Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment April 21, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Meyer, Members McGuirk, Gilmore, Evans, Alternate Member Julien, and Council Liaison Jones MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Ruesink and Alternate Member Swoboda STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk (Interim Director of Community Development Fette and Housing Rehab. Inspector Holton were in the audience as representatives of the City for Agenda Item No. 5) AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to Order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of Minutes - aeeting of March 3, 1987. • Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to the rear setback requireaents to build a detached garage on the lot at 405 Dexter Drive South (Lot 10 Block 21 College Park Addition subdivision). Applicant is Charlie Burris, AIA (Architect) for owner, Dr. Vernon B. Schneider. Mrs. Kee explained the purpose of this request is to allow the applicant to build a new residence with a detached garage sitting closer than 20 feet to the rear property line on the lot at 405 Dexter Drive. She referred to the site plan on the wall while pointing out lot dimensions. She informed the Board that the topography of the area is fairly level with several large trees on the lot, the electrical service is above ground along the rear, and water and sewer lines are located along the front in the R.O.W. of Dexter Drive. She pointed out that access to this lot is from Dexter Drive since the 12 foot alley to the rear is not accessible. She also pointed out that the lots on both sides and to the rear are developed. Mrs. Kee stated that rear setback for a garage is 20 feet, the applicant is proposing a 10 to 15 foot setback, and ordinance intent in requiring specific setbacks is to • provide adequate separation between residences for rear yard privacy. She informed the Board there has been no previous Board action on this property, that 16 property owners within 200 feet of this property were notified of the requested action and 1 that she had received no responses to that notification. • Charlie Burris, applicant and architect, 2402 Broadmoor, Bryan, Texas was sworn in and identified himself as representative of the owner, Dr. Vernon E. Schneider. He explained that the odd configuration of this lot in an older, established neighborhood limits the effective depth of this lot with respect to planning a house with a detached garage. He pointed out that the severe angle along the front property line allows no flexibility in locating the house along the front setback line, even though the square footage of the lot would seem to allow alternate locations. He stated that the alternative to the proposed encroachment would be to position the garage in a direction which would make it harder for the elderly owners to get into and out of because of the additional length of the driveway and the radius of the turn from the driving area into the garage. He stated the alternative plan would necessitate placing the garage closer to the main structure as well. He went on to explain that the alley to the rear of this property, whether officially abandoned or simply unused by the City, provides additional separation between the house to the rear and this proposed house which would not be available in any of the newer subdivisions, thus, the intent of the ordinance as explained by Mrs. Kee would be fulfilled even with the proposed encroachment. He added that the owner would be happy with a variance no greater than a measurement from the rear property line to the middle of the alley. He then added that he is making an effort to save the large existing trees along the side of the house, so the project cannot be moved in that direction. He finalized by stating that a precedent has already been set in this neighborhood since existing structures on adjacent properties now encroach into that rear setback. Discussion followed regarding whether or not the alley has been officially • "abandoned" by the City, with Mrs. Kee stating that as far as she can ascertain, it has not been abandoned, but simply is an unused alley approximately 12 feet in width, rather than the 15 feet the applicant has indicated on the site plan. Mrs. Meyer referred to the applicant's request to measure from the middle of the alley, and asked Mrs. Kee if any precedent has been set along these lines by variances granted in that manner. Mrs. Kee replied that precedent has been set in that manner in this neighborhood. Paul Fagen, 212 Suffolk was sworn in and stated that he is not opposed to this request, but that he does have some questions. He stated that he had bought his lot with the expectation of using the alley for a driveway, but since that time the City has not been able to determine ownership of it, and will not allow him use of it for a driveway in the meantime. He stated that he is concerned with the proposal of measuring from the middle of the alley, and his question is, would that measurement become an option to all who live along that alley. Mr. McGuirk explained that any action taken by this Board would have nothing to do with the ownership of the alley, but if the request is granted, it would simply be a variance to the rear setback requirements by taking the alley into consideration as additional separation between structures on adjoining lots. Mr. Fagan asked if he would be allowed to do same thing if this request is granted, and Mr. McGuirk explained that for anyone to get a variance to ordinance requirements, the Zoning Board of Adjustment would have to take action, but he would certainly be welcome to present an application for consideration. • Mr. Evans explained that there is no guarantee that precedent would be used in arriving at a decision by the Board hearing the case, as each case is considered on ZBA Minutes 4-21-87 Page 2 its own merit, and part of that consideration