HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1982 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
•
City of College Station
Zoning Board of Adjustment
October 19, 1982
7:00 P.M.
•
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cook, Members MacGilvray, Wagner, Upham, Alternate
Member Lindsay, Council Liaison Lynn Nemec
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Kay Donahue
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Director of
Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, Planning
Assistant Longley ~ Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes from September 21, 1982 meeting.
Mr. Upham referred to the last paragraph of page 3 concerning Mrs. Cook's statement
concerning "a pizza restaurant had been opened in a building where the ZBA had at a
previous meeting established hours during which a business could be in operation..."
and wanted to amend this statement to reflect that the ZBA had not established the
hours, but rather that the applicant had informed the Board this restaurant would be
in operation from g a.m. to g p.m., and the Board had included this in the approval
of the variance requested. In other words, the applicant established his own hours
and approval of the variance was given based on the specifics of his request, plus
the one granted of parking.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to accept the amendment to the minutes. Mr. Upham seconded.
Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Upham then made a motion to approve the minutes with
the addition of the above amendment; Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of a request fora variance to Table A, Rear Set-
back "E" requirement of Ordinance 850, at a proposed Village Square Office Park located
in a neighborhood commercial zonin district in Southwood Valley Sec. 5-A. Application
is in the name of G. Philip Morley & William E. Loveless.
Mr. Wagner asked to be excused from participation in this request; Mrs. Cook excused
him from the Board at which time he took a seat in the audience. Mrs. Kee explained
the request, and further explained that the Ordinance requirement of 10 ft. of required
15 ft. setback being clear had been researched, and it was discovered the purpose of this
10 ft. clear area had been established to guarantee that there would be clear space
for emergency vehicles, and because there was more than enough clear area to meet that
requirement in this setback, and because access was provided in the adjacent access
right-of-way, staff had no problem with this request.
Philip Morley, a registered architect and developer of this proposed project was sworn
in and informed the Board his group had met with all City departments, and all had indi-
cated they have no problem with this project or the encroachment for which this variance
has been filed. Mr. Lindsay asked about access right-of-way being given by the owner,
and Mr. Morley indicated that this had been granted. Mr. MacGilvray asked who would
maintain this city owned access area and Mr. Morley answered that the project owner
would, and that he would be happy to put this in writing. Mr. MacGilvray further asked
about the amount of setback and Mr. Morley said that in most cases there is 25-30 ft.
between the rear of a building and the property line. Mr. Lindsay asked if there is a
power line across the rear of this property line, and Mr. Morley answered that there
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 2
will be, and that the power poles will be in the islands. Mr. Lindsay asked if the
• Fire Department had seen this plan and Mrs. Kee answered that the Fire Department has
given their approval of the plan.
John Lofgren, a neighbor of this project was sworn in and told the Board that this
paving of this easement was creating a street. He quoted the Ordinance concerning
location of parking and the setbacks required, then spoke at length concerning this
"street" which he believes will• be created. He also referred to the Ordinance which
allows parking to be located within 200 feet of this property, and then offered the
opinion that the whole project could be moved back which would allow parking in front
of the buildings.
Mr. MacGilvray asked how this right-of-way came about and who had approved it, and
Mrs. Kee explained that this had been done in the platting process and had come before
the P&Z. Mrs. Cook asked what the vote was when this plan was approved by PAZ and
was told that it was 4-3 in favor.
Jack Weitsman, a neighbor was sworn in, then showed a sketch concerning the drainage
problem which could be created by the establishment of this drive and expressed his
concern. Mr. MacGilvray asked if this was his sketch, and he said that it was, but
that it was not drawn with exacting equipment. Mr. MacGilvray referred to a wall in
the sketch and Mr. Weitsman replied that this was his interpretation of what would be
done. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Morley if he had done a crossection of the road, and
Mr. Morley replied that he had not, but further said that the water would be carried on
to Longmire Drive and handed out a topographical study which had been done by a profes-
sional engineering firm. Small group discussion followed and Mrs. Cook then asked
• who would be responsible for maintenance of that drainage area during construction and
after occupancy, and voiced concern about the debris which often accumulates from
construction which could block drainage here. She wondered if perhaps the owners of
the adjacent properties should be required to help with the maintenance of this area.
