Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/1983 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustments January 18, 1983 7:00 P.M. • • MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Upham, Wagner, Donahue, Alternate Member Lindsay ~ Council Liaison Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant to Zoning Official Dupies and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes from December 7, 1982 Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes as written; Mr. Upham seconded; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Reconsideration of a re uest fora variance to Parkin Re uirements Section 7 at 10 Walton which is located next to Wilson's Plumbing Supply. Request is in the name of J. F. ~ T. M. Sousares. The public was informed that there will be one abstention concerning this item. Mr. Upham then made a motion to bring this item off the table; Mr. Wagner seconded; motion to take off table carried unanimously. Jimmy Sousares was sworn in and said he felt that patrons to this proposed business would be entitled to park across the street as much as anyone else. He said again that he owns the plumbing shop next door which generates very little parking traffic, and it is his belief that the two businesses should be allowed to share parking. Mr. PacGilvray pointed out that this proposed business would require 10 spaces and Mr. Upham informed the public that the current parking spaces being used for all these businesses are on City right-of-way and therefore, would not be available for additional parking. Mrs. Kee explained the location of right-of-way for both Texas Avenue and Walton, and said the present parking being used is on Walton R.O.W. She further explained there are approxi- mately 50 spaces currently available in that R.O.W., and one already existing business alone would require in excess of 60 spaces according to the current ordinance. Mr. MacGilvray said that he thinks the City has a potential Northgate in this area. Mr. Up- ham explained the ordinance would require approximately twice as many spaces for existing businesses as are available. Mr. Sousares explained that the proposed emergency clinic would never require the 10 spaces as required by ordinance. Mr. Upham spoke of an area behind the alley in the rear that could possibly be bought to alleviate part of the park- ing problem. Mr. Sousares spoke of his ownership of an adjoining lot, and in not allow- ing him to build this clinic, he felt the City would be discriminating against him. He then pointed out that several spaces would be available in the rear of the building. Mr. Upham suggested perhaps 3 employees could park in the back and Mrs. Kee pointed out the lot is only 19 ft. wide in the rear, therefore only 2 spaces would be available there. Mr. Wagner asked if P1r. Sousares would be willing to dedicate the area at the rear of the plumbing shop to parking for the clinic and Mr. Sousares said this could happen. Mrs. Kee then informed the Board that Mr. Mayo, Director of Planning, had suggested to Mr. Sousares a combined site plan of the two businesses and then a study could be made of the available parking at that time. Mr. Wagner suggested this item be tabled again until ZBA Minutes 1-18-83 page 2 a combined site plan could be presented. Then Mr. Wagner so moved. Mr. Upham seconded • the motion. Mr. MacGilvray said the City would be willing to work with Mr. Sousares if he was willing to come up with a combined site plan. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a re nest for a variance to Rear Setback Re uire- ments Table A at 1004 Walton Drive. Request is in the name of Wayne ~ Mary Saslow. Wayne Saslow was sworn in and handed out information concerning his request. Mr. Mac- Gilvray read it, and said it concerned the request to delete several names from the peti- tions which had been presented against this variance; those name were Mr. ~ Mrs. Joe R. Callaway, Mr. Howard Bivins, and Mr. ~ Mrs. Johnson. Mr. MacGilvray said that before considering the petitions presented, the Board should consider the request for variance. Mr. Saslow said his wife had been painting (artist) in the home for 3 years, but now their children are old enough to require their own rooms, so her painting room would have to be given up. He said her work in this building would cause no noise, no traffic, no teach- ing, and no adverse effects on the neighborhood. He then explained the reasons for lo- cating it in the spot they had chosen included the shape of the lot, access to the house, present landscaping which would have to be destroyed if it were placed in another location, and the view his wife would have which would be conducive to her artistic talents. Mrs. Kee pointed out that the land to the rear of the Saslow property is actually an alley, rather than an easement. Mr. Sousares showed some photos of the area to the Board. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out there is room for this building on the lot without encroaching the setback requirements of the ordinance, and asked why the building could not be located somewhere else. Mr. Saslow's answer included light necessary for painting, access to the home and the irregular shape of the lot, as well as destruction of a neighbor's view. Mr. Lindsay talked about questions which had arisen concerning the possibility of this • being used commercially, and repeated what Mr. Saslow had earlier pointed out; that there would be no teaching, no traffic, no noise, and then asked if there would be commercial sales made out of the building. Mr. Saslow said it would not be like an art gallery, there is no bathroom, and it would be like an ordinary workshop, but quieter than most. Mr. Wagner asked if all possibilities had been considered in the placement of this building, and further added that it seemed to him that all hardships mentioned seemed like self- imposed hardships, when the size of the lot is considered. Mr. Saslow said the parti- cular kind of use would make the proposed site best. Ne further said that moving the building 10 ft. forward would make it seen from the street. Mr. Upham pointed out that most buildings of this nature can be seen from the street. Mr. Saslow mentioned the planned inclusion of a skylight in the building, and Mr. Wagner pointed out that light and skylights should make another site acceptable. Mr. Saslow then pointed out several buildings in the neighborhood which are in violation of the ordinance, and Mr. MacGilvray said that fact is not relevant if these buildings were there before the current ordinance went into affect in 1872. Mr. Wagner again mentioned the use of skylights in this build- ing which would provide ample light, and Mr. Saslow said only one skylight is being plan- ned. Mr. MacGilvray asked for any other people who had an interest in this to come for- ward, and pointed out the photos showing buildings in violation were not relevant because these buildings had been built prior to the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Upham concurred and said that he had visited the site, and he knew this to be a fact. Allen Fredericks was sworn in and said he is a neighbor and wanted to speak in favor of this variance. He said big trucks would not have to go down the alley, so that should pose no problem. • Mrs. E. F. Sauer was sworn in and spoke of the petition which she had presented to the Board. She spoke of zoning laws and deed restrictions, and pointed out that the size of the lot made another location of the building possible. Mr. MacGilvray asked about deed restrictions, and Mrs. Sauer said that they read that nothing should be built within 25 feet of the property line. Mr. MacGilvray then pointed out that deed restrictions were not a concern of this Board, but they were dealt with in another court. ZBA Minutes 1-18-82 page 3 Thomas Colbert was sworn in and said that although he is not an architect, he had de- • signed this building and showed drawings to the Board, and told them of reasons for the location and design of the building. Mr. MacGilvray asked him if this building could be turned, and Mr. Colbert said it was designed this way to take advantage of the best view. Mr. Upham reiterated that everything mentioned so far were self-imposed hardships. He asked for any unique feature of the land, and Mr. Colbert agreed there are no unique conditions of the land, but that the view would be destroyed in one instance, and a play- ground area for the children in another. Mr. MacGilvray asked if Mr. Colbert knew about the 25 foot setback requirement when he designed the location and Mr. Colbert answered that he had. Mr. Upham read directly from the variance request form: "This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not found in like districts", and pointed out that in answering this question, the issue of "unique and special conditions of the land" had not been addressed by the applicant. Joe Love of 1007 Puryear was sworn in and said that this building or its location really doesn't matter much to him, but pointed out to the Board that he finally has moved to a town with zoning laws where all people are treated fairly, and fears that granting this particular variance would be setting a precedent. Mary Leeber of 413 Walton was sworn in and stated she believes asthetics should be con- sidered due to Mrs. Saslow's occupation as an artist. Mr. MacGilvray commented saying the Board is bound by their Oath of Office to deal with the law which in this case does not cover asthetics in granting variances. Mary Saslow offered to answer any questions, so she was sworn in. Mr. Wagner asked if she is aware of how difficult it is for this Board to make a decision on this type of • request. She answered that if the Board is afraid of breaking the law, then no variances should ever be granted. Mr. MacGilvray then read the law the Board is charged to follow from the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that most variances requested concern inavail- ability of parking spaces on the lots in question, and further explained that in this in- stance there are no special and unique conditions of the land. Mr. Upham reiterated that he had specifically asked about gulleys, etc. on the land when he visited the site. Mrs. Saslow pointed out that she had worked on many committees for the City, she and her husband own the land, and she feels her rights are being infringed upon. Mr. Mac- Gilvray explained this ordinance covers all of the City of College Station, and is not just this Board's ordinance, but rather the citizens' ordinance. Mr. Wagner asked if a loft on their existing building, or a round corner on the proposed building, or some other alternative had been