Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1999 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMYNUTES • Zoning Board.of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 20, 1999 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Hill, & Bond. ; MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Seazcy, Dr. Bailey & Ellis. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Assistant City Attorney's Ladd & Decluitt, Transportation Analyst Hester, City Planner Kee, Staff Planner Battle, Director of Development Services Callaway, Development Coordinator Ruiz, Assistant Development Coordinator George, Staff Assistant Chazazna, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Transportation Planner Hazd & Mapping Specialist Manhart. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. • Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Boazd. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from October 5,1999 meeting of the Board. Mr. Happ made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of an appeal of the Zoning Official's application of Section 7.2 D relative to setbacks and to Section 9 relative to parking and driveways at 600 & 604 Welsh. Applicant is Norma Miller. City Planner Kee stepped before the Boazd and summarized the October 5, 1999 meeting of the Boazd concerning this case. Ms. Kee told the Board that the questions before the Boazd aze whether or not the Zoning Official applied the pazking regulations and the side setbacks requirements properly in the review of building permits that were issued for homes at 600 & 604 Welsh. Ms. Kee continued her report as follows: The Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Official to make interpretations of any provision of the Ordinance if the need arises. The Zoning Official is not one particulaz person but may be any staff member given responsibility for acting in that capacity in a given situation. In making such determinations, the Planning Staff takes into consideration the intent of the ordinance, consistency, and the public interest. Staff members constantly communicate to • ensure that each person, when acting in the capacity of the Zoning Official, is being consistent with past applications and interpretations. The staffs discussions that led to the approval of this building permit were consistent with prior applications of these Zoning Ordinance provisions. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 1 oj15 Item Background • This property involves lots 10, 11, and 29 feet of 12, Block C, College Pazk with a total frontage of 129.03 feet. In 1962 the portion of Fidelity Street running pazallel and adjacent to this property was abandoned. These properties are zoned R-1 Single Family. One home has existed on the property for many years. Single family zoning and development surround the property. This year an amending plat was presented to clarify the property boundaries to reflect the Fidelity abandonment which added 25 feet to the property for a total of 154.03 feet of frontage. An interior lot line was also adjusted with this amending plat. With 154.03 feet of frontage and an interior lot line adjustment, the property is reflected as three 50-foot wide lots each meeting the lot dimensions for an individual home. Two new houses were permitted under the lot line construction alternative found in Table A, Note C of the Zoning Ordinance. Without the amending plat the property could still have three homes under Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows more than one structure housing a principle use to be built on a lot or building plot as long as all other requirements of the zoning ordinance are met as though each were on an individual lot. Parking Appeal In the case at hand, the applicant states "Off-street parking requirements not met." It is unclear what the applicant is referencing by this statement. However, the following will explain each area of the parking section and how it is applied. • Section 9 provides for minimum standards for pazking space dimensions, access, islands, parking lot maintenance, landscape reserve azea, surfacing requirements, parking lot lighting and temporary parking lot requirements. Section 9 references "In all districts for all uses...". The majority of the regulations aze intended for uses that require pazking lots, such asmulti-family or commercial uses, referencing islands, pazking lot setbacks, etc. The portions of Section 9 dealing with islands, pazking lot maintenance, the landscape reserve, pazking lot lighting and temporary parking requirements are not applicable to this case as these provisions are for multi-family/commercial uses and not for single family uses. Ms. Kee addressed the parts of Section 9 that aze applicable to single family site plan review. Section 9.A -Dimensions and Access references illustrations at the end of the section. In those illustrations there are graphs depicting concrete driveway aprons in the right-of-way for residential applications. It shows the maximum driveway radius of 10 feet as established in Chapter 3 of the City s Code of Ordinances. (The City's Code of Ordinances is a codified version of all codes and ordinances. The Zoning Ordinance is included by reference.) Chapter 3 of the City s Code of Ordinances establishes curb return radius for residential driveways on local streets to be a maximum of 10 feet and a minimum of 2. S feet. Typically single family drives have a radius of 2. S to S feet when located on local streets. Chapter 3 also provides for a maximum width for a residential drive approach to be 28 feet measured at the property line with a minimum width of 10 feet. The graphics of Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance include the Chapter 3 requirements relative to driveway width. 9.2.A.1 requires a 9' by 20' parking space and this is required for all uses that require parking • including single family uses. 9.2.A.2 refers to off-street parking for truck unloading and is not applicable to single family. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 2 of 1 S 9.2.A.3 intends .for all parking and maneuvering areas to be located entirely within the boundaries of the building plot except as set forth in Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances (this refers to shazed • access drives.). All single family driveways and parking azeas are required to meet this. 9.2.A.4 is not applicable to single family residences unless located on a major arterial or collector street. 