Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/1994 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 5, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Birdwell, Members Gaston, Sawtelle, Rife and DeOtte. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members McKean, Hollas and Poston. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Birdwell 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 1, 1994. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of March 1, 1994 as • written. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance re nest to the front setback requirements at 2601 Brockway Court, lot 29 of Windwood Phase 7, to allow for the construction of a new home. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report with a variance request of 10'. The required setback is 25' and the applicant is proposing a front setback of 15'. The Board may consider the following characteristics as special conditions of the subject lot: in comparison to other lots in this subdivision, the subject lot has less depth to it. Most of the other lots are about 120' deep. The subject lot is about 90' at its narrow point. The shape of this lot leaves it with a buildable portion that is about 40' deep. Other lots in the neighborhood have buildable areas with a depth of 70'. The 10' variance would allow a house depth on this lot of 50'. The Board could consider that strict enforcement of the setbacks in this case may result in a house that does not meet the standard of the rest of the houses in the subdivision. As an alternative, the applicant could reduce the front setback variance request and request both a front and rear setback variance. This option would result in less useable yard space. A 15' front setback is the standard front yard requirements for a house with rear access. Five surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing Applicants Kirk and Judy Galey of 1307 Milner approached the Board and were sworn in by Chairman Birdwell.. They stated that if they built the home on the required 25' • setback line, the structure would be setback approximately 50' from the other houses along this cul-de-sac. The single lot across the cul-de-sac from the subject lot was dedicated to the City as part of the existing park in the area. If a variance is not granted, a house could still be built on the lot; however, in order to get the square footage needed, there would have to be two stories. Mr. and Mrs. Galey presented a letter from the developer John Clark stating that when the subdivision was planned, he was informed by staff that a setback variance would not be a problem. Sherry Ellison of 2705 Brookway approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman • Birdwell. She stated that she lives on the other end of Brookway and is concerned with possible sanitary sewer or water problems in the future. There are problems in the older sections of Windwood where there has been some leaking of water lines causing the ground to sink. Chairman Birdwell informed Ms. Ellison that the proposed variance should not have any effect on the sanitary sewer and water capacity in the area. Mr. Sawtelle requested that staff pass Ms. Ellison's concerns along to the appropriate department and contact Ms. Ellison with their findings. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he could consider granting the propose variance primarily because there will not be another home built across the street. If the variance is granted, the proposed home will be in line with other homes along the street. Chairman Birdwell stated that the developer of the subdivision could have shortened the street to prevent the odd configuration of the two lots at the end of a cul-de-sac. The visual impact would definitely be improved if the variance is granted. Mr. Gaston expressed concern that the plat should not have been approved in this configuration and the overall design of the cul-de-sac is insufficient and leaves a shallow lot that is difficult to develop. Mr. Gaston also asked staff to look into the possibility of the buses in the Aldersgate Church parking lot to not park along the fence line so close to the adjacent single family homes. • Mr. Rife moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638, to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: this is an unusually shaped lot with a park across the street which will prevent further construction; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the owner will be unable to adequately develop the property; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Chairman Birdwell requested that staff send a letter to John Clarke informing him that a variance is not just given and questioning where Mr. Clarke received such information. Mr. Sawtelle requested that agenda item number five, other business, be discussed prior to agenda item number four. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. Mr. Sawtelle questioned staff as to the rebuilding of the sign at the Fort Shiloh restaurant. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that a building permit was not needed to replace the burned portion of the sign. Under the Zoning Ordinance, a sign can be reconstructed as long as the actual dimensions of the sign do not change. The City's • legal department has determined that the "percentage" rule used in the past for reconstruction of structures, signs, etc. is no longer allowed due to recent case law. ZBA Minutes April S, 1994 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Gaston expressed concern that if that is the way the legal department interprets • recent case law, then the Zoning Ordinance should be changed. The City Council should change the Zoning Ordinance if necessary instead of following an arbitrary change by the City Attorney. The ordinance specifically states that in the event a non- conforming use is destroyed beyond a certain percentage, the Board should consider the entire project. Mr. Gaston also stated that the illegal banner located along the fence of the Fort Shiloh restaurant should be removed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion of variance requests in which the proposed variance is minor in comparison to the actual ordinance requirement. Assistant City Attorney Shively presented a memo summarizing the five requirements that an applicant must meet before the Board can grant a variance request and recent case law. Mr. Rife stated that after reading the memo by Staff Planner Kuenzel, he agrees that it is the Board's responsibility to make the determination if imposing the ordinance in certain situations is unreasonable. However, there is a problem when imposing the i ordinance is unreasonable and a variance is not granted because there is no hardship. Chairman Birdwell suggested that the Board make a recommendation to the City Council to give staff some latitude in granting minor variances. The City Council could amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow staff to grant a variance within a certain percentage range under unusual circumstances. Mr. DeOtte suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission could possibly look at • the requests on a case by case basis and determine the actual parking requirement. The Zoning Ordinance could be used more as a guideline instead of the actual requirement. However, Mr. DeOtte disagreed that staff should not be placed in the position of granting variances. Mr. Gaston stated that he is completely opposed to allocating that responsibility to staff. It is up to the Board to determine equity. The reason the City has an ordinance is to have our requirements in black and white so that everyone knows what is expected of them when developing in College Station. Mr. DeOtte stated that the problem in many cases is that the variance request seems reasonable and meets the intent of the ordinance; however, there is not a hardship. It does not seem reasonable to require someone to install additional parking that will never be utilized. There should be a distinction between the parking requirements of large and small apartment complexes and shopping centers. Mr. DeOtte expressed concern that in some cases, the Board finds that the request is reasonable but cannot find a hardship. The Board has no other choice but to deny the variance and in some cases, deny someone a reasonable use of their property. Mr. Gaston stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are responsible for setting new standards and making these distinctions. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is responsible for granting relief to the requirements when we find certain special conditions and hardships. Mr. Gaston expressed concern of being more flexible with the Zoning Ordinance. It is unfair to grant a variance to five parking spaces to a larger development and not to a smaller development. In that case, if someone owns enough property, they can get a break on the ordinance requirements. • Chairman Birdwell stated that the minor variances could be granted on a percentage basis and not a strict number. ZBA Minutes April S, 1994 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern with applicants intentionally placing the Board over a • barrel when they have hired an architect to draw a plan that does not meet the minimum standards. The architects place the maximum number of units or square footage and many times do not even check local ordinance requirements. Architects should have an ethical responsibility when they sell a plan or collect fees for drawing a plan that is substandard. In these cases, the architects should be put on notice or a formal complaint filed against them. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he is inclined not to consider a variance request unless the architect is present to explain how he came up with the proposed plan and if he followed local code requirements. Chairman Birdwell concluded the discussion since no concensus could be reached. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. DeOtte moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPR~VED• hairman, Dick Birdwell T • Plannin ec mcian, ata ie Thomas ZBA Minutes April S, 1994 Page 4 of 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSZ'N1ENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 16, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) of depth (Table A) - minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public ' tere~t, due to ~ the following special conditions: T~ is «-~. ~.~5~'~1,t.~-l r s ~` ~"t~ "~' ""'~ . _ Qtic1L o~~' NvSS t~1,~e S k-Ne~~ u}1~u~t u~ ~ (~ ~ ~- ~'vN Cwv~-~v~uc ~ a and b~cau~e ~a~strict enforcement~of`t~he 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 (/~~S [1 Seconded by Chair Signature Date ~ ~ Voting Results ~ ~ Y.5RPI638.DOC • i• I• Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register /~/~ Date ~ `~ `7 ~ Name Address 1. ~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.