Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment April 6, 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Baker, Members Sawtelle, Gaston, DeOtte and Birdwell. MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Alternate Members DeI..oach, Phinney, Rife and McKean. Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel & Asst Cityf~Attorney Rayner.-f' ~~~'D/~, Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AC3ENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of March 3, 1993. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of March 3, 1993 as written. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). (Mr. DeOtte was not present during the approval of minutes.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a previously tabled variance request by Doug Stovall to the front setback requirements at 1105 Tattrus Circle. Chairperson Baker moved this agenda item to be considered after item number four to allow time for Mr. DeOtte to arrive. ACIENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request by Thomas Properties to the side street setback requirements at 3301 MildonbalL Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to legitimize an encroachment for an existing home. A total variance of 6' is being requested from the required 15' side street setback. The applicants contend that the site was difficult to work with due to its shape. Property pins were removed during the clearing of the lot. The builders are responsible for placement of strings for the final inspection. The location of the strings on this side was incorrect. The applicant argues that the house will not sell if the setback encroachment is not legitimized. The only alternative to a variance is the removal of the portion of the house that is encroaching. Seventeen surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Chairperson Baker swore in applicants Charles and Glenn Thomas. Charles Thomas stated that there was a mound of dirt and debris at the rear of the property caused from the construction of a home to the rear of the subject property. The debris made it impossible to stake the property where the encroachment occurred. The dimensions shown on the site plan were miscalculated due to the unique size of the lot. Mr. Gaston questioned staff as to the building inspector's responsibility to check the setbacks. He stated that he understands that it is the builder's responsibility to set the strings; however, it should be the inspector's responsibility to see that they are correct. Assistant City Attorney Rayner stated that it is the duty of the builder to make sure that all setbacks are met. Glenn Thomas explained the miscalculation that occurred on the original site plan. The width of the lot is shown as 87.6'; however, that dimension is at an angle. The width of the house was subtracted from this • figure and then the side setback was subtracted. The string on the opposite side of the house was set and the mathematical error that occurred was not found until the final survey. Mr. Thomas stated that if the portion of the building that encroaches is removed, the structural integrity of the house will be undermined. James E. Walthrop Jr. of 715 Dover approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He informed the Board that he lives directly across Dover from the subject property. Mr. Walthrop explained that he talked to the owners of 711 and 713 Dover this week and they are all strongly opposed to the way this case was handled. He stated that it is unbelievable that the city inspectors would allow something to be built without strings being in place and even more impossible for a builder to do so. Charles Thomas informed the Board that he and his brother have built over 100 homes in College Station and there has never been a problem to this degree. He stated that this was an unusual property to build on and that the original survey of the this particular area was wrong. Mr. Walthrop stated that the debris located in the rear of the subject lot was removed during the Christmas holidays, approximately seven months prior to the subject home being wmpleted. He stated that the Thomas brothers have built bigger houses than were planned for this development. Mr. Walthrop explained that his main concern is with the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. The city and the builders should be more careful in not allowing this to happen in the future. Mr. Birdwell stated that the encroachment is minor in nature and only on one portion of the building. The average person driving down Dover would not notice the encroachment. Mr. Gaston moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638, to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: an error in measuring the location of the house was made by the builder and the • City of College Station inspector; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the house would have to be removed or significantly altered; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). The Board suggested that the building inspector receive a copy of the minutes from this meeting and be encouraged to do a more thorough job. ACIENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a previously tabled variance request by Doug Stovall to the front setback requirements at 1105 Taurus Circle. Mr. Birdwell moved to remove this agenda item from the table. