Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/1999 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment • CITY OF COLL EGE STATION, TEXAS August 3 1999 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Hill & Bond. (Newly appointed (but not sworn in) alternate Ellis was in the audience) MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Bailey, Searcy. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Planning Intern Siebert, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Attorneys DeCluitt & Ladd. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1• Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from July 20, 1999 meeting of the Board. Corrections were made to the minutes prior to the meeting. Mr. Hill made the motion to approve the • corrected minutes as written. Mr. Happ seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a setback variance at 1002 Haley -lot 2, block 14, Foafire Subdivision. Applicant is Johnny Stimson. StaffPlanner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant wants the variance to allow construction of a proposed porch addition to a single family home. The A-OR zoning district requires larger setbacks than those of the other residential zoning districts do. Compared to the 25 foot front setback required of districts R-1 through R-5, A-OR requires a front setback of 50 feet. The A-OR zone also requires a much larger lot (one acre as opposed to 5,000 sq. ft.) than the other residential districts. The applicant wishes to construct a 34'x40' porch addition to the front of the home, in which a portion would extend 45.5 feet from the property line. The applicant, therefore, is requesting a 4.5 foot variance to the front setback. The applicant states the proposed size and configuration of the new porch addition is needed to maintain the architectural integrity of the home. In addition, the applicant stresses that the main portion of the 34'x40' (1360 sq. ft.) structure meets the 50 foot front setback and the 25 foot side setbacks. • ZBA Minutes August 3, 1999 Pagel of S The applicant states a hardship of the A-OR zoning district having a front setback double that of residential areas. The applicant states the proposed 45.5 foot setback is still far greater than that required of a regular single-family home. Another issue which may be considered is that the home was built (and bought) when the property was zoned R-l, single family residential, and subject to the lesser 25 foot front setback requirement. The Architectural Review Board, a private entity in the Foxfve Subdivision, has granted a variance to allow encroachment into the 50' front setback required by deed restrictions to allow for the building addition. A letter pertaining to this private board is on record with the Planning Department. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Johnny Stimson, applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Stimson presented to the Board a model of the proposed addition that was done by his architect. lvir. Stimson made correction that the area in question is a master bedroom suite with a bay window and porch beyond that. 1VIr. Stimson explained the model showing the existing home and the proposed addition. Ivir. Stimson told the Board that he feels that the addition will not be a nuisance or hindrance to the subdivision but rather an enhancement. 1VIr. Stimson stated that he does not want something that is negative and encouraged the Board to see his intent. Mr. Stimson ended by saying that the Architectural Review Board in Foxfire approved the addition. Mr. Bond asked 1Vir. Stimson to explain what effect the setback requirements would have on the architectural integrity. Mr. Stimson replied that the bay look would be a plus for the overall look of the home. . Mr. Bond asked Mr. Stimson who made up the Foxfire Architectural Review Board. Mr. Stimson replied that there are three members that make up the Board. These members being residents of the Foxfue Subdivision. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Stimson if he was a member of the Board. Mr. Stimson replied that he was not on the Board. Ivlr. Bond asked Mr. Stimson if he was present at the meeting when the Board approved the addition. lvir. Stimson explained that he was asked to show the three member Board what he proposed and to explain the city setback requirements. Mr. Stimson explained that the Board did not have a formal meeting but he did talk to all the members and then the members talked among themselves. IVir. Bond asked if the Board had regular meetings. 1VIr. Stimson answered that he did not know how the Board operated. Mr. Stimson told the the ZBA that he did know that when you want to build anything in Foxfire you have to go before the Board with your plans to be approved. Mr. Bond asked 1VIr. Stimson how much has been done on the house so far. 1VIr. Stimson stated that it is in the planning stages right now. The plans are done and but no ground has been broke. Chairman Alexander called for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request to step forward. With no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 2 ojS Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum front setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the rezoning of this property restricts the proposed enhancement of this property which far exceeds the • requirements that are normally required of other single family units and the proposed encroachment is only from the porch and was approved by the ARB; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: making the proposed enhancements to the front of the resident would be prohibited if the 4.5' variance was not grated Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Discussions continued among the Board members. Mr. Bond stated that if this variance were to pass, he would suggest not wording it to the affect that a private organization approved the variance. Mr. Bond added that he feels it would set a dangerous precedent and it could cause problems in the future. Mr. Happ replied that- his only point is that the type of developments that are taking place in B/CS and the county he likes to see such a Board that sets a precedent on what is going to look nice for such developments. Mr. Happ stated that he puts a lot of credence in that type Board even if it is informal. Mr. Bond added that what he did not want to see are rulings where a private homeowners association is given greater weight than city law. Mr. Murphy stated that is not the only factor, but it is one of the factors that the homeowners associations had approved it. Mr. Happ stated based on the statement "it is not contrary to public interest" this represents another form of public that supported the variance. Mr. Happ ended by saying that he wanted it know that it was recognized by another form of interest which also approved it. Mr. Hill added that he also liked to see when other Boards exist that they are in approval. Mr. Happ suggested that he amend his wording by adding "and was supported by the Foxfire ARB" rather than "approved by". Mr. Bond stated that is was better just as it was worded. • Mr. Bond su ested addin to the motion either "aesthetic quality or architectural integrity." 