HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
CITY OF COLlEGE STATION
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College. Station, Texas .77842-9960
(409) 764-3500
October 20, .1994
Mr. John Jordan
11 7 Millers Lane
C~ollege Station, TX 77845
RE: Status of property located at 123 Millers Lane; Dr. Maxine Stiles' veterinary clinic
Dear Mr. Jordan,
\.
On September 30 of this year, I wrote a letter that outlined the City's position regarding the uses
permitted on thepropeny described above. You met subsequently with myself: Jane Kee, and Jim
Callaway on Monday, October 10. At that meeting, you requested clarification of a portion of that
letter. I am writing to. follow up and to respond to your.request.
It was our understanding that your primary concern' centers not around the current use of the
property but .moreon future. uses. .Specifically, you thought that we. had made an assertion that
unrestricted animal boarding would be allowed without Planning and Zoning Commission review.
To clarify, I would like to state that boarding that is incidental to the veterinary use and does not
become the primary use of the property will be permitted. Should any additional boarding other
than that associated with Dr. Stiles' practice take place, it would be in violation of the residential
zoning of the property and the Conditional Use Permit for a clinic that was granted.
We also discussed the dog obedience training that is taking place a few evenings a week. .It is our
opinion that a reasonable amount of outside activity may take place. You seemed to agree and
indicated that you have no complaint regarding the current level of outdoor activity on the site.
Again, I reiterate that Dr.. Stiles has been notified .ofthe fact that any expansions of her business
must come under review.
I hope this letter has addressed your concern in a satisfactory manner. If you have any questions,
please give me a call.
Sincerely,
cc:
Jaj1e Kee,.City Planner. .
aJfmCallaway, Ass't Director.ofEconomic.&Development Services
Dr. Maxine Stiles
,
Home of Texas A&M University
CITY OFCOll..EGE STATION
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842-0960
(409) 764-3500
November 15, 1994
Mr. John Jordan
117 Millers Lane
CollegeStation,TX 77845
RE: Status of property located . at 123 Millers Lane; Dr. Maxine Stiles' veterinary clinic
Dear Mr. Jordan,
\.
lam writing in response to your letter dated October 27, 1994~. in which you requested
clarification pf the discussions regarding Qutside boarding of animals on the subject. site. The
Planning anq Zoning Commi~sion. specifically addressed the issue. of the boarding of animals and
decided to~llow the use of the existing building for boarding purposes. Therefore any inside
boarding mayoccurontneproperty,even if it is not directly associated with the Dr. Stiles'
veterinary. practice.
It is the opinion of this stafftha.toutsideboarding, if it is not associated with the veterinary care . of
the animals that may be found there frolll time. to. time, was not within the scope of the
ConditionalWsePermit. Shotlld.suchactivitiesbecomeprevl:tlent, Dr. Stiles will need to return to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review.
Ihopetfris letter has addresse~fyourconcerninasatisfactory manner. If you have any questions,
pleasegiveJIleacal1. ... .....> , .
Sincerely,
cc:
Jim Callaway, Ass'tDirector of Economic & Development Services
Jane Kee, City Planner
Dr. Maxine Stiles
.
Home. of Texas A&M University
CITY OF COLlEGE STATION
Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue
CoUegeStation, Texas 77842-9960
(409).764-3500
September 30, 1994
Mr. . John Jordan
117 MiUers.Lane
College Station, TX77845
.~))
RE: Status of property located. at 123. Millers Lane; Dr.. Maxine Stiles'veterinary clinic
DearMr . Jordan,
As was stated in my letter dated August 22, 1994, I have been working on collecting
information to.. try todytermine. which accessory uses can normally be associated. with
veterinary clinics. Y ouhave called our attention to the activities on the veterinary site and have
questioned Dr. Stiles'right to them. I contacted the Planning Advisory Service through
American. Planning Association and was. sentsome..information regarding these and similar
uses~I also researche(j the zoning definitions handbook (The New lllustrated Book of
Development Defil1itionsby Moskowitz and Lindbloom) as well as our Zoning Ordinance
(Ord.No.1638).Althoughldid not find a thorough study of veterinary clinics and their
accessory uses, I was abletodrawsome.conclusions.
In determining the property rights that were granted to Dr. Stiles by the Commission when the
C()n~itional Use Permit was gran~ed,thereare two main questions that need to be answered.
'I'heJirstis whether dog ob edience training should now be considered by the Commission as an
awendment .to. the Conditional U$e.Permitthat .allowed the veterinary clinic or .whether the
tJ;ai*n~.is . acce~sory tOtheorigwal. approved use. The second is whether the fence is a
significant site 'change that must go .back to the Commission for approval.
The. definitions book distinguishes between veterinary hospitals and other animal care facilities.
