HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1983 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments..
MINUTES
•
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustments
April 19, 1983
7:00 P.M.
•
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Dan MacGilvray, Members Upham, Wagner, Alternate Member
Lindsay and Councilor Boughton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook and Member Donahue
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Asst to Zoning Official Dwpie~, Director of Plan-
ning Mayo and Planning Technician Volk
Dan MacGilvray was chosen Acting Chairman by acclamation prior to Agenda Item #1.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes from March 15, 1983
Mr. Wagner pointed out a typographical error in the Agenda heading for Agenda Item No. 2
which in error indicated No. 22. After this change, Mr. Upham made a motion to approve
the minutes with Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. MacGilvray then informed the audience that for any variance to be granted, four votes
in favor must be cast and because only four members of the Board are present at this meet-
ing, voting must be unanimous to approve any variance.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of a variance to the minimum lot de th (Table A) for
townhouse lots, in the Villa on the Rio Grande Subdivision a new subdivision Appli-
cation is in the name of Tony Jones.
Tony Jones came forward, was sworn in and presented the background of the plat, explained
the request and the reasons for it which included the configuration of that particular lot
which is the result of a very wide easement for the Bryan Utilities which runs througF; th:.~
property. tie informed the Board the square footage is much more than normally required in
R-3 or R-4 zones, but the depth is not the required depth.
Mark Sadoski came forward and was sworn in; he stated that he was an area resident and
asked where the main entrance to this townhouse project will be. Mr. Jones pointed it
out. Mr. Sadoski then spoke of his objections to having large dumpsters in full view on
the street in front of projects and Mr. PacGilvray explained that the only thing this
Board can consider at this meeting is the lot dimensions referred to in the request. He
further informed Mr. Sadoski that he should voice this objection to the City Council.
Mrs. Kee then indicated that staff has no problem with this variance request. Discussion
concerning the proposed project followed after which Mr. Wagner made a motion to authorize
a variance to the lot depth (Table A) of Lot 15 from the terms of this ordinance as it
will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique and special condi-
tions of the land not normally found in like districts: (1) the unique boundary configura-
tion necessitates the variance for setback and the lot in question has more square footage
than normally required 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. P1r. Lindsay seconded; motion carried unanimously
(4-0) .
AGENDA ITEM iJO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to Section 8-D.9 of Ordinance 850
limiting commercial businesses to one detached sign. Application is in the name of Planta-
tion Oaks Apartments/Tower Properties LTD.
ZBA Minutes
4-1g-83
page 2
There was no one present to represent the applicant, therefore Mr. MacGilvray made a
• motion to table this item until the next meeting. Mr. Lindsay seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (4-0).
•
•
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a variance request to Section 8-D.3 Ordinance 850
limiting the area of a sign to 150 square feet. Application is in the name of Monaco 11,
Ltd., dba Aggieland "C" Apartments.
Mel Chase, representative of the applicant came forward, identified himself and was sworn
in. He gave the background of the apartments and the existing sign in excess of 180 sq.
ft. which replaces 6 non-conforming signs which totalled in excess of 180 sq. ft. which
the apartments previously had. (He said they had simply replaced 6 signs with one of
equal size). He then explained the request citing unique and special conditions which
included this existing sign not being located in a normal position for a sign to advertise
something (it is difficult to see it from a major street). Mr. Upham talked about rules
concerning non-conforming uses and the useful life of a non-conforming sign, plus the fact
that the non-conforming detached signs had since been replaced by 2 detached signs. Mr.
