Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
VAR1999-000144 (3)
05 1 08 1 00 22:50 FAI Nelson L. Nag le M.Ed . L.P. Family Coun seling Profess iona ls 510 Dennis Dr. Round Rock , Tx . 78664 Telephone : 512 -218 -85 38 Fax : 51 2-218 -1821 C onfi Dat a : 5 ... 0 8 ... l To : Rece iver nu mber : Co mpan y Na me: # of p ages including cover page : From: --/\) e I~"":-.· .. fiL1,3 ) \ Fax Tr ansmission D Please call to confinn raooipt D Ptaasa respond by return tax D C II only if transmi ion 1s mp te .... ---·-.... · ·-·-····~··· .. ··-·'" ...... -···-·-·--··" ...... ~· -._... """'' .... .. · ~ . ... . ·-- , '' Pl:~ s~ yY\.Q A. ci-1 t>l C!rf 7 1 ~ . m1~ f ~ T Oc:t s yr\~U-1~ 1~2-fJJt- T wa·u,Jl o,_ \.s., l i ~ A. c1 l i/k VlfJfic:r: s J--+" f VO f"M. +y <1W IA e,u A~~ ik Dc.t zp Tl ~ ee:h ~J °'~~ will t~ ~~., ~ Cl~~ N-f-1«e w~ s~-+ v. ~4K -t t1"V f-,,n_ f tJtv\. ~ c ;;,)'.: Y-'<?.., F"' <;. f' · M~t ~Clfo June 1, 2000 Nelson, Thought you would like to see the Letter to the Editor that was published in the Eagle May 31. Have a great day!! Deborah Grace A historical area I t is past time for the citizens of College Station to "wake up ." Pl~ase drive to 600 Welsh Ave . and see for yourself. To this date no one has even been notified -verbally or by letter - from the city on this out-of-town "intruder" building two four -bed, room houses on each side of the present house . Where will the parking be? Re - member this is a historical area of College Station . HELEN PUGH College Station Raymond Stotzer Parkway becau se it needs an easily accessi- ble runway, Schmittle said . Currently, the manufacturer m u st dismantle a plane, transport it to a local runway, reassemble it and then test it, he said. • .,.v1...a.cc; "' 01 y<:u1 u11;1u ues: • About five acres of land for the development of a 60 -foot by 1,500-foot asphalt runway and 20,000-square-foot building from the city . Eagle photo/Dave McDermand ss World recognition. Campbell began worki ng on A "We really need to get to a facil- ity to consolidate our operations," Schmittle sa id. "We've always known we were going to have to face that." • The city provides water, sewer and electric service lines to the property . line of.the site at no cost. of his 48-Little Dab of Texas In 19~4 and completed It Guinness with help from people across the state. :echjobs i's, study reports nology growth. ve mu st continu e to raise th e bar on :ational excellence, particularly math and science students, and more Texans to college," he said . must continue to educate and grad- scientists, engineers and the ed workforce that is required for ~ technology enterprises t o contin- 1 expand." ~k Swindle, senior vice president of s Instruments, said the report con- d some impressive findings about 10logy in Texas. 's the strongest part of our econo- Swindle said. "Texas is either the nal leader or No . 2 •in all of the rtant sectors." ~ state ranks third in software ser- IGH•TECH He re , at a gl ance, are some of t he ke y Texas fin d ings of Cyberstates 4 .0 , a nati onal study of th e high-tec hnol ogy industry conducted by the American El ectronics Associat io n and the Nas daq St ock Ma rket: vices employmen t, with 50,800 workers; second in semiconductor manufactur- ing, with 47,300 j obs; second in electron- ics imports, at $25 billion in 1999, 30 per- Se e TECH , Page AS •anctions dismissed oftware giant into 2 .competing companies e U.S. District Judge Thomas Pen- Jackson next Wednesday. :I.er a plan submitted last month by ustice Department and 17 of the : that successfully sued Microsoft ititrust charges, Microsoft would oken u p into two companies . One l develop the company's dominant ows computer operating system 1e other everything else, including >soft's Office software and its iet services . The two companies l have to stay separate for at least lrS. ' ts formal response , the Redmond , .-based company asked a federal to dismiss the government's pro- saying such a severe punishment sh Inspiration lacks a ba5is. ·. The corrip,any instead offere d m ilder remedies that 'J.t promised to impose on itself. The _ remedies would curb the company's conduct against competitors and clients dealing with rivals. Bu t the governmen t, in its reply Wednesday, said Microsoft's proposed remedies were "neither serious nor sen- sible," and would fail to restore compe- tition in the high-tech industry. Breaking u p the company is t h e only sanction that "has a chance of ending "Microsoft's persisten t unwilli ngness to abandon its widespread use of unlaw- ful practices to maintain and exten d its S ee MICROSOFT , Page AS INSIDE Business .. A10 Lottery . .... .A7 >rce, a Celtic dance grou p th at got its )own Under, will perform in Texas Jni vers ity's Reed Arena on Th ur sday. Cl as sifi ed ... 81 Comics ...... BS Crosswor d ... BS Horoscope .. BS Obi tuaries . .. A9 Opinions . ... AS Region .... .A7 Sports ... . .. 81 ght Landers ..... AS Weather .. ... A5 • The city provides a 10-year See EDC , Page AS lttjunction lifted in CS historic area Man allowed to build 2 homes in Southside By KELLY BROWN Eagle Staff Writer District Judge J .D. Langley on Wednesday lifted a seven-month injunction against a man wh o drew opposition from neighbors when he started building two houses in College Station's So u t h side Historic District. Nelson Nagle was granted permission to con- tinue the construction he initiated last summer when he broke ground for the two homes on either side of an existing home . He said the plans were sen sitive to the "architectu'ral fla- vor" of the homes off Welsh Avenue. "The building gets under way again tomor- row," said Nagle, a Round Rock resident, who said he is building the homes for his adult chil- dren to live in while they attend Texas A&M University. 'Tm pleased with the judge's ruling and look forward to building homes 1 can be proud of and I hope that the community can be proud of, too," he said. , The battle to stop the construction was launched by four residents who filed the civil action that accused Nagle of being in violation of deed restrictions. Several officials on the College Station City Council said Wednesday the ordeal has prompt- ed them to consider putting more restrictive ordinances on the· books. "As long as you have a lot large enough to put oth er structures on, you could do so as long as it See BUILDING , Page AS The Eagle online : theeagle .com aggiesports .co m Please ~ recycle \%'1 _ ........... ------------------~ Page A6 The Bryan -College Station Eagle Thursday, May 18, 2000 Building I From Al was a certain footage away from the road," said Councilman Ron Silvia. "Hopefully, a new ordi- nance will be more restrictive." Silvia, who attended a portion of the 3 1/2 hour hearing, said he was disappointed that Nagle will be permitted to finish building. "He split one large lot and broke it into two more lots," Sil- via said. "There was nothing we could do at the city because no ordinances were in place to pre- vent it." Meanwhile, a moratorium put in place by the City Council will continue for several more months, barring residents living in older neighborhoods on the south and east sides of the city from building single-family resi- dential homes. Steven Steele, who represented College Park Subdivision resi- dents Norma Miller, Helen Pugh, Bobby Mirza and Michael Luther on behalf of Mrs. L.H. Luther, said his clients have the right to appeal. "They're upset because ... Mr . Nagle will be putting in three- and four-bedroom houses in a space of 150 feet with no provi- sions for parking -that's a potential 12 residents there," Steele said, adding that the prop- erty probably will eventually become rental units . "It will be a nightmare." EDC From Al contract between Bryan Texas Utilities and Freewing Aerial Robotics for electricity at the low- est published rate. • Brazos County provides site preparation services (such as lev- eling and grading) for the runway at no cost. The deal also calls for a tax abatement from the city and the county at 70 percent the first year, 50 percent the second, 30 percent the third, 20 percent the fourth, and 10 percent the fifth. Wendi Lester, Nagle's attorney, said her client violated no deed restrictions or any city ordi- nance, and followed planning and zoning guidelines . "The fact is that directly across the street and elsewhere in that neighborhood there are houses on 50-foot lots," Lester said. "I think Judge Langley made a fair decision and did what the majori- ty of property owners wanted done." The residents contended in their lawsuit that Nagle violated deed restrictions by not allowing for a frontage of at least 75 feet. Nagle's plans call for 50 feet. Circulating flyers stating, "Your civil rights regarding prop- erty ownership and use are at stake," Nagle obtained enough signatures on a petition from area property owners that allowed for that particular deed restriction, among others, to be thrown out. Steele, whose clients said they knew nothing of the petition, said some of the property owners were unaware of what they were sign- ing . Langley ruled that there was no evidence of fraud on Nagle's part when the group amended the deed restrictions. He deemed those restrictions valid and said that the homeowners association group did not abandon the deed restrictions. Langley also declined to award attorney fees to the plaintiffs . • Kelly Brown's e-mail address is kbrown@theeagle .com To receive the package, Freew- ing Aerial Robotics must prove that equity funding has been secured, relocate to Bryan and build the runway by Jan. 1, 2001 , build a new facility on the site by Jan. 1, 2002, and employ a total of 14 people with a gross annual payroll of $500,000 no later than Jan. 1, 2001. The average annual wage must be at least $30,000 , excluding the founding officers . The proposal also V;v.Ould require College Station to agree to terms and a time line for the company to vacate the facility, Worley said. Freewing Aerial Robotics received its current property at no cost from College Station in News Trial begins i n By MEG RICHARDS Associated Press MIAMI -A U.S . immigration official passed a government secret to a friend with ties to Cuba for money and to prove his value as a business associate, a federal prosecutor said Wednesday. Mariano Faget, 54, a veteran Immigration and Naturalization Service official, is charged with violating the U.S. Espionage Act by revealing classified informa- tion and lying about contacts with Microsoft From A l Windows monopoly," the Justice Department said in the brief filed late Wednesday. Cullinan said the government's proposed conduct regulations would force Microsoft to give up its intellectual property to com- petitors like Sun and Oracle. "That's like forcing Coke to share its secret formula with Pepsi and every other major soft drink ven- dor in the country ," he said. "The government wants to use a chainsaw to try and cure a com- mon cold. We don't believe the Justice Department has the right cure for this alleged a ilment," Cullinan added. 1997 . After one year, the company did not meet the employment requirements for its first incen- tive package, which included $61,500 from the EDC develop- ment fund. The company was given an extension, and officials reported that in March, the company still had not met the 14-employee requirement. The contract allowed for a 60-day extension to meet the condition. "We've been in a hiring mode," Schmittle said. "We're totally confident at being able to reach that objective." The company employs eight peo - pl e with a gross annual payroll of $400,000, Schmittle said . The aver- Cuban officials . He fac E years in prison if convi In opening the pro case, Assistant U.S. Att < Gregorie told the jury high-ranking official, access to secret govern Faget was acting dist r director in Miami. "You're going to hav1 which side Mr. Faget i: gorie said. "We're n : about communism. T i about political philc whether you believe in Microsoft was foun 1 violated federal antit through predatory an c petitive behavior in a ruling by Jackson . plans to appeal the rul i In its 71-page b Wednesda:Y: the goverr Microsoft's response was "merely an attem 1 the day when the law \ accountable for its ill ef The government's le= essentially was to be ti cial word before Jacks· hearing on the issue. round in the antitr takes place in the jud room May 24, when bo ernment and Microsof arguments in suppor proposals. Jackson is l' , out a timetable for J with the case at the h e: age salary is $45,000 to ~ In other business , board of directors el Blatchley as chairmE Galliher as chairwo and Joe Harlen as trea • Laura Hipp's e-mail lhipp@theeagle.com 10 S w MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 20, 1999 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy , Happ, Hill, & Bond. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy, Dr. Bailey & Ellis. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Attorney's Ladd & Decluitt, Transportation Analyst Hester, City Planner Kee, Staff Planner Battle, Director of Development Services Callaway, Development Coordinator Ruiz, Assistant Development Coordinator George, Staff Assistant Charazna, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Transportation Planner Hard & Mapping Specialist Manhart. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. i . Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from October 5, 1999 meeting of the Board. Mr. Happ inade the motion to approve the minutes as written: Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of an appeal of the Zoning Official's application of Section 7.2 D relative to setbacks and to Section 9 relative to parking and driveways at 600 & 604 Welsh. Applicant is Norma Miller. City Planner Kee stepped before the Board and summarized the October 5, 1999 meeting of the Board concerning this case. Ms. Kee told the Board that the questions before the Board are whether or not the Zoning Official applied the parking regulations and the side setbacks requirements properly in the review of building permits that were issued for homes at 600 & 604 Welsh. Ms. Kee continued her report as follows: The Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zonin~ Official to make interpretations of any provision of the Ordinance if the need arises. The Zoning Official is not one particular person but may be any staff member given responsibility for acting in that capacity in a given situation. In making such determinations, the Planning Staff takes into consideration the intent of the ordinance, consistency, and the public interest. Staff members constantly communicate to ensure that each person, when acting in the capacity of the Zoning Official, is being consistent with past applications and interpretations. The staffs discussions that led to the approval of this building permit were consistent with prior applications of these Zoning Ordinance provisions . ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 1 of JS Item Background This property involves lots 10, 11, and 29 feet of 12, Block C, College Park with a total frontage of 129.03 feet. In 1962 the portion of Fidelity Street running parallel and adjacent to this property was abandoned . These properties are zoned R-1 Single Family . One home has existed on the property for many years. Single family zoning and development surround the property. This year an amending plat was presented to clarify the property boundaries to reflect the Fidelity abandonment which added 25 feet to the property for a total of 154.03 feet of frontage . An interior lot line was also adjusted with this amending plat. With 154.03 feet of frontage and an interior lot line adjustment, the property is reflected as three 50-foot wide lots each meeting the lot dimensions for an individual home. Two new houses were permitted under the lot line construction alternative found in Table A , Note C of the Zoning Ordinance. Without the amending plat the property could still have three homes under Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows more than one structure housing a principle use to be built on a lot or building plot as long as all other requirements of the zoning ordinance are met as though each were on an individual lot. Parking Appeal In the case at hand, the applicant states "Off-street parking requirements not met." It is unclear what the applicant is referencing by this statement. However, the following will explain each area of the parking section and how it is applied. Section 9 provides for minimum standards for parking space dimensions, access, islands, parking lot maintenance, landscape reserve area, surfacing requirements, parking lot lighting and temporary parking lot requirements. Section 9 references "In all districts for all uses ... ". The majority of the regulations are intended for uses that require parking lots, such as multi-family or commercial uses, referencing islands, parking lot setbacks, etc. The portions of Section 9 dealing with islands, parking lot maintenance, the landscape reserve, parking lot lighting and temporary parking requirements are not applicable to this case as these provisions are for multi-family/commercial uses and not for single family uses. Ms . Kee addressed the parts of Section 9 that are applicable to single family site plan review. Section 9 .A -Dimensions and Access references illustrations at the end of the section. In those illustrations there are graphs depicting concrete driveway aprons in the right-of-way for residential applications. It shows the maximum driveway radius of 10 feet as established in Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances. (The City's Code of Ordinances is a codified version of all codes and ordinances. The Zoning Ordinance is included by reference.) Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances establishes curb return radius for residential driveways on local streets to be a maximum of 10 feet and a minimum of 2. 5 feet. Typically single family drives have a radius of .2. 5 to 5 feet when located on local streets. ' Chapter 3 also provides for a maximum width for a residential drive approach to be 28 feet measu~ed at the property line with a minimum width of 10 feet . The graphics of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance include the Chapter 3 requirements relative to driveway width. 9.2.A.l requires a 9' by 20' parking space and this is required for all uses that require parking including single family uses . 9 .2.A .2 refers to off-street parking for truck unloading and is not applicable to single family . ZBA Minut es October 20 , 1999 Pa ge 2 of15 9.2.A.3 intends for all parking and maneuvering areas to be located entirely within the boundaries of the building plot except as set forth in Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances (this refers to shared access drives.). All single family driveways and parking areas are required to meet this. 9.2.A.4 is not applicable to single family residences unless located on a major arterial or collector street. 9.2 .A.5 refers to a 24-foot landscape reserve. This is intended for parking lots, not individual residential driveways as driveways are specifically excluded in this section. Exceptions are made for 7 parking spaces to be allowed in this reserve. (These are clearly references to uses that require parking lots as opposed to single family uses.) It is not applied to single family permits. 9.2.A.6, 7 and 8 address parking lot islands and are not applicable to single family permits. 9 .2.B references off-premise parking locations and the requirements for such. This is intended for facilities that require parking lots and multiple spaces and allows for some to be located .off-premise under certain circumstances. It has never been applied to a single-family residence. 9.2.C references public parking areas and is not applicable. 9.2 .D references surfacing requirements and states; "Except as otherwise provided ... ". Section 6 of Chapter IO of the City's Code of Ordinances addresses surfacing for single family driveways and this section is applied. 9.2.E references lighting for off-street parking areas and is not applicable to single family reviews. 9.2.F references drive surfaces for temporary and/or permanent drives required for emergency access and is applied by the City Engineer. This is not applicable to single family site reviews. 9.2.G references temporary parking lots and is not applicable. 9.3 references off-street spaces required and specifically requires a minimum of two parking spaces for single family uses. This regulation is applied to single family permits. Both new permits issued for 600 and 604 Welsh were interpreted as meeting the above applicable requirements because: 1. The location and radius of the curb return was not shown on the site plan presented for building permit. The contractor was advised of radius requirements. Staff will inspect for a proper radius of 2.5 to 5 feet and this it is contained on Mr. Nagle's property. No certificate of occupancy will be issued without an inspection to ensure compliance. 2. The driveway aprons are shown to be approved all weather surfaces for that portion in the right-of- way as provided for in the Zoning or9inance and Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances. 3. Tue portion of the driveway on private property is shown to be crushed limestone, which is a private drive standard previously approved by the City Engineer. This standard has been allowed for years. 4. Two parking spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinanc~. The dimensions of the driveways ~ave the minimum width and depth for two parking spaces. It is customary that the two spaces reqmred for a single family use may be side by side or end to end as the spaces and vehicles are under control of the property owner. This has been a long-standing interpretation for single family residential uses. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page Jo/JS Setback Appeal Section 7 .2.D refers to Table A that sets out the setback, lot size and height restrictions based on th e applicable zoning district. The portion being appealed is the application of the side setback requirement for the R-1 zone . For a single family zone Table A requires either an absolute 7.5 foot side setback or allows for lot line construction under certain circumstances . Note C of Table A states : "Zero lot line construction of residenc es is allowed wher e property on both sides of lot lin e is owned and/or developed simultaneously by sing le party. Development under lot line construction r equires prior approval by the Zoning Official. In no case shall a s in g le family residence be built within 15 f eet of another building. " This section has been interpreted over the years by many different people but has consistently been interpreted to allow less than the 7.5 foot setback and as little as a 0 foot setback. The important health and safety consideration is that no residence is closer than 15 feet to another. This is why it is imperative that property on both sides of the lot line in question be under one person's control when the decision is made to apply lot line construction . This provision is a critical factor in the interpretations as made to date. In this case there is an existing house in the center of the property. When Mr. Nagle amended the plat of his property, he did so in order to clarify the boundaries of his property. The right-of-way of Fidelity Street running adjacent and parallel to his property had been abandoned 37 years before. To clarify this and to relocate an interior lot line Mr. Nagle decided to amend the plat of his property . He actually owns 154.03 feet of frontage. Under the Zoning Ordinance the minimum lot width in R-1 is 50 feet measured at the front setback line. With this amount of frontage Mr. Nagle chose to build two additional houses . In this case Mr. Nagle opted to use Note C of Table A to provide 0 foot and 15 foot setbacks for one side of the existing house and 3.5 foot and 11.5 foot setbacks for the opposite side. This application is consistent with stafrs interpretation of this note. 1990s Recent Examples of lot line construction Eastmark Subdivision -variable Pebble Creek -0115 feet Grand Oaks -0115 feet Two Lincoln Place -0115 feet Pleasant Forest -variable It is more common for builders/developers to use the 0115 foot combination under lot line construction because this maximizes the amount of useable side yard area by containing it all on one side. However, there are builders/developers who choose to use a variable setback because of roof overhangs and sidewall maintenance concerns as well as Building Code limitations on the number of openings and firewall requirements. When building on a 0-foot setback one would have to be on the adjacent neighbor 's property to perform any maintenance on the sidewall. Also, roof overhangs would allow water to run off onto the rfeighboring property and some builders want to avoid this situation for future homeowne·rs. The alternqtive is to grant maintenance and overhang easements. The Building Code limits the amount of openings that can be in a wall based on construction type and distance from the property line. The Building Code also requires a one hour rated firewall when wood construction is 3 feet or closer to the property line . In Mr. Nagle 's case the relocated interior lot line enabled him to meet the minimum lot width requirement and the variable setback enabled him to meet the setback requirements If, over the years, the City had not interpreted lot line construction to include a variable setback, Mr . Nagle 's (or anyone else's) possible alternatives would be to use Section 8.4 which allows more than one structure housing a principle use to be built or to seek a variance from the ZBA to the side setback requirement. ZBA Minutes Oc tober 20. 