Mr. Upham said that the City no longer accepts drainage easements, and that this one
had been platted before the newer policy became effective. Mr. Weitsman reiterated
that the road was being built for access to parking rather than maintenance, and
asked what will happen in later years when this "road" crumbles and is repaired and
debris accumulates.
A head count for those in attendance who were in opposition to this variance request
was taken, and results tallied 8 in opposition in the audience.
Al Mayo, Director of Planning was sworn in and stated that he would like to answer
some of the questions which had been raised. He addressed the drainage easement
and said work currently was being done to prepare a master drainage plan and mainte-
nance policy both for future areas and areas which have already been developed, and
that this drive would be a public right-of-way which would give both access to this
project and for maintenance vehicles working on the drainage area. The construction
of this driveway and the maintenance agreement, as well as the impact on drainage
will have to be cleared through the City Engineer's office. The Fire Department has
been consulted and has stated that it does not need the 10 ft. clear easement because
this driveway will be there, and the Public Works Department will be provided with
a paved surface to get to an area they must maintain and has stated they will be happy
to see it.
• Paul Beckingham, a neighbor was sworn in and asked about the location of 3 of the
buildings in regard to setback and said there was not a 25 ft. setback for them. Small
ZBA Minutes
10-1g-82
Page 3
group discussion followed. Mrs. Cook called the meeting back to order and asked if
the City is creating another "front" entrance with the use of this driveway. Mr. Mayo
• answered that the street address would be on the actual street in front of the project.
Mr. Upham asked if any buildings would be facing the drive in the rear, as well as some
facing the street. Mr. Morley answered that some buildings would be facing the drainage
ditch. Mr. MacGilvray said that in his opinion, Mr. Morley was trying to do the right
thing and develop a nice project, and gave examples of warehouse projects, the type of
which this developer is trying to avoid, but that he also believes the City has missed
an opportunity in the past to utilize this type of drainage area as a "people place."
Mr. Lofgren spoke again and said that as Mr. Mayo had pointed out, the City is being
foresighted in not running this driveway through to Deacon Street, but he fears that
this situation will be changed in the future, and that this drive would become a high
traffic generator. He said that he thinks this is a good project which has been rea-
sonable well thought out, but he still hopes a compromise can be reached, and further
asked if speed bumps could be included in the drive. Mrs. Cook reminded him that this
Board is not in a position to function as a Planning ~ Zoning Commission. Mr. Upham
referred to this particular request for a particular variance, and reminded the Board
that the request is for granting parking variance and the placement of a dumpster
adjacent to the rear property line only, and then pointed out that because this project
is for office space, it would generate less traffic than one for retail use.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from
the terms of this ordinance as it will 6e contrary to the public interest, due to the
lack of special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary
hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinace shall be observed and substantial
• justice done. This motion died for lack of second.
Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A, note E)
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
districts 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: That
all debris from the original construction and future debris following opening must
be policed by the owners and the road maintained to City Standards in perpetuity.
Lindsay seconded the motion, then amended the motion to include restricting the access
to the rear buildings to employees only. Mr. Lindsay then withdrew this amendment.
Mr. MacGilvray stated that he believed this right-of-way .should not be paved at all.
Chairman called for voting. Motion to approve was defeated unanimously. Mr. Upham
reiterated that only the variance which had been requested had been denied.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a request for expansion of a non-conformin structure
and also a request for variance to the rear setback requirements of Table A - Ordinance
850 at a residence at 203 Fairview Street. Application is in the name of Johnny A.Martinez.
