Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment May 5, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All regular members present. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate members Swoboda & Julien STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk Using the Chair's discretion, Mrs. Meyer reversed the order of agenda item numbers 1 and 2. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Call to Order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. The meeting was then turned over to Mayor Ringer. AGBNDA ITBM N0. l: Mayor singer to present service plaques to aeabers of the Zoning Board of Adjustment whose terse have • expired. Mayor Ringer thanked Mrs. Meyer for her service to the City through serving on the Zoning Board of Adjustment from 1983 to 1985 as an alternate; from 1985 to 1986 as a regular member and from 1986 to 1987 as chairman, and presented her a plaque from the City as an expression of its appreciation. He then presented a plaque as a symbol of appreciation from the City to Mr. McGuirk who served as an alternate on the Board from 1983 to 1984, and as a regular member from 1984 through 1987. He announced that a plaque will also'be presented to Allen Swoboda who has served as an alternate member from 1985 to 1987. The Mayor also thanked all the members of the Board for their very important service to the City, explaining that because he started his service to the City on this very Board, he understands what an extremely difficult and important responsibility they have. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Approval of Minutes - meeting of April 21, 1987. Mr. McGuirk stated that although the facts are correct on page 3, lines 5 & 6 of the minutes as presented, it was his intention that public recognition be given to Mrs. Volk in the form of a commendation for her prompt response to a last minute request which resulted in supplying information to him which he needed to make a determination on a request at that meeting, rather than the modest "thank you" reported in the minutes. With that clarification, he made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Hear visitors. • No one spoke. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to • front setback as required by Ordinance No. 1638 Table A at the duplex at 1525 Hillside in College Station in order to build a carport. Applicants are Garland B. and Mary B. Bayliss. Mrs. Kee explained that the applicant is the owner of, but does not reside at the subject property, that the existing zoning in the area is R-6 which allows duplexes built to R-2 regulations. She stated the request is for a variance to the front setback requirements so he can construct a one car carport on the parking pad for one of the duplex units. She described the physical characteristics of the lot, adding that this duplex was built under parking regulations of a previous ordinance, and therefore has head-in parking from Hillside, rather than the T-type duplex parking regulated by the current ordinance. She described the required setback as 25 feet with the proposed setback being 0 feet, with the carport extending to the front property line. She informed the Board that the building was permitted in 1976 by D. R. Cain, that there has been no previous action on this property, that 28 property owners within 200 feet were notified and she had received no responses. She added that the Building Official and the Fire Marshal were notified as well, but neither responded with comments. Garland F. Bayliss, 502 Helena, Bryan was sworn in and identified himself as the owner of the property and the applicant, explaining that although he does not live at this address, the carport is being requested for his tenant, Mrs. Jimmie Huey who has to take dialysis 3 times a week and must avoid exposure to the elements. He went on to describe Mrs. Huey as a 74 year old widow who has been a tenant in this duplex for the past 10 years which she considers to be her home. He stated she has suffered • from her present condition for the past one and one-half years, adding that he would not consider supplying a carport for any other tenant, but because she has been living there for so long, has been a good tenant, and is now in poor health, he would like to do something to alleviate her discomfort. He then passed around a letter from Richard G. Morgan, M.D. attesting to the fact that Mrs. Huey is on maintenance dialysis, requires treatment 3 times a week and should not be exposed to extremes in temperature. Mr. Ruesink asked what protection Mrs. Huey would have when she left the protection of the carport. Mr. Bayliss stated there is no protection now between the proposed carport and the porch of the duplex, and further, that nothing is planned at this time. Mrs. Meyer asked what would happen to the carport when Mrs. Huey is no longer a tenant. Mr. Bayliss said that he does not know, but perhaps it could be removed. Mr. Gilmore stated that this neighborhood is a uniform, consistent, attractive neighborhood, and he is bothered by the prospect of allowing this single carport in the middle of this neighborhood. He added that he has a problem thinking that the proposed carport would afford enough protection from the elements to justify the lack of it as a hardship. Mary fi. Bayliss came forward and was sworn in. She stated that she and her husband have owned 4 duplexes in a row here for 10 years, and they have great concern for the neighborhood, therefore would make the carport as attractive as possible. She said that Mrs. Huey thinks this would give her enough protection, and the doctor stated in his letter that changes in temperature and adverse weather should be avoided. Mrs. Bayliss also pointed out that although Mrs. Huey has 2 parking spaces assigned to her side of the duplex, the carport will cover only one space. • Mrs. Meyer stated that the only protection she can see that this carport would afford Mrs. Huey would be to keep the sun off her car, as unless rain is coming straight ZBA Minutes 5-5-87 Page 2 down, it will still get her wet. She asked the Bayliss' just what the hardship is. • Mr. Bayliss replied that a carport would afford her some protection, and Mrs. Huey believes it would be helpful to her. Mrs. Meyer attempted to explain that once a variance is granted, it is for virtually all time and this Board must be very careful in its consideration. She then asked Mrs. Kee the purpose of the ordinance in duplex areas. Mrs. Kee stated that setbacks are required to help regulate density, separation of structures and to provide open space between structures and street traffic. Mr. Ruesink asked Mr. Bayliss how much damage is done to Mrs. Huey's health now by not having this carport. Mr. Bayliss stated that is hard to answer, but to take into consideration her age and general health, adverse elements would take a toll over a long period of time. Mrs. Bayliss stated that both Mrs. Huey and her doctor believe this carport would be helpful, and she and her husband do not know what kind of conditions she had prior to living in their duplex. Mr. McGuirk stated that he has a great deal of sympathy for Mrs. Huey, but he has several serious reservations; those being that there have been 3 other applications for variances which parallel this request, and all 3 were denied mainly because variances go with the property and could be forever; there are no other carports on this street now, and there is no guarantee that if this variance is granted, other property owners will not come in and ask for the same privilege, the result of which • could be a definite detriment to the City in the form of multiple carports in front of these duplexes used for unsightly storage. He continued explaining that he has figured the ratio of structure to lot when considering these types of requests, and has come to the conclusion that the structure as it exists is a fairly large structure with respect to the size of the lot. He finalized by stating that in his opinion, granting this particular variance would not be in the best interest of the City. Mr. Bayliss stated that it would seem that as single carport on a pad for 4 cars would not increase the density that much. Mr. McGuirk then stated that he also does not believe that a structure of the type being proposed would afford much protection from the sun or other elements, and therefore, does not see any advantage to granting the request, either to Mrs. Huey or the City. Mrs. Bayliss stated that Mrs. Huey is very concerned about the sun and she comes home from her treatments about noon. Additionally, the doctor has addressed changes in temperature, and this carport is important to her for protection. Mrs. Bayliss stated that it is being requested for Mrs. Huey, and she and Mr. Bayliss would be agreeable to removing it if she ever leaves, because this neighborhood is important to them because they own 4 duplexes and plan to keep them. Mrs. Meyer explained that the legal department has advised this Board it cannot put that type of stipulation on a variance. She stated that she, too, does not understand how much protection from the elements a carport can be, especially since there is no protection from the carport to the front door. • Mrs. Bayliss replied that Mrs. Huey would have very little unprotected walking to do to get to the door, and there is a porch which will also give protection. She stated that she thinks the carport would be very helpful. ZBA Minutes 5-5-87 Page 3 • Mr. Ruesink asked if there is some way to grant a conditional variance, and Mrs. Kee responded that she is not qualified to answer that question, but would be happy to check with the legal department on Friday during working hours. Mrs. Meyer said this request could be tabled until legal advice is given. Mr. Gilmore stated that he can sympathize with the problem, but he has not heard anything presented at this meeting to justify granting this variance. He went on to explain that there is more to consider than one individual, and that is the effect it would have on a neighborhood, and he has not heard anything to justify granting this request. Mrs. Bayliss stated that notification was sent to 28 property owners and no objections from them have been voiced. Mr. Gilmore stated that while that is taken into consideration when reaching a decision, the Board's main duty is to interpret and uphold the City's ordinances. Mr. Evans clarified by stating that a hardship must be proven that would make this structure justified forever. Mr. McGuirk added to that statement that hardships can be the odd configuration of a lot or an existing stand of large trees which the City would like to see saved. Mr. Ruesink stated that this particular hardship alluded to would be physical and perhaps Mrs. Huey would live longer if she had the carport. Mr. Bayliss stated that he could not address that, but certainly her sense of well being would be aided. Mr. McGuirk stated he would like to see this request tabled, and perhaps Mrs. Huey • would like to address the hardship at the next meeting. He then made a motion to table this request. Mr. Ruesink seconded the motion and requsted more information from staff regarding conditional variances. Mr. McGuirk clarified by stating that he did not mean to ask Mrs. Huey to come to the meeting to address the request, but simply wanted to invite her to attend if she so desires. He added that he wants her to have the opportunity to present any evidence of hardship which may have been overlooked at this meeting, as well as for her to feel that she has had fair treatment by the City. Mrs. Meyer stated that the Council has charged this Board with finding some type of special condition and hardship, and she would like for the City Attorney to advise the Board if what has been presented would qualify. Votes were cast with the motion to table the item passing by a vote of 4-1 with Mr. Gilmore voting against. Mrs. Meyer addressed Mr. Bayliss and stated she would like to know what will cover the area between the carport and the house. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Consideration of a request for a special exception to allow the substitution of one non-conforming use for another to allow an existing office to be reaodeled into an efficiency apartment at 4000 Harvey Road. Applicant is Betty R. Gillespie Robinson. Mrs. Kee briefly explained the location of the property, the existing zoning and • pointed out that the requested action is for a special exception (which used to be called a "use permit") to allow the substitution of one non-conforming use (an efficiency apartment) for another (part of an existing office}, neither the existing ZBA Minutes 5-5-87 Page 4 use nor the purposed use being allowed in an A-0 zoning district. She referred to • the applicable ordinance sections as being 6.3.B.(1) snd 15.Z.C.(a), and read both sections directly from Ordinance No. 1638. She then discussed the existing use, the proposed use, the actual non conformity of each, the site size, adding that the site appears to have adequate space to accomodate parking for the proposal, and that although the applicant has discussed rezoning the site, there is no zoning district in the City's ordinance which would allow both an office and an apartment as a permitted use, so whatever the applicant did, there would still remain some degree of non-conformity. She stated that the ZBA denied a sign variance request regarding setback on this property in 1981, that 4 adjacent property owners had been notified of this request, and that non had responded to date. Betty Robinson, 1112 Westover, College Station came forward, was sworn in and identified herself as the owner of the property and the applicant of the request. She stated that Mrs. Kee had presented the facts very well, and she would only add that she wants to make better use of her property as an investment, and this change would allow her more income on the investment than she is receiving now. Mr. McGuirk. asked Mrs. Robinson if she knows the City's plan for zoning along Harvey Road and she stated she does not, but that there is an orchid nursery to one side of her property and a restaurant to the other, and then stated that she had talked to Mr. Callaway in the Planning Department who had advised that any zoning district would require either all offices or all apartments. Mr. Gilmore asked if there was to be a change to the exterior of the structure and Mrs. Robinson replied there would not be any change. • Mrs. Meyer asked if this change would increase the non-conformity, or make it less detrimental and Mrs. Kee replied that it would change the non-conformity and the Board must find the amount of detriment. Mrs. Meyer said that section 15.2 states that the Board can allow this if it is less detrimental and then asked Mrs. Robinson what kind of business is run from the office. Mrs. Robinson replied that it is an advertising business which seldom has customers come to the office. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to authorize the reconstruction of a non-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60X of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the~non- conformity. Mr. Evans seconded the motion. Mr. Ruesink asked how Mr. McGuirk knew the cost would be less than 60X of the appraised value and Mr. McGuirk stated that changing part of an office into an efficiency could not possibly cost that much. Votes were cast and the motion carried unanimously (5-0); AGBNDA IT$M N0. 7: Other business. Mrs. Kee announced there will be a meeting on May 19th. There was no other business. ZBA Minutes 5-5-87 Page 5 AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Adjourn. • Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: ----------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones _~m^' - --- --- --~~c~r~``~ ------ ZBA Minutes 5-5-87 Page 6 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Special Exceptions - From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize the a. ____ substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. b. _____enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25~ and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. c. _~reconstruction of a non-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60~ of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming • use or increase the non-conformity. Motion made by /ye~ul~~._ -------- -------------------------------------- Seconded by ----~ UIT~v ~ --------------------------------------- Voting esults: ___~ ---------------- Chair s'g ture x~~~ D e • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER NAME 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17- 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. • 25. DATE May 5, 1~$7 ADDRESS