1999 Pa ge 4 of1 5 j Mr. Bond referenced the statement "Development under lot line construction requires prior approval by the Zoning Official." Is this to make sure the 15 feet between the houses existed before the construction begins. Ms. Kee replied that was correct and also to understand all the implications that go with either building on the property line or choosing a variable setback. Mr. Bond asked if this case was a variable setback or zero lot line . Ms. Kee answered that it was a combination of both. The house existing on one side opted to use zero and 15 feet and the other used 3 Yi feet and 11 Yi feet. Mr. Bond asked if there were any other considerations made in deciding to approve the construction of the two houses. Ms. Kee asked relative to setbacks or in general. Mr. Bond answered relative to setbacks. Ms. Kee replied that when a building permit is reviewed, staff makes sure that setbacks meet the minimum. Mr. Bond asked Ms. Kee what is the benefit of lot line construction and these 3 homes being under one person's control. Ms . Kee stated that the advantage of the common ownership initially is to use the zero lot construction. Mr. Bond asked Ms. Kee if she was the staff member who approved the zero lot line construction in this case. Ms. Kee replied that she was not. Mr. Happ asked Ms. Kee to explain the subdividing requirements if the houses were sold after construction. Ms. Kee replied that if it were decided to sell one of the homes, it would then have to be replatted. One of the requirements for the R-1 zone is that the lot .is a minimum 50 x 100-ft lot. The replat would show the new requirements on that plat. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Kee if the 15-foot separation is from wall to wall. Ms. Kee replied that it is measured from slab to slab. Mr. Hill asked about the roof over hang. Ms . Kee stated that typical roof over hang can be from 18 inches to 2 feet and they usually do not cause a problem. Mr. Murphy asked if it is normal procedure for the location and radius of the curb not to be shown on the site plan when it is presented for a building permit. Ms. Kee stated that is fairly common for a site plan to not have every detail. Rather than have the site plan redrawn, the Building Official will inform the builder of those things that will have to be taken care of before a certificate of occupancy is given. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Esmond stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Esmond stated that he was representing Mrs. Miller. Mr. Esmond read Section 2.12 of the Local Government Code. Mr. Esmond told the Board that they do have the power to reverse the action of the Zoning Official and the Zoning Official does not have the power to make exceptions that the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment does. Mr. Esmond encouraged the Board to use their authority. Mr. Esmond handed the Board Members copies of" The Compleat Primer on the Law of Zoning: From Regulation to Litigation. Mr. Esmond read excerpts from the publication. Mr. Esmond reminded the Board of the othet issues that were brought before the Board at the October 5 meeting. Mr. Esmond told the Board that these items would not be considered at this meeting , Mr. Esmond told the Board of his attempts to have the items brought before Planning & Zoning . Mr. Esmond stated the issues: 1) the plat is not an amending plat, 2) the closing of the alley is in violation of the subdivision regulations, and 3) the RV hook up is illegal. Mr. Esmond asked the Board to refer these matters to Planning and Zoning. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 5of15 Mr. Esmond told the Board that he would talk about the comments Ms . Kee made in her staff report . Mr. Esmond also told the Board he would hand them exhibits as he addressed Ms . Kee's comments . Mr. Esmond stated that Ms. Kee can delegate authority , she is the city's designated Zoning Official. Mr. Esmond handed the Board a copy of Ms. Kee 'sjob description. Mr. Esmond discussed Section 9 that Ms . Kee spoke about in her staff report. Mr . Esmond stated that he thinks all of the sections are applicable to single family residential. 9 .2.A.2 off street parking for truck unloading -if you build a large house you might have this situation and this section would apply . 9.2.A.3 parking and maneuvering areas -ifyou had off street .parking this section would apply . 9.2.A.4. ingress and egress for residences on major arterial or collector street -off street parking , this section would apply. 9.2 .A.5 -24-foot landscape reserve :--the way this is worded you can go through the landscape reserve with a driveway. But if you chose to park in the reserve it is a different matter. Mr. Esmond referred to Section 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Esmond stated that this section explains the procedure the Zoning Official is to use when a provision .is unclear. Mr. Esmond stated that this has not been done . 9.2 .D -surfacing requirements -of either asphalt or concrete, this does require a variance. Mr. Esmond stated that Mrs . Miller would like for this to go before the Planning & Zoning Commission. There is no provision for the gravel driveway and no variance has been sought or granted. Mr. Esmond told the Board that Mrs. Miller's property borders where the gravel driveway is proposed. Mr . Esmond stated that the gravel driveway is recognized as a temporary surface in the Zoning Ordinance . Setback Appeal: Mr. Esmond spoke about Table A of Section 7.2D. Mr. Esmond pointed out to the Board where it states "zero lot line construction of a residence is allowed where property on both sides of the lot line is owned and/or developed simultaneously by a single party. Development under lot line construction requires prior approval by the Zoning Official. In no case shall a single family residence or duplex be built within 15 feet of another building. " Mr. Esmond stated that the interpretation of where the line is you have to refer to Section 8. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section states "yards as required in this ordinance are open spaces on the lot or b~ild i ng plot on which a building is ~ituated and which are open and unobstructed to the sky by any structure except as herein provided." Mr. Esmond stated that means an eave. Mr. Esmond stated this is a problem with the ordinance and how it reads . Mr. Esmond spoke about the staff report where it stated that Mr. Nagle opted to use Note C of Table A. Mr. Esmond told the Board that he does not see any license for the developer to opt for anything . Mr . Esmond stated that this is something the Zoning Official should determine and grant. ZBA Minut es October 20 , 1999 Page 6of 15 Mr. Esmond told the Board that the air conditioner is not mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Esmond stated this is very significant and it does not show up on the plat. Mr. Esmond explained that a plat is developed from structures and improvements on the ground and that becomes the underlying layer for the replat. Mr. Esmond stated that someone had to decide to remove the air conditioner and not show it on the final plat, but there is a note to address the air conditioner. Mr. Esmond read the note , as it appears on the plat "the existing air conditioner for the house on lot 11 R will be allowed to remain on 12 R ". Mr. Esmond stated the only way to interpret this is as meaning the existing air conditioner. What does it say about access to the air conditioner or getting to the air conditioner. Mr. Esmond added that it is also a fire hazard and safety issue as well since it is a electrical mechanical device . Mr. Esmond referenced the staff report dated July 13, 1999 as stating "the air conditioning unit located on lot l 2R , which is for the building on lot 11 R ", needs to either be covered by an easement or there needs to be a note stating that the unit will be moved. Mr. Esmond stated that the plat was signed anyway . Mr. Esmond spoke to the Board again about one of the requirements of zero lot line construction. Specifically " zero lot line construction of residences is allowed where property on both sides of lot line is owned and/or developed simultaneously by single party". Mr. Esmond handed the Board copies of warranty deeds and other legal documents. Mr. Esmond explained these documents and stated that these properties are not owned by a single party, but rather by two. Mr. Nagle and Allison Nagle own these properties. Mr. Esmond told the Board that they have no choice but to overturn the decision that was made and reverse it. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Esmond what is the relationship of Nelson and Allison Nagle. Mr. Esmond answered that he understands they are father and daughter. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Esmond what is his contention that different parties are developing the properties. As it is stated under Section C of Table A -"zero lot line is allowed where properties on both sides of lot line is either owned and/or developed simultaneously by a single party. " Mr. Bond asked if there are different developers in this case also. If so, that would give the Zoning Official the approval of either one. Mr. Esmond answered that if you follow that statement you have to realize that the house in the middle has been developed already. The house is just a few years away from getting its historical plaque. Mr. Esmond stated that the analysis fails this case. Mr. Murphy referenced the staff report concerning Section 9.2.D. -surfacing requirements as written "except as otherwise provided. " Section 6 of Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances is also referenced. Mr. Murphy referred to Mr. Esmond's statement that the surface should be asphalt or concrete. Mr. Esmond replied that this statement is not in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore it is outside this scope. There is a variance provision and it states that the Planning and Zoning Commission will approve the variance of this standard. Mr. Esmond stated that it did not go the P&Z and Mrs. Miller would like to have the plat go to the P&Z. The plat did not qualify, as an amending plat. Mr. Esmond ended by telling the Board that these matters are not in the scope of the ZBA. ZBA Minut es October 20, 1999 Pa ge 7 of15 Benito Flores-Meath , 901 Val Verde, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Flores-Meath handed the Board copies of warranty deeds for the prop erties that date back to May. Mr. Flores-Meath explained to the Board that it shows ownership as Allison Nagle , a single woman and Nelson Lee Nagle, a single man . Mr. Flores-Meath stated that wh ether there is an affiliation or not , th e y are separatel y listed as two individual persons. Mr. Flores -Me ath stated that was for the purchase of tract B (the middle lot). Mr. Flores-Meath explained the warranty deed for tract A & C listing Nelson Lee Nagle only. Mr. Flores-Meath explained the special warranty deed signed in September after the plat was recorded at the courthouse . It is shown the grantor as Allison Nagle and a grantee as Nelson Lee Nagle. It states that Allison is granting control of som e of the land to Nelson Lee Nagle. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that this acknowledges that they are two separate adults and there is separate ownership for the land . Mr. Flores-Meath asked does that not show a distinction between two people owning one lot and one person owning two other lots . Mr. Flores-Meath stated that the zero lot line exception should not have been allowed on either side. Mr. Flores made reference to a comment made at the October 5 meeting of the Board concerning deed restrictions not being enforceable. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that the city's web page states Brison Park formerly known as Dexter Park was renamed in 1980 in honor of Fred Brison. The page describes the park as a beautifully wooded green space protected from development by deed restrictions . Mr. Flores- Meath stated that the city can not enforce the deed restrictions but they do honor them. Mr. Nelson Nagle stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Nagle introduced his daughter Allison Nagle to the Board. Mr. Nagle told the Board it was when his daughter decided to attend Texas A & M the decision was made to help her enjoy the rights of property ownership. After the purchase of the property in question, Mr. Nagle stated that he met immediately with the Planning Department. Mr. Nagle stated that the development has been described as 3 houses being constructed on one lot. Mr. Nagle told the Board that when he purchased the property it was 2- 50 foot lots as per the original plat and 29 feet of another lot. Mr. Nagle stated that in talking with the Planning Department he learned that Fidelity Street was closed in 1961. Mr. Nagle asked the city if he had rights to use this land. Mr. Nagle was told there is no official process to go through he just needs to claim it. He was told that other neighbors are already encroaching on to Fidelity Street and have fenced it in and have claimed it with buildings. Mr. Nagle stated that he began what he felt as the process of development. He hired an architect and planned houses that he felt fit into the neighborhood and were similar to houses directly across the street. Mr. Nagle stated that he is very sensitive to the neighborhood and along with the builder, the homes were planned to be historically sensitive . Mr. Nagle explained that similar architecture exists throughout the area. Mr. Nagle addressed the surfaces used in parking lots. Mr. Nagle stated that gravel was actually planned not for economics as much as to be in the characteristic of the neighborhood because he believed that there are a great number of driveways that are constructed out .of gravel. Mr. Nagle described Mrs. Miller's driveway as being constructed out of gravel, pea gravel or dirt . Mr. Nagle stated that he is willing to look at any recommendations . ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 8of 15 Mr. Bond stated that he himself might have referred to this as a single lot situation with 3 houses . Mr. Bond told Mr. Nagle that he was trying to get the state of common ownership. Mr. Bond stated that it was discussed extensively and he wanted to understand the argument which is essentially there is not a single ownership . Mr. Bond asked Mr. Nagle if there was anything about the information presented that he needed to clarify . Mr. Nagle stated that he understood that he was not required by city ordinance to redo lot lines or replat the lots. Mr. Nagle stated that in his discussions with city staff when he purchased the property, he addressed this issue and he was told that it did not make a difference because they are considered a family and that was the city 's interpretation. Mr. Nagle stated that he worked with Kerr Surveying and the city to meet city codes and the intent was to abide by the rules. Mr. Nagle stated that he is an owner on all three deeds but that is a matter of semantics and how that is interpreted. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Nagle if he does view this as one development and is he planning on giving a house to each of his children. Mr. Nagle stated that intentionally that was the plan. He is a vested owner in all three lots and he believes the terms with Allison are very friendly . Mr. Nagle added that the deeds could be reconstructed as necessary to satisfy the requirements. Mr. Nagle ended by saying that the deeds were done the way they were because they understood that to be the best way to accomplish the goal. · Peter Mcintire, 611 Montclair, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Mcintire stated that the internal floor plan of the existing house has not been shown. Mr. Mcintire asked if there are any bedrooms that abut the zero lot line side of the house. It was his understanding from what the Zoning Official stated, that there is a specific exclusion from zero lot line clearance being granted where bedrooms abut the zero lot line side of the house. Mr. Mcintire stated that there is no relief from that and it is a safety issue for a second exit. Mr. Kee answered it was reviewed by the Building Official and she believed the code states that if it is on the zero lot line, there could not be any . openings. The exits could not be on that wall. Chairman Alexander asked if windows could be along the wall on the zero lot line construction. Mr. Kee replied not at the zero lot line, but windows could be on the wall for construction setback of 3 1/2 feet. Mr. Mcintire stated that the house is on the zero line and unless the bedrooms have two doors that would be in violation of zoning as far as he could understand. Mr. Mcintire stated that he could not see that the Zoning Official addressed that in granting the replat. Again Ms. Kee replied that this is a building code issue. David White, Fire Protection Consultant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. White stated that he has been in the fire service for 37 years. Mr. White told the Board that there was a statement made by the city official that if a house had siding on it, it would not be acceptable on a zero lot line without a one hour firewall. Mr. White referred to a drawing of the design of the houses to be built and the exterior appears to be siding. Mr. White stated that if it is siding, the city official stated that a one-hour firewall would be required which he does _not think exists. Mr. White referred to this as being a monumental problem for fire fighters. If one house is fully involved, it becomes a rescue problem. Mr. White spoke about overhangs not being on the property line. Mr. White told the Board that he has seen fire jump from one building to another. Mr. White ended by saying that he can not believe the overhang is allowed to overhang the property line. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Nagle what is the siding. Mr. Nagle replied that it is plank siding. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 9of15 Stella Wilkes, 9552 River Road, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms . Wilkes told the Board that she lived in this neighborhood for 35 years . Ms. Wilkes stated that her and her husband revitalized 6-8 houses because it is a good neighborhood . In every case , any contact with the City of College Station, they were really held to the line for zoning. She told the Board that they had heard for years how good zoning was. Ms . Wilkes stated she is appalled that these lots have already been subdivided to allow that many houses. It does destroy neighborhood integrity . Ms. Wilkes stated that the lots have a 75 foot deed restriction . Ms. Wilkes spoke about being held to the line when building a carport . Ms . Wilkes stated that at one time the regulations were strict and evidently something has changed . Ms . Wilkes ending by saying that it would be a detriment to College Station and Texas A & M University to allow the total crowding that would happen. This will be repeated if this is approved . Pat Cleere, 601 Guernsey, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Cleere told the Board that she came to a meeting last year, not with the Zoning Commission, but it was about the parking in this area and how dangerous it is. Ms . Cleere stated that if each of these two new homes has four bedrooms and the city only requires two parking spaces, which means either there will be parking on the streets or there will two students without automobiles . Ms. Cleere ended by saying that it has to be the property owner's responsibility to provide off street parking for the number of people that will occupy the houses . Norma Miller, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mrs. Miller spoke about the historic homes in the neighborhood and how proud she is of the neighborhood and its integrity . Ms. Miller told the Board about the first time that she met Mr. Nagle and his daughter. Mrs. Miller was told how they loved yards, flowers, trees, etc. Mrs. Miller stated she remembered Mr. Nagle telling her that he had one or two more children that would come to T AMU and he would be in the neighborhood for about 10 years. Mrs . Miller spoke about how she felt knowing that she would have good neighbors . Mrs. Miller stated that nothing was mentioned about the addition of two homes. Mrs. Miller made reference to the Steeplechase Subdivision. When this addition came before Planning and Zoning and Council, Mrs. Miller referred to it as an "almost done deal" before citizens knew about it. When it was discovered it was too late. Mrs. Miller stated that she did not know anything about the construction of the two homes on Welsh until the city electrical crew arrived one day to hook up the temp pole. Mrs. Miller asked the Board to defer this matter to the Planning & Zoning and give them the chance to be heard . Kathleen Naylor, 101 Fidelity Street, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Naylor told the Board that she has worked in the city as well as owned several rental properties. Ms. Naylor spoke about the times she worked work with Ms . Kee and Ms. McCully in the Planning Department and how well they worked with her. Ms. Naylor ended by saying that it is new that all of a sudden things are changing and it is a travesty to change in mid stream for those who wanted to do things. The developers who wanted to build and do a variety of things with the property available. If things continue like this she can only say thank you to Mr. Nagle and Ms. Kee for allowing people to now do more, in building rental properties on the land that is capable of holding more than the property is holding at this point. ZBA Minutes Octobe r 20, 199 9 Pa ge I 0 of 15 Joan Perry, 513 Kyle, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Perry stated that she is a native of College Station and she has seen a lot of changes over the 40 plus years that she has lived here. Ms. Perry stated that she wanted to express her concern over where the air conditioner pad is. Ms. Perry continued by saying that living next to a rental house with supposedly 4 students living there with 8 cars, in ten years the ordinance is not going to be adhered to or maintained and this neighborhood is going to continue to decline with the changes . Ms . Perry ended by saying that she does not live in this particular neighborhood but she has a vested interest in seeing that the historic area maintained and protected. We need to look ahead . Margaret Griffith, 1102 San Saba, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Griffith stated that she grew up in the Southside area. Ms. Griffith stated that she does not think that the proposed buildings are for single-family uses. Ms. Griffith asked how does single-family uses comply with single-family construction. Mike Luther, 614 Welsh, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Luther stated that his comments are to address the issue that is focused to Section 5 .11 of the Texas Local Government Code. The items that have been put into place in this area, affect how you might look at the two issues. Mr. Luther stated that State Law in the Local Government Code mandates cities may note historic areas. The City of College Station has acted, wisely, in designating the College Station Southside Historic Area. The area is fully marked by signage. At the property site of this appeal, there is actually such a sign. Mr. Luther continued by saying that sign has been in front of this property during the entire pre-construction process for this project and before the property was ever purchased by the developer. Mr. Luther stated that