Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1994 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 16, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Rife, Hollas, Poston and Sawtelle and Alternate Member Blackwelder. (Alternate Member Ochoa was in the audience.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Birdwell and Alternate Member Alexander. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Development Coordinator Volk and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Acting Chairman Sawtelle 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 August 2, 1994. Mr. Hollas moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 2, 1994 as written. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a parking variance request to allow for the addition of a concession stand/recreation room to be used in conjunction with an existing soccer field at 200 Greens Prairie Road, the CIC Agency, Inc. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and explained that the purpose of the request is to grant a variance to the parking standards which would require additional parking spaces for the soccer facilities, which will be operated primarily aRer office hours. The proposed concession stand/recreation room is 1768 square feet which would require seven parking spaces as a stand alone building. The applicant states that the hardship would be the destruction of green space to provide "redundant" parking and that additional parking would add unnecessary load to the storm water run-off rate. The applicant also has the option to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a parking determination if the variance is not granted. Seven surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing Jim Steinwalker of 1402 Millcreek approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He stated that the original softball fields were recently converted into a soccer field to facilitate a new competitive soccer club of eight teams from the surrounding area including Houston and Austin. • All games are on weekends and practices are held during the week after 5:30. All activities will be held while the existing parking lot is empty so there is no need for additional parking. There will be a walkway provided from the existing parking area to the soccer field for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Hollas stated that he is in favor of promoting that type of use; however, there is no hardship • in this particular case. Mr. Sawtelle stated that not increasing the run-off and maintaining the existing trees could be considered special conditions. There is a need for soccer fields in College Station. Mr. Sawtelle stated that his main concern is the permanence of a variance; however, conditions could be placed on the variance to prevent future owners of the property from taking advantage of the situation. Mr. Rife moved to authorize a variance to the parking requirements from Section 9, Ordinance 1638 from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: there is sufficient parking available for the use which will occur during non-business hours; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the unnecessary removal of trees and the potential of adverse effects on the drainage; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: that the operation of the facilities which require parking be limited to non-business hours (Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.); and that the variance allowed only so long as the facility is used for soccer or other similar recreational activities. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Hollas voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a rear setback variance request to allow the construction of a new home to be located at 1512 Foxfire Drive, lot 5, block 7 of the Foxfire Phase II Subdivision. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow a variance request that would correct a • surveying error made on the property which the slab was formed. The applicant is proposing a rear setback of 18.7' for a variance of 6.3'. The applicant argues that the creeks traversing his property would make it impossible to build a house of the size needed for his family. The house would have to be reduced in size to meet the current restrictions. The Architectural Review Board, a private entity in the Foxfire Subdivision, has granted a variance to allow encroachment into the rear 50' rear setback required by deed restrictions provided that the City setbacks are met. The staff has received multiple phone calls in opposition from abutting and adjoining property owners as well as from other residents in the subdivision. Two letters have been submitted in opposition to the proposed variance request. Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Applicant Mark Torres approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He stated that the subject property has been in his family for 16 years and is difficult to develop because of the two creeks that run through the property. The property was surveyed after the slab was poured primarily because there was a discrepancy as to where the rear property line was located and what property could be cleared. Even with the discrepancy, there would have been enough room to allow for the 25' setback requirement. However, when the property was surveyed, it was discovered that a property corner surveying pin was missing and the pen that was used in locating the property line was left over from the original development of the subdivision and was probably used to mark the location of the creek. Mr. Torres stated that he had been given verbal approval to build within the 50' deed restricted setback area. Later, he found out that two resident's signatures were needed on a letter for official approval. Before written approval was given, the strings and forms were set and the neighbor and two representatives from the homeowner's association toured the site and gave no indication that there was a problem. After written approval was given, the slab was poured and a survey was conducted which showed an S encroachment into the rear setback