HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/1983 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
.7
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
June 21, 1983
7:00 P.M.
•
LJ
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Wendt, Meyer, McGuirk i; Upham
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook & Member Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Asst to Zoning Official Dupies, Planning Technician
Volk
Acting Chairman MacGilvray opened the public hearing and stated the duties and obliga-
tions of this Board.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of May 17, 1983
Ms. Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Wendt seconding. Mr. McGuirk
then stated that he had a question concerning the motion made regarding Agenda Item #7
in those minutes. Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Upham pointed out that the motion had been filed
and signed on that evening, and cannot be changed now. Mr. McGuirk requested that clari-
fication be made in the minutes covering that agenda item concerning the error that staff
had made, and after some discussion, the exact changes he desired were not offered. Staff
was then charged with making some clarification of this item and bringing it back to the
Board at the next meeting. Mr. Upham then amended the motion to approve all of the min-
utes of the May 17th meeting to Include the statement "with exception of Agenda Item #7
which should be clarified". Ms. Meyer seconded this amended motion which was approved
unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of a re nest for variance to side setback as re wired
by Ordinance 50 Table A to expand a primary structure located at 00 Fairview. Request
is in the name of Richard R. Davison, Jr.
Mrs. Kee explained the request and referred to an aerial photo which shows a distance of
approximately 38 feet from the adjacent structure to the primary structure which is to
be expanded. She explained that expansion of this primary structure would put this build-
ing within 3 feet of the property line and the remaining distance which separates the
structures is across the property line.
Mr. MacGilvray announced that he knows the applicant; that they teach together, but that
he had no knowledge of this request prior to receipt of his agenda, and that they have
not discussed this request.
Richard Davison was sworn in and presented a letter from neighbors stating that they are
in favor of the requested variance, or to replatting if necessary to allow the expansion
of this primary structure. Mr. Upham asked if the neighbors would sell additional land
to the applicant and he said they are willing to do so, but that this variance seemed to
be a better route for him than the purchase of additional land which would require re-
platting and would be a financial burden for him at this time. Mr. MacGilvray asked if
the variance is granted now, would the applicant consider a replat in a year's time, and
he said that he would. Mr. Davison said a privacy fence from this addition to the back
ZBA Minutes
6-21-83
page 2
• of the lot Is planned for sometime this summer, also. He went on to say that it would be
hard to put an additional separate structure between his lot and the existing structure
which Is approximately 38 feet away because of setback requirements. R-1 and R-lA zoning
lot dimensions were discussed. Mr. MacGilvray asked when this subdivision had been Platte
but Mrs. Kee did not know; Mr. Upham speculated it was done around the 1920's.
The hardship was discussed by the Board, and the applicant said he could expand the exist-
ing structure upward or toward the back, but at a much greater expense. Mr. MacGilvray
said he would prefer the purchase of additional land and the replatting process to be the
route taken. The applicant stated that if there was any way he could get the variance
for the expansion now with a promise to replat within one year he would, but that right
now he has a definite financial problem with making the expansion, purchasing the addi-
tional land and paying the fees which will be incurred in the replatting process. Mr.
Upham suggested he take out a loan for a year, and explained that a hardship which is
financial only cannot be approved by this Board. Mrs. Kee pointed out that a replat must
be done by a registered professional engineer and the applicant said his estimate of the
cost would be around $1500 if this route is taken. Mr. MacGilvray again explained the
problem this Board has with a financial hardship. The applicant explained that the hard-
ship is not just financial, but that his family needs the additional room which will be
created by the addition to his house. A brief recess was called, after which the appli-
cant said he would like to re-state the reason for his request for a variance, which is
the need for additional room. Dimensions of the room before and after expansion were
discussed.
d,
Mr. A. R. Rice of 405 Montclair was sworn in and stated he understands the needs and the
• circumstances of the applicant, has spoken with neighbors and all have been favorable
toward this addition to the existing home, and he urges the approval of the variance on
the premise of need. He also thinks it would enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. McGuirk 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 dis-
tricts: (1)1ot adjacent to vacant lot not believed to be saleable (2)current owner of
adjacent lot makes no objection, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of '
the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: this is the
feasible location for the addition; and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be
observed and substantia) justice done, subject to the following limitations: (none listed).
The above motion was seconded by Mr. Wendt, and the variance was granted by a vote of
4-1 wPth Mr. Upham voting against the motion.
