Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1984 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT City of College Station, Texas September 18, 1984 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cook, Members Wendt, McGuirk, Wagner, Upham and Member Fry in audience MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, City Attorney Locke and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of July 17, 1984 Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; Mr. Upham seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. The public hearing was opened. Chairman Cook explained to the audience the functions and limitations of the ZBA. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3~ Consideration of a Variance to side setback as required by Table A Ordinance 50 to allow construction of a garage at 302 Fidelity. Application is in the • name of David C. Burdick. Mrs. Kee explained the request, pointed out that the existing structure to be replaced was built prior to the current zoning ordinance, and referred to the site plan which shows the existing slab sits from 3" to 7" from the side lot line, as well as the general location of trees on the lot. David C. Burdick of 302 Fidelity came forward and was sworn in. He stated he wants to replace the existing carport with a garage and utilize the existing foundation and the existing driveway. He explained that if another location is used, several large trees will have to be removed. He explained how access is made into the house, as well as future additions which he has planned. Mr. Upham asked if the adjacent property owner, Mr. Manning is aware that he will have to absorb the required 15 feet between structures wholly on his property if this variance is granted and Mrs. Kee interjected that she has consulted the Legal Department regarding this, and has been informed that granting a 7.5 foot variance on one lot also grants a variance to the 15 foot separation between structures, therefore would not adversely affect the adjacent lot. Mr. Upham then spoke of the requirement of unique and special conditions of the land which may cause a hard- ship, other than financial, to the applicant. Mr. Burdick stated there is no other place to put this structure without disrupting the landscaping, adding that he has a founda- tion and a driveway which he plans to utilize, and if the variance is not granted, these will become inoperable. Mr. Upham said geographically he could not find any unique condi- tions which would cause a hardship, pointing out that landscaping can be replaced. Mr. Burdick stated he had not understood staff's explanation regarding exactly what comprises a "unique and special condition of the land" and that he understood that "the land" included anything and everything on the land as well as the lot itself. Mr. Mc- • Guirk stated that the carport/foundation is already there and therefore, is a non conform- ing structure, as it was there prior to the current zoning ordinance, and might be ZBA Minutes g-18-84 page 2 construed as a unique condition of the land. Mr. Burdick went on with his explanation using photographs as part of his presentation. He pointed out the unsafe condition of the existing carport which necessitates its removal, adding the three reasons he is requesting this variance as: (1)To provide security storage for his belongings, (Z)To utilize the existing driveway and foundation, and (3)Other locations are not accessible to the house, are not aesthetically pleasing and would destroy existing landscaping. Tim Manning of 300 Fidelity Street was sworn in and stated he does not .exactly object to the request, but requested permission to ask some questions. He asked the reason for the 7.5 foot side setback requirement to which Mrs. Kee explained it is to provide separation of structures for light, air and emergency access. He asked if plans are for non-conforming structures to cease to exist, and if replacement structures generally have to comply with ordinance requirements to which Mrs. Kee replied in the affirmative. He then expressed his concern regarding the roof of the existing structure which overhangs his property, adding that replacement of the structure might enhance the neighborhood, but that he still is concerned with zero lot line development. Janna Keel of 600 Montclair was sworn in and expressed dismay at the requirements of the zoning ordinance, explaining that most buildings in this area are old and nonconform- ing and replacement in compliance with current requirements would be difficult if not impossible. She expressed the opinion that the lay of the hand is the way the land has been developed in the-past, adding that some houses would be historical structures in a short number of years and if variances are not granted, structures cannot be improved and the area will become rundown and slum like. Lydia Shipley, 301 Fidelity was sworn in and stated that any improvement would be an asset to the neighborhood and that the new homeowners of these older houses are trying to upgrade these older homes and variances. will be required to accomplish that. Mr. Burdick came forward agaPn and stated he would be allowed to tear down an existing carport and reconstruct it without permission, to which Mrs. Kee pointed out that he would have to come back for a use permit to even replace a non-conforming structure. Mr. McGuirk said that some repairs are allowed without a building permit, therefore if Mr. Burdick were patient, over a period of time, he could completely replace it board- by-board. Mrs. Kee stated that anything requiring a building permit would have to come back before the Board .under section 11-B3(c) of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Upham said that an on-going project would obviously result in the rebuilding of, or perpetuating the life of a non-conforming structure, and a use permit would be required. Mr. McGuirk stated he is simply trying to determine exactly what the applicant could do to the car- port without coming back to the City for permits. He then asked how far privacy fences