Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment August 2, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Gilmore, Gentry, Henry and Alternate Member Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Thompson & Alternate Member Thompson; also Council Liaison Birdwell STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and lisitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Approval of ~inutea - aeeting of July 19, 1988. Mr. Gentry made a motion to accept the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Ruesink then opened the public hearing and explained the functions and • limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to the side setback requireaents (Table A Ordinance No. 1638) at the existing residence at 1008 Arboles Circle. Owners of the property are James Wendel ~ Margot Sonja Allbritton. Applicant is Barbara McGuirk. Mrs. Kee explained the request, pointing out that the applicant is not the owner of the property, but is attempting to purchase the house and has requested the variance in order to avoid possible title problems at the time of the sale. Mrs. Kee continued her explanation of the request by describing the physical characteristics on the area and the subject lot, including the special information that while a side setback of 7.5 feet is required by the current Zoning Ordinance, this structure has a side setback of 5.8 feet. She also gave a brief history of the development of the property which began in 1970 with the platting of the property, the building permit issuance in 1971, the sale of this lot and 5 others in 1971, the sale of the subject lot except for 3 feet without a resubdivision plat, the change in ordinance setback requirements from 5 feet to 7.5 feet in 1972, the issuance of a permit for an addition to this house in 1974 (which technically was in violation of the current ordinance setback requirements, and finally the sale of the property in • 1979 which did not, apparently, require a survey so the encroachment did not become an issue at the time of that sale. She reported that there had been 21 area property owners notified of this request and 2 had responded with inquiries only. She also reported that the Fire Marshal had not • forwarded any comments to the Zoning office. Mrs. Kee then passed around photos of the subject property. There were no questions from the Board to staff, so the public was invited to address the item. Hugh Lindsay, 707 Texas Avenue, Suite 213D was sworn in and identified himself as the representative for the applicant, Mrs. McGuirk. He explained that he thinks the 3 feet was sold from this lot to the adjacent lot to take care of a setback problem which was created when the house on that lot was built. He identified a hardship in trying to remedy this setback problem on the west side of the house because the house is located on an easement which runs along the east side of the house. He added that the hardship is peculiar to this property and there is no way to move the house and get relief. He finished his explanation by stating that the house cannot be sold without a variance. Mr. Allbritton, the owner of the house offered from the audience to answer any questions. Mr. Gilmore said he sees no problem with granting this variance. Mr. Gentry stated he sees no problem with this request, and that he was drafting a positive motion which he considers merely a formality. Mr. Gentry then 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: The property, and adjacent property, was originally developed in accordance with then existing development • controls, and the later addition to the house did not cause nor extend the violation; and such addition was approved by City staff; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Impossibility in selling the property, and no reasonable alternative existing, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: 5.8 foot side setback on the west side. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gilmore and carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of length of time to leave tabled items on the table before taking action. Mrs. Kee explained that this question came up before the last meeting when Mr. Gilmore asked if the Culpepper variance was going to come off the table. She continued by stating that the current policy is that an item can set on the table indefinitely, but that it would seem more appropriate to staff to set a time limit for an item to remain tabled before disposing of it. Mr. Gentry stated that many items are tabled because an applicant wants to get more information and in this case he thinks it would be proper for the Board to set a time limit to be included in the motion to table, of perhaps 90 or 120 days, after which the item will be taken off the table and denied if the applicant does not make contact with staff prior to that time. Mrs. Kee said she only recalls one instance when a tabled item was taken off the table and denied after receiving no response from the applicant, and at that time the request was denied without prejudice, so the applicant could have reapplied for the same request at any time. • Mr. Gentry said that he does not think it would be inappropriate, if 120 days had passed without the applicant making contact with staff, to deny a request which had ZBA Minutes 8-2-88 Page 2 been tabled without prejudice. General discussion followed about renotification and . other things, with Mr. Gentry suggesting that the Board could set a date for an item to be reconsidered at the time the motion to table is made, or it could announce to the applicant after tabling the item that the request will be denied at the next regular meeting after 90 days have passed, if he does not make contact with staff for reconsideration of his request. Mr. Gentry then made a motion that if no action is taken by the applicant on his tabled item within 90 days, the item will be taken off the table at the first regularly held meeting after the 90 days and denied without prejudice, and further that this should be announced to the applicant at the time of tabling consideration of his item. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of renotification of adjacent property owners in cases of tabled iteas. Mr. Ruesink stated that this item has to do with renotification of adjacent property owners when the Board takes an item off the table. Mrs. Kee clarified by citing the case of the Culpepper variance request which was tabled at the first meeting in July at the request of the applicant, and whether renotification should take place. She continued by stating that it will help some, if when an item is tabled, a date is set for the item to be reconsidered, because then the people at the meeting will know when it will be reconsidered for action. She added that the next question would be that if the item stays on the table for the 90 day period, and automatically comes off the table for action, should notification take place. Mr. Henry said that if someone has an interest in an item that is tabled, that person • will take the time to make contact with staff or take time to look at a community calendar, to stay in contact and find out what is going on. In other words, if a person has been notified once by the City, he should take it upon himself to stay informed. Mr. Gentry said he basically agreed, but would not have any objection to notifying the people who came to the meeting, and in fact, the Board ~ould announce at the meeting that if anyone wants notification when the item is to come back on the agenda, staff will be happy to make it if they will leave their name, phone number and address. Mr. Gentry explained that if notification of a tabled item is made without being covered by law, we (the City) would be raising the standard of the law, and if for some reason that notice doesn't get served, then the Board would not be a properly constituted Board. He went on to state that basically, once an item has come up on an agenda, the manner in which it will be addressed again is the subject of Roberts Rules of Order, and that's the procedural due process that has to be complied with. He added that he's not necessarily in favor of creating another burden for the City to meet that could cause some of the Board's decisions to be voided over a technicality, but at the same time the Board is, and should be very cooperative, and if those people come to the staff and request renotification, and he sees no problem with staff making informal renotification at the request of a specific, interested taxpayer. Mr. Gentry then made a motion to with those seeking information, • Mr. Henry seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes the effect that other than informal communication the ZBA not increase the notification requirements. Votes were cast, and the motion carried unanimously. 8-2-88 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Other business. • Mrs. Kee announced there would be no meeting on August 16th. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Gentry made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-O). APPROVED: ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones r • ZBA Minutes ---- ~-L_ - --------- Chairman, Dav Ruesink 8-2-88 Page 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - - - • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE 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: ~J~ ~ ,, ~ :a.9:,.=~!7-L~='Y''s[~_4:'~-'"-`_Y _ ~~_..!"'~.=SCL. "mod-G.~- r~r~_r _1`L----~-/-~~-~~_~_~G `~'~_ m-'2.. ~ f ., ~. - -- ~!!~r~.r~C _________________~~~~~-_--____--~-----~~~~___-___-- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unne essary hardship to this applicant being: ,~°- -~ - and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: 1 Motion made by __~' ~~ _______________ Date G% ~ G%, --------------- - Seconded by ____~r~~._._~-_!"_ __________ Voting Results '"" -~--- - Chair signature . ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE August 2, 1888 NAME ADDRESS 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. i 25.