State Law Local Government Code provides for this in Section 211.003. Mr. Luther read the section·. Mr. Luther spoke about other homes in the designated Historic Area as well as his family homestead that will soon qualify for registry as a Historic home. Mr. Luther told the Board of the Neighborhood Preservation Committee and the time they have devoted to the issues and guidelines to be used in making decisions in this neighborhood. Mr. Luther stated that the City of College Station and the people of College Station have invested thousands of dollars developing the guidelines and principals which should have been used to refuse the issuance of the plat and which should have resulted in a request to act on it by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Luther concluded his address to the Board by reading a letter on behalf of his mother. Mr. Luther asked the Board to please act, as the majority of people in this City, have for years now, wanted done to preserve the priceless heritage of the Southside Historic Area of the City of College Station. ZBA Minute s October 20, 1999 Page II of 15 Mr. Bond asked Ms. Nemcik what is the city's position in regarding whether zero lot line construction of residences is allowed where property on both sides being owned and/or developed simultaneously by single party. Ms. Nemcik read the definition of person from the Zoning Ordinance as; "every natural person, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation , or other group which conducts activities regulated hereunder as a single entity, whether same be a legal entity or not, venture, or trust. " Ms. Nemcik stated that her standpoint as a single party that would be someone who would have an ownership in the property or control in developing the property. Ms. Nemcik stated that she thinks that there is an alternative language that says either owns or develops. Mr. Nemcik stated that there is one, if not both, of those criteria's, based on Mr. Nagle 's presentation that he has at least a partial interest in each of the lots. Ms. Nemcik added that she has not reviewed the deeds and she can not render an opinion as to how the title is held. Mr. Bond asked Ms. Nemcik based on her position, is partial ownership by a single party of all the tracts concerned adequate. Mr. Nemcik stated that if there were an ownership interest, whether full or partial, ownership would be sufficient, provided that the other joint owners have given their consent to develop the property . .. · Mr. Bond asked Ms. Nemcik what are the Boards options regarding a ruling . Ms . Nemcik replied that Ms. Kee stated in her presentation; "the Board may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made and that end shall have the power of the Zoning Official from whom appeal is taken." Ms. Nemcik stated that in addition the Board could also render a reinterpretation of the items that are appealed and they are within the Boards ability to render a decision. That is specifically only zoning matters and the items the Board agreed to hear as stated on the agenda. Mr. Bond asked if the Board had to ability to direct any of the two items to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Nemcik stated that ZBA has no jurisdiction over the Planning & Zoning Commission. However, Mrs. Miller and Mr. Esmond have submitted a request to the Chairman of the P&Z to hear the matters concerning the platting and several other issues that are in their jurisdiction. Mr. Esmond approached the Board and stated that most of the City Staff and City Council he talked to shared thoughts that this should have not been allowed . Mr. Esmond told the Board that he and Mrs . Miller have tried to get on the agenda of the Planning & Zoning. Mr. Happ asked where do the appeals from ZBA go. Ms . Nemcik stated that they go to District Court. There were continued discussions concerning the ZBA role in appeals and the platting issues . Mr. Bond asked what is the remedy assuming the plat is invalid. Ms. Nemcik stated that if that were the case the remedy would be for the City to revoke the plat before it was approyed which would be at staff level. Staff would have to admit the mistake and that would have to be done within 30 days of approval. That was not done. The only thing to do at this point is to go to court and ask for a declaration that the plat was invalid and void the plat. ZBA Minutes Oc tober 20 , 1999 Page 12of15 Steven Steele, Attorney with David & Davis, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Steele told the Board several homeowners in the College Park Subdivision retained him and a lawsuit has been filed. Mr. Steele stated that the ordinance clearly reads : "that an appeal is in any decision of the Zoning Official and that this Board has the right to modify any order, requirement, decision or determination." Mr. Steele stated one of the decisions and determinations made by the Zoning Official is this was an amended plat that was filed and the Zoning Official had the authority to approve the plat as an amended plat. Mr. Steele stated that he has also heard alternatively that it is a minor plat. The decision was made by the Zoning Official which ZBA has the right and the power if it so votes by 75% of the members to overturn. Mr. Murphy stated that in Section 211.009 A 1 it reads; "The Board of Adjustment may hear and decide an appeal that alleges error in order, requirement, decision or determination made by an Administrative Official in the enforcement of this subchapter or an ordinance adopted under this subchapter." Mr. Murphy asked what is the subchapter and what is the ordinance under the subchapter and does a plat fall under that. Mr. Steele answered what it is referring to is the subchapter of 211. Mr. Murphy asked does that chapter cover plats and Planning of Zoning. Mr. Steele stated that he thinks under the city's provision it covers any decision made by the Zoning Official. Mr. Murphy asked if city staff had a different opinion. Ms. Nemcik stated that in Chapter 211 under Subchapter A reads; "General Zoning Regulations." Ms. Nemcik told the Board that they are a Zoning Board of Adjustment and there is no planning reference. The enabling statue that creates the authority for this Board is under the Zoning Enabling Legislation. There were discussions among the Board concerning their role in the matter. Mr. Nemcik stated that the matters before them to decide, as she understands, are the issues and the challenge to the interpretation of the zero lot line. Mr. Happ asked what would this do now to the other developments that have been mentioned. If the Board decides the way to measure the zero lot line should be changed, then those things that are already in existence will have a non-conforming status . If the Board decided to change the standard, that would become the new standard. The other alternative would be that the City Council or the Planning & Zoning Commission would make a· change to the ordinance. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Nemcik if the Board could act upon things other than the two questions the Board agreed to hear. Ms. Nemcik stated that the agenda states very clearly the issues that the Board is to decide. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that there is one item that has not been brought up concerning the driveway . Mr. Flores-Meath stated that the city has a plat that shows Ms. Miller's existing driveway as being against her property line adjacent to the north lot. It was agreed that the ZBA ha.s the ability to address the driveway issue. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Board that Ms. Miller has been questioned about her driveway because it is not a traditional driveway, but it has been grandfathered for 30 some years. Mr. Flores-Meath passed the plat around to the Board members. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 13of15 Mr. Flores -Meath told the Board that Mrs . Miller's driveway would be ri ght nex t to the north lot 's driveway. Mr. Flores stated that as a zoning issue there are certain requirements of having two driveways next to each other. Mr. Murphy asked for city sta ff to address this issue. Ms . Kee replied that the driveway access ordinance and the cases that th e P&Z ha ve heard deal with platting of commercial and multi-family driveway access . There is an ordinance that regulates distances and separations . Specifically on a single-family lot what is required is that the radius has to be over far enough so that it does not cross on to someone else's property. Ms . Kee added that her understanding from Mr. Nagle, the reason the north driveway is where it is , is to pr e se rve a large tre e in front of the house. Mr. Nagle stated that he visited with the City Code Enforcement Officer and had a map drawn showing exactly where it is legal to park . The officer made it very clear that there was 'no driveway there on Mrs . Miller's property but rather a lawn. Mrs . Miller explained to the Board the history of the driveway and that she had a letter from Tom Brymer stating that the driveway is grandfathered . Darcus Moore, 1118 Detroit Street, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Moore stated that her job is to take plats such as this one and make them right. Ms. Moore stated that the plat is the most inconsistent survey done by a surveyor/engineer. Ms. Moore stated her concerns and how the decisions by the Board will set a precedent. If it is not the right decision this can be expected to happen all over the city. Brandon Nagle, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Brandon stat~d that he wanted to make testament to Mr. Nagle's character and his past. Brandon told the Board that it was just last year that Mr. Nagle had begun a project in the historic area of downtown Round Rock. There were many of the same concerns with neighbors, but last year it was voted the most beautiful area in Round Rock . Brandon stated that the intent is to better this historic neighborhood as well. Brandon reminded the Board to also think about the future of the neighborhood . Mr. Esmond stated that he feels the Board had received a lot of contrary advice and in his opinion some of it not so good. Mr. Esmond stated that he is proud to live in Texas where our courts have upheld there is no liability to a city for damages if a decision is reversed by a Zoning Official in order to comply with their own zoning ordinance. Mr. Esmond told the Board that he feels the Board is on safe ground on that matter. Mr. Esmond encouraged the Board to take the two issues at hand and deal with them and reverse the decision for the sake of the community. Ms. Nemcik stepped to the podium to respond to Mr. Esmonds admonishment to the Board. Ms. Nemcik stated that this Board and the City has governmentally immunity when acting in its capacity and exercising its governmental functions. But even within that realm there can be liability for the city in certain circumstances. Ms. Nemcik ended by cautioning the Board that it can not act indiscriminately and think that it is totally immune and there will not consequenc~s for the city . Helen McDermott, 500 Fairview, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mrs . McDermott told the Board that she does not see how Mr. Nagle's development is going to better the neighborhood. It is true there is a lot of student housing and rental property in the area but she and her husband hope that there will be other young couples that will buy homes in the area and make them homes. Mrs. McDermott stated that they plan on living in their house a long time . ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Pa ge 14 of1 5 Mike McMicken, 1405 Bayou Woods, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. McMicken stated that when this plat was approved, it created the potential for 3 single-family homes, which could not exist on their own as separate entities. Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Happ made the motion to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 7.2D of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Bond seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). Mr. Bond made the motion to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 9 of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Happ seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page/5of15 Minutes Special Called Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 5, 1999 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Hill & Bond. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, City Planner Kee Staff Planner Ande~s~n, 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 NO. 2: Consideration .Qf.scheduling a special meeting of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration and determination of Board jurisdiction over certain issues associated with the project at 600 & 604 Welsh. Ms . Kee approached the podium and told the Board that she would address both items together and then the Board may choose to consider them separately. She told the Board that an application has been received requesting a special meeting to hear an appeal to a decision made by the Zoning Official. It is in reference to a minor plat and two single-family building permits issued in the 600 block of Welsh. There are several items that the applicant is requesting be heard by the ZBA. The legal and planning staffs have determined that several of the items are not within the Board's purview. The Board's charge is to determine questions of a factual nature relative to the application of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Kee presented to the Board the items in the applicants (Mrs. Miller) application, and also from a letter from Mr. Steve Esmond. Ms. Kee told the Board that Mr . Esmond is representing Mrs. Miller in the appeal. Ms. Kee told the Board that she would address. each item in Mrs. Miller 's appeal and help the Board understand which items are in their jurisdiction. Ms. Kee reminded the Board that this is not a public hearing but they may request clarification from the applicant, Mrs. Miller or Mr. Esmond. ZBA Minutes October 5, 1999 Page I o/9 " 1. "Off-street parking re ements not met." Ms. Kee stated that it is unclear what the applicant is referencing by this statement. The Zoning Ordinance calls for a certain number of parking spaces for a single-family dwelling unit and it also outlines the dimensions that have to be met. Ms . Kee stated the area that was shown as part of the building permit meets the parking requirements for single-family. Ms . Kee added that she is not clear on exactly what is being appealed . Ms. Kee ended by telling the Board they may want to solicit some additional information from the applicant. 2. "Zero lot line" Ms. Kee told the Board, from the application of ap peal she is not exactly sure again what is being ap pealed. Ms. Kee added that from some conversation with Mr. Esmond, she believes she understands, but again recommended the Board solicit some additional information. Ms . Kee stated that the ordinance allows lot line construction were property on both sides of the lot line is owned an d/or developed by a single party. It also require s approval of the Zoning Official. Also required , is that in no case would two homes be built closer th an 15' to each other. Ms. Kee stated that staff has interpreted lot line construction over the years to allow for a variable setback. Ms. Kee told the Board that this is were she believes the appeal is being made but is not absolutely certain. Ms. Kee stated that this is in the Board's jurisdiction to hear. \is. Kee stated if the Board decides to hear this case at a special meeting, the staff report at that time '"·ill address the application of the lot line constructio n section and the applicant at that time should be ; ,. ~pared to explain how the application is invalid . Ms. Kee told the Board that the application of appe al submitted in writing by Mrs. Miller does not explain in sufficient detail what, if any, error was committed in the application of this section. Ms . Kee again suggested to the Board to solicit additional information from the applicant. 3. "Does not comply with Council action on July 23, 1998." Ms. Kee stated that she believes what is being referenced is a report that was presented to the Council related to concerns and issues that residents in th e south side have. Ms . Kee told the Board she is u~1 s ure which items in the report that is being referred to are being appealed. Ms. Kee stated that none of those items are within the ZBA jurisdiction. Ms . Kee reminded the Board that they onl y have au thority over the Zoning Ordinance and not any plans, reports or other actions that the City Council might have taken action to relative to hearing a report that was presented . 4. "I am appealing the surveys and/or building permits issued for lots lOR, UR, 12R-Welsh." Ms. Kee stated that this is not within the Board's purview to consider. Surveyor's and applicants sign:n ures on plats indicate that ownership and dimensions are true and accurate. This is accepted when surveyors, as registered profe ss ional s, put th eir sea l on a plat. A discrepancy betwe en surveyors and an individual's argument over a survey is neither within the City's nor the Board 's jurisdiction. This is a private matter between parties . Ms . Ke e stated relative to building permits the ZBA has no jurisdiction over the granting of building permits . That is the Building Official's responsibility. ZBA Minutes October 5, 1999 Page 2 o/9 2 Mr. Esmond's appeal 1. "Appealing the Zoning Official's approval under Section 7.2.D." This is within the Board's purview to consider. 2. "Deficiencies in the project which adversely impact access, parking, drainage and existing structures. Ms. Kee stated again that she is not clear what the appeal is relative to these issues. Driveway access is not within the Board 's purview. There is a separate driveway ordinance. Parking numbers and dimensions are prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance and if that is the area of appeal then that could possibly be in the Board's purview. The city's drainage ordinance is not applicable to single-family building permits. Again , Ms. Kee stated that she is not sure what is being appealed. 3. "Violation of the deed restrictions." The city is not given authority by state statute to enforce deed restrictions and cannot do so. This is not in the Board's purview. 4. "Violation of city policy regarding protection of historic areas." Ms. Kee stated that there are policy statements in the City's comprehensive plan which mention preserving existing nei ghborhoods and not increasing densities. However, these policies have not been implemented in ordinance form. There is no ordinance in place at present that would preclude or prohibit replatting or building a single-family house on a lot that meets the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. An allegation of a violation of city policy is not within the Board's purview to consider. Ms. Kee conclude that as she went through the appeal application and tried to understand the appeal , what she had determined so far is there are a couple of areas that are questionable. There is not enough information to know and hopefully that will be clarified at this meeting Special Meeting Request Ms. Kee stated that the applicant met the deadlin e for the upcoming November 2, 1999 meeting of the Board. Ms. Kee told th e Board of their options to meet earlier than November 2. •:• It will not be possible to meet notification requirements and have a special meeting before the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 19u'. To try and set one any earlier would not allow suffici ent time for property own ers to recei ve notice as per the Board Rules and Procedures. •:• The O ctob er 19, 1999 m eet in g alre ady has a full age nd a for co ns id eration of application s that did meet the proper deadline. ZBA Minutes October 5, 1999 Page 3 o/9 3 It is possible to have ecial meeting and meet prop er notifi November .2nd with tr exception of October 21st & 28th . The1 Council meeting on the 28th and a P&Z meeting on the 2l't. · n between October 19th and is already a joint P&Z I City Ms. Kee reminded the Board that any determinations made by the Board concerning the appeal will not by itself affect the plat or the building permits that have been approved and issued . Any injunction or other action to correct any error of interpretation is going to be subject to Council action. If the Board makes a determination and decides that the application of the Ordinance was incorrect, the Council will take it into consideration and could authorize the City Attorney to file an injunction to stop work. Ms . Kee stated that the Board's decision alone does not cause that to happen. The Board's charge is to decide on the Zoning Official's application of relevant sections of the Ordinance and not whether to revoke a building permit or how any other Ordinances apply. If the Board does determine at some point that the application of that section is incorrect, what the staff will do from that point forward is apply that section of the ordinance as per the Board 's determination . Mr. Happ asked Ms . Kee who would have jurisdiction over the items that ZBA does not. Ms. Kee replied that not all the issues are very clear. It depends on exactly what is being requested. She gave some examples. Mr. Murphy stated that he is trying to understand the need for an emergency meeting. Ms. Kee replied that the construction is underway right now. Mr. Bond asked if there are any requirements which would qualify issues for special meeting status other than the Board 's own discretion . Ms. Kee responded no. It has always been at the Board's pkasure to determine need for a special meeting because there are two regularly scheduled meetings a mo nth. Mr. Hill stated that he has looked at the property and saw that the forms are set and sand in place. Mr. Hill told the Board that he would guess that the slab will be poured before a meeting is scheduled reg ardless. Mr. Hill stated that if the Board did decide to hear the case , construction was not going to sw p. Ms. Kee replied that was correct. The builder is authorized to proceed with their building. The Building Official sees no authority under the building code to issue any kind of stop work order. Everything was in compliance with the building code. Ms . Kee added that M~. Miller has some questions about the Zoning Ordinance application but they would not be sufficient enough to issue a stop work order. Ms. Kee told the Board about a section in the Zoning Ordinance that addresses stoppi n· any procee din gs . It references legal proceedings that th e city might be taking against someone, for instance code enforcement violations and does not apply to stopping these building permits . Mr. Happ stated th at the Board's authority has been eliminated over several areas presented. The one issu l.'