Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1985 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES Special Meeting CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment January 22, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Upham, Members Wendt, Wagner, McGuirk, Alternate Member Fry & Alternate Member Meyer in audience MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes meeting of November 27, 1985. After Acting Chairman Upham called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes of November 27th; Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Reconsideration of a Variance to front setback line (Table A, Ordinance 850) to allow a canopy covering gas pumps 10 feet from property line at a proposed convenience store in the Southwest Place Shopping Center. Applicant is the Southland Corporation represented by David Johnston. (This item was tabled at meeting on November 27, 1985). Mr. Upham asked if anyone was in the audience to represent the applicant. No one responded. Mr. Wagner made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Fry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Upham then explained to the audience that customarily this Board does not consider requests without representation for the applicant. Mrs. Kee explained that letters had been sent informing the applicant of the date of the meeting and also that phone messages had been left at the applicant's office, but the calls were never returned. Mr. Wagner stated that after studying this site and the request, he could find no special or unique conditions of the land to consider for this variance. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to deny this request for variance with Mr. Wagner seconding the motion; motion carried unanimously (50). • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a varience request to rear setback requirement as set forth in Table A Ordinance 850 at the ZBA Minutes 1-22-85 page 2 • residence at 800 Woodland Parkway for the addition of a 375 square foot room. Application is in the name of David A. Brochu. Mrs. Kee explained the existing building plot and the applicant's plans. David Brochu, 800 Woodland Parkway was sworn in and stated that his family has owned and occupied this home for 6 years, but now the size of his family requires more bedrooms. He explained that many, but not all of the homes in the area, have made additions in the past. He passed pictures around to the Board to show the existing trees which he is trying to save, and informed them of the caliper size of those which would be in the way if he put the addition in a different location. He explained that he plans to remove the existing screened patio which now encroaches into the setback, but because a tree grows up through the middle of this patio, he will be unable to use that existing foundation for this new room. He further explained that the proposed addition will occupy no more space than the patio, and would represent a shift in the location of the encroachment. He added that he plans to remove an existing chain link fence along the rear property line and to replace it with a 6 foot privacy fence. Mr. Wagner asked him how old this home is and Mr. Brochu said he is unable to say exactly, but it has been estimated to be approximately 40 year old. Mr. McGuirk asked for clarification of the lot dimensions and Mr. Brochu complied. Mr. • Upham asked if the patio existed when he bought the home, and Mr. Brochu replied in the affirmative. Then Mr. Upham pointed out that removal of that patio would bring the home into compliance with ordinance requirements. Following general discussion, Mr. McGuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: The positioning of the house and mature trees which predate the ordinance under- utilize the lot with respect to neighboring lots and (2)The proposed request does not increase the existing non- conformity,and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: under-utilization of the lot, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner, and carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Upham abstained). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a variance request to rear setback requirements as set forth in Table A Ordinance 850 at the residence at 1205 Deacon (Lot 3 Block 52 Southwood Valley Sec. 14A) for the construction of a 206 square foot wood frame building. Application is in the name of Cecil B. Ryan represented • by Richard Ryan. Mrs. Kee explained there is an existing 12x16 building, setting ZBA Minutes 1-22-85 page 3 • on piers and beams, which encroaches approximately 6" to 1 ft. into the rear setback. She explained the shape of the lot and the location of existing trees, adding that it appears that this building could have been placed in a location which did not encroach the setback. She added that this variance is being requested in order for the applicant to receive a building permit for the building. She then informed the Board that she has received 2 comments from adjacent neighbors; one favorable and one unfavorable. Richard C. Ryan, Rt. 5 Box 1359, College Station was sworn in and stated he is the son of the applicant, and is serving as his representative. He explained that when the building was built, it was centered on the lot clear of the existing utility easement, that there is a ditch adjacent to this building, 6 ft. wood privacy fences all around the other homes, and that this building is built of material which matches that of the house, and is not unsightly and it can barely be seen from the street. Mr. Upham pointed out that had he obtained a building permit for this building as required prior to building the structure, this necessity for requesting a variance could have been avoided, to which Mr. Ryan agreed, adding that it is now, however, a fact. Mr. Upham pointed out that additional piers could be set, the building could be jacked up and moved without a great deal of difficulty. Mr. Ryan stated the wooden piers are • set about 4 feet deep in concrete, and he would rather not do this. Mr. Wendt asked if a special permit could be issued without granting a variance, and Mrs. Kee replied that this Board could deny the variance, at which point the applicant could approach the City Attorney regarding seeking the Council's opinion on whether the City would take enforcement action in this case. In any event, there is no special permit that the staff or this Board can issue. Mr. McGuirk stated that he sees no justification for this building being out of code, whether 1 foot or 10 feet, and then made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (1)There is nothing unusual regarding the slope of the land or positioning of the building on the lot, 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, specifically, at least one neighbor objects. Motion was seconded by Mr. Upham and carried unanimously (5-0). AG$NDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a request for variance to front and side setback requireaents as set forth in Table A Ordinance 850 at the residence at 207 Bsber Glow Circle. • Application is in the nase of Brooks Catlin. ZBA Minutes 1-22-85 page 4 • Mrs. Kee explained that this structure was built in 1983, has 2 encroachments