Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/2000 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 1, 2000 6:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Hill, Bond & Dr. Bailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: Happ, Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy & Ellis. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. 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: Consider Absence Request from meeting. Application turned in by John Happ. Board vote 5-0 for excused absence. AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of minutes from the January 4, 2000 meeting of the Board. Mr. Murphy made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Bond seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a rear and side setback variance at 9410 Whitney, lot 14, block 29, Woodcreek 10-A. Applicant is Randall Pitcock for Clay Petrus. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board the applicant is requesting a variance in order to finish construction of a 12 feet by 10 feet (120 square feet) accessory storage building. Accessory buildings 100 square feet or larger are required to have a building permit and meet setback regulations. A building inspector noticed the building being constructed without the required permits. When the applicant came in to obtain the building permit, it was found that the structure did not meet the necessary setbacks. Construction is halted at this time until a Zoning Board decision is made. The request is to allow the accessory building to be 4 feet from the rear property line and 4 feet from the side (west) property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 11 feet from the rear and 3.5 feet from the west side setback. ZBA Minutes February 1, 2000 • Page I oJ5 The applicant offers a special condition of the subject property having a sloping topography. The applicant states that the proposed location of the accessory building is situated as to give it the best • screening. The applicant adds that if the structure were moved to be within the required setbacks, it would be visible from the road and to neighboring properties. The applicant offers a hardship that the current placement of the accessory building will be more aesthetically pleasing for the whole neighborhood. In addition, the structure is almost complete. Ms. Anderson reminded the Board that hardships must pertain to the property characteristics and should not be self-inflicted. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Randall Pitcock, applicantJbuilder, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Pitcock told the Board when the home was purchased the homeowner requested additional storage. Approval was sought and received from the Architectural Control Committee for the Woodcreek Subdivision. Mr. Pitcock stated that it was his error for not researching the size of the building and the location. Mr. Pitcock told the Board that construction was stopped upon discovering the discrepancies. There were discussions with the neighbors to accommodate their concerns. Mr. Pitcock stated that there is a 12-foot separation from the closest structure, which meets the NFPA. Mr. Pitcock ended by telling the Board that the height of the structure is 9 foot 6 inches. Its placement was believed to be best for aesthetics reasons. If the building had to be relocated it would be very visible • from the curb. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Pitcock to explain how the slopping topography is creating a hardship. Mr. Pitcock replied that if the building were moved up away from the rear setback it would be made more visible from the road. Mr. Bond asked how much additional visibility would be added if the building was moved up. Mr. Pitcock replied it would be an additional 2 feet. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Pitcock if the variance is granted and the building is allowed to remain where it is currently being constructed, what kind of separation is there for structures on adjacent properties. Mr. Pitcock answered for the property directly behind it would be approximately 14 feet. Mr. Pitcock described it as being the one lot out of the three that would be the most visibly obstructed. Chairman Alexander called for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the variance. Steve Hassel, 9304 Weslayan Court, stepped before the ,Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Hassel told the Board that he is the back neighbor. Mr. Hassel expressed his concern as a significant risk if the structure caught on fire and it spreading to his home. Mr. Hassel told the Board that the drainage in that area would be affected as well due to the positioning of the building. Mr. Hassel also expressed concern if the city had to do work in that area, they would have to access his yard to get in and that would cause damage to his property. Mr. Hassel ended by describing to the Board the view out of his bedroom window. ZBA Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 2 oj5 Mitchell White, 9307 Weslayan Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. White stated his opposition is because the structure can be seen if you look out of any window in the front of his home. Mr. White told the Board that he is not opposed to the structure but • rather that it is so high above the fence. Mr. White ended by described the building as being offensive when he sees it. Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny 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 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. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (3-2). Chairman Alexander and Dr. Bailey voting for granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO.S: Consideration of a rear setback at 1114 Carolina Street, lot 23, block 3, McCulloch Subdivision. Applicant is The City of College Station Community Development Office. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that on September 1, 1998 the Board granted this property variances to the side and rear setbacks. The Board granted a 3 foot 1 inch variance to the rear setback and a 1.5 foot variance to the side setbacks. The variances allow for a rear setback of 21 feet 11 inches and side setbacks of 6.0 feet. The variances were granted base on a special condition of the property being at minimal size and • irregular shape, thus causing a hardship of not being able to construct a dwelling that would be a viable and functional structure. The variances were granted before construction began on the home. The construction is now complete and the final survey for title has revealed that the side setback to the east is only 5.19 feet from the property line. The rear setback and side setback to the west meets the variance previously given. Since the home did not meet the side setback variance previously given, city staff has requested that the Community Development Office come back to the Board. Thus, the applicant is requesting a .81 inches additional variance to meet the east side setback for a total variance of 2.31 feet. The applicant is again asking for a special condition relating to the irregular lot shape. While the minutes of the meeting held on September 1, 1998 show that the irregular shape caused concern for meeting the rear setbacks, it was not realized that the lot shape would also affect the side setback requirements. The house is built at 38 feet in width as was planned and submitted before you previously; however, when the rectangular shaped house was constructed the parallelogram shaped lot, an additional encroachment resulted. It is not unusual for some Community Development houses to encroach into the setback. Some federal funding programs waive setback requirements. This particular funding however does not fall into that category. • ZBA Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 3 oj5 Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. • Randy Brumley, Housing Program Coordinator with the Community Development Office, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Brumley handed the Board Members an as built survey showing an additional dimension to help the Board understand the violation. Mr. Brumley reminded the Board that in September of 98 when the variance was granted the desire was too encourage redevelopment in the area. The homes are built using Federal Funds and sold to first time homebuyers. The city staff's desire was to build the nicest home possible. Mr. Brumley ended by telling the Board that they have a buyer and they will proceed with the sale of the home if the variance is granted. With no one stepping forward to speak in opposition of the variance Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the motion 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: the size and shape of the lot make it extremely difficult to build housing with all the desired features; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result. in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: efforts to revitalize this neighborhood would be hampered if this variance is not granted; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the previously granted side setback variance of 1.5 feet shall be increased to allow a side setback variance of 2.31 feet. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). • Mr. Bond questioned the special conditions. Mr. Hill stated his reasoning is that without the variance features would be cut out, it would reduce the number of rooms and the garage deleted. Mr. Hill added that it would make the house less desirable. Mr. Bond stated that his concern is if we talk about desired features that would infer that things are wanted that they can not have. Mr. Hill replied that he understood but part of that is going back to the original case. Mr. Murphy read the motion granted September 1, 1998. Mr. Bond stated that he did not want it to be a variance for luxury. Mr. Hill made an amendment to the motion. The amendment to the special conditions will read: the size and shape of the lot make it extremely difficult to build a viable and functional structure Mr. Murphy seconded the amendment. The Board voted for granting the variance (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration to update the Board's Rules & Procedures and amend Section III-B -Meeting dates & times. Staff Planner McCully approached the Board and spoke about the joint workshop they had attended with City Council. and the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. McCully reminded the Board that it was at that workshop that city staff had been given direction by the City Council to begin addressing long range planning issues that have been neglected for the past few years. The neglect is the result of the amount of development activity that has been occurring over the past few years. It was researched and determined that the demand is not there for two monthly ZBA meetings. • ZBA Minutes February 1, 2000 Pnge 4 of 5 Also at the time of reviewing the Rules and Procedures it was discovered that other items were outdated. Ms. McCully reminded the Board that there could be a second meeting if staff and the Chairman felt it warranted a special meeting. • There were discussions among the Board Members and staff concerning the new schedule. Mr. Hill made the motion to approve the updated and amended Section III-B of the Rules & Procedures. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO: 7: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned. __ ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Deb rah Grace APPROVED: ~~__~ Chairman, Da A exa der • ZBA Minutes Febnrary 1, 2000 Page 5 oj5 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNZEN'r • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) • lot depth (Table A) minimum setback 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: • r~ ~ ~ G{ r, c e ~~ ~ ~ f~, s ~r J~. C ~ r Ca ' e j ,[ / t ~ .2r ir~~ 1?O ~ 2 aelr~,rl1L'i71~q! ( ~i 2 {? ~~ ~1 D© ~2Or ~~ 2 ~~~~ c rn ~e~ S ~ aS g Why~e and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result. in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: T~2 wA(~ w0u~d' !'lave ~~ be G~e~r~ ~s~ ed~ ~I~ ~e c~~s7~ruc~e~ and. such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following l/i~mitations: lr Cc VGi'r~ aH c~ Qr ~t~ ~©r 1~~i9~t T ~~ '~~ ~e r ~~Ir~we~ is y~~,s CgS~. U Motion made by Date ( / ` ~~ Seconded by Voting Results ~ "- Chair Sicmatur~~ - _ -_ ZONfi1TG BOARD OF~ADJUSTMFNP , • FORMAT -FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not. be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the Cit/y: / / ~-¢- /-+ ~o~ ~ -7~y ~ S ~ c vd-c ~/ by `f /ti u) ~cy r-- S~i- ~1 /-S cz ,.i~ ~° ~S ~`.~..~,Q,~f ~~~,~s.~-e~ i ~S i•/o~ t/~lf -,~..rocr~~/ 2•Jd~S ~ w'1~a/~~n~~o~ .~'-~-,./ac~.- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: ~ "L ~ ! c. ~ ~-~ a7- ,q.~/y o~ ~v-C ~'T Se./t-t / / ~ al/ ~- ~/'~aS~ 4 'e s` X10 ~/~/o~cs and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general • N~ ~~ interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following hrrutations: ~ ~,/a~ ~c~' / ~" ^' ~~- ~t ~ Motion Seconc G, ~~dGU2 p~ p ~/ J~ e____ ~~ cG~ ~,t~t Ewa ~'~ ~ ~s ~~ fa~ ~.%~~-~`fa ~° Motion made by X7`7"' lt/jyie~y y ~ - Voting Results Chair Signature Date ~ _ • a~ sxP~s3a.DOc Zoning Board of Adjustment i• • • Guest Register Date Nap 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address ~3~~ w~-5~0.~~ ,CS ~~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~s / 01/20/00 09:05 $409 845 5168 EASTERWOOD ARPT. CITY. COLLEGE STA TEL h10.409-764-s~as ~ a i i i ....... • ' ~,. . City of College Station Absence Request Form . Ror Elected and Appointed Ot~eers Name .TO~I`j ~f~ ~~° Request Submitted on air ~~ r ~~ Cry.:'. ~uj'J:.?~~^' ` r. ~ • f~ 0O1 I will not be is attendance at the meeting of (Data for the reasons) specified: ~ . ~: 1Y4.. ~ .~ v~r~// he out ~ f~~u~ a ~lz i~ . ~ . $igla 4 .. • request shall be subnsitted !o rl~e Secretary of the prior tv meeting date. • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSI'T'IVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback 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: r r F L ~~o~ ~`s fo r e v~ 1`G ~ ~ e ~"~ , S ~t P ~ 9`( ,`OrLiDr~~ lii/~U~(X ~1~. YlAc~fd~v'~d ~~ ~/~~s'_ _~aYiANcc.° /S 1/1©/~ and such chat the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substar~~ial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~~ e ~e , mN. ~7~in f e ~ S~ ~~ Se f~ac k UQr,av,c e Df 1. S t~cef S~g~~ b~ (vi C!^ eaSe ~ to q~~oc,. G S~ct'e Sel kick t iarr~ah C P D~ .~• 3 ~ J~ee Z~ • r t' Motion made by f~% ~%b'~ ~/~ Date ~ ~ ~~/_ Seconded by /'Y1 w rP' Chair Signatur---~- Voting Results ~(~ "`~~~/~~~'" Ct y/ AL~/~t° C-y1 ~ fah C ('~ ©hci ~ S°1<<"GLG ~Kre _i and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: • ZONIIVG BOARD OF ADJITSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.~ lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) • from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of. any special conditions,. an,~ because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary`~ardship:to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. ~ ~ - / - ,2 ODD Motion made by , Date Seconded by ~ C~ -~7~- /~ /Gt ~~~,~_ Voting Results 3 "c~-.. Chair vaxrv~ssa.DOc ~~ ~` ~~~ ~ ~ ~P~E`~~~ J ~o ~ ~e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~a~~~~.