Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/2003 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment January 7, 2003 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 staff report. Ms. Reeves told the Board that the applicant has decided now to seek a 4' -foot variance instead of the 3 V2-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 Minutes January 7, 2003 Page 1 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 ko 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 Hill. 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. Mr. 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 Hill 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 continued discussions 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 will in the future. 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 - Rodgriqez 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. 4 0 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 mistake 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 attitude on the part of the city. The situation here is such that the fence was there when the slab was poured. 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 Hill 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 NO. S: 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, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZBA Minutes January 7, 2003 Page 5 of 5