into the front setback and 1 encroachment by a gazebo into the side setback. She explained that when the slab inspector checked the front setback on 7-28-83 from the stakes which were set, there were no encroachments. She explained that the gazebo apparently was built sometime later without a building permit, as it was not shown on the site plan which accompanied the building permit. She continued giving the history, adding that the certificate of occupancy was issued in June, 1984, but a survey done in December, 1984 identified the encroachments. Mr. Wendt asked why a building permit was required for this gazebo and Mrs. Kee explained that the Building Official had reviewed this request, (the building code covers the requirements for building permits), and determined that because this building has a "roof", as opposed to unobstructed, "clear blue sky", a permit is required. Discussion followed regarding the meaning of the word "roof" after which the applicant was called forward. Brooks Catlin, 314 Chimney Hill came forward, stated that he is the builder of this structure, and is not related to the owner. He also cited the history of this structure, adding that when the building was sold in December a survey was done and it was discovered that there were several stakes on this lot, but apparently the wrong stakes were used to identify the lot lines at the time of construction. He further stated that one of the • actual stakes, which should have been used to set the stringlines, was under a water meter. He explained that by using the stakes he thought were the correct ones, he built the house to conform to city standards, and the error was discovered when the house was being sold. He added that the gazebo was also built at the time the home was built but that he did not think that a building permit was required, as this structure has a lattice roof rather than a solid, weatherproof roof. He described the gazebo as an "artistic structure" rather than one which is used. He ended by stating that all of this adds up to human error on his part. Mr. Upham asked if this house has received title insurance and Mr. Catlin explained that a title policy was issued but carries the statement that there are encroachments. Mr. Wendt stated he would like to ask Legal Counsel to clarify and interpret "clear, blue sky" adding that if a tree shades the lattice roof, the tree would also preclude seeing clear, blue sky during some months of the year. He added that he actually has two questions, those being one of wondering if this Board can actually rule on this request, and the second being would the interpretation of the meaning of roof affect the Board's decision. Mr. Wendt then made a motion to table this item for clarification of whether or not the Building Official's interpretation of the word "roof" is correct. Mr. Upham seconded the motion. Mr. McGuirk questioned • who is responsible for locating lot lines before, during and after construction of a building. Mrs. Kee stated the strings and stakes are placed by the builders, but measurements are taken ZBA Minutes 1-22-85 page 5 • by City inspectors. Mr. McGuirk stated that perhaps the first survey done was the correct survey. Mrs. Kee stated that perhaps this request could be viewed under the hardship category. Mr. Wagner agreed that indeed this item should be tabled for clarification. Mr. McGuirk stated he is concerned over the 2 different decisions; one when the inspector used the first survey and second surveyor who indicates the first one is incorrect. Mrs. Kee pointed out that she specifically discussed this case with the Building Official who has determined that a building permit is required for this gazebo. Mr. Wendt stated that the interpretation of the word "roof" is his question. Mr. Upham stated that although the original site plan did not include gazebo, it appears that the edge of the patio is not in compliance either. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to amend the original motion to call for tabling pending legal guidance. Mr. Wendt seconded this amendment, which carried by vote of 5-0. Votes were then cast on the amended motion, which carried 5-0. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Schedule a Workshop concerning the Flood Plain Ordinance. Mrs. Kee explained this Board also functions regarding variances to the flood plain ordinance, therefore, staff determined that perhaps a workshop was in order. The Board agreed, and set the date of that workshop on the same day as the regularly scheduled • meeting of the Board in February (Feb.l9th} but beginning at 5:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other Business. Mr. McGuirk reminded the Board that the City Council will be discussing the proposed new sign ordinance on the 24th of January. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Adjourn. Mr. Fry made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0}. APPROVED: A tin Chairman, Jack Upham ATTEST: ity Sec tary, Dian Jones • (~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS ~~ ~) Variances: From Section 11-6.5 I move to deny a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section $) • minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: 1. 2. 3• 4. 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 shalt be observed and substantial justice done. Th i s motion was made by /" ~C '~ J1,~ l Seconded by _ G/~G/1/ _ Th variance was denied by the following vote: ~ ~ ~~~a/psf a r Signature D to e • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION ~~~I Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: ~ 1. CD 2. 3 , .S~ 4. 5• 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: 1. 2. 3• 4. Th i s motion was made by ~~'~yle/~ Seconded by G/~9~,~/F/Z Date The variance was granted by the following vote: ~- D- 1 hair ign ure i• • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~ /~ ~M U FORMAT FOR MOTIONS ~C ~~~ ---T- J,/ ~~ /~ Variances: From Section 11 .5 ~ 0 I mov to deny a varia a to the ~ p ~~`~~ ~ r-D yar (6-G) of width (Table A) lot epth (Table A) sign regu tions (Section 8) minimum setbac (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special.EOnditions of the land not normally found in like districts: ~. \ ~ 1. T 3 . ..- - ~ . ~cr~yr rr v i ~. ~s /~- r .,• a, - ^ ~ 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. ,. . ~~ This motion was made by ` Seconded by The variance was denied by the following vote: Chair Signature Date _- ~J ~, ~ ~"~ ~~ ~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS Variances: From Section 11-6.5 I move to deny a variance to the y~~~7 yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: ~. ~, / 1 i~a2e ao ,.~~e~-~ a.~r,,c GAG S- ~~ ta~`,°' 2. ~ 3• i 4. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the s irit of th i s Ordinance. s1h//at 1 be observed and substant i a 1 justice doneJ.1wPa,'{~c~~/~, a.~" /~ar7~ ohP hn'~+bdr pv~PCJ~'t. t Th i s motion was made by /~~(J'~`~ Seconded by (//~ The variance was denied by the following vote: - -~ `-~i ;, C it Signature Date t ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST R EG ISTER DATE - I / VAN[JA/C ~ ~-~. ~98J NAME 1. 2. ADDRESS 3. 4. 5. 6 . .~f _ 7. 8. 9. to. il. t2. t3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 2S.