HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/1989 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsTNUTES
•
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Monday, January 23, 1989
7:00 P.M.
LJ
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: All present {Ruesink, Gilmore, Gentry, Henry &
Thompson)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate members Baker & Garrett; also Council
Liaison
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney
Banks, Assistant Planner Johnson and Planning
Technician Volk
AGBNDA ITBM NO. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and
liaitations of the Board.
Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order and explained the functions and
limitations of the Board.
AGBNDA ITBM NO. 2: Approval of ~inntes - meeting of Noveaber 1, 1988.
Mr. Gilmore made a motion to approve the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Gentry
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
AGBNDA ITBM NO. 3: Hear visitors.
Jim Baker, 1119 Ashburn was sworn in and read a letter he had prepared addressing 4
specific passages of the minutes of the meeting of September 6, 1988, and which were
approved on November 1, 1988. The letter indicated that he and his wife believe the
minutes are incomplete and/or misleading, and they would like to have them amended to
include his transcript of those passages. He requested that the letter he submitted
to the Board become a part of the minutes to clarify any questions which may arise in
the future.
Mr. Ruesink explained that the minutes of the September meeting have already been
approved. Assistant City Attorney Banks interjected that Mr. Baker's letter will
become a part of the public record for this meeting, and added that the City's policy
is that minutes of gublic meetings are not required to be transcripts, but rather are
summaries which are paraphrased, and that the actual recordings of the meetings are
kept on file for any required clarification in the future.
The Board granted Mr. Baker's request, and directed Mrs. Volk to include the letter
from Mr. & Mrs. Baker to become a part of the minutes of this meeting (1-23-89).
(See attached letter following minutes of meeting.)
No one else spoke.
AGBNDA ITBM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for s variance or
special exception in order to place additional principal
structures on the property at 300 Montclair. Applicant is S. L. Hunt.
Mrs. Kee presented a slide show of the area and the staff report covering the request
which has been determined to actually be a request for a variance to the lot
dimensions, for the purpose of adding additional principal structures on a 2 acre
• site that currently has 6 residential structures on it. She explained that Section
8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that for more than one structure housing a
permitted principal use to be placed on a building plot, all yard and other
requirements must be met for each structure as though each were on a separate lot.
Mrs. Kee described the physical characteristics of the lot, including area zoning and
land uses, lot dimensions, utility availability and access. She stated that the lot
dimensions required in an R-1 zoning district are 50 feet by 100 feet, and Mr. Hunt
is proposing to have five building areas to be approximately 40 feet by 100 feet.
Mrs. Kee identified alternatives which would allow the applicant to accomplish the
same proposal as being (1)To receive a special exception allowing additional
development not to exceed 259b of the area of the tract, which would have to meet
ordinance requirements relative to building area, setback dimensions and access; or,
(2)To request and be granted R-lA zoning on his property which requires a minimum lot
area of 4,000 square feet with no minimum lot width requirements.
Mrs. Kee then informed the Board that the Building Official's office has inspected
the building to be moved to the site, and has noted all conditions required to bring
the structure(s) up to code, and the Fire Marshal's office will determine if
additional fire hydrants will be required, and will additionally require as a
minimum, a drive with an all weather surface which is at least 20 feet wide.
Mrs. Kee reported that 36 area property owners had been sent notification of this
request, and she had received several calls, most of which were inquiries, one which
was in opposition, and one which indicated no problem with the proposal.
• The Board asked questions for clarification regarding what a special exception would
allow, what R-lA zoning would allow, with Mrs. Kee answering the questions, and Mr.
Thompson finally pointing out that this specific request is for a variance.
Mr. R. L. Hunt, Jr. of 300 Montclair came forward and was sworn in. He briefly
explained the history of his family's ownership of this land, stated that in the
early 1950's the Hunts were told by the City there was room on the tract for
additional structures, and pointed out this land is unique in that it has never been
subdivided or platted, and is the only acreage in an area surrounded by platted lots.
He clarified that his request for a variance is to allow him to place 2 additional
rental units on the tract, and then showed a rendering of a possible alternate plan,
pointing out that he is not indicating it is the plan, but rather could be the plan.
He said he has no plans to sell off or build on other areas of this tract at this
time, and his immediate plans are only for moving 2 additional rental units along the
rear of the property. He added that the driveway, or road through the property is
undedicated, and other than to grant an easement to the City, he has no plans to
dedicate a road.
Mr. Ruesink asked for clarification as to the number of units Mr. Hunt is requesting
a variance for, and Mr. Hunt replied that his immediate plans are to place 2
additional units along the rear, and for the time being he thinks would allow his
family the highest and best use of the land, but pointed out that future plans might
change since there is pressure for commercial property in this area.
