HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/1983 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 17, 1983
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Dan MacGilvray, Members Wagner, Upham, Wendt, Meyer
and Alternate Member McGuirk was in the audience.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Director of Planning Mayo, Asst to the Zoning
Official Dupies and Planning Technician Volk
Chairman MacGilvray introduced the new Board Members Wendt, Meyer and McGuirk. The
public hearing was then opened and the Chair stated the duties and obligations of the
Board.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of April 19, 1983.
Mr. MacGilvray referred to Item #5 and asked that his name be included on the list of
people contacted, as well as to Item #6 and requested the word "in" be changed to the
word "to". With those changes, Mr. Wagner then made a motion to approve the minutes
with Mr. Upham seconding. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0).
• AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of an a eal of a Plannin ~ Zonin Commission decision
den in site lan a royal due to the lack of an 8 foot setback on a arkin lot at 1 06
Welsh Street. A eal is in the name of Jan-Wic Homes, Inc. This item was tabled at the
April 19th meeting.
Mrs. Kee presented the appeal and gave the background of this site plan, referring to the
Project Review Committee reports in the packets, as well as to the minutes of the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission meetings and the approved, and proposed site plans. Mr. Mac-
Gilvray asked about the issuance of building permits and the actual pouring of the park-
ing lot, and Mrs. Kee explained; then he asked about the fact that the parking lot ex-
tends into the City right-of-way. Discussion followed. Mrs. Kee explained that the
plan the Board has is the proposed plan, and not what actually exists on the ground.
Proponents of this appeal were called forward and W. A. (Wic) McKean came forward and
was sworn in. He explained the site as it exists and further explained that the mistake
was made primarily because the 16 ft. R.O.W. on Welsh is atypical, as most streets call
for an 11 ft. R.O.W. on each side of the pavement. Mr. Upham asked if a surveyor had
laid this project out, and Mr. McKean answered that he had done it himself, and the mis-
take was two-fold; that he was not aware of the extra 5 ft. R.O.W., and he had mistakenly
set the building forward on the lot 5 feet, which had compounded the error which now
totals 10 feet. Ms. Meyer asked for clarification, and Mr. MacGilvray explained.
Mr. McKean continued with his proposal to reconstruct the present parking, moving it
back and using angled parking which he indicated has been approved by the City. Mr. Mac-
Gilvray asked Mr. Mayo to confirm this, and Mr. Mayo came forward, was sworn in and said
he would have to check on this to make sure, but he assumed the plans came from an approved
. Architectural Standards book. Mr. Upham asked if this parking lot is moved back out of
the right-of-way as the proposed plan indicated, would the site then meet all requirements.
P1r. McKean pointed out that he would still be four feet short of the required 8 foot set-
back requirement.
ZBA Minutes
5-17-83
page 2
Mr. MacGilvray asked if the proposed plan would cover the required parking for the project
• and Mrs. Kee indicated that it would. The proposed 4 parking spaces at the rear of the
building were discussed, and Mr. Wendt asked if these spaces could be designated for
employee only parking. Mr. McKean said he would do whatever the City requests.
Mr. Upham spoke of the requirement of the Board to consider "unique and special conditions
of the land not normally found in like districts" and stated that in his opinion, be-
cause this is new construction and the other projects around had been able to comply, it
would be hard to fulfill this requirement, and in his opinion, the hardship would be
only financial.
Mr. Mayo came forward as an opponent to this appeal and stated staff has taken a position
of recommending denial of relief for several reasons, including the 8 foot setback wi~ich
assures the City there will always be 8 feet between the parking lot and the pavement
for the street, because there is always the possibility that the street could be widened
at some future point in time. He advised that the 8 foot setback not only provides a
green space, but also serves as a guarantee that the sight distance necessary for safety
can be provided. Mr. Upham concurred with this reasoning, and stated that this is an
unfortunate situation, but he fears approval of this appeal and a variance to the required
8 foot setback would cause problems with acceptance of standards in the future, and could
be a step backward.
Mr. MacGilvray asked if there is a viable alternative, and Mr. Mayo pointed out that
there is land adjacent to this tract which is owned by the same person, and upon which
a second phase to this project has been mentioned. He went on to say that this second
phase could be planned on a scale which would allow parking for this project to overflow
• to that tract. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. McKean if any alternatives had been considered
and he replied that they had exhausted all alternatives.
Mr. McKean asked Mr. Mayo if the 8 foot setback had ever been waived, and Mr. Mayo replied
that it had been for some four-plexes in University Park, but that would have been some
years ago; and that in the past few years it has not been waived. Mr. Mayo further point-
ed out that the P.R.C. and the PAZ had specifically required the 8 foot setback on this
project. Discussion followed concerning certain commercial projects where the setbacks
had been waived, and Mr. Mayo pointed out that on one in particular, it had been waived
only after the City had found it had approved a maneuverability pattern which would not
work, and in order to correct that problem, the setback had been waived. He went on to
say that in retrospect, in all probability it would not be waived should the problem occur
now. Further discussion followed concerning the possibility of widening Welsh, increased
speed limits, establishment of sidewalks in the right-of-way and the possibility of
creation of a dangerous situation at the driveway of this project.
