Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1982 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment April 20, 1982 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Members W. Harper, D. MacGilvray, V.Cook, G. Wagner, and Council Liaison P. Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Upham STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Planning Director Mayo, Asst. Planning Director Callaway, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - February 15, 1982 Chairman Harper asked Council Liaison Boughton to serve as a voting member in the absence of Jack Upham. G. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15th meeting; P. Boughton seconded; motion carried unanimously. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of a Variance to re wired lot de th for a duplex in the name of Enloe Construction, Lots 3 ~ Block N, University Park. J. W. Wood, developer of the entire tract was sworn in as a representative for Enloe Construction, the builder. Wood indicated there had been many changes in the plat between the preliminary plat and the final plat. He said this had been a particularly difficult tract of land to plat, and there had been problems with lot widths, lot depths, and zoning. Under R-3 zoning, duplexes could be built, but there is a 100 ft, minimum lot length for duplexes, and this is the problem on the 2 lots in question. Harper asked what is behind the lots, and Wood indicated there is an approximately g8 acre undeveloped tract of land, and the City has a 10 ft. easement off the adjoining side. Planning Director Mayo was sworn in and asked to clarify what had happened in the development of this tract. He explained that the main reason in the platting process we did not disallow the lots is that there is an R.1-A zoning district which has no minimum lot size and is governed by square footage. Since the lots in question are adjacent, the 2 lots could be combined and then have enough square footage for several small units. The developer and the builder were both warned that there were some problems with the lot widths if they were intended for use for duplexes. All other lot problems have been resolved with exception of these 2 lots. • Harper asked if there were any plans to change lot requirements or characteristics for other types of zoning (perhaps to square footage rather than minimum depths and widths), and Mayo said that at this time there are no plans to change R-l, R-2 or R-3 lot requirements. He said that R-1.A gives the builder the option of using certain pieces of property for certain units. He indicated the difference between R-1 and R-l.A is that R-1 spells out minimum lot lengths and widths, and R-l.A requires a minimum square footage and is meant for smaller types of homes page 2 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes, April 20, 1982 such as patio homes. He indicated the difference between. duplexes and patio homes to be that duplexes share a wall and each side has living space on that wall, • whereas a patio home shares a wall, but only one side has living space on the in- side of that wall and the other side has outdoor space. The possibility of rear parking and minimum lot widths was brought up, and Zoning Official Kee indicated that there would still be problems on these lots even if the parking were moved to the rear which would allow a minimum lot width of 60 ft. rather than 70 ft. Harper indicated that he believed this to be the first issue he had encountered concerning lot depth. Wood spoke again and gave background of the development of the tract of land. He said the entire tract is about 125 acres and that work began about a year ago. He described the land and the problems he had encountered in the development of it due to the topography and shape of the tract. He further indicated that Staff had worked closely with the developers and had pointed out some of the problems, which have since been changed. He asked if the small amount of footage involved on these lots was critical enough to cause major changes to be made. He indicated the footage to vary from 1 to 1~ feet on several spots only, and not across the entire width of the lots. Mr. Enloe of Enloe Construction was sworn in and identified himself as the owner of the lots in question, and said that he was getting ready to build duplexes, and the cost of building had already been covered in the closing with the Lendor, money had been invested, and a financial hardship was being experienced by him • concerning these lots. He further indicated that he realized that the problem to be solved dealt with quality of lifestyle rather than affect on his monetary interest. Harper stated. the Board does not have the authority to simply waive the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance unless there is a special condition of the land, there is no demonstrated damage to the public good, and enforcement of the Ordinance would result in extreme hardship for the applicant. Harper then made a motion to grant the variance to minimum lot depth for the rea- sons that there are multiple utility easements, the lots are adjacent to the Bryan City Sewer Plant, both lots are somewhat odd-shaped and that the portion of the required lot which lies outside of the available land is only a matter of a foot and not for the complete width of the lot, but only at the corner, and also because it is not contrary to public interest. Motion seconded by Wagner. Motion carried. In favor: Wagner,MacGilvray, Harper & Cook Opposed: Boughton Harper then addressed M.Murphy who has a consideration of a Variance on the Agenda (Item #4). Harper explained that the ZBA has 2 members plus himself who requested to be excused from participating in this decision, and that Upham was absent; hence, there would be no quorum to rule on this issue. He asked Murphy's indulgence in re- scheduling the consideration, and Murphy indicated this was agreeable, but that he would like an informal discussion of his request tonight, the results of which would help him make a decision for future plans for his property. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3= Consideration of an Ap eal alle in an error in interpretation • regarding a screen fence in the name of Arthur Wright at O1 Turner Street. Mr. A. Wright was sworn in, and began giving background to previous rulings con- cerning his property by locating the property and showing a plot plan which located page 3 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes, April 20, 1982 the chain link fence in question. He read. part of Zoning Official Kee's Memorandum and indicated that he disagreed with the last. paragraph on page 2, last sentence • which states "When projects wish to expand, the staff attempts to bring the entire project up to code as much as possible", because he believed his chain link fence was "up to code" at the time he built it, in fact believed it to be even more than had been required in that he fenced the entire eastern boundary, and had only been required to fence a little over 100 feet. He further indicated that 4 out of 5 property owners adjacent to his property, who owned single family dwellings had signed a statement to the effect that they did not want the fence to be changed. He presented the signed statement to the Chairman, and this statement will be attached to the end of these minutes. Herman Holmes, an adjacent property owner to the property in question was sworn in and Harper asked for his statment. Mr. Holmes said that he was the largest landowner adjacent to Mr. Wright's property and that he did not want the fence to be changed. Mr. Wright spoke again, and quoted portions of the Ordinance which he felt applied to his situation. The following list represents Sections of the Ordinance from which he quoted, however, Mr. Wright only used portions of these sections, and not the entire section: Section 11-A, Section 11-B.5 (Board of Adjustment); Section 4-A (Non-Conforming Uses); and paragraph 2 of Section 6-J (Screen Fence Requirements). He further indicated that while Kee had referred to paragraph 2 of Section 6-J in her Memorandum, that he believed this paragraph did not apply in this case. Wright then addressed each "adverse influence" in Section 6-J as follows: Noise - his apartment buildings are 2 story and set back 18 feet, so there is no noise. • Vehicular lights - His parking lot is 75 feet from the lot line and is separated by 3 buildings, so there is no problem with lights. Trespass - The existing chain link fence prevents trespass, but besides that, allows the single family residences adjacent more open space and air flow than would a solid screen fence. Then he addressed"asthetic view" and indicated that his apartment yards are well cared for, perhaps even better than the single family dwellings adjacent. Mr. Wright said he believes that he is still in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and that the only changes made since the fence was installed are the current officials and their interpretations of the Ordinance. At this point Harper interrupted Mr. Wright and indicated that he was getting away from the issue, and was spending more time criticizing the Staff than addressing the issue at hand. Harper then pointed out that when land has been developed, and then is re-developed, at the time of the re-development, anything that is not in compliance with Ordinances is brought into compliance. Mr. Wright indicated that all. 6 buildings were plotted and approved originally. MacGilvray asked about the idea of "slats" in the chain link fence, and Cook indi- cated the major issue was one of screening and a chain link fence does not screen anything, but simply puts up a barrier, and that in lieu of a solid 6 ft. high fence that shrubbery or plantings are the only other way to screen. • Harper indicated that although the apartment property is extremely neat and well maintained that noise and lights are not screened by a chain link fence. He was concerned at this time, not with current residents of the adjacent properties, but rather with future owners, and indicated further that he would not like to be a party to setting precedent by not requiring that a 6 ft. high screen fence be installed. page 4 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes, April 20, 1982 • Wright indicated that he had acted in good faith and had put up a 5 ft. high chain link fence across even more land than was required at the time of the ruling, and that he had fully complied with previous official's ruling. MacGilvray requested comments from Staff, and then realized this request was out of order and withdrew the request. Wright cited unnecessary hardship and expense involved, and stated that justice would not be done by making him tear down the existing fence and replacing it. Kee responded that Mr. Callaway would like to comment on the background of this issue. Callaway was sworn in and then indicated that in 1980 this development was reviewed for expansion. 4-plex was developed on half the lot and a chain link fence which had been accepted by previous officials existed. Callaway stated that he assumed that the only reason the previous Building Official had accepted a chain link fence rather than a 6 ft. high solid fence was perhaps because the adjacent single family houses were located on property zoned for high density apartments. Since that time Callaway stated the adjacent properties have been rezoned to R-1 Single Family. At the time of review in 1980, it was pointed out to Mr. Wright that if any changes were made to the property, the fence would have to be upgraded to current zoning ordinances, and that this is the question to be resolved tonight before any Certi- ficates of Occupancy will be issued. Callaway then referred to Section 6-J (2) of the Ordinance and indicated that this had been reviewed by the Staff and City Attorney and that the City Attorney advised the Staff to proceed with their inter- • pretation. He further indicated that the only portion of the fence that the City was concerned with was the part that screened that portion of apartment units from residential dwellings. Mayo then addressed the Board and indicated that he was present at the time when Mr. Wright got the permit for the first project, and that he thinks Mr. Wright convinced the Building Official that the Ordinance did not apply to his project. He indicated that the present interpretation of Ordinances and upgrading commercial and multi-family projects shows more responsiveness to single family dwellings on the part of the Staff. He then referred to the Memorandum in the packet to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated -July 10, 1980 which indicated that a screen fence should replace the chain link fence which was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The memo further indicates that the P.R.C. would not recommend approval of Mr. Wright's project without correction of the fence. Mayo strongly recommended that this case go back to P.R.C. and Planning and Zoning Commission if this chain link fence is allowed to remain in place. Wagner then questioned the original Ordinance and indicated that Mr. Wright is out of compliance on fence .height regardless of the type of fence he has, because Ordinance requires a 6 ft. high fence, and Mr. Wright's fence is only 5 ft. high. Mr. Wright indicated that he had gone back through P.R.C. more recently than 1980, and Kee indicated that the more recent P~:R.C. did say the project would not have • to go back through P ~ Z if compliance were made, then further indicated that the 6 ft. high continuous solid screen fence should apply to both paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 6-J according to legal advice. MacGilvray commented on his understanding of the Ordinance, and then pointed out page 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, April 20, 1982 that the only difference between paragraphs in Section 6-J would be concerning who was responsible for putting up the fence. Mayo then indicated that previously, Public Hearings had been held for apartment site plan review and the biggest single question by single family residents was that of the screen fence between-their property and that of adjoining apartments. Vie Cook made a motion that any variance to the screen fence requirements be denied and that the decision of- the Zoning Official requiring a 6 f~. high continuous solid fence to be located along the southern property line and 100 ft. of the eastern property line separating the apartment projectfrom the developed Single Family houses be upheld. MacGilvray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Harper indicated to Mr. Wright that he had a right to appeal to the County Co rut and that the County Court is out of the Board's jurisdiction. Harper ,further indicated that if Mr. Wright now wanted an option to the screen fence, he must go back through the Zoning Official and the Planning and Zoning Commission. AGENDA ITEM #4: Consideration of a Variance to the rear setback for a room addition in the name of Michael Murphy at 305 Pershing. Michael Murphy was identified and sworn in, and agreed to reschedule this item on the agenda at a later date. He indicated that he would like to have an informal discussion which perhaps would clarify questions he had. Then fie asked about the time limit on a Variance. Kee referred to Section 10 as coverage of Use Permits, and indicated that the City Attorney should be consulted, but that her interpretation was that the Variance would continue as long as the Building Permit was alive. Harper thought the period of time could be extended on specific projects. Callaway reiterated that consultation with the City Attorney should take place about a "delayed variance" on a particular building. Murphy indicated that on the original Deed Restrictions indicated a 10 ft. set- back was required, but that current Zoning Ordinance made it 25 ft. He also asked if a porch could extend into the setback and was answered that if the porch was open on 3 sides it could extend up to 6 feet into the rear setback line, but not the 12 ft. his drawing indicated. Harper moved to table this item until the next regular meeting of the Board. Cook seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. May. 18, 1982 was identified as the next regular meeting date and Mr. Murphy was instructed to contact Kee regarding this agenda item by May 7th. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5 - Other Business. Kee referred to the Minutes of the April 21, 1981 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, Agenda Item No. 2: Consideration of a request for a variance to the parking • requirements for a restaurant in the name of L ~ R Foods, Inc., 2700 Texas Avenue. Kee asked the Board how important were the hours of operation as stated by Mr. Lampo in granting the Variance to parking. She pointed out that part of the request to the Variance in 1981 that led the Board to approve the Variance was that the hours of his proposed restaurant were to be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and that ~- page 6 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, April 20,.1982 Mr. Lampo was now proposing to open some type of pizza parlor at that location, and • she speculated that the hours might extend beyond 9 p.m. She further explained that Mr. Lampo. bad indicated he might possibly close the restaurant to patrons at 9 p.m., and only have late-night delivery service after that time. Kee was advised by the Board to confer with the City Attorney to discover what alternatives the Board has in reconsidering this matter. Kee then referred to the update of Table A of Ordinance 850, and asked that the Board study it and notes A & B, and be prepared to give an interpretation at the next Board .meeting. In the interim, she and Mayo would talk with the Fire Marshall so the Staff could come to an agreement as to interpretation. The intent of A ~ B is to have a fifteen (15) foot separation fora firebreak, as wall as to allow lot line construction with appropriate firewall construction. Mayo pointed out that single family dwellings are usually 15 ft. apart, but that there is only 7Z ft. of open space in which to work because of the fence on the property line. He also indicated that he had talked with the Fire Marshall who stated that the 7~ ft. did not matter if he had rear access to the unit. MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Harper seconded the motion, which then carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #6: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. • APPROVED: ~, ~J ~ : ~ ,.f., _~ ~~~~ L_____ U- . ~, J. Mr. Wright: • The original copy of the statement signed by adjacent landowners who have indicated they desired the fence to remain as is has been filed with the original copy of the Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeal meeting dated April 20, 1982. We are returning a copy of this .statement to you for your records . •