Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1997 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 21, 1997 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hollas and Members Blackwelder, Warren, Alexander and Alternate Member Happ, Jr. (Alternate Member Pyrtle was in the audience.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Taggart and Alternate Member Hill. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Planner Battle, Planning Technician Ruiz and Assistant City Attorney Reynolds. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hollas called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consideration of a rear setback variance request at 1514 Southern Plantation Drive, lot 3, block 11 of Shenandoah Phase One to legalize an existing encroachment. Applicant is Mike M. Perrone, III. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the existing garage is located approximately 15' from the rear property line. He explained that when properties are sold that contain nonconformity's, such as setback encroachments, it is common practice for the lender to request a letter from the city stating a position on the nonconformity. College Station will issue a "lender letter" when a property is sold that contains a minor encroachment by a permanent structure, such as a house. The letter states that the city intends to take no enforcement action at this time on that encroachment, and that the owner may seek a variance to legalize the encroachment (the lender letter for this property is attached). This house was constructed in 1984 with the garage encroaching into the 20' rear setback. The applicant recently purchased the home, and the lender requested a letter from the city. A letter was issued and now the applicant wants to get a variance for the encroachment in order to legalize it. The applicant states that the home was constructed in 1984 and is unknown how the encroachment occurred. Homes with rear access are allowed a 15' front setback, however it appears that this home was built on a 25' front setback and with a 15' rear setback. The aerial view shows that this house sets farther back on the lot than the other houses on the block. The applicant has also received a letter from the Shenandoah HOA supporting the city's position of not requiring enforcement action (attached). The following hardships have been identified: 1) The applicant states that the encroachment will cause additional problems when he tries to sell the home. 2) The Board may consider this hardship inherited since the applicant was not directly responsible for creating the encroachment. The only other way eliminate the nonconformity is to tear down the part of the garage that is encroaching. Denial of the variance would not require this action. The board has granted variances to existing encroachments in the past. In January 1991, the board granted a variance to the front setback for an existing encroaches ,~ home on Gilchrist. The special conditions stated by the Board for this approval were a negligible impact on the neighborhood, and the fact that it was in an older neighborhood. Approximately ten surrounding property owners were notified of the request with two inquiries. • Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Happ moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions, the house was built in violation of the ordinance from the beginning; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being, that it is an inherited hardship; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion. Chairman Hollas expressed concern about the hardship in this particular case. He stated that he does not have a problem with the request; however, there does not appear to be a valid hardship. Mr. Alexander stated that if the house was damaged by fire, the applicant could rebuild the house with the given variance request. Senior Planner McCully stated that if the portion of the house that encroaches is damaged, staff does not have to grant a building permit to replace it. Staff does not have the authority to issue a permit to reconstruct the encroachment unless it is legitimized by a variance. The motion to grant the variance request passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA 1TEM N0.3: Appeal of the Zoning Official's interpretation of Section 9 concerning parking lot requirements at 101 Lee Street. The applicant is Clair J. Ninon. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is appealing staff s • interpretation that he is using his property as a parking lot. Parking, especially during football games, has been a significant problem m the Southside area for many years. Public meetings were held between Southside neighborhood residents and the City to discuss this and other issues. Over the last couple of years, the City has developed a parking plan for the Southside area that includes designated parking and no-parking areas and stricter enforcement of the PITY (Parking In The Yard) ordinance. The applicant owns the property located at 101 Lee Ave. and primarily uses it as a rental property. The property is on the end of the block and is fronted on three sides by Timber St., George Bush, and Lee Ave. For several years, the applicant has charged users to park on his property during A&M football games. Aware of the parking changes, the applicant came to the City for direction on what could be allowed on his property. On football game weekends, the applicant's family charges motorists to park vehicles on the property. Staff interprets this use to fall under the definition of a parking lot. Parking lot is not defined in the zoning ordinance, but the standard development definition is: "An off-street, ground level area, usually surfaced and improved, for the temporary storage of motor vehicles." Staff views the applicant's use as anoff-street area for temporary storage of motor vehicles. Although it is not used for parking on a daily basis, when vehicles are parked there, the area is functioning as a parking lot. The applicant is arguing that because the area is only used 5 or 6 times a year, it is not functioning as a parking lot and should not fall under the parking lot provisions of the zoning ordinance. He is arguing instead that this should be considered a legitimate use in the R-1 zoning district. Staff has determined the following implications of this interpretation appeal: • If the Board decides that the area is being used as a parking lot, then it is in violation of two areas of the ordinance: 1) parking lots can only operate in residential zones with a conditional use permit, and 2) it does not meet the parking lot standards established in Section 9 of the zoning ordinance. The applicant would have to receive a CUP and then either bring the lot up to code, or get a variance to the standards, before he could • continue to operate. ZBA Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 2 of 3 • If the Board decides that the area is not being used as a parking lot, then the users are • in violation of the PITY ordinance. Basically, the ordinance prohibits parking on the yards or lawns of residential property that is visible from the street. The applicant would be required to pave, fence or screen the area where vehicles are parked. The applicant could pursue a special exception to these ordinance requirements. Staff Planner Battle stated that the only question being brought to the Board at this time is whether or not the use of the area is a parking lot. There was no response to the notices. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing. Applicant Clair Nixon approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He stated that he purchased the property four years ago and at that time, the owner used it as a parking lot during home football games. Mr. Nixon explained that his children operate the lot during football season and they use the proceeds for their college education. The existing lot can hold about forty vehicles. He has been working with staff since January on this issue and this is the first step towards legitimizing the use. Mr. Nixon explained that the parking lot is not a commercial parking lot as defined by the ordinance. It is only utilized temporarily a few times a year during home football games. It is not a nuisance to the neighborhood and is not a permanent use. John B. Nixon approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He explained that he and his brother operate the lot only during home football games to pay for college. The lot is not a nuisance to the neighborhood; instead, it helps get cars off the street. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. Ms. Warren expressed concern about the future implications this interpretation appeal could have on other parking lots throughout the city. The parking lot use is anon-residential use in a • residential neighborhood. Mr. Alexander stated that it may not be considered a commercial use since it is only utilized five to six times a year. He questioned staff as to other alternatives in this case. Senior Planner McCully stated that another option is to classify the use as a parking in the yard in which case the client either paves it or screens it. Mr. Blackwelder moved to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official and declaze the existing use as a commercial parking lot, as the interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Ms. Warren seconded the motion which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn. Mr. Blackwelder moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). • A S ~^~- Planning Technician, a 'e Ruiz ~` APP~~D W~ C aih °rman, Stephen Hollas ZBA Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 3 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register • Dat Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. y . 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.