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that at the last meeting, the Board tabled this item to give the members time to visit the site and to give the applicant time to address the following concerns: (1) One alternative mentioned was to add a second floor on to the top of the garage. The option would not require a variance. The roof of the garage would have to be reconstructed and additional slab braces may help to stabilize the slab. The Building Official suspects that the slab is not designed to carry such a load. This option could have a greater visual impact than the proposed addition because the other houses in the area are single story. (2) Another alternative would be to add on to the north end of the building. There is still • enough space between the 25' rear setback line and the house. The applicant should be prepared to address this alternative. The Board could consider if it is reasonable to keep as much useable space in the rear yard as possible. ZBA Minutes Apri16, 1993 Page 2 (3) There was also concern that the sole "special condition" in this case is its location on the end of a cul-de-sac. Such a determination could create a policy that all cul-de-sac lots should be granted variances. Due to the fact that most of these lots do have configurations that can be more difficult to work with, cul-de-sac lots tend to be more likely candidates for variances. The shape of the lots can result in a smaller buildable lot area than other lots in the vicinity. Such cases must receive individual review based on lot configuration, the extent of the request, and its impact on surrounding uses. The finding of "special conditions", therefore, should include more detail than simply stating that this is a cul-de-sac lot. Applicant Doug Stovall approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that the proposed addition requiring the variance request will not detract from the appearance of the house or the neighborhood. The surrounding neighbors have no problem with the variance request. The north end of the home cannot be added to primarily because of the location of the mechanical equipment and the location of the bedrooms. The second story proposal to the garage would detract from the neighborhood because there are no other two story buildings on this cul-de-sac. Mr. DeOtte suggested that the applicant add onto the existing shop so that it extends over the existing driveway and does not encroach into the setback. The driveway would be shorter but a variance would not be needed. Mr. Stovall stated that the proposed addition is the best alternative even if the house was to be sold in the future. The existing driveway is not level and additional footing would have to be provided. Mr. Stovall stated that his family needs the additional parking space. Mr. Birdwell made his original motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of ordinance number 1638, section 15 as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: the location of the lot being on a cul-de-sac and the distance from surrounding • property owners; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being: unable to develop the property to meet the needs of the family; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he is not necessarily concerned with this particular situation; however, he is concerned with the possibility of other variance requests on cul-de-sac lots. Mr. Birdwell explained that the Board does not set precedence and takes each request on a case by case basis. In looking at the aerial photograph and the proposed addition, the spirit of the ordinance will be preserved. The addition will not detract from the air and light and will not effect the overall appearance of the neighborhood. Mr. Birdwell stated that if this request was on a straight street, he would vote to deny the request because it may block the view of other properties; however, this cul-de-sac layout prevents that from happening. The original motion to authorize the variance request failed (3 - 2); Mr. Sawtelle and Mr. Gaston voted in opposition to the motion. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the variance request was denied by default. AC3ENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance request by Ray Mart, Ina to the parking and parking lot setback requirements for their eaksting fadlity at 3800 Teans Avenue. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that there are several changes plan presented and that some necessary information was not submitted. • before he makes these changes, he would like to get some indication regarding the number of parking spaces required. ZBA Minutes Apri16, 1993 that need to be made to the site The applicant has requested that from the Board on the variance Page 3 Staff Planner Kuenzel recommended that the Board choose from one of three options: (1) table the request pending resolution of site plan problems; (2) approve the request and provide a range of acceptable parking spaces; or, (3) deny the request. • Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the original use of the site was mostly warehouse with a small retail area. The applicant is proposing to convert one of the buildings from a warehouse to retail, thereby relinquishing the current non-conforming status. Ten surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Mr. Gaston questioned how there is an additional 5000 square feet of retail space when the building is existing. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that staff has visited the site and seen the renovations. The applicant has also informed staff that the subject area will be used as display area that allows the public to shop. In the past, this area was more of a warehouse storage area and did not allow the public to shop. The revised site plan with the required changes, will probably show at the most 38 spaces. If the Board would like to grant the variance, they could give staff a range of percentages or numbers of which the applicant should maintain. Because the actual property lines are not located on the site plan, the setback variance will have to be handled the same way. Phil Payne, an attorney representing the applicant, approached the Board and sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that the Ray-Mart center was one of the first buildings established along the south end of the By Pass. The building was built in the early 1970's prior to being incorporated into the city limits. The Ray-Mart corporation is wanting to cosmetically improve the interior and exterior of the business. Mr. Payne explained that the business is not changing the use of the building. Section 9.3 of the ordinance speaks to the numbers of parking spaces being required based on certain classifications. The category of retail is one space per 250 square feet; however, there are several different types of retail uses. There are high volume