. the Board do es have jurisdiction over is the issue of the lot lin e constructi on. Mr. Happ stated that readin g from Jane's note s and li stening to her report she is uncl ear w hat , if any, error there is. Mr. Happ ending by asking w hat would the emergency meeting be addressin g . Ms . Kee stated again that she is not sure if sh e co uld answer th at. Ms. Kee told the B oa rd one of the purpos es of this mee ting is if it is not clear from the application to ask Mrs. Miller or Mr. Es mond for clarification. ZBA Minutes October 5, 1999 Pa ge 4 of9 4 Mr. Hill stated that he feels strongly that the ZBA address any c· ns concerns that fall within their jurisdiction. Mr. Hill adaea that he is not clear what the concerns e and q\lestioned the Board's jurisdiction as well . Chairman Alexander asked for the Applicant, Mrs. Miller or Mr. Esmond to step before the Board. Mr. Esmond stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Esmond told the Board that that he is representing Mrs. Miller and she may also want to address the Board. Mr. Esmond stated that he woulcj. like to answer any questions and concerns raised. Mr. Esmond stated he hoped that there could be a way to accommodate differing opinions and views without having to make misrepresentations. It is always difficult to challenge or question a decision that a professional has made. Mr. Esmond stated that this Board is the proper Board to bring these issues to and it should not be viewed as an attack on the city or it's staff. Mr. Esmond told the Board that when Mrs. Miller found out about this project, it was late in the planning process and members of the City Council & city staff told her they would work with her. Mrs . Miller was told that this project should have never been approved and should be stopped. Mr. Esmond told the Board that one of the last comments made to Mrs. Miller was "even if we can not stop this one, we will certainly stop the next one." Mr. Esmond read sections of the Local Government Code. Mr. Esmond stated in Section 211.009 it basically spells out the authority of the Board. Mr. Esmond specifically noted items •:• A-1 "to hear and decide any appe~l that alleges an error in an order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official." •:• Section B "the Board may reverse or affirm in whole or part or modify the administrative officer's order, requirement, decision or determination from which an appeal is taken." •:• Appeal to the Board " any of the following persons may appeal to the Board of Adjustment a decision made by administrative official. # 1 "the person aggrieved by the decision". •:• Item C. "An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action that is appealed" Mr. Esmond stated that he and Mrs . Miller believe that includes the building permit. •:• 211.012 #C "if a building or other structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted or maintained, or if a building or other structure or land is used in violation of this subchapter, the appropriate municipal authority in addition to other remedies may take appropriate action to prevent the unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration , repair, conversion, maintenance or use". ZBA Minutes October 5, 1999 Page5 o/9 5 Mr. Esmond stated that it is stated that the project at han ordinances. ieved that all of these items are int BA's power. Mr. Esmond in violation of a number of things in ill city's subdivision and zoning Mr. Esmond focused on the zoning items . The first item Mr. Esmond discussed was the Deed Restrictions. Mr. Esmond told the Board that they are not asking the city to enforce the Deed Restrictions , but rather to not violate them. Mr. Esmond handed the Board a copy of the Warranty Deed that was signed by the recent purchaser of the property who is also the developer. Mr. Esmond referred the Board to Deed 111 # 6 which states "each individual dwelling must have a frontage of at least 75' ". The plat for this property shows 50'. Mr. Esmond referenced item 9 & 11 , which basically say that the covenants and restrictions are still in effect. If there is anyone of these that is no longer in effect, the others will remain in effect forever. Deed 124 item #2 states "no structure shall be located nearer than 20' to any side front property line." Mr. Esmond told the Board that here are deed restrictions that are currently enforced but not being obeyed and respected. Mr. Esmond stated that he is not asking the city to enforce them but to not violate them. Mr. Esmond handed the Board a copy of the plat. Mr. Esmond stated that it is not a "minor plat" but an "amending plat". Mr. Esmond told the Board if you look at the requirements for an "amending plat" in the State Local Government Code Chapter 212 and in the Zoning Ordinance, this does not meet the requirements of an "amending plat". Paragraph 9B .016 Texas Administrative Code states the purpose of the plat " to relocate one or mor~ lot lines between one or more adjacent lots if the amendment does not attempt to remove recorded covenants or restrictions". Mr. Esmond stated that this plat does attempt to remove them . It shquld have never been handled as an "amending plat" because it does not have to go to Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Esmond told the Board that the dates indicate that city staff approved this plat July 23, 1999 and the County Clerk filed it July 29th. Mr. Esmond stated that the Subdivision Regulations require that within 20 days after an amending plat is filed, the City Engineer and the City Planner shall forward the plat to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Esmond stated that the plat was never forwarded and they have had 4 meetings since the plat was filed. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Esmond ifhe could restrict his presentation to the issue of the ZBA'sjurisdiction and whether or not a special meeting is going to be required. If a meeting was required he would have ample time to present the case. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Esmond to show the Board where jurisdiction applies to the Board and they would be happy to set a hearing date. Mr . Esmond concurred. Mr. Esmond stated that the plat is one item that is being appealed . Mr. Esmond told the Board that the plat should have had a public hearing . Mr. Esmond briefly went over the points of appeal : •:• Staff did not have the authority to approye this plat because it fails as an amending plat. It should have been handled as a replat. •:• The side setback line on the plat shows an air conditioning pad next to the existing house. The air conditioning pad no longer shows up . However, item 6 on the amending plat states "the existing air conditioner for the house on lot 11 R will be allowed to remain on lot 12R. •:• Additional paved parking proposed on lots 1 OR & 12R violates Section 9 .2. A 5. of the Zoning Ordinance. ZBA Minutes Octob er 5, 1999 Page 6 o/9 6 Mr. Esmond stated that ther meeting. e several other things about the pl at can be discussed at the Mr. Esmond stated as to jurisdiction, Section 15.2 of the Zoning Ordinance-Powers and Duties makes it clear that ZBA's duty is to hear appeals to decisions by the Zoning Official. Section 15.5 Appeals states that any aggrieved person can make an appeal. Section 15.6 Revision of Appealed Decisions states that ZBA has the power to reverse the action of the Zoning Official. Mr. Esniond told the Board that Mrs. Miller had the right to make the appeal. Mr. Esmond told the Board of the impacts on Mrs. Miller. There is no screen for the RV, which will set on Mrs. Miller's back fence. The gravel driveway is going to pose a safety hazard to Mrs. Miller because she still mows her yard and the gravel is going to get slung into her yard. The driveway radius is going to cut into Mrs. Miller's property. Mrs. Miller has granted no easement for that and there will be another appeal. for that. Although it is not a consideration, it will diminish Mrs. Miller's property values. Mr. Esmond ended by telling the Board that Mrs. Miller is a widow and she lives alone. She lives on Social Security and on a fixed income. Mrs. Miller has attended every City Council Meeting for the last 2 Yz years and no one mentioned replat or construction. Mr. Esmond stated the Mrs. Miller is a big neighborhood integrity advocate and asked to Board to look carefully at this and treat Mrs. Miller fairly. Chairman Alexander asked Ms. Nemcik to address some items where Mr. Esmond was citing the authority of the Board. Ms. Nemcik stepped before the Board. Mr. Bond asked what enabling legislation does the Board need to follow regarding what appeals the Board can hear and can not hear. Ms. Nemcik stated two provisions, 211.008 and 211.009. Ms. Nemcik stated that these two provisions were cited correctly by Mr. Esmond. These provisions set the general authority of the Board and further delineating that is the Zoning Ordinance. There were discussions among the Board and Ms. Nemcik concerning the Deed Restrictions. Mr. Esmond stated replating without vacating the preceding plat is a problem. If the replat is approved, after the public hearing, interested citizens would have the opportunity to be heard. But there was no public hearing. Chairman Alexander stated that ZBA is not the venue for Deed Restrictions. Mr. Esrr~ond stated that the Board is being asked to recognize that a mistake was made and to overturn the decision where it can be dealt with in a public hearing. Chairman Alexander replied that he does not think that is the Board's jurisdiction on this issue. Mr. Esmond stated that the amending plat removes the covenants and restrictions that exist. Mr. Kee stated that it does not attempt to remove covenants and restrictions. The existing lots dimensions may not meet the Deed Restrictions criteria but amending the plat did not attempt to remove the covenants and restrictions. This plat does not take away the ability of the residents to enforce the Deed Restrictions. Ms. Kee stated that lots in this general area were looked at to see how many lots have been divided by metes and bounds descriptions since the subdivision was first established. City Staff found that about 70% are pieces and parts oflots. Mr. Esmond stated that he disagreed with part of Ms. Kee's statement. Mr. Esmond stated by approving the amending plat the Deed Restrictions are also amended. Mr. Happ asked, in replatting, were any zoning restrictions violated that are now in existence. Ms. Nemcik answered that is the issue. ZBAMinutes October 5, 1999 Page 7o/9 7 Chairman Alexander stated he wanted to focus on the items that Board has jurisdiction over. Ms. Nemcik stated that section 211.008 and 211.009 applies to the Boar of Adjustment. It is further amplified and/or refined by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Nemcik stated that the Deed Restrictions and amending plat issues are not in the ZBA's jurisdiction. Ms. Nemcik made reference to the RV being parked on one of the lots. That is not a matter of appeal but a matter of enforcement. Ms . Nemcik stated that she can not address the driveway cut on Mrs. Miller's property because she does not fully understand the facts . With regard to Council action taken on July 23, 1998 Ms. Nemcik stated that those are Council issues and those would need to be brought to that forum . There is no delegation of Council authority to the ZBA. Ms. Nemcik ended by saying that she noted those items as being the Board's concerns and Ms . Kee may expand. Chairman Alexander called Mr. Esmond back before the Board. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. 1:smond what was his objective by reading Section 211.009 (The Authority of the Board). Is the Board c' '\pected to attempt to stop the work that is going on and have a hearing on the issues that are under the Zl 3A jurisdiction. Mr. Esmond stated that he thinks jurisdiction is the Boards decision not the city s taff or the Zoning Official's decision. Mr. Esmond stated it is the ZBA decisions because they are legally empowered to hear the appeals from the administrative level. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Esmond if he disagreed with "any determination made by the Board relative to this appeal will not affect the plat or building permits that have been approved and issued." Mr. Esmond stated that he disagreed with that statement. Chairman Alexander asked "is the Board going to be able to stop any further construction until the issues have been resolved?". Ms. Nemcik stated the first item to determine is whether the items presented and Mrs. Miller's appeal are; 1) Sufficient in their description for the B oard to understand what they are, and; 2 Whether they are in the Board's jurisdiction. Mrs. Miller approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mrs. Miller told the Board that when she filed the application of appeal it was her understanding that construction would cea se. Mrs . Miller told the Board of the progress that has been made on the property since the application was turned in. Mrs. Miller stated that if the work in not put on hold, the houses will be built before a hearing could be scheduled. Mrs. Miller ended by saying that she would appreciate any hel p that the Board can give. Chairman Ale:rnnder called Ms. Kee before the Board. Chairman Alexander stated that one item the Board understands is their jurisdiction is the item concerning the lot line construction. Chairman Alexander asked for explanation and requirements. Ms. Kee stated that the requirements for someone wanting to use the zero lot line are: you have to own property on both sides of the lot line, you have to in no case have houses no closer than 15' of each other. Beyond that there is no more guidance but sta ff has allowed the flexibility to have variable setbacks as long as the 15' separation is maintained. Cha ir man Alexander asked if there are any requirements if the hou se is built on the line. Ms . Kee stated under the building code there are some requirements for firewalls and limitations on percent opening s that are a function of how close the wall is to a property lin e . ZBA Minutes October 5, 1999 Page8 o/9 8 To the Zoning ~rd .of Adjustment in the ..atter of the 600 Welsh Project State.. Law, in the Local Government C.ode mandates cities may note historic areas. The City of College Station has acted, wisely, in designating the College Station Sout hside Historic Area. It is fully demarked by signa.ge. At the property site of this appeal, there is actually such a sign. That sign has been in front of this property during the entire pre-construction process for this project and before the property was ever purchased by the developer . . The State Law Local Government C.ode provides for this in: Sec. 211.003. Zoning Regl1lations Generally. (a) The governing body of a municipality may regulate: (5) the location and use of buildings, other stn1ctures, and land for business, industrial, residential, or other purposes . (b) In the case of designated places and areas of historical, cultural, or architectural importance and significance, the governing body of a municipality may regulate the construction, reconstruction, alteration, or razing of buildings and other structures . Acting for all of the people of C.ollege Station, C.ouncil has designated this area as a. Historic Area. in the city. It also has formally acted to set in place the beginnings of policy to protect this area. It is NOT necessary, per State Law, to require an ordinance to do this. The adjacent property next to this project is a designated Historic Home in the City of College Station. Our family homestead in this same block, the house on either side of us and the house behind us qualify for such registry. We a.re spending significant money now on the family homestead preparing it for such registration. I believe al 1 but one house, six more, in the facing property to the East of the project qualify for such registry. At a joining corner to the rear of this project is yet another house that qualifies for registry. Within a few more years, some four or five more houses in this same block wi 11 also qualify. Half of all registered Historic Houses in College Station, now, are in this designated Historic Area. Welsh Street, itself, has been sheltered by C.ouncil action and the designation of the area, when ta.ken into context of the acceptance of the Resolutions of the area's Neighborhood Preservation C.ommittee. Even the street and changes to it, must , as we see it, come to review for both the property adjoining it as well as the protect.ion of the trees along it, per the C.ouncil action . We note: 1 H f' "c" ·,....r , • I ~,(J (J I "/ ; ·it f, I' :.r· . ,, 1 , t.Jll1 ... . '"'• l ft,). ? ~ I t 1 ·,. t 1 ~' f { . I 1 ) J tri,,.. I f . r1 l ,,, '• J I 1 i ff'I • f ., 'J t • f J 1 I J, 1, 1n r•-1 . Ji? I I . 'l' fl t '. f ".tf' I I I'·/) f I fl I ·. ' I' 'II •t 1 01 f l . ' ,, . ' , . l . I ( [ I It' 1 I ( .( rf1 .,1 ·r I · > If' 't' • >, ,'"t r If' I,) 9!-( I t , • I 11 J I l 1(f (/ •I .I I ( 'T {' I' ' 1.) Literally hundreds of people in this city have participated in the formulation of the Neighborhood Preservation C'.ommittee's f ina.l report 2.) Literally thousands of hours of time have been devoted to this issues and guidelines to be used in making decisions in this neighborhood area .. 3.) The City of C.ollege Station and the people of C'.ollege Station have invested thousands of dollars developing the guidelines and principals which should have been used to refuse the issuance of this plat and which should have resulted in a request to act on it by the P&Z C'.ommission. In specific, as to this portion of the law. we believe that the approval of this project is improper and may have violated the law by the simple fact that it was issued in an area which qualifies as to pa.rt (b) above: 1.) A VERY well known and dema.rked designated place and area of historical, cu 1 tura.l, or a.rchi tectural importance and significance, 2.) The Administrative person or persons whom participated in the issuance of the approved plat acted in violation of the law in that in their charge to regulate the c.onstruction, reconstruction, alteration, or razing of buildings and other structures, they; a.) failed to regulate the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures per the law; b.) failed to regulate the percentage of a lot that may be occupied per the law; c.) failed to regulate the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces per law; d.) failed to regulate the population density per the law; e.) failed to regulate the location and use of buildings, other structures, and land for business, industrial, residential, or other purposes; all to the exclusion of Sec. 211.003., (a) and (b). It is most important to note that the same Administrative person or persons to whom the authority to issue this plat were given, generally, in respect to the Planning Department of the City of College Station, was or were EXACTLY the source of the recommendations to the City C'.ouncil of College Stat ion, that they ADOPT the very charge to protect this area which was grossly, we think, violated by the issuance of this amended plat. 2 "-T C:..f] [ , I "·1 J 'i:H!rio • I oi. l ru),_ 16.1? •"'" r I e1.• ·•rt' f\J 1 ~fl ' vhi 11 A 'J fl :J J .. l ·• lCslJ':;>"j r •. 1[1h1 '\.-'. ~ (_:I . " rf1 I ' frf l ~~ ;f1 I ·i (> lr t• ' 1h;,J !•1 . ir> •'111 11. I "() )•'' Ln iti I -=-~ • " I I) J (I"·' J 1rl 1 r .. tp, I ii t , ' ,. . •t , •. I .. I J )r, ." If ' I . ', }-f;nr., I(' (I ti r' I' r '.'.:-"'I ·' • r rf i;f. hp I • '! • •I <'! ., r J CJ'/ J.11' ,H 1 ir •. flf)J l [I q . ' I ) f, ·11 lt~ ... (ll<Jl!f. tr f• l'1P,i ·.11 "ti I '{ "'.,·,r)f ·~ rt~ In i '' "Ir f( ,_.'fl for ., ., tl'J '• lf, if I I ii; t 11 ~ t ~ J"iriJ(1 I. bnr-. ~"lJ ·1.11,.. • -.•."r l t~, !'l + 1 t I ~1t1 11! t [l .;>t·111 •1; /1 i 1 • ?9.11.1 t;J rud Jf-:'IJhJTI J t". "]f ,, j c.·q <•; I 1.11c«• { : {V'\.lJi'. ·J 11·1!1 .r1r.•i tf1• ,fr, i rt . i • \ r i i:lf ?..C ?.•'Jr r i I f,.t1, rl ii ' t - ,. rH, ·t, [l:<J/l[,).J1<1h h11 "' i! ~ I I I 15"dl ';_. ' J •• I f.>rl I ri t rl -,rl '11 to Lrir t ,, ' ) l'J!: ~ . I ll·'( l•J 1\ i.: 'I rJ r 'f •f [ o.1: II Ir, lf'->b fl'\ i 11' ( li(ji tC'j ::;r! "'I t to· .11·' "'' • , '" q~11 T 1~ lf) I •;!1 j •, I r fl I · t· •. f •" :en °' t ..... 1 It I hf' j t I:\ 1 ·• . t f~ t ~, ,r· n1 +, ' I ' " '' >~ .' 1,, iii I ... ,, I I I , .,.r I ,J ' ' f1 , I • , I > • ~I 1 .. l lrJt f p " I~ I J . I .,. <1 ~ f' Dr. Luther, in 1936, a.t the same time, in the middle of the Great Depression, made it through Iowa State with a PhD in math. He skipped the Master's level going for the PhD direct, because he was too poor to make it any other way. He had only two job offers upon graduation, in the Depression; Michigan State and Texas A&M. He and Mother arrived here at Texas A&M C'.ollege, in 1936 and I, the oldest son, was born in Bryan in 1939. Dad, like many others, began ma.king contributions I think you will agree need to be noted and remembered. You see, Dad was loaned by Texas A&M University to Westinghouse Research in Pittsburgh for a. year for his skills in mathematics in a certain area. He took the place of a man whom went directly to the Manhattan Project. He was told to do the math to calculate the yield of very special oil they had found in the Southwestern United States at very great depths in tiny, tiny deposits. He was to figure out the yield from these tiny deposits, given tha.t the drill stem might glance a boulder or traverse geologic faults on the way down to it. What production could they get it they managed to hit it dead on? What production could they get if it struck the deposit a glancing blow and some of it leaked away? He was to verify his results on drill stem bending, beaa bending, on a Geiger tube. Of course he wasn't the only man on the team, just one of the men whom did the full project. On a visit to the Roosevelt Museum at Hyde Park, he told to my sister, "That's my boss a.t Westinghouse!" It was that section of Westinghouse Research crew that did the math and advised President Roosevelt, "Based upon our research we can predict that a nuclear reaction can be ma.de to explode and will not simply melt down." No matter where Dad fitted into the puzzle, where it was in the time line of these things, it was on the work of this project that the test device was detonated at White Sands. A few months later, similar research devices were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The rest is real history. Westinghouse compensated Texas A&M C'.ollege for that year of Dad's salary. Memory is it was about $1240 dollars. Dad's tenure at Texas A&M was assured by the work. From it, he was able to afford only the $8500 dollar aJOOunt for the first spec home built in C'.ollege Station after the war at 614 Welsh Ave., three doors down from this 600 Welsh project. Like many houses here, even tiny ones, this is not just local color and history, it is real Texas History, even larger. Further, it cannot be shielded from the pure economics of just student housing without adhering to the already in-place policy for this area. Preserving these priceless sites is incompatible with the addition of more and more student rent property which is simply driven by economics. Although a house technically may qualify as a "Single Family House", occupied by a group of unrelated adults, it really isn't. The simple fact is that until one has to sweat and scrape to make a. home tha.t is theirs and their homestead, most folks can't understand this at al I. Some college students do understand this; I feel most do not. As I have gone through the process of seeing llY Father die here and my Mother spend ten years totally paralyzed, unable to speak, bot fully aware of everything she and Dad have worked to build at 614 Welsh, I too have, perhaps, matured. 3 ' ,, '1 f". ( I rf ~ :: " .,, 1 j r. If I' .~i !--Iii T 1 11 . ') '1 -,>I I ,. (,If 1n1 " r I ' I l I l •11 I ·(•(! . ' II · Ii I fl·'' h .... 1r . l I I I ... ·t .. .,...,,, I rl • 11 I 1.d ! ~·d f l t. t I '3 hi<. r tJll ':. ! rl lo • f~ f ~ t I II• . 'I" r: t 11 ti t 'J t,. ' {. ... (I flj , , t")·R .. 1 ?'-)A I 1 f1 r'9 I , rrr, •t I · I if~ '•f J' 1 • f l p •• I I I,..'-fi I Rf l I I I ,, . l f I '1 1 .-11 I . I (I e i rt ... ·~ t ' ,, l ' l ' . I I , 1. 1 ·1 i I ,, n d I II I' .•' •• fl r i~ l IJ I )'" 1 1 I l 1 ?I I r . •1 ii ( r.1 - I ,-.ff ~I I Ill I ;-I J. '~''-c I rf 'tl l I < t• "l r" • ~ ( ., -· r l."1;0 rrl IJ I 11 ' 1 ' 1,1 " •1 ' r . .\ l f ~ f 11~ 1 ·. -~ ' . I I j 1 l ... I J j ,,,, ilt 'I I. .n11 I ,jt '! .. . { . I )I .{,. . I '1 ., I, ' , . What must really happen, is that this incident, in a. reversed approval for construct ion and clarification of policy, must form the basis for a real start at a detailed, clear Area Preservation policy. It must far more clearly say "No!", to things like this. I do not agree with a City Staff position that the Zoning Board of Adjustment cannot hear certain other facets of this appeal as well as those set forth on the docket. I believe that it also has the ability and duty to hear a.ppeal on far more than just the parking and setback issues. It legally must do so. This present project, in its present form violates the entire charge of the Council for development in this area and the State Law as I view it, given the already stated definition of the Historic Area. I believe the Zoning Boa.rd of Adjustment can issue a moratorium on the project, or, send it back to the Planning and Zoning C'.ommission for proper public hearing. I believe it ha.'3 a duty to do so, given full disclosure of the issuance of the plat and permits. Please send a. stern clear message that puts this in the hands of the Planning and Zoning Commission where it really should have started as a Public Hearing, or, a.ct on appeal and stop this project fully. P l ease act as the majority of people in this City, have for years now, wanted done to preserve this priceless heritage of the City of C'.ollege Station, this, our C'.ollege Station ~sid~Area./'M:~~~.pem., Mrs. ~ Lu er ~chael Michael Luther 4 City of College Station City C'.ounci 1 In re: Unresolved implementation of accepted Historic Preservation Area Resolutions Box 9960 College Station, TX 77840 October 28, 1999 The C'.ollege Station City C'.ouncil has designated an area of the City of C'.ollege Station as a. Historic Area. It is marked by unique signs. This area is: A VERY well known and demarked designated place and area of historical, cu 1 tural , or a.rchi tectural importance and s igni fi ca.nee. Because there is now such a. designated AREA of historical, cultural, or architec tural importance and significance, for regulatory purposes, it comes under a provi s ion of the Texas Local Government C'.ode: TITLE 7 . RB3ULATION OF LAND USE, STRUCTURES , BUSINESSES, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES SUBTITLE A. MUNICIPAL REC'..t.JLATORY AlmIORITY CHAPTER 211 . MUNICIPAL ZONING AUTHORITY SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL ZONING ROOULATIONS Unde r this portion of the State LGC, 211.003 (a), the city may regulate the construction , reconstruction, alteration, or razing of buildings and other structures . It is so important tha.t special consideration be given Historic Areas that in the law, a second major heading, (b), equal in importance in the entire Zoning Regulations C3enerally, is given to Historic places: Sec . 