Chase pointed out that these signs represented 3 different businesses which have different
ownerships, tax numbers, etc. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out the location of the signs on
a map on the wall which Mr. Chase had presented at the meeting. Mr. MacGilvray asked what
had led to any action, and Mr. Upham stated that the sign which had been painted on the
building is too large. Mr. Chase said the sign painter had designed this sign to replace
6 signs, and that the applicant had believed the painter knew the ordinances. Ownership
of the apartments vs. investors in the apartments was discussed after which Mr. MacGilvray
interrupted and asked what the request is for. Mrs. Kee pointed out that the request
concerns the sign on the building which is larger than the ordinance allows, but that staff
requests that the Board consider the 2 detached signs as well, because her information
from the City Tax Office indicates that all three properties are owned by Callaway Proper-
ties. Mr. Chase said that Callaway Properties had only managed the properties for 9 months,
but is no longer managing them. He added that the books had been changed over on February 6,
1983 in the City Tax Office. He asked to be allowed to point out more unique and special
conditions citing that the sign could be read from one direction only (not double sided)
and the tax rolls list the property as zoned both C-1 and R-6, and then he requested clari-
fication, because R-6 regulations are being applied to Lots 18, 19 & 20 which are zoned
C-1. Mrs. Kee confirmed this, stating that C-1 use allows only one detached sign and is
more restrictive than R-6. Mr. Wagner asked if the detached signs are in the City right-
of-way and Mrs. Kee indicated that she believes they are. Mr. MacGilvray asked if there
are three signs or one sign which are being considered tonight. Mr. Lindsay requested
that any action tonight be limited to the one sign which is listed on the request for
variance, that being the sign painted on the brick and masonry wall and would be covered
under Ordinance 850 Section 8-D.3. He further stated that the issue is whether that one
sign should be allowed to be greater than the allowed 150 square feet in size. Mrs. Kee
still requested clarification concerning the two detached signs, and Mr. Lindsay said this
should take place at another time when another request for variance, or appeal of a decision,
is filed. Mr. Upham asked for some kind of proof of separate ownership should these signs
come up in the future. Mr. Chase indicated that 8" of this sign could be sandblasted from
the top, and 7" from each side, and it would comply but would not be very pretty, or they
could go back to more temporary signs as before citing they had not ceased the use of them
for 12 months (Ordinance 850 Section 4-D.3. Mrs. Kee passed around pictures of 3 signs
advertising "Aggieland Apartments", and said there is a question as to whether these signs
are new or non-conforming signs which have been painted and an additional new sign. She
said the applicant or rather Callaway Properties had been notified in February that they
would be allowed only one sign (for one apartment project), but they apparently decided
to refuse to comply or simply wanted to wait until this request went before the Board.
Mrs. Kee further indicated the City received correspondence back in April acknowledging
the letter and referred to "Aggieland Apartments" as 3 apartment complexes. She explained
ZBA Minutes
4-19-83
page 3
that she had mentioned in the memo that the application does not refer to the other 2
• signs, but she is requesting clarification on them as well. She explained that the
Management is contending that the 2 smaller detached signs had only been repainted and
the wall sign is new and was painted on December 20, 1982.
Mr. Upham repeated an earlier request to the effect that no decision should be made on
anything other than that which is stated in the request for variance, which is one large
non-conforming sign. More discussion followed after which Mr. Lindsay made a motion to
deny a variance to the sign (Section 8-D.3) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be
contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the
land not normally found in like districts and because a strict enforcement of the pro-
visions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship. Mr. Upham seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Chase indicated from the audience that he will want to appeal this, especially con-
cerning C-1 and R-6 regulations. Mr. MacGilvray informed Mr. Chase that appeals of actions
of this Board should be taken to a Civil Court. Mr. Chase asked a question from the floor
as to whether or not the alternatives he had proposed earlier would be satisfactory to
the Board, and Mr. MacGilvray answered that as pertaining to the large sign painted on the
side of the building, it would have to stay within 150 sq, ft., and that the 2 detached
signs which had been referred to in conversation (but which were not included in the
variance request) had not become a part of this evening's action.
AGENDA ITEP1 N0. 5: Consideration of an a eal of a Plannin ~ Zonin Commission decision
denying site plan approval due to the lack of an foot setback on a parking lot at 1 06
Welsh Street. Appeal is in the name of Jan-Wic Homes, Inc.
