Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment April 5, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Thompson, Gentry, Gilmore and Henry; also Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSBNT: Alternate Members Julien & Baker STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Planning Assistant Johnson and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITEM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations 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. 2: Approval of ~inntes - aeeting of March 1, 1988. Mr. Gentry made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to the rear setback for the expansion of an existing garage structure at 100 drove. Applicant is David Shelby. Mrs. Kee identified the owner and subject property. She explained the request is being made so the owner can renovate and enlarge an existing garage to store his collector vehicles. She described the physical characteristics of the lot, structures and utilities, and identified area structures, uses and zoning. She stated there had been no history of any previous action on this property, that 11 area property owners had been notified of this request, and that she had only one response which was an inquiry. She finalized her report by explaining that the subject structure is approximately 720 square feet and the proposed structure would be approximately 1100 square feet with an 11.3 foot setback which represents just under 9 feet short of the required setback. In addition to that information, Mrs. Kee pointed out that the proposed expansion would be greater than 25~, so the applicant cannot request a special exception. Mr. Henry asked if the outbuildings, as they stand, meet code standards. Mrs. Kee replied she is uncertain about that, but they appear to be rather deteriorated. Mr. Thompson asked if the proposal will meet the required separation between structures, and Mrs. Kee replied they will not, but they do not now meet the 15 foot separation • requirement. Mr. Henry asked if there is some type of utility easement or alley to the rear of this property and Mrs. Kee replied that she is not aware of any, but would not be surprised to find there is an alley, since many of these older subdivisions were developed with alleys running between the rear of lots. • Mr. Thompson asked if the figure supplied of 11.3 feet for a proposed rear setback could be wrong, since it appears that the proposed setback will actually be about 9.3 feet. Mrs. Kee stated that can be clarified with the applicant. Mr. Henry asked if the percentage of proposed expansion will be another, additional issue and Mrs. Kee replied that a variance will cover that, since the percentage of proposed expansion is greater than that which would be considered under a special exception. Mr. Gentry asked if the proposed improvement could be done on the other side without requiring a variance and Mrs. Kee replied it could not, because the existing structure does not now meet the setback standards, so any change to that structure would, in some manner, require consideration by the Board. There were no other questions for staff, so the applicant was invited forward to address his request. Dave Shelby came forward and was sworn in and explained that there is, indeed, a 10 foot easement or alley which runs along his rear property line, which appears to have been abandoned years ago, and since he has owned the property he has been trying to clean it up and mow it. Mr. Gilmore asked Mr. Shelby why he did not expand the building entirely to the north and Mr. Shelby explained that is the location of a driveway, which allows room to turn around and eliminates the need to back out on to Wellborn which would be very dangerous. Mr. Gilmore asked Mr. Shelby what his plans are for the smaller existing building, and he replied that he plans to clean it up and re-side it to match the • other building, adding that it has been used for storage and a shop for many years. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Shelby how far the new addition will be from the rear property line and Mr. Shelby replied that it will be approximately 9'3" from the rear if built as proposed. He added that if that distance is added to the 10 foot abandoned alley width, his building would still sit almost 20 feet from the adjacent rear property line. Mr. Gentry asked him if a building with a 10 foot setback from his property line would suit his needs and Mr. Shelby replied that it would. Mr. Henry asked Mr. Shelby if it would be possible to take access to his lot from Grove Street and he replied it would not be at all suitable, for there is no curb cut at that location, and in addition, a drive along that side of his house would take up almost all of his yard. No one else spoke. Mr. Thompson then asked Mrs. Kee for clarification as to whether there really is an alley along the rear of this lot and Mrs. Kee replied that she would not doubt that there is since most older residential neighborhoods had alleys. Mr. Gentry stated that in previous cases considered by the Board where there was an abandoned alley located along the rear property line, the Board has considered that apace as part of the setback. Mr. Gilmore agreed, stating that he does not see a problem in granting this request adding that the proposed improvement would more than offset a variance on this property. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Shelby if he maintains this abandoned alley and he replied that he does, and has since he moved into the house. He then passed around photos of the • property for the Board to see. Mr. Thompson made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) ZBA Minutes 4-5-88 Page 2 from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: That the rear setback requirement be • reduced to 10 feet and together with the apparent 10 foot abandoned alley to the southeast, an effective 20 foot setback from the adjoining property owner could be maintained, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: unnecessary access difficulties to the garage from Wellborn Road, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gilmore. Mr. Thompson pointed out that this motion would require a 10 foot setback from the applicant's property line rather than the 9.3 foot setback requested. Votes were cast on Mr. Thompson's motion and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for a variance to the front setback requiresents at the residence at 8203 8aintree. Applicants are aalph B. & Nancy A. Fink. Mrs. Kee located the property and the existing non-conforming structure which was inadvertently built without a building permit, described the area as single family residential with an 80 foot wide Gulf State Utility and Exxon Pipeline easement adjacent, and to the rear of this property. She explained that the fence is in the location of an original fence, 15 feet back from the front property line, and is in compliance with sll regulations, but when the applicant added a roof from the side of the garage to that fence, the fence became the wall of a structure which sets in the required front setback. Mrs. Kee also pointed out tree locations on the lot by • referring to the site plan included in the packet. Mrs. Nancy Fink came forward and was sworn in. She apologized to the Board and to the City for being ignorant of the regulations and building something without a permit which does not comply with ordinance requirements, then explained the purpose of the structure is to replace a very unsightly bright blue tarpaulin which had previously been used to protect their boat. .She finalized her staff report by reporting there have been no previous actions on this property, that 14 area property owners had been notified of this request and she had received several telephone responses requesting information, some of which had voiced opposition, and also had received one letter of opposition which has been furnished to each Board member. She also reminded the Board that the fence part of this structure is not a problem, but the roof portion is. Mrs. Fink stated that most of the homes on Raintree do not take actually face Raintree, therefore have a 15 foot setback from Raintree, and would make this structure less noticeable. She also stated that this lot is toward the back of the subdivision, and has limited visibility from other sections. Mrs. Fink stated that if a structure is built in the rear of the lot, gaining access would be impossible without cutting down numerous trees. Mr. Gentry spoke first to inform Mr. & Mrs. Fink that he is a resident of the Raintree subdivision, although he does not live within 200 feet of their residence and did not received notification of this request. He went on to say that he believes he will be able to make an impartial decision regarding this request, based upon facts presented, but he did want to make the applicants aware of the fact that he is a resident, and would like for the decision as to whether or not he is included in the decision-making process regarding their request up to them. ZBA Minutes 4-5-88 Page 3 Both Mr. & Mrs. Fink indicated they did not have a problem with Mr. Gentry • participating with the rest of the Zoning Board of Adjustment in reaching a decision regarding their request at this meeting. Mr. Gentry then asked Mrs. Fink if they had examined the deed restrictions for this subdivision, pointing out that although he does not know for sure exactly what those restrictions include, he•wants them to be aware that even if this Board should grant a variance for the structure, if it is in violation. of deed restrictions the members of the homeowners' association could stop construction. Mr. Thompson asked if there are alternate locations for this structure and Mrs. Fink replied there would be no way to gain access to a structure toward the rear of the property without cutting trees. Mr. Gilmore asked if there is no access through the wide 80 foot easement running along the rear of those properties, adding that he is certain some people are taking access to their lots across that easement. Mra. Fink said because the easement is not graveled, and is not well maintained, it would be impossible to pull a boat the distance from established access to their lot. Mr. Gentry asked if the fence toward the front of their house was in place when they moved in and Mrs. Fink replied that a fence was there, but was in such disrepair they had replaced it with a new fence at the same location. Noble Fortson, 8002 Raintree Drive was sworn in and stated that although he would not