Shaw Wulfson, 301 Highland came forward and was sworn in. He stated that he opposes
• this request in whole or in part for the following reasons:
1. The area is developed with single family homes generally from 1500 to 2000
square feet.
ZBA Minutes 1-23-8g Page 2
2. There is an existing easement along the rear of this property and he does
• not know if this has been shown, but it should be considered.
3. R-1 Single Family Residential zoning would imply that each house should
accommodate 1 family, and a 400 square foot structure would not meet that
requirement.
4. The existing structure and the lot itself need additional maintenance,
including improvements and/or cleaning up.
5. Although the neighborhood is made up of a lot of rental property about which
nothing can be done, he does not think the Gity should allow someone to add to the
existing problems of the area.
6. He then asked if the existing 4 cabins are located on individual lots, to
which Mrs. Kee replied they are not and Mr. Hunt has no plans to subdivide the
tract.
7. Most lots in the area are the required 50 feet by 100 feet in size, but most
of the houses in the area are situated on 1 1/2 lots, so the building plots for each
house are actually apgroximately 75 feet by 100 feet.
8. The 2 proposed corner "lots" should be considered 1 lot to support 1 larger
structure which could accommodate a family.
Edward Hefti, 300 Fairview came forward, was sworn in and stated that he is opposed
to this request and would like to see the single family zoning with the 5000 square
foot lot upheld.
Frances Calliham, property manager for 305 Montclair came forward, was sworn in and
stated the owner of the property she represents has requested denial of this request,
not to keep the Hunts from building what is legal, but to stop adding more which is
not legal. In addition to this, the owner would like to request the City to have Mr.
• Hunt clean up the property which is next to the residence at 305 Montclair.
Billie Trail, 12 Ranchero Road, owner of the rent house on the corner of Montclair
and Angus came forward, was sworn in and stated she is concerned about the small size
of the proposed building plots and the type of upkeep given to this type of
establishment, adding that she does not think additional development of this type
helps the atmosphere of the Montclair neighborhood.
Mr. Hunt came forward again and stated that his mother, the owner of this property,
is 93 years old and admitted maintenance of the property has been lax, but he is back
home now and is making a major effort to bring everything up to standard, and to
upgrade the property.
Greg Taggart, #7 Wellborn Heights, Wellborn, came forward, was sworn in and
identified himself as an employee of Municipal Development Group, the company
planning this project for Mr. Hunt. He stated that he would like to present an
additional possible plan and was granted permission. He showed a plan to the Board.
He pointed out that there is R-6 zoning within 80 feet of Mr. Hunt's property, so the
entire neighborhood is not R-1. He stated this alternate plan would be to eliminate
one of the lines dividing 2 small building plots to create 1 building site which
would allow everything to be within specified requirements except for 3 small areas.
He continued to explain that Mr. Hunt has purchased 2 new units which meet current
building standards, and he wanted to put them across the rear in alignment with the
existing cabins, and to have the other areas toward the front of the lot available to
accommodate possible future buildings. He said the alternate plan would place only 1
• additional structure along the rear, with the other one going toward the front of the
property.
ZBA Minutes 1-23-89 Page 3
,,~..,
Mr. Gentry asked why a variance would be required if Mr. Hunt uses this alternate
• plan and Mrs. Kee explained that the existing cabins do not meet lot size
requirements, therefore this entire property is a non-conforming use, and in order to
make any changes, either a variance, or a special exception must be granted. She
continued by explaining the original variance if granted would allow 6 additional
building sites, but the newest proposal presented at this meeting would allow only 5
additional building sites.
Mr. Gilmore pointed out that the other alternative to a variance or a special
exception as identified by staff would be for Mr. Hunt to seek rezoning of this
property to R-lA, which would appear to more aptly suit Mr. Hunt's future plans.
Mr. Taggart stated that time is of the essence to Mr. Hunt, and rezoning takes time.
Additional discussion took place among the Board members, Mrs. Kee, and Mr. Taggart,
covering the history of the existing non-conforming buildings, the reasons they are
non-conforming, and the section of the ordinance which allows more than 1 principal
structure.
Mr. Wolfson spoke from the audience to say that he has been under the impression that
the proposed new structures would be built, but he is now hearing that they are
existing structures to be moved in. He stated that there is some historic character
to this neighborhood in that the area had a higher concentration of old faculty homes
than anywhere else in the City, and he would hate to see that character diminished by
any additional cabins.
Jacqueline Waldeck, 315 Highland came forward and was sworn in. She asked when the
• existing houses were built, and was answered by Mr. Hunt who replied they were built
in 1954 and placed on foundations after they were approved by the City.
