HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/1990 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTB
Tuesday, July 17, 1990
7:00 PM
® ~~
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Brett Henry, Gayla Yarb~ough,
Mike Cronan, Mike Lane, Councilman Jim Gardner,
and Councilman Fred Brown.
0
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert E. Deotte, Jr.
STAFF PRESENT: Development Coordinator Shirley Volk, Planning
Official Sabine Kuenzel, Building Technician
Natalie Thomas, and Senior Planner Jane Kee.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order - explanation of functions
and limitations of the Board.
Acting Chairman Brett Henry called the meeting to order and
explained the functions and limitations of the Board.
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Swearing of new Board members.
Council Liaison Fred Brown swore in Gayla Yarborough, Mike Lane,
and Brett Henry with the Oath of Office statement below.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will
faithfully execute the duties of the office of Zoning
Board of Adjustments of the State of Texas, and will to
the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this State, so help me God.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of Minutes - meeting May 15, 1990.
Acting Chairman Henry made a motion to approve the minutes as
submitted. Brett Henry was the only member present at the
meeting on May 15, thus the motion carried.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for a rear setback
variance at 2901 Jennifer Drive. Application is in the name of
Philip and Sandra Yasskin.
Planning Official Kuenzel presented the case to the Board. The
applicants proposed to remove a rear patio and add a bedroom and
a deck. The applicants requested a rear setback of 16.3' instead
. of the required 25'. The factors for consideration stated in
Section 15E are unnecessary hardship, public interest, spirit of
ordinance, and substantial justice.
• Thirty-one area residents were notified of the variance request
and four responded. One expressed concern of a domino-type
effect in the area that could depreciate the home value, while
three residents agreed the expansion could enhance the
neighborhood.
Mr. Henry questioned the setback on the south side of the home
and suggested checking the setback before construction. Ms.
Kuenzel informed the Board that the requirement of 7 1/2' would
be maintained and checked upon application for building permit.
Mr. Yasskin stated his reasons for the expansion:
(1) Space needed for arrival of new baby
(2) More storage and office space needed.
(3) Only alternative is to relocate.
(4) Compliance to the required setback would allow
the expansion only 6 1/2'.
The construction would match the exterior of the home adding 500
additional square feet, surrounded by a 6' privacy fence.
With no further questions for Mr. Yasskin, Mr. Henry called upon
two visitors requesting to voice their concerns.
Carl Goldapp of 2908 Adrienne presented a letter to the Board
signed by twelve residents listing their reasons for denial of
the variance:
• (1) We purchased in Southwood Valley because of the strict
zoning ordinances hoping to maintain our property
value.
(2) We enjoy the privacy afforded us due to the zoning
ordinances that keep houses further apart.
(3) If an exception to the rule is made, we fear more
variances may follow that will prove detrimental to
the area.
(4) We feel additions to homes are possible without the
need of zoning changes.
Mr. Goldapp said that he spoke to Bill Basham, a renter in 2902
Adrienne located adjacent to 2901 Jennifer, and Mr. Basham
expressed that the addition would invade his privacy. Gail
Atlas, the owner of 2902 Adrienne, was concerned that she may
have trouble selling her home with the addition so close to her
property line.
Another resident, Mike Alderson of 2905 Adrienne, expressed his
concerns of a domino-type effect in the area if this variance was
granted. Many families in the area are crowded for space,
including himself, but respect the privacy of other residents.
Mr. Yasskin said that several of the neighbors expressed concern
about the home becoming rental property if the Yasskin's were
forced to move. The property in the rear, 2902 Adrienne, has an
• approximate 55' measurement from the home to the privacy fence
and would not be crowded by the expansion.
• Mr. Cronan asked what the existing square footage was in the home
and exactly what would be included in the addition.
Mr. Yasskin said the house is less than 1600 square feet and the
addition would include a bedroom, den, and storage area.
Ms. Yarborough said that the expansion shouldn't devaluate the
property at 2902 Adrienne.
Mr. Henry asked if there had been similar cases in this area.
Ms. Kuenzel said that she found none on the database. In
addition, she stated that the privacy fence is approximately two
to six feet into the utility easement and makes the backyard look
larger than actual size.
Ms. Yasskin said that the fence was installed with Ms. Atlas's
approval and built by a previous tenant of 2902 Adrienne.
Mr. Goldapp stated that several homes in the area received flood
damage recently and the expansion could hinder the effectiveness
of this drainage area. He added that the majority of the homes
in the area are between 1500 and 1600 square feet and space is a
problem for everyone. The Yasskin's should be no exception.
• Mr. Henry said that he didn't feel the structure would impede
drainage. He also asked if there was a drop in elevation between
the two homes.
Mr. Yasskin said that there was a gradual slope and the home on
2902 Adrienne was built on a higher slab.
Mr. Cronan expressed that residents deserve conformity protected
by the zoning ordinances and the effects of this expansion are
mostly negative. Any modification to the home should comply with
the ordinance.
Mr. Henry suggested having the Yasskin's architect develop an
alternative that would fit into the required setbacks.
Mike Cronan made a motion to deny the variance request at 2901
Jennifer and Mike Lane seconded the motion. Mr. Henry voted
against the denial but was out voted (3 - 1). The motion
carried.
AGENDA NO. 5: Discussion of announcement signs.
Ms. Kuenzel presented the case in which Larry Blasingame
requested to be allowed to rent temporary signs on a weekly basis
that announce the arrival of a baby. The sign will be in the
form of a 6' stork with a removable display stating "It's a
boy/girl". The sign will be located in the front yard of the
homes. The issue was in classifying this structure as a sign and
if so, could it be interpreted as an exempt sign. A question
also arose on the classification and status of promotional
banners that do not advertise a particular product or service
provided. An example would be the "Days of Thunder" banners
located at Exxon service stations.
Mr. Blassingame presented the sign to the board as well as
pictures of the sign in actual lawns.
Mr. Henry said that because of the temporary nature of the sign,
it should be considered exempt and could also be related to
holiday, sports, or real estate signs.
Mike Lane made a motion to classify the sign as exempt because of
the temporary nature. Gayla seconds the motion, the motion
carries with a unanimous vote (4 - o).
In reference to the promotional banners that do not advertise a
business or service, Mr. Henry suggested they be considered
exempt because of their temporary use and dealt with on a case by
case basis.
Mr. Henry moved to classify promotional banners that do not
advertise a service or product as an exempt sign.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business.
'~ • Ms. Kee stated that the legal department is in the process of
organizing a legal workshop for Board members, more information
will be provided as it becomes available. She also suggested
that the Board select a chairman in their next meeting when all
Board members are present.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
Mr. Lane moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Cronan and carried with a unanimous vote (4 - 0).
ATTEST:
•