Mr. Wagner asked about dates of the review by the P.R.C. in relation to beginning of
construction of this project, and stated that to him, the requirements which had been
approved by the PAZ were very clear. Mr. McKean agreed, but again stated that two errors
had been made. The requirement of the eight foot setback was discussed, after which Mr.
Wagner reminded the Board that they are not considering a variance, but rather either
upholding a decision or repealing a decision the Planning ~ Zoning Commission has made.
Mr. Wendt then made a motion to reverse the decision made by the Planning and Zoning
Commission in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance for the following reason:
• the 20 foot setback shown on March '83 plan is adequate and the parking requirements are
met as required. Mr. MacGilvray asked if unique and special conditions should be addressed,
and Mrs. Kee replied that they should in cases of variances, but the Board is now involved
ZBA Minutes
5-17-83
page 3
in policy-making decisions. Thls motion died for lack of a second.
• Mr. Upham then made a motion to uphold the decision made by the Planning ~ Zoning Com-
mission in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance, as the decision meets
the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Wagner seconded.
Mr. Wendt asked if this Board could make a compromise and Mr. MacGilvray advised that
compromises were not within the jurisdiction of this Board, although he, too, leans
in that direction. He further pointed out that the owner and developer had to come up
with any compromises. Votes were cast, and the motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Wendt voting
against it.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a variance request to Section 8-D.9 of Ordinance 850
limitin commercial businesses to one detached si n. A lication is in the name of
PlantatPon Oaks A artments/Tower Pro erties LTD. This item was tabled at the A ril 19th
meeting .
r 1
U
r~
Mrs. Kee gave background to the ZBA variance given in 1976 and the Conditional Use Permit
for a Daycare center issued by the PAZ in 1982, then explained this request. No one was
in the audience to represent the applicant, and Mrs. Kee explained that after the request
was tabled at the last meeting, she had contacted the applicant and informed them of the
time and date of this meeting when the request would be heard. The Chair then made a
motion to deny this request because there was no one there to represent the applicant
on two separate occasions. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a variance request to Section 7-C of Ordinance 850
regarding the number of required on-site parking spaces provided at a project located on
Valley View Drive and the Texas Avenue frontage road. Application is in the name of
Auto Horse, Inc., a Texas corporation.
Mrs. Kee gave the background leading up to this request fora variance, stating that the
City may have contributed to the creation of a hardship for the applicant which would not
be a totally self-imposed hardship. She explained that several projects in shopping
centers have written cross-parking agreements, and the City had mistakenly assumed that
a written agreement could be furnished for this project, and had approved the site plan
and then issued the building permit for the project to begin prior to receiving the
written cross-parking agreement. She further explained that after exhausting all avenues,
the architect, the developer and his lawyers have been unable to get this written agree-
ment, and the building has already begun.
Larry Catlin, attorney for the developer came forward and was sworn in. He gave a more
complete background to the developers' efforts to acquire the written agreement, stating
names of management companies and lease holders which had been contacted by a different
attorney and subsequently by him, to no avail. He further indicated that until as late
as the beginning of April of 1983, the developer and he were under the impression that the
agreement would be forthcoming, and that there would be no problems, but on April 20th,
a letter was received from the K-Mart corporation denying the request citing a decision
which had been reached in December of 1982 (but about which the developer had never been
informed).
Mr. MacGilvray asked about the possibility of leasing spaces or of buying additional land,
and Mr. Catlin advised that all possible remedies to this problem had been pursued. He
further said that K-Mart is not willing to furnish a written agreement, but also has not
indicated that the spaces could not be used, should the need arise.
Mr. Wagner asked about the type of business and Ms. Meyer asked about lot dimensions.
Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Upham agreed that a building which is too big for the lot has
been designed. Further discussion followed concerning other cross-parking agreements in
the City and Mr. Mayo cited several cases, indicating Grandy's restaurant as the most
ZBA Minutes
5-17-83
page 4
recent case.
• Ira Held came forward and was sworn in and asked the Board to consider that a great
deal of the square footage of this building will be warehousing. Parking for warehouses
was discussed, and a figure of less than the 8 parking spaces variance was reached, and
the number was revised to perhaps 3 spaces short.
Walt Harden was sworn in and stated that he was contacted as a property owner within
200 feet of this project, and stated further that this variance is acceptable to him.