Discussion followed and Mr. Upham urged the applicant to try to get the funds to purchase
and replat this land. Mr. Wendt agreed that direction would be the best way to go.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Reconsideration of a request for variance to the parking requirements
on Lot 11, Block 313 of the Colle a Hills Subdivision (108 Walton). A plication is in the
name of J. F. ~ T. M. Sousares, This request was tabled in December, 19 2.
The Chair moved to take this item off the table. Mr. Upham seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously (5-0).
Mrs. Kee explained that a request for reconsideration of this item comes as a result of
• the Board's request to the applicant some months ago to combine 2 lots and submit a com-
bined site plan which the applicant has now done. She referred to an "approximate" plat
which is on the wall for this area, stating that there is no plat available in this area
ZBA Minutes
6-21-83
page 3
• as it was platted too many years ago. She covered the previous site plan presented, the
requests, the Board's directive to the applicant to combine 2 lots to provide a site
plan, which is before the Board tonight. She informed the Board that this combined site
plan has not been through site plan review at the applicant's request, and then pointed
out some site plan problems which include dimensions of proposed parking spaces at the
rear of these lots. She also pointed out that this plan shows 10 available parking spaces,
but that only 5 of these spaces are actually on this property and 5 are on city-owned land.
She stated that the Zoning Ordinance would require 15 spaces for the 2 businesses which
include the plumbing shop and the proposed medical clinic using the proposed square footage
figures indicated by the app licant. Mr. MacGilvray explained that there has been parking
available off-site on the city-owned land in this area, and this has always been used for
parking, but the current Zoning Ordinance requires on-site parking. Age of the buildings
in this area was discussed, and Robert Harris, an attorney representing the applicant who
had been sworn in at previous meetings, requested a 5 minute recess to talk with Mrs.Kee.
The meeting was reconvened after a brief recess, and Mr. Harris came forward and identi-
fied himself as a representative of the applicant, Mr. Sousares. He presented the request
and explatned that Mr. Sousares has plans for a medical clinic, that this particular lot
is the last to develop in a very old subdivision, and 1s located between 2 existing build-
ings. He said the plan is to put the land there to the highest and best use, and said
that while acknowledging parking problems there, most of the problems are caused by the
Thirsty Turtle and other businesses already existing. He said this applicant had ap-
proached the owners of the land across the alley from this lot to see if he could pur-
chase additional land, but they had refused, and presented a letter from those landowners
stating this, which he referred to as Exhibit No. 1.
•
LJ
Mr. Upham referred to the loading door at the rear of Wilson's Plumbing shop,and stated
that there would not be room to use that door when people were parked in the rear as the
proposed parking shows. He went on to point out that trucks loading and unloading would
have to do so from either the front of the shop or from the alley. Dr. Sousares, who had
been sworn in at previous meetings said that perhaps trucks could use the front door for
loading and unloading, but added it would certainty be more convenient to use the rear
loading door. Mr, Upham pointed out that cars could be parked in front of the front door,
also, if this proposed site plan is used. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that according to
the survey, Mr. Sousa re's building encroaches onto the neighboring lot. Mr. Harris pointed
out that this area has been surveyed 3 times, and it has been determined that many of the
existing buildings encroach other property lines. Mrs. Kee indicated that lot line con-
struction is acceptable with the required fire walls. The owner of Lot 9 and the use of
that lot were discussed, and Mr, MacGilvray asked if this Board's action would be premature
without knowing the required specific number of spaces, and Mr. Upham speculated that if
this variance is granted, it would be like telling the site plan commission that this
Board is giving a variance to a specific number of spaces, and that the applicant would
not have to come back before the Board. Mrs. Kee said that it is her opinion that this
project should go before site plan review before being granted a variance by this Board,
as she can foresee problems with the proposed parking in the rear. Mr. Harris said this
property had been purchased before a parking regulation had been established and his
applicant is being penalized because he has waited to develop the land. Mr. MacGilvray
pointed out that a quantitative determination (number of spaces) is being requested and
it could be for 5 spaces vs. 10 spaces. Uses allowed in C-1 zoning and the required parking
for various businesses was discussed. Mr. Harris said that if no parking is allowed in
the front of this building, an d a variance is not granted by this Board, it would be in
effect an inverse condemnation of his client's property. Mr. Upham said inverse condemna-
tion is not unique, and further that the City has not created this problem,but rather
"un-use" of the property created the problem, and in this way the City would not have
ZBA Minutes
6-21-83
page 4
• condemned this land because-)t is the result of normal growth. Mr. Harris said the ap-
plicant has done alt that can be done in planning use for this land, and is here asking
for relief from this Board.
