Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/2002 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments (2)MINfITES Zoning Board of Adjustment January 15, 2002 • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Lewis, Shelly, Birdwell & Richards. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Goss, Corley &c Allison, not needed. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Reeves & Hitchcock, Planning Intern Flannery, Assist. City Attorney Robinson, Senior Planner Kuenzel. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider any absence request forms. No request submitted. AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration, discussion and possible action of meeting minutes from November 6, 200E Mr. Birdwell made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Richazds seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration, discussion and possible action of meeting minutes from December 4, 2001. Mr. Lewis made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration, discussion and possible action of two front setback variances at 316 Pronghorn Loop lot 2 block 4, Steeplechase VI. Applicant is Oakwood Custom Homes. (O1-208). Ms. Hitchcock, Staff Planner, stepped before the Board and gave a brief report on the case. This case had previously been heazd and denied by the Board on October 10, 2001. Mr. Richazds asked if the applicant has provided any new information for them to consider. Ms. Hitchcock replied that nothing has been brought to statl's attention. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. •ZBA Mutates January lS, 2002 Page 1 of S Alton Ofczarzak, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Ofczarzak handed the Board a copy of the survey showing how the curb line to the property was 1-foot closer. That radius was used and that is why the encroachment happened. Mr. Ofczarzak explained • the survey. Chairman Hill stated that he is not clear how the difference in the distance between the curb and the property line affected the outcome. Mr. Ofczarzak replied that is what was used to define the setbacks. Mr. Ofczarzak showed the Board a diagram of what the house would look if the encroachments were removed from the house. Mr. Ofczarzak told the Board that the way the home looked would be a hardship if the two corners were removed. Mr. Richards asked if the Pronghorn Loop home was being rented or owner occupied now. Mr. Ofczarzak replied that it is being rented. Mr. Richards asked if there was a reason that he did not follow the approved site plan. Mr. Ofczarzak replied that human error would be a factor. Mr. Richards ended by saying that he does not see any additional information on any special conditions or hardships. Mr. Lewis discussed the survey and what should have taken place. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell 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 encroachment is about 2 sq. ft. out of 1600 sq. ft. in the front yard, the curving street made measurement of the setback difficult; and because strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: cloud on title and unusual appearance if the encroachment was removed; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance limited to encroachment shown on the application. Mr. Shelly seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that he understands that he was stretching to find a special condition but the variances on both corners are a total of 2 -sq. ft. It is redicilous to have this cause a problem in selling the house. Mr. Richards stated that he sympathized with the whole situation. But as he stated in the last meeting, he is not personally as concerned about the amount of the variance as he is on how it occurred. Mr. Lewis stated that he is sympathetic and he does not think anyone wants a corner of the house to be knocked off. Mr. Lewis stated that there are cul-de-sac lots all over town with curved lot lines and there is nothing special about that. Mr. Lewis stated that he wished this case had come back to the city after the new Unified Development Ordinance was adopted at which time the city staff will be able to grant very small variances. Mr. Lewis ended by saying that although he voted against this case last time he is inclined to vote in favor of it this time. Chairman Hill called for a vote. The Board voted (4-1). Mr. Richards voting against granting the variance. ZBA Minutes January 1 S, 2002 Page 2 of S • AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration, discussion and possible action for a side setback variance request at 902 Holleman, lot 14, block 10, Woodson Village Phase I Subdivision. Applicant is Jeanette Hopper. (O1-263). • Staff Planner Reeves presented her staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting a 4.8 variance to legitimize a side setback variance. The special condition, the applicant states: "The drainage for this property appears to naturally flow from a southwesterly direction. Construction of a house on the lot disrupts the natural flow and causes the water to flow to the north of the property. The builder appears to have constructed the house on the far side of the lot to enable drainage of water, from this lot and the other properties behind and to the south of this lot, to drain between the pad site (which was built-up) for the house and adjoining lot (lot 13), and onto the street. The builder apparently felt the house location was needed to avoid having the water drainage dump onto the adjoining lot." As a hardship the applicant states that there would be water drainage problems for the adjoining lot. Ms. Reeves ended her staffreport by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Dill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Steve Strong, the buyer of the home, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Strong told the Board that the owners of the home bought the house in 1995 