considered. Mrs. Saslow explained the importance of wall space necessary for her work, which would be provided by this proposed building. Mr. Lindsay explained that in his opinion this alley is not, and will never be used as an alley, except for a sewer easement. Mr. Love said from the audience that big trucks have used it for utilities and Mrs. Saslow said she had never seen big trucks in the alley. Mr. Lindsay then questioned whether the setback line should be measured from the center line of the alley or the edge, and referred to an instance in Southwood Valley where the alley had been measured as part of the setback. Mr. Love said if this were true, then he could do the same thing the Saslow's were planning to do. Joe Hutchison was sworn in and spoke of the special needs of an artist. He said the City needs creative people and expressed a desire for a "special variance" to be granted. Mary Leeder asked about the alley, and asked if her building was going on her own property • and if work was needed would the City be required to stay on "its" property, and then asked if this building would ever be in the way of any maintenance in the alley. She was told the building would not be in the way, and then was informed of the reasons for requiring setbacks, which included the setbacks, which included the safety of citizens. Mr. Upham ZBA Minutes 1-18-83 page 4 also spoke of the possible future utility needs. • Mr. Upham then made a motion to authorize a 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 unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: Orientation next to the house, orientation to exits of the house, to take advantage of both prevailing light and view, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Lindsay seconded the motion. Motion was defeated with 2 votes in favor (Lindsay ~ Donahue) and 3 against (Wagner, Upham ~ MacGilvray). Mrs. Kee then offered to read the paragraph from the ordinance concerning appeal, but Mr., Saslow declined her offer. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Other business Mr. Upham requested that steps be taken to get the ruling changed regarding separate action for each day's violation. Mrs. Kee said she would draft a memo to the City Attorney concerning Mr. Upham's request. Mrs. Kee then spoke of the necessity of the Board appointing a member to work on proce- dural rules with her, the City Attorney and a representative from City Council. Chairman Vi Cook was nominated by Mr. Upham, and her appointment was seconded by Mr. Wagner. Un- animous voting in favor of having Mrs. Cook act as Board representative on this committee followed. Mr. Saslow again came forward to tell the Board that they (the Saslow's) had been led to • believe that this request fora variance was merely a formality, and asked what happened, and mentioned his neighbor, Mrs. Sauer. Mr. Wagner told him that he (Mr. Saslow) had not presented a case they could rule in favor of, and then Mr. MacGilvray read him the charge handed down to Zoning Boards of Adjustments by the State of Texas. Mr. Saslow said he could speak to all points, and Mr. MacGilvray informed him that this is indeed so, and could be done through his attorney in a court of law. Then Mr. MacGilvray spoke of other alternatives available to the family. Mr. Upham pointed out the difference between a unique situation and a unique person, which seems to be the case in question tonight. Mrs. Kee asked to be allowed to clarify the fact that she is not a voting member of the Board, and that she had explained the hardship rule when the Saslow's had been in contact with her, and then apologized if she had not made the procedure perfectly clear during those previous contacts. Mr. Lindsay then made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried unanimous-I ly. ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • ~a y. /J~ /9~3 c.e~r ce~h,~ f~j;s ~`s f Coif . Y~'bf /R'G. ~~ u K~fC/5~ Cdr ~?.r rL eta ~/ d ur a~~,fe7~2of ~,•c~ a ~s--e//// ~"i `?~~S i~ r~a.~sf A~~~~ 7' • January 18, 1983 Zoning Board of Adjustment City of College Station College Station , Texas Members of the Zoning Board: This letter i~ in response to the notice we received on January'7~ from Jane Kee, Zoning Official regarding a request for a rear setback variance for Wayne and Mary Saslow. As home owners in the College Hills subdivision we have no objection to the Saslow's request for a rear setback variance at 1001 Walton Drive. We see no reason why Mary Saslow putting a studio for her painting in the back could possibly be harmful in any way to our neighborhood, especially since this is not a commercial venture. Mary having a studio to paint in does not pose a threat to this neighborhood as a nice, quiet residential area. It is our belief that what a homeowner does with his property is his own concern as long as it is not a nuisence or a hazard to the neighborhood. . We feel that the request should be granted. Sincerely Bob and Suzanne Segner v • PETITION l~le the undersigned support wary and~hlayne Saslow 1004 Ulalton Drive College Station Tx 77840 in their petition for a variance. Name Address `~ ~ ~ ~~ (Q 11 !n. ~/L. ~--~ / Y ~ -V~UJ~ 1 ~ ~ I -mow ~ iTSJ L~~r ~/ ~ .~ i n .~ PETITION l~le the undersigned support Mary and Ulayne Saslouu 1004 IAlalton Drive College Station TX 77840 in their petition for a variance. Name Address ~•