HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2001 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
February 6, 2001 M AY - 2 2001
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS %a . �� h
6 :00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bond, Sheffy, Hill, Alternate Members Goss & Corley.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lewis, Richards & Alternate Member Birdwell.
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Reeves, Hitchcock, & Jimmerson,
Customer Service Representative Messarra, Staff Assistant Hazlett,
Secretary Macik, Building Official Simms, Assistant City Attorney
Anderson, Development Review Manager Ruiz.
AGENDA ITEM NO, 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Bond called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms.
John Richards and Rodger Lewis received approval for their absences. Mr. Goss made the motion to
approve both requests. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from September 19, 2000 Workshop meeting of
the Board.
Mr. Corley made a correction to the minutes. The word majority in the first paragraph on page one was
replaced with the word minority. Mr. Hill made the motion to approve the minutes as corrected.
Mr. Corley seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Approval of minutes from October 3, 2000 meeting of the Board.
Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Hill seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed (5 -0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a front setback variance at 203 Landsburg, lot 12,
block 1.1, Edelweiss 7 -B. Applicant is Eugene Thompson Adair IV.
Jennifer Reeves; Staff Planner introduced herself to the Board. Ms. Reeves told them that she would be
presenting the report but for them to refer any questions to Staff Planner Hitchcock.
Ms. Reeves told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an error made
during construction of the home. This case involves an error made by the builder in establishing the
front 25 -foot setback. The setback should have followed the radius of the cul -de -sac, but instead was
drawn in a straight line. The result is a variable encroachment that reaches 20 feet from the property
line to the closest part of the home; thus the applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 8 feet.
�r ZBA Mmirtcs Fdxumy 6, 2001 Page 1 of 7
The applicant states there are no special conditions. The applicant did offer on his application under
hardship, that the purchasers would be delayed from moving out of their son's duplex. The son is a
Texas A & M vet student, and needs a quiet environment for his studies.
The applicant states the only alternative to the variance is to tear down the home and rebuild.
Staff believes that a viable alternative might be to remove the portion of the home that is encroaching,
and there possibly be enough room to build a garage in the rear of the property, but staff has not seen or
reviewed any proposals showing this at this time.
Ms. Reeves showed the Board pictures of the home. Ms. Reeves ended her presentation by telling the
Board that one response was received concerning the encroachment. The response was in opposition.
Mr. Sheffy asked Ms. Hitchcock what was the concern of the response in opposition. Ms. Hitchcock
stated the concern was from someone who lived on the street and he did not like the appearance of the
home.
Mr. Goss asked is it unusual for an applicant to come before the Board and ask for a variance and not
have any hardships and special conditions. Ms. Hitchcock replied that they try to discourage the
applicant but it is their right to apply anyway. Mr. Goss asked what is meant by special condition.
Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that a special condition could be something about the property that is
unique and particular to the piece property. Mr. Goss asked if a cul -de -sac would be a unique or
particular situation. Ms. Hitchcock replied that a cul -de -sac would be a general condition.
Mr. Goss asked if a foundation inspection was done and approved for the slab. The Building Official
Mr. Simms who was in the audience replied that yes a foundation inspection was done and approved.
Obviously the inspector did not catch the encroachment. Mr. Simms stated that on the tighter lots it is
typical to have string lines pulled, especially on the side setbacks. Mr. Goss asked if the sting lines for
the slab were there when the inspection was made. Mr. Simms replied that he spoke to the inspector
and he did not remember. Mr. Simms speculated that the radius on this slab was probably not marked.
Mr. Simms told the Board that the setbacks were clearly marked on the approved site plan
Mr. Corley asked Mr. Simms if the house is built now as it was submitted and approved. Mr. Simms
replied that it is not built as submitted. Mr. Corley asked if the house was built as submitted would it
have met the setback requirements. Mr. Simms replied yes and showed the Board a copy of the
approved site plan. Mr. Simms told the Board that it is the builder's ultimate responsibility to make
sure the slab is not encroaching.
Chairman Bond opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance request.
