Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout74 Lorenzo Preston 9.19.78 103 HollemanCITY OF COLLEGE STATION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 TO T,iHOH IT MAY CONCEfu'i : The Zoning Board of Adjustment will consider a request for variance from Mr . Lorenzo Preston at their called meeting in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall at 7:30 p. m. on Tuesday, September 19, 1978 , the nature of the case being as follows: The applicant requests a variance to Section 5-D.4 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to add to his residence at 103 Holleman Drive. Further information is available at the offic e of the Building Official of the City of College Station, 846-88 86 . William F. Koehler Building Official -----------------" / ,, -- AG ENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 19 , 1978 7:30 p . m. ~ Approval of the minutes of the meeting of August 29 , 1978. 2 . Consideration of a request for variance from Lorenzo Preston at 103 Holleman Drive. 3. Other Busines s 4. Adjourn P~RM(T 1'JO ( ( ) . ) 'l I I MEMBERS PRESENT : STAFF PRESENT : VISITORS PRESENT : MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Au gust 29 , 197 8 John Hughey , Henry Hawley , Wes Harper , Ann Jones , Dorothy DuBois , Council Liaison Larry Ringer (not voting) Building Official Bill Koehler, City Attorney Neeley Lewis John Hughey was Floyd Maksche , Luther G. Jones, Robert Alexander , Helen Bowman, Bob Boyce , Henry Mi ller, Tyler Moore , Lloyd Smith , Larry D. Hill , R. Hambr i ck selected chairman by (acc ~on .J Agenda Item No . 1 --Approval of t he mi nutes of the meeting of June 20 , 1978 : The minutes were declared approved as written . Agenda Item No . 2 --Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche at 315 University Drive : Koehler said that the application had been mailed in time , but delayed at t he Post Office . He explained that the request was to expand a building which was a non -conforming us e vdth r espect to parking regulations and front setback . Mak s che pointed out that the expansion would be to a rear area not useable for parking , would ob serve rear setback , and would be even with one adjacent building . Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the unique circumstance of similar situations throughout the neighborhood and because the proposed c onstruction would effect no change in the neighborhood . The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved . Agenda Item No . 3 --Con sideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Johnson at 415 Thompson Street : Koehler discussed the application and concurred in the statements made in it . He said t hat the only public interest inv olved would be the open space requir ed i n f r ont yards . Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the other similar buildings along the street and because n o substantial public interest would be lost. The motion was seconded by Ha wley and unanimously approved . Agenda Item No . 4 --Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins at 1102 Carolina Street: Koehler di scussed the application and agreed with the statements made in it . He said the case was parallel to the previous item and in a~eighborhood . ·-! Minutes/Page 2 Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the other similar buildings in the nei ghborh oo d and becaus e no sub s tantial public i n t er e st would be lost . The motion ~as seconded by Jones and unanimously a pproved . Agenda Item No . 5 --Consideration of a reque st for variance from Larry D. Hill at 1806 Sabine Court: Koehler presented the application and pointed out that this was an oddly shaped lot on a cul-de-sac . He said t hat most structures in the neigh- borhood conformed, but that a front setback variance had been granted for an adjoining lot. Hill discussed dimensions of his proposed s tructure, the uses of the land adjacent to his property , the proposed distance to the street , and constraints of easements which would not allow him to purchase and utilize additi onal land . Hughey moved that the v ariance be granted because of the location of the cul-de-sac and the unusual configuration of the lot. The motion ~as seconded by DuBois. Hughey and Harper expressed reservations about decreasing open s pace where setbacks had been observed, and expressed an interest of other nearby o~mers in maintaining s uch space . They questioned optimum use of available space and the relative detriment of a two c a r carport as opposed to the three car structure proposed . DuBois and Jones questioned the amount of encroachment which could not be precisely stated from the information given . Hughey moved that the request be tabled until s uch time as the applicant could find the distance by which hi s s t ructure \.,C>Uld encroach upon the front setback line . The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved . Ag enda Item No . 6 --Co ns ideration of an appeal from Dr . Alex ander on 107 and 201 Dominik Drive : Koehler presented all of the correspondence in the case and said that up on investigati on of a complaint from the appelant he had : 1 . def erred a decision on the adequacy of the screenin g fence. 