Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/2001 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments.+ '�*.• t MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment December 4, 2001 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6 :00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Lewis, Shelly, Birdwell & Richards. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Member Goss & Corley, not needed. Alternate Member Allison was in the audience. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Jimmerson & Hitchcock, 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 NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. No request submitted. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to rehear the case for 316 Pronghorn Loop, lot 2, block 4, Steeplechase VI. Applicant is Oakwood Homes (01 -208). Mr. Birdwell made the motion to rehear the case. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). Change to the agenda. Item No. 4 & 5 will switch order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to the proposed Unified Development Code. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that she was not going repeat herself from the presentation she gave the Board November 6, 2001 unless there were specific questions. Ms. Kuenzel brought the Board up to date of the activities that have taken place this far. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board there would be a joint meeting with City Council and Planning Zoning in January. This would give the Board more time to discuss their input. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that there were comments submitted to the Planning & Zoning from the ZBA but they have not been discussed yet. Mr. Birdwell asked that this item be placed back on the next agenda to give the Board the opportunity, should there be something else to report to P &Z. The Board asked that they be notified about any UDO meetings. ZBA Minutes December 4, 2001 Page 1 of AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration, discussion and possible action of a rear setback variance at 1816 Brothers Blvd., lots 31 & 32, block 1, Regency South. Applicant is Parviz Vessali. (01 -248). Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize the existing encroachment. The current requirement under the new PDD -H zoning that was approved in December 2000 is a 10- foot setback from the perimeter of the Subdivision. A perimeter setback of 4 1 /2 feet is being requested. The property is currently developed. Each lot has a townhouse style house. The back of each house extends approximately 5.3 feet into the required setback. The applicant is requesting a variance of five and a half feet (or 55% variance) to the perimeter setback. 1982 — Property zoned PUD #2 1983 — Property platted or subdivided into current configuration 1999 — Owner requested building permit 2000 — Early December, subdivision rezoned to PDD -H 2000 — Late December, final building inspection requested. The applicant states as a special condition that, "the original survey showed zero lot line" with no setbacks. The surveyor checked and confirmed that with City staff in 1999. The applicant also states that, "there is a 15 -foot utility easement beyond the property line making the distance of the structure from the neighbors property line 20 feet" (more than the now required 10 -foot setback). The filed final plat of the property from 1983 does not discuss setback requirements. Generally setbacks are not shown on a plat. To determine the setbacks for a property requires reading the City's �4w Zoning Ordinance. The survey that the owner mentions is most likely the independent survey of the property that was done when the property was purchased. Also, the location of an easement does not change the location of the property line with the duplexes to the east. A 15 -foot utility easement does exist on the duplex side of the property line. Structures are not allowed in utility easements, therefore, in this instance there is at least 15 -feet of separation between the duplex buildings and the subject properties. The applicant states as a hardship that, "based on the original survey the property is even five feet inside the building line at the rear of the property, in order to comply with the new ordinance the building has to be demolished ". In conversation with the applicant it was mentioned that the main concern was the inability to obtain new financing. Staff has identified the following alternatives to granting the 5 -foot perimeter setback variance request: Do not grant the variance. The houses are already built. If the request were denied, to remove the encroachment, the property owner would be required, at a minimum, to remodel the house. Mr. Richards asked if it was the city's assumption at the time of issuing a building permit that it was a zero lot line. Ms. Jimmerson replied that was her understanding. 'r' ZBA Minutes December 4, 2001 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Birdwell asked if the building permit actually showed the outline of the building within 5 '/2 feet of the rear property line. Ms. Jimmerson replied that the survey in their packet was the same survey turned in with the building permit that was approved. The building setbacks were not shown because it was believed that there were no setback requirements. Chairman Hill asked at the time the duplexes were built there was a 15 -foot rear setback on the building. Ms. Jimmerson replied yes. Chairman Hill asked if the other phase of the subdivision was part of this, would the setback have existed. Ms. Jimmerson replied no. However, that piece of property had already been developed as duplexes prior to the time these two buildings had been built. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board that the tract next to this subdivision was never rezoned to the PUD along with this development. It was planned to be a part of that development but it was never rezoned. So therefore the 15 -feet setback was always in existence for this development. Chairman Hill asked Ms. Jimmerson if the construction of the townhomes were built in good faith based on the information provided by the staff to the applicant. Ms. Jimmerson replied that was correct, but unfortunately even with staff error as the applicant states, it is still the developer's responsibility to be aware of the codes. Ms. Jimmerson stated that it is clearly written in that zoning district that there is a 15 -foot perimeter setback. Mr. Lewis asked if any of the other townhomes in the development are in the same situation. Ms. Jimmerson replied that this is the only encroachment that the city is aware of The city became aware of it during the process to the new zoning district. At that time it was believed that these two townhomes had been built in compliance with the previous zoning and therefore were grandfathered. It was after the new rezoning that the applicant came in to work with staff that this particular issue was discovered. The townhomes had not met the previous zoning requirements and were then not grandfathered. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Fred Baylis, 324 Landsburg, stepped before the Board was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Baylis told the Board that he was there on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Baylis stated that the plat showing the duplex area behind this development as block two and that is the plat that the surveyor and city staff worked from. The duplex area was done in early 1999 right before this development was rezoned. So the 15 -foot setback only applied if it was on a perimeter of the subdivision and not on all the lots. If this were an interior lot the setback requirement would not be there. Mr. Baylis continued by explaining that the surveyor and city staff was looking at a plat that was in the center of a subdivision, and so the perimeter 15 -foot setback would not be applicable. The fact that the portion behind this development, at that time, and now, have been sold and developed in a separate subdivision is what made these two tracts on the perimeter as opposed to the interior. The zero lot line would have applied if block 2 had not been developed separately at a later time. Mr. Baylis told the Board that the applicant and surveyor spent a lot of time with City staff making exactly sure they had their facts correct. Mr. Baylis ended by describing to the Board the property and its layout. There were continued discussions with Mr. Baylis concerning the events with this property and the platting. Mr. Birdwell questioned the platting of the property and asked should the plat have been an amending plat. Ms. Jimmerson replied that the area showed block 2 as a reserve area. When you come in to final plat a reserve area you are not required to show the entire original plat. ZBA Minutes December 4, 2001 Page 3 of 5 �. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board it was not an amending plat but rather a final plat for the next phase of the development. Mr. Birdwell asked why is it not still a part of the same subdivision. Ms. Jimmerson replied that this particular plat was shown as a reserve area. Mr. Birdwell replied that reserve areas stay in the same subdivision they are in. They do not become a separate subdivision when they are divided. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board that she was not working on the case at that time but he was correct that is a standard. Ms. Jimmerson stated that if you have an unplatted area that is part of a larger area, that should be considered as a parent tract, then yes you are generally required to show the entire parent tract, at least on the preliminary, final plat or master development plan stage. It is not necessarily uncommon if you have a platted subdivision i.e. in Pebble Creek you have someone who needs to amend three lots. If that amendment only affects those three lots you would be allowed to come in with an amending plat for just those lots. It is really a case by case basis. In this particular instance this plat really shows the final plat for 34 lots and 2 reserve areas. One reserve tract is block 2 which is being discussed in this case, and the other area that is showed as reserve tract is down at the end of the cul- de -sac. Each of these has come in separately to final plat. Mr. Birdwell asked was it not true that when you plat a reserve area you don't change the name of the subdivision. Ms. Jimmerson replied that is the requirement now but several years ago that was not a requirement. Mr. Birdwell questioned the blackline outside the border of the whole subdivision including the reserve areas. Mr. Birdwell stated that he wondered if technically, has block 2 been taken out of the subdivision. Mr. Birdwell asked if there was a different zoning on the two subdivisions. Ms. Jimmerson replied yes and stated that she thinks that is where the issue gets confusing. That area was shown on the final plat but the block 2 was never rezoned as part of the subdivision with the rest of Regency South. Block 2 never had the zoning as the rest of the subdivision. It did not proceed as part of the subdivision. It was merely shown on the final plat as a reserve area. Dension Henry, 2308 Yosmite, Bryan, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman � Hill. Mr. Henry told the Board that he is the surveyor of the property. Mr. Henry told the Board that when he ran into the encroachment he went to the title company and they reviewed all the information they had. It was determined according to their information there was no building lines. Chairman Hill asked what time frame that was. Mr. Henry replied that it was July 1999. At that point Mr. Henry stated that he went and talked to city staff and was told according to the records there are no building lines required. Mr. Henry referred to the heavy black line shown on the plat and stated that it also indicates to him that this was one subdivision. Mr. Henry stated that when he went to survey the property for the final survey the building was built. Mr. Henry told the Board that he knew there were new staff members at the city and he thought he better have it reviewed again. It was then that it was discovered to have the encroachment. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Henry if he did the initial boundary survey. Mr. Henry replied yes. Mr. Henry ended buy telling the Board that he saw it as a separate subdivision. Parviz Vessali, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Vessali told the Board that he designed the two townhomes and asked the Board members to look at the floor plan. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. "4 4W ZBA Minutes December 4, 2001 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirement from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the building permit was issued by city with zero setback, setback issue further confused by phased development, and city staff confirmed zero setback to the builder in error; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to manage the property to its highest and best use without a variance; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: setback variance of 5.5'. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that he does not see how the Board could hold a person from managing his property when it is a result of admitted action on the part of the City. Mr. Birdwell added that he questioned if the proper steps were taken in separating one subdivision into two. Mr. Birdwell ended by saying that he felt it would be unreasonably not to grant the variance. Chairman Hill stated that there is a lot of confusion not only on the part of City staff but on the whole case. There were oversights by multiple individuals. No one person is held at fault and it would be unreasonable to deny the variance. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. Chairman Hill asked that the UDO be placed on the January 15 agenda. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman TTEST: Deborah Grace, aff Assistant ZBA Minutes December 4, 2001 Page 5 of 5