The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/02/1997 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES ~~ U Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 2, 1997 6:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife and Members Hollas, Alexander and Alternate Members Ochoa and Anderson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Sawtelle and Blackwelder and Alternate Member Taggart. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds and Energy Auditor Battle. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Rife called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of November 19, 1996. Mr. Hollas moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of November 19, 1996 as written. Ms. Anderson seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of minutes from the meeting of December 3, 1996. Mr. Hollas moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of November 19, 1996 as written. Ms. Anderson seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a variance request to the side setback requirements at 602 West Dexter Drive, lot 5, block 22 of the College Park Addition. Applicants are Robert and Nancy Bowman. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and stated that a recent property survey conducted during the sale of the property revealed that the existing house encroaches by approximately 3 feet into the side setback on the west side of lot. Further investigation revealed that the encroachment was created last yeaz when a room to the reaz of the principle structure was rebuilt and enlazged for a new kitchen and lazger bedroom azea. At the time of building permit issuance, the builder was informed of the condition that the required 7.5 foot side setback be met. The structure was built 7.5 feet from the adjacent fence, which was assumed to be the property line, and a certificate of completion was issued with the same condition that the required setback be met. However, according to the most recent property survey, the addition was constructed 4.5 feet from the property line. The encroachment was not discovered during the final inspection because it appeared that the corner of the structure was angled in order to keep it within the required setbacks. In a letter to the title company dated December 13, 1996, the applicant was informed that because the encroachment was created last yeaz, it was not considered to be legally nonconforming or "grandfathered". The only method to rectify such an encroachment would be through a variance from the Boazd. Therefore, in order to clear title for sale of the property, the applicant is requesting a variance of 3 feet to the side setback. The primary special condition offered in this case is the property's location within an older neighborhood which contains many nonconforming structures and lots. The applicant feels that the addition was constructed in such a way as to enhance and preserve the original character of the home and surrounding neighborhood. Thp Vince location ~ also oi~ered as a special condition which led to the inaccurate measurement. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would require removal of the existing addition, which the applicant feels is a hazdship in that the resulting structure would be less aesthetically appealing. Staff Planner Dunn stated that at the time of construction, other buildable azeas in the reaz yazd could have been considered if the side property line ltsc~tion had been known. However, at this point, the primary alternative to the variance would be to relocate the side property line to the fence location through the filing of an amending plat. This is not preferred to the applicant due to the fact that the applicant is concerned with the timing of the sale of property, as well as the required negotiation with the adjacent property owner. Side setback requirements usually allow for some degree of fire protection and control over access to light and air. The purpose of this standard is to insure that no two adjacent houses aze constructed within 15 feet.. The adjacent property Lot 4, currently contains no structures within 7.5 feet of the property line. In most cases when building encroachments or other nonconformity's aze discovered, property owners aze informed of the option to seek a variance from the Boazd in order to clear the nonconformity on the property. In the past, the Boazd has considered and ganted such requests for title cleazance. On Mazch 5, 1996, the Board granted a request to cleaz title and rectify a 4.3 foot encroachment into the side setback of a home located at 1600 Austin. The current request is somewhat different in that the actual encroachment occurred more recently. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Applicant Nancy Bowman approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. She explained that the addition was angled differently at the request of the building inspector in order to meet the necessary codes. There was no intention to violate the setback requirements. The addition to the home is architecturally pleasing and keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Mr. Hollas stated that it is cleaz the applicant tried to comply with all regulations and ordinances with the information available. He moved to authorize a variance to Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: 1) location of the existing fence; 2) the dimensions and shape of the lot; 3) neighborhood is old and there are numerous other grandfathered encroachments in the azea; 4) applicant relied on the city inspectors in constructing the improvements who issued a building permit and a certificate of completion; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the removal of the existing addition/encroachment; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Ochoa seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other business. Chairman Rife questioned staff regazding the conditional variance given to the Education Station along Longmire Drive. Staff Planner Dunn stated that he spoke with the contractor, Wallace Phillips, who agreed to install the required screening on Friday, January 3, 1997, weather permitting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Hollas moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Bo motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). T• ~t1 ng 'clan, Natal' uiz ZBA Minutes January 2, 1997 Paget oj2 the Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register • Date :~ Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 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.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) X 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 s~ptec~iaJ~l,, condiltions: r ~, ~Ocn~'A1n ~ Yn Q,XIST~n9 ~(,y~CQ~ ~ Z) ~ rY1~r15ior~S~ nv~d S~°~t ~'f ~~+t I~ i 3 Y~ti"~`yr:~on ~5 c.ra -FhQ oh .u_. v~« ~{~trYC C-~c foaC~~+'~l ~,~ fi-,t a{a.~ : 4) C,r~y i n}peckb~s a bv;l~rnf perr~v~;~h And ~..Ct~}itjlgE~ •S Co..-a\!k'°v\ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~Q fC.rcyrw` oT ~I~t 2Xi~~-i~~ A~~i'4'~°~ ltv~cfmwc~,~nev.~C and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: N ov~lE Motion made by 'l ~' U Date ~ l2 ~~'I 7 Seconded by ~~~ ~~/ Voting Results S'~ Chair Signature YARP1638.DOC