like to see any trees removed, at the same time he does not like to see standards set aside except in very special conditions, which he does not find in this specific case. He went on to state that he thinks the City standards should be maintained and • he is opposed to this structure even though its appearance from a distance is neither very good nor very bad. Craig McKinley, 8205 Raintree was sworn in and stated that he is in favor of the Fink's request because adding the roof has enhanced the area because is replaces a very unsightly blue tarpaulin. Sandra Covering, 2512 Sumter was sworn in and stated there are deed restrictions in this subdivision which do not allow a structure in front of a house, and this structure does distract from the neighborhood and she opposes it. She added that the deed restrictions do not include fences, but only structures in the front yards. Harry Hogan, 2513 Sumter was sworn in and asked for clarification regarding whether the wall of this structure is being referred to as a fence. The answer given was that it is. Mr. Henry pointed out that the City, and therefore this Board, does not enforce deed restrictions, but will either grant or deny this variance request, leaving any enforcement of deed restrictions up to the neighborhood. Mr. Gentry continued the explanation stating that deed restrictions are only enforceable as a civil matter between property owners, and if the Finks remove the roof, the walls again become fences and would be allowed by the City. Mr. Hogan said he would rather not offer an opinion in this matter before the Board, but will voice his opinion to the homeowners' association. Mr. Thompson said that perhaps Gulf States will allow the Finks to gravel some of the • large easement to the rear for additional access to their lot. He added that- he does not think access to the rear can be taken from the front of the lot because the side setbacks are too tight. ZBA Minutes 4-5-88 Page 4 Mr. Gilmore stated he certainly has difficulty with the structure as it exists, and • is not able to find a hardship in this being the only place to put a boat. Mr. Thompson said he is having a problem with the request because he thinks it might be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Ruesink said he thinks the structure looks o.k. with the roof, and probably much better that the blue tarpaulin was, but pointed out other people have requested this very same thing in the past, and this Board has denied the requests. Ralph Fink was sworn in and stated that he has seen boats parked on the street and motor homes parked at the side of the houses in the subdivision, and if these things are covered by deed restrictions, they should also be enforced. He said his fence looks better than the previous fence, and in fact, it is actually closer to the garage than the previous fence. Mr. Henry said that although he would rather see a roof over the structure than having the area open with a bright blue tarpaulin covering the boat, he would hate t to set a precedent in a new subdivision which would allow structures to be built closer to the street than the required 25 foot setback. Mr. Gentry concurred, adding that granting this variance would be granting a variance to any structure to be built within the required 25 foot setback. Mr. Gilmore made 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. Thompson seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0). Mr. Ruesink advised the applicants that they now have 2 alternatives: (1)To remove the roof from the structure; or, (2)To file an appeal within 10 days of this decision to deny. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Other business. Mr. Ruesink announced that he had been informed there will be a meeting of the ZBA on April 19th. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Thompson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. APPROVED: b Acting Chalr~man, Robert T. Gilmore ATTEST: --------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes 4-5-88 page 5 • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) ________lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) ___/ __minimum setback (Table A) ________parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: ~;t.ww w~•7 ~- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: _ w~~~--~~-~__---~-~---------------------------------------------- and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justiceodone subject to the following limitations: Motion made by ___ _ 4z==______ Date ____,~ 5~~~ -----1" Seconded b yY1Qr ~ _______ Voting Results - y --~1L~Q~~ __Q~.l Chair signature C ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR NB(iATInB MOTIONS Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) ______ minimum setback (Table A) _______parking requirements (Section 9) 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. s ~~ Motion made by ~~~~-1~.-~ -.1,~,~ tt~ ------- Seconded by ___ ~~?~ _ ~_ Voting results: _ _~_~ ~ ~.y Chair signature __ Date • ~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT s GUEST REGISTER DATE April 5, 1988 NAME ADDRESS 2. ~ ~RZC R: M `_~aulL`'y --e-~ - - ~~5' ~ l~•JIIT R.t~L~' 4. .o ~' , 5. 7. ~~~ ~, ~~~~ 8 . ~ar r v ~g~n 2 ~ /3 ~w rk 7~r ~ 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23- 24. 25.