8g 8 Mr. Hill stated that there are several things that support this request: 1) minimal impact, and 2) since it is an open portion it will add to the Aesthetics of the house. Mr. Hill ended by saying that the variance should be approved to allow the homeowner maximum use of his lot. Mr. Happ made an amendment to his motion adding under unnecessary hardship "architectural integrity will not be maintained if the variance is not granted". Mr. Murphy seconded the amendment. The Board voted (4-1) for the amendment. Mr. Bond voting against. The amended motion was read. Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum front setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the rezoning of this property restricts the proposed enhancements of this property which far exceeds the requirements that are normally required of other single family units and the proposed encroachment is only from the porch and was approved by the Foxfire ARB; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: making the proposed enhancements to the front of the residence would be prohibited and architectural integrity will not be maintained if a variance is not granted; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed • and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the proposed design of the porch will not require a variance of more than 4.5'. Mr. Hill seconded the motion, which passed with one opposition. (4-1). Mr. Bond voting against. ZBA Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 3 ojS AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of setback variances for 2325/27 Pheasant Lane and 2329/31 Pheasant Lane. Applicant is Ron Lightsey. • Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and gave the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant was requesting the variances due to a mistake made during the construction of the two duplexes. The two duplexes are part of the developing Steeplechase Subdivision. This R-2 zoned subdivision contains 116 lots to be developed as duplexes. The applicant offers a special condition of an error during the construction of the duplexes. He states that a mistake was made when the wrong string line was pulled during the placement of the slab. In addition, the mistake was not seen during building inspections throughout the construction process. The construction of the duplexes is complete. The applicant is therefore requesting a 1.44 feet side setback variance for 2329/32 Pheasant Lane and a .55 feet side setback for 2325/27 Pheasant Lane. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Ron Lightsey, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Lightsey told the Board that he is not aware of how the mistake was made but he was before the Board to ask for the variance requests and answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Lightsey who found the mistake. Mr. Lightsey answered that he and his brother found it as they were laying out the fences. At that time a surveyor was called to survey the property to find the problem. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Lightsey who laid out the string line for the slab. Mr. Lightsey explained when • construction is began a foundation crew lays out the string lines. At this time 15 other buildings were being constructed. Once the inspection was done the string lines were cut and the concrete was poured. Mr. Lightsey added that the string lines were pulled wrong on these buildings. Mr. Happ asked how far along on the construction are the duplexes. Mr. Lightsey answered that the duplexes are completed. Mr. Dill asked Mr. Lightsey whose responsibility was it to make sure the strings were in the correct place. Mr. Lightsey answered that it was his responsibility. Mr. Murphy asked for the record if this mistake was made with any malicious intent. Mr. Lightsey answered that he did not believe it was. Chairman Alexander called for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request. nth no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. • ZBA Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 4 ojS 2325/27 Pheasant Lane Mr. Happ made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum side setback from the terms of this • ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the erroneous error caused when the "string lines" were placed prior to the foundation being poured put this building out of -its minimum setback requirements; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: making an unreasonable requirement of destroying the foundation of this structure in an effort to move it; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the minimum setback variance shall be .55 feet for 2325/27 Pheasant Lane. 2329/3l Pheasant Lane Mr. Happ made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum side setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the erroneous error caused when the "string lines" were placed prior to the foundation being poured put this building out of its minimum setback requirements; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: making an unreasonable requirement of destroying the foundation of this structure in an effort to move it; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the minimum setback variance shall be 1.44 feet for 2329/31 Pheasant Lane. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The Board continued with comments for the record. • Mr. Hill stated for the record that he is having trouble in principal being asked to legitimize a careless mistake. Mr. Hill added that he is concerned about the precedent that it sets. Mr. Happ stated that he feels it was explained very clearly that this was not maliciously done and there was no intent to increase the size of the duplex. Mr. Bond stated that he ageed. Mr. Happ stated for record that it was important to him to know that IVir. Lightsey found the mistake and was willing to right the wrong. The Board voted (5-0). The variances were granted. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned. S: • taff Assistant, D ora Grace ~~ ` . Chairman, avid A ander ZBA Minutes August 3,1999 Page S ojS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) - lot depth Table A) ~-a minimum setback ~ ~S Gt~ 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: p anti because a stnct eruorcement of ul~ prc unnecessary hardshi to this applicant being: /~'_ ~~ w ~ ~~ ~ /~~ ~~ ~ /'77 /I .~. - - ~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be done subject to the following limitations: .~i e _ _ ;t~c~ substantial jus~`.we~ n _ .~-, _ Motion made by Date ~ r _ ~ o.~ ~ Seconded by f i 'V ~ ~ / Voting Results ~' p~Poss~~, Chair Sian i c., _ r ~ v~~sss.ooc ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT t 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 depthle A) ' minimum'~setback J ~! pazking requirements (Section 9) • from the terms of this ordinance as it w,ill~~n~o~t be contrary to the public interest, due to the following speci conditions: C, -,,L and because a sti'Ict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result ut unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: 6~/ ` r ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ and~sucY: that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substai~~al justice done subject to the following limitations: ~~ Motion made by Seconded by - 3 ~. ~`7~' ~ L 2 r ~j I (//~ Date Ming Results J~ ~ ~? Chair Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register • ~ Date ~ ~ ~ ~~ Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.