211.003 . Zoning Regulations Generally. (a) The governing body of a municipality may regulate: (1) the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures; (2) the percentage of a lot that may be occupied; (3) the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces; (4) population density; and (5) the location and use of buildings, other structures, and land for business, industrial, residential, or other purposes. 1 (b) In the case of designated places and areas of historical, cu I tural, or a.rchi tectura.l importance and significance, the governing body of a municipality may regulate the construction, reconstruction, alteration, or razing of buildings and other structures. Of citizen/city pa.st efforts a.t bringing a.bout reasonable regulation of construction, reconstruction, a.Iteration, or razing of buildings and other structures in this now designated Historic Area it is noted: 1. ) Li tera.l ly hundreds of people in this city have pa.rt icipated in the formulation of the Neighborhood Preservation C'.ommittee's final report . 2.) Litera.lly thousands of hours of time have been devoted to this issues and guidelines to be used in making decisions in this neighborhood area. 3 .) The City of C'.ollege Station and the people of C'.ollege Station have invested thousands of dollars developing the guidelines and principals which are to be used to in handling planning and zoning issues in this area. The work dovetails and is amplified with the accepted HOK report, a professional study for which tens of thousands of dollars of the residents' funds were pa.id, a report which is to provide guidelines for the entire city development for many years to come. The most specific focus of a.11 this work on policy and direct ion given to this , the first Historic Area in the City of College Station, was in formal City C'.ouncil action ta.ken July 23, 1998. In that action City Staff urged the City Council to adopt a.II but item number six (6) of the Neighborhood Preservation C'.ommittee's final report. The actual vote by the City C'.ouncil to do this, as a formal acceptance of the key Resolutions that were in the formal report, was unanimous, with a modified view of parking needs . Item six (6) was a problem because the City Legal Staff could not easily come to a recommendation of how to best implement it, given current law on the issues this Resolution touched . More work had to be done for Council to act on it. City Staff itself suggested , in the briefing for the City C'.ounci 1 meeting of that July 23 , 1998, that it needed 90-120 days to draw up implementation of the necessary ordinances, if C'.ouncil directed Staff to do so. That there wa.s a agreement and understanding on this by the members of the City Council, was fully acknowledged at that meeting. There was discussion on how to implement it a.11. Over that, the tape recording of the City C.ouncil meeting of July 23, 1998, has the voice of Mayor McLihaney noting, just before the vote was ta.ken on adopting the Resolutions, "I think most of this will come back to the C.ouncil when they work out the implementation plan, it's j1.1st accepting the recommendations." 2 '• . 1_(.'\f J f I I I_ It ! / f J 'l1 If. fi ' ' I ii . I • 'r '' f •f JI l)I" "') J l t • [ fJ . -r 111r1 l . jl, I/' if I ') L t l ( i"IJ. I t' ( 1-rr l, t ~"" 1 L o '•· : r r in 1 I n9 r I . " .. !I t-= I r t 1 ,, (l t ,•I ' 'rf -I ·i t 'I I ,rd •' .. (; t,. j ,,. t )( .t I 1 ll () /. I f •' ,·r1 11 •••• ,. ·1 ' ,~ ... u r •. i7t0 J:.l .,. 'I l ' I 1i 1·1 11 rf! H .. !q l ., :1)11 I I j ,f r: r Ir d• l i .- • I tt P • II ) '1· l -· • lCl() ' ' rt 11: t· • )t I ,, "". ,. \ Jf t I l , )J r,,t l 1,..,;;; I f '°l( 'r , I A! I I t }~ ) I r • () J I l In llJ r , I .l { f I f }J j p '".'l ! ( f J(( I '1 .-'I\ • f}< ,1 ~':' 1.· I '[ 1 ' t ) t . ;f'rft •.-,,,> t i I( I f( •\ rftl• J.•ft'l 1 !1 10 l) 'i•I 1 r r • .l' /v T "'..J 1 ••t '-1 t l , l f J fl· .;~ft (1 _J ·~ t ·1. ; t II .. · fil I< I j f t ',' I 1-• • • r r )(' I (If I •q I ,• ri : -( If I " • ,, en 11 l ,) t I I I [ J. f: ! I I 1 I 1 ii• f f•. ii ' ( ' II r1 .. 'f r L ·' " .I r • r ' l , l r I' ' ) i l J 1 .. T, 1(' f . ) ' ,, ,, "' I 1 I ., (' I 1 I I t, ~ I I· I ·~. ., • I 1 • fa , I it".,..l, 'I .. il " I I ,. t t ., ,, "' rr ' . I ,. 111 •Ill ') [ 1 j 1 I ' , 1 ~ t l 1 , . I - T :. , .. 1•' ., I I r~· ti I I d I I t. 'l I'. I ( I' I I There is a question as to the a.ctua.l action ta.ken and the transcription of the meeting which led to a written version of the, "minutes" of the meeting . That issue is over whether Item Four (4), was really passed or not. Those people whom have invested so heavily over decades, of their time, efforts to build this City, in a constructive and carefu 1 manner and have spent major family assets helping the people of C'.ollege Station, all left the meeting with the understanding that City Council had taken the action necessary to prevent major flare ups and destruct ion of the Historic Area.. That included one of the most critical of the issues, Item Four (4) -what has more recently become termed the practice of "Infill ." The City has all the beginning i terns in focus for protect ion of this Historic Area.; it's a.lready acted as needed. This is the beginning of what should be an Area Preservation approach to what is needed. The Southside Historic Area should simply be the beginning of a more formal codified approach to this. To best take care of current pressing problems in this Historic Area, the simplest form of control which can be effected, is to require public notice and P&Z Hearing, where the key issues such as upcoding, infill, adequate pa.rking, full structure-to-structure building sepa.ration, instead of foundation-to-foundation building separation, and the like, might be at issue for permit issuance in this area. For safety and preservation purposes, what is practical and a.cceptable in all the City of College Sta.tion, cannot work successfully in these Historic Areas. If it could they wouldn't be designated as such, the protection and public notice wouldn't be necessary. This is not a question of just "convenience" for a. few. It is a matter that in this designated Historic Area, the current building, street size profile, a.nd land use that is currently there, cannot support the increase in residents, street vehicle loa.d, or building crnsh in a safe manner. As well , the entire Historic Preservation of crucial of neighborhoods will be lost. The only thing tha.t. is left to do to start this process, so needed in this city, is to IMPLEMENT what ha.s a.lrea.dy been done. Please RATIFY what has already been passed. Please IMPLEMENT the resolutions in the Historic Preserva.tion Committee's report, including item four (4). Begin working on a working approach to item six (6) now, by a.sking City Staff to tell you how it CAN be done, not just tell you how it CAN'T be done. The majority of other univers ity oriented cities ha.ve had to do this and have done it. C'.ollege Sta.tion will continue to suffer from flare ups over this until the implementa.tion requested a year a.go, has been done a.s instructed. Mike Luther, Chairman The Neighborhood Preserva.tion Committee . 3 I f 1 n q I I f ).'•') •).,-( .I i ll;i I : ( ;111 (1. ~11 J r, I 1 t n'"I /'I ·ii) 'jf 1·HI r, ~, > I r If ,. Jfi i 1 " 11,if 1!1 I •r ~fl t fl rl !If f!C),/i I' 'H .... '· r: f f 1 I ) n' jl I It' ,, .... . It r ( l i( I r {f Ii r .o .. I •I I I I • (. J ,,, •I . I~. ·1 I •. r , ( '• :, 1' ' It I: t t. Ii. )t) ! .i II' I J lfJ1l ·' 'i "I ll L 1.< ' If ' I t fJ •:I .• Ji ,~ l('• •1 {lf' ) ,ff i f :. .ir. 101 l I 1i1 l ~ I '" 1 t 1·~ '! I ,, I . r ·~ :i . :1 H .. ' .b ~ir,>,...ii llj :I tfl<"> [1.1 l' f1" r f, .. J if11 r £1r 1 r."'1 ~ I , , fl 'l'~ ! I \l f t ~ 1 f' lli : 'IU'J • ( ! )~_ t "•( ·I/. T ': t i fl1q t:) •J.'\ '.1\{r 'I. ~I t• 'l J •.' 1 in i "•• t [) i r I I (lif)I j1W r!"I t10<1<T11., I. ( I 1 rmr1 i ~ 1 f.. r r1 c1 JI t ·'' .-,i «><.,~ u I ti-r c.w i i fl :;:J .,,. • r: )' ') rl I , f' + r I { 1 )? f;, ;I 1ji) q . 01> .. I, •.In 'fl I•• I( ( l <11 •' t ( I f { ~ rl I .i. ) I l '• l r' fi'i• <0d'f ·)1l(l[' . I •1qr ,f ft r >< 11di 11 j. i i 'I 1·t· r ,-'jf r[ I " r 1 '1 I' I ft l tr I. I t I , , fJ ,1 1 I ,f r r I f•I I i "• ·11 l [ ,. t I 1 ! J l ,_-'ll t.1i.>' I ~ ,,I ,,,, I ' . ' .... I ,0 it < (' fJ 'I I , . '\ t. • 1 • rl , ,, r,r h 't >•';I I 11< •I •11 . l ,,.. ' i I , .. : ,> I "f r I d ,1 J I I( Ir rf 'J t.. • , ,, f. iJ""i 11 ti , .. rf T 'r • 111 , (. ' ' . t t •• nr· '~, T •' I '' i ' Staff Report Date: ZBA Meeting Date: APPLICANT: REQUEST: PROP. OWNER: ITEM SUMMARY: STAFF REPORT October 14, 1999 October 20, 1999 Mrs. Norma Miller. Mrs. Miller owns and lives on the property adjacent to the properties at 600-604 Welsh. Appeal Zoning Official's interpretation of Section 9-Minimum Parking Requirements and Section 7.2.D -Area Requirements relative to the properties at 600-604 Welsh. Mr. Nelson Nagle is the present property owner. The questions before the ZBA are whether the Zoning Official applied the parking regulations and the side setback requirements properly in the review of the building permits for two new houses at 600 and 604 Welsh. The Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Official to make interpretations of any provision of the Ordinance if the need arises. The Zoning Official is not one particular person but may be any staff member given responsibility for acting in that capacity in a given situation. In making such determinations, the Planning Staff takes into consideration the intent of the ordinance, consistency, and the public interest. Staff members constantly communicate to ensure that each person, when acting in the capacity of Zoning Official, is being consistent with past applications and interpretations. The staff discussions that led to the approval of the building permit were consistent with prior applications of these Zoning Ordinanace provisions. ITEM BACKGROUND: This property involves lots I 0, 11, and 29 feet of 12, Block C, College Park with a total frontage of 129 .03 feet. In 1962 the portion of Fidelity running parallel and adjacent to this property was abandoned . These properties are zoned R-1 Single Family . One home has existed on the property for many years. Single family zoning and development surround the property. This year an amending plat was presented to clarify the property boundaries to reflect the Fidelity abandonment which added 25 feet to the property for a total of 154.03 feet of frontage. An interior lot I ine was also adjusted with this amending plat. With 154.03 feet of frontage and an interior lot line adjustment, the property is reflected as three 50-foot wide lots each meeting the lot dimensions for an individual home. Two new houses were permitted under the lot line construction alternative found in Table A, Note C of the Zoning Ordinance. Without the amending plat the property could still have three homes under Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows more than one structure housing a principle use to be built on a lot or building plot as long as all other requirements of the zoning ordinance are met as though each were on an individual lot. Parking Appeal: In the case at hand, the applicant states "Off-stree t parking requirements not met." It is unclear what the applicant is referencing by this statement. However, the following will explain each area of the parking section and how it is applied. "PZ02023 Section 9 provides for minimum standards for parking space dimensions , access, islands, parking lot maintenance, landscape reserve area, surfacing requirements, parking lot lighting and temporary parking lot requirements. Section 9 references "In all districts for all uses ... ". The majority of the regulations are intended for uses that require parking lots , such as multi-family or commercial uses, referencing islands , parking lot setbacks, etc . The portions of Section 9 dealing with islands, parking lot maintenance, the landscape reserve, parking lot lighting and temporary parking requirements are not applicable to this case as these provisions are for multi-family/commercial uses and not for single family uses. I will address the parts of Section 9 that are applicable to single family site plan review. Section 9.A -Dimensions and Access references illustrations at the end of the section. In those illustrations there are graphs depicting concrete driveway aprons in the right-of-way for residential applications. It shows the maximum driveway radius of 10 feet as established in Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances. (The City 's Code of Ordinances is a codified version of all codes and ordinances. The Zoning Ordinance is included by reference.) Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances establishes curb return radius for residential driveways on local streets to be a maximum of 10 feet and a minimum of 2.5 feet. Typically single family drives have a radius of 2.5 to 5 feet when located on local streets . Chapter 3 also provides for a maximum width for a residential drive approach to be 28 feet measured at the property line with a minimum width of 10 feet. The graphics of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance include the Chapter 3 requirements relative to driveway width . 9.2.A. l requires a 9' by 20' parking space and this is required for all uses that require parking including single family uses. 9.2.A.2 refers to off-street parking for truck unloading and is not applicable to single family . 9.2 .A.3 intends for all parking and maneuvering areas to be located entirely within the boundaries of the building plot except as set forth in Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinance s(this refers to shared access drives.). All single family driveways and parking areas are required to meet this. 9.2.A.4 is not applicable to single family residences unless located on a major arterial or collector street. 9.2.A .5 refers to a 24 foot landscape reserve. This is intended for parking lots, not individual residential driveways as driveways are specifically excluded in this section. Exceptions are made for 7 parking spaces to be allowed in this reserve. (These are clearly references to uses that require parking lots as opposed to single family us es.) It is not applied to single family permits . 9.2.A.6 , 7 and 8 address parking lot islands and are not applicable to single family permits . 9.2 .B references off-premise parking locations and the requirements for such. This is intended for facilities that require parking lots and multiple spaces and allows for some to be located off- premise under certain circumstances. It has never been applied to a single family residence. 9.2.C references public parking areas and is not applicable. 9 .2.D references surfacing requirements and states; "Except as otherwise provided ... ". Section 6 of Chapter 10 of the City's Code of Ordinances addresses surfacing for sin g le family driveways and this section is applied . "PZ02023 9.2.E references lighting for off-street parking areas and is not applicable to single family reviews. 9.2.F references drive surfaces for temporary and/or permanent drives required for emergency access and is applied by the City Engineer. This is not applicable to single family site reviews. 9.2 .G references temporary parking lots and is not applicable. 9.3 references off-street spaces required and specifically requires a minimum of two parking spaces for single family uses. This regulation is applied to single family permits. Both new permits issued for 600 and 604 Welsh were interpreted as meeting the above applicable requirements because: 1. The location and radius of the curb return was not shown on the site plan presented for building permit. The contractor was advised of radius requirements . Staff will inspect for a proper radius of2.5 to 5 feet and this it is contained on Mr. Nagle's property. No certificate of occupancy will be issued without an inspection to ensure compliance. 2. The driveway aprons are shown to be approved all weather surfaces for that portion in the right-of-way as provided for in the Zoning ordinance and Chapter 3 of the City 's Code of Ordinances. 3 . The portion of the driveway on private property is shown to be crushed limestone, which is a private drive standard previously approved by the City Engineer. This standard has been allowed for years. 4. Two parking spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinance. The dimensions of the driveways have the minimum width and depth for two parking spaces. It is customary that the two spaces required for a single family use may be side by side or end to end as the spaces and vehicles are under control of the property owner. This has been a long standing interpretation for single family residential uses. Setback Appeal: Section 7.2.D refers to Table A that sets out the setback, lot size and height restrictions based on the applicable zoning district. The portion being appealed is the application of the side setback requirement for the R-1 zone. For single family zones Table A requires either an absolute 7.5 foot side setback or allows for lot line construction under certain circumstances. Note C of Table A states: "Zero lot line construction of residences is allowed where property on both sides of lot line is own ed and/or developed simultaneously by single party. Development under lot lin e construction requires prior approval by the Zoning Official. In no case shall a single family residence be built within 15 feet of another building. " This section has been interpreted over the years by many different people but has consistently been interpreted to allow less than the 7.5 foot setback and as little as a 0 foot setback . The important health and safety consideration is that no residence is closer than 15 fe et to anoth er. This is why it is imperative that property on both sides of the lot line in question be under one person's control when the decision is made to apply lot line construction . This provision is a critical factor in the interpretations as made to date. In this case there is an existing house in the center of the property. When Mr. Nagle amended the plat of his property, he did so in order to clarify the boundaries of his property. The right-of- way of Fidelity Street running adjacent and parallel to his property had been abandoned 37 years before. To clarify this and to relocate an interior lot line Mr. Nagle decided to amend the plat of his property. He actually owns 154.03 feet of frontage. Under the Zoning Ordinance the "PZ02023 minimum lot width in R-1 is 50 feet measured at the front setback line. With this amount of frontage Mr. Nagle chose to build two additional houses. In this case Mr. Nagle opted to use Note C of Table A to provide 0 foot and 15 foot setbacks for one side of the existing house and 3.5 foot and 11.5 foot setbacks for the opposite side. This application is consistent with stafrs interpretation of this note. 1990s Recent Examples of lot line construction Eastmark Subdivision -variable Pebble Creek -0115 feet Grand Oaks -0115 feet Two Lincoln Place -0115 feet Pleasant Forest -variable It is more common for builders/developers to use the 0/15 foot combination under lot line construction because this maximizes the amount of useable side yard area by containing it all on one side. However, there are builders/developers who choose to use a variable setback because of roof overhangs and sidewall maintenance concerns as well as Building Code limitations on the number of openings and firewall requirements. When building on a 0-foot setback one would have to be on the adjacent nei ghbor 's property to perform any maintenance on the sidewall. Also, roof overhangs would allow water to run off onto the neighboring property and some builders want to avoid this situation for future homeowners. The alternative is to grant maintenance and overhang easements . The Building Code limits the amount of openings that can be in a wall based on construction type and distance from the property line . The Building Code also requires a one hour rated firewall when wood construction is 3 feet or closer to the property line. In Mr. Nagle 's case the relocated interior lot line enabled him to meet the minimum lot width requirement and the variable setback enabled him to meet the setback requirements If, over the years , the City had not interpreted lot line construction to include a variable setback, Mr. Nagle's (or anyone else 's) possible alternatives would be to use Section 8.4 which allows more than one structure hou s ing a principle use to be built or to seek a variance from the ZBA to the side setback requirement. Similar Appeals: Staff has found no previous appeals to the interpretation of lot line construction or single family parking requirements. #Property Owners Notified: 35 Responses Rec'd: Several inquiries The Zoning Board decision , whether it is to uphold or overturn the interpretation , will form the basis of future decisions relating to lot line construction and the application of Section 9 relative to parking/driveways in any other single family zoning district of the City where these may be applied. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Site Plan from Building Permit files "PZ02023 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMfITEn: ___ _ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: __ Filing Fee of$75.00. __ Application completed in full. __ Request fonn completed in full. __ Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor plans . The Zoning Official shall infonn the applicant of any extra materials required . APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name ([\DJ:yY\a, \_-. ('(\ t\\e r2 MailingAddress ·s Di Ge "-e rt'\s.-e 1"" 1 City 0o llr~ S:R State ---r;.,, Zip Code 1:J 'X (/ D E-Mail Address V\ 0 YV\·, l @ r-\ £:-4, ne J-- Phone Nwnber {a q {, ~ l( t.../S t Fax Nwnber ~ ?] '{ " S/ 3 _:3 y PROPERTY OWNER'S fNFORMATION : Mailing Address ---------------~ City __________ _ State ----E-Mail Address ------------Zip Code ____ _ Phone Nwnber Fax Nwnber --------------------------~ LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address /, Q l> LJ E'-l S b Lot'L. 1 l> /u /12 Block C. ____ _ Action Requested: (Circle One) Current Zoning of Subject Property Applicable Ordinance Section Subdivision Setba.Gk Variance Parking Variance Sign Variance R\ I~ , Appeal of Zoning 0 fficial' s Interpretation Special bxception Oilier _________ _ The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached 1ereto are true, correct and complete. w©)u.µA £,CY\\ \la'2 ZBA AP PUCA TION ZBAAPP .DOC 3125199 Date 1of2 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO .: DATE SUBMilTED: __ _ APPEAL OF ZONING DECISION REQUEST I believe the Zoning Official has misinterpreted Section q -( 5 , Ordinance 1638 . Other facts supporting my opinion are (attach additional sheets if necessary): ~~ -e-X,s\,·""'\ ~r>N"e o.O Cs>OO \.0-e~h ·\S siqn.\ bic:an\\l.A o,,J, 't" .\ e ,...,± C tall '1 \-..:s1o ri c 1.'::nA' 1 \ .\-~ I 'i s Ii kl 'i th r dvd \ B>-6..!>~ b n. l. .. '"" "'\ Q e.-~ C ~\,, ~ .,,_, . Cu.> Df d I 'i . '-! -C. 'if av,,\ w ~ \-V ,· DQ\ ':\hs:Nz.' J.~~ {f'\du.A ~ ~ w~~o ~€.. CIVV:> ~ C () u .o.\-~ d ~ e ~ \ e..1\ 1 t'\A\ a. V\l. 'f''2...Cd'q\ &. r\. <:S< k\'f tl ::Ula S ( cd S ~ (!\ I I L ~Q <Pb ~ /Vl... ~'I '1:\-, ~~ V'(\C\ 0 I ~u.\o.:\ nfv14 (J..._f'. ~ ~~~jj::,oQ:)~ ::~:::::~ 3~\~ ~ o;':nr;~ ' "' 1 1 '::> e_ ~ ~CJ ~ 'o-e...~ r--C\..we.d. \) \ o \~-\ \ M ~ ~ a:A~~ 'c(\ ..--\Q ~·,~\~A 'J<U1S.i~----.'.J~ (,'t(e.l'i. S~1Dus d-ro..1n~ Nl"-'-'1~~ ~ ~a..~"-., .. ~e~ "'ex~ &~r, ~ So~ ~\.A..~f'~ ~\r,\._R_ &\~'\\~~ The facts stated in this application are true and correct. ~~~ .to:,\\<l'I Applicant ZBA APPEAL \:J E' e c\ '\ C'. s \ 'f \ c-\: l DECRQST.DOC 3125199 rt \. c..:._ f'. ( '-''-~ u \.j '€_ (' "'C\ on~ cu~ ~ \ rl \'(\ -\--9 J ' 2 of 2 ICWBrovvn Steven E. Esmond, P.E., R.P.LS. Senior Engineer se smond@kwbes.com September 30, 1999 Ms. Jane Kee Zoning Official City of College Station P .O. Box 9902 College Station, TX 77842 Re: Replat of Lots 10, 11, & 12, College Park Subdivision Dear Ms. Kee: KW Brown & Associates, Inc. 50 I Graham Road College Station, Texas 77845 409•690-9280 • 888•875•0063 Fax:409•690•7310 www.kwbes.com I have been retained by Ms. Norma Miller, in my capacity as a land surveyor, to assess the technical issues with regard to the plat and zoning issues in the above matter. Under separate cover and pursuant to Section 15 of the Zoning Ordinance, Mrs. Miller has submitted to your office a check for $75 along with a completed application to be placed on the ZBA agenda. This is a request for a special or emergency meeting of the ZBA. We urge that this request be considered promptly in light of construction activity currently underway . We also request that you authorize the Building Official to suspend further construction work until the issues in this matter have been resolved. The appeal to ZBA includes: 1. Appealing the Zoning Official 's approval under Section 7.3.D . 2. Deficiencies in the project which adversely impact access , parking, drainage, and existing structures . 3. Violation of the deed restrictions. 4. Violation of City policy regarding protection of historic areas. Section 15.5 says that "any aggrieved person " may appeal to the ZBA. The applicant, along with at least one additional adjacent property owner, believe they are aggrieved. I also have the assurance of yourself and the City Manager that you are willing to work with Mrs . Miller in getting this matter resolved. Therefore, a special or emergency meeting of the ZBA is requested. Please call me if you have any questions. I look forward to receiving notification from you of the upcoming ZBA meeting. Thank you very much . V ery truly y ours, KW BROWN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~LM Steven E. Esmond, P.E ., R.P.L.S . Office Manager Scientists • Engineers • Planners Burbank • Co ll ege Station • H ouston • Victoria • Phoenix • Logan • Mexico City Mr. Bond made the motion t a date for a special meeting to hear Miller's Appeal relative to parking and setbacks . Mr. Hill seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). Mr. Happ made the motion to schedule the meeting Tuesday, October 26. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. Mr. Bond stated that his preference would be on a different night but he would certainly work with the Boards decision. Mr. Happ withdrew his motion. Mr. Bond seconded the retraction. The board voted (5-0). Mr. Bond made the motion to schedule the meeting Wednesday, October 20, 1990. Mr. Happ seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. ZBAMinutes October 5, 1999 Page 9of9 9 99-144 99-144 99-144 Resident Resident Resident 500 Ayrshire Street 502 Ayrshire Street 503 Gurnsey College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 99-144 99-144 99-144 Resident Resident Resident 504 Ayrshire Street 508 Ayrshire Street 510 Ayrshire Street College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 99-144 99-144 99 -144 Resident Resident Resident 601 Bell Street 600 Bell Street 606 Welsh College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 99-144 99-144 99-144 Resident Resident Resident 610 Welsh 600 Fairview 611 Fairview College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 99-144 99-144 99-144 Resident Resident Patricia Lynn Cleere Trustee 604 Fairview 615 Fairview P .O. Box 2698 College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77841-2698 99-144 99-144 99-144 Water S. Lang Jr. Jesse G. Gonzalez Norman W. Naugle 302 S. Colket 8630 Wyndham Village Drive 600 Guernsey Kerens , Texas 75144 Houston , Texas 77040 College Station , Texas 77840 99-144 99-144 99-144 Norma L. Miller Dan Parker George B. Dresser Family Limited Partnership 504 Guernsey 2931 Georgetown 501 Fairview College Station, Texas 77840 Houston, Texas 77055 College Station, Texas 77840 99-144 99-144 99-144 Eric Lindquist & Nell Frazer David Schink ET AL Helen Ruth Pugh Living Trust 600 Welsh 75 I College Court 601 Fairview College Station, Texas 77840 Los Altos, CA 94022-4619 College Station , Texas 77840 99-144 99-144 99-144 Scott McDermott Wajahat Bobby Mirza Moe Mooti& Ahmad Abdel-Moaty 500 Fairview P.O. Box 2932 605 Fairview College Station, Texas 77840 Bryan, Texas 77805-2932 College Station, Texas 77840 99-144 99-144 99-144 Marion P . Cleboski Mr. H A Luther Lambert H Wilkes 607 Fairview 614 Welsh 9552 River Road College Station, Texas 77840 College Station , Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77845 99-144 Paul K & Betty W Franklin 446 E. French Place an Antonio, Texas 78212-3723 99-144 George Carroll Sr. 606 Fairview College Station, Texas 77840 99-144 Garland E & Mary E Bayliss 2710 Pinehurst Bryan , Texas 77802 99-144 Robert K Strawn 1005 Ashburn Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 / Staff Report Date: ZBA Meeting Date: APPLICANT: REQUEST: PROP. OWNER: ITEM SUMMARY: STAFF REPORT October 14, 1999 October 20, 1999 Mrs. Norma Miller. Mrs. Miller owns and lives on the property adjacent to the properties at 600-604 Welsh. Appeal Zoning Official's interpretation of Section 9-Minimum Parking Requirements and Section 7.2.D -Area Requirements relative to the properties at 600-604 Welsh. Mr. Nelson Nagle is the present property owner . The questions before the ZBA are whether the Zonin g Official applied the parking regulations and the side setback requirements properly in the review of the building permits for two new houses at 600 and 604 Welsh. The Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Official to make interpretations of any provision of the Ordinance if the need arises . The Zoning Official is not one particular person but ma y be any staff member given responsibility for acting in that capacity in a given situation . In making such determinations, the Planning Staff takes into consideration the intent of the ordinance, consistency, and the public interest. Staff members constantly communicate to ensure that each person , when acting in the capacity of Zoning O ffic ial, is being consistent with past applications and interpretations. The staff discussions that led to the approval of the buildin g permit were consistent with prior applications of these Zoning Ordinanace provisions. ITEM BACKGROUND: This property involves lots 10 , 11 , and 29 feet of 12 , Block C, College Park with a total frontage of 129.03 feet. In 1962 the portion of Fidelity running parallel and adjacent to this property was abandoned. These properties are zoned R-1 Single Family. One home has existed on the prop erty for many years . Single family zoning and development surround the property. This year an amending plat was presented to clarify the property boundaries to reflect the Fidelity abandonment which added 25 feet to the property for a total of 154.03 feet of frontage. An interior lot line was also adjusted with this amending plat. With 154.03 feet of frontage and an interior lot line adjustment, the property is reflected as three 50-foot wide lots each meeting the lot dimensions for an individual home . Two new houses were permitted under the lot line construction alternative found in Table A, Note C of the Zoning Ordinance . Without the amending plat the property could still have three homes under Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows more than one structure housing a principle use to be built on a lot or building plot as long as all other require ments of the zoning ordinance are met as though each were on an individual lot. Parking Appeal: In the case at hand, the applicant states "Off-street parking requirements not met." It is unclear what the applicant is referencing by this statement. However, the following will explain each area of the parking section and how it is applied. "PZ02023 Section 9 provides for minimum standards for parking space dimensions , access, islands, parking lot maintenance, landscape reserve area, surfacing requirements, parking lot lighting and temporary parking lot requirements. Section 9 references "In all districts for all uses ... ". The majority of the regulations are intended for uses that require parking lots , such as multi-family or commercial uses, referencing islands, parking lot setbacks, etc. The portions of Section 9 dealing with islands, parking lot maintenance, the landscape reserve, parking lot lighting and temporary parking requirements are not applicable to this case as these provisions are for multi-family/commercial uses and not for single family uses. I will address the parts of Section 9 that are applicable to single family site plan review . Section 9.A-Dimensions and Access references illustrations at the end of the section . In those illustrations there are graphs depictin g concrete driveway aprons in the right-of-way for residential applications . It shows the maximum driveway radius of I 0 feet as established in Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances. (The City's Code of Ordinances is a codified version of all codes and ordinances. The Zoning Ordinance is included by reference.) Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances establishes curb return radius for residential driveways on local streets to be a maximum of 10 feet and a minimum of 2.5 feet. Typically single family drives have a radius of 2.5 to 5 feet when loc ated on local streets. Chapter 3 also provides for a m ax imum width for a residential drive approach to be 28 feet measured at the property line with a minimum width of 10 feet. The graphics of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance include the Chapter 3 requirements relative to driveway width. 9.2.A.l requires a 9' by 20' parking space and this is required for all uses that require parking including single family uses. 9 .2.A.2 refers to off-street parking for truck unloading and is not applicable to sing le family. 9.2.A.3 intends for all parking and maneuvering areas to be located entire ly within the boundaries of the building plot except as set forth in Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinance s(this refers to shared access drives.). All single family driveways and parking areas are required to meet this. 9.2.A.4 is not applicable to single family residences unless located on a major arterial or collector street. 9.2.A.5 refers to a 24 foot landscape reserve. This is intended for parking lots , not individual residential driveways as driveways are specifically excluded in this section. Exceptions are made for 7 parking spaces to be allowed in this reserve. (These are clearly references to us es that require parking lots as opposed to single family uses .) It is not applied to single family permits. 9.2.A.6, 7 and 8 address parking lot islands and are not applicable to single family permits. 9 .2.B references off-premise parking locations and the requirements for such. This is intended for facilities that require parking lots and multiple spaces and allows for some to be located off- premise under certain circumstances. It has never been applied to a single family residence . 9 .2 .C references public parking areas and is not applicable. 9.2.D references surfacing requirements and states; "Except as otherwise provided ... ". Section 6 of Chapter 10 of the City's Code of Ordinances addresses surfacing for single family driveways and this section is applied. "PZ02023 9.2.E references lighting for off-street parking areas and is not applicable to single family reviews. 9.2.F references drive surfaces for temporary and/or permanent drives required for emergency access and is applied by the City Engineer. This is not applicable to single family site reviews. 9.2.G references temporary parking lots and is not applicable. 9.3 references off-street spaces required and specifically requires a minimum of two parking spaces for single family uses . This regulation is applied to single family permits. Both new permits issued for 600 and 604 Welsh were interpreted as meeting the above applicable requirements because: l. The location and radius of the curb return was not shown on the site plan presented for building permit. The contractor was advised of radius requirements . Staff will inspect for a proper radius of2.5 to 5 feet and this it is contained on Mr. Nagle's property. No certificate of occupancy will be issued without an inspection to ensure compliance. 2. The driveway aprons are shown to be approved all weather surfaces for that portion in the right-of-way as provided for in the Zoning ordinance and Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances. 3. The portion of the driveway on private property is shown to be crushed limestone, which is a private drive standard previously approved by the City Engineer. This standard has been allowed for years . 4. Two parkin g spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinance. The dimensions of the driveways have the minimum width and depth for two parking spaces. It is customary that the two spaces required for a single family use may be side by side or end to end as the spaces and vehicles are under control of the property owner. This has been a long standing interpretation for single family residential uses. Setback Appeal: Section 7.2 .D refers to Table A that sets out the setback, lot size and height restrictions based on the applicable zoning district. The portion being appealed is the application of the side setback requirement for the R-1 zone. For single family zones Table A requires either an absolute 7 .5 foot side setback or allows for lot line construction under certain circumstances . Note C of Table A states: "Zero lot lin e construction of residences is allowed where property on both sides of lot line is own ed and/or dev eloped simultaneously by single party. Develop ment under lot line construction requires prior approval by the Zoning Official. In no case shall a single family residence be built within 15 feet of another building. " This section has been interpreted over the years by many different people but has consistently been interpreted to allow less than the 7.5 foot setback and as little as a 0 foot setback. The important health and safety consideration is that no res idence is closer than 15 feet to another. This is why it is imperative that property on both sides of the lot line in question be under one person's control when the decision is made to apply lot line construction. This provision is a critical factor in the interpretations as made to date. In this case there is an existing house in the center of the property. When Mr. Nagle amended the plat of his property, he did so in order to clarify the boundaries of his property . The right-of- way of Fidelity Street running adjacent and parallel to his property had been abandoned 37 years before. To clarify this and to relocate an interior lot line Mr. Nagle decided to amend the plat of his property. He actually owns 154.03 feet of frontage. Under the Zoning Ordinance the "PZ02023 minimum lot width in R-1 is 50 feet measured at the front setback line . With this amount of frontage Mr. Nagle chose to build two additional houses. In this case Mr. Nagle opted to use Note C of Table A to provide 0 foot and 15 foot setbacks for one side of the existing house and 3.5 foot and 11.5 foot setbacks for the opposite side. This application is consistent with stafrs interpretation of this note. 1990s Recent Examples of lot line construction Eastmark Subdivision -variable Pebble Creek -0115 feet Grand Oaks -0/15 feet Two Lincoln Place -0/15 feet Pleasant Forest -variable It is more common for builders/developers to use the 0/15 foot combination under lot line construction because this maximizes the amount of useable side yard area by containing it all on one side. However, there are builders/developers who choose to use a variable setback because of roof overhangs and sidewall maintenance concerns as well as Building Code limitations on the number of openings and firewall requirements . When building on a 0-foot setback one would have to be on the adjacent neighbor 's property to perform any maintenance on the sidewall. Also, roof overhangs would allow water to run off onto the neighboring property and some builders want to avoid this situation for future homeowners. The alternative is to grant maintenance and overhang easements . The Building Code limits the amount of openings that can be in a wall based on construction type and distance from the property line. The Building Code also requires a one hour rated firewall when wood construction is 3 feet or closer to the property line. In Mr. Nagle 's case the relocated interior lot line enabled him to meet the minimum lot width requirement and the variable setback enabled him to meet the setback requirements If, over the years , the City had not interpreted lot line construction to include a variable setback, Mr. Nagle's (or anyone else's) possible alternatives would be to use Section 8.4 which allows more than one structure housing a principle use to be built or to seek a variance from the ZBA to the side setback requirement. Similar Appeals: Staff has found no previous appeals to the interpretation of lot line construction or single family parking requirements . #Property Owners Notified: 35 Responses Rec'd: Several inquiries The Zoning Board decision, whether it is to uphold or overturn the interpretation, will form the basis of future decisions relating to lot I ine construction and the application of Section 9 relative to parking/driveways in any other single family zoning district of the City where these may be applied. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Site Plan from Building Permit files "PZ02023 lltt.r City of Co ll e g e Station, Texas .. PLANN ING DIVISION 600 WELS H ZBA 10/20/99 APPEAL OF ZON ING OFF ICIAL'S INTERPRETATION O SITU SITUS_STR """ • 500 AYRSHIRE ST~ ~ • _5_02..__'-.:.A Y.:...:R...:..:S~H:..:..:.I R.:.::.E:....:S::..:T_ ""• 503 GUERNSEY ~ • .-5.;:;.04.;........,,..,A:,,;..,Y ;...:..RS;::.:H..;.:._ l_,;.:.R;:o.!= ~S_._J • 504 GUERNSEY Q_ • 508 AYRSHIRE ST ~~~~~~.-. • 501 GUERNSEY ~ • 510 AYRSHIRE Sl"" • 501 FAIRVIEW • 600 WELSH 0 • 500 "" • 610 • 605 • 607 BELL ST BELL ST WELSH FAIRVIEW FAIRVIEW WELSH FAIRVIEW FAIRVIEW t : ~~~ ~!~~~EW .-611 FAIRVIEW_ ._-6~0!.-'4---'F ..... A...wl R ...... V-Lll=E .:...:._ 0 ---- ~ • 615 FAIRVIEW 606 FAIRVIEW OWNER NAME CLEERE , PATRICIA LYNNE TRUSTEE LANG , WALTER S JR GONZALEZ, JESSE G NAUGLE, NORMAN W MILLER , NORMAL PARKER , DAN WHITTEN , STEVEN WAYNE & PARKER , DAN DRESSER, GEORGE B LINDQUIST, ERIC & NEL L FRAZER SCHINK, DAVID ETAL PARKER, DAN DRESSER , GEORGE B PUGH , HELEN RUTH LIVING TRUST MCDERMOTT, SCOTT MIRZA, WAJAHAT BOBBY MOOTI , MOE & AHMAD ABDEL-MOATY CLEBOSKI , MARION P LUTHER , H A MRS WILKES , LAMBERTH FRANKLIN , PAUL K & BETTY W BAYLISS , GARLAND E & MARYE STRAWN , ROBERT K CARROLL , GEORGE SR OWNER_ NAME OWNER_ADDR DECLARATION OF REVOCABLE TR 7/21/92 PO BOX 2698 302 S COLKET 8630 WYNDHAM VILLAGE DR. 600 GUERNSEY 504 GUERNSEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP JENNIFER LYNN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 501 FAIRVIEW 600 WELSH AVE 751 COLLEGE CT. FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 501 FAIRVIEW HELEN RUTH PUGH TTEE 500 FAIRVIEW P .O . BOX 2932 605 FAIRVIEW 607 FAIRVIEW AVE 614 WELSH AVE 9552 RIVER RD 446 E FRENCH PL 2710 PINEHURST 1005 ASHBURN AVE 2931 GEORGETOWN 501 GUERNSEY 2931 GEORGETOWN 2931 GEORGETOWN 601 FAIRVIEW AVE OWNER_ADDR OW OWNER_STAT COLLEGE STATION TX 77841-2698 KERENS TX 75144 HOUSTON TX 77040 COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 HOUSTON TX 77005 COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 • HOUSTON TX 77005 , COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 LOS ALTOS CA 94022-4619 HOUSTON TX 77005 • COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 • COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 , COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 BRYAN TX 77805-2932 COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 • COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 COLLEGE STATION TX 77845 • SAN ANTONIO TX 76212-3723 ·· BRYAN TX 77802 COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 COLLEGE STATION TX 77840 Adve rtising Receipt eryan/College Station Eagl• P.O. Box 3000 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION JOAN FINKES F'.O .BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION , TX 77844-0960 Ad taker: jah Salasperson: 22 Classlflcatlon; Cu st#: Ad#: Phone: 1729 Briarcrest Drive Bryan, TX 77805 Phone : (409) 776-4444 Fax: (409) 774-0053 01100018·000 07502603 (409)764-:3517 Cate: 10/07/99 0699 Description St er1 Stop Ins. Cost/Oay Surcharge• 01 B/CS Eagle Payment Reference: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10/08/99 10/08199 T he C ity of College Station Zoning Board of Adjustments will hold a public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Zoning Official's application of Section 7 .20 relat ive to setbacks and to Section 9 re lative to parking and driveway$ at 600 & 604 Welsh. Applicant is Norma Miller. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m . meeting of the Board on Wednesday, October 20, 1999. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409)764-3547 or (TDD} 1·800-735-2999. For additional informati on, please contact me at (409)764-:3570 . 54.36 0 .00 Total: Tax:: Net: Prepaid: (rotal Due :n :>F3' 3Hl csoo ti.!. 60t Q, Total J 54 .36 54.36 0 .00 54 .36 0 .00 54.30 66 r [.O r 1)1 October 8, 1999 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Appeal of Zoning Official 's application NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station has received an application requesting an appeal of the Zoning Official's application on the following property: Applicant: NORMA MILLER Subject Property: 604 WELSH AV (See attached location map.) Proposed Variance: Appeal of Zoning Official's application of Section 7 .2D relative to setbacks and to Section 9 relative to parking and driveways . The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 20 , 1999 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas . All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting . To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989 . For additional information, contact the City Planning Office , (409) 764-3570 . JANE K EE City Planner October 7, 1999 Mr. Nelson Nagle 510 Dennis Drive COLLEGE STATION P. O . Bo x 9960 • 11 01 Texas Ave nue C oll ege Sta tion , T X 77 842 Tel: 40 9 76 4 3500 Round Rock , Texas 78664 Dear Mr. Nagle This is to inform you that the Zoning Board of Adjustment set a special meeting for October 20, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. to hear an appeal by Mrs. Norman Miller regarding property under your ownership at 604 Welsh in Colleg e Station. The appeal concerns how the Zoning Official applied the parking and setback requirements of the zoning ordinance to these properties during the platting and building permit processes. If the Board decides that the application of these sections was incorrect it could have an impact on your properties. One option could be for the City to take action to stop the construction. This letter is to ensure that you are aware of the possible impacts to your development and to let you know that the outcome could affect your interests. You may want to consider this in your decision as to whether to attend the meeting and present your views. If you have any questions concerning this process you may call me at 40 9-764-3570. Sincerely, . Kee, AICP ity Planner Home of Texas A&M University '· LEGAL NOTICE DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: October S, 1999 BILL TO: PO# 29004 The City of College Station Development Services P .O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: ONLY The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustments will hold a public hearing to consider an Appeal of Zoning Ordinance application of Section 7 .2D relative to setback and to Section 9 relative to parking and driveways at 600 & 604 Welsh. Applicant is Norma Miller. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m . meeting of the Board on Wednesday , October 20, 1999. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. For additional information, please contact me at (409) 764-3570 . Jane Kee City Planner Advertising Receipt CITY OF COLLEGE STATION JOAN FINKES P.O.BOX 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77844-0960 Ad taker. jah Salesperson: 22 Classfflcatlon: Bryan/College Station Eagle P .0. Box 3000 1729 Brfarcrest Drive Bryan, TX 77605 Phone : (409} 7764444 Fax: (409} 774-0053 Cu st#: 01100018-000 Ad#: 07502596 -Phone: (409)764-351? Date: 10/06/99 0699 Description Start Stop Ins. Cost/Day Surcharges 01 B/CS Eagle Payment Reference: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10/07/99 10/07/99 The City of College Station Zoning Board of Adjustments will hold a public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Zoning Offlclal's application of Section 7.2D relative to setbacks and to Section 9 relative to parking and driveways. Applicant is Norma Miller. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m. meeting of the Board on Wednesday, October 20, 1999. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409)764--3547 or (TDD} 1·800·735-2969. For additional information, please contact me at (409)764-3570. Jane Kee 54.36 0.00 Total : Tax: Net: Prepaid : (Total Due ZOO /TOO !Pl SJAS 1 N3:Jll:d0 13A3CT +-+-+---~i~V 3 3Hl CSOO t.LL 60 J;Q, n:o1 Total ) 54.36 54.36 0.00 54.36 0 .00 54.36) 66 /90 /0T NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of College Station Zoning Board of Adjust- ments will hold a public hearing to consider an Ap- peal of the Zoning Official's application of Section 7.20 relative to setbacks and to Section 9 relative to parking and driveways. Applicant is Norma Miller. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the Col- lege Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m. meeting of the Board on Wednesday, October 20, 1999. Any request for sign inter· pretive services for the hear- ing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409)764-3547 or (TDD) 1 • 800-735-2989. For additional information, please contact me at (409)764-3570. Jane Kee City Planner 10-7-99 ZOO /ZOO~ S:)AS l N3JM013A3G +-++ 31~V 3 3Hl CSOO t LL 60 t ..g, Tt :o1 66 /90 /0T LEGAL NOTICE DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: October 7, 1999 BILL TO: The City of College Station Development Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 PO# 29004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: ONLY The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustments will hold a public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Zoning Official 's application of Section 7 .2D relative to setbacks and to Section 9 relative to parking and driveways. Applicant is Norma Miller. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall , 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m. meeting of the Board on Wednesday, October 20 , 1999. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. For additional information, please contact me at (409) 764-3570. Jane Kee City Planner CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Adjus FROM: Jane R. Kee, City Pl er RE: Request for Special Mee · ng DATE: October 4, 1999 An application has been received in our office requesting a special meeting to hear an appeal to a decision made by the Zoning Official. This is in reference to a minor plat and two single family building permits issued in the 600 block of Welsh. There are several items that the applicant is requesting be heard by the ZBA. Tue legal and planning staffs have determined that several of the items are not within the Board's purview. Tue purpose of this memorandum is to advise the Board ofthis. As you know the Board's charge is to determine questions of a factual nature relative to the application of the zoning ordinance. It is important that the Board discuss and/or take action only on items that are within its purview. Tue applicant, Mrs. Miller, in this appeal lists several items. Tue statements in quotations are from the application and the statements in italics are staff comments. 1. "Off-street parking requirements not met." It is unclear what the applicant is referencing by this statement. 2. "Zero lot line" This is within the Board's jurisdiction. The staff report, when prepared, will address the application of this section of the ordinance and the applicant should explain how the staffs application of the ordinance is invalid. The application submitted in writing by Mrs. Miller does not explain in sufficient detail what, if any, error was committed in the application of the section. 3. "Does not comply with Council action on July 23 , 1998 ." This is not within the Board's jurisdiction to consider. We believe the item being referenced is a report that was presented to Council. Staff is unsure as lo which items this appeal is referring, but the ZBA has authority only over the Zoning Ordinance and not plans or Council actions. 4. "I am appealing the surveys and/or building permits issued for lots 10R,11R,12R -600 Welsh ." This is not within the Board's purview to consider. Surveyor's and applicant's signatures on plats indicate that ownership and dimensions are true and accurate. A discrepancy between surveyors or an individual's argum ent over a survey is neither within the City's nor the Board's jurisdiction. This is a private matter between parties. The staff was unaware and still is unaware of any misrepresentation relative to ownership or dimensions on the plat in question. The ZBA has no authority over the issuance of building permits. Although the Mrs. Miller submitted the application herself, it is our understanding that Mr. Steven Esmond is representing her. In a letter received from him he states 4 items that are being appealed . They are: 1. "Appealing the Zoning Official's approval under Section 7.3.D." This section references Area Requirements for the R-IA district. The property in question is zoned R-1 but I believe this is an unintentional error on the part of Mr. Esmond The appropriate section is 7.2.D. This references Table A which outlines setbacks for each zoning_ district and where Note C provides for zero lot line construction. This is within the Board's purview to consider. 2. "Deficiencies in the project which adversely impact access, parking, drainage and existing structures." It is not clear what the appeal is relative to these issues. Driveway access is not within the Board's purview. Parking numbers and dimensions are within the Board's purview. The City's drainage ordinance is not applicable to single family building permits. 3. "Violation of the deed restrictions." The City is not given authority by state statute to enforce d eed restrictions and cannot do so . 4. "Violation of City policy regarding protection of historic areas." There are policy statements in the City's comprehensive plan which mention preserving existing neighborhoods and not increasing densities. However, these policies have not been fully implemented. .There is no ordinance in place at present that would preclude or prohibit replatting or building single family house s on lots that meet the subdivision regulations and th e zonin g ordinance. An f \ allegation of a viola(ion of city policy is not within the Board's purview to consider. Any determination made by the Board relative to this appeal will not affect the plat or the building permits that have been approved and issued. If the Board determines that the Zoning Official's interpretation of what constitutes zero lot line construction was incorrect, then future applications will reflect this new interpretation. Regarding the request for a special meeting. The applicant met the deadline for the upcoming November 2°d 1999 meeting. The options to meet earlier than this are as follows: It will not be possible to meet notification requirements and have a special meeting before the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 19th. To try to set one any earlier would not allow sufficient time for property owners to receive notice as per the Board Rules and Procedures. The October 19th meeting already has a full agenda for consideration of applications that did meet the proper deadline. It is possible to have a special meeting and meet proper notification between October 19th and November 2°d with the exception of October 28th. There is already a joint P&Z I City Council meeting that day which requires staff attendance. This item is not and does not require a public hearing. The Board may ask questions of the applicant, Mrs. Miller and her representative Mr. Esmond, to help determine the two questions of Board jurisdiction and whether to set a special meeting. The public hearing will be held once a meeting is scheduled for the relevant appeal and at that time other interested persons will be able to address the issue. Attachments: Mrs. Miller's application Letter from Steven E. Esmond E-mail from Mrs. Miller to ZBA Correspondence between Jane Kee and Mr. Esmond FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMnTEo: ___ _ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITI AL REQUIREMENTS: __ Filing Fee of$75.00 . __ Applieation completed in full . __ Request form completed in full. __ Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name [\D£0'\Cl \ __ re\ 1 \\e r2 Mailing Address •f, D i G ( "€ cl\ S:. -e I i City 0o I l r J? ~ R State ~ Zip Code ~ :J 'X C/ D E-Mail Address V\ 0 (Yi\·, l @ r-\. ~ , V\€. J- Phone Nwnber 1 &, q k ,-Cf L/S ~ Fax Number (o ?j '{ " V 3 .:3 y PROPERTY OWNER'S fNFORMATION: Mailing Address ---------------- State ___ _ E-Mail Address ------------Zip Code ----- Phone Nwnber Fax Number --------------------------- LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address (, Q D LJ e__ l S h Lot-!_ 1 l> /11 /12 Block L .... ..__ __ _ Action Requested : (Circle One) Current Zoning of Subject Property Applicable Ordinance Section Subdivision Setba.c;k Variance Parking Variance Sign Variance Q\ IS- so { . ~ frsJ ~c:J . C DI I e¥---1 t?Ll Y 12 e .Su bd, Jc,,.!\ Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation Special exception Other ________ ~~ The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached ~ereto are true, correct and complete. D©M»A £, m'. t\a12 ZBA AP PUCA TION ZBMPP .DOC 3125199 Date 1 of 2 .'--W: "outCil 5T~tlON FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DA TE SUBMITTED:·--- APPEAL OF ZONING DECISION REQUEST I believe the Zoning Official has misinterpreted Section q -( 5 , Ordinance 1638 . Other facts supporting my opinion are (attach additional sheets if necessary): ~~ -e:X-\.s\ ,·...,"\ ~o N'e oQ,. Cs> O o \.0-e~h \s si.qa·\ bi ca o ~\y{ ifi,,.,;,. \:' 0 .\ e ,.,,j. .-"' t l 1 ~L ..ta ri c 'SJ \,\,'I\.\-~ \ 1 s Ii kl y rh r dv ( \ B,2..1>~ 6 n. L.,..,. 'I. Q e.). C~:r. ~ ~ . Cc.LP Df d 1 'i . 'I ~ i;. ~ m<>. If/) ~ \ V ,· D 0\ ib.£ M , J, '?. ~ =( r>d UA ~ ~ \..A_)\.-.,_~ b 'Pn l. C tVv.> 0Ju._ ( 6 lA n.\ ~ d ~ e 1' \ o..t\ I r'\ 1'.\ (}. V\ .\_ 'f:'2...Q f'c\ Cl ru :S1 f\1 1i '=O)a S ( 0 .. \ S h d\ I I I ~<2 §' h ~ t\J... l~ 'I 'i-b ~'€. V'(\°' 6 ' ~ ~o,\ nJ\vJ a." 2- ~~~:~;,9~ ~~;:::~ ~E~\~ ;t;; ~·:'{;, ' ._ I I -:::> e. ~ ~CJ ~ '\\~~~,\\e,, Appl ican t ZBA APPEAL \.j e e c\ ~ e s \ 'f \ c---\: l DECRQST.DOC 3125199 fl \. c.:_ "'-( '--''-....,:) u \J '€. ( \""""\ C\ c) }\ ~ (t_)~ ~ \ cJ \'u we::{ 2of 2 J..V • "U ~ICWBrovvn Steven E. Esmond. P.E., R.P.LS. Senior Engineer · sesmond@kwbes.com September 30, 1999 Ms.Jane Kee Zoning Official City of College Station P.O. Box 9902 College Station, TX 77842 Re: Replat of Lots 10, 11, & 12, College Park Subdivision Dear Ms. Kee: ,{W B1·own & Associates; Irie. so 1 Grnham Road · · College Station. Texas 77845. •· 409. 6s·0-92ao .• · 88a. a1.s ·. oc)~t . , :. Fax: 40'1•690 • 7310 wwW.k.wbes.com I have been retained by Ms. Norma Miller, in my capacity as a land surveyor, to assess the technical issues with regard to the plat and zoning issues in the above matter. Under i:eparate cover and pursuant to Section 15 of the Zoning Ordinance, Mrs . Miller has submitted to your office a check for $75 along with a completed application to be placed on the ZBA agenda. This is a request for a special or emergency meeting of the ZBA. We urge that this request be con ;idered promptly in light of construction activity currently underway. We also request that you authorize the Building Official to suspend further construction work until the issues in this matter have been resolved. The appeal to ZBA includes: I . ~ppealing the Zoning Official's approval under Section 7 .3 .D . 2. Deficiencies in the project which adversely impact access, parking, drainage, and existing structures. 3. Violation of the deed restrictions. 4. Violation of City policy regarding protection of historic areas. Section 15.5 says that "any aggrieved person" may appeal to the ZBA. The applicant, along with at least one additional adjacent property owner, believe they are aggrieved. I also have the assurance of yourself and the City Manager that you are willing to work with Mrs. Miller in getting this matter resolved . Therefore, a special or emergency meeting of the ZBA is requested . Please call me if you have any questions. I look forward to receiving notification from you o:fthe upcoming ZBA meeting. Thank you very much . Very truly yours, KW BROWN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~f_~ Steven E. Esmond, P.E ., R.P .L.S. Office Manager Scientists • Engineers • Planners Burbank • College Stat ion • Houston • Victoria • Phoen ix • Lo9an • Mexi co City From: "NonTia Miller" <nonTiil@tca .net> To: "Connie Hooks" <chooks@ci.college-station .tx.us>, "Colleen Kavanagh" <ckavanagh@theeagle.com> Date: 9/29/99 3:39PM Subject: Misguided Power and the Death of a Neighborhood-Connie, please distribute to Tom, Mayor and council, P&Z and ZBA Sitting here today, watching the bulldozer mercilessly taking down beautiful old trees, I realized how much at your mercy we all are. That has to be true because we have been powertess to stop this murder. Three crepe myrtles are gone. A young pear tree and a very old one that came from the A&M Campus, and the most glorious of all chinaberry tree, many years old that formed a perfect canopy. All felled willy-nilly, because your Planning office has had complete control of this project since April, and we, the homeowners around the neighborhood, knew nothing of it until 2 weeks ago. Mayor Mcllhaney, no more false promises about preserving historic neighborhoods. This is an historic neighborhood . You don't care. Planning doesn't care. Your city planner and director of development services have been after the Southside area for a long time. This is the first major step, and it has taken flawed surveys, altered plans, changes in everything possible. I was denied a carport because of deed restrictions . Now I learn we have no deed restrictions . I'm a lot smarter now than I was then . This is the second time in my 45 years in this home that I have been reduced to tears because trees were being eliminated. To the west of me, those were cut down because they were "old and ugly." Well, I'm "old and ugly" too, and yes, this has cut me down . Now I know what it means to feel helpless and hopeless, thanks to one city staffer who has more power than any one person should ever have. Even some of her employees question the validity of the building penTiit. Multiple surveys????? I will gladly pay the $75 filing fee to bring this before the ZBA, but to what avail. It would be mid-Nov. before I could be heard, and Kee says there is no possibility of an emergency meeting . Why not? She is the Zoning Official? The 2 four-bedroom houses could be pretty much built by mid-November. I regret that even one cent of my tax dollars goes to her salary. Her abuse of power goes far beyond the scope of the original intent of her job description and her position . ~·*r CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 9W:IJ 1101 Texas A venue College Station . Texas 77842-0960 Mr. Steven E. Esmond, P.E., R.P.L.S Office Manager KWBrown & Associates, Inc. 501 Graham Road College Station, Texas 77845 October 1, 1999 Dear Mr. Esmond, (409) 764-3570 I am in receipt of your letter concerning Norma Miller's request to be heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mrs . Miller's application was received on 9-29-99. An item will be placed on the upcoming ZBA meeting (Tuesday October 5, 1999) for the Board to consider two things; first, what parts, if any, of the appeal are within their purview to hear and second, whether they will be willing to set a special meeting to hear any relevant items or whether they prefer to use a regular meeting time. In the event that a special meeting is approved it will be scheduled only with sufficient time for proper notification to all parties, including the property owner and property owners within 200 feet of the subject lots . Sincerely, City Planner ··Building a Better City in Partnership with You· Mrs. H. A. Luther ~lf Welsh Ave. COjllege Station, TX 77840 l Bobby Mirza 612 Welsh Ave. College Station, TX 77840 Helen Pugh 601 Fairview College Station, TX 77840 October 4, 1999 City of College Station In re: TOii Brymer, Acting City Manager The Zoning Board of Adjustment The Historic Preservation Committee Box 9960 C.ollege Station, TX 77840 Mr . Nelson Nagle 510 Dennis Drive Round Rock, TX 78664 Stylecraft Builders, Inc. Randy French, President 4112 State Highway 6 South C.ollege Station, TX 77840 Gentlemen: / Construction project either side of 600 Welsh Ave. and; 614 Welsh Ave.; 612 Welsh Ave .; 601 Fairview; This is a formal request for full near-term abandonllent of the current construction of tWo additional single f&11ily dwellings on either side of 600 Welsh Ave. We believe the city erred in issuance of construction peraits for this work in 118llY ways. This letter specifically addresses just one of them which is · very important to us. It also addresses a staff management viewpoint which we think some staff personnel are using which is very bad for all of the city; it produces these problems and citizen-staff flare ups . We tried to fix this problem verbally, as cheaply and as fast as we became aware of it. However, there was no notice to us at all, so we could begin working with this issue in the some six months it took the developer, the contractor and city staff to orchestrate this project! our to-be-filed written request was deemed to be meaningless. 11tus, it is now necessary to present our problem for board level decision. In considering this, it should be apparent that Council and board level action 11Ust *AC--AIN• be taken , to prevent future similar flare ups. Some of city staff are still 1 not listening to either the majority of the citizens, nor to Council, as we think this complaint illustrates. The guidelines are clear, as we see it . As the last verbal interface at this, Jeff Tondre saw a less strongly worded draft of this request. He was asked for guidance for the final document, so as to minimize the time and expense needed to bring the best case forward to the city, both as to the complaint and any proposed solution. He verbally acknowledged that there is a problem with this construction and our plight. He noted he could not advise us on how best to write the formal letter, which he said should be written, until he checked with the city legal department . His answer, on checking with the city legal staff, was the city has no legal obligation to consider our position, at all, relative to this construction for protection of our property! We disagree with that . Additionally, it has come to our attention that there is a feeling that absent of a 'specific ordinance' which addresses the general policy toward additional development and construction in historic neighborhoods, such as this, city staff has no obligation to consider anything on how construction will impact a neighborhood such as this! They are free to do as they please in exercising their own view of these things. They may act as they want and need not consider the thousands of hours of citizen-city previous work. They are not bound by any directive of C'.ouncil here . We believe this perception in error. We believe staff has failed to take into account existing city ordinances, together with specific policy applicability to our property. You may affirm this with inspection on the ground and reasonable engineering study, current law noted and a simple review of the July 23, 1998, City C'.ouncil meeting minutes. It's all there for anyone whom wants to do a little study . We think you may determine, if you review the City C'.ounci 1 's minutes, in action on general policy as applicable to Neighborhood Preservation, that the all but item six of the Neighborhood Preservation C'.ouncil, was ACCEPTED, in its entirety, as general policy and guidelines for the future development in the area of study for the Southside area and other older neighborhoods like this. There now ARE general staff guidelines which have been formally ACCEPl'ED as a matter of policy to protect property owners like us. They are a directive which has been ACCEPl'ED for city staff. Thus staff has failed to act on the generally adopted directive on policy towards us, even under a most widely interpreted perspective of a modified C'.arver's Governance llOdel for staff performance, as we see it. Something is badly wrong here. First, we address the technical problem and current ordinance protection that is afforded to us which has been violated. There is no a.bi Ii ty, at all, for the immediate downstream property t.o handle any additional water runoff, let alone construct ion waste water. There is no way to provide for it, given the current civil engineering foundation for this neighborhood, nor any near-term future engineering solution for it. 2 This neighborhood was designed, for drainage purposes among others, with alleyways at the rear of many of the houses. As designed, a formal alleyway here and both Welsh and Fairview street were lower than the property level of all of the houses in this block. The street AND the alley were both the required drain ways for water runoff, in protection to the property. The formal alley, in theory, designated for this property, behind it, is common to all houses in the block which back it on both Fairview and Welsh Ave. By ordinance, at the time this property was frozen into the current engineering template, this alley must c.ontinue to provide several utility service requirements. Per our rec.al 1, these include that it 11ust remain no less than 20 feet in width, and is to be paved. The original improved paving for this alley was in a non-hard surfaced, improved gravel-like material, similar to the original street paving on Welsh. It originally had not only the required paving needed, but was the garbage pickup route for the houses. The original wood garbage can rack is still there at 614 Welsh Ave! This alleyway also contains sewer service for the houses in question in this block, most of which are still c.onnected to it. The original sanitary service in the neighborhood was in septic tanks. The sewer supplementing them was constructed in this alley yea.rs ago as many of the houses were built. This alley also contains water and gas service for many of the houses. It, further, contains the full 6900 volt primary electrical distribution service for all of the houses in the block. That service, a.lone, has to be protected for access for fu 11 truck and 1 ift operations on the ground by the city, even if there were no issue on the drainage for us. This alley, by ordinance, must not be fenced or obstructed by any property owner, and as a drainage way, no property owner is permitted to interfere with the drainage it must continue to afford. Further, in that it is longer than 100 feet in length, it must, by ordinance, remain open at both ends of the alley! That means, full city access, irrespective of what may or may not have appropriately been done with the other end of the block, the extension of Fidelity street, legally has to be maintained at the subject property end on the 600 Welsh project. None of this was addressed in the action taken together by the developer, the contractor, nor the city. As an inspection on the ground, together with applicable ordinance requirements will easily determine, none of this can be satisfied under the present c.onstruction plans. There is no easy adequate engineering solution for new construction here, as is common to many of these older neighborhoods. Specifically, the current property flooding conditions immediately down stream from these locations are already well known to City engineering. The issue is so severe for the corner area around the intersections of Welsh and Park Place, that there is no ability for that segment of the City to handle *ANY* additional water flow from major construction upstream, of *ANY* kind, which will add to the run-off. The property on which c.onstruction is to be done is already, now, slightly below street grade level for Welsh. Not a full block down stream toward 3 Park Place, the land property level decreases to what is already now nearly nine inches below current street grade level . The civil engineering founda.t ion upon which this neighborhood was based, coupled with the fifty succeeding years in which what little drainage protection there once was, has long since been neglected and/or abandoned by the City -to the expense of the individual property owners down stream of this development. As a matter of fact, the entire recent street overlay work that proceeded, under protest, on Welsh, has only added to the problem. The proper street level is clearly evident from the original drive way levels still in existence. The abandonment is photographically provable. The intended original below-grade full curb, gutter and sewer plans had to be abandoned more than forty years ago; the 'storm sewer' preparation, even then, overflowed into the property! It took removal of the original 'pre- storm drain' facilities, c.oupled with private property owner paving and driveway maintenance, to even keep adequate access to their property on Welsh. This situation has remained for at least forty years now. It grows steadily worse with each additional square foot of ground either paved, or built-over, upstream. Any further major c.onstruction upstream of this area, like this, will even more seriously endanger the property of those below it . There is no realistic frontal civi 1 engineering solution for Welsh, which will now provide drainage for this development. Significantly, the major trees below it, cannot be preserved, if any major Welsh Street work is done to alleviate the problem. The entire rear drainage for this property in the alley way behind the property, which was the actual allowable exit for all this runoff water below the development property, must be re-addressed by the City as well. It is now over-level in respect to the downstream properties as well . The City having realistically lost any ability to cure this over forty yea.rs running, cannot technically, therefore, permit further construct ion 1 ike this, without 1ia.bi1 i ty for the consequences, unless a demonstrable and satisfactory engineering solution for the problem is on hand, contemporaneous with the new construction, as we see it. Until all of you can settle this issue alone, such that no additional runoff of any kind from this major c.onstruction will reach those of us below the property, to add to our current woes, please withdraw forward work on this project. It's either that or consider the possibility that the only action we might take to gain relief, would be in the form of injunctive relief, pending litigation over the issue. That's expensive for all concerned, perhaps significantly so for you, should you lose the case. In summation, this neighborhood is a classic, historic, fragile area of the City . The guidelines for City future property development in this particular historic neighborhood are well established. They have been developed formally over many hundreds hours of public work toward guide! ines for further development of neighborhoods, while preserving these fragile areas of the City. The basic policy of caution and concern for this, already has C.ollege Station City Council pa.st approval. The focus of this near c.omplete ina.bi l ity to solve this problem, in and around this particular downstream intersection and area has, on dozens of occasions, been the 4 .' subject of City-citizen conference, with no real solution, as well . The houses of concern are headed toward historic registry. All of this would have been easily discovered had city staff simply followed the already issued guidelines set forth in the Neighborhood Preservation C.ommittees' report to C.ouncil and the formal adoption of that report as guidelines for future property development in this Historic Neighborhood . There is a sign demarking this property as being in this neighborhood directly in front of the development. We believe, for these permits for such new major construction, to have even been issued, for such construction, without addressing this problem, as well as other neighborhood issues, in advance, including an impact notice to the public, would be far beyond what any reasonable and prudent person would have done. Further, we don't believe that any knowledgeable and capable City staff person, given their presence at Council meetings, could have issued or permitted the issuance of any building permit for this work, absent of protection arrangements for the downstream citizens. We believe any reasonably aware such person had to have known, or should have known, that the protection of downstream residents was necessary. Gee, even the current rules force the erection of temporary plastic barriers to protect the neighbors on a temporary basis! There is *NO* form of temporary protection for construction runoff that can be made in *ANY* form for the downstream residents of this project! Sincerely yours, Bobby \::rza 612 Wei Ave. Helen Pugh 601 Fairview ~ -- 7~~-b Attachments: Minutes transcription July 23, 1998, C'.ouncil. Meeting . Neighborhood Preservation C.ommittee report submission to C.oun c il . Alley Ordinance c.ontinuing duties December 1997. C.opies of water load photographs on downstream properties . 5 Attachment to letter of October 4, 1999 to various parites. Partial transcription of City of C.ollege C.ouncil meeting minutes for July 23, 1998: Hickson: "I would like to move that we accept 1, 2, 3 and 5 of staff recommendations .. " He is interrupted, "C'.ou ld you go the two hour deal instead of one hour?" He c.ontinued, "Yeah, eh, .. two hour parking. Mmm, .. my prob .. , I don't necessarily agree right now that we need an on- street parking system. I'd like to see. how these things work, before we really consider moving in that direction, to see what the impact ... To me these are some things that will definitely help in that area. I agree with Jerry at this time that going to an on-street parking, parking permit with . . is maybe a 1 i tt le bit premature." Marriot: "I second that." Mcilhaney: "OK, we have a motion to approve staff recommendation 1, 2 and 3 which is removing the on-street parking on George Bush; establishing a two-hour parking, uh, .. eight through five on, uh, .. Fairview and George Bush to Kerry; install no parking from here to corner signs on Fairview and then to accept the staff's proposed actions for recommendations for on, uh, .. the C.ommittee's report, items one through five and seven through thirteen. Mot ion by C.ounci Iman Hickson; second by C'.ounci Iman Ma.rri_ott. Further discussion by the C.ouncil?" She paused, then continued, "Seeing none, I' 11 cal 1 for the vote. Those in favor say 'Aye'." Voices heard . "Those opposed, say 'No'." There is no sound. Whereupon she continues, "Motion carries unanimously." Look *CAREFULLY* at item number four of the C'.ommittee's recommendations. Note that this project is *NOT* a reconstruction of an old house for student use. It is *NEW* construct ion. Accepted C'.ommi ttee Item number four says: 4.) Land Use Restrictions RESOLVED, that no upcoding of structure category shall be permitted in this area. Property shall not be re-platted in this area to achieve a higher structural density than is currently of record. So noted, staff has violated both the wishes of the people of C'.ol lege Station whom employ them, and the directive of the City Council, when approval of this project was given. More.over, if you listen carefully to the Council meeting tapes, staff was expected to get back to the City C.ounci 1 to implement these acceptances; to our knowledge, they have never done so. In order to prevent future flareups like this, we think failure to accept the will of the people relative to issues like this must cease. 6 7/14/98 Southside I Southgate Neighborhood Preservation Report Recommendations #1 - 5 I . Student Housing (Nevada & Welsh). RESOLVED, that no further changes in any property use.from single-family residence or up-coding of any property _in the Neighborhood Preservation Area of College Station should be permitted and are the position taken in the report. 2. Develop Themes. RESOLVED, that the theme of the Neighborhood Preservation Area addressed by the Committee shall not change from the present mixture of single-family residential dwellings and zoning in any way. 3. Opportunities For Small Business Developmenl RESOLVED, that the present language used by the City of College Sta tion to d escribe opportunities for small business development at home is satisfactory. 4. Land Use Restrictions. RESOLVED, that no upco d ing of structure category shall be permitted in th is area. Property shall not be re -platted in this area to achieve a higher structural den sity than is currently of record. 5. Zoning Changes. RESOLVED, that it would be contrary to the Public Interest, c ause unn ecess ary hardship and substantial injustice would be done , if the zoning were changed and up- zoning of property in this area should occur. In regard to Recommendations l, 2. 4, & S: This issue has been largely addressed by past City Council and staff action. The City has included ~omm.~nts in the current Comprehensive Plan to not increase density in the Southside/Southgate area. State law prohibits a City Council from restricting future City Councils from considering zoning requests. Also, the City cannot prohibit developers from submitting zoeing requests. The Council has previously voted to not require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan prior to consideration of re-zoning requests that are not in accordance with the Plan. If Council wishes, it could reconsider this option. As with any such consideration, there are pros and cons . When Council last considered this issue, the fac t that such a step would increase development review time seemed to be a major factor in Council's decision not to make this a requirement. 2 • • .. .... ~7114198 ( In reeard to Recommendation 3: In accordance with the recommendation by the Southside/Southgate Neighborhood Preservation Committee, there are no plans to change the ordinances describing small business development (i.e., home occupations). Southside I Southgate Neighborhood Preservation Report Recommendation #6 6. Housing Renovation. RESOLVED, that the Commillee recommend that a regulatory authority be established in the City of College Station to regulate non-owner-occupied rental property in the Neighborhood Preservation Study area. Occupancy rate for unrelated adults in any such single-family residence shall not exceed the number of bedrooms and shall not exceed four such occupants in any such dwelling. The number of improved parking spaces which must be provided on the property shall equal the number of unrelated adults permitted/or any given single-family residence used as rental property. Th e adoption of such an ordinance shall be requested in a timely fashion, so as to bring the Neighborhood Preservation Area under its protection as soon as it is practically possible to do so, preferably in time for the fall semester. In regard to Recommendation 6: At the City Council workshop in January, the Council directed staff to review the Southside/Southgate Preservation Committee's recommendations. Council discussed the various aspects of Recommendation #6, and asked staff to look at options other than the regulation, or permitting, of non-owner occupied rental property. In light of the direction given by Council, City staff has studied the symptoms created by non-owner occupied rental property. One of the primary problems caused by both the rental housing as well as the proximity of the Texas A&M University campus, is an overflow of on-street parking in the Southside/Southgate neighborhoods. City staff has reviewed the on-street parking situation and developed the followi_ng options to deal with the problem in this neighborhood: 1. Remove all on-street parking in the entire study area. 2. Remove on-street parking in the entire study area from one side of every street, leaving on-street parking on the other side of every street. 3. Permanently remove on-street parking on ev~ry street in the study area that is currently restricted by Special Event Parking. 4 . No o_n-street parking during certain hours of the day, such as from 8:00 a .m . to 5:00 p.m. 3 7/14/98 5. Identify blocks with majority of rental units and restrict parking only on those blocks. A potential impact of this is the possibility that is parking may spill over into the blocks marked owner-occupied. 6. Use of a permit, or hangtag, method to allow on-street parking by the residents of the study area. This option also addresses the situation in Committee Recommendation #Sb. Staff has also evaluated the concerns associated with the off-street parking situation. Current ordinance states that a single family residence dwelling unit will have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. Staff has investigated the possibility of enforcing the required two off-street parking spaces for non- conforming residences built before the standard was put into effect. Staff has determined that legal restrictions facing the City prohibit this action. However, the options presented regarding restricting on-street parking could have the effect of encouraging the construction of off-street parking. With limited or no on-street parking available, property owners and residents may have an incentive to create off-street parking spaces if they do not already exist. After the options regarding the on-street parking situation were developed as an indirect method to deal with Recommendation #6, staff met with the Southside/Southgate Neighborhood Preservation Committee on May 7. The Committee asked to have the options presented to a forum of Southside/Southgate residents and property owners, and have this group reach a consensus on which option to support. Over 2,000 invitations were sent out to those who reside in the Southside/Southgate area and those who own property in this area but liv e elsewhere. On June 4, a neighborhood forum was held in the College Station Conference Center for the residents and property owners in the Southside/Southgate neighborhoods. The options to deal with on-street parking were p~esented to approximately 70 citizens in attendance, followed by a discussion period and a survey on the options. The survey was taken by ballot, and resulted in the permit system receiving the largest amount of votes. Of the 28 votes cast for this option, twelve votes asked to combine the permit system with other options. The survey results are attached for your consideration. Using these survey results and stafrs analysis of the problem, staff recommends the following actions to deal with the on -street parking situation created by the proximity of Texas A&M University to this neighborhood: 1. Remove on-street parking presently along the north side of George Bush Drive from Timber to Texas Avenue. lf this is done before the fall semester, staff can track where Texas A&M Universfty commuters migrate to in search of free parking. 4 • • J 7114198 J~ . 2. Establish ;;GJ_Hour Parking" from 8:00AM to S:OOPM Monday through Friday in W.reas on Fairview Avenue and Montclair Street, from Ceorge Bush Drive to Kerry Street. ' 3. Install "No Parking From Here To Corner" signs on Fairview Avenue to help reduce the sight distance problems created by parked vehicles. These recommendations would be a first step, and staff can watch the area to see if the problem moves further south. If the commuter parking moves further south, the City can increase the area/or restricted one hour on-street parking. One of the attached maps shows the area and volume of the Southside/Southgate Neighborhoods in which commuter parking is occurring. Staff's recommendation to deal with the problems caused by residential on-street parking is to create an on-street permit parking system. The concept is l;>a~ed on similar programs in cities such as Lubbock, Dallas, Austin, and San Marcos. The permit system restricts on-street parking to residents and their guests. Under such a system, residents would be able to limit non-residents from parking in front of their homes without losing valuable parking area. Using other cities' models as examples, the permit system would be based on street-by-street basis. Residents would apply for a permit through a petition and pay for the application fee, signs, and permits. Staff recommends an application/petition system of some type which would require the signature of a certain percentage of owners and/or residents adjacent to street in question. This places the responsibility for initiating such a system to the residents of a particular street while allowing the City the final authority for approving it. Information on Lubbock's residential parking program is attached for your review. It should be noted that while other Texas cities have such programs, from a legal standpoint, there are issues to consider. The streets and roadways are held in trust by the City for public usage. The cities that have established limited use of public streets have no clear statutory authority to limit the public access to the public streets. It is likely that only in extraordinary circumstances will limited use of public roads be allowed. It is also possible that limited use of public roads may be ~eld to be invalid. Staff is recommending implementing an application/petition based permit system on a pilot basis in a small trial area to test the system's effectiveness. If this pilot program has a positive impact, staff can implement this system in other neighborhoods as needed. Staff advises making the area bordered by George Bush Avenue to the North, Dexter to the East, Park Place to the South, and Wellborn Road to the West as the targeted trial area for the permit system . Further details of such a system would have to be worked out if Council directs staff to move forward with this recommendation. 5 7/14/98 Southside I Southgate Neighborhood Preservation Report Recommendation #7 7. Restoration of tlte Neigltborltood. RESOLVED. that the Committee recommends ; a. The City create a reinvestmenl positive climate in the area through economic means which is restricted to single-family owner-occupied homes. It is suggested that the time period for this should not exceed beyond the year 2040 and that abatement on a given individual's property should not exceed 20 years. b. The City should tie the above point together with some form of tax abatement and/or some kind of program of low interest subsidized loans which will increase the value of non-conformance property, as well, in order to make the overall effects revenue positive for the City as time goes forward in the area. In regard to Recommendation 7: Staff's research has found the City cannot legally offer abatements of ad valorem taxes for residential property owners. However, there are existing Community Development programs which can be utilized in this neighborhood on a voluntary basis: • If a family is low-income (less than 80% of area's median adjusted for family size) and owns their home (or purchasing it), then they can apply for . owner-occupied rehabilitation assistance and Optional Relocation Program (if house is beyond repair, Community Development tears it down and ·rebuilds). These programs are grant programs for persons below 60% of median income, and those between 60%-80% pay a small portion of their project cost. Community Development does not do any kind of loan for .their share. • The Rental Rehabilitation Program is available for landlords of rental property on a dollar-for-dollar match, with a ceiling amount based on number of bedrooms, i.e., on a 2-bedroom Community Development loans up to $7,500. These are deferred, forgivable loans for a 10-year period. The landlord has to bring the property up to code and make it available for rent to low to moderate income (LMI) tenants. •. Also, the Down payment Assistance Program is available for LMI homebuyers who might wish to purchase a home in that area (actually available city-wide). Community Development can pay up to $4,000 in down payment and closing costs. Also, !hey can apply for rehabilitation assistance in conjunction with this. 6 ' ' .• ,I c 7/14/98 • Other assistance would be to make available painting supplies and materials to a LMI homeowner who might wish to paint the exterior o·r his home. Community Development has also done some relatively minor · drainage projects. Community Development can also do "emergency repairs" if the health and safety of occupants is involved. While Community Development offers a variety of programs to this area, it may be that there is not a high awareness of these programs by residents and/or property owners. If Council so directed, Comm unify Development and the City could begin a targeted marketing project to the residents and property owners in the Southside/Southgate study area. This would include workshops, flyers, and other possible informational material to get the information out to those who need it. 7 .................... ___ _... ........ __;o:.;;.,..•w;..·"i.iii*r..i· , ..... 'jili'''fllr' --·••1.1 ~street Names l:tf~ New streets shall not only be namod so as to provide cont inuity of existing streets, but shall be named to prevent oonflict wfth Identical or similar names in other parts of the City. New streets shall not be named after any living person. · l±fj_ Alleys may be required at the rear of all lots intended to be used for business purposes and may be provided in re$identlal areas. §:H.4 AReys shall generally be parallel to the street. shall be not less than twenty feet (20) wide and shall be paved under City Englneet1ng standards. The light-of.way for alleys shall be dedicated to the public. ~ V\lhere two (2) aUeys Intersect. or where an alley turns, add'ltional width may be required to anow tumlng of vehldes or guying of utility poles. ~ Dead.end alleys shall not be permitted, exoept where the alley Is one hundred feet (100 or less in le • In all alleys , overhead easements of at least four feet (4) ill width Shill be provided on eac:ti side of the alley light-Of-way overwhlcil the aerial electric and communication lines must hang . This easement is not required when the electric and communication nnes are placed underground . ~ .E.asements 8-1. t Drajnage Easements Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drai111ge way, natural channel o r stream, there may be required a drainage easement or right-of-way conforming sut>- stantially to the limits or such watereoul3e , plus additional width to accommodate future needs as determined by the City Engineer. No construction. including fences, $hall Im- pede, constrict. or bloGt\ the flow of water in any easement or natural watercourse. Such Nsement shaU not be considerad a part of the lat area for purposes of rnlnimum lot size nqutrements of the zoning ortiinance . Drainage easements may be used for utilities . W Utmty Easements l:!.2J. Each block that does not contain an alley as provided in 8-H above, shall twve a utility easement 9t the rear of an lots, reserved f'or the use of all utility lines, conduit, and equipment. TheM utility easements st\all be twenty feet (201 in width, taken ten feet (10') fn:>m eacti lot where the rear of the lots abut eacti other, and shall be continuous for 1he entire length Of 1 block. These easements ~all be parallel as dosely as possible to the street line frontage of the block. ~ Noimal curt section shall be required where utility easements Intersect streets. ~ Where utUlty easements are not themselves straight within ead'I bloc:k. or If the same do not connect on a W'aight course 'Nitti utmty easements of adjoining bl0ck.s1 then an additional easement shall be provided for the placement Of guy wiru on lot division lines in on::llf to support poles set on curving Qr deviating rights-of-way or easements. 8-1.2.~ Udlity easements may be reQulred across parts of lots other than as described above ---upon recommendation of the City E~ine«. Where the proposed subdivision adjoins an unplatted area, the full twenty foot (20') width of easement mc1y be requtred along ttle rear or lots adjoining the unplatted •~- 9-22 R .... 12197 l I 1 ' I I I I I I I I ' I ' ' I II ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of College Station Zoning Board of Adjust- ments will hold a public hearing to consider an Ap- peal of the Zoning Official's application of Section 7 .20 relative to setbacks and to Section 9 relative to parking and driveways at 600 & 604 Welsh. Applicant is Norma Miller. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the Col- lege Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p .m . meeting of the Board on Wednesday , October 20, 1999. Any request for sign inter- pretive services for the hear .. ing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409)764-3547 or (TDD) 1- ~UU-/ ~b-~~88. For additional information, please contact me at ( 409)764-3570. Jane Kee City Planner 10-8-99 ,., ... ," .. , , "'"""-rr:T T 66 .!.O ·01 >~b,·· ))-h . ' ~ ~~ ~~ ~t ~~ ~ ~£ .,._ "'~ ~~~---·· '-t'~ . \I\ >' tt\ t.