Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/1984 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment May 15, 1984 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS ATTENDING: Chairman Cook, Members Wendt, Wagner, Upham, McGuirk; Alternate Members Fry ~ Meyer in the audience; Mayor Hatter was present for Agenda Item #1 MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF ATTENDING: Zoning Official Kee, Asst. City Attorney Locke, Planning Technician Volk; City Attorney Denton was present for Agenda Item #5 AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Administration of Oath of Office to new members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Mayor Halter administered Oaths of Office to Dorothy Meyer, Jim Fry, J. Spencer Wendt, Gale Wagner and Jack Upham and thanked them for making this committment to serve the City and community. Chairman Cook then opened the meeting, explaining the functions and limitations of the ZBA. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Approval of Minutes - meeting of April 17, 1984 Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Upham seconding. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Cook abstained), • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Hear Visi-tors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of request for variance to rear setback to construct a new office addition adjacent to the existing bays and adjoining the rear property line; also variance to front setback for addition of a new canopy u to the front ro ert line at the existing business at 15 Texas Avenue. Application for variance is in the name of Rudolph Prigge. Mrs. Kee explained that the existing zoning on this piece of property is C-1 General Com- mercial, which requires a 25 ft. minimum front setback and a 15 ft, rear setback. She stated that there are two existing buildings on the tract, one which the applicant plans to raze and replace with a new office building which will extend to the rear property line and adjoin the existing remaining building which is located 6g feet from the rear property line, and is therefore, a non-conforming structure. In addition, the applicant wants to install a canopy to the front of this new building which will extend to the front property line, thus encroaching the front setback requirements and necessitating the request for variance to front setback requirements. She informed the Board that if these requests are granted, the applicant wilt be required to submit a site plan to the Planning Department for Project Review Committee approval, and should there not be room on the site to accommo- date the required number of striped parking spaces for the structures, the applicant will then have to come before this Board again for a variance to parking requirements. She said this determination cannot be made now because a definite site plan has not been furnished. • Mrs. Kee then explained that there is an existing Bryan R.E.A, utility line located parallel fio the front property line of this tract, the existing non-conforming canopy is located approximately one foot from the edge of this 20 foot utility easement and the pro- posed canopy would encroach this utility easement established for this major transmission ZBA Minutes 5-15-84 page 2 line which is used to energize areas south of town according to information received from • Bryan Utilities. Mrs. Kee pointed out that there appears to be enough room on this site to construct an office building without variances, then pointed out that a request for a variance to the rear setback requirement was denied on this site in 1980, and further, that nothing has changed on this site since that time. She also pointed out that the applicant is asking to make an addition or expansion to an existing non-conforming structure, but is asking for a variance to the rear setback requirements rather than an expansion to a nonconform- ing structure, since the proposed addition would exceed 25i of the existing structure. Discussion followed with Mr. McGuirk asking about the non-conformity of the Focus Photo building adjacent to this property and if the Red Lobster had been developed without a variance. Mrs, Kee explained that Focus Photo is 5 feet from the existing garage to the south, thus is non-conforming, and that Red Lobster had been built without variances. She further explained that a Mr. Richards who is with the Red Lobster corporation had contacted her and had explained that he had no objections to these variances, but had requested that if they were granted, some kind of screening device be required between this business and his. Mr. Upham said that this request could be considered a parallel to a request heard at the last meeting when the applicant then wanted to build what he wanted to build, without regard for rules and ordinances, and that he believes that there is room on this site to rebuild without variances. Rudolph Prigge, the applicant was sworn in at the request of the Board to answer Mr. Upham's • question as to whether or not he was planning to include the use of a portable building on this site. Mr. Prigge answered that he does not plan the use of a portable building, but that the building proposed is a permanent structure. Mr. Wendt asked Mrs, Kee how wide the proposed building could be if it conforms to all ordinance requirements, and Mrs. Kee answered that. she does not know because the applicant had not included any dimensions on the site plans provided. Mr. Wendt pointed out that staff has not given any kind of recommendation to the Board, and Mrs. Kee replied that she believes that the Hoard and applicant should determine if there