9.2.A.5 refers to a 24-foot landscape reserve. This is intended for parking lots, not individual residential driveways as driveways aze specifically excluded in this section. Exceptions aze made for 7 parking spaces to be allowed in this reserve. (These are clearly references to uses that require parking lots as opposed to single family uses.) It is not applied to single family permits. 9.2.A.6, 7 and 8 address parking lot islands and are not applicable to single family permits. 9.2.B references off-premise pazking locations and the requirements for such. This is intended for facilities that require pazking lots and multiple spaces and allows for some to be located ,off-premise under certain circumstances. It has never been applied to asingle-family residence. 9.2.C references public parking areas and is not applicable. 9.2.D references surfacing requirements and states; "Except as otherwise provided...". Section 6 of Chapter 10 of the City's Code of Ordinances addresses surfacing for single family driveways and this section is applied. 9.2.E references lighting for off-street parking areas and is not applicable to single family reviews. 9.2.F references drive surfaces for temporary and/or permanent drives required for emergency access • and is applied by the City Engineer. This is not applicable to single family site reviews. 9.2.G references temporary pazking lots and is not applicable. 9.3 references off-street spaces required and specifically requires a minimum of two pazking spaces for single family uses. This regulation is applied to single family permits. Both new permits issued for 600 and 604 Welsh were interpreted as meeting the above applicable requirements because: 1. The location and radius of the curb return was not shown on the site plan presented for building permit. The contractor was advised of radius requirements. Staff will inspect for a proper radius of 2.5 to 5 feet and this it is contained on Mr. Nagle's property. No certificate of occupancy will be issued without an inspection to ensure compliance. 2. The driveway aprons are shown to be approved all weather surfaces for that portion in the right-of- way asprovided for in the Zoning ordinance and Chapter 3 of the City's Code of Ordinances. 3. The portion of the driveway on private property is shown to be crushed limestone, which is a private drive standazd previously approved by the City Engineer. This standazd has been allowed for years. 4. Two parking spaces are required by the Zoning Ordinance. The dimensions of the driveways have the minimum width and depth for two parking spaces. It is customary that the two spaces required for a single family use may be side by side or end to end as the spaces and vehicles aze under control of the property owner. This has been along-standing interpretation for single family • residential uses. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 3 oj15 Setback Appea[ • Section 7.2.D refers to Table A that sets out the setback, lot size and height restrictions based on the applicable zoning district. The portion being appealed is the application of the side setback requirement for the R-1 zone. For a single family zone Table A requires either an absolute 7.5 foot side setback or allows for lot line construction under certain circumstances. Note C of Table A states: "Zero lot line construction of residences is allowed where property on both sides of lot line is owned and/or developed simultaneously by single party. Development under lot line construction requires prior approval by the Zoning Off cial. In no case shall a single family residence be built within I S feet of another building. " This section has been interpreted over the years by many different people but has consistently been interpreted to allow less than the 7.5 foot setback and as little as a 0 foot setback. The important health and salty consideration is that no residence is closer than 1 S feet to another. This is why it is imperative that property on both sides of the lot line in question be under one person's control when the decision is made to apply lot line construction. This provision is a critical factor in the interpretations asmade to date. In this case there is an existing house in the center of the property. When Mr. Nagle amended the plat of his property, he did so in order to clarify the boundaries of his property. The right-of--way of Fidelity Street running adjacent and parallel to his property had been abandoned 37 years before. To clarify this and to relocate an interior lot line Mr. Nagle decided to amend the plat of his property. He actually owns ,154.03 feet of frontage. Under the Zoning Ordinance the minimum lot width in R-1 is 50 feet measured at the front setback line. With this amount of frontage Mr. Nagle chose to build two additional houses. In this case Mr. Nagle opted to use Note C of Table A to provide 0 foot and 15 foot setbacks for one side of the existing house and 3.5 foot and 11.5 foot setbacks for the opposite side. This • application is consistent with staff s interpretation of this note. Recent Examples of lot line construction 1990s Eastmark Subdivision -variable Pebble Creek - 0/1 S feet Grand Oaks - 0/15 feet Two Lincoln Place - 0/1 S feet Pleasant Forest -variable It is more common for builders/developers to use the 0/1 S foot combination under lot line construction because this maximizes the amount of useable side yard area by containing it all on one side. However, there are builders/developers who choose to use a variable setback because of roof overhangs and sidewall maintenance concerns as well as Building Code limitations on the number of openings and f rewall requirements. When building on a 0 foot setback one would have to be on the adjacent neighbor's property to perform any maintenance on the sidewall. Also, roof overhangs would allow water to run off onto the neighboring property and some builders want to avoid this situation for future homeowners. The alternative is to grant maintenance and overhang easements. The Building Code limits the amount of openings that