Ms. Waldeck asked if plans included more cabins than the 2 referred to and Mr. Hunt
replied that he cannot predict that at this time, but if future plans are for
additional buildings, they will meet requirements.
Mrs. Waldeck asked what is required by ordinance now and Mrs. Kee replied that lots
in R-1 zoning districts must be a minimum of 50 feet by 100 feet, and the requested
variance would make the existing structures legal as well as allow 6 additional
building areas. She added that a special exception would only allow Mr. Hunt to
increase the non-conformity by 25~.
Mr. Thompson said he has no problem with the proposed 2 lots along the rear, but he
would have a problem allowing the front part of the lot to be divided into 4
additional building sites. He explained that he does not think the 2 proposed along
the rear of the property would affect the neighborhood very much, but if 4 more were
allowed toward the front of the property, it would definitely change the character of
the area.
Mrs. Kee explained that if the variance is granted, certain conditions could be
placed upon it.
Mr. Hunt explained that he does not plan to put the buildings on Montclair because he
does not want depreciate what he has there now.
• Mr. Thompson said
toward the front
neighborhood.
that he also has some concern about the placement of buildings
of the lot because of the negative responses received from the
ZBA Minutes 1-23-89 Page 4
.nom
• For clarification purposes, Mr. Gentry paraphrased his understanding of Mr. Hunt's
reason for coming before the Board, and said he is not particularly concerned about
prolonging the existing non-conforming use, nor with the addition of 1 or perhaps
even 2 structures along the rear property line, but he has a definite problem with
the proposed "building plots" toward the front of the lot which are reduced so much
by the road running through them that they are in no way near the required minimum
lot size.
Mr. Taggart stated that he thinks that Mr. Hunt has now decided that he only wants a
variance to allow the placement of 2 additional buildings, and if he decides in the
future that he wants something else, that can be handled at a later date.
Mr. Gentry stated that he would always have a problem with the request, or any
similar future request, as it pertains to the front part of the property as that
would represent a definite expansion of a non-conforming use.
Mr. Gilmore again listed the alternatives identified, but added that he agrees with
Mr. Gentry's comments regarding the front of this lot.
Mr. Ruesink took an informal show-of-hands poll of the neighbors who spoke, regarding
their opinions for only 2 additional structures along the rear.
Ms. Waldeck stated that if the variance is approved for additional structures in the
rear at this time, it sounds like nothing would stop Mr. Hunt from coming back later
for additional variances, and it is her opinion that such action would increase the
density of this 1 acreage which is not allowed to the rest of the neighborhood which
• is required to abide by the zoning and building ordinances. She continued by
describing features of some of the homes in the area which make up the "character" of
the neighborhood, and which could not be preserved if additional little buildings
are allowed.
Mr. Thompson told all present that any and all comments made at this meeting would be
taken into consideration by any future Board, because staff is careful to include
information covering any past action on a property.
Mr. Wulfson said that if a variance is granted on either 1 or 2 additional
structures, a precedent would be set for additional structures in the future, so he
would prefer only 1 additional building on the site and the "building plot".
Mr. Gentry then offered a motion to authorize a variance to the lot width and size
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest,
due to the following special conditions: existing non-conforming use along the rear
of the lot has been in existence for some time, and continued similar development
will not detract from the current development of the area, and is in keeping with the
general use of the area, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the
inability to continue reasonable and existing development, and such that the spirit
of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the
following limitations: allow 2 additional building sites in the southwesterly corner
with 40 foot frontage as shown on January '89 plat submitted, but conditioned that no
additional building sites shall be authorized without action of an appropriate City
board, it being recommended that no such sites be approved.
• Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion.
ZBA Minutes 1-23-89 Page 5
Ms. Trail stated that she would not want any more than the 2 units in the back added
• to this lot. Mr. Gentry explained that the existing mixed use of the older areas
makes decisions in those areas difficult, and after reviewing the application and
seeing slides of the area, he does not think 2 additional small units across the
rear of the property would change the nature of that property, and now
that Mr. Hunt is living here, perhaps the care of the property will improve. He
continued by saying that he does feel strongly that the proposed additional
building sites along Montclair significantly affect the density of development on
the lot, and he recommended as part of his motion that it not be approved in the
future, and if it comes back before him, he would not approve such a request. He
added that hopefully this motion addresses all of the concerns, and will also
allow Mr. Hunt to develop property that he owns, and ought to have the right
within reasonable constraints, to develop.
Ms. Waldeck came forward and stated that the zoning requirement is for lots with 50
foot frontage, therefore the motion would give Mr. Hunt 6 lots of substandard size.