• Mrs. Kee gave background to this appeal of the P&Z Commission decision.Bd.Members MacGilvray,
Wagner, Lindsay ~ Upham stated they had been contacted by someone concerning this appli-
cation but had declined to discuss the item with them. Mr. McKean came forward and was
sworn in, then requested that this item be tabled until a later date when a quorum was
present. Mr. McKean was advised that a quorum is present at this date, but he clarified
by saying he would prefer his appeal to be heard by the Board when all members are present.
Mr. Lindsay made a motion to table this item until the next meeting. Mr. Upham seconded
the motion. Motion to table this appeal until the next meeting carried unanimously (4-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a request for expansion of a non-conforming use, a
variance to Section 11 of Ordinance 850, to allow an additional mobile home in the Pleasant
Valley Mobile Home Park. Application is in the name of Joe Fazzino, Trustee.
Joe Fazzino came forward, was sworn in and identified himself as the applicant. He gave
a brief history of the mobile home park and of this particular mobile home and stated that
he had requested the electricity to be transferred to his name at the time he purchased the
park where this mobile home was in place, and at that time the City said no inspection
was required at each change of ownership. He further stated there has been no change in
the location of this particular mobile home in the more than 5 years he has been aware of
it. Mr. Upham asked how this had come about and Mr. Fazzino said the City inspector had
noticed 20 homes instead of the approved number of 19, when he had been called to make an
inspection of an adjacent mobile home, Mr, Wagner asked how this had come about and Mr.
Fazzino said that only 19 lots had been platted at the time the land was annexed into the
City, and therefore only 19 electric meters had been approved. He said this mobile home
had, sometime since annexation, been served electricity from a metered pole through conduit
• up to this home. .He said the problem is that he would like to get an electrical permit
to u date the wirin to this unit and cannot because there are onl 1 ermitted hook
P 9 Y 9 P ups
and there are 20 homes in the park. The Board suggested that this park be replatted to
show 20 lots, and Mr. Fazzino pointed out that the Mobile Home Park is a non-conforming
use because it is in an R-1 Single Family Residential area, was brought into the City at
ZBA Minutes
4-19-83
page 4
U
•
r~
U
the time of annexation that way, but had been a mobile home park at the time of annexation.
Rezoning was then suggested, and Mr. Mayo and Mrs. Kee informed the Board that this had
been requested several times in the past and had been denied due to objections from neigh-
bors. After further discussion concerning how this might have occurred, it was established
by Mrs. Kee that if this variance is granted, the Board is giving this applicant permission
to have 20 mobile homes in this park even if this particular home is moved out sometime
in the future. Other speakers were called forward. Clint Bertrand was sworn in and spoke
as the nearest neighbor, indicating that he does not object to this one variance for this
one mobile home in the park, and prefers this type of action rather than having a larger
park established. W.D.Fitch came forward, was sworn in and stated that he owns land in
the neighborhood and the mobile home park has not hindered development of the area, and that
he would be in favor of granting this expansion for this one mobile home, but that any
other expansion of the park should go through the regular procedure, which he would gen-
erally oppose. Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize the expansion of a non-conforming use
as such expansion is necessary and incidental to the existing use and does not increase
the area of non-conformity devoted to a non-conforming use and does not prolong the life of
the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use to wit to
allow the trailer which has been in the Pleasant Valley Mobile Home Park for at least 5
years to have the present electrical connection brought up to City Electrical Code Standards
(Section 11-B.3). Mr. Wagner seconded for purposes of discussion. Mr. Lindsay requested
that the exact trailer be identified and the applicant then offered to have an exact drawing
of the property done by an engineer which would identify the lots and the trailers. Mr.