2. determined that there was no violation of environmental regulation s with respect to noise and odors within the meaning of the ordinance for the reasons state d in his memorandum of August 9 , 1978 . J . comm enced action on the complaint about lighting . He said that the appellant he l d that the screen fence was inadequate and therefore in violation , and that conditions of odor s were in fact a viola tion as alleged in the original complaint . Dr . Alexander said that his principal concern was smoke and odor. He said that he relied upon the ordinance descripti on of a Single Family Residential District rt protect ed from incompatible u s es11 • He s a i d that "ambient11 should be con'3trued accordin g to the dictionary definition , and that environmental ( ( ( Minutes/Page 3 regulations are more specific than district regulations and should be interpreted strictly in a case where the regulations conflict. ·He said that adjacent land use districts should be a valid Qonsideration in inter- pretation of district regulations. He disagreed with the assumption that effect on neighborin g properties had been con s idered in the original rezoning action in 1967 and cited the record of publication of notice and minutes of the hearings . Helen Bowman said that she had bought property relying on zoning and for that reason had not checked on the circumstances of adjoining properties . She said that the Police Department wo uld take no action on odors and that the odors precluded her use of the back yard and were a problem in her house at night . Lloyd Smith of TAMU food services said that he was familiar with nsimplex" centrifugal grease extractors . He said that a Bureau of Standards study showed tha t one brand of extractors combined vdth an electrostatic precipi- tator achieved 95 percent solids removal . He said that such systems are in use in eastern and midwestern states and estimated precipitator energy usage at $280 p er year for 10 feet of ventilator hood. He said that one manu- facturer claims that charcoal filters added to the above comp onents achieve 100 percent solids and odors removed . He estimated the cost of the total system at $14 ,800 plus plumbing and adjustments . Henry Miller recited the change s in hi s operations and equipment that he had made to accomodate the desires of his neighbors . He pointed out that the Municipal Court had found him not guilty of a noise nuisance complaint and had found that the noise level was not unreasonable . He asserted that his venting and extraction systems were quite adequate by community standards , and that Health Dep artment inspections confirm thi s . He felt that further expenditures for equipment that had b een discussed would not be reasonable and that the efficiency figures cited for the systems were over-optimi stic . He said that burn-cleaning of the broiler grill is done nightly at about 11 p . m. and does produce smoke for about ten minutes . In respon se to a question from Harper , Miller offered the opinion that smoke and odors were not normal to a residential neighborhood , but was no more than from other commercial operations . He acknowledged that there was a problem, but that the problem stemm~d from the zoning of the land upon which he too had relied in locating his business . He noted that he had heard no complaints from other residents who were more directly in line of prevailing winds . Helen Bowman said that odors from garbage at Pepe Taco were a problem also . R. Hambrick , a supervisor at Pepe 's said .that He alth Unit sanitarians had found no problem with the dumpsters and that drainage from the City 's packer trucks could be the cause of any odors . Hughey remarked that the question was whether or not the Building Official 's interpretations upon which he had based his findings , were correct . He said / ( ( I I I \ Minute s/ !-'o.ge 4 that all partie s agreed a s to the condition s , but the businesse s a re legitima te operations , the error being in ho w the land is zoned . He pointed out that the time t o have acted •~s wh en th e property •~s re-z oned. Mrs . Bowman said that the ordinance should be enforc e d according to its literal meaning. Hawley said that no food operation in the City conforms to the lit eral meaning . Koehler mentioned the requirement for uniformity in application of district regulations and reiterated that literal meaning has b e en interpre t ed to ref lect what is reasonable for permitted uses. Tyler Moore pointed out that if his client were required to eliminate all odors , he should expect that all of his competitors would be required to do the same . J ones and DuBois stated that they would not be prepared to decide •tlthout exam- ining the conditi ons on the s i te . Hughey said that smoke and odors were mentioned separately in the ordinance , and the existence of smoke ~s not qualified in the ordinance . Hughey moved that the appeal be upheld with regard to smoke , it being held that any smoke emission