Eugene Thompson Adair IV, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman
Bond. Mr. Adair told the Board that the mistake is his fault. When the slab was marked a straight line
was drawn between the property corners and he made sure they surpassed the minimum setback
distance from the straight line. Mr. Adair stated that they should have followed the curve. The
deviation is equal to the distance between the straight line between the two points and the radius of the
property line in the cul-de -sac. Mr. Adair told the Board that there are no special conditions. It is a
nice clean lot with a lot of area. Mr. Adair stated that he has never built on a cul-de -sac.
z&4 JWMUW Febnwy 6, 2001 Page 2 of 7
Mr. Adair stated that he understood that the hardships that he presented are not something that the
Board or the city considers hardships. If a variance is not granted this does not keep him from
completing the house or acquiring a certificate of occupancy. It does keep him from getting a clear
r.. title, which will keep him from selling the house and the buyers acquiring a clear title. The only
hardship for the neighborhood would be for him to take possession of the house and use it as rental
property. Mr. Adair told the Board that he lives in the Edelweiss Subdivision and he enjoys a nice
family neighborhood. There are homes that are bought and rented to students and he does not want
that in his neighborhood.
Mr. Sheffy asked if it is clearly marked on the site plan how the house is supposed to be built, why was
it built otherwise. Mr. Adair responded that the measurements were taken from the wrong place. Mr.
Adair added that at the beginning he thought he was only I or 2 inches to far forward into the front
setback. It was not until the survey was done when he found out it was 8 feet encroaching and that
really caught him by surprise. He determined he went to the wrong place to begin his measurements.
Mr. Goss asked Mr. Adair if he considered what the city had proposed about relocating the garage in
the back of the home. Mr. Adair replied yes he had considered it and it could be done. Mr. Goss stated
that without any hardships or special conditions the Board could not grant a variance. Chairman Bond
added that it is not an either, or, situation. There has to be a special condition that causes an undue
hardship. A special condition has to be found somewhere. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Adair if he could
come up with a special condition at all. Mr. Adair replied no. Mr. Adair ended by saying he had some
difficulty in describing an undue hardship from the lack of understanding what it meant. And from the
lack of knowledge being able to figure what a special condition would be.
Mrs. Meschler, 2300 Pleasant Forest, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond.
Mrs. Meschler told the Board she and her husband have a contract to buy the home. They are retired
and have moved here from Chicago. They will be here for at least 5 years. Mrs. Meschler told the
Board that they wanted a home that was completed because they are living with their son in a duplex.
They love the house and she does have some concern about someone being in opposition. Mrs.
Meschler stated that she does not want to have any problems with anyone in the neighborhood. She
expressed that she did not want to have problems with the home if they decided to sell in the future.
Other properties were looked at but she wants this house. Mrs. Meschler told the Board that they have
3 big vehicles. If they have company will they're be enough room in the cul -de -sac for parking. Mrs.
Meschler ended by telling the Board this is a tough situation and she does not know what to do.
Mr. Sheffy asked Mrs. Meschler what hardship it would be to them if the garage was moved to the back
of the home. Mrs. Meschler replied that her husband has also come up with the idea of placing the
garage in the rear. The only thing they figured is they would have a very small backyard. And for
resale that might be a problem. There were discussions about placing a driveway on the East Side of
the home and park a vehicle there.
Mr. Meschler stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Meschler presented
to the Board pictures he had taken of the home. The pictures were taken from different points on the
street. Mr. Meschler stated that he does not see where any problems could exist. Mr. Meschler said
that he does not see how the encroachment distracts from the neighborhood. The only thing is the
driveway is shorter. Mr. Meschler stated that he does not know what the over night rules are for
parking on the street.
ZBA Minwus February 6, 2001 Page 3 of 7
Again Mr. Meschler told the Board that they have 3 vehicles and his son has one, so basically there
could be 4 vehicles. Mr. Meschler ended by saying that he did not know what else to say.