are any special or unique conditions of the land which would allow granting of a variance, but that perhaps the width of the R.O,W. for Texas Avenue could be considered unique. She then stated that the ques- tion concerning the width of the proposed building is a valid question, and suggested that Mr. Wendt ask Mr, Prigge for that information. Mr. Wagner asked aloud if perhaps the R.E,A. utility easement/line could be construed as a special or unique condition, Mr. Upham stated that it belongs to the City of Bryan and this Board would have no jurisdiction over it, and also that the existing building is of very solid concrete block construction and that he believes that it could be redesigned or remodelled, but if a new building is necessary, he believes one that is functional can be designed which can still stay within the confines of all ordinances, rules and laws. Mr. Wendt stated that he believes the 62 foot separation between the existing bays and the property line can be construed as unique because it has been established for approxi- mately 45 years, thus sets a precedent. Mr. Upham stated that the useful life of the existing building is not over, but Mr, Wagner said that because the applicant is here, that may not be so, but even so, he has a tendency to agree with Mr. Wendt that a precedent has • been set an this site with the 6~ ft. setback, and wondered if there could be a problem with Fire Department regulations. Mrs, Kee said she had contacted the Fire Marshal who has stated that he has no problem with the plans because the building code would require ZBA Minutes 5-15-84 page 3 fire walls to cover possible hazards. Mr. Wagner said there still may be a problem with the proposed canopy being located under utility lines and the gasoline use at the site. • Mr. Wendt said he would like to propose a motion regarding the rear setback variance request. Mr. McGuirk said he would like to address the rear setback requirement before a motion was offered, then stated that the problem with the rear setback requirement had been handled 4 years ago, and that nothing has changed on this site since that time. Mr. Upham said he agrees with Mr. McGuirk, but Mr. Wendt disagreed stating this whole area is developing now, but the precedent had been set for this site 45 years ago. He further speculated that denying this variance would be like denying this individual the fullest use of his property. Mr. Wendt said that in the past 12 months without exception, where there has been a non- conformity of 15 ar 20 years of age involved, the Board has considered the precedent which was set and has usually made favorable motions for the applicant to be able to use his property. Mr. Upham pointed out that several of these cases had been in residential areas which bordered on open areas, and were not in the process of change as this area is, has been and will be in the future. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to deny this variance to the front and rear 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: (1) The canopy will extend into the front setback further than any other nearby structure and, (2)The rear setback variance has been previously denied and no new extenuating circumstances have been presented, and because a strict enforcement of the provislons 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. • Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. Heidi Glazer, 7116 San .Mario, College Station came forward from the audience and asked to ', address the Board. She was sworn in. She then stated she is appalled at the casual way this board is treating this request and the lack of knowledge of the site and past requests !I they .have displayed, She went on to state the utility line is a dead line and has no power and that the request of 4 years ago was fora portable building, whereas this request is for a permanent, new structure which would be an asset to-the City as the old existing build- ing is in disrepair and is a fire hazard. Then she stated they have no alternative plans i because the right-of-way in front which is owned by the State limits their expansion. Mr. Wagner stated that the function of this Board is to find unique or special conditions of the land other than financial which would allow the applicant to break the law, and that she is as-king the Board to approve a building which has not been built and for which no dimensions or plans have been provided, and which is simply the most convenient for the applicant. Ms. Glazer stated that their business offers many services other stations do not offer, and what they have proposed is what the business needs to operate. She then stated the canopy is not a structure nor would it endanger anything, but would offer the employees some comfort. Mr. Wagner stated that this proposed canopy is not unlike a carport, and many residences cannot build new carports because it is against the law. Ms. Glazer stated the bay building itself will not be removed or extended, but will be joined to the new building, and that only the office building would be changed. She went on to state that what they are asking is to be able to construct a building to meet codes and that the • existing building is a fire hazard and' they are unable to remodel it because it has 3 bathrooms. Mr. Upham questioned this last statement. Mrs. Cook intervened, stating again the functions and limitations of this Board, adding that just because someone wants or needs • • • ZBA Minutes 5-15-84 page 4 to do something is not enough reason for the Board to grant a variance. Ms. Glazer asked if she had 10 days to appeal this to a court and Chairman Cook replied that if this is