can be in a wall based on construction type and distance from the property line. The Building Code also requires a one hour rated firewall when wood construction is 3 feet or closer to the property line. In Mr. Nagle's case the relocated interior lot line enabled him to meet the minimum lot width requirement and the variable setback enabled him to meet the setback requirements • If, over the years, the City had not interpreted lot line construction to include a variable setback, Mr. Nagle's (or anyone else's) possible alternatives would be to use Section 8.4 which allows more than one structure housing a principle use to be built or to seek a variance from the ZBA to the side setback requirement. ZBA Minuses October 20, 1999 Page 4 of 1 S Mr. Bond referenced the statement "Development under lot line construction requires prior approval by the Zoning Official." Is this to make sure the 15 feet between the houses existed before the • construction begins. Ms. Kee replied that was correct and .also to understand all the implications that go with either building on the property line or choosing a variable setback. Mr. Bond asked if this case was a variable setback or zero lot line. Ms. Kee answered that it was a combination of both. The house existing on one side opted to use zero and 15 feet and the other used 3 '/2 feet and 11 '/2 feet. Mr. Bond asked if there were any other considerations made in deciding to approve the construction of the two houses. Ms. Kee asked relative to setbacks or in general. Mr. Bond answered relative to setbacks. Ms. Kee replied that when a building permit is reviewed, staff makes sure that setbacks meet the minimum. Mr. Bond asked Ms. Kee what is the benefit of lot line construction and these 3 homes being under one person's control. Ms. Kee stated that the advantage of the common ownership initially is to use the zero lot construction. Mr. Bond asked Ms. Kee if she was the staff member who approved the zero lot line construction in this case. Ms. Kee replied that she was not. Mr. Happ asked Ms. Kee to explain the subdividing requirements if the houses were sold after construction. Ms. Kee replied that if it were decided to sell one of the homes, it would then have to be replatted. One of the requirements for the R-1 zone is that the lot is a minimum 50 x 100-ft lot. The replat would show the new requirements on that plat. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Kee if the 15-foot separation is from wall to wall. Ms. Kee replied that it is measured from slab to slab. Mr. Hill asked about the roof over hang. Ms. Kee stated that typical roof • over hang can be from 18 inches to 2 feet and they usually do not cause a problem. Mr. Murphy asked if it is normal procedure for the location and radius of the curb not to be shown on the site plan when it is presented for a building permit. Ms. Kee stated that is fairly common for a site plan to not have every detail. Rather than have the site plan redrawn, the Building Official will inform the builder of those things that will have to be taken care of before a certificate of occupancy is given. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Esmond stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Esmond stated that he was representing Mrs. Miller. Mr. Esmond read Section 2.12 of the Local Government Code. Mr. Esmond told the Board that they do have the power to reverse the action of the Zoning Official and the Zoning Official does not have the power to make exceptions that the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment does. Mr. Esmond encouraged the Board to use their authority. Mr. Esmond handed the Board Members copies of "The Compleat Primer on the Law of Zoning: From Regulation to Litigation. Mr. Esmond read excerpts from the publication. Mr. Esmond reminded the Board of the other issues that were brought before the Board at the October 5 meeting. Mr. Esmond told the Board that these items would not be considered at this meeting. Mr. Esmond told the Board of his attempts to have the items brought before Planning & Zoning. Mr. Esmond stated the issues: 1) the plat is not an amending plat, 2) the closing of the alley is in violation of the subdivision regulations, and 3) the RV hook up is illegal. Mr. Esmond asked the Board to refer • these matters to Planning and Zoning. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 5 of I S Mr. Esmond told the Boazd that he would talk about the comments Ms. Kee made in her staff report. Mr. Esmond also told the Board he would hand them exhibits as he addressed Ms. Kee's comments. • Mr. Esmond stated that Ms. Kee can delegate authority, she is the city's designated Zoning Official. Mr. Esmond handed the Boazd a copy of Ms. Kee's job description. Mr. Esmond discussed Section 9 that Ms. Kee spoke about in her staff report. Mr. Esmond stated that he thinks all of the sections aze applicable to single family residential. 9.2.A.2 off street parking for truck unloading - if you build a lazge house you might have this situation and this section would apply. 9.2.A.3 pazking and maneuvering azeas - if you had off street pazking this section would apply. 9.2.A.4. ingress and egress for residences on major arterial or collector street -off street pazking, this section would apply. 9.2.A.5 - 24-foot landscape reserve -the way this is worded you can go through the landscape reserve with a driveway. But if you chose to park in the reserve it is a different matter. Mr. Esmond referred to Section 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Esmond stated that this section explains the procedure the Zoning Official is to use when a provision is uncleaz. Mr. Esmond stated that this has not been done. • 9.2.D -surfacing requirements - of either asphalt or concrete, this does require a variance. Mr. Esmond stated that Mrs. Miller would like for this to go before the Planning & Zoning Commission. There is no provision for the gravel driveway and no variance has been sought or granted. Mr. Esmond told the Board that Mrs. Miller's property borders where the gravel driveway is proposed. Mr. Esmond stated that the gravel driveway is recognized as a temporary surface in the Zoning Ordinance. Setback Appeal: Mr. Esmond spoke about Table A of Section 7.2D. Mr. Esmond pointed out to the Board where it states "zero lot line construction of a residence is allowed where property on both sides of the lot line is owned and/or developed simultaneously by a single party. Development under lot line construction requires prior approval by the Zoning Official. In no case shall a single family residence or duplex be built within 1 S feet of another building. " Mr. Esmond stated that the interpretation of where the line is you have to refer to Section 8.