Mrs. Kee presented the request, referred to attachments in packets concerning this request
and gave the history of this non-conforming structure. She also reported that all
but one of the adjacent property owners who had contacted here were against this project.
Johnny Martinez, owner of the non-conforming residence was sworn in and explained the
• project. He said that he had made numerous calls to City Hall for a final inspection
at the time the last remodelling had taken place, but that this inspection was never done.
e-'----------
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 4
He said that he had gone through all the steps necessary for each inspection, and that
his wife had called three times for this final inspection of the area to be inspected
• which was a porch which he had enclosed. He further stated that he specializes in
three areas, namely electrical, plumbing (also air conditioning) and solar energy, so
he had done this wiring himself, but had left out some accoustical ceiling so the electri-
cal,inspection could be done, and that the is still missing. He said that he thinks
that he should be able to enlarge his structure more than the 25% allowable in the
Zoning Ordinance because his house is so small compared to others which would be
allowed more square footage expansion at the 25% rate.
Mr. MacGilvray interrupted and asked what the nature of the non-conformity is, and
was told that this is a duplex in a Single Family Residential zoning district. Mrs.
Kee said that the original house had been a single family home, to which a bedroom and
bathroom were added with rear access. In 1981 a covered porch was enclosed. Mrs.
Cook asked if Mr. Callaway had been the Zoning Official at the time the porch was
covered and he replied that he had been, also had visited the residence, and the enclosure
of the porch would not have exceeded the 25% maximum. Mr. Martinez answered Mr. Upham's
question concerning the size of lot by saying his lot is 50x125; then Upham asked for
the size of neighbor's lot, to which Frank Coulter, after being sworn in answered that
his lot is 94x125. Mrs. Cook pointed out that single family residences can be expanded
as much as anyone wanted, as long as setbacks are met, but pointed out that this is
no longer a single family residence,. but rather a non-conforming duplex in an R-1
zoning district. Mr. Martinez said that he was planning to give the residence to his
daughter (who lives there now) and then it would be a single family residence. Mr.
Upham referred to the original building permit dated in 1981 which requested repair,
including enclosing an existing porch, but which also included a note stating that
"no change in the floor plan as it existed prior to construction will be allowed by
• order of the Zoning Board of Adjustment - March 24, 1981". He stated further that
he did not know anything about a final inspection, but that he does know that the
ruling indicated that there could be no change to the floor plan, but the actual
conntruction which took place did not comply with this directive. Mr. Martinez
said that only screen doors were changed, and that City Hall has always had a negative
attitude toward this piece of property. Mr. Wagner interrupted and said that what
Mr. Martinez had begun to talk about had no bearing on this request, and that the
Board wants to discuss the request. Mr. Martinez handed out revised drawings, and
explained them, then Mr. Wagner asked the Chairman to excuse this witness, and the
Chairman agreed and did so. Mrs. Kee then reviewed these revised plans with the Board.
The Chairman repeated the request before the Board, reiterated that the zoning in
this district is R-1 and the present structure is a non-conforming duplex, which would
not now be allowed in this zoning district. She spoke of how the interior of this
building had been designed prior to the 1981 request for variance, how it is now
designed and states that this current request creates a new structure, not only
creating a duplex (which is now there) but a tri-plex. Mr. Wagner agreed to her
observations and then asked the applicant why the proposed addition is so far away
from the existing structure. Mr. Martinez denied that plans would create a tri-plex
and said the reason for the distance between the structures is that after this addi-
tion is completed, he plans to tear down the existing original structure and build
a 2 story residence.
Elizabeth Martinez, daughter of the applicant was sworn in and stated that she had
been at the last meeting during which the Board had discussed this building, and said
• that when her family purchased the residence, it was listed as a duplex, and that they
now wanted to pull the kitchen out of the existing structure and make it larger.
The Chairman again explained R-1 zoning and how this duplex is now a non-conforming
ZBA Minutes
to-lg-82
page 5
structure because of the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance, and further
explained the restrictions this building now falls under. Mr. Upham explained
• "grandfathering" and how, when the current use is over it will revert back to,
or be replaced with a single family dwelling or a structure which conforms with the
Ordinance. Mr. Martinez asked if limiting the building to 2 bedrooms and a kitchen
rather than 3 bedrooms and a kitchen would be of help. Mr. Upham said that he
could only approve a structure which contained no kitchen or bath, and could not
accommodate a separate family.
Wayne Allen of Wharton, Texas was sworn in and said he opposed these variances
because of parking and sewer capacities, and wondered if there were some way to go
back in history and pinpoint when the nonconformity occurred in this R-1 district. He
then voiced appreciation to the Board for their public service in serving on the
Board and stated that he was a former resident of 302 Fairview, and that his daughter
had resided there last summer.
Frank Coulter (previously sworn in) spoke about the City having refused a permit to
a former owner, and also to another resident on Montclair for an additional noncon-
formity in this district.
Mrs. Cook asked staff if long range plans for this area were for this area to be single
family residential, and this was confirmed.
Billie Hefti was sworn in and expressed concern for fires because of the age of the
homes in the area.
Mr. Martinez then asked to be given permission to build this new structure and to
• tear down the old structure later. Mr. Lindsay pointed out that the Board cannot
legislate future use except through zoning restrictions.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to deny the enlar~
non-conforming use where such extension is not
existing use and does increase the area of the
use more than 25i and does prolong the life of
a return of such property to a conforming use.
Motion carried 4-0 with Mr. Wagner abstaining.
dement of a building devoted to a
necessary and incidental to the
building devoted to a non-conforming
the non-conforming use and prevent
Mr. Upham seconded the motion to deny.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a re uest
required parking spaces at 321 University Drive
of J. E. Robbins, Sr. dba Charlie's Grocery.
for a variance to the location of the
Northgate Application is in the name
Mrs. Cook informed the Board and the public that the City Council had ruled sometime
in September that no parking variances would be granted fora period of 12 months in
the Northgate area. She also said that she had spoken with the Mayor and the attend-
ing Council Liaison (Nemec) prior to this meeting, to clarify the intent of the ruling.
Then she advised that this matter should be given no consideration until this 12 month
moratorium has expired. Mr. MacGilvray read from the minutes which were included in
the packet, quoting Councilman Pat Boughton on this matter. Mr. Upham said this item
had been placed on the agenda at the request of the applicant and city staff. Mrs. Kee
explained that the staff knew that the moratorium affected the number of parking spaces,
but was unsure whether it also included the location of spaces.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a re uest fora variance to the rear setback
requirements of Table A - Ordinance 50, at the residence at 102 Rose Circle. Appli-
cation is in the name o
Sun Screens of Houston.
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 6
Mrs. Kee explained the request for variance to setback requirements, and advised
the Board that the 10 ft. utility easement had been abandoned by action of City
• Council at their October 14th meeting just the previous week.
Richard Nored of Sun Screens of Houston, applicant for variance was sworn in and
answered questions of the Board and a photo of what was planned was passed around.
Mr. MacGilvray spoke of personal knowldege of this particular backyard and wondered
if he should vote on this matter, and further stated that in his opinion this proposed
screening fence would not be detrimental. Mr. Lindsay asked if this man has the
authority to represent the owners of this property, and was informed that he in fact,
had applied for the variance.
Mr. Lindsay made a motion to authorize a 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
districts: The use proposed will not significantly detract from the area, 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 exception: That this Board is approving
only the erection of a screen enclosure within this setback line. Mr. MacGilvray seconded;
motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO'. 6: Consideration of a re nest for a variance of Section 8-D.3
Ordinance 850 pertaining to signs; the request is for additional sign s at each
of g sorority houses in the Greek Village Subdivision. Application is in the name of
the College Panhellenic Association of College Station.
Jean McDermott and Joy Howze were sworn in and further explained their request for
• additional signs to be "information" type signs rather than identification signs.
They said the signs would be "tasteful" and would be monitored by advisors. Mr.
MacGilvray asked if the subdivision was really named "Greek Village" to which he
was answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Cook pointed out that future expansion should
probably be included in this request. Mrs. McDermott stated that only this land in
"Greek Village" subdivision, which totalled 10 lots, was included in this request.
Mr. Upham asked questions and referred to the discussion held earlier this summer con-
cerning signs, then asked what type of sign, what size, how many days would be specified
for the sign, etc. He received no concrete answer, so he then asked if the sororities
were purposing that the Board give blanket approval for any size, type,duration,etc.
to which Mrs. McDermott gave a general answer that they were requesting perhaps
one extra sign per lot of an uncertain size, with perhaps a time limit of one week for
each time the sign was put out. Mr. Upham then expressed his wish that they come back
before the Board with a proposal the Board could deal with. Mrs. McDermott said that
this was a unique dormitory area and they really did not know exactly what to request,
and would generally like to see a "lessening of restrictions" to show support for
one of the largest industries in the City (that of the University). Mr. MacGilvray
read from the Zoning Ordinance the size of some signs allowed in certain zoning districts,
and Mrs. Cook stated that she thought perhaps generalities could be in the proposal.
Mrs. Kee said that if a variance was not somewhat specific, enforcement by the staff
would be a problem. Mr. Lindsay said the sign regulations are listed in the Zoning
Ordinance and advised the witnesses they should sit down with the staff and work out
some specifics the Board could deal with.
• Santos Ramirez of 1000 Dominik was sworn in and stated that he thinks the Board should
give specific rules to be followed by sororities.
Tim Coppinger, 1003 Dominik was sworn in and stated that in his opinion, a blanket
type variance would be a mistake.
---~
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 7
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to table this agenda item until such time the applicant
of the request can present a proposal the Board can deal with. Mr. Wagner seconded
• the motion. Motion to table carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Other business.
Mr. Upham referred to the Committee studying the Northgate area and stated that to his
knowledge this committee has not yet met, and reminded Mr. MacGilvray ~ Mrs. Cook, who
are both serving on this committee that time is passing quickly, and something needs to
be done. He referred to an article which he passed around to be referred to when making
plans. Mrs. Cook asked if anyone had been appointed Chairman of this committee, and
Mr. MacGilvray stated that he had not been apprised of one. Lynn Nemec said she would
check on this with the Mayor's secretary.
Mrs. Kee indicated the definitions of home occupations, and excerpts from Zoning Ordinances
from other cities had been handed out to the Board for study, and suggested that due to the
lateness of the hour, this be put off until the next Board meeting.
She then referred to the City Attorney's memo which had been handed out concerning the
variance the Board had granted to the D.R.Cain setback encroachment. Mrs. Cook wondered
if there were no automatic penalties for this type of encroachment and Mr. MacGilvray
read the last part of the letter aloud. Mrs. Kee explained the procedure to be followed
if a violation is found. Mr. Upham said that he be lieved that a fine of perhaps 30% of
the value of the structure should be imposed. Mr. Callaway explained that the $200 per
day fine for a violation was established by state law.
Mrs. Kee explained why Mr. Guidry and Mr. Searcy had not been invited to attend this meet-
. ing to discuss the utility line running across Mr. Searcy's property. She was directed
to invite them and the City Attorney to the next meeting of the Board.
Mrs. Kee also informed the Board that the next meeting date will have to be changed because
the City Council has rescheduled their meeting for that night. (November 30th was chosen
by the Board for the next meeting).
Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Upham seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
Acting Chairman, Jack Upham
•
•
~'
s
~~~~~
~.ti ~ ~J~~
,J~" ~o~Pot-
6z~/G~ kr,~-~<a
l ~~~-, L
~c~G~„v~~.1,~eul~
M`~"
C7
•
•