Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/2003 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments (2)MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment January 7, 2003 is CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, John Richards, Dick Birdwell, Rodger Lewis & Graham Sheffy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternates Jay Goss, Denise Whisenant & Randal Allison (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planners' Jennifer Reeves & Jennifer Flanery, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Building Official Lance Simms, Development Services Director Kelly Templin, Staff Assistant Susan Hazlett & Action Center Representative Regina Kelly. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. No requests were received. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action on approval of meeting minutes from November 5, 2002. Mr. Birdwell made one word correction. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a rear setback variance at 308 Agate, lot 2, block 5, Stone Forest Subdivision. Applicant is John McEuen. Staff Planner Reeves stepped before the Board and presented the star report. Ms. Reeves told the Board that the applicant has decided now to seek a 4' -foot variance instead of the 3 '/z -foot variance as stated in the staff report. The variance is to legitimize an encroachment. The site plan for the encroaching structure was submitted to the city without a rear setback line. The property varies in depth from 119.4 -feet to 120 -feet. With a 25 -foot front setback and a 73 -foot building pad, it could have been determined from the plan that the house would encroach 3 to 3.5 -feet into the required rear setback. The site plan was approved in error by a building plan examiner. The house began construction according to the site plan; thus the applicant is requesting a 4 -foot rear setback variance. • ZBA Mmutes January 7, 2003 Page I of 5 The applicant would like the Board to consider the topography, the placement of the electric box, and city staff error as special conditions. He has listed the facts that the house is formed and the inability to get a loan on the house as hardships. Staff has identified that removal of the encroachment is the only alternative to a variance for the house to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell had questions concerning the plot plan submitted for the building permit. Lance Simms, Building Official, stepped before the Board. Mr. Simms told the Board that along with the site plan he had a full set of building plans. Mr. Simms stated that the total depth of the house from the front of the garage to the rear of the house is 72 -feet 11- inches. Mr. Simms told the Board that the site plan that was submitted in the Board's packet was the site plan submitted for the building permit. Mr. Lewis stated that the site plan did not show the dimension of the house and it did not show the proposed distance from the back of the house to the back of the lot. Mr. Simms replied that was correct. Mr. Birdwell stated that a complete set of building plans were submitted for permit and the site plan as submitted did not conform to the City requirements. Mr. Simms replied that was correct. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Mr. McEuen, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman 111. Mr. McEuen told the Board that he came to College Station from Hill Top Lakes. He has been building there for the • last 8 years. W. McEuen explained that building in College Station is new and different from Hill Top Lakes. He apologized and explained that he was sure there were some things that he could have done different. Mr. McEuen showed the Board the building plan that was submitted for permit and pointed out that the scale shows 1 -inch to be 10 -feet. To measure from the back of the house to the property line you get 21 -feet plus a few inches. Mr. McEuen stated that the even the developer was uncertain what the rear setback was. Mr. McEuen stated that he has never built on a property that had a rear setback of 25 -feet. Mr. McEuen described to the Board a dirt pad that was built on the property. It was dirt from the street while the subdivision was being built. At the end of the dirt pad is a gully. The dirt pad is exactly 73 -feet from the 25 -foot off set. Mr. McEuen described the dirt pad as being almost 3 -feet high. That makes the house very visible from the homes in Pebble Creek. Mr. McEuen spoke about receiving a brochure from another developer and the rear setbacks in his subdivision were shown as 20 -feet. He then felt sure he was right with the 20 -foot setback on his property. When the plans were submitted to the city a permit was issued to build the house and the inspection for the slab was done and approved. Mr. McEuen ended by telling the Board that he is not trying to pass blame because he knows he is to blame also. Chairman Hill asked Mr. McEuen when he was unsure about the rear property setback why didn't he contact the city to verify what the rear setback was. Mr. McEuen replied that his architect asked him what the setback was and he told him he was not sure. He told his architect to show the house in relation to the property line. In the meantime the building plans were ready, he submitted for the permit and the permit was issued, he felt sure in assuming the rear setback was 20 -feet. Chairman 101 stated that the documents before him do not indicate how far the house is from the property line • ZBA Minutes January 7, 2003 Page 2 of 5 Mr. McEuen described a fence at the back of the property line. Mr. McEuen explained that on the right hand side of the house there is a stake just this side of the fence, that is the property line. On the left side there is a stake with a ribbon that was pushed down under the fence. On the survey it is stated that . the property line is over the fence. So there is no way that they could run a string to be absolutely sure that is all they are encroaching. So to be sure they are asking for a 4 -foot variance. Chairman Hill asked if it was known how far the fence comes over the property line. Mr. McEuen stated that he could not find the property stake but he would guess from 2 -3 inches. Mr. Richards told Mr. McEuen that it is his responsibility to know what the setbacks are. There were discussions concerning the gully in the backyard. Mr. Birdwell asked if the back fence was in place when the slab was poured. Mr. McEuen replied yes. Mr. Lewis asked if there was any other special condition besides the dirt pad. Mr. McEuen replied no. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Simms to explain the steps for acquiring a building permit. Mr. Simms stated the bottom line is the house does not fit on the lot. Mr. Simms ended by saying that he likes to accept responsibility when its due and they will do a better job in the future. Mr. Simms and Chairman Hill continuWscussions on the Building Department staff and their procedures. Mr. Lewis asked if the plans check list asks if setbacks are shown on the plans. Mr. Simms replied that it did not but it wiil in the future. a Chairman Hill called for anyone else wanting to speak in favor or in opposition of the request to step forward. Dr. Manuel Martin - Rodgriquez, 4601 Pro Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Martin- Rogriquez spoke in opposition to the variance. Charles Rugh, 4602 Pro Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Rugh handed the Board an outlined agreement between residents of Birdie Court (Pebble Creek) and Mr. McEuen. (Attached). The agreement was established to resolve issues so the variance could be granted. There were discussion concerning the fence being proposed by the residents of Birdie Court. Sefa Koseoglu, 801 Hook Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Koseoglu wanted to know what steps the city was doing to prevent this from happening again. Mr. Martin- Rodgrigez approached the Board again and stated that he had not seen the letter that was given to the Board from the Birdie Court residents. He added that nothing listed in the letter would resolve any of his issues. • ZBA Minutes January 7, 2003 Page 3 of 5 Mr. McEuen stepped before the Board and there were continued discussions about the fence mentioned in the letter of agreement. • With no one else stepping forward Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell asked Legal if it was appropriate for the Board to grant a variance with a requirement that an 8 -foot fence be built in accordance with the submitted agreement. Ms. Robinson replied that the Board could only impose a physical condition on the property at hand. Chairman Hill asked what recourse did the property owners who signed the agreement have if other party is not living up to the agreement. Ms. Robinson replied that would become a civil matter. 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 to public interest, due to the following special conditions: the city issued a building permit for a structure larger than will fit on the lot; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being: inability to obtain title insurance; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance limited to 4 -feet and an 8 -foot wooden fence will be required along the back lot line. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that the city and all governments always take the position that if they make a misdike that is tough but you need to do it over. Mr. Birdwell added that his philosophy when this results in a significant financial burden on the part of the building permit applicant it is a totally irresponsible attiNde on the part of the city. The situation here is such that the fence was there when the slab was pointed. A string line could not be pulled on the property line because the fence was in the • way. It would have been a simple matter to measure between the fence line and the back batter board on the house. It is obvious that that measurement was not made. Because if it has been made this would have been corrected at that time. If the setbacks were checked at plan review it would have also become obvious that the house did not fit the lot. Mr. Birdwell also added that he feels it is very unrealistic to require the builder to chop off the slab by 5 -feet. Mr. Birdwell ended by commending the neighbors for coming together and meeting with the builder and agreeing to drop their opposition provided an 8 -foot fence is built. Chairman Dill stated that he personally opposed the variance for several reasons. First the builder made some assumptions as far as what the actual building setback was on the lot. When no one was able to tell him what the correct setback was a simple phone call to the city offices would have clarified that immediately. Chairman Hill stated that he felt the builder was negligent for not verifying what the rear building setback was. Second the opposition from Mr. Martin - Rogdriquez. His property is not immediately adjacent to this property but he is in proximity and is being effected by it. He has come before this Board asking that he be afforded the relief that is specified in the ordinances. He is asking for the protection that the ordinances guarantee. If the Board granted the variance this denies Mr. Martin- Rodriquez the protection he should have received from the ordinance. Obvisously with the differing elevations between this lot, the adjacent lots and the lots beyond the rear line, the people with the lower elevation are going to have to accept the fact that the houses on the other side of the property lines are going to be higher. In this case the problems are magnified by the fact that the house is closer than it is supposed to be to the property line. Chairman Hill stated that mistakes were made on the side of the builder and on the side of the city. Chairman Hill ended by saying that the Board should not grant