is a violation of the ordinance . The motion ~s seconded by Harper and failed for lack of required affirmative notes as follo ws: AYE : Hughey, Harper NAY : Hawley with Jones and DuBoi s abstaining Hughey moved that the appeal be upheld with regard to odors , it being held that odors as described are noxious and therefore a violation of the ordinance . The mo tion ~s seconded by Harper and failed by the following note : AYE : None NAY : Hughey , Harper, Hawley with Jones and DuBois abstaining Koehler explained the problem of the two to three inch gap at the bottom of the screen fence . Miller said that he would fill the gap . Alexander agreed that this would solve the problem with the fence . Alexander stated that he had no further complaint about the noise as it exists now . The Board directed that the Building Official re-examine the lighting of the rear of Danver 1 s and inform the owner of hi s finding s . Miller could th en appeal any disagreement that he mi ght have with the findings . Agenda Item No . 7 --Other Busine ss : There •~s no other business . Agenda Item No . 8 --Adjourn : There being no other bus iness, the meeting ~s declar ed adjourned. ' -I .1 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 September 15, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Adju stment FROM: Building Official SUBJECT: Meeting of September 19, 1978 1 . Consideration of a reque st for variance from Lorenzo Pre ston : The applicant seeks a permit and a variance to add to a non- conforming structure at 103 Holleman Drive . 2. No information was brought forth conc erning th e variance case from last month on Larry D. Hill . : -~ PL UNSER I ---b :L "' . }; FEE: . . . FOUND_ATION nta L0 ~--~.:_-, .-._-··~-PA.~TITicr'rs._·_,-Kl~~-. ..A..L...:1.tJfldF.:.1·_ ..i-:..::::··-'-'-".c-'"::J._;:.0=" _._· :_· -rs=-·@5-;00:_-./..-J-~'·_0()-1 . --®3. oo_-_. ----f E~~R~-~R Jfri.e .kJ -· . ~ ·_--WIHDOWS.__ __ ~Q~j·::.i._ ~,,Al..i.-Au!YYO.J..• ...L.-_ ...::<_':......-,_-__-_____ ..,.--· ·----.-· ::6g-.----i --------< __@l.25 ___ --f , ___ @ • 7 5_..,.~-,,.--1 ROOF ___ ·_-_· ,_.--__ NO. OF ROO?!iS ____ -(e~l.ltltchen.& bath)_ & oO TOI AL 'IP-+---·-='--"--+ ATHS NO. OF BLDGS. __ _ ---0CAHPORT 0 SINGLE 0ATTACHED OGltRAGE ODOUBLE ODETACHED CENTRAL HEAT/AIR: TONS GAS AIR REC IEPT NO CONDITIONS OF ISSUAHCE: ~---------------~--------~----- _BUILDING OFFICIAL .. _ , . · . _ DATE ISSUED -· 1', the undersigned, hereby certify that the information stated herein and in the attached plans is true and correct an.d that the construction proposed complies with the Zoning Grdina.rice, the Building Code and conditions of approval of the plat of the la.rid. I also certify that I a1Ll familiar \.rlth the regulations above mentioned and with the conditions of is&uance of this permit and I understand that I am personally liable to the penalties provided by law for each and every day's violation of any of the above regulations in addition to the costs of removing or correcting all such violations whether or not they are shown on this pennit or the attached pla.ris. SIGNATURE OF .APFLICAHT: tzL_,,__ ~U-2---. DATE'------ • .;" J ' Fage 2 of 2 File No. --------REQUEST FOR V ARIAtllCE Present zoning of land in question '/ /<: -/ Section of ordinance fro!ll "Which variance is sought · .$"'-D . Lj {;-/JBL r 11 /} '') The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: /?) __A;2;)"---- This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions . of the land not found in like districts: The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: ______ _ '0 ~ . This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the follo'Wing The .facts .stated by me in this application are true and correct. K~~~ Applicant 7 Dat lli.VIEW Plm COMMENT: Building Official: _________________ ~-- --.. lr) -' o""C'..t',CJ~ ~ I _L "1. 0 J ..-{ "'\?.) l( ~ J 0 /'1 ~JI ~ ~ /o <:' ) ~ ( z. ) - 1 .. Ql i-C.C.L.te '1J./r1 '::J /..,1X,,1 I r~$"0(.JJV3'J \::i LA.~, i ~ rr-tt f\1 d.J/ ~ £ ~ --< fl. tJ .J. ~ t .1> IX ;/ ) I -\. ..tf:-fl 5' ___!:;. ._; ~ - I CJ:, > >i 0 f/ b U,1 15') X _1 .; " [') ( " ' . J ' -.. . ~ I } , ' 6=====~=======~==========--l 't /'' z o:n~c r,r.1.v .. o OF :\D rnsnrE~~T Pt:.OC E!J'.:!-:E FO R FI LT NG A RE QU~S T FO ?-l/~\RIA~:C E ( 1) I u ord e r for th e 130<.1 rJ tu co:1s ider a ca se . th en.~ must b e on fi1P a co:-:ip l2r.e applic.:ition for a buil<lir;g p ~r m it whlch ha s been r e j ec ted _by the Buil ding Off icial and a co mpleted "Req ue st for Vari<:mce" application. I f some unique circums tance renders a full design impractical, and if the E~a=d consents, th e appeal may be b ase d on a decision rend e red in writing by th e Building Official in reply to the applic.:int's written inquiry as to the eff e ct of .:i p art icular zoning requireme nt on a proposed plan. A co8plete ~pplic at ion for varianc e mus t also be filed along with any drawings or data n e ce ssary to show th e nature and extent of the variance\ (2) Th e re will be no item placed on the Board agenda nor any notice publis~e d until all of the materials mentioned above are complete and in hand. He provide no materials to the Board in support of a variance except that ~.:hich we receive fro m the applicant and can reproduce in-house (8 1/2 x 14 max size, line work). (3) Application; page (1) (a) The building d epar tment will fill in the date o f the hearing and th e date of notification. (b) The applicant will fill out th e rest of theforra. (~) Own ers within 200 feet may b e deternined by scale fro~ the 1"=100' scale street map seri es on file in ou-r.