Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/1984 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment February 21, 1984 7:00 P.M. • • McGuirk MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Wagner & Alternate Member Meyer STAFF ATTENDING: Zoning Official Kee, City Attorney Denton, Planning Assistant Longley, Planning Technician Volk, and Asst. City Attorney Locke (present for a portion of the meeting). MEMBERS ATTENDING: Chairman Cook, Members MacGilvray, Upham, Wendt and Alternate Member Chairman Cook opened the meeting and explained the functions and limitations of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of January 17, 1984 Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Upham seconded. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Cook abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a re uest for variance to arkin front and side setback requirements as set forth in Ordinance 50 Section 7 and Table A for a business at 509 University Drive. Request is in the name of Al Gutierrez. This request was tab' on 10-1 - ~. Chairman Cook explained that this request was tabled in October of 1983 pending a revised site plan. Mrs. Kee then explained that the plan being considered on this date is one which the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved, but pointed out that it is signi- ficantly different from the one which the applicant initially presented following the tabling action of the ZBA. She then explained just what the applicant intends to do and then explained the exact variances he is requesting. Al Gutierrez came forward and was sworn in, Mr. MacGilvray expressed surprise at the site plan proposed, stating he recalled the last hearing and the ideas expressed by the appli- cant at the time which did not include a proposal of a two story building in addition to an expansion at ground level. Mr. Gutierrez explained what had previously been proposed, stating that after studies of the area, he felt that plan did not fully utilize the possibilities of this business, therefore, he has decided to expand to include both a restaurant and retail businesses. He went on to say that if all the cars which currently park in front of his business were moved to the rear parking lot, he would still have ample parking. Mrs. Kee explained how the required parking figure had been arrived at indicating that any variance beyond what is being considered tonight would have to come back before this Board. General discussion followed concerning the number of variances being requested, how much time the architect had spent studying local codes after which Mr. Upham speculated that the person who drew this plan seemed to have tried to present a plan which would require as many variances as possible. Mr. Upham went on to explain that many of the problems in Northgate have been there for many years, and that this Board ed ZBA Minutes 2-21-84 page 2 has been trying to find ways to live with the problems, but a plan of this magnitude would • in all probability proliferate this already existing problem. Mr. MacGilvray agreed, stating that an expansion of this type would intensify the problem in the Northgate area. He speculated that a plan could be made which would meet all setback requirements by limiting the square footage to a specific size, thus the only variance which would then be required would be a parking variance, but one of less magnitude than this request. After discussion it was agreed that both setback variances involved substantial variance requests, and the plan could quite easily be revised to meet at least some of the require- ments. Mr. MacGilvray Bald he would not offer any more ideas to the applicant as to plan- ning the site, but said he believed it is up to the applicant to present a plan which would incorporate a compromise which this Board could then consider. Mr. Upham then made a motion to table this item until the applicant is ready to present a compromise plan which would not. involve so many variance requests. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNpA iTEM N0. 4: Consideration of a re uest for variance to rear setback re uirements as set forth in Ordinance 85.0 District Use Schedule Table A at the residence at 80 Welsh. Request is in the name of John M. Brown. Mrs. Kee explained the request concerns a 14x40 portable building which has been located on the lot at 804 Welsh and currently encroaches the required rear setback by approxi- mately 4 feet. She outlined alternatives the applicant could turn to in lieu of receiv- ing a variance from this Board which include removing the building from the lot, cutting down the size of the building or relocating the building which would entail losing a tree in the yard to accommodate the building. In answer to questions from the Board about how this building was placed at this location, Mrs. Kee offered the information that she had advised the applicant prior to locating the building on this lot that he would have fio have a building permit and also that he would have to meet the setbacks as required by ordinance, but after that she found out that the building had been moved onto the lot without a permit and the rear setback had been encroached. John Brown, 804 Welsh was sworn in. Mr, MacGilvray announced to the Board and public that he is acquainted with the applicant, but that he has not discussed this request with him. Mr. Brown told of his plans for using the building as a storage, workshop and play area for his children; that the building-will be electrically wired to the house; that the building is not set on a foundation, but rather on skids under which concrete pads have been used to level the building. Mr. MacGilvray asked about his moving the building onto the lot without a permit, and Mr. Brown explained that the building had been loaded onto a trailer and he had called City Hall, and "Dan" (Dan Dupies, a former Assistant Zoning Official) advised him to go ahead and unload it until the ZBA could hear the request, even though he had no permit and would encroach the setback. He said that after the building was placed, he applied for the building permit which could not be issued until a variance was granted. Mr. Brown went on to explain that the residence on the lot had Been a duplex but that he had opened it up, and now the entire structure is a single family residence. He further explained that his plans are to sell this building when he leaves this area. Mr. Upham said that in his opinion, a building of this size is over- whe1ming. Mr. Wendt asked Mr. Brown to point out something unique about his situation and Mr. Brown stated that if the Building is placed in another direction, it will be over sewer lines and existing trees will have to be destroyed. He went on to tell the Board that no one will be living in the building, and if he is allowed to keep the building, other out buildings on the lot will be moved. Discussion of the neighborhood, non-conform- • ities which were grandfathered in at the time of this ordinance, upgrading of the neighbor- hood followed, after which proponents and opponents to this variance were invited to speak. ZBA Minutes 2-21-84 Page 3 Mrs. Lambert Wilkes, 501 Welsh Avenue, and the owner of 902 Welsh Avenue, was sworn in • and stated she has concern over the affect a building of this size has on the neighbor- hood. She further stated that the fact that the building was bought and moved in with- out a permit and with full knowledge that a permit was necessary goes against the grain. She summarized by stating that she objects to the building on the basis of the size of the building and the fear that the City will .have to watch it continually because it does have air conditioners and could easily become another rental unit. Mr. Upham assured her that since Mr. Brown has converted what was a duplex to a single family dwelling by opening the wall between the 2 units, the land can never again be used for a duplex again, as the iot is in an R-l zoning district. Mr. McGuirk informed Mrs. Wilkes that this Board is not discussing the legalties of fine existence of this building except as it applies fio the variance requested tonight, that being the required 25 foot rear setback. 