It defines a veterinaryhosf)ital as 'a place where animals are given medical care. and are
boarded only. incidentally . tOs.uc~ . care I. Facilities that board and breed need special noise
deadepingconstructi,on ofopen-sp,flcy buffering to avoid sound transmission. I should point out
that~hePlanning and ZoninpCOm,wission did discuss the boarding of animals and decided to
allow this use. .. It wa.smy impress~op that the Commission had the veterinary uses in~nd that
arfi typipal to the Bryan-Cpllyge S~ti.on area. This is to say that uses generally associated with
board~g; facilities, as wella$ with veterinary clinics, were covered at the time the Conditional
UsePermit.was issued.
Apparently most ordinances in other communities allow veterinary hospitals in nonresidential
districts only. We did find one ordinance for Fairfax County that allows veterinary clinics as a
Special Use Permit in residential zo.nes if the.facilityretainsa residential character, is the
hO?1e of the operator, and employs no more than 4 persons. The Zoning Board must also find
that the use will not be substantially nonresidential. as to disrupt the. residential character of the
neighborhood. Using this example as a guide, we can logically state that any uses associated
Home of Texas A&M University
with the veterinary > hospital use . that .donot . substantially . change theresident.ialcharacter of the
site should.be.permitted.without further review. I did drive onto ~e prelUlse.s ~d found that
the site. does maintain a . residential character .even.. though there ..Is.no one lIVIng there. The
building still resembles ah.omeand the yard area is unaltered except for the new fence and a
small parking lot that was . required as apart of site plan . review.
At this point, we know that Dr. Stiles plans to use the site as a veterinary clinic, a dog
obedience training <school, and an. animal boarding facility . The Planning and Zoning
Commission granteq. the clinic use as well as the boarding . . These uses therefore have become
property rights to ,be enjoyed by Dr. Stiles and future owners. This leaves us to consider the
dog training.
Dog obedience training was not specifically mentioned in any of the sources I found. When
the Zoning . Ordinance does not specifiqallyaddress an issue, as in this case, the City Planning
Staff makes interpretations based on reasonable expectations and the intent of the Ordinance.
The existence of animals outside on a piece of property is not unusual at a veterinary clinic.
Animals. are exercised and allowed to relieve themselves periodically. It has been our
understanding for some time now that Dr. Stiles specializes in ostriches - birds of this size are
usually kept outsid~. The. approval to board animals inside the building will result in more
animals needing some outside activity. We would concl~de,then, that a moderate amount of
outdoor activity should. be permitted<witho.utfurther review, including a reasonable amount of
dog training.
As apart of the Conditional Use Permit process, the Commission has final authority over the
site plan. The site plan review is necessary .because the Commission must find that all
minimum standards. are met, that the use meets Comprehensive Plan goals and the spirit of the
zoning ordinance, and that the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of
the public. Inthiscase the site plan was reviewed at a different meeting than the actual use of
the site. The fence. that Dr. Stiles haser~ted was not shown on that .approved plan. However,
we do not require site plan approv<4 offences, .nor do wereq~irea building permit. I would
from this point then argue tMat tl1efence does not constitute significant site changes . or
developmentaIld T wOllldmost<4kel~not . have required the fence to go back. to the
Commission if .Dr. Stiles .hadcalledime beforehand. This interpretation is consistent with
previous decisions on other sites. '
Therefore, we would .make the interpretation that. Dr. Stiles has not .at this point exceeded the
scope of the Conditional Use Permit ,based on the argument that some outside animal activity is
to be expected and that fences do not constitute development that require City review.
I do have someconcemthat future ~se~ may notfallwithin that scope. It is my understanding
that Dr. Stiles feels that any use that d~s with animals needs no further. review . However, I
feel that other uses that may occur in the future. should be analyzed. Any additional building
that expands the operation .sho~ld &0 .Pflck to the Commission, for example. Likewise, any
significant outdoor activities such as 'breeding or riding areas should be reviewed.
I intend to write Dr. Stiles and let her know that sh~needs to check any future changes with
us. Significant changes must return to the Commission and notices will be sent out to
surrounding property. owners within 200 t.
1 realize that you may not.agreewithour interpretation and may wish to pursue the matter.
This issue has involved two points where staff made an interpretation. The Zoning Board of
Adjustment has the authority to review such. matters. The Board ..hearsappealswhere it is
alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or
determination made in the enforcement of the Ordinance. I have included an application in the
event that you should chose to present your arguments to the Board, The fee is $75.00, which
is not refundable. Once the. Board has rendered . its. decision, the same request. may not. return
to them without .a substantialam.ountof . additional information. Notification is required,
therefore, the case will take about 3 weeks to go through the process. Please let me know if
you wish to. go. before the Board, or if you have any more questions.
Thank you for the information submitted to us and for your time.
Sincerely,
.~l
Sabine. Kuenzel,AICP
StatTPlanner
cc:
... DrflaxineStiles
~Callaway, Ass'tDirector of Economic and Development Services
Jane Kee, City Planner
Legal Department
attachments
John Jordan
117 Millers Lane
College Station, TX 77845
(409} '693-6320
October 27, 1994
CITY OF COLLEGE.STATION
l\ttn: .Ms. Sabirle . Kuenzel
P.o. Box 9960
College station, TX 77842-9960
Regarding: Vet Clinic 123 Millers Lane.
