Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1981 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment August 18, 1981 7:00 p.m. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Members, G. Wagner, D. MacGibvray, Vi Burke, J. Upham; Council Liaison, P. Boughton. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman, W. W. Harper. STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official, Jane Kee; Asst. Director of Planning, Jim Callaway; Planning Assistant, Chris Longley; Planning Technician, Joan Keigley. In the absence of Chairman W. W. Harper, board member Burke was selected to chair the meeting which was called to order at 7:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1, Approval of minutes of meeting of July 21, 1981. Uptin motion by D. MacGilvray; second by G. Wagner the minutes of July 21, 1981 were unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2, Consideration of a request for a variance to Sec. 8-D.7. and 8-D.9. (sign regulations - Ordinance 850) in the name of CBL & Associates, Inc., Post Oak Mall. Zoning Official Kee explained that the Plitt Theater will be located on Holleman, but is requesting a sign to be located on Hwy. 30 where an entrance sign for the entire mall will be located. She further explained that Ordinance 850 Section 8-D.7. states: "No billboards or signs shall be erected advertising products or services not available on the site" and pointed out the theater location is on a separately platted site; and also specif ied the requirements of Section 8-D.9. which states: "only one (1) sign will be permitted on each major arterial;" and pointed out that the Mall itself will have an entrance sign on Highway 30. She further explained to the board that the City did request a portion of Holleman Dr. be dedicated, which did sever the Mall site itself, but CBL & Associates was aware of this from the beginning. Should a variance to Section 8-D.7. be grat- ed, then perhaps the theater sign could be combined with the Mall entrance sign on Highway 30. Mr. Eugene Schimpf, representing CBL & Associates, addressed the board in favor of the requested variance. He explained to the board the signing being requested in this matter is not unusual in many of the malls which have been developed by CBL. He gave assurance to the board that the Plitt theater would not come back for an additional variance if the Holleman extension is completed, but rather would use a sign on their structure. He pointed out the object of the detached sign at the entrance of the mall was to make the public aware that a theater is located in the mall area, and also would be an announcement of features which are showing. Mr. Upham stated the situation is not if Holleman is completed, but when. He also asked if the dedication which had been requested by the City had been made by CBL. Mr. Schimpf stated it had not been done at this time, but is their intention to Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment August l8, 1981 Page 2. • make the dedication as requested. D. MacGilvray stated he could not see how a sign in that area would benef it the theater which would be located completely at the rear of the mall area. P. Boughton asked how far from the curb the proposed detached sign would be on Hwy. 30. Mr. Schimpf stated about 30'. J. Upham asked if it seemed feasible to combine the mall entrance sign and the theater sign on HWY. 30. Mr. Schimpf stated it could be done but consideration should be given to the amount of space, in width, which would be used and the possibility of creating an unsaf e visual problem for traffic at the mall entrance on Hwy. 30. G. Wagner asked if there is a reason for not placing the sign on Holleman. Mr. Schimpf stated there is not adequate traffic there. If Holleman was com- pleted, the theater group would place the sign in that area. The Plitt Theater group feels that even after Holleman is completed, the detached sign will remain at the requested location and will not be moved. Chairman Burke presented the following motion which was given second by D. MacGilvray. • Move for approval of the request for variances to Sections 8-D.7. and 8-D.9 of Ordinance 850 to allow a detached sign for Plitt Theaters to be placed on Hwy. 30, away from the theater site and to allow a second sign on a major arterial. Approval of the variance request by CBL & Associates was denied by a unanimous vote in opposition. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3, Consideration of a request to expand a non-conforming structure, in the name of William Douglas Moore, et ux; 1311 Angelina. Jane Kee described the non-conforming structure as encroaching the required side setback by 10 inches. She explained the house was permitted in 1978, one year after Ordinance 850 went .into effect. The setback requirement was and still is, 7.5 feet and was met on the original site plan. Apparently during construction the placement of the garage was changed to save existing trees. This was not shown on the original site plan and was evidently not noticed during the slab inspection. She suggested the alternative of detaching the proposed gazebo from the garage which would eliminate the problem of expansion of a non-conforming structure. J. Upham stated that by making changes during construction the end result is an encroachment on city regulations as well as on the adjoining property. J. Kee stated that was true and she had been contacted by the adjoining property owner who plans to build in the near future. • Mr. Gaither, owner of the adjoining property introduced himself to the board. Mr. Moore, applicant for the variance, explained at the time of construction, the carport was angled to save 5 large trees and also was developed in such a way as to offer a more aesthetic development for the neighborhood. Now they wish to add Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment August 18, 1981 Page 3. • a gazebo, attached to the garage at the opposite corner from .the encroachment in order to carry out .some of the functions for which the house was designed; such as entertaining large groups from the University. J. Upham stated this is a request to expand a structure which is already in nonconformity. Mr. Moore stated the structure was permitted in 1973 and some how when the car- port was pivoted it inadvertantly got off. The only alternative would be to cut the corner off. That would be inflationary and that is why the request is being made. P. Boughton asked why it was necessary to attach the gazebo and Mr. Moore replied because of the size of the courtyard and the placement of trees. Mr. Gaither stated his concern that his building area has been decreased by the encroachment for which approval of this board is being sought. J. Upham pointed out the encroachment already exists and this board can do nothing