Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2003 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES' 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 Shelly, 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 Nfr. S'heffy's absences No request was • turned in. AGENDA ITEM N0.3: 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 N0.4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to rehear a rear setback variance at 308 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 1 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 catled for the votes The Board voted (4-0) to rehear the caste 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 I. Applicant is Charles Thomas. Mr. Thomas told Chairman HiIZ 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. ZBA 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 homebuilder 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 apposed 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 diicult: 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 Baard voted (4-4) 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 infarmation 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 N0.6: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a rear setback and height variance for accessory structures at 1011 12`x' 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 cave 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 cave 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. • 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 variances 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 Hill 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 wilt consider. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. ZBA Minutes February -J, 2003 Page S of 10 Peter Lockett, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. NIr. 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 votes The Board voted (4-0). The variance is granted for the rear structures ZBA Minutes February ,l, 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 (4-11). • ZBA Minutes February 4, 2003 Page 7 of 10 AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a rear setback variance at 822 Nimitz, tot 9, block b, 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 Nimitz Street wanted to do the same thing. A developer tore down a dilapidated home and built student housing. Mr. 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 aloes-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. • 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 N0.9: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. Na items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Leslie Hill Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant • 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. ^ 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. ~ ~/ /,% ~J 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. A S mcerely, ,. ~ 1 - _ .1_ „~ J ,~ ~~// II ~ '~ d..~~~~L ,'fig L;3~ Dale and Gir~g 61ass Charles and Stace}ugh,~ Jeff Gifford /~~~~~, 460 ...Birdie Court 4602 Pro C urt (purchasing aboo Birdie ct~ 4601 Birdie Coprt p.; ~- '~r:`~ttlff~~4'.',Y (?/.).r~;'~'~,`"1.17. ~~,~JA!.~~ _ ~'' ~1,.C'r~-' a and Dion Nelson J wtorl nd Marily"n Wells ° Jeff ~n~ J ~Froyd ,-~~ ,~ 4602 Birdie Court 4 04 Birdie Court d+/46U5 Bir/d/~e.C~ :~ Don and Jo Freeman John McEuen ~U,~~ > °i r 5jc~-,, ~.~> r /ir'~'~:: ~.-~ / 4609 Birdie ~ourt 308 Agate ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ;h, ~~.,/,~ Cf _,~~ i City o. f 'College Station Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers ~~ Name -.~ ~ ~i~ l ~ i ~ 1,1.~~ ~ ~.?S Request Submitted on Date: ~` ' ~;~ ~ ;'~ I will not be in attendance at the meeting of for the reason(s) specified: (Date) .~ r ~,~ ~n ,,~~~i L'1nn // /Iii`//9 s Signature J/ This request shall be submitted to Deborah Grace one week prior to meeting date. Fax 764-3496. City of College Station, ll0l Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77840 Attn: Deborah Grace o:coimcil/abs~req.doc