would depend upon how each case is • presented and the hardship which would be encountered without the variance. Mrs. Meyer then asked if a hardship has been identified in this case. Mr. Gilmore stated that in his opinion, having a smaller than desired garage does not represent a hardship. Mr. McGuirk stated that he has given this request some thought, and has found, through the help of Mrs. Volk, that 3 variances have been granted since 1979 which are virtually identical to this request, even to the point of abutting this same alley. He added that because of this, he has no qualms about abiding by the precedent set. He went on to state that the architect is trying to maintain the integrity of this older neighborhood by saving some existing trees, and the lot size should allow for even a larger house than that being proposed, but the odd configuration of the lot and the existing trees preclude that. He added that he has no problem with hardship due to the precedent set in 1979, 1982 and again in 1985. Mrs. Meyer stated that she believes hardship can be the oddly shapped lot, the required long distance to back into the street for older people, and the the existing trees to be saved in this older neighborhood, therefore she is not concerned about precedents. Mr. McGuirk stated he is not "stuck" on precedent, but he would like for this Board to maintain consistency in actions taken. Mr. Bvans stated that he is swayed toward this request because of the precedents set as well as the unused alley which would provide additional space and setback, whether or not it is abandoned in the future. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to "authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) (allowing building to within 12.5 feet of the rear property line) from the terms of • this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, because precedent has been set of this nature for lots abutting this alleyway (to grant variances) on Sept. 10, 1979, May 18, 1982 and Feb. 19, 1985, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant since precedent has been set, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Julien seconded this motion. Discussion followed with Mr. Bvans stating that he is not sure the precedent should be referred to in the motion since this Board does not know the facts considered when hearing those other cases. Mr. Gilmore stated that he sees no need to refer to precedent of some Board's action 4 or 5 years ago, adding that if "bad" precedent is set, there is no reason for a current Board to follow it. Mr. McGuirk stated that without citing precedent, he might have trouble making a motion. Mrs. Meyer stated that precedent does not constitute a hardship, and each case must be decided on its own merit. She then invited anyone in the audience to speak after recognizing that several people had come to the meeting late. No one asked to speak. Mrs. Meyer then asked Mr. McGuirk to repeat the motion which he did, adding that the cases in 1979 and 1982 were identical to this request, but the case considered in 1985 involved one individual who owned the lots on both sides of the alley. He added that strong precedent has been set, and he believes it should be recognized because that leads to uniformity in decisions. Mrs. Meyer stated that it is fine to refer to precedent because it actually has been • set, but it does not constitute a hardship. Mr. Gilmore stated that if each of those earlier variances are going to be considered, perhaps this request should be tabled until the Board can study the entire background of each. ZBA Minutes 4-21-87 Page 3 . Mr. Julien offered that perhaps the hardship could be that these elderly people will have to back into a street, thus creating a traffic hazard. Mrs. Meyer agreed, adding that would exemplify a hardship without using precedent as a hardship. Mr. McGuirk offered to withdraw his motion. Mr. Julien agreed, so Mr. McGuirk did withdraw his motion. Mr. Evans then made a motion "to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) (to allow a 12.5 foot setback) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being an irregular shaped lot with an adequate alley to provide for adequate separation between residences and the attempt of the architect to provide appropriate housing with a detached garage that would also allow the existing vegetation to remain, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the minimum setback at the rear would not be less than 12.5 feet. Mr. Julien seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to side setback requireaents at 818 Avenue B (Block 2 Lot 6 Lloyd Smith Addition) in order to cove a house onto that lot. Applicant is The City of College Station, Co^aunity Developaent Division. Mrs. Kee explained that the purpose of this requested variance to side setbacks would allow the City to replace an existing dilapidated structure with a City-owned house • which is now located on a lot on Foster Street. She explained that the applicant is the Community Development Division of the City of College Station and that the owner of the existing structure on Avenue B to be removed will be receiving a grant from the Department of Housing & Urban Development. She listed the hardship as being that the lot width is below minimum standards by 10 feet and the existing house to be moved on this lot is too wide to meet the 7.5 foot required setbacks. She pointed out that an alternative would be to design a house to fit the lot, which in turn would cause a hardship because the owner would have to continue to live in substandard housing until a house could be designed, and then would be without a house during construction. She explained that the intent of ordinance setback requirements is to provide adequate separation for adjacent structures for safety from spread of fire, and to lessen congestion through regulation of density, and pointed out that the application states that adjacent