the variance. ZBA Minutes January 7, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Lewis stated that it is very disappointing in many ways and he is very sympathetic with the other • property owners but he is in favor of the variance because he feels there are some special conditions on the lot. Most of the time the Board has a hard time finding special conditions but this lot has some. The lot being built up and the fence being there are just a few to mention. While the builder is responsible for placing the house on the lot and meeting the setback requirements, the city review process should have caught this. Also the builder has shown a willingness to do what he can to remedy the situation and therefore he is going to favor the variance. Mr. Richards stated that he was disappointed that the builder did not make himself more aware of the local ordinances. The city tries to protect its citizens from these type things and this is a difficult situation. Mr. Richards ended by saying what ever the outcome is he hopes everyone can resolve the problems that happened. This is not a simple situation and both sides are valid with what happened. Mr. Sheffy stated that a builder can not come in and make assumptions, a simple phone call could have solved the problem. Chairman Hill called for the vote from Mr. Birdwell's motion to approve. The Board voted (3-2). Chairman Hill and Mr. Sheffy voting against granting the variance. The request for a variance was denied AGENDA ITEM &Q. 5: Consideration, discussion and possible action regarding the taking of minutes for the Zoning Board of Adjustment. • Ms. Robinson presented and discussed her findings in a memo, which was handed to the Board Members. The Board Members continued discussions. Mr. Birdwell made the motion that the minutes continue to have summaries of the evidence presented and the Board's deliberations. However, the minutes need not include long narratives. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion, which passed (3-2). Mr. Hill and Mr. Richards voting against changing the minutes. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Leslie Hill Leslie Hill, Chairman TTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZBA Minutes lanuoy 7, 2003 Page 5 of 5 NAME ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE (\00, � ADD SS c L PAO � a2 � 1 �- (G�� 5 Ll 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 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) ✓ minimum 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: LArge::�42— I wig- Arr oW r� A01r and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: /.j Ar*/L/ 2!Y Tv 40-0 Ti rte' / �ua��dNl� and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: tgIl��. " 40 Motion made by '01A0a 0A11 Date 7 Seconded by S Voting Results - Z f(. < <r, Chair Signature VAPPIMDOC MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment February 4, 2003 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, Dick Birdwell, Rodger Lewis & Alternate Jay Goss. MEMBERS ABSENT: Graham Sheffy, John Richards and Alternates, Denise Whisenant & Randal Allison (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planners' Jennifer Reeves, Jennifer Flanery & Molly Hitchcock, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Regina Kelly. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order with only 4 Board Members present and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to approve Mr. Richards absent request Mr. Goss seconded the motion, which passed (4-0). The Board did not vote on Mr. Sheffy's absence No request was • turned in. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action on approval of meeting minutes from January 7, 2003. • Mr. Birdwell made a correction to agenda item # 5. The minutes reflected the motion failed. The item only required a majority vote. The motion passed. The minutes of the Board will be shortened. Chairman Hill asked to include in the minutes on the 308 Agate case the reason for each Board Member's vote. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to rehear a rear setback variance at 348 Agate, lot 2, block 5, Stone Forest Subdivision. Applicant is John McEuen. If the Board votes to rehear the case, the case would be reheard at the Board's regular meeting March 4, 2003. Chairman Hill told the applicants in the audience that one Board Member is absent. Chairman Hill stated that he will gave each applicant the opportunity to withdraw their case until the next meeting when a full Board would hear their case or have it heard knowing that in order to have their request pass they would need all 4 members voting in favor. Mr. McEuen stated that he did want to continue with his case in the absence of a Board Member. ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page I of 10 Mr. Gentry stepped before the Board and told them he is representing Mr. McEuen. Mr. Gentry presented pictures to the Board showing the fence that was discussed at the last meeting has now been constructed. It is approximately 227 -feet long, 8 -feet high and it covers not only the lot where the • house is located but also both lots on each side of the house. In response to the construction of the fence, the neighbors in the cul -de -sac immediately behind 308 Agate have signed a letter indicating that they are pleased with the improvements and no longer have any objection. Mr. Gentry ended by telling the Board that he visited with city staff & they have changed their procedures so that a physical part of the plan approval for the construction of a new house now includes identifying the required setback and identifying the provided setback on the site plan. If they do not match that would immediately been known. Mr. Gentry asked the Board to consider his request for a rehearing. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to rehear the case. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Lewis stated that his support for rehearing should not be construed to indicate that he feels there were problems with the decision. He wants to give people every opportunity to present their case. Chairman Hill stated that there does appear to be new evidence and he also would be in favor of rehearing the case. Mr. Birdwell stated that it is a show of good faith on the part of the applicant to build the 8 -foot fence not only on his lot but also on the adjoining lots. Mr. Goss stated that he is troubled when the city grants something and then comes back and says there is an error. Mr. McEuen's plans were approved and he built the house as approved. Mr. Goss ended by saying that he understands the law and the burden on the city but it still troubles him. • Chairman Hill called for the vote The Board voted (4-0) to rehear the case. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a side street setback variance at 2388 Kendal Green Circle, lot 21, block 2, Castlegate Section 4 Phase L Applicant is Charles Thomas. Mr. Thomas told Chairman Hill that he did want to continue with his case in the absence of a Board Member. Staff Planner Flanery presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting a variance to legitimize a mistake made during construction. This case involves an error made by the builder in establishing the side street 15 -foot setback. The result is a variable encroachment that reaches 11 -feet from the property line to the closest part of the home; thus the applicant is requesting a side street setback variance of 4 -feet. The applicant offers as a special condition: the lot is odd shaped. The string line was pulled straight to set the forms rather than with the curvature with a radius of 315 -feet. 0 Z&9 Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 2 of 10 As a hardship the applicant states the current owner of the home will certainly bear burden of not being able to offer title insurance to any future buyer with the encroachment. No alternatives were given due to the fact that construction of the home is complete. Ms. Flanery ended her staff report by telling the Board that a letter in support of the variance was given from the property owner directly behind the home. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Charles Thomas the homebudder stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Thomas told the Board that the string line for the property line on the street side was erroneously pulled. It was at the time of the survey that the encroachment was found. Mr. Thomas ended by saying that he does not think it will effect any individual or create any site annoyance. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance 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 to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: large radius curve makes accurate measurement difficult; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being: an encroachment makes obtaining title insurance difficult; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance limited to existing encroachment. Mr. Goss seconded the motion. Mr. Goss stated that he did not agree with all of the motion. He added that he probably would be opposed to it if there were a house on that side. Chairman Hill stated that he agreed with Mr. Goss as far as the fact that the issues that this ordinance is designed to cover do not exits in this case. However, he is opposed to the motion as presented. He did not feel like the radius of the curve can be used as a reason to grant the variance because there are streets all over this city that have radius's and mistakes like this occurred and the Board has denied requests that were made on that basis. Mr. Goss stated that he was in agreement with that. He added that the shape, the access to the property, the specific physical characteristics of the property and the street give it a special condition. Mr. Goss stated that he is struggling with a hardship because any hardship would be financial. Mr. Birdwell made an amendment to his motion under special conditions to add, large radius curve and odd shape lot makes accurate measurement difficult Chairman Hill stated that he still is not satisfied with the curving property line and odd shaped lot as a special condition. If we legitimize it on that basis then half the lots in the city would be legitimized. ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 page 3 of 10 • Mr. Birdwell stated that nothing the Board does sets precedent. Chairman Hill stated that he agrees but he is not willing to grant it on that basis. Chairman Hill offered not as an amendment but as comment, it would not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions, there are no adjoining properties on the side of the property line, and the access that is provided by the ordinance is not threatened. Chairman Hill made the motion to amend the motion by striking the statement of special conditions and adding: the existent of a wide side street provides adequate open space. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion to accept the amendment The Board voted (4 -0) to pass the amendment. Mr. Lewis stated that there is a problem with builders on lots with curved lines. A surveyor needs to stake out the slabs. Mr. Lewis ended by saying that he does not know how to get the message to the builders and he does not want to see anymore variance case like this one. Chairman Hill replied that he agreed and that is why he is not willing to grant this variance on the basis on the curved property line or odd shaped lot. Chairman Hill called for the vote The Board voted (4 -0) to approve the variance. Mr. Birdwell asked staff in the future to have all the dimensions between the property line and the structure. Mr. Goss stated that he agreed with that but the burden needs to be on the applicant to have the information. • Mr. Birdwell replied that staff needs to tell them to have that information included in their application. Chairman Hill stated that he felt comfortable with this case but there have been cases that have come before the Board that they don't have all the numbers in order to properly consider the case. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a rear setback and height variance for accessory structures at 1011 le Man Circle, lot 12, block 1, Pebble Creek Phase I -A. Applicant is Lockett Landscaping Inc. Mr. Lockett told Chairman Hill that he did want to continue with his case in the absence of a Board Member. Staff Planner Flanery stepped before the Board and presented her staff report. Ms. Flanery told the Board that the request is to legitimize an encroachment into the rear setback and allow the two accessory structures to exceed the 8 -foot height limit for accessory structures. This case involves the construction of two arbors, which are considered accessory structures in the Zoning Ordinance. The arbor closest to the house is used as a shade structure over a patio area and has an eave height of 10 -feet. The second is set near the rear of the property approximately 9.5 -feet from the fence line and has an eave height of 9 -feet. • ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 4 of 10 The result is an encroachment that reaches 9.5 -feet from the property line to the closest part of the accessory structure; thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 5.5 -feet. The applicant is also requesting an eave height variance of 1 -foot for the arbor located at the rear of the property and an eave height variance of 2 -feet for the arbor located near the home. The Pebble Creek Architectural Review Committee approved the design of these structures and their placement. For special conditions the applicant offers that there is no other reasonable location for the arbor due to the constraints from the pool and that the location is key to the architectural design. Also, the height of the arbor near the house needed to clear the eaves of the existing house and that the two arbors need to be in scale with each other. Also, the house is setback further in the front then is required by ordinance, so it pushes the improvements in the backyard further to the back. As a hardship the applicant states that the classification of such shade arbors fall into a "gray area" of the ordinance. Shade arbors are lumped into a classification with storage buildings, but this is an open post and beam structure with no walls. The applicant offers the following to the variance requested: to remove the arbor near the rear property line or to lower the heights of both arbors. Mr. Birdwell asked for a reading from the ordinance that classifies an arbor as a storage building. Ms. Flanery read the definition from the Zoning Ordinance. is Mr. Birdwell asked if this Board made a decision that the city's interpretation was incorrect on the definition of arbors as accessory structures, would they need a variance. Ms. Flanery replied that is correct but it also falls under the building code. Mr. Birdwell stated that he does not see why the arbors need a variance, especially the one by the house. Mr. Birdwell stated that there is a code interpretation problem. Mr. Birdwell moved to have staff interpretation of the arbors ruled invalid and the arbors be allowed to exist without a variance. Mr. Goss replied that he would not be in favor of that particular motion, but he would be inclined to second the motion if it was limited to the arbor adjacent to the house. Mr. Birdwell agreed. Mr. Goss seconded the motion. There were continued discussions. Chairman Hilt called for the vote. The Board voted (3-1). The motion passed. The arbor at the rear of the property will be all that the Board will consider. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. is ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 5 of 10 Peter Lockett, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Lockett told the Board that the arbor in the rear of the property is going to have a concrete pad that will be 13 x 13. The column spacing is 10 -foot on center. Mr. Birdwell replied that the building would be 100 sq. ft. Mr. Lockett replied that there was also approximately a 20 -inch overhang. Mr. Birdwell replied that overhangs are not counted. Mr. Birdwell added that if the walls were enclosed it would be considered a 10 x 10 structure and it then would be exempt from a building permit. Mr. Kee stated that under the building code there are 3 conditions where a structure does not need a permit. If it is less than 100 -sq. ft., it is not on a slab and does not have utilities. In this case the Building Official looked at the slab and determined that this was a structure that needed a building permit. There were continued discussions. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the variance, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback for an accessory structure from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: categorization of the structure is questionable and the Architectural Control Committee has approved; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: there is no additional space to place the arbor and it is an integral part of the landscaping; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell offered an amendment that the Board approve the height variance but deny the rear • setback variance because it would be very easy to move the structure over 4 -feet and there is plenty of room to do that since the slab has not been poured yet. Ms. Flanery stated that the applicant has stated that there is no space between the deck around the pool and the arbor to move the arbor forward. With no second to the amendment the motion failed. Chairman Hill stated that if this variance was granted it could become a fully enclosed building at some point in the future. He added that he is not particularly opposed to the structure that is being built but has concerns about the open endedness of the variance. Mr. Lewis added that was his initial concern. It could end up a 9 -foot tall 10 x 10 shed. Chairman Hill stated that at that point the Pebble Creek Architectural Committee would still have to approve the structure. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (4-0). The variance is granted for the rear structure. ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 6 of 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a sign setback variance at 1316 Augustine Court, lot 37, block 14, Southwood Section 25 & 1801 Southwood Drive, lot 17, block 4 Southwood Section 21. Applicant is Carol Nichols, President Bee Creek • Neighborhood Association. Ms. Nichols told Chairman Hill that she did want to continue with this case in the absence of a Board Member. Staff Planner Flanery stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Flanery told the Board that the variance is to place neighborhood area identification signs on two existing walls. This project is part of the City's Gateway Grant Program. This case involved two existing brick walls that are approximately 3 -feet in height and are located along the property line. The Neighborhood Association wishes to place letters one foot in height on the existing walls. The addition of the letters will now make the wall a sign. In order for the letters to be placed on the wall this variance must be granted. As a special condition the applicant states that there was not land allocated at the time of the subdivision development for a neighborhood gateway sign that would comply with a 10 -foot setback. The existing gateway brick walls, located on the property lines of the existing residential properties, and were created by the developer to indicate a distinct area of the greater Southwood Subdivision. The applicant offers the following hardship. Under current law we would not be able to mount the sign on the existing gateway brick walls. If a sign were to be placed 10 -feet from the property line it would • visually be blocked by the existing gateway brick walls and be in the middle of a residential property owner's front yard. If a new sign were to be built in front of the walls, the Bee Creek Neighborhood Association would need to request a private improvement in a public right -of -way permit and the sign would be in City ROW and would be even closer to Southwest Parkway. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Carol Nichols, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Ms. Nichols told the Board that here is no place to add an additional sign and this would be the best use of city funds. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the city: there was no land allocated at the time of subdivision development for a neighborhood gateway sign that would comply with the 10 -foot setback; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: if the sign was placed 10 -feet back from the property line it would visually blocked by existing fence; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4 -0). • ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 7 of 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a rear setback variance at 822 Nimitz, lot 9, block 6, D.A. Smith Subdivision. Applicant is the City of College Station Community Development Office. • Staff Planner Reeves stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Reeves told the Board that the variance is to allow Community Development to move forward with the Optional Relocation Project. This project involves an existing dilapidated, unsafe structure that will be replaced by a new modest brick structure that will encroach less into the rear setback than the current structure. The current structure has a variable encroachment of 19 -20 feet into the rear setback. The new structure will encroach 7.5 -feet into the rear setback: thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback of 7.5 -feet. The applicant has stated as a special condition: due to Nimitz Street encroaching approximately 15.5 - feet into the front of the owners property, a variance of the rear setback is required to place the front of the new 31' x 32' replacement dwelling 10 -feet from the edge of the paving of Nimitz Street, a standard already established by recent development adjacent tot he subject property. As a hardship the applicant has stated: without the variance, the lot is unbuildable due to the small lot size of approximately 3,285 sq. ft. An additional 777 -sq. ft. of the front of the lot is unusable because it is developed as Nimitz Street, leaving approximately 2,508 -sq. ft. of total lot area that can be developed. Ms. Reeves told the Board that they have given variance to other homes on Nimitz as well as Avenue A due to the lots being very old and small. Avenue A backs up to this property. • Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Eric Barton, Housing Program Coordinator for Community Development, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Barton spoke about the dilapidated home and the need to remove it and replace it with a new one. Mr. Birdwell asked if the lot to the north of the property could be combined to make one building site to have adequate room. Mr. Barton replied that the property is a piece of rental property and they have not approached the property owner about purchasing the lot. Ms. Glover has deed and title to her property. The Board had discussions with Mr. Barton concerning HUD requirements of occupancy. Randy Brumley with the Community Development office stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Brumley made clarification to the discussions on the HUD requirements. Chairman Hill made the comment that the whole neighborhood is a problem and anything that can be done to improve the overall situation is a step in the right direction. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. • ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Birdwell made the motion to deny the variance to the minimum setback 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. The motion died with a lack of a second Mr. Lewis 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 conditions: city street has been placed on the property & existing structure is closer to property line than the proposed structure; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: too little space available to build a house on a lot which was platted before the existing lot regulations; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: rear setback of 7.5 -feet. Mr. Goss seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell told the Board that he was Chairman of this Board when the home on the corner of Lincoln Street and Nmitz Street wanted to do the same thing. A developer tore down a dilapidated home and built student housing. W. Birdwell stated that the Board was going to deny the variance and he talked them into approving it. He has been sorry ever since he saw what they had built. At that time there was some discussion of the possibility of the developer buying the lot next door and combining two lots. It was not six months after the home was built that the same thing happened next door. Another home was torn down and another one was built. There is not enough room for a house on the lots in that area. There are two houses in that area that is occupied by students. Mr. Birdwell stated that if this house were built, it would be 3 years that it would become student housing. Mr. Birdwell added that if two lots were combined, because it is a desirable area, it would make more sense. Mr. Goss stated that he understood Mr. Birdwell's reasoning but he is not sure that this exact situation isn't exactly what the special conditions and hardships are designed for. Mr. Goss added that the Board gives a 4 -foot encroachment on a side variance and the rules and regulations are jimmied because you are very hard pressed to find a special condition and/or a hardship that is not financial. Mr. Birdwell and Mr. Goss continued discussions concerning special conditions and hardships. Mr. Goss stated the fact is that these lots were lots before the city came in and imposed a setback. In his mind you have a lot with a dilapidated house and you impose another hardship on the current occupier of the property to go and buy another lot. Mr. Goss stated that if the two lots were combined there is just going to be bigger student housing. Mr. Birdwell stated the whole area is going to be student housing. Mr. Lewis stated that in the meantime there is a low- income property owner that is going to be prevented to do what they want to with their property. Chairman Hill stated that the homeowner effectively is going to be forced out of the home with all the problems. Chairman Hill added that this is a good solution, maybe not the perfect solution to the situation. The dilapidated structure will be replaced with a quality structure and will only help the area. He added that he understands about the crowding but that is never going to be resolved in that area. is ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 9 of 10 Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (3 -1) which failed Mr. Birdwell voting against granting the variance. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Leslie Hill Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant 0 ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 10 of 10 January 7, 2003 City of College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment 1101 Texas Ave. South College Station, Texas Dear Zoning Board Members, This letter is to outline an agreement made between the residents of Birdie Court (in the Pebble Creek subdivision) and Mr. John McEuen, builder of the house at 308 Agate in the Stone Forest Subdivision. We met with Mr. McEuen on January 6, 2003 in an effort to reach an amicable agreement concerning the encroachment of the rear setback line on his property at 308 Agate. Our goal was to find a solution that would protect the privacy and property values of our homes on Birdie Court, as well as allow Mr. McEuen to receive a variance request on the property. We were able to come to the following agreement: ■ John McEuen will construct a new eight foot privacy fence on the property line between the Pebble Creek and Stone Forest subdivisions. ■ . The fence will extend from the Northwest corner of Lot 35 in the Pebble Creek subdivision until it joins the existing six foot fence of Lot 36 in Pebble Creek. ■ The fence will be constructed of eight foot tall 1 "x 6 treated pickets in the same construction manner as the existing fence on this property line. 0 ■ The fence will contain 4 "x 4" treated vertical posts every eight feet and consist of three horizontal 2 "x 4" treated cross braces between each vertical post. ■ John McEuen will be responsible for disassembling the existing fence and construction of the new fence as described above. ■ John McEuen will be responsible for all labor and material costs associated with this project. nn / n wp�2/e TJ / ?,e - 6MP [� - r "-® .CS y If the above requirements are met, the residents of Birdie Court agree to endorse the Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant the necessary variance request to Mr. McEuen. As per the conversation between Charles Rugh (representing residents of Birdie Court) and John McEuen on the afternoon of Monday, January 06, 2003, we have agreed that by signing below, the residents of Birdie Court are indicating this is an acceptable and reasonable proposal for resolving the variance issue and request the Zoning Board of Adjustment to please consider this as a resolution to our dispute. S ffi Merely, i N e r Dale andGlass 4601D.UWie Court a and Dion Nelson 4602 Birdie Court Don and Jo Freeman 4609 Birdie ourt C` Charles and Stac ugh Jeff Gifford S v.� /-7 4602 Pro C urt (purchasing 4600 Birdie Ct) 4601 Birdie Co rt ofi" andanlyn Wells 2 Je JotFioyd 4 04 Birdie Court 46 5 Birdie C John McEuen 308 Agate c �6O z b,' rcofie-" CZ