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section states "yazds as required in this ordinance aze open spaces on the lot or building plot on which a building is situated and which are open and unobstructed to the sky by any structure except as herein provided." Mr. Esmond stated that means an eave. Mr. Esmond stated this is a problem with the ordinance and how it reads. Mr. Esmond spoke about the staff report where it stated that Mr. Nagle opted to use Note C of Table A. Mr. Esmond told the Boazd that he does not see any license for the developer to opt for anything. Mr. • Esmond stated that this is something the Zoning Official should determine and grant. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 6 of I S Mr. Esmond told the Board that the air conditioner is not mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Esmond • stated this is very significant and it does not show up on the plat. Mr. Esmond explained that a plat is developed from structures and improvements on the ground and that becomes the underlying layer for the replat. Mr. Esmond stated that someone had to decide to remove the air conditioner and not show it on the final plat, but there is a note to address the air conditioner. Mr. Esmond read the note, as it appears on the plat "the existing air conditioner for the house on lot I1 R will be allowed to remain on 12 R ". Mr. Esmond stated the only way to interpret this is as meaning the existing air conditioner. What does it say about access to the air conditioner or getting to the air conditioner. Mr. Esmond added that it is also a fire hazard and safety issue as well since it is a electrical mechanical device. Mr. Esmond referenced the staff report dated July 13, 1999 as stating "the air conditioning unit located on lot 12R, which is for the building on lot 11 R ", needs to either be covered by an easement or there needs to be a note stating that the unit will be moved. Mr. Esmond stated that the plat was signed anyway. Mr. Esmond spoke to the Board again about one of the requirements of zero lot line construction. Specifically "zero lot line construction of residences is allowed where property on both sides of lot line is owned and/or developed simultaneously by single party ". Mr. Esmond handed the Boazd copies of warranty deeds and other legal documents. Mr. Esmond explained these documents and stated that these properties are not owned by a single party, but rather by two. Mr. Nagle and Allison Nagle own these properties. Mr. Esmond told the Boazd that they have no choice but to overturn the decision that was made and reverse it. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Esmond what is the relationship of Nelson and Allison Nagle. Mr. Esmond answered that he understands they are father and daughter. • Mr. Bond asked Mr. Esmond what is his contention that different pazties aze developing the properties. As it is stated under Section C of Table A - "zero lot line is allowed where properties on both sides of lot line is either owned and/or developed simultaneously by a single party. " Mr. Bond asked if there aze different developers in this case also. If so, that would give the Zoning Official the approval of either one. Mr. Esmond answered that if you follow that statement you have to realize that the house in the middle has been developed already. The house is just. a few yeazs away from getting its historical plaque. Mr. Esmond stated that the analysis fails this case. Mr. Murphy referenced the staff report concerning Section 9.2.D. -surfacing requirements as written "except as otherwise provided. " Section 6 of Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances is also referenced. Mr. Murphy referred to Mr. Esmond's statement that the surface should be asphalt or concrete. Mr. Esmond replied that this statement is not in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore it is outside this scope. There is a variance provision and it states that the Planning and Zoning Commission will approve the variance of this standard. Mr. Esmond stated that it did not go the P&Z and Mrs. Miller would like to have the plat go to the P&Z. The plat did not qualify, as an amending plat. Mr. Esmond ended by telling the Board that these matters aze not in the scope of the ZBA. • ZBA Minutes October 20. 1999 Page 7 of I S Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Flores-Meath handed the Board copies of warranty deeds for the properties that date • back to May. Mr. Flores-Meath explained to the Board that it shows ownership as Allison Nagle, a single woman and Nelson Lee Nagle, a single man. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that whether there is an affiliation or not, they aze separately listed as two individual persons. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that was for the purchase of tract B (the middle lot). Mr. Flores-Meath explained the warranty deed for tract A & C listing Nelson Lee Nagle only. Mr. Flores-Meath explained the special warranty deed signed in September after the plat was recorded at the courthouse. It is shown the grantor as Allison Nagle and a grantee as Nelson Lee Nagle. It states that Allison is granting control of some of the land to Nelson Lee Nagle. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that this acknowledges that they aze two sepazate adults and there is sepazate ownership for the land. Mr. Flores-Meath asked does that not show a distinction between two people owning one lot and one person owning two other lots. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that the zero lot line exception should not have been allowed on either side. . Mr. Flores made reference to a comment made at the October 5 meeting of the Boazd concerning deed restrictions not being enforceable. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that the city's web page states Brison Park formerly known as Dexter Park was renamed in 1980 in honor of Fred Brison. The page describes the park as a beautifully wooded green space protected from development by deed restrictions. Mr. Flores- Meath stated that the city can not enforce the deed restrictions but they do honor them. Mr. Nelson Nagle stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Nagle introduced his daughter Allison Nagle to the Boazd. Mr. Nagle told the Boazd it was when his daughter decided to attend Texas A & M the decision was made to help her enjoy the rights of property • ownership. After the purchase of the property in question, Mr. Nagle stated that he met immediately with the Planning Department. Mr. Nagle stated that the development has been described as 3 houses being constructed on one lot. Mr. Nagle told the Board that when he purchased the property it was 2- 50 foot lots as per the original plat and 29 feet of another lot. Mr. Nagle stated that in talking with the Planning Department he learned that Fidelity Street was closed in 1961. Mr. Nagle asked the city if he had rights to use this land. Mr. Nagle was told there is no official process to go through he just needs to claim it. He was told that other neighbors are already encroaching on to Fidelity Street and have fenced it in and have claimed it with buildings. Mr. Nagle stated that he began what he felt as the process of development. He hired an architect and planned houses that he felt fit into the neighborhood and were similar to houses directly across the street. Mr. Nagle stated that he is very sensitive to the neighborhood and along with the builder, the homes were planned to be historically sensitive. Mr. Nagle explained that similaz azchitecture exists throughout the area. Mr. Nagle addressed the surfaces used in parking lots. Mr. Nagle stated that gravel was actually planned not for economics as much as to be in the characteristic of the neighborhood because he believed that there are a great number of driveways that aze constructed out of gravel. Mr. Nagle described Mrs. Miller's driveway as being constructed out of gravel, pea gravel or dirt. Mr. Nagle stated that he is willing to look at any recommendations. • ZBA Minuses October 20, 1999 Page 8 of 1 S Mr. Bond stated that he himself might have referred to this as a single lot situation with 3 houses. Mr. Bond told Mr. Nagle that he was trying to get the state of common ownership. Mr. Bond stated that it • was discussed extensively and he wanted to understand the argument which is essentially there is not a single ownership. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Nagle if there was anything about the information presented that he needed to clarify. Mr. Nagle stated that he understood that he was not required by city ordinance to redo lot lines or replat the lots. Mr. Nagle stated that in his discussions with city staff when he purchased the property, he addressed this issue and he was told that it did not make a difference because they aze considered a family and that was the city's interpretation. Mr. Nagle stated that he worked with Kerr Surveying and the city to meet city codes and the intent was to abide by the rules. Mr. Nagle stated that he is an owner on all three deeds but that is a matter of semantics and how that is interpreted. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Nagle if he does view this as one development and is he planning on giving a house to each of his children. Mr. Nagle stated that intentionally that was the plan. He is a vested owner in all three lots and he believes the terms with Allison are very friendly. Mr. Nagle added that the deeds could be reconstructed as necessary to satisfy the requirements. Mr. Nagle ended by saying that the deeds were done the way they were because they understood that to be the best way to accomplish the goal. Peter McIntire, 611 Montclair, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. McIntire stated that the internal floor plan of the existing house has not been shown. Mr. McIntire asked if there aze any bedrooms that abut the zero lot line side of the house. It was his understanding " from what the Zoning Official stated, that there is a specific exclusion from zero lot line clearance • being granted where bedrooms abut the zero lot line side of the house. Mr. McIntire stated that there is no relief from that and it is a safety issue for a second exit. Mr. Kee answered it was reviewed by the Building Official and she believed the code states that if it is on the zero lot line, there could not be any openings. The exits could not be on that wall. Chairman Alexander asked if windows could be along the wall on the zero lot line construction. Mr. Kee replied not at the zero lot line, but windows could be on the wall for construction setback of 3 1/2 feet. Mr. McIntire stated that the house is on the zero line and unless the bedrooms have two doors that would be in violation of zoning as far as he could understand. Mr. McIntire stated that he could not see that the Zoning Official addressed that in granting the replat. Again Ms. Kee replied that this is a building code issue. David White, Fire Protection Consultant, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. White stated that he has been in the fire service for 37 years. Mr. White told the Boazd that there was a statement made by the city official that if a house had siding on it, it would not be acceptable on a zero lot line without a one hour firewall. Mr. White referred to a drawing of the design of the houses to be built and the exterior appeazs to be siding. Mr. White stated that if it is siding, the city official stated that aone-hour firewall would be required which he does not think exists. Mr. White referred to this as being a monumental problem for fire fighters. If one house is fully involved, it becomes a rescue problem. Mr. White spoke about overhangs not being on the property line. Mr. White told the Board that he has seen fire jump from one building to another. Mr. White ended by saying that he can not believe the overhang is allowed to overhang the property line. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Nagle what is the siding. Mr. Nagle replied that it is plank siding. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 9 oj15 • Stella Wilkes, 9552 River Road, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Wilkes told the Board that she lived in this neighborhood for 35 years. Ms. Wilkes stated that her • and her husband revitalized 6-8 houses because it is a good neighborhood. In every case, any contact with the City of College Station, they were really held to the line for zoning. She told the Boazd that they had heard for years how good zoning was. Ms. Wilkes stated she is appalled that these lots have already been subdivided to allow that many houses. It does destroy neighborhood integrity. Ms. Wilkes stated that the lots have a 75 foot deed restriction. Ms. Wilkes spoke about being held to the line when building a carport. Ms. Wilkes stated that at one time the regulations were strict and evidently something has changed. Ms. Wilkes ending by saying that it would be a detriment to College Station and Texas A & M University to allow the total crowding that would happen. This will be repeated if this is approved. Pat Cleere, 601 Guernsey, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Cleere told the Board that she came to a meeting last yeaz, not with the Zoning Commission, but it was about the parking in this area and how dangerous it is. Ms. Cleere stated that if each of these two new homes has four bedrooms and the city only requires two pazking spaces, which means either there will be parking on the streets or there will two students without automobiles. Ms. Cleere ended by saying that it has to be the property owner's responsibility to provide off street pazking for the number of people that will occupy the houses. Norma Miller, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mrs. Miller spoke about the historic homes in the neighborhood and how proud she is of the neighborhood and its integrity. Ms. Miller told the Board about the first time that she met Mr. Nagle and his daughter. Mrs. Miller was told how they loved yazds, flowers, trees, etc. Mrs. Miller stated she • remembered Mr. Nagle telling her that he had one or two more children that would come to TAMU and he would be in the neighborhood for about 10 yeazs. Mrs. Miller spoke about how she felt knowing that she would have good neighbors. Mrs. Miller stated that nothing was mentioned about the addition of two homes. Mrs. Miller made reference to the Steeplechase Subdivision. When this addition came before Planning and Zoning and Council, Mrs. Miller referred to it as an "almost done deal " before citizens knew about it. When it was discovered it was too late. Mrs. Miller stated that she did not know anything about the construction of the two homes on Welsh until the city electrical crew arrived one day to hook up the temp pole. Mrs. Miller asked the Board to defer this matter to the Planning & Zoning and give them the chance to be heard. Kathleen Naylor, 101 Fidelity Street, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Naylor told the Boazd that she has worked in the city as well as owned several rental properties. Ms. Naylor spoke about the times she worked work with Ms. Kee and Ms. McCully in the Planning Department and how well they worked with her. Ms. Naylor ended by saying that it is new that all of a sudden things aze changing and it is a travesty to change in mid stream for those who wanted to do things. The developers who wanted to build and do a variety of things with the property available. If things continue like this she can only say thank you to Mr. Nagle and Ms. Kee for allowing people to now do more, in building rental properties on the land that is capable of holding more than the property is holding at this point. • ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 10 of I S Joan Perry, 513 Kyle, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Perry stated that she is a native of College Station and she has seen a lot of changes over the 40 plus years • that she has lived here. Ms. Perry stated that she wanted to express her concern over where the air conditioner pad is. Ms. Perry continued by saying that living next to a rental house with supposedly 4 students living there with 8 cazs, in ten yeazs the ordinance is not going to be adhered to or maintained and this neighborhood is going to continue to decline with the changes. Ms. Perry ended by saying that she does not live in this particular neighborhood but she has a vested interest in seeing that the historic azea maintained and protected. We need to look ahead. Mazgazet Griffith, 1102 San Saba, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Griffith stated that she grew up in the Southside area. Ms. Griffith stated that she does not think that the proposed buildings aze for single-family uses. Ms. Griffith asked how does single-family uses comply with single-family construction. Mike Luther, 614 Welsh, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Luther stated that his comments aze to address the issue that is focused to Section 5.11 of the Texas Local Government Code. The items that have been put into place in this azea, affect how you might look at the two issues. Mr. Luther stated that State Law in the Local Government Code mandates cities may note historic azeas. The City of College Station has acted, wisely, in designating the College Station Southside Historic Area. The azea is fully marked by signage. At the property site of this appeal, there is actually such a sign. Mr. Luther continued by saying that sign has been in front of this property during the entire pre-construction process for this project and before the property was ever purchased by the developer. Mr. Luther stated that State Law Local Government Code provides for • this in Section 211.003. Mr. Luther read the section: Mr. Luther spoke about other homes in the designated Historic Area as well as his family homestead that will soon qualify for registry as a Historic home. Mr. Luther told the Board of the Neighborhood Preservation Committee and the time they have devoted to the issues and guidelines to be used in making decisions in this neighborhood. Mr. Luther stated that the City of College Station and the people of College Station have invested thousands of dollazs developing the guidelines and principals which