area. At that point, construction was halted to resolve the mistake. ZBA Mirirrtes August 16, 1994 Page 2 of 4 • Douglas Slack of 2301 Ferguson Circle approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He informed the Board that he owns the home that abuts this property to the rear. He presented a letter in opposition to the variance request and stated that there is 6' to 8' in front of the house that could be utilized instead of allowing the existing encroachment. Stacey Gunnels of 1007 Howell and President of the Foxfire Homeowner's Association approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. She stated that the evening Mr. Torres brought by the letter to sign granting the variance, she informed him verbally that a survey must be done before going any further. Mr. Torres was also told that he was to repair Mr. Slack's property where it was cleared by Mr. Torres to access his property. Patsy Deere of 1500 Frost approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle and stated that she is concerned that a precedent will be set for new construction or additions to existing homes in the subdivision. She stated that something should be done to avoid these problems in the future. Clarence Dockweiler of 1515 Foxfire approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He stated that owns the property directly across the street from the subject property. He informed the Board that when his home was built they had a similar situation with the front setback requirement. However, Mr. Dockweiler hired a surveyor to mark the minimum setback lines prior to building on the property so that all requirements would be met. Mr. Dockweiler stated that he is opposed to the variance request and that it is important to keep the seclusion factor of the existing neighborhood. Dr. Schobeiri of 1518 Foxfire Drive approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He • expressed concern that the deed restrictions are being violated in several places m the subdivision and should be enforced in order to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Torres informed the Board that had there been a request for a survey before pouring the slab it would have been done. A survey was not requested but instead Ms. Gunnels has requested that the rear property line be checked. Once the strings were pulled for the slab that were checked by the contractor, there was no way of knowing there was problem without a survey. For new construction, a survey is not required until the home is near completion; however, m this case, Mr. Torres stated that a survey was done earlier so that the dispute between he and the property owner to the rear over clearing of brush could be resolved. Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Hollas stated that he understands both sides of the argument; however, the Board must look at the facts and law and in this case before granting a variance request. He stated that he does not see a hardship other than self-inflicted in this particular case. There is enough room on the property to build within the required setback lines. A survey should have been obtained prior to pouring the slab since there was a dispute about the variance request and the actual location of the rear property line. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern that a survey was not obtained prior to placing a bulldozer on the property especially since the vegetation was located right on the property line. Mr. Torres requested that the variance request be tabled to allow the Board an opportunity to look at the property and gain a better understanding of the vegetation that was cleared and the • location of the two creeks on the property. ZBA Minutes August 16, 1994 Page 3 of 4 • Mr. Hollas explained that variance requests can only be granted in very limited circumstances and in this particular case, the hardships and special conditions do not exist that would substantiate a variance. He moved to deny a variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements 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. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). • AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. Mr. Sawtelle requested that the legal staff do some research to see if there is any case law pertaining to setback violations in which an error was made and if a survey can be required before a slab is poured. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that she will check into the policies of other cities to see what they require to prevent these types of variance cases. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Blackwelder moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPROVED: `~~~~ Chairman, Dick Birdwell TT P anm g Te ian, Nata ie Thomas ZBA Min7ites August 16, 1994 Page 4 of 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) ' um setback 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: r ' + ~.-1,~.~e ~ S ~,~1. ~. i e ~o~tt~ 13e2-I.~c~,a dl,U Q.c,' ~l 110 ~oz, ~--1.c~ t~ s~ ,~ ~ V~- ~•~ V~t~^5 e i ~1- ~,~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice lJ~ ~~ done subject to the following limitations: and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: / ' • YARPl638.DOC 1S l9 <_~CLC2 crL o~~ Si~lu.~z, J~eCV Motion made by (~ ~ Date .~~ ~~ ~~~ _ ctc~-~~ Seconded by ~Q~~ i ~ ~OS}~ Voting Results Chair • ZONII~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN'P FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) _~ xninimum setback 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. Motion made by ~~ I ~ Date ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Seconded by w ~ Voting Results 5 ~ b _ Chair Signature ~'~ . ,~. r~ Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register Date N 1 2 3 4. 5, 6, 7, 8. ~~~- 9. ~~ ~ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address ~~v ~,~- /0 O 7 ~~.~ Z 3~ ~ ~ o~ Fes` ~ oti_<~ r. (S' ~ ~~ ~.~ `~ ~ ~s DOS' ~f~ ZONIIVG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback 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. M ti made b J Date 9/w 0 on y Seconded by 5(~ Voting Results Chair Signature vgruvr sss.DOc CJ