBM p0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. Z: Adsinistration of Oath of Office to nexly appointed Board meaber. Council Liaison Gardner administered the Oath of Office to Glenda Baker. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Approval of ainutes. a. Meeting of October 20, 1987. b. Meetia of Novesber 10 1987. B , • Mr. Gilmore made a motion to approve both sets of minutes as presented. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to the front setback line in order to construct a single-faaily residence on the property at 1217 Orr Street. Applicant is Design Construct. Owners of property are Nlilliaa ~ Laurine Marlow. Mrs. Kee identified the applicant who is representing the property owner in this instance, informed the Board the location of the lot is 1217 Orr Street, and is apparently land which was originally planned to be an expansion of Langford Street. She explained the request is for a variance to the required front setback in order to construct a residence with a 1~ foot front setback at one corner of the house, and described the lot as being heavily wooded, sloping down toward the rear of the lot where Bee Creek runs. She stated that the applicant furnished information indicating that Orr Street is apparently not centered in the right-of-way, and she contacted the surveying company which had performed afield survey of the lot and located property markers to verify that information. She referred the Board to the application regarding the specific special conditions and hardships, which include the location of Orr Street, the location of a very large oak tree and the location of the creek to the rear of the property, and stated that the only alternatives staff have identified are to move the house closer to the creek and lose the large oak tree, or to completely redesign the structure. • Mrs. Kee then stated that 23 area residents had been notified of the request, and she had received 1 response from Mr. Cornish, who is in the audience at this meeting. • John Meskey of Design Construct came forward and was sworn in, then explained that there were several reasons for placing the house toward the front of the lot, including the need of the family for additional safe backyard area for their small child, away from the creek which drops off about 15 feet from the topography of the rest of the lot, and to save a very large, old oak tree around which part of the house has been designed to fit. Mr. Thompson asked about the location of the flood plain and Mr. Meskey replied the entire lot is in the flood plain, but part of the lot is in zone A and part in zone B, and the house plans will bear the seal of a registered engineer who attests that the slab will be built at a certain elevation which is controlled by flood plain standards. He pointed out additionally that there are sink holes in the yard area near the creek, leading one to believe that the land around the creek could deteriorate. He said he has spoken with neighbors who say the creek has meandered over time, so the stability of the soil in close proximity to the creek is questionable. He went on to explain that the request is for a variance to allow a 15 foot setback on one side only of the house which would place the structure at that location 37 feet in back of the curb, and that most houses in the area are between 35 to 40 feet back, so this structure would not appear to be glaringly different. Mr. Gilmore asked for clarification. Mr. Meskey said that the house as proposed would be 37' at the closest point from the curb to the house. (The distance from the house to the front property line becomes greater as one moves from west to east along the front of the lot.) Mr. Ruesink asked what the result would be if the street had been built in the middle of the right of way and Mr. Meskey replied that although he does not know the reason the street has been located the way it is and it eight be because the builder wanted to save some trees, if the street were located in the • center of the right-of-way, the property line would run parallel to the street rather than the way it runs now. Bill Marlow, 203 North Avenue, Bryan, owner of the subject lot came forward and was sworn in. He explained the compromises family members have made in order to agree to the purchase of this heavily wooded lot which will afford a large, safe outdoor area in which his child can play. He stated that the area of the lot around the creek has sink holes, and appears to be rather unstable, thus making it a poor spot for a house even if the house is build on deep piers. He said that the original plat or drawing which was shown to him prior to purchasing the lot showed the property running parallel to the street, and not as it actually is. Bob Cornish, 1214 Orr Street came forward and was sworn in. He stated that he had not seen the drawing being presented by the applicant at this meeting, but is of the opinion that it is not completely accurate. He said the elevation at the back of the lot is higher than where the proposed house is being located. He went on to say that the problem is that all the houses in the area were built to the original deed restrictions which required additional front and side setbacks, and all owners have observed the deed restrictions, and in his opinion it would be better if the site behind the grove of trees were utilized for the house site rather than the one chosen. He said he would hate to see the removal of one particular oak tree which someone he knew planted approximately 15 years ago. Mr. Ruesink asked Mr. Cornish what the differences are between the original deed restrictions and the existing City ordinances and Mr. Cornish replied he believed the difference is 5 feet on both the front and side setbacks. Mr. Gilmore asked Mr. • Cornish to explain his basic objections and Mr. Cornish replied that the house being proposed is so close to the front and that the lot is very large with ample space to relocate the house without a variance. Mr. Gilmore explained that the applicant says ZBA Minutes 12-1-$7 Page 2 the house will be 37 feet from the curb at the closest point. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. • Cornish if he would have any objections if the house is no closer to the street than 37 feet. Mr. Cornish replied that if a City has an ordinance, only special conditions should be considered. Mr. Gentry replied he would really like a response to the question, and that is, assuming all those other things equal, and assuring there are multiple building sites available on the lot, a building site within 37 feet of the property line would meet the City's ordinances, and the question is, as we consider whether or not a variance is appropriate under the terms of the Statute, "would you think that a building site that comes no closer to the curb line than 37 feet is objectionable because of the location of the house and the street, and not because of any other concern for alternate construction sites on the lot, but just the fact that it is as close as 37 feet?" Mr. Cornish stated that his reaction to the question is that the City has its ordinances and setback requirements which have been observed in the neighborhood, and if a variance is given, it would be out of character with the neighborhood and he does not think he can exactly answer the question. Mr. Gentry said that for the sake of argument, he would like to assume that the property line, like most property lines, ran parallel to or almost adjacent to the curb line. If the drawing presented is studied, the curb line in this instance and the property line vary significantly, deviating by approximately 22 feet. If the property line were brought down in an ordinary fashion and ran parallel to the curb line or within 5 feet of the curb line, the proposal being considered would meet the City's ordinances, and would be well beyond the front setback requirement of the • City, and it is only the fact that the property line and the curb line vary significantly, for whatever historical reason we do not know, that there is a problem in this case. He stated that his question is, if it is assumed that the intent of the ordinance is to prevent construction crowding the street, and the proposed construction, on a relatively stable street which is not likely to become a major thoroughfare because of the existing development in the area, is 37 feet at the closest from the curb line, "is that construction, 37 feet off the curb line, so out of character with the remainder of the neighborhood, that you find objection, or is it just the fact that it is close to the property line that you find objection?" Mr. Cornish replied that he thinks his objection is that the proposed construction would be out of character with the neighborhood, and if another site were considered there would still be plenty of backyard left. Mr. Gentry stated the original deed restrictions called for a 30 foot setback, and the proposed construction would be a minimum of 37 feet from the curb, so he wondered how that would differ from the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cornish stated the other structures in the neighborhood were built to the deed restrictions, and his point is that there are alternatives available which do not require a variance. Mr. Marlow again came forward to say that all these points were brought up when he purchased the lot, and he never wanted to build toward the rear of the lot, and the seller knew that, and he is now appalled that the points are being brought up again, and if the seller had not wanted this structure at this location, he should have found another buyer. John Meskey again came forward to explain this house is not designed to be a show • place, but is designed to meet the needs of the owner, and the owner did not want to put it any closer to the trees for fear of being a detriment to them. ZBA Minutes 12-1-87 Page 3 Mr. Gilmore said he is still having trouble understanding the need for a variance • when the lot is apparently large enough for the proposed house without a variance. Mr. Thompson agreed that there are other building sites on this lot, but the flood plain can cause future problems, and additionally, he does not see a problem since the proposed 37 foot setback appears to be adequate. The only thing he would note is that the house next door would be behind the big oak tree, and this house would be in front of the tree. Mr. Gilmore said this house will definitely be more visible than others in the neighborhood. Mr. Marlow stated that while there is a little knoll to the rear of the lot, it does not seem to be as large as the site he has chosen. Also, building at that site to the rear would require more destruction of natural growth on the lot. He added that by building at the rear of the lot, the house would be unique in the area since all existing houses in the area are toward the front of the lots. Discussion followed regarding the impact on the lot/house if the large 24" oak were destroyed with Mr. Meskey coning forward to explain that great care had been taken to design a house to fit in front of and around that large tree, and the loss of so large a tree would be terrible. He said that when planning this hone they had tried not to disturb the integrity of the lot, and will be clearing out only the very small brush, leaving all larger trees. Mr. Thompson asked if the unnecessary hardship to be considered is the loss of that 24" oak and Mr. Meskey replied that is part of the hardship, in addition to the sink holes toward the rear of the property and the desired safe play area. • Mr. Gentry explained to Mr. Cornish that very often in older neighborhoods of College Station, variations of property lines are a general rule, and in the past have been considered a condition unusual to a lot enough to justify a variance, and his first inclination would be that the configuration of the property line would be justification for a variance, with the additional mention of the possible loss of a very large tree, which in itself has been considered reason enough for a variance in the past. Mr. Cornish said that when he first showed Mr. Marlow the survey of the lot and a previously planned house, that structure was located tavard the rear of the lot, and he sold Mr. Marlow the lot thinking he would build at that location. Mr. Gentry replied that he is concerned with what impact a variance would have on existing structures in the neighborhood, and believes that is an important factor to be considered as it represents an interest of the public, but as he looks at the aerial photo to identify the location of some of the other houses on the street, he sees some that present an appearance of being closer to the front of the street, and some which are obviously well off of the street, therefore he is not yet convinced that this proposed construction, (part of which will be behind a significant stand of trees, and at the closest end on the other side where the driveway will probably come in, it will still be a full 37 feet from the curb, although perhaps not the ideal spot on the lot to construct a house), would be detrimental or contrary to the existing structures in the neighborhood. Mr. Gilmore said that he really does not think the proposed house will cause that much of a problem, but he still finds it difficult to approve a variance when there • seems to be adequate space for alternative locations which would not require a variance. ZSA Minutes 12-1-87 Page 4 Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Gilmore if he thinks, after observing the lot from the street, • that the alternative locations would require cutting dawn the large tree, and Mr. Gilmore replied that he believes it would be possible to work around that tree. Mrs. Baker stated that she would hate to see a large tree cut down, but she has experienced trees dying within 1 year of construction of a structure too close to the tree, so she has mixed feelings about the request. Mr. Marlow said that it is easy to say that there must be some way around this variance, but he assured the Board that he has spent the past many months trying to find a way to place this house after initial plans were made using the plat provided by Mr. Cornish, which ultimately proved to be incorrect. Another condition which should be considered was that at the tine of the sale, one of the conditions was that the purchaser must present plans to the seller for approval, and at that time we (the purchasers) made it completely clear to the seller that we had no intentions of building where he (the seller) proposed the house should be located, and all this was done prior to finalization of the sale. He then addressed the size of the lot, pointing out that there are many obstructions on this lot which cause constrictions to the usable area. He reiterated what the designer stated earlier, that his intentions are not to build an architectural showcase, but to build a house to suit the family's needs and still make it aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Marlow if the alternative would be to sell the lot, and Mr. Marlow replied that would not necessarily be the case as it might be possible to build closer to the tree, but he really does not know the answer to the question at this time. He pointed out that there are some houses which are set back farther, but seem to be placed as a result of the location of the street, which apparently had not • been planned at the time of platting. Mrs. Baker asked if Mr. Marlow was aware of the ordinances of the City prior to purchasing the lot, and he replied that at the time of purchase he did not see that as an issue due to the drawing supplied by Mr. Cornish at the time of the sale. Mr. Meskey came forward at that point to display the drawing which Mr. Cornish, the seller of the property, had supplied when sale was consummated. Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Ruesink asked for clarification of a point, that being, if the property line had run parallel to the street, as originally thought, a variance would not have been required. The answer provided was affirmative. Mr. Gentry made a motion to "authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: curb to property line construction on Orr Street has resulted in a wide divergence of one from the other at this location, and proposed construction will not result in a structure closer than 37 feet to the curb line at any point, and existing foliage on the lot would be disturbed by construction further back on the lot, and the back portion of the lot is occupied by a creek and flood plain area, and the proposed construction appears to be in accordance with similar construction in the neighborhood, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being construction in a sink hole/flood plain area, and/or destruction of significant foliage, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: allowance of a 15 foot setback from the front property line, and in strict compliance and in accordance with the • proposed plat brought before this Zoning Board of Adjustment." Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). ZBA Minutes 12-1-87 Page 5 i• AOBNDA ITBA! NO. 5: Other businesa. Mrs. Kee distributed a memo from Mrs. Banks which answers questions raised at the workshop, and said that she would be happy to place an item on a future agenda if anyone wanted additional discussion. She also announced there will be no meeting on December 15th, and wished everyone a happy holiday season. There was no other business. AOBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Tha®pson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. APPROVED: Chairman, David Rues-- ., • ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes 12-1-87 Page 6 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Sect ion £i. 7) ___lot width (Table A) ________loi. depth (Table A) _xxxx___minimum setback (Table A} _________parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to t}ie public interest, due to the following special conditions: Curb to property line construction on Orr Streefi has resulted in a wide divergence of one from the other at this location, and proposed construction will not result In a structure closer than 37 feet to the curb line at any point, and existing foliage on the lot would be disturbed by construction further back on the lot, and the back portion of the lot is occupied by a creek and flood plain area, and the proposed construction appears to be in accordance with similar construction in the neighborhood, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Construction in a sink hole/flood plain area, and/or destruction of significant foliage, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Allowance of a 15 foot setback from the front property line, and in strict compliance and in a~c.~.rsl aac~ Zvi th_ _t_Li~_Rrszp4~e~L Fiat bt~gk~t. t~e_f~re_this_ ZQrliltg_ @Qarsi_ Q f Adj u~tmeo t ~ _ Motion made bY ---M-isb~~l_S~r~t1'X--------------- Date -- ~~=~-8-7---------- Seconded by _____ d~e_I~o~~~______________ Voting Results _~-0 _(_Unan_i_mous) Chair signature _ p~„,Q ~ , paid Ruesink