-office.--- o ,.,ners who se property in any part falls within the 200 foot distance should be listed. Me asure me nt starts from th e prop e rty line of the lot or tract in question, or, if the tract is bound e d by a stree t, from th e opposite side of the street. (d) The names and addresses must be as they appear on City tax rolls, even if they are wrong or out of date. (4) Application; page (2) (a) The building dep a rtment will assist you in finding the zoning of th e tract, identifying the section of the ordinance and specifying the variation. (b) Th e remaining three section address themselves to the three findin g s that th e Board !!lust make in order to grant a variance. If the Board c annot agr ee with any one of these, they will not b e able to grant the variance. (c) Th e application will be sent to the Building Official, City En gin eer and Fire Harshal for comment on any _facts within their knowledge which ~ay bear on the case. (5) Xotice of the hearing will b e published on the Wednesday pre ceeding the neeting and will b e ~ailed by the building department to the owners with in 200 feet. The co ~plete application must be received by the close of b usiness on the Nonday preceed i ng the d a te of publication in order for to meet the_p ubl ish er 's d ea dline. (6) S ho uld 2ny person d esi re to appeal a decision o-f--the Board, he should so state after the conclusion ·of th~ h earing. The chairman will complete us / his st.::it e r.!e nt of findin gs i.:l!i ch will constitu te filing of the d e c:i si on- ~linute s o f th e meetin~, subject to approval of the Board~ will be prep ared "\y th e close of bu sine ss on the following d a y. A duplicat e tape of th e proce edings will be made available to the appellant's attorn2y upon request and upon rec ei pt of co rn p2nsation for th e 120 rninute cassettes used for th e duplic at ion. No transcript is rnade of th e h earings. Minutes of the pro- ceedings are paraphrased as appropriate, in the judgement of the recordcr 7 to re f lect points of the discussion pertinent to the decisions rendered_ , .. ,J/ :i•. -· r ... , ' I" J J. {...o..::i._ a V J.. . '-;_"2?LIC.!~7IO ~f .Applic<:!.tion. D ~t8 ------- R e~ 1 d by ------~ ;:rc'\i\ of Ap]liG ol!t ~ ~ ·Ldd.ress /tJ ,? /~ /2n . C ,S , ·--------------?~::m.e ~ ¥ (,. ·-S'l ~ 2 Lot LJ. Blo:::lc _L/=,__· __ Sub:livis ion.~&vv,$ D~scripticn, If applicable ~>1_~/J/;'-"-l'llf~~·------------~--~------"--~ , ~ (Appeal , Ho!lconforrni~g Use, Variax1ce) !~ /11011/ CCW Fd&nJ/ll(; t/S C Action r equested : AdjoL11ers n otified -Hailing Date <-..:----------------------- J.f.PJ1IE From current tax roll s , ~ vkw-/0/ ADD RES S College Station Tax Assessor .~· .. £----&fl 01,y 7~ ~I~ '- J,i 11-•.. I" / ~age 2 of 2 REQUES T FOR V ARIA..NCE ' " Present zon:ing of land :in question i /<?-/ Section of ord:inance from which varianc e is sought \ .5 -D , 1./ {/IJBt r 1'4 '') The f ollow:ing specific variation from the ord:inance is requested : ZZ, __L'}/2/)~~- &/JI EX /$ Z!N(r S ET • 4-- This variance is necessary due to the follow:ing unique and special conditions . of the land not found :in like districts: The follow:ing alternatives to the requested variance are possible:~~~~~~-- This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: ~---------------------------------------------------------------------- 711G d/iW AOPl/t4-U WI L-L M <.76 1 ' .5£78/)(,t( The facts stated by me :in this application are true and correct. x_~~ Applicant ~ 1-?2-@) Jf 71{ Dat; REVIEW AND COMMEN T: Build:ing Official: ----------------------------------~---- I" j r REVIEW AND COMMENT:. Fire Marshal -----------.. -. , ' REVIEW AND COMMENT: City Engineer: ~--------------------~ The Zoning Board of Adjustment has examined the facts presented herein and - reflected in the minutes of the public meeting of and have determined that the requested variance (IS / IS NOT) contrary to the public interest and that unique and special conditions (DO /DO NOT) exist as stated herein and as reflected in the minutes of the Board's proceedings and the varia~ce as requested herein (IS / IS NOT) approved subject to the following terms and conditions: Chairperson, Zoning Board of Adjustment Date Filed NOTE: Any person or persons or any tax_;:>ayer or a~y offic.er, depart..rnent, board, commission or committee of the City, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any - decision of the Board of Adjustment, may present to a court of record a petition, verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be presented to the court "Within ten (10) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board.