Ms. Meyer made the motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements (Section 7)
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: (1)the applicant was working under the assumption of approval of owners of
adjacent property,(2)the applicant was working under staff approval of a building permit
and, (3)adequate parking is available on adjacent property. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Wagner and carried 4-1 with Mr. Upham voting against.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a variance r
regarding side setback requirements for the erect
cation is in the name of Dorothy ~ J. G. Mackin.
Mrs. Kee explained the request and non-conforming uses vs. variances were discussed.
Mr. Upham gave the history of this particular area and cited his inclination to treat
this area as unique.
Dorothy Mackin was sworn in as a proponent (and applicant) of this variance and stated
• that Mrs. Kee had explained the request adequately. She further stated that this carport
would not obstruct anyone's vision, was not contrary to the public interest, and she
was simply requesting a variance.
Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum side 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: (1)this is the originally platted area on the east side of the City of College
Station, therefore there are no like districts and such that the spirit of this ordinance
shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Wendt seconded. Mr. Wagner asked
if the Board is comfortable with this reason as the sole condition and suggested an
amendment to limiting the non-conformity. Mr. Upham moved to amend the motion to include
the limitation, and repeated the motion: I move to authorize a variance to the minimum
side 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: (1) this is the originally platted area on the east
side of the City of College Station, therefore there are no other like districts and such
that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, sub-
ject to the following limitations: (1)the proposed addition will not exceed the existing
non-conformity. Amended motion was seconded by Mr. Wendt and carried unanimously (5-0).
nest to Table A of Ordinance 850
n of a patio cover at 303 West Uni-
• Mrs. Kee explained the background of the property and the current request, then passed
around photos of the project which had been taken on this date. She stated staff has
concerns over the stack of windows in the photos, as the building permit which has been
issued covers a patio cover which meets setbacks and the request is for a patio cover
from property line to property line, but if windows are proposed, it would indicate
that a room is being created rather than a walled-in area with a cover over it.
t to Table A of Ordinance 850
on of a carport at
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a variance
ZBA Minutes
5-17-83
page 5
Should this be the case, technically the City would not be considering any additional
• seating, but the added area might inadvertantly create the need for additional parking,
(even if it is not required based on numbers of seats).
Mr. MacGilvray n~adaloud a letter the Board has received from Richard B. Benning in
which Mr. Benning requests a denial of this variance request.
Allen Boegner came forward as a proponent and was sworn in, stating he was planning to
raise the walls and include the windows, but if the Board does not want him to do this,
it did not make any difference to him. The Chair asked Mr. Boegner to explain the site
plan he had furnished, and he went forward and did so. Discussion followed concerning
the additional capacity although no additional seats were to be included, and Mr. Mac-
Gilvray asked Mrs. Kee if this business has the required number of parking spaces, and
she explained that the parking requirement had been met for the original use, but tech-
nically does not meet the current parking requirements. Ms. Meyer asked for clarifica-
tion, stating that if this variance is fora patio cover only, and the applicant has
already received a building permit for a patio cover which meets the setback require-
ments, what would happen if this request is granted, Mr. Upham explained that any changes
to the original proposal which is covered by the existing building permit would have to
be covered in a new building permit.
Donald Bouchard came forward and was sworn in and stated he is a friend of the applicant
and a customer at the business, and that he thinks the patio cover would enhance the
area and is in favor of the request.
Further discussion followed concerning the zero setbacks existing in the Northgate area,
• the possibility of changing the Zoning Ordinance for that area, the burned out buildings
which will not be replaced because of the restrictions in the current Zoning Ordinance,
the possibility of this area being unique, the addition of a room to this building, and
the convenience to customers of this business. Mr. Wendt then made a motion to authoriz
a variance to the minimum side 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: (1)due to the typical zero
lot line (zero setback) situation found in the Northgate area. Mr. Wagner seconded
the motion which carried 4-1 with Mr. MacGilvray voting against.
Discussion of putting limitations on this variance followed with the decision reached
that the building permit controls the necessary checks, and this variance is not for
extending any walls or adding any screens or windows to the walls.
e
Mr. MacGilvray then explained the variance to Mr. Boegner stating that if he asks for
anything in addition to the extension of the patio cover from property line to property
line, it will have to be considered separately from this variance by the Building Depart-
ment and the Planning Staff and is not covered by this variance.
~% AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Consideration of a variance request to Table A of Ordinance 850
regarding rear setback requirements for the erection of a arage at Lot 1 Block 2 of
Emerald Forest IV Subdivision, located at the corner of Rosebud ~ Bent Tree. Aoolica-
tion is in the name of Ranco Home.
Mrs. Kee gave the background of this request, stating that setback requirements had not
been discussed at the time other problems on the lot were addressed, but that a setback
• problem had been noted on the building permit. She felt that staff must take some of
the responsibility for this problem, but that the developer also states on the building
permit that he is aware of the requirements.