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 unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts and there are a1fiernatives; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance woufid nofi result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion seconded by Mr. Upham and carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a re uest for variance to the Si n Re ulations as set forth in Ordinance 50 Section for an office building at 140 University Drive. Request is in the name of Larry. .Landry Company. • Mrs. Kee explained that this request is for a variance to the ordinance regulations that Larry Landry, 4018 Rainvalley Drive, Dryan, was sworn in and passed around a photo of the building .and the sign, stating that the wing walls are attached to the building and were built with the building, but agreed that the center of the wall is detached, as staff has implied. Mrs. Kee said she made her interpretation because she does not think the wail is attached just because it has a common foundation with the building. Mr. Landry said in his mind the walls and the building are all one structure. Mr. Landry said that he does not consider this a detached sign, and further informed the Board that he has received information to the effect that the new sign ordinance may allow this type of sign. Mr. Upham informed the applicant that the proposed new sign ordinance is not rele- vant in this ease, Mr. Landry asked for clarification, stating that it is now his under- standing that he could block out the words "French Arbor" and leave "1408 University Drive" and Mrs. Kee said that is correct. there can be no detached signs in A-P zoning districts. She went on to explain that the staff's policy is to allow small, detached address only signs, and the applicant had been advised of this rule at the time of the Project Review Committee review of the site plan, but since the building was erected, staff noticed this sign and notified the applicant that it is in violation of ordinance regulations. She then referred to another variance request by the Texana National Bank, which had been dropped when the applicant learned he could have an address or a directional sign but that he could not have the name of the bank on that sign in an A-P district. Discussion. followed concerning the looks of the wall, the way the wall is built and Mr. Wendt asked for a clarification of the definition of a detached sign. Mr. Upham • stated that the sign is not an advertisement of a business, but rather identifies a specific piece of geography. Mrs. Cook asked City Attorney Denton if a variance is being requested or rf an appeal of an interpretation is being requested. Mr. Denton replied ZBA Minutes 2-21-84 page 4 that the question of the definition • that the current ordinance does not Assistant City Attorney Locke asked Chimney Hill Retail Center and Mrs. considered part of the building. M of a detached sign must be resolved, and pointed out make a clear definition of attached or detached signs. how this sign would differ from the tower at the Kee said she has the understanding that the tower is r. Denton said the tower has four sides. Mr. Upham then made a motion to deny the variance to the sign regulations (Section 8) from the terms of this ordinance on the basis of precedence, i.e., Texana National Bank sign.- This motion died for lack of a second, Mr, McGuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations (Section 8) 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) Although possibly not legally within the strictures of attached signs, the location of the sign on the land renders it indistinguishable from an attached sign, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in un- necessary hardship to this applicant being: a strictly legally attached sign would not enhance the archPtecture of the structure, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wendt, and carried by a vote of 4-1 (Upham}. Mrs. Cook requested that staff review this case, as she is not comfortable voting for something which is not necessarily considered a detached sign, and requested clarification of the definition of a detached sign. Lowell Denton, 4218 Willow Oak, Bryan (City Attorney for College Station) was sworn in and stated the action taken by this Board tonight is not inappropriate and the Board has • now identified a need. He stated that the Board took action on the request as presented by the applicant and by the action, taken, has implied that the Zoning Official's inter- pretation is correct and this ..sign is a detached sign, He reminded the Board that the object of interpretation of the ordinance is consistency. AGENDA STEM N0, 6: Other Business Discussion followed concerning action the Legal department has taken following Board action, with Mr, Penton requesting that a legal discussion be placed as an agenda item on the next meeting. Further general discussion regarding the request followed, with Mr. Wendt making a motion to adjourn this meefiing and Mr. McGuirk seconding the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: Chairman, Violetta Cook ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER /~ ~ DATE a oZ~ d • NAME ADDRESS 1. ~ ~ ~ Ci 3. 4. 5. 6 . .~;,. 7. 8. 9 . .. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. i 24. 25. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS . Variances: From Section Il-B,5 I move to deny a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section £3) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: z. 3. • 4. 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. Th i s mot ion was ade b ~~ ~~ ~'` ~' Y Seconded by ~..~._--- The variance was de ied by the following vote: ' ~ ~ ~~ Chair Signature Date • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.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: 1 ~osf 11 a~~e.~~~--. ~ -" a22i~e~ 2 . t-'i~'~! r ~ Rio r--, i ~.. ,~., ~.~__ _ . _ ,. .. _ /,..yi? - - - ~ - rho latw/ rpngrrl ~ 3• 4. 5• 6. a~~-" and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in~~an,r~cessary hard hip to this a pl ican bei g: ~ Q~~~~Gr1~ and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: 1. 2. 3• 4_ This motion was m e by Seconded by The varia~~e was grante by the lowing vote: D e Chair Signature