Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/1982 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment November 2, 1982 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Upham, Donahue, Wagner, MacGilvray, Alternate Member Lindsay and Council Liaison Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Director of Planning Mayo and Planning Technician Volk Mr. Wagner made a motion for Upham to be acting chairman in the absence of Mrs. Cook. Mr. MacGilvray seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of October 19, 1982. Mr. Wagner referred to Agenda Item #3, page 5, and requested that it be corrected to show that he (Wagner) had abstained, and that the motion carried 4-0 with one abstention. Mr. MacGilvray referred to Agenda Item #5 page 6 and asked that "Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously" be added. • With the above corrections and additions, Mr. Wagner moved that the minutes be approved with Mr. MacGilvray seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Reconsideration of a variance to Table A, Rear Setback "E" re uirements of Ordinance 50, at a proposed Village Square Office Park located in a neighborhood commercial zoning district in Southwood Ualley 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 item due to a conflict of interest. He was excused and took a seat in the audience. Phil Morley was sworn in and read a prepared statement concerning the proposed project. Mr. Upham then stated that Mr. Morley had stated some germane facts about the project which had not been stated previously. He cited the limiting of uses to professional only which was mentioned and stated the Board had not known this previously and had been thinking of commercial or retail uses in this neighborhood at the previous meeting. Mr. Lindsay reiterated that the required 15 ft, setback has been provided, and that this variance request only concerns the 10 ft. clear space requirement. Mr. Upham pointed out that "location of dumpster" was also in the request. John Lofgren, a neighbor to the proposed project, was sworn in and stated the plan presented tonight had changed since it was shown to the Planning ~ Zoning Commission. He also asked where the 10 ft. line was, then talked about C-N zoning districts as being special districts, and that this one in particular was special because it was the last C-N district to be developed. He spoke of Mr. Morely gaining more than access, then referred to the beautiful homes in that neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood • would not be getting much. He then offered to present to the Board an alternative pro- ject design he had drawn. Mr. MacGilvray quickly pointed out that in offering an alternative site plan Mr. Lofgren was straying from the jurisdiction of this Board. Mr. MacGilvray then publicly apologized ZBA Minutes 11-2-82 page 2 to the Board and the public for bringing up the subject of site plans at the previous meeting, and stated that he is now aware that by doing that, he was acting outside the • jurisdiction of the Board. Mr, Lindsay offered the same apology in regard to the amend- ment which he had proposed and then withdrew at the previous meeting. Mr. Upham then referred to what Mr. Lofgren had referred to as the "gift of the easement" from the City. He pointed out the City no longer accepts this type of easement, and then stated that if there was indeed a gift, it is double barreled, that is, the land in this easement is a useless piece of property which the City would, under other circumstances, have to maintain, and besides this, the City is gaining the equivalent of a paved street almost the full length (but not quite) of this drainage area for use in maintenance and fire fighting. Mr. Upham then indicated that who maintained the area could be addressed in the motion. Paul Beckingham, another neighbor was sworn in and asked if this paved road would go through to Deacon, and Mr. Upham said it would not, but there must be access for fire control, and the plan had been referred to the Fire Marshal who has approved the plan. Mr. MacGilvray said that the 10 ft. free and clear access referred to in the Ordinance was for the purpose of fire control, as near as can be ascertained. Mr. Beckingham said the location of the parking spaces in front of the project had been reversed originally because of fire control and now what had not been allowed in front is being allowed. in the rear. Mr. Upham asked Mrs. Kee if this was a matter of Ordinance requirement, and she said no, but the Fire Marshal had approved this because a maximum of 2 spaces would be affected in the rear, simply because of the location of a fire hydrant the developer will be adding on site. Mr. Beckingham questioned this again, and Mr. Upham said he could only assume that this was perfectly acceptable since it had the approval of the Fire Marshal as attested to 6y a letter which was included in the packet the • Board members had received. Al Mayo, Director of Planning was sworn in and stated the Fire Marshal checks projects to make sure that every building is within 150 feet of a fire lane, and the buildings in front of this project fall within this distance so do not require fire lanes, and the addition of the fire hydrant provides that coverage in the rear, then he pointed out on the site plan how fire control would work. He then addressed the 10 ft. clear require- ment in the Ordinance and pointed out that the 15 ft. setback is provided for, and that the 10 ft. clear requirement is the only variance requested in the variance. He reported that the meeting he had with Mr. Lofgren had resulted in even a stronger feeling that a C-N district is a special zone and that staff would like to point out to any opponents of this project that if they still have questions regarding the site plan, they should address these questions to the City Council in the form of an appeal of a decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that staff would like to inform the Board and the public that all departments within the City have been heavily involved in the review of this site plan, and that staff would like to thank the Board for reconsidera- tion being given the project tonight and would like to ask for a granting of this variance request. Mr. Lindsay asked if there was 29 ft. from the property line to the building line, and after Mr. Mayo explained, Mr. Lindsay again pointed out that he does not want to get into a site plan decision. Mr. Upham asked about the dumpster location and Mr. Morley pointed it out and informed the Board that it had been included in the request for variance because it would be located in this required 10 ft. clear area. • Marvin Miller came forward and was sworn in and access road and the possibility of it extending included in the variance request. Mr. Mayo and within the jurisdiction of this Board. Mr. Mac of a particular line on the site plan is out of stated that he is concerned about this to Deacon and requested that this be Mr. Lindsay pointed out that this is not ailvray pointed out that everything out their jurisdiction. Mr. Morley was ZBA Minutes 11-2-82 page 3 asked if curbing was to be included and he said the City would control that, but that he was amenable to blocking that end of this drive but could not. Mr. Lindsay advised • Mr. Miller to approach the City Council with his request. Mr. Lofgren asked a question regarding the ,dumpster and whether it was considered storage and also pointed out that a fence is considered an obstruction. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the only question before the Board is "do you want 10 ft. clear space or not", and the question regarding the dumpster is that it could be relocated easily,but the Director of Public Service has agreed to this location, and if this question is addressed, it should be to the City Council. Mr. Lindsay said the question is "is there 10 ft. clear" and that he believes there actually is because of the City land which is being used. Mr. Lindsay made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) Rear Setback "E" requirements of .Ordinance 850 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: that 10 ft. clear is provided off the property, 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. Mrs. Donahue seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Wagner not voting or taking part in the discussion. Mr. Wagner then made a statement and asked Mr. to say that a street in front of a property is can be handled in any way the City wants. Mr. specific public use of land, although the City This particular right-of-way is for access and use a right-of-way, but the people on each side Mayo to define right-of-way, and went on a right-of-way and this rear right-of-way Mayo replied that right-of-way grants does not own it under most instances. drainage. The City owns the right to of a right-of-way actually own that • area. He gave as an example oil rights, and the City has none, but would if it owned right-of-way by virtue of location of streets in virtually every area. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Reconsideration of a re uest for a variance of Section 8-D.3 Ordi- nance 50 pertaining to signs; the request is for additional sign s at each of 9 sorority houses in the Greek Village Subdivision. Application is in the name of the College Panhellenic Association of College Station. Penny Ditton and Joy Howze were sworn in and read the amendment to their request for variance: Requested one sign per lot in addition to permanent identification, either attached or detached, no larger than 100 sq. ft. to be located in the front yard no closer than 25 ft. from the curb (and nothing within the site distance triangle on corner lots), a detached sign not to exceed 10 ft. in height and an attached sign not to extend above the roof overhang. No sign is to have flashing lights or moving parts. Signs should be displayed only fora reasonable length of time to cover an event and will not require individual permits. They verbally added that they would like for one sign with moving parts to be allowed occasionally, and then mentioned said sign would be lit with spot lights. The Board discussed this request, suggested several changes, and conferred with Mrs.Kee regarding what the Ordinance would a11ow. Mr. Lindsay asked if this request for variance had been discussed with the neighbors and Miss Ditton and Miss Howze indicated that it had only been discussed with them at the last regular ZBA meeting. Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Upham both indicated they did not like the moving parts addition. Mrs. Donahue asked how the granting of this variance would affect other associations in the City and • was informed that this request only applied to the sorority houses in the platted sub- division called Greek Village, in which there were 10 tots, and that any association outside this subdivision would have to apply for any variance they wished to be granted. Mr. Lindsay read the part of the Ordinance which refers to all signs having to comply with the building code and this ordinance, and said that this variance would not exempt them ZBA Minutes 11-2-82 page 4 from complying with the building code and that dangers, etc. would be covered by the building code. Mr. Upham pointed out that what the Board could do is to allow a second • sign with certain conditions. Mr. Lindsay said he would make a motion, but still had reservations about moving parts on these signs. After discussion, Mr. Lindsay did make a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations of Section 8, 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: This is a platted Greek Village, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnec- essary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and sub- stantial justice done and with the following special conditions: granting one (1) sign per lot in addition to the permanent identification, either attached or detached, no larger than 100 sq. ft., to be located in the front yard no closer than 25 ft. to the curb (and nothing within the site distance triangle on corner lots), a detached sign not to exceed 10 ft. in height or an attached sign not to extend above the roof overhang. No sign is to have flashing lights, sound or mechanical moving parts. Signs shall be displayed only fora reasonable length of time to cover an event. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. Motion. carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Other business Mrs. Kee informed the Board that Mr. Searcy and Mr. Guidry were here to discuss the power line across Mr. Searcy's property, as requested by the Board. Mr. Upham explained to Mrs. Donahue who was absent from the meeting at which this was discussed previously. (See Minutes from August 17, 1982). • Mr. Guidry came forward to explain that 6 or 8 months ago Mr. Searcy came by his office to ask him to remove a power line between 106 and 108 Southland. He showed a map to the Board and Mr. Searc y, then explained how utility service is carried to the south side of Southland and further explained that this line is an original REA line which the City purchased when this area was annexed. Mr. Searcy said that he didn't recall it being there then, but that he believes it has been moved to its present location. Mr. Guidry then explained that the City doesn't have another route to use now, but if Mr. Searcy could help acquire an easement, the possibility of servicing the area from Southwest Parkway could be explored. He also indicated there is no way to estimate a time lapse on this, and Mr. Searcy expressed his confidence that Mr. Guidry will do everything possible to help eliminate this worry. Mr. Upham brought up the subject of Home Occupations and discussion by all Board Members followed concerning definitions, specific and general. Mrs. Kee told the Board that what she was after was direction from the Board concerning the limit of traffic a home occupation could generate, and that the staff itself is working toward reviewing the current Zoning Ordinance, and this subject will then be studied in depth. Mr. Lindsay requested a workshop with the City Attorney to cover obligations and duties of this Board. Monday, December 1, 1982 was chosen as the date to aim for. Mr. Upham requested the City Attorney be consulted about what can be done to change the requirement of separate paperwork for each day of a violation. Mr. MacGilvray announced that the first meeting of the Northgate Committee would be at 9:00 A.M. Thursday, November 4th. • ZBA Minutes 11-2-82 page 5 Mrs. Donahue made a motion to adjourn. • • ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: J ck Upham, Acting Chairman • ~j~ ~~~ a2, ~ gar ~. I~ ~~ ~ c~- ~~ ~~ ~ ~, :~ c ~ ~~ /T ityarr, ~'~ ~~Pr •