Upham then amended his motion with the addition of the following: "that the particular
trailer under discussion tonight (the 20th trailer in this mobile home court which was
platted for 19 trailers) is the only trailer covered by this motion and that the expansion
is subject to exact identification by a drawing of the property by an engineer as offered
by the applicant." Mr. Wagner seconded this motion as amended. Motion as originally
stated plus the amendment carried unanimously (4-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Consideration of a variance re uest to the rear and side setback re-
quirements as set forth in Ordinance 50 Table A, for the erection of a carport at 115
Lee Street_
Richard Harper came forward, was sworn in and stated that he is representing the owner
of the property. He gave the history of this home and the driveway which 1s all in place
and has been for some time. Mrs. Kee said the variance request would be for 5 ft. into
the side setback requirements and 17 ft. into the rear setback requirements. Mr. Mac-
Gilvray spoke of other possible solutions to the placement of this carport and Mr. Harper
pointed out that the poles would be in the middle of the driveway into the carport as the
building code requires pole placement every so many feet for meeting windload requirements.
Jack Perryman was sworn in and identified himself as a neighbor on Lee Street, said he had
grown up in the area and requested that this variance be granted and that he had no object-
tions to the carport. Mr. Wagner pointed out that there is school-owned and used property
across Timber and asked whether anyone knew if this would ever be used as R-1 Single Family
Residential use again to which Mrs. Boughton indicated that this land had been donated to
the school district by citizens and she doubted if they could sell it, therefore it would
probably always be used as part of the operation of the school district. Board discussion
followed concerning any possible unique and special conditions which might include the lots
in this area going through from one street to another, the existing structure being in the
middle of 2 lots and the school property across the street which is being used for other
than residential use.
Mr. MacGilvray asked to be shown why the carport could not be located in another spot and
Mr. Harper came forward and showed the maximum clearspan allowable. Mr. MacGilvray pointed
out that up to 200 ft. can be spanned, and Mr. Harper said the applicant cannot afford
that type of steelwork. Mr. Upham explained that it is the Board's obligation to explore
ZBA Minutes
4-19-83
page 5
all areas and Mr. Lindsay further explained the obligations imposed by law that the Board
can only grant variances where owing to unique and special conditions of the land not
normally found in like districts a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
by the Zoning Official would result in unnecessary hardship, as well as not being contrary
to the public interest. Mr. MacGilvray explained that the hardships cannot be self-imposed
or financial only in nature.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum side and rear setback
(Table A) at 115 Lee Street 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: (1) the house is on 2 lots with public streets at both
ends; (2) the area is in an older or nearly special historic district in the City; (3) the
existing well-designed driveway with said carport would give maximum unobstrusive use of
the drive without detracting from the visual aspects which now exist 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: to wit, the 5 ft. side and 17 ft. rear setback
variance. Mr. Lindsay seconded for purposes of discussion only, and then stated that in
his opinion the asthetics condition should not be included in the motion. Mr. MacGilvray
i; Mr. Upham agreed.
Mr. Wagner then amended his motion to read as follows: "I move to authorize a variance
to the minimum side and rear 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: (1) the house is on 2 lots with public
streets at both ends, (2) the existing structures and uses of property surrounding these
lots and (3) the carport as designed makes efficient and more use of the existing drive-
• way, 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 conditions: to wit, the 5 ft. side and
17 ft. rear setback variance. Mr. Lindsay then seconded this amended motion which carri
unanimously. (4-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other business
ed
Mrs. Kee referred to her memo which is included in the packets and explained that the
time between the filing deadline and the day the ads must go to the newspaper and the
letter to the Post Office is sometimes too short for the Planning Technician to prepare
properly, and the request is to change the filing deadline from Friday noon to Wednesday
noon. Board concurred, and Mr. Wagner made a motion to that effect with Mr. MacGilvray
seconding. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0).
Board asked Mrs. Kee to discuss the matter of one apartment complex vs. different owners
and separate complexes with the City Attorney prior to the next meeting.
With other business concluded, Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Lindsay
seconding. Motion to adjourn carried unanimously (4-0).
APP
D~fi I~cGG 1 vray, Acting C a i rman
• ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
•
•
z~;p
zc~ ~~. ,
~~
~~,e~~ !9, /9~3