for their daughter while she went to TAMU. The home has since been rented and the owners are ready to sell. Mr. Strong explained to the Board the existing encroachment and the drainage problems. .Chairman Hill asked what bearing does the flooding in the backyard have on the variance. Mr. Strong replied that looking at the situation he believes the builder built the home where he did so there would be a drainage passageway. Mr. Birdwell questioned city staff not being able to write letters for such small encroachments. Senior Planner Kuenzel explained that the City Legal Department would only allow letters for 3" or less. nth no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary tot he public interest, due to the following special conditions: the house was apparently set to the south to improve drainage; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions. of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: no reasonable way to remove encroachment; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: zero encroachment in the front and 4.8" in the back. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that there should be no basis fora 3" rule. Variances that are small in relationship to the purpose and intent of the ordinance are not pragmatic. Chairman Hill called for a vote. The Board voted (5-0) to approve the variance. • ZBA Murutes January 25, 2002 Page 3 of S AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Consideration, discussion and possible action of the proposed Unified Development Code. Senior Planner Kuenzel stepped before the Board and gave an update on the Unified Development Code. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that currently the Board has submitted their comment as being able to approve variances of no more than 10%. The current UDO authorizes 20%. Ms. Kuenzel pointed out to the Board that in Section 3.8 of the UDO the criteria for granting variances at staff level are different then ZBA. Ms. Kuenzel stated that when you read the criteria it is easier and would be easier to meet at the staff level then at a variance to the ZBA. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that she states that because if staff denies a smaller variance it will be for a good reason and it will be even harder for the standards that the ZBA will have to find. In effect, even though staff does not make recommendations, if a case is forwarded to the ZBA for a full variance it will be forwarded with staff recommendations. If no reason was found under the lesser standard, then it will be very difficult to meet the greater standard of special conditions and hardships. In the UDO there is a reference to hardship but no reference to special conditions. So there would be no finding of a special condition at staff level. Mr. Richards stated in the future if staff approves or disapproves a variance, the Board would like to know. Ms. Kuenzel responded that has been noted. Mr. Richards questioned the reasoning for city stars criteria for denying a variance would be different then the Board's criteria. Ms. Kuenzel replied that it would have to be a request that clearly went against the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Richards asked if hardships or special conditions fall into the • policy for staff to deny or approve something. Ms. Kuenzel replied hardships would. Mr. Birdwell stated that a 20% margin is too much. Chairman II'ill stated that his first thought when looking at the UDO that the Board should be given a 5% margin. The Board discussed what percent they should have authority. Chairman Hill asked if there were any opinion's from the Board members on whether they should ask for authority of 5 or 10%. The consensus of the Board is to keep the 10% as submitted. Mr. Birdwell asked what are the general comments from the Development Community. Ms. Kuenzel replied that the two main issues have to do with the new process and the comprehensive plan amendment. Chairman Hill stated that he would attend the next P&Z meeting, February 7 concerning the Boards comments on the UDO. ZBA Minutes January 1 S, 2002 Page 4 of S • AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. ~. Birdwell asked to place an item to discuss the Boards regular meeting time. Chairman Hill asked to have the UDO placed back on the February 5 agenda. That would give the Board time to add any additional comments before Chairman Hill attended the February 7 P&Z meeting. Chairman Hill asked to add on the next agenda a discussion by Legal on the term de-minimus. AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: <;_~ .Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant • ZBA Minutes January IS, 2002 APPROVED: Q Leslie Hill, Chairman Page S of S ZONING B OARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE J.S~ ~ ~~ NAME ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 1. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 23. • 24. 25. 5 22. °~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I• FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) i~ minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: parking requirements (Section 9) U ~ ~~ r~ ~~~ ~' 4 ~~ , ~N 1 ~l> L ~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: C1~/~ ~~ • liitll~y,~r-L /~'1~~G, ~~ ,~G~~,~r~~ ~i~~ ~~~~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~1'~~~'/~~ ~~ /2~/ /~i~ rte'/ ~~~~ Motion made by jl~. ~r~~~,~~ Date /~ ~' ~ dam-- !~ ~ Seconded by ~r'~r~a ~ 5 h e rC{~v Voting Results Chair Signature r VARP! 618. DOC ~~~ ~~e ~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMII~IT ~• FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) C` from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following~p~~~~~ons: /~'~n~",6~ ~,~- 7'n 9.~ ~'Ti~ 7'b //~iir"a~~' ~s~/~/,~g' 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: ,/ IrU ~~~°"~ Motion made by~~ Seconded by • Chair Signature ~- /~~4`~ VARPI 638. DOC