Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments • MINL; Zoning Board c CITY OF COLLEGE February 7:00 i MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Baker, Members Sawtelle, Gaston and DeOtte and Alternate Member DeLoach. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Birdwell and Alternate Members Phinney and McKean. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel and Assistant City Attorney Coates. (Council Liaison Hubbard Kennady was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of February 2, 1993. Mr. DeOtte moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of February 2, 1993 as corrected. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance re uest by W. E. Crenshaw to the rear setback requirements of several lots located in the Prairie View Heights Subdivision. (Block 4, lots 11 and 14; and block 5, lot 11.) Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report. The subject lots do not meet the minimum lot size of 50' x 100'. Several years ago, Council passed an ordinance that exempted lots in this neighborhood from meeting the minimum lot size requirements. The subdivision is one of the oldest in College Station. Many homes in the area are old and predate current setback restrictions; therefore, many of the buildings in this area are nonconforming. On November 10, 1992, the Board granted this applicant a 3' 4" variance to the 15' side street setback. Since that time, the applicant has determined that the lots actually have a depth of only 85'; previously he had thought that the deeds reflected lots with a depth of 100'. The applicant is also requesting an additional inch of variance to the original side street variance that was granted. Special conditions of the subject lots include that the biddable portion of a minimum R-1 lot is 1750 square feet. On the subject lots however, the biddable portion is reduced to 962.5 square feet because there is an additional 7.5' of setback that must be met on the side street and because of the shallow depth of the lot. Subdivisions that have been platted in more recent years have larger corner lots to accommodate the increased setback requirement. This 'a ce would add an additional 368 square feet to the biddable area on each lot, for a total area of 1330 square feet. This area has been the target of the Community Development Department's rehabilitation effort. Several houses are being remodeled as a result of CDBG funds. The other variance case that has come before the Board involved the investment of a private homeowner that moved to the area. The Board may consider the space needs of the homes to accommodate the families that will move into the area. Due to the number of existing nonconformities in the area as well as the unusually high amount of rear variances that have already been granted in the area, each request should be weighed in terms of the extent of the variance requested and its impact on immediate areas. Fifty- two surrounding property owners were notified with one response. Applicant W. E. Crenshaw approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He • stated that the lots under construction now are two story homes that would fit on the 85' deep lots; however, the remaining lots should be one story homes to better service the elderly members of the community. Mr. Crenshaw stated that the homes would be available to low income families that qualify under the CDBG program; however, they will also be available to students. Originally, the lots were thought to be 100' deep; however, when a survey was done after the first variances were granted, it was found that the lots are only 85' deep. Mr. Crenshaw concluded that he did not have the survey done before the first variance requests primarily because he did not want to go through the expense of the survey if the Board would not allow him to encroach in the setback areas. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that Randall Pitcock of the Community Development department who was present at the first meeting, was not able to make tonight's meeting. Mr. Pitcock is still in favor of granting the requested variances in this area. The private development in the area would definitely help the CDBG program. Mr. DeOtte explained that he has mixed feelings about granting the requested variances. Aback yard of only 17 deep is a small area; however, there should be some relief from the small, chateau- type housing in the neighborhood. Mr. Sawtelle moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638 to the minimum rear requirements totalling 17' 1" (for a variance of 7' 11") and to the minimum side street setback requirements totalling 11' 7" (for an additional variance of 1") at 519 Chappel, 601 Chappel, 607 Chappel and 609 Columbus from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: age of the subdivision and size of the lots; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, being: inability to provide much needed rental housing for moderate to low income families as recommended by the Community Development department; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motions which passed unopposed (5 - 0). (The Board voted on each of the four addresses separately and the vote was unanimous to approve all four variance requests.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a previously tabled variance request by Doug Stovall to the front setback requirements at 1105 Taurus Circle. At the request of the applicant, the Board did not remove this item from the table. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. Mr. Gaston questioned staff as to any additional information obtained concerning the variance request at 1101 Taurus Circle. Staff Planner Kuenzel referenced the memorandum that was submitted to the Board in their packets. One alternative mentioned at the previous meeting was to add a second story to the existing garage. This option could have a greater visual impact than the proposed addition because the other houses in the area are single story. Another alternative would be to add on to the north end of the building where there is adequate space; however, the applicant will have to address this issue. There was also concern that the sole "special condition" in this case is its location on the end of a cul-de-sac. Such a determination could create a policy that all cul-de-sac lots should be granted variances. The finding of "special conditions", therefore, should include more detail than simply stating that this is a cul-de-sac lot. • Mr. DeOtte referenced the section of the zoning ordinance pertaining to home occupations and exterior changes such as outside storage or display. He questioned staff if the Board granted the variance, could it be conditioned upon him removing the outside storage area? ZBA Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 2 Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that he met with Senior Planner Kee on the issue of home • occupations. Ms. Kee has consistently interpreted this particular section of the ordinance to mean that the business does not change the exterior of the house from looking like a house. If the addition looks like it is a part of the house and not a separate business, it is acceptable. The Board cannot prohibit outside storage as a part of this variance and outside storage areas are common in strictly residential areas. Council Liaison Kennady explained to the Board that the Council toured certain target areas within the city for use of CDBG funds. Mr. Kennady stated that the Council wants to encourage more development in the Prairie View Heights area and that there is a demand for more attractive low income housing. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that she sent an enforcement letter to Mr. Barnes of Barnes Tune Up Plus on Harvey Road, to remove existing the banners that are not in compliance with the current ordinance by Friday, February 19, 1993. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Adjourn. Mr. DeLoach moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). ~• APP hairperson, len a Baker A i lann ng Tec mcian, Natalie mas • ZBA Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 3 ZONING BOARD OF ADJiTS1'NIENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to to the yard (Section 8.~ ~-~ ~ ~` ,~ v~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~N c ~ ~ ~ (,.~ >~~`~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ lot width (Table A) to epth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) ~vr~t-the-tert~~of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: i and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary 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: Motion made by ~ ~ 1, ~,~,.,,~~ ~ ~ ~ Q Date ~""~ ~ ~ ~p r. Seconded by f ~ ~ Voting Results ~~ ~-t„ Chair Signature ~~~ ^ i''`~~ ~C ~~. ~:. '-_ ~/l~RP1638.DOC r~ i• i• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REG. TE DATE NAME ADDRESS ~~~ 2. 3. 4. 5• 6. 7. 8. 9• to. It 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25.