can extend lnto city easements to which Mrs. Kee replied they cannot extend into ease- ments or right-of-ways at all, adding that this is not a typical street and the travelled roadway rtns alongthe applicant's property line. Mr. McGuirk then asked what precedents this Board has for requests for use permits for non-conforming structures and Mrs. Kee replied that she cannot think of any requests during the past 2 years. Mr, Wendt stated that this house is old, that the structures in the area are alt old and pre-date the current zoning ordinance, adding that upgrading the neighborhood would be beneficial to the City. He went on to state this applicant has a non-conforming structure which has existed for many years and pre-dates the zoning ordinance, and this question must be dealt with. Mr. Wagner 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 ZBA Minutes g-18-84 page 3 • to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: The reconstruction of the nonconforming structure or building on the lot or tract occupied by such building cost is less than sixty percent (60%) of the appraised value of the structure or building and the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the nonconformity of such nonconforming structure or bul.lding (Ord. 850 Sec. 11-6.3(c); because the reconstruction will not increase the area of the building devoted to a nonconforming use more than twenty-five (25%) percent (Sec. 11-B.3(b); and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance sha11 be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following .limitations: (1)The building dimensions will not extend beyond the existing slab, and (2)The slope of the roof will be to the rear of the lot. Mr. Wendt seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-1 (Upham against). Mr. Wagner then .asked Mr. Burdick to follow up with the proposed reconstruction of this neighborhood with staff, and perhaps organize the neighborhood and address the City Council, requesting the Council to initiate some study of that-area. Mr. Wendt explained that this Board has some laws which it must follow, and yet it realizes that what Mr. Burdick has proposed would be benefic~afi to~both the City and the neighborhood. Mr. Up- ham agreed, adding that it is up to the people_of that area to raise the issue of their difficulties in trying to upgrade the neighborhood with the City fathers. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a Use Permit to allow substitution of one noncon- forming sign for another at 420 South Texas Avenue. (Section 11B-3(a) Ordinance 850). Application is in the name of Gulf Oil Co. • Mrs. Kee explained the request, pointing out the exact location of the existing noncon- forming sign which encroaches into the adjacent property by approximately 6 inches. The request is to a1 low moving this sign approximately 2 feet inside this property and to combine this sign and a light pole, thus eliminating one pole on this property. Mr. Upham explained that the Ramada Inn people have pointed out the encroachment to these people, and have demanded that the sign be removed from their property. Jack Johnson, 8554 Katy Fwy #116, Houston, TX was sworn in and stated he is representing Gulf Oil Company, then explained again that they need to move this sign, and can solve two problems at one time; i.e., move the sign, and eliminate one pole by combining the sign and .the light on one pole. He went on to explain that to completely make this a conforming sign would block the Ramada sign. Mr. Upham asked if there are currently two signs for this business and Mr. Johnson replied there are. Mr. Upham then pointed out that both are nonconforming, and the applicant is asking for the continuance of two nonconforming signs. Mr. Johnson said one of them had been there over 20 years. Mr. Upham asked if economically they have served their purpose, adding if the logo were changed, the signs would then voluntarily be changed, but would then have to conform. Mr. Johnson Bald the point is, the sign is not changing, but just moving. Mrs. Kee explained that the applicant is asking for a use permit rather than a variance because the proposal would be less detrimental to the environment by eliminating visual clutter by removing a light pole, and she would not feel uncomfortable allowing this. She ex- plained then that~if this request is not granted, the applicant will not be able to put the sign back up after it is removed from the adjacent property. Mr. McGuirk asked if the new sign is made to conform, would it actually sit right in front of the Ramada sign. Mrs. Kee staffed it would, as the maximum height which would be allowed would be approxi- • mately 11 feet. Mr. Johnson said he would not want to do that. Mr. Wagner asked how the new stgn ordinance currently being prepared would deal with existing nonconforming signs and Mrs. Kee said that it perhaps, will include some sort of amortization schedule, ZBA Minutes g-18-84 page 4 • and that it probably will sti11 allow only one sign on that tract. Mr. Wendt asked if this Board considers balancing things with "gives and takes". Chair- man Cook replied that it does not. Mr. Wagner asked the applicant if he would be agree- able to tabling of this item until after the new sign ordinance is put into effect. Mr. Johnson said that would not be possible, as they have to move the sign as soon as possible. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to authorize the substitution of one nonconforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first; subject to the constraint that the extent of the nonconformity be no greater than at present. Mr. Wendt seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-1 (Upham against). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5~ Consideration of a Variance to rear setback as re uired b Table A Ordinance 50 to allow construction of a storage addition to a garage at 205 Fireside Circle. Application is in the name of Wallace L. Reed. Mrs. Kee explained the request, stating the storage room which is already under construc- tion would be approximately 12 feet from the rear property line, and 2 to 3 feet from a utility easement. She added that there is only one large tree in the backyard, and there appears to be ample room in another location for some type of storage building. She added that the adjacent properties to the rear and the south are currently vacant. Wallace L. Reed, 205 Fireside Circle was sworn in and stated his need for additional storage is due to his moving from a larger house in another city to this home, which does not meet his needs for storage. He does not want to do anything aesthetically un- • pleasing, and wants this addition to be a continuation of the existing garage, including the roofline and additional windows. Mr. McGuirk asked a question concerning the typed statement which accompanied the application, and it was answered. Then he asked if he (Mr. Reed) or a contractor began the addition without a building permit. Mr. Reed ans- wered that he had hired a contractor to do the work, Brooks Catlin of 413 Chimney Hill was sworn in and stated he is the builder of the home and .had filled out this application in the absence of Mr. Reed, but added that he is not the contractor who began the addition without a building permit. He stated the hardship is that the lot size is smaller than average, and the house is rather large, making the garage size inadequate for the size of the house. He added that a portable, metal structure would detract from this neighborhood. Chairman Cook stated emphatically that this is not the first time something like this has been brought before this Board to be legalized, and also is not the first time a contractor has begun construction without permits and has been stopped when city staff noticed it. She continued by stating that unfortunately, the owner has a problem and there is no unique condition of the land, nor is the construction which has begun unique. Mr. Upham pointed out that this is not a court of equity to straighten out that type of problem which is between the owner and the contractor, and recourse must be made through a civil court rather than this Board. Mr, tlcGuirk made a motion to deny this 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 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. Motion was seconded by Mr. Upham, and carried unanimously (5-0). ZBA Minutes 9-18-84 page 5 • AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a Variance to Section 8-B Ordinance 850 to allow a larger Temporary Sign than is permitted by ordinance. Application is in the name of_ Financial Center, Ltd. Mrs. Kee explained the status of the applicant and the request which is fora banner of approximately 160 square feet in size which they propose to attach to the building. She pointed out that this project does not have frontage on University Drive, and the pur- pose is probably to have visability to that major street, but she has not talked per- sonally with the applicant, and there seems to be no one here tonight to represent them. Mr. Upham pointed out that this Board does not customarily consider a request without the presence of .the applicant. Mr. Upham then made a motion to table this item due to the lack of attendance by the applicant. Mr. Wendt seconded that motion which carried un- animously (5-0). • The public hearing was then closed, and the Board retired to Conference Room A for closed session to discuss pending litigation as listed under Agenda Item No. 7. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other Business_ After reconvening in the Council Room, Mrs. Kee briefly outlined what is being done toward completion of the proposed Sign Ordinance. Then she asked the Board if they would object moving the next meeting to October 30 instead of its regular date which would be October 16. The Board agreed. The next scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment will be on October 30th (the 5th Tuesday of October). Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn with Mr. McGuirk seconding. Motion carried unani- mously (5-0). APPROVED: Z~_ Acti g Chairma Jack Upham ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS . Variances: From Section 11-8.5 I move to deny 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) Wallace Reed 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) 2. 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 made by 3~ P' ~ <C y'/L~t Seconded by tl~l--Q/~ Th rian was denied by the following vote: - d ~/~~/~~ Chair Signature Date • Gulf Oil ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Non-Conforming Structures - From Section 11-6.3 I move to authorize the a. substltutton of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first;t ~ .S~v ~+ ~ >E -~ 7G -1.-. CC' ,.)71'U 1!1'~" f~,p,f 7 ~ sr' G~X {?i)'} Ol ~~P hOhCO/)ld!'0~.. ~?~~ fj (~ !~ ~ grr~ pY ~lro,n of prr~etY~~~ b. enlargement of a building or use devoted to a non-conforming use where such extension or enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non-conforming use more than 25~ and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use; c. reconstruction of a non-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60~ of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformity. Th i s motion was made by T -~ ~~1,~/1 Seconded by cn/P,~(f- The request concerning non-conforming ~i Chair Signature use was gran the following vote ~-/ ~~ ,~ ~~~ Da to • ~ __ __ Burdick 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 district: 2. 3• 4. 5• • 3• 4. 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant)~b~e*ner-- and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justic done, ubject o ; e following limitations: ' 1. ~ _ .~ 2. This motion was m by Seconded by The variance was grante the following vote: i ~ ~7 ~ D Chair signature ~,l~r~~~n:~/1 r ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • DATE 9 ~~ ~¢' NAME , ~ ADDRESS 2 . 8 SS k` ~l i ~ 4 . Q ~/u' LQ 3 v ~ ly'dcl ~'t~,, ~,llac~~j5ftt.~~r mc., 7x ? ~ ~`~o 5• ~ ~~~ ~5 ~-~ 7. 8. 9 • ~~ 10. . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ,~~ 16. 17. 18. 1g. 20. 21 . 22. 23. • 24. 25.