should have been used to refuse the issuance of the plat and which should have resulted in a request to act on it by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Luther concluded his address to the Board by reading a letter on behalf of his mother. Mr. Luther asked the Boazd to please act, as the majority of people in this City, have for yeazs now, wanted done to preserve the priceless heritage of the Southside Historic Area of the City of College Station. • ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 11 of I S Mr. Bond asked Ms. Nemcik what is the city's position in regarding whether zero lot line construction of residences is allowed where property on both sides being owned and/or developed simultaneously • by single party. Ms. Nemcik read the definition of person from the Zoning Ordinance as; "every natural person, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, or other group which conducts activities regulated hereunder as a single entity, whether same be a legal entity or not, venture, or trust. " Ms. Nemcik stated that her standpoint as a single party that would be someone who would have an ownership in the property or control in developing the property. Ms. Nemcik stated that she thinks that there is an alternative language that says either owns or develops. Mr. Nemcik stated that there is one, if not both, of those criteria's, based on Mr. Nagle's presentation that he has at least a partial interest in each of the lots. Ms. Nemcik added that she has not reviewed the deeds and she can not render an opinion as to how the title is held. Mr. Bond asked Ms. Nemcik based on her position, is partial ownership by a single party of all the tracts concerned adequate. Mr. Nemcik stated that if there were an ownership interest, whether full or partial, ownership would be sufficient, provided that the other joint owners have given their consent to develop the property. Mr. Bond asked Ms. Nemcik what are the Boards options regarding a ruling. Ms. Nemcik replied that Ms. Kee stated in her presentation; "the Board may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made and that end shall have the power of the Zoning Official from whom appeal is taken." Ms. Nemcik stated that in addition the Board could also render a reinterpretation of the items that are appealed and they are within the Boards ability to render a decision. That is specifically only zoning matters and the items the Board agreed to hear as stated on the agenda. • Mr. Bond asked if the Board had to ability to direct any of the two items to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Nemcik stated that ZBA has no jurisdiction over the Planning & Zoning Commission. However, Mrs. Miller and Mr. Esmond have submitted a request to the Chairman of the P&Z to hear the matters concerning the platting and several other issues that are in their jurisdiction. Mr. Esmond approached the Board and stated that most of the City Staff and City Council he talked to shared thoughts that this should have not been allowed. Mr. Esmond told the Board that he and Mrs. Miller have tried to get on the agenda of the Planning & Zoning. Mr. Happ asked where do the appeals from ZBA go. Ms. Nemcik stated that they go to District Court. There were continued discussions concerning the ZBA role in appeals and the platting issues. Mr. Bond asked what is the remedy assuming the plat is invalid. Ms. Nemcik stated that if that were the case the remedy would be for the City to revoke the plat before it was approved which would be at staff level. Staff would have to admit the mistake and that would have to be done within 30 days of approval. That was not done. The only thing to do at this point is to go to court and ask for a declaration that the plat was invalid and void the plat. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page l2 of I S Steven Steele, Attorney with David & Davis, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Steele told the Board several homeowners in the College Pazk Subdivision retained • him and a lawsuit has been filed. Mr. Steele stated that the ordinance clearly reads: "that an appeal is in any decision of the Zoning Official and that this Board has the right to modify any order, requirement, decision or determination." Mr. Steele stated one of the decisions and determinations made by the Zoning Official is this was an amended plat that was filed and the Zoning Official had the authority to approve the plat as an amended plat. Mr. Steele stated that he has also heard alternatively that it is a minor plat. The decision was made by the Zoning Official which ZBA has the right and the power if it so votes by 75% of the members to overturn. Mr. Murphy stated that in Section 211.009 A 1 it reads; "The Board of Adjustment may hear :and decide an appeal that alleges error in order, requirement, decision or determination made by an Administrative Official in the enforcement of this subchapter or an ordinance adopted under this subchapter." Mr. Murphy asked what is the subchapter and what is the ordinance under the subchapter and does a plat fall under that. Mr. Steele answered what it is referring to is the subchapter of 211. Mr. Murphy asked does that chapter cover plats and Planning of Zoning. Mr. Steele stated that he thinks under the city's provision it covers any decision made by the Zoning Official. Mr. Murphy asked if city staff had a different opinion. Ms. Nemcik stated that in Chapter 211 under Subchapter A reads; "General Zoning Regulations. " Ms. Nemcik told the Board that they are a Zoning Boazd of Adjustment and there is no planning reference. The enabling statue that creates the authority for this Boazd is under the Zoning Enabling Legislation. There were discussions among the Boazd concerning their role in the matter. • Mr. Nemcik stated that the matters before them to decide, as she understands, aze the issues and the challenge to the interpretation of the zero lot line. Mr. Happ asked what would this do now to the other developments that have been mentioned. If the Boazd decides the way to measure the zero lot line should be changed, then those things that aze already in existence will have anon-conforming status. If the Boazd decided to change the standazd, that would become the new standard. The other alternative would be that the City Council or the Planning & Zoning Commission would make a' change to the ordinance. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Nemcik if the Board could act upon things other than the two questions the Boazd agreed to hear. Ms. Nemcik stated that the agenda states very cleazly the issues that the Board is to decide. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that there is one item that has not been brought up concerning the driveway. Mr. Flores-Meath stated that the city has a plat that shows Ms. Miller's existing driveway as being against her property line adjacent to the north lot. It was agreed that the ZBA has the ability to address the driveway issue. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Boazd that Ms. Miller has been questioned about her driveway because it is not a traditional driveway, but it has been grandfathered for 30 some years. Mr. Flores-Meath passed the plat azound to the Boazd members. ZBA Minutes October 10, 1999 Page 73 oj15 • Mr. Flores-Meath told the Boazd that Mrs. Miller's driveway would be right next to the north lot's driveway. Mr. Flores stated that as a zoning issue there are certain requirements of having two • driveways next to each other. Mr. Murphy asked for city staff to address this issue. Ms. Kee replied that the driveway access ordinance and the cases that the P&Z have heazd deal with platting of commercial and multi-family driveway access. There is an ordinance that regulates distances and separations. Specifically on asingle-family lot what is required is that the radius has to be over far enough so that it does not cross on to someone else's property. Ms. Kee added that her understanding from Mr. Nagle, the reason the north driveway is where it is, is to preserve a large tree in front of the house. Mr. Nagle stated that he visited with the .City Code Enforcement Officer and had a map drawn showing exactly where it is legal to park. The officer made it very clear that there was'no driveway there on Mrs. Miller's property but rather a lawn. Mrs. Miller explained to the Boazd the history of the driveway and that she had a letter from Tom Brymer stating that the driveway is grandfathered. Dorcus Moore, 1118 Detroit Street, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Moore stated that her job is to take plats such as this one and make them right. Ms. Moore stated that the plat is the most inconsistent survey done by a surveyor/engineer. Ms. Moore stated her concerns and how the decisions by the Board will set a precedent. If it is not the right decision this can be expected to happen all over the city. Brandon Nagle, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Brandon stated that he wanted to make testament to Mr. I~Tagle's chazacter and his past. Brandon told the Board that it was just. last yeaz that Mr. Nagle had begun a project in the historic azea of downtown Round Rock. • There were many of the same concerns with neighbors, but last year it was voted the most beautiful azea in Round Rock. Brandon stated that the intent is to better this historic neighborhood as well. Brandon reminded the Boazd to also think about the future of the neighborhood. Mr. Esmond stated that he feels the Board had received a lot of contrary advice and in his opinion some of it not so good. Air. Esmond stated that he is proud to live in Texas where our courts have upheld there is no liability to a city for damages if a decision is reversed by a Zoning Official in order to comply with their own zoning ordinance. Mr. Esmond told the Boazd that he feels the Boazd is on safe ground on that matter. Mr. Esmond encouraged the Boazd to take the two issues at hand and deal with them and reverse the decision for the sake of the community. Ms. Nemcik stepped to the podium to respond to Mr. Esmonds admonishment to the Boazd. Ms. Nemcik stated that this Boazd and the City has governmentally immunity when acting in its capacity and exercising its governmental functions. But even within that realm there can be liability for the city in certain circumstances. Ms. Nemcik ended by cautioning the Boazd that it can not act indiscriminately and think that it is totally immune and there will not consequences for the city. Helen McDermott, 500 Fairview, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mrs. McDermott told the Boazd that she does not see how Mr. Nagle's development is going to better the neighborhood. It is true there is a lot of student housing and rental property in the azea but she and her husband hope that there will be other young couples that will buy homes in the area and make them • homes. Mrs. McDermott stated that they plan on living in their house a long time. ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page 14 of I S Mike McMicken, 1405 Bayou Woods, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman • Alexander. Mr. McMicken stated that when this plat was approved, it created the potential for 3 single-family homes, which could not exist on their own as separate entities. Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Happ made the motion to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 7.2D of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Bond seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (S-0). Mr. Bond made the motion to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Off cial in the enforcement of Section 9 of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Happ seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (S-0) AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. • • ~ a Chairman, David A der ZBA Minutes October 20, 1999 Page IS of IS Zoning Board of Adjustment • Guest Register Date~c`~C a~~ ~~~~ Name 1. Address ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ i ~ / ~ ~~ n Co v O ~ ~~ ~' . S . ~~ ~ ~Sas ~ L`~~ ~ z .~ ~~ l 4'~ ~~, ~~ ~ ~~ o ~/, 2. ~°° 3. C~~11G'~ ~D,o ~ cS~ ~%D~ ~ o Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register • ' Date ' ~ `~`~ ' `~ 4. 5. 6. Name ~. ~q~~ ~aw~l 2. L ~ ~ ~sQrv 3. G ~II~s~ ~- ~. >~~ C I~ 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. Address 1~~0 l~t~.~~LSsG~_L - Soo R sh~.r~ st . S ~ ~ C~ u~ ~an~,,, ~v~yl, l~ ZII~ ~~-~ C- ~ ~ F ~ S~~' a-~~5~ Illy ~~'~u~ X73 ~L~c.~~- ~~ S ~. 25. 19.