about that condition. The only action under consideration is the expansion in size of the structure which encroaches the setback requirements. Mr. Gaither stated his feeling that before considering a variance for Mr. Moore, the board should consider the two lots together simultaneously because they are • tied together. He stated he wants relief. J. Upham stated that is a civil matter between n e~ghbors. D. Wagner asked Mr. Moore if any consideration had been given to building the structure anywhere else; and restated if it were not attached there would be o problem. Mr. Moore explained the cost of heating and cooling the .structure if it were separate from the garage area (which includes a study) and the gazebo is planned to be draped over the corner of the garage. He stated any other alternative location is not suitable for the structure. V. Burke asked if it was his determination that it was economically best for him to attach the structure to the garage and Mr. Moore answered aff irmatively. G. Wagner asked Jane Kee to def ine attached; she stated the understanding and concensus is to be "touching." G. Wagner asked what is done about mistakes; he expressed his feeling this case is a little unique.. V. Burke stated that without assessing blame for the mistake; the mistake exists which causes a non-conformity. She explained that according to the ordinance, this prolongs the life of the non-conforming use and there is an alternative, a third structure could be added on the lot without increasing the non-conforming • use. Chairman Burke made the following motion; seconded by J. Upham. Move that approval be given for expansion of a structure which is non-conforming to Ordinance 850 in that it does not meet or satisfy the side setback requirements Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment August 18, 1981 Page 4. • of that ordinance. Approval of the motion was denied by a unanimous vote in opposition. Mr. Moore asked if he cut off 10 inches from the corner of the garage would that place the structure in conformance with the ordinance? J. Upham answered if that were done, the structure would be in conformance and there would be no need to petition this board for a variance to side setback re- quirements and he could proceed with his proposed expansion. He further stated that such action would also "bail out'" Mr. Moore's neighbor. D. MacGilvray asked what about replatting and J. Upham answered that would still take away 10" from his neighbor's property. Mr. Tony Jones stated this nonconformity had taken place during a period of time when the Ordinance was new and when there was a transition of employees doing inspections. P. Boughton stated it makes no difference when the structure was built; if it does not comply with the ordinance when a change is proposed, then a variance must must be secured. T. Jones stated the setback is measured from the slab and suggested if the slab were cut back 10 inches and the structure cantalevered this_ should satisfy the • requirements of the ordinance. (There was no discussion on this proposed alternative). Mr. Gaither asked if he were to present a request for a variance to the side setback for the adjoining property at the next meeting what the reaction of the board would be. J. Upham stated he would have to vote against it. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4, Consideration of a request for a variance to side setback re- quirements in the name of Tony Jones. Southwood ~~25, Block 14 Lot 39-B. Jane Kee presented the application to the board by pointing out the variance sought was to the side setback requirement indicated in Note B of Table A of Ordinance 850 which requires a f irewall providing a minimum 2 hour fire resistance rating when lot line construction takes place. She further pointed out the adjacent building is 15 feet away, but Note B still applies due to construction on the lot line. T. Jones explained the building was constructed in 1977 and at that time separation between buildings was understood to be 15'. The proposed building upon which afire wall is being required is designed to have windows which cannot be placed in afire wall. He pointed out that the 15' between structures has been provided and both lots are under the same ownership. • P. Boughton clarified the statement that the 15' setback is on one lot, and then asked if it could be replatted and Mr. Jones answered aff irmatively. V. Burke read into the record the statement from the Fire Marshal _ "In my opinion the code calls for a two hour wall between units and as far as my ruling, the code should be held as written with no exceptions." She mentioned the devastation of Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment. August 18, 1981. Page 5. • • of serious fires in many areas which makes this a point of concern for everyone. T. Jones asked if the suggestion of the board would be to replat. J. Upham stated he could withdraw this request for a variance and replat the property which should take care of the situation. T. Jones replied in that case he would withdraw. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 - (Withdrawn from the agenda). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6, Other Business. Jane Kee reminded the board members of the workshop session which would be held at the city off ices September 8, 1981 at 3:30 p.m. She reported the city attorney would be present to provide the board members with benef icial information. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7, Adjournment. Upon motion by J. Upham; second by D. MacGilVray and a unanimous vote the meeting was adjourned . APPROVED: Chairman ATTEST: Secretary Minutes • City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment Workshop Meeting September 8, 1981 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: 3:30 p.m. - Dan MacGilvray and Liasion Pat Boughton 4:00 p.m. - Wes Harper, Jack Upham, Gale Wagner C7 MEMBERS ABSENT: Violetta Burke STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning, Al Mayo; Assistant Director of Planning, Jim Callaway; Zoning Official, Jane Kee; City Attorney, Lowell Denton; Building Off icical, Coy Perry; and, Zoning Inspector, Joan Keigley. Due to business committments of board members precluding the ability to be in attendance during the entire meeting, the agenda as presented was set aside. An informal discussion of application process and fees was held. Staff is to present a formal procedure and fee schedule to the board for consideration at a regular meeting. City Attorney Lowell Denton spoke to the board explaining the duties, responsi- bilities and authority of the board and outlined a meeting procedure for consi- deration and adoption by the board at regular meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. APPROVED: Chairman ATTEST: • Secretary