Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/1998 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 7, 1998 6:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hollas, Alexander, Warren, Hill &Happ. MEMBERS ABSENT: Blackwelder & Pyrtle. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Senior Planner McCully, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Attorney Jones, Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, StaffAssistant Grace. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the'Board. Chairman Hollas called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of February 17,1998. Mr. Happ moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 19, 1997 as written. Ms. Warren seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3 Consideration of variance to the Drainage Ordinance. The property is located on the southwest corner of Marion Pugh and George Bush Drive, lot 1, block 1 of the Callaway Subdivision. The applicant is Municipal Development Group for the Callaway Development Corporation. Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report. Morgan stated that normally staff does not make recommendations to the ZBA, but since this is a drainage variance and there is not an Engineer on the Board, staff does want to show support for this case. The request is a variance to the Drainage Ordinance, specifically requesting a variance to the requirement to submit a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the Callaway Dormitory Project located on George Bush Drive. The variance is being requested to expedite the development process for this application. The City of College Station Drainage Ordinance requires that "if modification of any watercourse is involved, an effective Conditional Letter of Map Amendment (CLOMA) shall be on file with the Admimstrator prior to airy development". The applicant is proposing, with the development of the property, to enclose the creek within a box culvert system in order to construct the parking garage for the site. In FEMA's process, the Conditional .Letter of Map Revision is processed prior to any • construction. In past discussions with FEMA, they stated that most communities do not require CLOMR's but rather allow the processing through FEMA to occur during the design/construction phase of the project. Z$A l~nutes Apri17, 1998 Page I oj5 Staff would concur and support this variance, since it is the minimum necessary to allow the • applicant to proceed with their development plans. This variance does NOT grant them the ability to waiver from the Letter of Map Revision process, but rather shifts the time frame of such submittal. As in all drainage submittals to FEMA, the staff has reviewed the report to assure that the applicant has met all Drainage Ordinance requirements before allowing any construction to occur. The drainage report will be sent to FEMA for their review and comment. According to the Drainage Ordinance, the applicant must show that the variance being requested is: 1). the minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief 2). it will not be detrimental to public health and safety _ 3). the variance will not increase the water surface elevations, velocities, etc., to the extent that there will be any threat to public safety . 4). the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of land upstream or downstream 5). no variance shall be allowed within a floodway if any increase in water surface elevation occurs during the base flood discharge. This project is on a critical time frame and the applicant.needs this variance to assure construction can occur in a timely fashion. Similaz requests have been made for the CSISD High School site and the Chevron station at the corner of SH 30 and SH 6 Bypass next to Furrows. Both requests were granted. Mr. Hill asked Assistant City Engineer Morgan if staff could see any negative consequences if the request was granted. Ms. Morgan explained that usually if there aze negative consequences, it is to the applicant once they have finished construction. If FEMA has any problems then modifications aze made on site to correct them. Ms. Morgan offered an example that usually it • would become something on the order of a certain size box structure and FEMA finds that it increases velocities downstream there are measures that FEMA can use to mitigate and reduce the velocities back to predevelopment velocities or ones that would not negatively effect the downstream properties. Ms. Morgan further added that although the applicant is taking some risk, ultimately the public risk is muumal because FEMA would require any revisions to be made so that the negative unpacts are mitigated. Mr. Happ made clarification for his understanding that all the Boazd is really doing is giving the applicant a time frame extension on when to carry out the proper procedures. Ms. Morgan responded that was indeed correct and what staff has found from past discussions with FEMA on the past two cases referenced in the staff report, most communities do not require the two step process. FEMA basically puts the risk on the applicant and does not have a problem with the one step process and most other Texas communities don't either. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. No one stepped forwazd. Chairman Hollas asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition of the request. No one stepped forward. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. . Ms. Warren made the motion to authorize a variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: 1.) the minimum necessary to afford the applicant reliely 2.) it will not be detrimental to public health and safety; • 3.) the variance will not increase the water surface elevations, velocities, etc., to the extent that there will be any threat to.public safety; Z8A Mi~rutes Apri17, 1998 Page 2 of S 4.) the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of land upstream or downstream; and, • 5.) no variance shall be allowed within a floodway in any increase iri water surface elevation occurs during the base flood discharge. And because either of the following criteria are met: 1) Special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, to wit: the time frame for construction of the dormitory will be lengthened such that the dorm would not be usable by the fall semester; and, the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a variance to the rear setback at 215 Lee, lot 23 and part of 22, block 5 of the Oakwood Subdivision. Applicant is Dale Foz. Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated the homeowner is requesting a variance to remodel an older existing garage into a family room, thereby changing the rear setback requirement from 20' to 25'. The existing building is located 13' from the rear property line and does not meet current setback requirements because it predates them. He also intends to extend a covered porch from the family room that will encroach into the rear yard by the same amount as the existing garage. Therefore, he is requesting a variance of 12' into the required 25' rear setback area for the dwelling. The applicant intends to replace the garage by constructing a new one adjacent to and flush with the new remodeled family room. This structure would need to meet a rear setback of 20' -- thus • the applicant is requesting a variance of 7' into the required 20' rear setback area for the garage. In analyzing this case, it should be noted that the subdivision has many structures that have nonconforming status ("grandfathered" structures) and that several variances have been granted on other lots. The applicant argues that the house is smaller in area than other homes in the subdivision and that the house is not designed that such widening the home would be feasible. The house was built a distance back from the front setback line and expansion into this area would not be feasible given the design of the home. The Board may also wish to consider the age of the structure and subdivision. This area was platted in 1932 before the City was incorporated. Due to its age, the subdivision contains many nonconforming structures. The applicant offers as possible hardship that additional floor space cannot be accomplished without a variance. He also wishes the Board to consider that other homes in the area have been upgraded recently but that the present location of this house results in the only expandable areas lying within rear setback areas. Alternatives would be expansion into the front yard, where there is more room without encroachment. However, such an alternative will more than likely include substantial remodeling. Chairman Hollas asked if there is a alley behind the subject property. Senior Planner McCully referred to the city's area map that reflects the subdivision. Ms. McCully stated that on the aerial photo there does not appear to be an alley in fact by description nor was one shown on a subdivision plat. • Chairman Hollas asked if any phone calls were received from the owner's of lots S or 6 on the same block. Ms. McCully responded that she does not believe so but instead received a call from the owner of the lot to the north (toward A&M) but that call did not convey a negative response. ZBA Minutes Apri17, 1998 Page 3 ojS Ms. Warren wanted to know what would be the setback for most of the existing