Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1996 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 21, 1996 7:00 P.M. )!~!IEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Hollas, Member Rife and Alternate Members Blackwelder and Ochoa. (Alternate Member Alexander was in the audience.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Sawtelle and Poston. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas, and Assistant City Attorney Robinson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Acting Chairman Hollas called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of April 16, 1996. Mr. Rife moved to approve the minutes of April 16, 1996 with the clarification of his statement on page three of the minutes explaining why he voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Rife explained that he was not opposed to the concept behind the plan presented by U-Haul. His sole reason for opposing the motion was the potential remainder damage claims that could be raised. Unless the applicant is willing to guarantee the coverage of any future claims, the City could potentially incur the costs associated with future remainder damage claims. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a rear setback variance request at 815 Azalea, lot 22, block F of the Eastmark Phase II Subdivision. The applicant is Randy French of Stylecraft Builders. Mr. Hollas explained that since only four members of the Board are present, a unanimous vote is required to approve the variance request. Applicant Randy French agreed to proceed with the variance request with the four members present. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and stated that the purpose of the variance request is to allow for the construction of a single family home with a garage built 15.5' away from the rear access easement for a total variance of 4.5'. The requirement that the rear setback be measured from the alley rather than the rear property line has not been well enforced in this particular subdivision. Due to oversight on the part of both the City and builders, many of the other houses in this area encroach into the required setback. This oversight has in fact given other properties in the area more buildable area than they should have. Although it is ultimately the responsibility of the builder to meet all ordinance • requirements, it seems that the requirements were not discussed with builders of the other houses in the area. The intent of a 20' rear setback for garages with rear access is to provide enough parking area off of the access drive to accommodate a vehicle parked outside of the garage. The applicant feels that the intent of the ordinance is met due to the fact that the garage would still be 20.5' from the pavement edge of the existing access drive. On June 20, 1995, the Board denied an application from Stylecraft requesting a "blanket" variance to the rear setback for this lot and six other lots in Eastmark Phase II. The request was denied primarily because it was a "blanket" request, lacking specific special conditions for the particular lots. However, • the Board also gave direction for staff to consider an amendment to the ordinance to be taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission which would allow 20' rear garage setbacks to be measured form the edge of the access drive pavement instead of the boundary of the easement. The staff presented a discussion item to the Commission on September 7, 1995 regarding a possible ordinance change to allow measurement from the pavement edge, as well as to allow carports within the rear setback. The Commission reached a consensus to not change the current ordinance in either situation, stating that the proposed amendments were an over reaction to a localized problem, and that the variance process should continue to be used for such cases. Thirty surrounding property owners were notified with several inquiries. One resident expressed concern about making the situation worse in the neighborhood by continuing the encroachment throughout the remainder of the subdivision. Mr. Hollas opened the public hearing. Applicant Randy French for Stylecraft Builders approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Hollas. He stated that the floor plan of the proposed home exists in the subdivision now and Stylecraft built several of these homes in the last few years. At that time, there was not an encroachment problem; however, since then, staff has interpreted the ordinance differently to not allow the construction of the exact same home. Out of the forty-eight homes in the neighborhood, thirty-three violate the setback ordinance. Mr. French presented a slide showing the proposed home on another lot in the subdivision to prove that there is still room to park a large vehicle in the driveway so that it does not extend into the access easement. He stated that Stylecraft owns the remaining vacant lots in the subdivision and this is the only home where the rear setback should be an issue. The intent of the ordinance is met if the variance request is granted. Ruth McMullen of 823 Azalea approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Hollas. She stated that • there does not seem to be a problem in this case because there is enough room in the driveway to park two vehicles away from the alley. Ms. McMullen stated that she is opposed to continuing the existing situation of not having enough room for rear parking and forcing more on street parking. She stated that she is also concerned with starting a trend for the remaining vacant lots. Mr. Hollas closed the public hearing. Mr. Rife moved to authorize a variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638, to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: requirement that the rear setback be measured from the alley rather than the rear property line not being enforced in the past; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: that unequal enforcement has resulted in other builders and/or property owners being allowed to develop similar lots; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion. Mr. Ochoa expressed concern with the hardship issue in this particular case. The difficulty of unequal enforcement in the past has been corrected. The size reduction of the home or the devaluation of the neighborhood could be special conditions that only apply to this subdivision instead of the entire City. He expressed concern of creating a precedent throughout the City if the hardship is not specific to this particular subdivision. Mr. Hollas stated that the fact that the alley is established, there are transformers located in the 5' green belt and there are no plans to expand the alley, it would be reasonable to assume that the setback be measured from the alley since there are other improvements in that additional 5'. .7 ZBA Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Rife moved to amend the original motion to authorize a variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: requirement that the rear setback • be measured from the alley rather than the rear property line being equally enforced in the Eastmark Phase II area in the past and that it would be reasonable to measure from the alley rather than the property line due to the electrical transformer locations; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: that unequal enforcement has allowed other builders and/or property owners being allowed to develop similar lots to their highest and best uses in the past; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Ochoa seconded the amendment which passed unopposed (4 - 0). • • The motion as amended by Mr. Rife passed unopposed (4 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn. Mr. Hollas moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). APP O~ ED: hairman, Diclc~'Z1weH- S~c.Pl~tn I~}o~14 S Pla ni g Tec an, Natalie Thomas ZBA Minutes May 21, 1996 Page 3 of 3 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 16, Ordinance ~tumber 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the , yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) ~ot 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: • and iie~ause '~C strict-enforcement of the prc ecessary ards~ this applicant being: ~=--- ~ r a~~ ,. ~~ ~ would result in tom- M_M_t-Mu.~v O~'+~ ,,~~i11--Q~, ~~11 d,,~,ce ~P'`~~~t //~~~~~~~~ ~~~ t3~~ and su h ghat the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice ,~ done subject to the following limitations: ~,~ Motion made by l'~l} (~ Date • Seconded by C C7 Voting Results ~r ~ Chair Signature Y/{RP1638.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment '• U 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.