Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES L Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 16, 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Gaston, Sawtelle, Rife and DeOtte and Alternate Member Poston. MEMBERS AB5ENT: Chairman Birdwell and Alternate Members Alternate Members McKean and Hollas. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, City Planner Kee, Development Coordinator Volk and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Mr. Gaston called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of October 19, 1993. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of October 19, 1993 as written. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0); Mr. Rife was not present during the approval of minutes. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a special exception request by Louis Gaston to expand a nonconforming use to allow an addition to the existing house at 411 Eisenhower. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow the addition of a bedroom and bath to the existing house at 411 Eisenhower. The nonconformity of this site is the land use itself; however, it is allowed to continue until the use changes or until the zoning changes. The applicant is proposing to add 222 square feet to the existing building of 980 square feet. The proposed expansion is 22.7 % of the area of nonconformity. The subject property and the rest of the lots to the south toward University Drive were rezoned to A-P a number of years ago to allow for the redevelopment of property for offices and to allow for possible conversions of single family homes to offices. Office redevelopment has occurred m the vicinity, but no effort has been made to change the subject lot to office use. The adjoining lot to the south has also remained residential. A few years ago, the owner of that lot requested a rezoning from A-P back to R-2 in order to allow expansion. The rezoning was granted, thus allowing expansion without the need for Zoning Board action. The Board must find that the expansion is necessary and does not exceed 25% of the area of nonconformity. Eighteen surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry. Mr. Gaston opened the public hearing. • Applicant Louis Gaston approached the Board and explained that he purchased the house for his daughter who is attending Texas A&M. He stated that they plan to install new siding, replace the windows and add a bedroom and bathroom. Mr. Gaston closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle moved to authorize a special exception from section 15, ordinance 1638 to allow the enlargement of a building devoted to a nonconforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not • increase the area of the building devoted to a nonconforming use more than 25% and does not prolong life of the nonconforming use or prevent a return of such pro erty to a conforming use. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0~. AGENDA I'T'EM NO. 4: Consideration of two variance requests by Carroll Bell to allow a storage building to be located 8' from the property line and 15' in height at the eaves at 1406 Lawyer. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow the addition of a storage building to be located 8' to the rear property line and total 15' in height. The ordinance would allow a storage building to be located 15' from the rear property line and 8' in height. The Board must decide if the alley across the rear of the property constitutes special conditions. The applicant argues that the hardship in this case is the need for additional storage space. There are alternative locations in the rear yard that would meet ordinance; however, these locations will take up usable rear yard space. Twenty-two surrounding property owners were notified with two inquiries. Mr. Gaston opened the public hearing. Applicant Carroll Bell approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He stated that the existing storage building to be removed leaks and is not rodent proof. Mr. Bell stated that he needs the additional storage space to store his mother's furniture until he has time to sort through it all. The proposed location is the only location available due to the overhead power lines in the area. Mr. Bell informed the Board that it is impossible to find off-site storage space in town. Jim Ratz of 1404 Lawyer approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He • informed the Board that he and Mr. Bell have been neighbors for over twenty years. Mr. Ratz stated that the proposed storage building is extremely large in square footage and in height. There doesn't seem to be a problem with the proposed setback since the rear alley has never been used as an alley; however, the height and the metal material is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Karen Claridge of 1407 Caudill Street approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. She informed the Board that her homes abuts the subject property. Mr. Claridge stated that she is opposed to the proposed height and the metal material of the storage building. If the height is granted, the storage building would be taller than the existing homes in the area. Mr. Gaston closed the public hearing. Ms. Poston stated that in looking at the criteria to consider when granting a variance, the request does not meet any of the criteria. There seem to be other alternatives available to the applicant that would not negatively effect the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Poston moved to deny both variance requests to the height and setback for a proposed storage building at 1406 Lawyer. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance request by Gunnar and Mona Finne to the rear setback requirements for the existing home located at 2608 Cumberland Court. Mr. DeOtte excused himself from considering this agenda item because the applicant is a • personal friend. Mr. Gaston informed Mr. Finne that a unanimous vote is required to grant the variance since Mr. DeOtte will not consider the request. ZBA Minutes November 16, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Finne agreed to proceed with the variance request due to a closing pending on the property. • Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to legitimize a previous error in a plot plan submitted for a building permit at 2608 Cumberland Court. The original building permit for the home was issued several years ago. This year, an addition was also approved. The architect used the original plot plan to draw the proposed addition; however, the house had not been built according to that first plan. The survey conducted after the house addition shows the house to be built at an angle, thereby putting the northern most corner of the house closer to the rear property line. The addition therefore encroaches into the rear setback area although that had not been the intent. The applicant is proposing a rear setback of 16.5' instead of the required 25' for a total variance of 8.5'. The Board must decide if the presence of the park coupled with the location of the original house constitutes a special condition. A hardship in this case is that a portion of the house addition would have to be removed. The Board has granted variances in the past when a lot abutted assured open space such as drainage easements or parks. A license to encroach into a public utility easement must also be sought and secured before the encroachment is resolved. Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Mr. Gaston opened the public hearing. Applicant Gunnar Finne approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He explained that the encroachment was not identified until a recent survey. Because he is financing the addition, a survey was required prior to closing. There was an error in the original survey which resulted in the setback error. Mr. Finne stated that he and his contractor were not aware of a problem nor the city staff until the survey was done. Contractor Monte Trenchman approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He explained that the left side of the property was staked because the addition was fairly close • to the property line. With the trees and the park in the rear of the lot, there seemed to be no problem with the rear setback and thought there was at least 35' between the addition and the rear property line. The mistake was made by the original architect in that the plot plan submitted was not what was actually built. Local contractor Louis Gaston approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He informed the Board that he has known Mr. Trenchman for several years and that he would not have intentionally built an addition into a setback area. This is an example of a common problem for builders in that they follow the plan given to them by an architect that is wrong; however, usually the error is found after construction. Mr. DeOtte approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He expressed concern of something being done in the permitting office that would ensure that these setback pproblems are taken care of. If is difficult to ask the inspector on site to resolve these issues. If the city could adopt a policy where a survey is required prior to construction, these problems would not occur as often. Ms. Poston stated that the proposed addition does not negatively effect the surrounding neighborhood and it maintains the intent of the ordinance. She moved to authorize the setback variance request because the removal of a portion of the addition will effect the structural integrity of the building. The motion of approval died due to lack of a second. Mr. Rife explained that he is concerned that there is no hardship in this particular case and that a precedent could be set if the variance is granted. He moved to deny the variance request to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to • the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, 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. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes November 16, 1993 Page 3 -''~ Ms. Poston stated that the removal of the addition will effect the original design of the I building. She explained that there seems no reason to require the removal of a portion of a • building when the ordinance intent is maintained, the neighborhood will not be negatively effected and the surrounding property owners are not opposed to the variance request. Mr. Gaston explained that removing a portion of the building is extreme given the circumstances. There does not appear to be a problem with this builder repeatedly making these types of mistakes. Mr. Sawtelle stated that the Board should not continually accept the "hit" for problems that are someone else's responsibility. It is not fair to put staff or the city in this position. We should not ask the City to spend more time and resources policing something that is ultimately the builder's responsibility. Mr. Sawtelle explained that the Board should not continually grant variance requests due to a mistake by city staff. The motion to deny the variance request failed, (2 - 2); Ms. Poston and Mr. Gaston voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Rife stated that he is not able to identify a hardship in this particular case and is willing to listen to testimony to see if a hardship could be outlined. Mr. Gaston moved to table the variance request to consult legal staff on the questions raised tonight on this issue and to determine who is ultimately responsible when misinformation is submitted to the City staff for approval. Assistant City Attorney Shively approached the Board and stated that he would have to research the question to determine who is ultimately responsible. • The motion to table the variance request failed due to lack of a second. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny the variance request to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, 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. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Rife moved to re-open the public hearing to hear additional testimony on the hardship and special conditions issues. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). Mr. Finne approached the Board and stated that the surrounding property owners will not be negatively effected if the addition is allowed to remain. There will never be anything allowed to be built in the park. He stated that he understands the seriousness of the violation; however, a survey was not required prior to a building permit and he relied on information provided to him by an architect as part of the original building plans. City Planner Kee stated that an adjacent park has been viewed as a special condition in the past. If you have something that separates properties more than they normally would be, such as an alley or a park, this maintains the intent of the ordinance. The heavily vegetated lot could also be a special condition. The owner of the property may also have an inherited hardship in that when the house was built a mistake was made that the owner is now having to suffer the consequences. The question in this case seems to be is it reasonable to remove part of a structure and how that hardship effects the property owner. You have to be • reasonable and realize that part of what the Board does is grant relief when it is unnecessary to impose the ordinance. The Board can consider a financial hardship with other hardships or special conditions. ZBA Minutes November 16, 1993 Page 4 Mr. DeOtte approached the Board and stated that the Board should look at what is reasonable in this particular situation. There are hardships that can be considered in this • case. Because the foundation of the structure is on concrete piers, the removal and modification of that foundation will significantly impact the immediate area. In removing the concrete, large equipment will have to be brought in and vegetation removed. The requested variance will not negatively effect the general public and the intent of the ordinance will be maintained. If the owner had paid cash for the addition instead of financing the improvements, the setback error would have never been a problem. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he may be willing to consider the inherited hardship issue due to the significant impact of not granting the variance request; however, there are still some unanswered questions about what exactly happened. If may be worth the Board's time to look at all of the documentation that was used to move this project along including the architect's documentation. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he would like to have the architect attend the meeting to help determine when and where the original mistake was made. Mr. Finne approached the Board and stated that he felt that he inherited a hardship and that he fully relied on the information given to him. He explained that he did not feel it necessary to investigate at what point the mistake occurred because it does not seem to serve any purpose. A mistake was made and it is up to the Board to determine if they will or will not grant relief. Mr. Rife stated that the owner and the contractor followed the building permit system as closely as they could have and the problem is that they relied. on inaccurate information. Ms. Poston moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638, to the sign regulations from the terms ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: the existence • of the large dedicated piece of property in the rear that is used for a park and there are no other property owners located directly behind the subject property; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: it is unreasonable to expect the applicant to now have to remove the structure given the fact that he has taken all the steps that were expected of him during the permitting process given the fact that the owner and contractor relied on erroneous and incomplete information that was provided to them; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Ms. Poston moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (S - 0). • TTES Plamxiin ec nician, atalie Thomas ZBA Minutes APPROVED: Chairman, Dick Birdwell November 16, 1993 Page S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the _ yazd (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) '/minimum setback pazking requirements (Section 9) • and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: • Motion made by Seconded by Chair Signature Date Voting Results u~isss.DCc from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the fnllnwincr sner_ial conditions: and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial lusuce done subject to the following limitations: