Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES ~I • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment May 19, 1987 7:00 P.M. I • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Meyer, Members Ruesink, McGuirk, Gilmore, Alternate Member Julien and Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Evans and Alternate Member Swoboda STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM R0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and li~itatioas of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of ainntes - seating of May 5, 1987. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. McGuirk then thanked Councilman Gardner for attending the meeting and expressed hope that council members would continue to attend Board meetings in the future. AGBNDA ITBM ISO. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. Chairman Meyer then stated that at the request of the applicants of agenda item no. 5, Mr. & Mrs. Bayliss, and with the consent of the applicant of agenda item number 4, Mr. Smith, the order of items 4 and 5 would be reversed due to the health of Mra. Huey, the tenant of the subject duplex. AGBIIDA ITBM N0. 5: geconsideration of a request for variance to front setback as required by Ordinance No. 1638 ?able A at the duplex at 1525 Hillside in College Station in order to build a carport. Applicants are Garland B. and Mary B. Bayliss. This items was tabled at the meeting on 5-5-87. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to take this item from its tabled position. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mrs. Kee stated that staff had received no additional facts pertaining to the request except the memos from the Legal Department which were distributed prior to the meeting. The Board took a few minutes to study the 3 memos, then briefly discussed case law examples provided by the City Attorney. Mrs. Meyer thanked the Legal Department for the information provided following the extensive search made to find any cases which recognize illness as the hardship. Garland Bayliss was sworn in and restated the variance is being requested to accommodate a long term (10 year) tenant (Mrs. Huey) who is ill. He stated that no • neighbors had complained after notification, and pointed out that although the Legal Department has apparently been unable to provide any case law where illness has been the hardship, he wanted to remind the Board that every request is different and should be considered individually. He offered to ask Mrs. Huey forward to explain • her treatments and exactly how they affect her health. Mrs. Meyer respectfully declined his offer to have Mrs. Huey explain her health, and explained that the ordinance requires that there must be a special condition of the land which, if the ordinance is enforced, creates a hardship, then cited an odd shape of a lot as an example of a special condition of the land. Mr. McGuirk gave another example as being the necessity of removing stand of large trees to develop a drive to a legal carport toward the rear of the lot. Mr. Bayliss stated that he understands those conditions, but does not understand why poor health cannot also be considered a special condition. Mr. Meyer invited Mrs. Huey forward to speak, but instructed her to limit her testimony to conditions which address the request. Mr. Gilmore stated that for purposes of clarification, the Board did not request that Mrs. Huey attend this meeting to address the Board, but rather tabled this item at the last meeting to allow Mrs. Huey the opportunity to testify if she so desired. Mr. Bayliss agreed that was indeed what had happened. Mrs. Huey came forward, was sworn in and stated that it is difficult to separate her health and dialysis treatments from the request, as this request is being made because of her health. She went on to explain her health problems and the diet she must follow, as well as how the weather affects her health and places certain limitations on her activities. Mrs. Meyer asked exactly how a carport of the type being proposed would help her • health and Mrs. Huey replied that a carport would shade her car from the summer sun and thus, would keep it from getting too hot. She added that it would also protect her car from adverse winter weather conditions, and therefore, she would not have to scrape ice from the windows. Mrs. Meyer said this Board has struggled with this problem and explained that anyone in any house can get sick; that certainly all people are unique, but the special conditions which must be considered are those of the land, since any variance granted goes with the land for all times. She continued explaining that if this variance request is granted, the Board would be setting a precedent since any consideration given would be for a personal problem which has nothing to do with the land. Mr. Ruesink asked if there is any alternative to building this carport; that is, is there shade somewhere else where she could park the car, and Mrs. Huey replied that there is no other place to park and furthermore, she is unable to walk any distance. She stated additionally that one of those car covers would not be the answer as it would not help keep the car cool, and even if it would, she is physically unable to handle one. Mr. Bayliss interjected that in answer to a question at the last meeting, if this variance for a carport is granted, he would also construct a covered walkway from the carport to the building. Mrs. Meyer asked what hardship would be relieved by granting a variance for this type of carport since the car would still be hot. Mr. Bayliss explained that Mrs. Huey's liquid intake is limited, and getting in and out of a hot car poses a real hardship. • He added that it certainly seems strange that physical hardships cannot be considered. ZBA Minutes 5-19-87 Page 2 Mr. Ruesink said he would lean toward testing this rule and perhaps granting a • variance of a temporary nature for a physical hardship; one that is not for all times. Mr. McGuirk pointed out that a temporary or conditional variance is not possible according to the City Attorney. Mr. Bayliss asked if there could be a variance granted based on some kind of contractual agreement which guaranteed that he would remove the carport once it is not necessary to accommodate Mrs. Huey's needs. Mr. Ruesink stated that he likes that idea. Mrs. Meyer pointed out that a hardship would not be created by ordinance enforcement in this case, because the hardship actually exists now, and any variance granted now would simply accommodate an existing hardship. Mr. Bayliss stated that he does not see how it could be otherwise when health is the hardship. Mr. Julien made a motion to authorize a conditional variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: existing structures on property do not permit construction of shelter required for applicant with extreme medical disability who needs dialysis, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being life threatening impact of exposure to inclement weather conditions, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: carport to be removed at owner expense upon future determination by this Board that it is no longer needed. Mr. McGuirk seconded for purposes of discussion. Mr. Rueaink said he agrees with the motion except for the last part. Mr. McGuirk offered an amendment to exclude the temporary nature at the end, that is to remove • "carport to be removed at owner expense upon future determination by this Board that it is no longer needed". Mr. Julien seconded this motion to amend for purposes of discussion. Mr. Rueaink stated that the motion has part of the essential ingredients, but he does not want the Board to be responsible for the removal, and he would like for some type of contract to be included in the motion. Mr. McGuirk stated he believes it would be illegal to consider a conditional variance. Mrs. Meyer stated she agrees with Mr. McGuirk, adding that the special condition cited has nothing to do with the land but rather it deals with a person's condition. Mr. Gilmore said that he does not see that this Board has been given any condition upon which to grant a variance. Mr. McGuirk stated that if a variance is considered at all, it should be a variance which is not conditional. Votes were cast on the motion to amend by deleting the words "carport be removed at owner expense upon future determination by this Board that it is no longer needed" and the motion to amend carried by a vote of 3-2 with Gilmore and Ruesink voting against it. Mr. Gilmore stated that he cannot agree to a "conditional variance" and does not see that the Board has been given a special condition or a hardship other than personal which would allow it to grant a variance. Mrs. Meyer re-read the motion as amended and Mr. McGuirk stated he had made a mistake in that he should have taken out the word "conditional" in the first part of the motion. Votes were cast on the following amended motion: "I move to authorize a conditional variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will • not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: existing structures on property do not permit construction of shelter required for applicant with extreme medical disability who needs dialysis, and because a strict ZBA Minutes 5-19-87 Page 3 rr~-- enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship • to this applicant being life threatening impact of exposure to inclement weather condition, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done." The motion failed by a vote of 1-4 with only Mr. Julien voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Ruesink said he would now like to look at something different which would allow a variance for a personal hardship, but not a permanent variance. He said he would like to see some type of variance granted which would no longer be necessary after Mrs. Huey no longer lives at this address. Mr. McGuirk said he would rather encourage Mr. Bayliss to check with the City Attorney regarding the possibility of some type of contractual agreement to cover this. Mr. Gilmore stated that either of these steps would be getting away frame the purpose of this Board. Mr. McGuirk said that perhaps this duplex could get some kind of special designation which would allow for a personal hardship. Mr. Gilmore said emphatically that anything of that nature would have nothing to do with this Board. Mr. McGuirk agreed, adding that any action of that type probably would not be done through regular procedures, but would have to be special, perhaps even in the form of a Conditional Use Permit which would expire after a specific use is discontinued. Mrs. Bee stated that even with Conditional Use Permits, setback regulations apply. She continued by stating that she would confer with the City Attorney regarding the possibility of developing some type of agreement similar to a Developsent Agreement. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to direct staff to seek creative alternatives which would give relief to the tenant at this particular duplex. Mr. Ruesink seconded the motion. Mr. Gilmore stated that is all well and good, but something must be done • with the request before the Board. Votes were cast on the motion to direct staff to seek creative alternatives and the motion carried by a vote of 4-1 (Gilmore). Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, and further, that this request is being denied without prejudice so the applicant can bring back the identical request at any time without receiving additional permission from the Board to do so. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion. Votes were cast with the motion to deny without prejudice carrying by a vote of 4-1 (Julien). Discussion between the Board and the applicant followed, with Mr. Gilmore stating that the Board has not tried to diminish the individual or her special hardship, but explained that the Board does not have the authority to grant a variance for a physical hardship. AaB11DA I?BM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for varia0ce to sign height regulations (Section 12.4.A 4 ?able 1 Ordinance No. 1688) at 411 South ?exaa Avenue (forcer ?okyo Steak House). Applicant is Sichard A. 8afth. Owner is Republic Bank AiM. • Mrs. Kee explained the request is being aade by Richard Smith who will be a tenant in the building at 411 South Texas which is owned by Republic Bank A8d~l. She stated that he plans to use the existing sign poles for a new sign which will be conforming in ZBA Minutes 5-19-87 Page 4 area, but which will continue to be 29 feet tall, approximately 18 feet taller than would be allowed at its location. She stated that staff sees as alternatives • replacement of only sigh faces without altering the existing structure or to remove the existing sign and replace it with a new conforming sign. She referred the Board to the application for the hardship as seen by the applicant, and informed the members that previous action on this property took-place in 1976 when a side setback variance was granted for a temporary drive-in teller. She added that the Fire Marshal and the Building Official had both been informed of the request, but had not commented, and of the 9 adjacent property owners who were notified of the request, only one responded and he had no problem with the request. Mr. McGuirk asked what the status of the 13th Floor Sign is and Mrs. Hee replied that she does not know the exact dimensions, but it is the old Pizza Inn sign. Mr. McGuirk disagreed, stating that the sign he is referring to is simply a clapboard sign and he doubts it could have been the Pizza Inn sign. He asked staff to please investigate its legality. Mr. Ruesink referred to the request being considered and stated that as he understands the request, it is for sign height only since the new sign's area will not only be conforming, but will be even smaller than the existing sign. Mrs. Hee concurred. Richard Smith, 1100 Broadmoor, Bryan, cane forward and was sworn in. He identified himself as the applicant and stated that he would try to concentrate on the hardship involved if ordinance regulations were enforced. He explained that the area was developed before the current ordinance regulating signs was adopted, and the nature of the businesses in the area, as well as the topography which drops down at this • location would preclude visibility of a conforming sign on this particular tract. He stated that his plans are practical in nature, and include taking a non-conforming existing sign which is very ugly and making it more aesthetically pleasing as well as to reduce it in area. He went on to explain that to lower the height of the sign would make it virtually invisible to traffic, and to move it back would probably put it into the middle of the building. Mr. Gilmore stated that this Board looks at a situation which might improve a non- conformity, and asked if some kind of compromise could be reached which would include lowering the height of the sign to something less than the existing 29 foot height. Mr. Smith stated he had not looked at that possibility, but that reducing the area would be a compromise of sorts, and the planned sign will be more attractive and would be a benefit to the City since it represents an improvement. He continued by explaining that as far as the spirit of the ordinance, he believes that his proposal meets that in that it is an improvement, and pointed out that he could simply replace the face of the sign with faces larger than he is proposing to include on the new sign, and never have to come before the Board. Mr. McGuirk stated he agrees with everything stated, but that he would still like to see if the height could be reduced without causing a hardship. Re added that he would not like to see the sign moved to a location which would destroy the attractive landscaping which is on the tract. Mrs. Meyer stated that perhaps this would be a case of balancing the equity, and if the sign is lowered it would cost money, and perhaps the cost would not benefit the community at all. Both Mr. McGuirk and Mrs. Meyer stated they think the proposal reduces the non-conformity. • Mr. Smith stated that he is not saying the sign must be 29 feet tall, but the conditions which exist at the site, that is the topography and area development, would demand the sign be taller than the 11 feet which would be allowed by ordinance ZBA Minutes 5-19-87 Page 5 to be seen at all. • Mrs. Meyer stated that although this Board should inch toward making all signs in the City conform to regulations, it must also look at special conditions which could cause hardships by enforcement of regulations, and this area was built before the ordinance, and lowering the height into compliance could cause a hardship due to the topography of the land and the existing location of other signs in the area. Mr. Mctiuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: (1)The non- conformity will not be increased, (2)The landscaping will be enhanced, or at least not reduced, and (3)There is a need, due to other non-conformities in the area to allow appropriate identification of the facility, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being the inability to adequately identify business due to the current location of the business, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Ruesink seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Ruesink asked Mr. Smith about the landscaping, and Mr. Smith replied that he plans to keep most of the landscaping, but will clean up the area somewhat, and has been coordinating his efforts with City staff regarding landscaping. A(iBI(DA ITBM N0. 