Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1982 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustments July 20, 1982 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Chairman Cook, Members MacGilvray, Upham, Donahue and Council Liaison Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Wagner and Alternate Member Lindsey STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Planning Technician Volk and City Attorney Denton for a portion of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes from June 15, 1982 Mr. Upham made a motion to approve the minutes; Mrs. Donahue seconded; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 - Ordinance 850 - Parking Requirements fora sandwich shop at 411 University Drive in the name of Centex Subwav. Inc. • Mrs. Donahue made a motion to remove this agenda item from the table; Mr. Upham se- conded. Motion carried, and Chairman Cook explained that she had met with Mr. Mayo, the Director of Planning who is now in the process of getting together information concerning Northgate and will make a presentation of this material to the Board as a group at a later date. Phil Callahan was then sworn in and identified himself as the applicant of the Variance request which had been tabled for 2 months in a row, and requested that some kind of decision be made tonight so he could go ahead with his plans. He reiterated that his proposed business would not, in his estimation, add to the parking problem in North- gate, as most of his business would be carryout and fast service, and no one would be parking very long for the service he would be providing. He also said that his employees would be parking in the parking lot directly behind his proposed site which belongs to the Camps, who own his building and the bookstore adjacent, and also that in the evening there is very little parking problem in this area. Mr. Upham agreed with him; then Mr. MacGilvray asked if the building is presently empty to which he was answered in the affirmative. Mr. Upham then referred to the memo dated July 12th from Jane Kee concerning action the Board has taken on various parking variance requests in the past for the Northgate area, and then summarized by saying that the Board has denied most of the requests, to which Mr. MacGilvray disagreed saying that it was his opinion that the Board has mostly approved the requests. Mr. Boughton pointed out that in one in- stance of approval, the business never did materialize. Mrs. Donahue then made a motion to authorized a variance to the parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the fol- lowing unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: ())This will not be a regular restaurant, and because a strict enforcement of the • provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done and with the following special conditions: (1)This variance is to be reviewed in one year. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion, then asked about the review in one year, and it was explained that this variance will lapse if it is not presented to the Board for review within one year. ZBA - July 20,1982 page 2 Mrs. Martha Camp was sworn in, and was asked how many parking spaces were required for the operation of their bookstore, and she did not know, so her husband, Ernest • Camp was also sworn in, but he too did not know, so was asked how many square feet were in their store and they said 4650 square feet, and 18-20 employees, some of whom were part time. Mr. MacGilvray calculated a quick figure of 20 spaces required. Mr. Camp was asked if he was in a position to allow 10 spaces for Mr. Callahan's busi- ness, but Mr. Camp replied that he really did not know if he could spare 10 spaces or not. Mr. MacGilvray explained that this City and Board are operating under an Ordinance which has been drawn up for larger malls with parking spaces and lots, and that there is no way to ever enforce parking in the Northgate area, and that no one can really operate under that Ordinance in that area. He further stated that this Board is a reviewing authority for the Ordinance, and it is his opinion that the City must either change the law or take the responsibility for the situation. Mr. Callahan then said that he was not interested in a variance with a required re- view in one year. Chairman Cook called for a vote, and the motion carried 4-1 with Chairman Cook voting against the variance. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a Re uest for a Variance to Table A - Ordinance 850 - Minimum Rear Setback Requirements at 2 00 Manassas in College Station in the name of Sherman Click dba Click and Brown Homes, Inc. Sherman Click, 1020 Holt, was sworn in and explained that he had made a mistake in the design of the house due to the odd configuration of the lot, and there seemed to be no way to put the structure on the lot and save the trees, so they changed the plan and salvaged the trees. The-plan which had been approved was changed after approval, but he was trying to stay out of the utility easement, and forgot about the 25 ft. set- back requirement, and found out now that a portion of the garage slab is in the set- back area. (He then passed around photos of the slab and building plot.) He said if he had to move the structure, he would leave the slab which had been poured and add on to it, and it was his opinion that this would leave an unsightly slab area which was not usable for a patio due to the location, and would probably just be used for an open storage area. Jane Kee stated that an adjacent property owner had filed a com- plaint about the location of the slab. She explained that the staff was opposed to granting this variance because builders must get approval before changes to an approved plan are made and Mr. Click certified that he complies with laws and is familiar with regulations when he signs an application for a building permit; further, he is a vet- eran builder in this area. Mr. Upham indicated that he was bothered about a builder that has sworn under oath that he was unaware of setback requirements and signed his name on an application for a building permit indicating he was aware of all require- ments. He said that the-City has had problems with builders in the past who had made omissions and errors and it puts the Board in the position of being a judiciary body and it is not in the Board's power to legalize errors. Mrs. Cook stated that it is the responsibility of the City to enforce ordinances and laws, and it is the responsi- bility of those desiring to do business here to be aware of those laws and abide by them, and certainly if someone signs something, they should be aware of what they sign. Mr. Click said they had built 23 homes in this area and this is the first time an inspection involved a rear setback; all others involved side or front setbacks which they have complied with. He said they had made a mistake and it would not happen again. He further stated that he believed there were too many departments involved when filing for a building permit. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mrs. Kee how builders have been informed of the requirements, and she explained that letters had been sent out to every member of the Home Builders' Association and all bonded contractors in this area in which the zoning .inspection process was explained. She further stated that in her opinion, other enforcement effortswill 6e hampered if this variance is granted. Mr. MacGilvray said that perhaps a statement should be added to the application for the building permit stating that any changes to the approved site plan must be approved by the Planning Department. ZBA - July 20, 1982 page 3 Jim Brown was sworn in and identified himself as one of the developers and informed the Board that they will be unable to jackhammer the. encroaching slab from the slab • they leave and pointed out that the building line was never shown on the approved site plan. Mrs. Kee informed the Board that the City requires scale drawings, which this one is, and then when building lines are omitted, whoever checks the plan can use a scale to determine if there is the required amount of space allowed. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion at this point to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public inter- est, due to the lack of unique and special conditions.of the land and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed. and substantial justice done. Mr. Upham seconded the motion. Motion to deny variance carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a Re nest for a Variance to Table A - Ordinance I 50 - Minimum Front Setback at 15 Eisenhower in the name of W. T. Aycock. Bill Aycock was sworn in and identified himself as the applicant for the variance and stated that his office address is 305 E. University Drive. He gave background for his proposed project, and said that he was planning to use the existing structure which had been on the land for 30+ years, to remove the metal siding, enlarge it, and develop a building which would be asthetically pleasing and compatible with an existing neigh- boring office building. Mrs. Kee explained that the encroachment has existed since the Ordinance has been in affect, and that the expansion of this existing building is not the cause of the encroachment. Mr. MacGilvray asked why this building is consider- ed to front on Eisenhower Street, and Mrs. Kee informed the entire Board that this was due to the configuration of the lot and met the minimum standards of lot depth and • width when the front was considered to face Eisenhower. Mr. Upham made a motion to approve the variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like dis- tricts: (1)that the useful life of the existing building has not been fully utilized, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of an Appeal of a Decision by the Zoning Official regarding Beauty Salons as Home Occupations. Gail Taylor, 2711 Jennifer, came forward and was sworn in and identified herself as spokesman for the applicant, Bonnie Couch. She explained that the applicant was not asking for a Beauty Salon in her home, but rather was requesting a licensed area in the home, and explained the n ed for this was due to the current State laws governing cosmetologists. She assured the Board that the applicant would not be running a "salon" but rather only wanted this equipment installed in her home and a licensed area esta- blished so that she could cut her husband's, sons' and friends and relatives' hair. She said several times that only this would be done and no charges would be made. She further explained that there would be no alterations to the exterior of her home, there would be no regular hours established and that no extra traffic would be generated. She further stated that in her opinion, it was no one else's business what a person did inside her own home. Mr. Upham asked why she needed to have a license, if she was not actually going to practice her profession. She said that at some later time Mrs. Couch might want to go back to practicing her trade, and if she let the license lapse, • it would be necessary for her to go back to school and also take a test to have her license reissued. Mr. MacGilvray asked why this request was brought before the Board, and Ms. Taylor said it was because Mrs. Couch wanted to do things right. Mrs. Kee read the Ordinance definition of Home Occupations, and informed the Board that this one would ZBA - July 20, 1982 page 4 not fall into that category, primarily because of the special equipment required which would not normally be found in a household. (She then read a list of the equipment • required by the State Cosmetology Commission.) She further pointed out that if this would become a business in the home, it would become a potential generator of additional traffic in the area, and the possibility of financial need could arise to the point of Mrs. Couch having to increase the number of clientele and the City would have no way of knowing, or of controlling such a situation after a variance had been granted. She said the zoning Ordinance categorizes beauty shops as Personal Service Shops, and as such are allowed as permitted uses in Administrative-Professional District A-P zones. Elaine Gibson of 2727 Celinda Circle was sworn in and identified herself as a neighbor who opposed a beauty shop in the area and hoped the Board would uphold the interpre- tation of the Zoning Official. John Hiller of 2716 Jennifer Circle was sworn in and identified himself as a neighbor who also opposed a beauty shop in the area because he feared for the safety of children and pedestrians due to possible increased traffic, and because he believes there are plenty of commercial areas in which to allow businesses, and hoped the Board would up- hold the interpretation of the Zoning Official. Mr. MacGilvray expressed a desire for Mrs. Couch, the applicant, to swear under oath that what she planned in her home would not be a business, since Ms. Taylor was only a spokesman, and not a legal representative for her. Bonnie Couch of 2704 Jennifer Circle was sworn in and stated that she did not want to start a business, and also did not want to offend her neighbors. Dr. Bednarz of 2723 Celinda Circle was sworn in and identified himself as a neighbor • -who opposed the beauty shop, was worried if it was allowed the Board and the City would have no power to control it, and also saw no necessity to make an exception to the Ordinance as he saw no need for the shop in the home. Annabell Davis of 2731 Celinda Circle was sworn in and identified herself as a neighbor who also opposed the beauty shop and said there were plenty of areas zoned for com- mercial uses and thinks that by allowing this to take place the Board would open a "Pandora's Box", and added that many more neighbors are opposed to this potential busi- ness being established in the home than were able to attend this meeting tonight. Frank Kelly of 2723 Jennifer Circle was sworn in and identified himself as a neighbor who hoped the Board would uphold the interpretation the Zoning Official had made be- cause he believed that in allowing the beauty shop, Mrs. Couch would be operating a professional business in her residence, and the requirements for her profession were not a question except that allowing this would open the door for other businesses in the home in College Station. He indicated that he believes that his neighbor would do what she says she will do, but others would be allowed the same variance and then all control would be lost. Mrs. Kee then pointed out that this is not a request for a variance, but rather a question of interpretation of staff, and whatever interpretation the Board makes tonight would govern future rulings, at which time Mr. Upham expressed gratitude for Mrs. Kee bringing this up. Dr. Garcia of 2720 Jennifer Circle was sworn in and identified himself as one of the • newest neighbors in the area who had been attracted to the quiet neighborhood and lack of traffic prior to buying his home, and now he was concerned about the safety of the children if this interpretation was reversed. ZBA - July 20, 1982 Page 5 Mrs. Donahue then asked Mrs. Kee if she had much reaction to the notifications sent to residents within 200 ft. of the property in question to which Mrs. Kee replied that • she had 9 telephone calls opposing to changing the interpretation and none in favor of changing it. Gail Taylor then spoke again and said that all of Mrs. Couch's former clientele had been referred to Varsity Salon, so would not even be interested in having her do their hair. Mr. MacGilvray asked if Mrs. Couch had applied for a building permit yet to which Ms. Taylor replied that she had not. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 1.D.38 of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Upham seconded; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a Request for Allowing Signs during Rush Week for Sororities and Fraternities. Jean McDermott of 1002 Madera and Joy Howze of 1015 Guadalupe were sworn in and to- gether explained that the week of August 23-29 was Rush Week for Sororities only in College Station, and they would like to get an idea of how the Board feels concerning extra decorations during Rush. Week, and likened these decorations to Christmas decora- tions. They gave examples of what they might be talking about as banners and English translations to the Greek letters which appear on all the houses. Mrs. Kee informed the Board that she had not received this request in time to advertise it, so the Board must only discuss the issue tonight, and no ruling could be made. Mrs. Cook informed the Board that she could not take part in the discussions or vote on the issue when the time came because of personal connections to sororities. Mr. Upham likened Rush • Week to a one week sale. Mrs. Kee said the staff's main concern would be violations and the notification of violations as the Ordinance now reads, and asked if possibly some kind of permit could be issued so that a staff member, perhaps the Building Official could file a complaint. Mr. Upham suggested that these ladies work out a dimension and letter size of the English translation and present them as suggestions. Mrs. Cook asked staff to work out something and find out what violations would be if there were any violations. Mr. Upham and Mrs. Kee both indicated that the staff does not have the authority to say what can or what cannot be done, but that perhaps this needs some study and even a joint meeting to arrive at suitable suggestions. Mrs. Boughton asked if these people should come before the City Council and Mrs. Kee informed that the ZBA is given the authority by Ordinance to make interpretation and grant variances. Mrs. Boughton then suggested that staff confer with the City Attorney on this. Mrs. Kee said she would check. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Other Business Mr. Upham made a motion to remove from the table and drop for lack of need to process, the request for variance concerning rear setback requirements for a garage from Robert H. Hensarling. Mr. MacGilvray seconded; motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Boughton requested permission to address the variance which was granted to the parking requirement for Centex Subway, Inc. Permission was granted, and she asked Mr. & Mrs. Camp, owners of the property in question, if they had any problem with the special condition spcifying review within 1 year which was attached to the variance. The Camps replied that it does pose some problem, and that they wanted this particular • tenant, and that further they do not believe the parking situation will be aggravated by a sandwich shop. Mr. MacGilvray said that this special condition was rather like a promissory note. ZBA - July 20, 1982 page 6 AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Adjourn • Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn; Mrs. Donahue seconded; motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: ~(. Vi Cook, Chairman ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary C J