Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/2012 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments Zoning Board of Adjustment October 2, 2012 6:00 P.M. Regular Meeting City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Consideration of absence requests.  Josh Benn ~ September 4, 2012 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.  September 4, 2012 meeting minutes. 4. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a side building setback variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.2., ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ at 1023 James Parkway. Case # 12-00500185 (MTH) 5. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 6. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071; possible action. The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of College Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this the_____day of__________, 2012 at______p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By _____________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary By _____________________________ David Neeley, City Manager I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on___________________p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by _________________________. Dated this _____ day of____________, 2012. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_____________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____ day of_______________, 2012. ______________________________ Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:_________________ This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979.764.3517 or (TDD) 800.735.2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting September 4, 2012 Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hunter Goodwin, Jim Davis, Marsha Sanford, Dick Dabney, Scott Simpson, Gary Erwin MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Benn STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Planners Morgan Hester, Teresa Rogers, and Lauren Hovde, Assistant Director Lance Simms, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Jordan Wood AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goodwin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments.  12-161 (AA-Residential Dimensional Standards) 1123 Phoenix Street. There were no questions for staff. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.  August 7, 2012 meeting minutes Board Member Dabney motioned to approve the August 7, 2012 meeting minutes. Board Member Davis is seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). Chairman Goodwin abstained from discussion and voting on Agenda Item No. 4. Board Member Dick Dabney assumed position as Acting Chairman. Alternate Board Member Gary Erwin also stepped in to serve during Agenda Item No. 4. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.2., ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ at 15412 Baker Meadow Loop. Case # 12-00500165 (MTH) Staff Planner Hester presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance of 6 feet, 9 inches to the 20-foot front building setback to rectify an encroachment. Ms. Hester ended her staff report by telling the Board that staff is recommending denial. Acting Chairman Dabney opened the public hearing. Randy French, 4301 Clipstone Place, College Station, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Dabney. Mr. French spoke in favor of the variance request. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Acting Chairman Dabney closed the public hearing. Board Member Simpson motioned to deny the variance. Board Member Erwin seconded the motion. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Acting Chairman Dabney called for the vote for denial. Motion to deny passed (3-2). Board Members Sanford and Davis voting against the denial. Chairman Goodwin assumed his position as Chairman and Board Member Erwin stepped down. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a front setback variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.7., ‘Design Dimensional Standards’, at 1915 Dartmouth Street. Case # 12-00500157 (TR) Staff Planner Rogers presented the staff report and stated the applicant is requesting a variance of 8 feet to the 15-foot front building setback due to a 50-foot gas easement that crosses proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the future development. Ms. Rogers ended her staff report by telling the Board that staff was recommending approval. There was a general discussion amongst the Board. Chairman Goodwin opened the public hearing. Travis Martinek, 3608 East 29th Street, Suite 100, Bryan, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goodwin. Mr. Martinek spoke in favor of the variance request. There were no questions from the Board. Board Member Sanford motioned to approve the variance request due to the special conditions of: the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would deprive the applicant the reasonable use of the land and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Board Member Dabney seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a height variance to the Conical Zone for Easterwood Airport, at 717 University Drive. Case # 12- 00500167 (LH) Staff Planner Hovde presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting an 8- foot height variance into the conical zone and staff is recommending approval. She stated that the Federal Aviation Administration (FFA) has determined that there is no hazard to air navigation in this case. However, a local ordinance shared by the City of College Station, City of Bryan, and Brazos County, requires the applicant to seek relief from the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment. There was a general discussion amongst the Board. Chairman Goodwin opened the public hearing. Dan Hrankowsky, 161 N Clark Street, Suite 4900, Chicago, Illinois, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goodwin. Mr. Hrankowsky spoke in favor of the variance request. There was a general discussion amongst the Board. Board Member Dabney motioned to approve the height variance request due to the special condition of: the relief granted is tied to the spirit of the ordinance and described in the local ordinance. Furthermore, the stated purpose of the ordinance is to protect the air space necessary for the use & operation of Easterwood Airport. Since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that there is no hazard to air navigation in this case, the spirit of the ordinance has been fulfilled: and the special limitation of 8- foot variance to the conical zone. Board Member Davis seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. No action was taken. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________________ _________________________________ Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Assistant Hunter Goodwin, Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 October 2, 2012 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 1023 James Parkway REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance of one foot to the 7.5’ side building setback. LOCATION: 1023 James Parkway APPLICANT: Tammie Bissett PROPERTY OWNER: Wesley & Tammie Bissett PROJECT MANAGER: Morgan Hester, Staff Planner mhester@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located adjacent to Thomas Park in the Eastgate Neighborhood and is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential with standard building setbacks. A covered patio was recently added onto the existing home. According to the applicant, a survey for the addition was performed in August 2012, which indicated that the patio encroached one foot into the side building setback. Therefore, the applicant is requested a one foot variance to the 7.5’ side building setback. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 5.2, ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 5.2, ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ sets design standard requirements that usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 October 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 October 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 October 2, 2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: October 2, 2012 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: College Hills HOA Property owner notices mailed: Ten Contacts in support: None at the time of writing the Staff Report. Contacts in opposition: None at the time of writing the Staff Report. Inquiry contacts: One at the time of writing the Staff Report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property Neighborhood Conservation Single-family Residence North Neighborhood Conservation Single-family Residence South Natural Areas - Protected City Park East Neighborhood Conservation Single-family Residence West Neighborhood Conservation Single-family Residence PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: 1023 James Parkway has approximately 129 feet of frontage on James Parkway. 2. Access: The property is accessed via James Parkway. The alleyway is utilized by the property owner to access their driveway. 3. Topography and vegetation: The subject lot is relatively flat with some mature vegetation. 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated flood plain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant noted the lack of a “slab survey” as a special condition. However, Staff does not believe that an extraordinary or special condition exists in this case. Further, a strict application of the UDO will not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. If the proposed variance request is not granted, the portion of the covered patio encroaching into the side building setback must be removed as it does not comply with the standards of the UDO. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 October 2, 2012 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements because no portion of this property is located within the floodplain. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The 7.5’ side building setback is required for all R-1 Single-Family Residential properties. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. A hardship does not exist on the subject property. The encroachment of the building into the 7.5’ side building setback was due to an error by the builder, who failed to locate the correct boundaries of the side setback prior to constructing the addition. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of this UDO. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. If the structure was demolished or structurally altered, it could be built within the required building setbacks. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has suggested removal of the portion of the structure that is located within the 7.5’ side building setback. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 October 2, 2012 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. A hardship or special condition does not exist in this case as the error is the result of the applicant’s own actions. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Survey FOR OFFI U E LY CASE NO iii I 1411111111DATESUBMITTED ir CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TIME Home ofTexas AnLI University STAFF S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 50 Zoning Board of Adjustment Application Fee completed in full This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered Please attach pages if additional information is provided Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans elevation drawings sign details and floor plans The applicant shall be informed of any extra materials required Date of Optionall PPreapplicaaJ9777EStionConference 71C nADDRESS023tLLLBE577OA1Jd LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Block Subdivision 1 22 i r wr lL r 23 3iock 7GiCCiisEmTs APPLICANTPROJECT MANAGERSRS INFORMATION Primary contact for the project Name 2 Al E 55 E E mail ZornPi e 1 11 71 5s WG co Street Addressss 0Z 3 J tt S 1 W y I City GOLLE E Sinn State cr5 Zip Code 7 73 Phone Number 67113 490 15 Fax Number 97q 777 73 PROPERTY OWNERS INFORMATION Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners c Name hWY z nfrZ it E mail ecIvlle h i ssert 6QIaahDO GoM Street Address 10 Z 3 Wows f tkA City 6 C 57 I State Zip Code i7WO Phone Number C 9 79 490 e57 y Fax Number Current zoning of subject property 157 J 7 4 Action requestedjoheck all that apply Setback variance Appeal of Written Interpretation Parking variance Special Exception Sign variance Drainage Variance Lot dimension variance Other Applicable ordinance section to vary from 74 5 I slog 5Ei3ACi 70 61 S 51773ACK 1010 Page 1 of 5 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST 1 The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested Val a 7eooq 75 Sux st 3Q ck TD 65 si06 5 rz3frc 2 This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions Special Condition Definition To justify a variance the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving the particular property The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself not to the ownerspersonal situation This is because regardless of ownership the variance will run with the land Example A creek bisecting a lot a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots specimen trees Note A cul de sac is a standard street layout in College Station The shape of standard cul de sac lots are generally not special conditions 3 The unnecessary hardshipsinvolved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is are Hardship Definition The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition Example A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot when compared to neighboring properties gt Claitfttr 4 The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible a 01 y 1747 rfoce ZQuiet ter C1efP 77776 AO a2ii3 a dF Ccm5rPaczf0 5 This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts f 94e17414 awe Dreits01f 0 asti 73y TAT err Lamm 7R2CeS e VAo2MNCC 4j D Nlor Areap 41i 77E The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true correct and complete IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner If there is more than one owner all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney If the owner is a company the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the companysrepresentative to sign the application on its behalf ahti 23 Signature and title Date 1010 Page2of5 General Variance Request 1 The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested Variance from 75 side setback to 65 side setback 2 This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions A slab survey was requested and performed in early July No word from the survey company was received and the slab was poured and building of project was started We received the slab survey on August 18 2012 and discovered the slab encroached into the alleyway At that time we had them come back out to resurvey The encroachment is from 8 to 12 into the alleyway 3 The unnecessary hardshipsinvolved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship isare The unusual location of the house on the lot in relation to the alleyway and power poles made the oldoriginal garage unusable thus the main reason for pursing this project We thought we had taken all the precautions to avoid a situation like this and I take full responsibility for not following up on the form survey The previous owners and ourselves have taken much pride in maintaining our homestead and the alleyway Our intent for this project was to enhance the appearance of the area not to encroach on any setbacks 4 The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible The only alternative would require that part of the covered patio and slab be de constructed 5 This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts The alleyway is our driveway and access for some utility trucks The variance would not interfere with the ingress or egress for anyone that uses this alleyway The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true correct and complete IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner If there is more than one owner all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney Ifthe owner is a company the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for thecompanysrepresentative to sign the application on its behalf sari 423 Tammie Bissett Owner Date