dwellings on that • street and are they in compliance. Ms. McCully stated that it is hard to tell by looking at the aerial. She continued by saying that it would not surprise her to find that a substantial number within this neighborhood had a smular situation. Mr. Happ referred to the plat and the 15.5' shown on the rear of the proposed new garage. McCully stated that the current setback seems to be 13 -ft. according to the survey. She added that she would leave that to the applicant to specify. Chairman Hollas open the Public Hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Dale Fox of 1111 Park Place, the owner approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He clarified the 12' variance he believed to be 9. 5.' and the 15. S' Mr. Happ mentioned meant that they would have 15.5' from the property line which would make it 9.5' into the 25' setback, and 4.5' on the garage instead of the 7'. Chairman Hollas asked Mr. Fox where he was measuring from to get those measurements. Mr. Fox responded that he is measuring from the property line and that it is presently 13' and with the new building it would be 15.5'. Mr. Alexander offered clarification that the new construction would be recessed from the rear. Mr. Fox stated that the new construction would be 2.4' further from the property line making it 15.5' from the property line. Mr. Fox made mention that there is an alleyway there and he lives 4 houses down on the corner. He described the alley as "no man's land". Chairman Hollas asked how wide is the alley. Mr. Fox said he believes it is 18' in width. Ms. Warren asked if it was a utility easement or a place • where a vehicle could go. Mr. Fox replied that it has grown up but probably at one time vehicles did use it. Mr. Happ asked where the property line is in relation to the alley. Mr. Fox replied his property line is on the west side of the alley and not in the middle of it. Chairman Hollas asked if the alley has been abandoned to the property owners. The Board had discussions concerning the property line of the property behind Mr. Fox's specifically where the corners were. Ms. McCully responded according to the plat maps it is abutting Mr. Fox's property. Mr. Fox added that if you go to the property, the corners you see on the map presented to the Board, the 18' shown is for the iron rods marking the back property lines on the next property. Chairman Hollas replied that would tend to make it consistent with the other blocks in this subdivision and referred to the area map showing the alley between them. Mr. Alexander asked if there was any indication of any type of surfacing in that area such as gravel that my have been grown over now. Mr. Fox replied that he had not looked but he parks his truck in the alley every night and is able to walk down it to his residence where he resides (lots 31 & 32). Mr. Fox stated that he is not able to drive down the alley due to some tress which have gown up in the alley. Mr. Hollas asked Mr. Fox, is the reason he believes there is an alley there due to the fences along both sides that are not abutting. Mr. Fox replied that was correct. Mr. Fox spoke about lot 10 that is behind his residence where he resides. He describes iron pipes on the corners and also iron pipes on his dwelling lot (lots 31-32) and they are 18' apart leaving that an 18' alleyway. Mr. Hollas asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition to the request. No one stepped forward and Mr. Hollas closed the public hearing. Mr. Fox stepped back before the Board during their discussions and stated that he just realized • looking at the area map that there seemed to be a drafting error. The area map included in the staff. report shows block 2, south of the subject property, having an alleyway drawn, but not extended on to show the alleyway on his block (area map will be included for clarification to these minutes). ZBA Minutes Apri! 7, 1998 Page 4 oJS Mr. Alexander moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this • ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: age of subdivision and the unusual distance of the home from the front setback. The apparent existence of an 18' abandoned alley and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: a reasonable use of applicant's property i.e.: a home with sufficient floor space in keeping with other homes in the neighborhood and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the rear of the addition for the dwelling shall not encroach any further than 12' into the rear building setback line and 7' for the garage. Mr. Hill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other business. There was no other business. ` AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. 