ZBA Minutes
5-17-83
page 6
Sarah Norman came forward and was sworn in as a proponent of this request and identified
herself as one of the applicants. She reiterated the background already given and then
• referred to a plot plan provided. Discussion followed concerning the utilities in the
easement which would be at the edge of the garage. Mr. MacGilvray explained the problems
the Board faces with the corner lots and said there are plans for buildings which would
fit on this tot, and offered the opinion that planning has been neglected in this case.
Ted Randall came forward and was sworn in and identified also as an applicant. He gave
generally the same background as had been heard, but added that he, as a builder, had
been assured by the previous owner that there were no problems with the City on this plan.
Mrs. Kee gave information that the builder who had drawn up these plans had said he had
spoken to the City and had been told there were no problems, but she has been unable to
locate anyone from the City who had this conversation.
.7
Ms. Meyer pointed out that a corner lot with an easement across the rear is not a unique
condition. Mrs. Kee spoke of the fact that although the builder is ultimately responsible,
staff did not discuss the problem of setback with him. Discussion followed concerning
staff's mistaken actions in issuing a building permit where a setback problem existed
without discussing it with the applicant, and then the Chair (MacGilvray) 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: (1)unique lot configuration
contributing to staff error by City in issuing original building permit on project clearly
in non-compliance with rear setback requirement. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which
carried 4-1 (Meyer voting against).
Minutes for the Special Legal Workshop were approved with the Chair (MacGilvray) making
the motion and Mr. Upham seconding. Motion to approve carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other business
Mrs. Kee spoke of a proposal by the Director of Planning to take a tour prior to each
meeting. The Board discussed the proposal and gave Mrs. Kee a reading that the Board
is against the tour citing the possible destruction of independent thinking if it was
done.
Mr. Upham moved to adjourn the meeting with Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried unanimously.
.-.
f
APPROVED: ~
i ' a y
A Chairman, Dan MacGilvray
ATTEST:
(~() .LCli1.L >~U h--~~
City Secretary, Sian Jones
%~*Agenda Item No. 7 was deleted from the approval of
This item is to be clarified by staff and resubmitted
refer to minutes of 6-21-83 for further details.
the minutes of this meeting.
at July, 1983 meeting. Please
ZBA Minutes
5-17-83
page 6
Covering Agenda Item No. 7 which was deleted from approval of minutes on 6-21-83 and taken
• back to the ZBA as shown on 7-19-83.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Consideration of a variance request to Table A of Ordinance 850 regard-
ing rear setback requirements for the erection of a garage at Lot 16 Block 2 of Emerald
Forest IV Subdivision, located at the corner of Rosebud ~ Bent Tree. Application is in
the name of Ranco Home.
Mrs. Kee gave the background of this request, stating that setback requirements had not been
discussed at the time other problems on the lot were addressed, but that a setback requirement
had been noted on the building permit. She felt that staff must take some of the responsi-
bility for this problem, but that the builder also states on the building permit that he
is aware of the requirements.
Sarah Norman came forward and was sworn in as a proponent of this request and identified her-
self as one of the applicants. She reiterated the background already given and then referred
to a plot plan provided. Discussion followed concerning the utilities in the easement which
would be at the edge of the garage. Mr. MacGilvray explained the problems the Board faces
with the corner lots and said there are plans for buildings which would fit on this lot, and
offered the opinion that planning has been neglected in this case.
Ted Randall came forward and was sworn in and identified also as an applicant. He gave
erally the same background as had been heard, but added that he, as a builder, had been
by the previous owner that there were no problems with the Clty on this plan. Mrs. Kee
information that the builder who had drawn up these plans had said he had spoken to the
• and had been told there were no problems, but she has been unable to locate anyone from
City who had this conversation.
gen-
assured
gave
City
the
Ms. Meyer pointed out that a corner lot with an easement across the rear is not a unique cond-
ition. Mrs. Kee spoke of the fact that although the builder is ultimately responsible, staff
did not discuss the problem of setback with him, although the problem or requirement was noted
on the building permit. Discussion followed concerning staff's mistaken actions in issuing a
building permit where a setback problem existed without discussing it with the applicant, and
then the Chair (MacGilvray) 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: (1)unique lot conftguratPon contributing to staff error by City in issuing
original building permit on project clearly in non-compliance with rear setback requirement.
Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried 4-1 (Meyer voting against).
AP P RO'ViE D
C7
i'~ ~
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances: From Section 11-6.5
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
sign regulations (Section 8)
minimum setback (Table A)
parking requirements (Section 7)
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: ~~ V ~ ~ ~
~. r
2.
•
3.
4.
6.
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, subject to the following limitations:
2.
3.
4.
This motion was made by
Seconded by
The variance was grante
5.
ZBA MAC ~7, ~4~
•
•
1~ ~ ~-~~, ~ _ ~ ~. r
r.
r
•