Mr. MacGilvray spoke of the size of medical clinics, and asked why 1320 square feet has
been chosen as the proposed size by the applicant. He pointed out that this clinic and
the proposed parking do not now exist, and if any reasons can be given they would help
the Board come to a decision. Mr. Harris repeated that he is under oath, and knows of
studies which- set up feasible square footage in which an AM/PM type clinic can operate,
and fihis proposal represents the smallest feasible amount of space for this type clinic.
Mr. McGuirk asked if the following statement, which is his understanding of the request
is correct: That the required parking is reduced from 15 spaces to 10, with an allowance
of parking for 5 cars of the required 10 in the city-owned right-of-way located in front
of the 2 lots. Mrs. Kee reiterated that she still has concern over the dimensions of the
proposed parking spaces in the rear, and thinks that a variance should be given for them
as well. Mr. Upham said that counting the 5 spaces in the city-owned right-of-way would
be the same as ceding city property to the applicant in his opinion. Mr. McGuirk said that
if this request is granted, there probably still would not be enough parking spaces,
because there are now 3 trucks parking in back, there were tonight 3 cars parking in
front of Wilson's Plumbing, we have been told there will probably be 3 employees at the
clinic, which would leave one space for customers of the clinic to park. Therefore, in
his opinion, if this variance is granted nothing would be gained. Mr. Harris suggested
a first-come, first-served policy, and if this variance is not granted, the applicant
asks what he is supposed to do with this property he is paying taxes on.
Mr. Wendt asked how many legal spaces are in front of this development now and Mrs. Kee
• answered there are no legal parking spaces there, and the total number of spaces required
for the existing businesses in this area is in excess of 100 spaces. Mr. Harris pointed
out that these parking spaces should be designated as non-conforming uses.
Mr. Wendt said that now he believes that it would be impossible to call this situation
anything but a hardship. Ms. Meyer said a structure has not yet been built, and other
uses demanding fewer parking spaces have been mentioned. Mr. Upham said Mr. Harris has
asked if the Board wants a medical clinic on that lot, but has not mentioned a retail
store at all. Mr. MacGilvray said other uses should probably be ignored at this time.
Mr. Wendt pointed out that the site plan provided is awfully sketchy, and it would be help-
ful if the Board could see a site plan of some kind on Lot 11 which also included the
rest of the surrounding buildings. Discussion of a possible site plan, setbacks, maximum
area remaining, as well as other general ideas followed. Mrs. Kee then pointed out that
even if this Board grants a variance, the Project Review Committee or the Planning and
Zoning Commission could still have problems with a site plan. Mr. MacGilvray said he is
still bothered by not having a concrete proposal. Mr. Wendt said that it seems this
Board has been giving special consideration to these older platted areas, but he cannot
vote without seeing a site plan.
Mrs. Kee suggested the Board look at the intent of the ordinance and the entire area, and
any problems which might be caused, and then perhaps a decision can be reached. She again
pointed out that a site plan will be reviewed by other bodies.
Ms. Meyer asked again just what variance is being applied for; whether it is a variance
for this development to use the city R.O.W. for parking, or for a variance to the required
• number of parking spaces, or just what. Mrs. Kee stated this Board cannot grant a variance
to cover allowing parking in city-owned right-of-way, but the land in this area has always
been used for just that. Ms. Meyer then said that Mr. Upham's statement regarding the city
ZBA Minutes
6-21-83
Page 5
•
•
ceding city land is not relevant in this instance. Mr. McGuirk said then that the vari-
ance requested would be for at least 10 spaces because the 5 shown in front cannot be
counfied. Reasons for the ordinance was discussed, and how granting of this variance would
affect the public safety, flow of traffic, health and welfare, after which time Mr. Wendt
made a motion to authorize 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
following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts:
O)area was platted prior to present ordinance, (2)clty right-of-way essentially functions
as a parking lot and (3)unusually narrow lot configuration, and because a strict enforce-
ment of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this
applicant being: strict application would prevent development to the highest and best
use, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done, subject to the following limitations: (1)variance to parking requirement no greater
than 5 spaces. This motion was seconded by Dorothy Meyer and received a favorable vote
of 3-2 (with McGuirk ~ Upham voting against), however this motion failed because a favorable
vote of at least 4 votes is necessary to grant a variance by this Board. Therefore, this
request for variance was dented.
Mr. Upham then made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Wendt seconding. Motion carried unani-
mously (5-0).
ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
•
~~~
•