Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2000 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Apri14, 2000 6:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Hill & Alternate Member Ellis. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy, Dr. Bailey & Board Member Bond. ':TAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Assistant City Attorney DeCluitt, Staff Planner Hitchcock, (Assistant City Manager Brown was in the Audience). ~ENDA ITEM NO.1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. A rENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. (Randy Bond). Mr.rIapp made the motion to approve Mr. Bond's absence. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of minutes from the March 7,1999 meeting of the Board. Mr. Bill made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Happ seconded .the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 3500 Regal Row, lot 1, block 2, Williams Court Subdivision. Applicant is Greg & Noel Salata. Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the applicants are requesting a setback variance to allow the construction of a new family room. In conjunction with a home remodeling project, the applicants wish to add an approximately 315 feet family room to the rear of their house and extend the roof line to cover an adjacent, existing patio area. The proposed room addition would conform to the side setback, but would be located 18 feet from the rear property line. Thus, the applicants are requesting a variance of 7 feet to the rear setback to allow for the addition to the house. The applicants state a special condition is the shape and design of the house, which would render the • rear of the property the only place suitable for a home addition. The applicants argue an addition to the house anywhere else on the subject property would disrupt the visual integrity of the neighborhood. ZBA Minutes April 4, 2000 Page 1 of S The applicants offer a hardship that by meeting the provisions of the ordinance, the visual aesthetics of their neighborhood would not be preserved. • Ms. Hitchcock ended her staff report by telling the Board that two phones calls where received concerning this case and neither one express support or opposition. With no questions from the Board Members, Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Greg Salata, applicantJhomeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Salata presented the Board pictures of the property and explained the need for the addition to be added to the rear of the home instead of the front. Mr. Salata explained that with the layout of the home now, if a square room were placed at the rear it would be very easy to extend the roofline down to the new room and also cover the patio in one construction project. This would also make a clean roofline. Mr. Salata stated that the only other option would be to put the room at the front left corner of the property and the problem would then be the house would have an odd U shape. '~.1r. Salata stated that it then would not conform to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Slata ended by telling the Board about two large oak trees that would have to be removed. In the backyard there is one tree that sets on the setback line and that tree would be moved to the other side of the backyard. Noel Salata, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mrs. Salata told the Board that they thought of various ways of adding the room and the plan presented was the best for them as well as the neighborhood. Mrs. Salata ended by telling the Board that they spoke with the area neighbors and no one was in opposition `~~ "-h no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the request, Chairman Alexander • classed the public hearing. Mr. Happ made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not 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. Ms. Ellis seconded the motion. Chairman Alexander asked the applicants if there was any special need for the room addition. Mr. Salata replied that they plan on staying in this area and with two children the addition would allow each child a room of their own. Board vote (4-1) to deny. Mr. Murphy voting for granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO.S: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 718 Willow Loop, lot 28, °lock B, Brandon Heights II Subdivision. Applicant is William H. Rupley. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the construction of an attached carport. The applicant proposes to construct a 440 sq. ft. carport addition to the rear of his home. Approximately half of this carport would lie within the 20-foot setback. • ZBA Minutes April 4, 2000 Page 2 of S The proposed carport is angled in such a way as to encroach into the reaz setback by 9 feet at one reaz corner and by 15 feet at the opposite corner. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 15 to 9 feet. • The applicant offers a special condition of limited access, stating that the only access to the proposed carport is through the existing driveway. Another special condition that may be considered by the Boazd is a 50-foot common azea/utility easement at the reaz of the property that sepazates the subject property from the neighbor directly behind the proposed carport. The applicant stated that he wished for the issue of limited access to also be considered as a hazdship. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Boazd pictures of the property. With no questions from the Board Members, Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Rupley, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Rupley showed and described to the Board some pictures of the property. One of the pictures showed a drainage azea, which is like a retention pond. Mr. Rupley told the Boazd that when the home was built, it was his understanding that there was a 25-foot setback line. Mr. Rupley described the home as oddly shaped. Mr. Rupley told the Boazd of the considerable time it took to place the home on the lot so it looked aesthetically pleasing and to also allow a driveway. Mr. Rupley stated that the existing driveway is actually built over the easement. Mr. Rupley told the Boazd that the common azea where the garage is proposed, there is maybe as much as 90 feet to the next house and maybe 65 feet to the back neighbors gazage. Mr. Rupley ended by telling the Board that he presented • his plan to the Architectural Committee for the Brandon Heights II Subdivision and it meets all the requirements for the Associations standazds. Ms. Ellis asked if the letter submitted by Mr. Anderholm (included in the Boazd's packet) supporting the request, was his neighbor directly behind his property. Mr. Rupley replied that Mr. Anderholm is catty corner from him and that no one lives in the home directly behind him at this time. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Rupley if the proposed carport is going to be open or enclosed on the sides. Mr. Rupley replied that the side to the back of the lot would have a 5 foot high brick wall. Mr. Rupley referred to the architectural drawing that was included in the Boazd Members packets. Mr. Happ asked staff if the Boazd could restrict the kind of structure other than just giving a vaziance to the space. Ms. Anderson replied that they could restrict it to a carport especially since carports and gazages have different reaz setback requirements than other structures. Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special condition: the irregular shape of the lot restricts options of the structure's alteration. Additionally the lot has a common (drainage area) or SO' green area directly behind the proposed carport; • ZBA Minutes Apri14, 2000 Page 3 of S and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the applicant has limited or no options to alter this structure due to lot location and it's shape; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial • justice done subject to the following limitations: the alterations should be limited to an open carport structure as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Ms. Ellis asked if the amount of the variance needed to be stated. Mr. Happ replied yes that he needed to add that. Ms. Ellis made the amendment to read "minimum rear yard setback between S' & I1 ` to allow for the construction of the carport as requested by the applicant and shown on the plan. " Mr. Murphy seconded the amendment, which passed (5-0). Mr. Happ read in full the amended motion. Board voted (5-0) for approval. AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration of a front setback variance at 7704 Sherman Court, lots 3 & 4, block 1, Raintree Subdivision. Applicants are Laurie & Boyd Sorell. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicants aze requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a new garage. The applicants wish to renovate the existing gazage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550 sq. ft. (22' x 25') gazage to replace the one that is to be renovated. The applicants propose to construct the new garage in front of the existing garage space. This location however, calls for approximately 350 sq. ft. (14' x 25') to extend 10 feet • front the property line. Therefore, the applicants aze requesting a 15-foot variance to the front setback. The applicant offers two special conditions. 1. The property has several lazge, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the garage was placed at a different location. 2. A pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that may be added to the side of the home. The applicants have identified the following hazdships. 1. Cannot build behind the house due to the lack of space, utility lines and no drive access. 2. Cutting down trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Boazd pictures of the property. Chairman Alexander opened the public heazing. Boyd Sorrell, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Sorrell told the Board the he and his neighbor aze the last of the original residents of Raintree. Mr. Sorrell told the Boazd that the reason for the home addition is to make room to take caze of a 90-yeaz-old mother. Ms. Sorrell explained that they had an azchitect draw the plans and one of the • concerns is saving the trees. The aesthetics of the lot and neighborhood are also a great concern. ZBA Minutes Aprit 4, 2000 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Sorrell explained to the Board pictures he had taken of the property and the layout of the proposed garage. • The Board had several questions for the applicant. The questions were for clarification purposes in regards to the pictures he had presented. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the unnatural lot size and presence of a pond and trees limit the location of the proposed addition; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: a significant loss in the ability to provide a living space to an elderly family member; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: there are no changes in the existing site plan. With no second, the motion died. Mr. Happ received an emergency phone call, which required him to leave the meeting. Chairman Alexander explained to the applicant his options: 1. He could proceed with the variance request, however it would require all four voting members to vote in favor of the request to pass. 2. A special meeting could be called by the Board to rehear the case. • 3. Table the item and schedule it for the next regular meeting of the Board. Mr. Sorrell stated that he would wait for the next regular schedule meeting of the Board. Mr. Hill made the motion to table the item. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Discussion of topics for future workshop agenda. Mr. Hill made the motion to table this item to be reheard at the May 2, 2000 meeting. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: • Staff Assistant, Deborah Grace APPROVE Chairman, David A xander ZBA Minutes April 4, 2000 Page S of S ZONING B OARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER ~ • MEETING DATE ~Q~ ~~ ~ . v`~O~O- NAME ADDRESS 1. . ~S~o L 2.. -, ~ 3. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 5 4. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. • City of College Station Absence Request. Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name ~ G ~~u ~ o Request Submitted on I will not be in attendance at the meeting of Q c ~ 1 ~ ~OOC7 for the reason(s) specified: (Date) ~aCc~~on ~~ ~' Oc-i `~c~o.~~q~1~2ST~OS~' Signature ~oc This request shall be_ submitted to the Secretary of the Board one-week prior to meeting date. ZONIISG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.Z) 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. Motion made by `~ ~ /tom Date ~~~~~~~ Voting Results ~- Seconded by ~~2~~ ~ G%~~~ ~ ~~ YRfiN1638.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITNE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) - lot depth (Table A) nGw /'~" // ~ ~ minimum se ~~`r.~~ parlgxtg re ' ements (Section ) ~p from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public intere~C, due to • the following special conditions: L / - w to ~~ , ~ ~~ .d DD ~ ~Go ~ ~ ~~ ~ GLLG~ ; and becaus a stric~~ rc}rem nt the provisions f the .ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~_ ~ ~ ~rr~ '7zy ..~ G2~:Gli!/ Y~^ - /YK IW ~ ^ I1// ~A~- /~ ~~ y and such +.hat the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substar~ al justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by Seconded by - Chair Sictnat~re- Date d~ ~'7~ ~~~ Voting Results S