6: Other business. Mrs. Kee announced there will be a meeting on June 2nd. • Mrs. Vera Castillo came forward and asked to be allowed to address the Board. Permission was granted and she explained that she owns the property adjacent to this where the Pizza Inn and then the 13th Floor had been located. She stated that she had owned this tract for 30 years, that there has always been the same number of parking spaces and she is unable to provide more as she is landlocked, but she has been unable to lease this property because of the lack of parking, and now for the first time in 30 years she is unable to pay the taxes on the property. Mrs. Kee explained that a parking variance had been granted by this Board at the time the 13th Floor went in, and the variance is for a nightclub with the condition that no alcoholic beverages are served. She further explained that the variance would still be in effect, but additionally, that because the Pizza Inn had served beer and had been non-conforming in nature, that another pizza parlor could go into that facility without the need for a variance. She added that if any other business went in and wanted to serve alcohol, it would need another variance. She suggested to Mrs. Castillo that any potential tenant for that facility be advised to come to City Hall and meet with her to work out any problems. Mrs. Castillo thanked the Board and Mrs. Kee for allowing her to speak. • ZBA Minutes 5-19-87 Page 6 AOgNDA ITEM N0. ?: Ad3ourn. • Mr. McGuirk made motion to adjourn. Mr. Gilmore seconded the lotion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: Acting Chairman, Robert Gilmore ATTEST: ---------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones i• ~• ZBA Minutes 5-19-87 Page 7 • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 ~A' ~ I move to ~suthoriz ~~~ arian a to the ' ~ ________yard (Section 8.?) ________lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) ___ ~___minimum setback (Table A) ________parking requirements (Section 9) • from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: -~~~ - -------------------------------------------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions'of the ordinance would result in unnecessary 'hardship to t~h~i~s pplicant being: and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done su ject to the following limitations: ~ ~ Mot ion made by ~1•_Q1__ ~~ ~~~ ______ Date _____~__~~ _~ ~" _ ------- _ ~~"~fi'~St Seconded by ~ ___ Voting Results g ~i /~ _ cr~rl~--- ~ Chair signature 4 • ZONINQ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NtaATIOS MOTIONS Variances: Froa Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I cove to deny s variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) ___t~ _siniaua setback (Table A) _______parking require eats (Section 9) frog the terse of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to th®-lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. • ~Y Motion wade by __~(~v~ __ \ --------------------------- Seconded by ____ ~I ~ !-1l _2 ------------------------------ Voting results: __ ~ -1 ~~_v_L~~N~ per, ~~ ~. s^ ~ s -S Chair signature v vV __ Date • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER NAME I. .. z. 3• 4. S • ! .~,fil ~ ~ Y Y~G~ 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. 11. • ti. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. . 22. 23• • 24. 25. I ''~, ~}~ DATE MaY 19, 1987 ADDRESS I °~ l~~ ~~-~~-~-~ 7 7 kn l i~ v~ ~~p ~X~~ r I.UNING HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION ~l L1 S ,~~, ~ r(/~ . ,~l ~r N,... I Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: --'l"he_~?oa~ncifor-rr~ity_~~-1a-riot- be-i-ric-r'used------------------------ _ _ ._ _2~-_ _.The_ landscaping_ wi 11 _be_enha.nced/or at_ieast_not reduced___ ------------- ~~__There_~s a need,_due_to_other_non-conformities _in_~F~e ar~~_~o ~110.~.____ _____appropri~te ldentlfication of the facillt~r-,_____________________ _- ------------------ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant • being: -------ths_iaa.b~lli`~.~~_ad~u~i:e_1.~%identif~cJzuslness,_siue. to_the_..t<urren.t_location _ af_rh~.bs~lldi_n9------------- ----------------------------- _. _. _. and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served,- 3~~ ------------------- ---- ----------- ------------------ Motion made by: _ .- Motion seconded by: ~~ ,Q v~f7~v Voting results: -V ------------------ ------- - - ------------- Chai r s i gn ure ~~~ --- f - ~ -~ date - • ,N~ ~L .~ ~~ -~ ~ 1 .~ 5 (~D V ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMfiNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION • Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the _yard (Section 8.7) ________lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) minimum setback (Table A) ________parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the followingg special condit'ons: ~/oT B~ /NC ~/, -- -- -------- ---- ~~ _,~~ Ty~~ _ ~s_~ _N~.a~_ov~_Tr~_~.J~~i~_~.~/ _cv+i,~,,~~~~.f'~N rug ~~F~> - - - rv_ /f GG~Gv_.,~/~°/~?~%9T c~ ~.~1 /~ i~ 1 ~~1i/ _ a.~'~~% _ J=,~cl G ~' ~ w and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unn~~~~~ar hardship to this applicant being: ------1L-~ -- fi-------!-~-~ -------y--~~-- ~!~- _L c~ ~~-T/Ors _z.~-~ BUl L.pI.!~-------------------------------------- and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by Date ----------------------------- ------------------ Seconded b Voting Results y ------------------------------ ---------- Chair signature __________________ ----------------------- 4 AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Other business. i• Mrs. Kee stated there will be a meeting on July 7th. Mrs. Banks briefly explained her interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling Mr. Taylor had mentioned in his testimony. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Evans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: • ATTEST: City Sec a y, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes ,C.. B. ~ ~.~ ~-: 6-16-87 page 5