generators such as nightclubs and grocery stores and there are low volume generators such as the appliance store in question. Because Ray-Mart deals with large items such as appliances and construction material, the number of actual patrons is much lower than that of a convenience store. Ray-Mart deals primarily with homebuilders and delivers their supplies to the job site. Mr. Payne presented the sales tickets from the store for the week of March 8, 1993. Approximately 90% of the business came from telephone orders by homebuilders. Mr. Payne presented figures on the actual number of cars that used the parking lot over the last three weeks. On Saturday, March 20, 1993, there were a total of 21 cars for the day, 12 of those cars belonged to employees. Mr. Payne also presented similar information for the Beaumont store who does five times the business of the College Station store. He stated that the reason for the variance is that a partition was removed to improve the interior of the building and to allow customers to see the merchandise that they are purchasing, instead of choosing from a catalog; however, customers have always been allowed to walk into the subject area to view the merchandise. The only difference is the added air conditioning which made the display area more comfortable for the customers. Mr. Birdwell stated that one of the worst parking situations in town is at the Furrows site. The existing parking may be adequate with respect to the way business is being conducted; however, there is a possibility that Ray-Mart could change their type of business. The difference between 128 parking spaces and 34 is too vast. Mr. Gaston expressed concern with legitimizing anon-conforming use. The non-conforming section of the ordinance is written with the anticipation that some day the use will be conforming. The entire purpose of having flexibility is so that at some point, there will be wmpliance. If the variance request is granted, the property will never be brought up to code. If the applicant feels that a change has not occurred that would require the property to be brought up to standard, the Board should be hearing a case based on that issue and not a variance request. ZBA Minutes Apri16, 1993 Page 4 Regional Manager of Ray-Mart Ken Riggs approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that this process started back in December when a representative came to the city informally and • asked what could and could not be done. Dennis Husfeld spoke with Building Official Coy Perry about the changes and Mr. Perry stated that as long as the building was not added to, a sprinkler system would not be required. Mr. Perry stated that electrical and mechanical permits had to be issued prior to those improvements; and those permits were obtained. Mr. Riggs stated that after money was invested in removing the wall and mechanical and electrical changes, the rules changed. Mr. Riggs questioned the Board as to what has really changed by removing the wall. Reducing the amount of retail space is not an alternative. Mr. Riggs stated that he is in the process of obtaining bids to install the required sprinkler system. Development Coordinator Shirley Volk approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. She stated that she is currently in charge of the building department. Ms. Volk informed the Board that many issues were discussed between Mr. Husfeld and Mr. Perry including several other walls. The Structural Standards Board has heard this case and they have ruled that the use of the building is now retail. Assistant City Attorney Rayner stated that the Structural Standards Board does not determine the change in use of a building; that decision is considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Structural Standards Board may have agreed that there was a change in use; however, they do not have the authority to make that determination. Ray-Mart could have asked for an appeal of the change in use decision to this Board. Mr. DeOtte moved to deny a variance from section 9, ordinance number 1638 to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, 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. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell explained that he will vote in favor of the motion to deny the variance request; however, he suggested that the applicant work with staff to determine alternative ways to handle the problem. Mr. DeOtte stated that the applicant could come before the Board to resolve the dispute over the change in use; however, he should not construe that the Board will automatically say that there has not been a change in use. The original motion to deny the variance request passed unopposed (5 - 0). AC}ENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business. There was no other business. AC}ENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Birdwell moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). A Plannin Technician, atalie homas ZBA Minutes Apri16, 1993 Page S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSI`T'IVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the ;yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: ~.. ~ ~ , .~ t and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~G~;~ 1~~~~~~ ~~A r~ ~ ,~s,,,~ ~~-:~ fir.%~~~' -- .~~ j'~t~~~-~~~ ~-~` r and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: 11~-~ 6 Motion made by _ __. ~;"`~l~f ~ G ~ ~ . ~ `~.~:, Date ~ ~~ Seconded by ~ T .L ___- Voting Results 'S - Chair Signature V.4RP1638.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yazd (Section 8.~ lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback ~azking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, .and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hazdship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion made by Seconded by _ Chair Signature ~ /¢ior 9 3 Voting Results v.~uv~ssamc C i~ • ' :7 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUST RE TER w DATE NAME `, ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. l0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. . 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.