Mr. Adair approached the Board again. Mr. Adiar told the Board that he is concerned that a special
condition is going to sound like an excuse and that would take away his responsibility of placing the
house in the correct place. Mr. Adair said his item of concern now might be a special condition. Again
he stated that it is not an excuse. Mr. Adair told the Board that the property abuts the property where a
new church is being built. The property line is a common line down the north backyard on Landsburg
Court. In doing the pre - construction dirt work on the church, the field which was a cow field, had to be
reworked. It also had a stock pond that was located midway between Rock Prairie Road and
Landsburg Court. A water detention pond is now where the stock pond was and it catches water run
off from the church building. There are two water detention ponds on the property and both are on
Edelweiss Street. When the dirt work was done 3 large berms were created that paralleled the backside
of the fence. Mr. Adair said that there is no information for the Board to look at and present as a
special condition. He did not know if it was something he needed to have documentation for.
Chairman Bond replied that it is not necessarily a case of documentation, it was presented as a special
condition and the Board can consider it without evidence. The Board can consider it if that is his offer.
Mr. Adair replied that it is an offer, but again it is not an excuse.
Mr. Adair continued by saying the hills that were created during the dirt work were generated when the
roads where excavated, but also when the stock pond was cleaned out. The stock pond was drained
and there was about 10 -12 feet of silt in it. A large bulldozer was brought in and he became very
interested. Mr. Adair continued to tell the Board about a ranch he has around Ft. Worth and the lake
there that began to silt in. So he became very interested when they began to clean the stock pond out.
Mr. Adair stated that when he was working the backyard, he noticed the southwest corner of the church
ground has a very high hill of fill dirt that was created during the dirt work. When he brought in a
landscape loader to do site work on the lot it was after we had a lot of rain. He had to wait quite a
while for the land to dry out well enough to get the tractor in. Ss soon as he did he was having trouble
with the mud he was encountering. Mr. Adair described the mud as being different from the regular
brown mud. It was gray with a cream look to it and when it is dry it is crumbly and has no soil
structure to it. He thinks what is being encountered in the backyard is the mud that came from out of
the stock pond. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Adair to tell the Board how this formed a special condition.
Mr. Adiar replied that the hill now has a lot of run -off and the water runs into the backyard and the side.
If the house had pushed farther back then the back end of the house would have been in the drainage
area. Mr. Adair stated that he corrected a lot of the problem with the tractor by digging out a lot of dirt
that is piled on the neighboring lot. He thinks he has correct it but will not know until we get some
more rain. With the house being pushed forward there is a dry area of about 10 -12 feet before you get
into the soft stuff. If the house were back farther on the lot, the back end of the house would be in the
flow area coming off the hill from the church. Chairman Bond stated that he is curious why this is the
first time the Board heard about this as being a special condition. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Adair if he
just came up with as a special condition during the course of the meeting. Mr. Adair answered yes. It
is the only special condition that he could justify as having the house relocated. Mr. Goss asked Mr.
Adair how long he has been in the building business. Mr. Adair answered 4 years in residential
construction.
Mr. Hill asked shouldn't the drainage be corrected with proper landscaping and adjustments to the
berm. Mr. Adair replied yes it should and he has fixed a lot of that.
ZBA Muwta
February 6, 200! Page 4 of 7
%1W Mr. Sheffy asked if the drainage was a problem before the house was built or is this something that is
thought of now. Mr. Adiar replied that it was not a problem that was apparent until there was a great
quantity of rain. Mr. Adair described the black plastic that is used as a perimeter around construction
areas. It is intended to let water through and keep silt out. This did not seem to do the job otherwise
the dirt he described would not have been on the property.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor of the request, Chairman Bond asked for anyone
wanting to speak in opposition to step forward.
Jimmy Linder, 204 Landsburg Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in my Chairman Bond.
Mr. Linder told the Board that he had some concerns. It is a beautiful house and the construction looks
really nice. His concerns are because of the defect in the house and it being so close to the road. Is it
being sold at a full and fare value in relation to the other houses? He is concerned about maintaining the
value of his home that he just built. The other concern is will the variance prevent future development
of a sidewalk if one is planned in the area. Mr. Linder stated that he is not so concerned about having
someone rent across the street from him. Mr. Linder told the Board that he met Mr. Meschler and he is
a very nice guy and would like for him to move in across the street from him. He just would like the
house to be placed where it was designed to be. Mr. Linder ended by asking if the garage was placed in
the back, would it not also be placed into the potential "special condition" drainage area.