1vlr. Hollas moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AP>j' ~ D• ~- Cairman, Stephen Hollas A • S Assist ebo ace , • ZBA ~»utes April 7, 1998 Page S ojS ~ '• i• i• rExas A & M UNIVERSI rY GOL F COURSE ~ 0 J~~ COLLEGE y ~ STATION a~if. ow CONFERENC Sr v~ CENTER OAKWOOD msg. MIDDLE SCHOOL ,0 2 3 200 '~. 4 5 T!F/CA T/O AREA 'q~ ~`% 6 7 3 '~~~ g 1 ~ 5 '' _ '~ _ 9 ~n ~~ 2 , ,,~ 6 ~ ~~ X28 1 a g10 3 I1 12 gl 0 34 4 ~ 5 2 21 e 7'r' ys'yi r'r ~. 123 ~ 2234 s8 910~r c9L 4 ~ 25 1 2 ~. 1 i 3 ~. ~' 2 y 4 ~ ~¢,~ 3 ~' 4 920 5 ~F 21 _ ' _~qg6 7 1tS` ~' ~' S r, ate` ~ ~, r ~ ~ 25 ~ r $'$'' 2627 y ~ 8 ~F`w ,~i d 8~0 10 / ~ 1B 7 16 1 $ ri 2 1 3U ~0 21 ~ r, 7 13 J ~~ ~ 6 T ... ~ `r 8 6 7 r~r ?mss ~ 14 .~~ 312 ~. 5 2 \\~ \ 20 9 15 8 / ~s 1 ~ J s~ J~ 33 \ 11 ~ ~ \\~ \\c~ ~ 10 910 0 3 18'''' . . \ 9 4 ~ ~ 4 3 `~~\ ~~ \\~18 1 g 4 ~ 11 12 12 G.oo~ 5 1 ~ \0 8 5 3 ~' ~~~ ``~ 17 5 \\o~ ~~ ,~ 1 14 3637 ~3°'~ 6 ~~ 2 \` 16 6 \\d~ 13 5 ~J~ 'sue ~~~ 4 5 Q. 6 ~ `~15 7 ~\°~ ~~ \~ . `s~'~' 41 2A~' 17 819J'' ~ °~ ~. 11 g 7 ~~ ~~ 14 a~ `\~~~ `\~17 BISON ~ 3a 2 ~ ~ 8 & ~13 9 16 \~ \~ PARK '~ ~~,4A 23$ '~ ~' ~12 10~ ~`. 15 7 6 3 '~ 11\ ~-\ 14 8 1 'Q 7 4 ~ \~ ~ 13 9 8 '?' Q' ~' ~ 5 ~ ~~9 10 ~`~ 5 6~ ~ `~12 10\~ CASE INFORMATION: ~ City of College Station, Tezas Variance on Rear Building Line PLANNING DIVISION Applicant: Dale Fox Phone: (409) 693-6669 215 Lee Av. lot 23 & part of DATE: ZBA 4/7/98 lot 22; Oakwood A i ion ~~ ~ REQUEST: SETBACK VARIANCE Existing R-1 zonrri~ x i r 0 9 C A L R-1 ~v~.~ 3 Qs ~ 2 ~~- 24 Z ~~ 1 25 1 31 7~+~' \o 30 8~,5~ . • 7 - `EVI PY OF THIS SURVEY . Denson W. Henry .. .~ Reg. Prof. Land Surveyor 2308 Yosemite Drive ' Bryan, Texas, 77803 ~ aim, a . Phone & Fax 409/778 2572 t _ GATE ~ _ r D ~ 5~ 4 5' d 2' 19'' ~ 8 5• ~ J o~ cz-~a~--- ~/L'~~R SE~ o ~'s'o' - ~ ~ FcncG-~So.OO• -G~OR/C MON. AND' ~ ~~ '1 . , ° /~ Z Lb Go. LINE 1/~ • I u1 ! ~ ~ z ! ~ --~ i' s • It'F- -- I I . _~ -I GON(,. IMO N. ~ }.j p h~~~ - ~ .1 ~oTZ2-~~-- Lot Z3 I ~LO~K 5 ~ 45° 00' CSC ZIS LEA AV~Ntl~ U t ~9 ~: o 0 alp. fy~ ~ ~- i~ S O ~- n., ~~ v _ 25`I3lDG LINE. (~rY oRD ~F S M~a. (~yJAT ~ R, MT2 4 9. S 8 jrr (Ptp r- So.oo') O - --- •-- - ~V -84.58. LrtAf-85') CaNC Mo N. Fu0 50' t~ O ~~~ CONG CU213 Based on FIA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel 4809]C0144C for Brazos County, Texas, the following described property is not located • within a designated 100 Year Frequency Flood Plafn. I certify that T have made an on the ground survey of property described as follows: Lot •23 and adjoining 35' of Lot •22; Block 3 of OAKWOOD ADL+ITION. an addition to City of College Station, Texas, according to Plat recorded in Vol. 82, Page 520 Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas (DRBCT). 'I further certify that this Plat correctly represents the facts found at the time•bf the survey and there are no encroachments excei.t as shoxn and all imi.rovements are located within- the boundary o•f the rroFprty as shoxn. ~f Surveyed By: ldenson W. Henry, Reg. Pr f Land Surveyor No. 3293 Februay 22, 1997 - ZONIIITG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1T28, Drainage Ordinance. I move to authorize a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those require ents, to wit: ~ - • rQs 6~~~ r~ rv~~l~ ~~ l~n~~~ n ~ - _ (~ Z.c-o~~G~-~P ISM Il t ~ /.. n~ v~ „-~ ., ~, ., ,,, ~ / n ~ and because either of the following criteria are met: ~~e~!/rn~^s"~~'CC~ 1) Special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, to wit: • or 2) The variance is .necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: ~r /l!t° // Date ! ~ Motion made by Seconded by ~ ~ cL ~~~° l~ Voting Results ~~-~ Chair Signature DOPI728.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN'P • FORMAT FOR POSITNE MOTION Variance from Section 15, 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) i• i• from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special condit//i~~ons: (~. ~, ~ o ~ cam. l~,ll; , _ .`r ..,.~ `r~~, e ,~ ~ ~ ~s ~~ w / c~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~~ i ~ F Gti cam- ,.. :~ 1. °< <~ti and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and ubst al justice done subject to the following limitations: ./~~ ~ (~cc~~~~~~-- .~jr ff 1 '' Motion made lr Seconded by , Chair Signature P Date Voting Results D a7 /' ~p~~D x v~~ c~~'~`~ .s~ Y.4RP1638.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment ~~ U • • Guest Register GCS Date~~~ ~ ~ ~ \ `~ Name Address i. .. _~~~L~ ~~ 1, L ~ ~ ~a~a.u~ ~ t~ C..S ^[ "~, ~~~ 2. ~ ~m~' .,~°-ems G~-c_ - ~S 7 ~ (' -~. ~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. - - 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.