Ladiesarld Gentlemen:
At the conclusion of our meeting of October 10, 1994,
I reiterated the most significant point, upon which all present
stated agreement:
TI-IERE WOULD BE NO omsIDE. BOARDING OF . ANIMALS..
As I pointed out during ~hemeeting, your earlier letter of 9/30/94
seemed to leave tIle door. open to.such a possibility--and thereil1 was.nlY
centralobjectioIl.
Your sumrnary letter of our October 10th meeting nlakes no
mentio11of thatmbst i,mportantpoint, and it certainly Sllould;
accordingly, I am requesting that you put it in writing.
Slnc:~rely yqurs,
Jj" ~otda~.n. ~
t;. ~ !;~~~..~.~~
, "",/~ l i/~' . ....- .-._~--"
p;? t/
cc: Jan~Kee, City Planner
~irnCa.llajrciy'~~~~fi'ltClIlt pitectqrp( Eco S.Dl?VE;:!. $E;ryic~$
~\
FROM:
DATE:
At this point, we know that Dr. Stiles plans to use the site as a veterinary clinic, a dog
obedience training. school, and . an .animal.boarding . facility. The Planning and Zoning
Commission granted the clinic use as well "as the boarding. These uses therefore have
become property rights to be enjoyed byDr~Stiles and future owners. This leaves us
to consider the dog. training.
..
Ifound notldng to support that . from a zoning standpoint, dog obedience. training is
normally. considered incidental to the primary veterinary .. use. ...'l'hereforeI feel that as a
staff we should make this deterll1ination based on .reasonable expectations, The
existence of animals outside on . the property isnotunusuaiata veterinary. clinic.
Animals are exce:rcised and allowed torelievethemselvespenodically.Jthasbeen our
understan~ingfor.. some.. time now that Dr... Stiles .specia1~sinostriches -birds of..this
size are usually kept outside. The approval to boardanill1alsin~ide thebuildiIlg will
result in 1l10reanimals needing .someousideactivity.lwould .. ~nclude,then, . that a
moderateatllount .. of.. putdoor ... activity... should. be permitted . .. without further . review ,
including a .. reasonable amount .ofdog .. training.
As .apart. of thei.ConditionallJse Permit process, the. .COl11m.issionhasfinalauthority
over the site plan. The site plan review is necessary be.cause the Gommission must find
thatallminifllumstafldardsaremet,thatthe use meets Gomprehensive . Plan goals and
the spirit ofthezon,ingordinance,andthat the use willnotbedetrimentai to the health ,
safety, ... or welfare .ofthe . public. .... .jrhefence. that.. Dr..... Stiles. has erected. was · not shown
on theapprov~pl~. .... However ,',Vedo. not require site .planapprovaloffen~s, nor do .
werequirea?u~d.icngpermit.I'Y'ou~dfrom this pointtheIlarglle > that the fence does
notconstitutesi~nificant site changes~rdevelopment : and 1 would . most likely not have
required tnefence to go back' to ,tneCommission ifDr.:Stilesnad <called me
beforehand.
Therefore,att~ispoiIlt,l. would. t!laketheinterpretatioll tha.tDr. Stiles . has not
exceeded the.. scope Of the Conditional Use.. Permit based on tIle argument that · some
outside..anima.l ,..activityis. to. .beexpected . and ...that ..fences..do ...not . cQnstitute.. development.
IdohavesomecOnCerJlthat fumre.usesmay not fall\-Vithin that scope. It is my
understanding thatDr.StilesJeelsth(i;tany use . that deals with animals Ileed. no further
review. . .... Howe"er, . .. I . feel . thatAth~r uses. that .. may .o~urjnthe .. future. should be
analysed.AnYadditi~nal building t~at expands the ?peration should.go back to the
Commission. ......Eikewise,.anysignifi~t outdoor activities such.. as.breeding or riding
areas should be reviewed.
I wouldsuggestthatwewnteDr . Stiles and let. herknowtpatshenee<lS to check any
future changes with us and . copy . :Nfr.lordan. ..As this is largely. an interpretation
question,. Mr. Jordan Can beoffered$e option of an appeal tot~eZoning Board~ . I can
send him a copy of this memo along with a Zoning Board application.
~~\ .... .... .~;. . lZ..lJf
/ .. ./ .. /""........"
.. ...... ......... "... ............ ..................~,.1........ .... ....... ........... ,.1./....... /....//'...,
,I . .., .-. .\ ./l
fIJ-,
I
'7'-
..
~oS- '
'.
....
3. 20..... ACRES
139, 401......SQUARE. .FE.ET
$1.25..PER SQUARE .... FOOT
$175,000. TOTAL ASKING PRICE