Mr. Hill asked Mr. Linder if he approved or opposed of the variance. Mr. Linder replied that he is
neutral. He likes Mr. Meschler, he just thinks the house should have been built how it was intended.
His other concerns are more important. He paid mostly cash for his home and he wants to maintain the
value of his home.
Mr. Hill made the motion to deny a 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.
Mr. Hill stated that he is very sympathetic to the situation of the builder. He realizes that it is a difficult
situation. But in this particular case he sees a lack of any true special conditions or hardships and
unfortunately the situation is caused by a mistake made by the builder. To approve this variance in the
absence of special conditions and hardships, it would merely be to legitimize an error by the builder and
he does not feel it is the duty of the Board.
Mr. Corley stated that he would have to agree with Mr. Hill. The Board does not have a problem with
the way the house looks or the way it fits in with the surrounding neighborhood. The Board is bound
by certain rules and he does not feel they have what is needed in order to grant the variance.
Mr. Goss also stated that he agreed and he does not want to set a precedent.
Mr. Hill stated that he wanted to express his appreciation to Mr. Adair for being honest with the Board.
4 Mr. Goss seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
ZBAMimetes February 6, 2001 Page 5 of 7
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a front setback variance at 200 Augsburg Court, lot
10, block 24, Edelweiss 7 -11. Applicant is Eugene Thompson Adair IV.
Staff Planner Reeves stepped before the Board and presented her staff report. Ms. Reeves again asked
the Board to direct all questions to Staff Planner Hitchcock. Ms. Reeves told the Board that the
applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an error made during construction. This case involves
an error made by the builder in establishing the front 25 -foot setback. The setback should have
followed the radius of the cul -de -sac, but instead was drawn from a straight line connecting the property
corners. The result is a variable encroachment that reaches 20' from the property line to the closest part
of the home; thus the applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 5 feet.
The applicant states that there are no special conditions and has identified no hardship.
The only alternative to the variance is to tear down the corner of the home that is encroaching into the
setback.
Mr. Corley asked Mr. Simms if the house is built as presented to the City. Mr. Simms replied that it
was not built as submitted. Mr. Simms handed the Board a copy of the approved site plan.
Mr. Goss asked if the same inspector inspected this home. Mr. Simms replied it is a different inspector.
Mr. Goss asked if the string line was in place. Mr. Simms replied that he spoke to the inspector and he
did not remember. Mr. Simms stated that he visited with all the inspectors and they had a follow up
meeting. They came up with ideas that might prevent this from happening again.
Chairman Bond opened the public hearing.
1%W Mr. Adair stepped before the Board. Chairman Bond reminded Mr. Adair that he has been sworn in.
Mr. Adair told the Board that he listed on his application that there are no special conditions or
hardships. The hardship for neighborhood would be that if he had to take purchase of the home then he
would use it as rental property. If he tried to repair the defect by removing the front portion of the
home and building the garage on a different part of the property, the heated square footage of the home
would increase. The comparable sale price for homes in the area would not remain the same for the
dollar value for per square foot. It would reduce the accompanying property values.
Mr. Goss stated that city staff has not mentioned the alternative of relocating the garage. Is this
something he has looked at and can be done. Mr. Adair answered that as far as accurate measurements
he has not.
Mr. Corley asked if there was a buyer for the home. Mr. Adiar replied there is not.
Mr. Hill asked if there was anything on this property that he could use as a special condition. Mr. Adair
answered no.
ZBA Afinw
February 6, 2001
Page 6 of 7
With no one stepping forward to speak in opposition of the variance, Chairman Bond closed the public
hearing.
I�kw Mr. Hill made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship
to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.
Mr. Corley seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. (5-0).
Mr. Dill stated again that he was very sympathetic to his situation. By law in order to approve
variances of this type the Board must be shown special conditions or hardships that are not financial. In
this case there are none that he can see.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7:
No items were discussed.
AGENDA ITEM. NO.8
The meeting was adjourned.
Future agenda items.
Adjourn.
APPROVED:
/V
Leslie Hill, Acting Chairman
ZBA Minutes February 6, 2001 Page 7 of 7