houses are in excess of 40 feet away. Mrs. Kee went on to cite previous action on this property as being Council action in 1976 which waived minimum lot widths and depths for certain lots in older parts of the City, including this lot, but which did not waive setback requirements, so action by ZBA is required when there is an encroachment. She also stated that 7 adjacent property owners were notified and she had received 2 inquiries. One was simply an inquiry and one was the letter furnished to the Board which states the author has no problem with the request. Robert Holton, 1602 E. 27th Street, Bryan was sworn in and identified himself as a representative of the Community Development Office and the applicant of this request. He explained that his office provides housing assistance to low and moderate income families, that the existing house on this particular lot is not economically repairable and is basically unsafe. He then passed around photos of the interior of the house. He further explained that the existing house now violates the setback ZBA Minutes 4-21-87 Page 4 requirements and the new house will decrease the non-conformity on one side and • increase the non-conformity on the other side. He stated that the City owns the house on Foster Street, and if that house cannot be moved to another location, it will have to be demolished when City facilities are expanded. Mr. McGuirk asked how accurately a house can be moved to a new location; that is, Mrs. Ree has indicated the request is for a 7 inch variance on each side of the house, and he wonders if movers can be that accurate. Mr. fivans asked if this Board should be that specific when making the motion. Mr. McGuirk said that is his point. Mr. Julien then made a motion "to authorize a variance to the minimum (side) setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: (1) it reduces the non-conforming use, (2)the lot is below minimum standards, (3)it reduces dangerous living conditions, (4) it reduces potential hazards and (5) will improve community appearance, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being the inability to improve the lot and reduce the non-conformity." Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion and then proposed an amendment to the motion to set limitations to 6 foot 6 inch setbacks on each side. Mr. Evans seconded the amendment. Votes were cast on the motion to amend, and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Votes were then cast on the amended motion and that motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Other buaineas. Mrs. Kee announced there would be a meeting on May 5th. She then handed out the • Planning Division's Annual Report which covers Planning Division activities for 1986. Mr. Evans asked if our ordinances allow an existing non-conforming sign to be maintained and kept and Mrs. Kee replied that they do. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Ad3ourn. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Julien seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: ----------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones i• ~z~!~~- O»I~~i ZBA Minutes 4-21-87 Page 5 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~ORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the from the terms of this ordin public interest, /~LGcc ~ Gt/~ T v GIN T r_ s~~PT ~~ __ ~~~_~; _ ~.~_ ________yard (Section 8.?} ________lot width (Table A) _.____._____lot depth (Table A) ___ l/____m'n}mum /set~ack (Tabie~A) h~ --------parSengiongg~rements ~,.e~e~ li~~J ( ) ance as it will not be contt,ary to the 0 o w i n -i.~.l_.c 4 n d i t i ~~ -SST ~,~ Lo.%.,s ~~u~~ >..~C- T_,~iS -- Vi9/ZI,9N~F _ oti/ - --- ------------ -------- ------------ vF ~~s ~~~- ~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant ~~-.,~.-g~-_ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done Motion made by __M~vl~ul. Dats Seconded by ____.TIJj-~!~f~_ _ _ Voting Results --------------- ---------- Chair signature ,_._.- .f I , ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to~authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.?) ________lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) __~z ~ _minimum setback (Table A) ________parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: • and because a strict enforcement of the provisions~of the ordinance would result in unn cessary hardship to this applicant being: ./1 .~ ~ . and su-ch/t at the spirit of this ordinance shill bye observed and a,,~ a sub tantial justice done s ject o the following limitations: t ~~~ ~cC"lrae,~ P, !~ l ., ass ~ ~ ~- ~~~ Motion made b ~~ , Y ~ !1._~~ . S D a t e S~?-/~~jZ ~,,..R ;r~'-V..p~~r:g ------ ----------- --------- ~ -- y~ Seconded by ~~G~ t ~.' ~ E.-r~_______ Voting Results ~ ~ _~!' --------rr------ `-'~ Chair signature ___~JtTT ~ 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSI?IYB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) ________lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) ____ ~ _minimum setback (Table A) --- , ________parking;requirements (Sect°f on 9) -r--- -. q ~~ U~~~ ~~~ from the terms oP this ordinance as it will not be public interest, .due to the fQl~lpwin spec ~ ~}'oa ~ r -!' -- 1-- '~------ ~-~'~-~~ ----- r--- 7~ p ` ~ ~ -- --------------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship torthis applicant being: and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and subsrt~,antial justice done subject to the following limitations: --------------- -,-/ --------------- Motion made by ~~~~ _~l~t.._1t~~_______- Date `T ?i .Seconded by _~M__ ~C~U ~~_______ Voting Results S-Q ~~ ---------- Chair signature ____~~'~~~ 4 contrary to the " • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER .~ ~.,~~ 5 • e) ~~1 ~ ~' n Q ~ 7• 8. ~ ~ - ~ 9 • w~ 10. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. DATE _ ADDRESS ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~f~~u~- ~ c~s ~ ~~ ~, ~~~~ ~ ,~ ~- ..