denied, and the applicant wants to appeal, that is the next step. Mr. Wagner pointed out to Ms. Glazer that they cannot build in the State's R.O.W. because it is against the law, and Mr. Upham stated that what the applicant is asking to do is against the laws of this City. Votes were cast and motion failed by a vote of 2-3 with Wagner, Wendt ~ Cook voting against). Mr. McGuirk explained that this Board does not make capricious judgments, stating that his motion did not address fihe question of a utility easement or whether or not these lines are dead. He then read his motion aloud again. Ms. Glazer stated that the existing building is an eyesore and will not house the 25 employees required to operate the busi- ness. She said that if they "went up'" with the building, it would be an eyesore. Mr. Upham explained that this Board is requesting that the applicant take the plans to an architect or someone who draws site plans to see if the plan can be altered to meet exist- ing City requirements. Mr. Wendt then stated that this motion did not mention any special conditions of the land, and he disagreed, stating that he believes the 6~ foot setback on the building housing the bays establishes a, precedent of approximately 45 years and is therefore a special condition of this land. Mr. Wendt then made a motion to table this request because he believes there is another workable plan which can be presented and because the drawings submitted with this request include no dimensions and if documentation can be presented to this Board affirming that the Bryan REA ufiility lines are indeed dead, that information may become pertinent to this case. Mrs, Cook agreed, stating that she, too, believes something is missing from the proposal and it may well be the lack of dimensions and the possibility that the utility lines are dead, Mr. Wagner seconded the motion to table the request. Mr. Wendt went on to say that he believes the one building would be considered unique in that it had been built 45 years ago, and suggested the applicant go back to the drawing board to see if more information can be supplied. Votes were cast on the motion to table which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Other Business Mr. Wagner stated that he wanted information concerning a request for a parking variance which had been tabled at a previous meeting. He then made a motion to remove this item from the table. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Cook abstained). Mrs. Kee then informed the Board that this request for variance had been withdrawn by the applicant as additional parking spaces had been developed at the site. Mrs. Kee then referred to memos which had been handed to the members at the meeting, stating that the one is a reply to the request from the Board for clarification regarding changing the date a decision from the Board becomes final, stating that the extra day and one half would allow the legal department to address any legal questions the applicant had with a ruling of the Soard which might be solvable outside the courts, and that the 10 days to appeal a decision would follow from that time. Mrs, Meyer requested that alternate Board members be supplied these same memos. Mrs. Kee then stated that the off-premise Doubletree Condominium sign. would be removed by May 22nd, according to a second memo. She then re- ferred to a memo from the legal department regarding surveyors errors, stating this memo had gone to Council and Council had authorized a 3" deviation for errors. Lowell penfion, City Attorney requested permission to address the Board; permission was granted and he came forward to say goodbye to the Board and to compliment them on the work they have done in the past. ZBA Minutes 5-15-84 page 5 Mr. Wendt made a motion to adjourn wifih Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried unanimously • (5-0) . APPROVED: ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS Variances; From Section 11-6.5 move to deny a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section Z3) front and rear xxxx 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: 1. the canopy will extend into the front setback further than any other nearby structure 2. and, the rear setback variance has been previously denied and no new extenuating circumstances have been presented. 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. =;,.- -~ This motion was made by Mr. McGuirk Seconded by Mr. Wa ner The x4~d'l~SAcx~scxietxi~ecl'c by the fo 1 1 ow i ng vote : ~ ~' motion failed fT'Y it Sig ature Date !r/E.dvr # Cm~r ~~.~~ I OATH OF OFFICE I ~ DOROTHY MEYER do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. DATE : May 15 , 1984 • ~';~~"~ /%~'6 • OATH OF OFFICE • • I, JAMES FRY do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. :~ DATE: May 15, 1984 ~G~~ ~~ - O ~,/ _:,J /4d~5' ~--- OATH OF OFFICE I ~ J. SPENCER WENDT , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the State of Texas, and will to the best of~my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. • DATE : May 15 , 1984 • /9~~ • OATH OF OFFICE r: n I, GALE WAGNER , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I tvill faithfully execute the duties of the off ice of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation ther of. So help me God. ;` ~' vy~ - Gar DATE: May 15, 1984 ~~ ~~ /9~6 • OATH OF OFFICE I ~ JACK UPHAM do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. • DATE : May 15 , 1984 CJ /9~ ~7 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE ~ ~~ ADDRESS /'~~~ ~~~ ./ ~. S . 4. 5. 6. ~f 7. 8. 9. - 10. 11~ 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. _ 17. 18. ig. 20, 21. 22. 23. z4. 25.