She suggested to come nearer to meeting current standards, no more than 1 additional
building plot should be allowed for a total of 5 little structures. She pointed out
that since the newer house is larger than the existing houses, it would seem more
reasonable and suitable to put it on 2 of the proposed little lots for a total of 5
little houses.
Mr. Gilmore called the question. Votes were cast on the motion made by Mr. Gentry
and seconded by Mr. Gilmore, with the results being 5-0 in favor of the motion to
allow Mr. Hunt to place 2 additional structures along the rear property line at the
southwesterly corner of his property only.
• Mr. Hunt thanked the Board and the neighbors for responding to his request. Mr.
Ruesink also thanked all area residents who attended and participated in the meeting.
AQBNDA ITBI~! NO. 5: Consideration of a request for a parking
variance at the existing vacant building at 1804 Valley View
Drive. Applicant is Ferreri Italian Hestaurant. Owner of the
property is F.S.L.I.C.
Mrs. Kee presented a slide show of the area and the staff report covering the
request, including the physical characteristics of the lot, access, area land use and
zoning. She reported that the existing building is 10,000 square feet and would
require 133 parking spaces according to regulations in the zoning ordinance. She
pointed out there are 22 parking spaces on the site, and a previous variance was
granted to the parking requirements for a retail establishment at this location .for
11 spaces which cannot be applied for this business because it represents a
complete change of use. Therefore, this applicant is requesting a variance for
approximately 111 parking spaces.
Mrs. Kee pointed out that the adjacent K-Mart center currently only requires 300
spaces of the 630 which are available, but the owner of the proposed restaurant has
been unable to secure a parking easement from the owners of the K-Mart center,
although he has not given up and is still seeking that easement.
She identified the hardship the applicant faces as the limited use available for the
existing vacant building, or the restriction of floor space which could be used if
the use is changed to a restaurant, which would limit his use to only 25~ of the
• available total square footage.
Mrs. Kee explained the ordinance intent for on-site parking requirements as being to
ZBA Minutes ~-23-89 Page 6
provide adequate off-street parking to avoid traffic congestion, that 4 area owners
• had been notified of the request, but she had received no comments from them. She
then painted out that the applicant has furnished several letters for the Board's
information, and that the owner of the Putt Putt golf course across Valley View Drive
has submitted a letter at this meeting in favor of this request for the members.
Joe Ferreri, 902 North Rosemary Drive, Bryan, came forward, was sworn in and
identified himself as the applicant of this request. He explained the problems he
has encountered with the owners of the K-Mart center which are on-going, and have
taken place over the past 7 months. He stated that he has been verbally informed
that the owners of K-Mart are in favor of granting the parking easement to him, but a
written agreement would be a long time coming due to the corporate structure which
must agree to and sign the document.
Mr. Thompson said that it would seem to him that this situation would be similar to
other centers where uses are mixed and parking is shared.
Mr. Gilmore pointed out that K-Mart owns the lease for all the parking, and if K-Mart
doesn't want anyone else to park there, they should not. He continued by saying that
this Board, if it grants the variance, would be allowing a business to open there,
and he would have no problem with granting a variance contingent upon the condition
that K-Mart does grant the parking easement, but if it does not, then he does not
think the Board should grant a variance which could cause parking on that lot.
Mr. Gentry stated that if this Board grants this variance, it is allowing Mr. Ferreri
to run a business, and if K-Mart decides to fence off the area and enforce No
Parking, it is not this Board's problem. Mr. Gilmore disagreed.
• Mr. Henry said that he knows the total square footage of the building is 10,000
square feet, but he would like to know what the actual seating capacity would be,
since he knows the building cannot be 100 occugied by patrons.
Mr. Ferreri replied that he thinks he could put about 40 tables in the usable area of
the building, which would require approximately 40-60 parking spaces. He reminded
the Board there are 22 spaces on site and a variance was granted to a previous
business for 11 spaces, so that would give him a total of 33 spaces toward the 40-60
he estimates he would actually need. He stated again that he is continuing to pursue
the parking easement, and then pointed out an area on the K-Mart lot which has not
been renovated, as has all the other area, and explained that is the area which he
would be required to pave if the easement is granted by K-Mart. He further explained
that approval of his loan application is contingent upon that parking easement.
Additional discussion followed about the proposed number of employees, the hours of
operation, removing tables if there is enough parking available, and the letters from
the owners of the K-Mart center which Mr. Ruesink directed staff to include as a part
of the record for this meeting. (See attachments following minutes).
Mr. Gilmore said again that the K-Mart lot belongs only to K-Mart, and if they decide
to enforce No Parking, the Board would be driving cars to someone else's property.
Mr. Gentry said that he believes the existing 22 spaces will be enough for this type
business at this location, and he is in favor of this request.
. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the Putt Putt geople have additional unused land Mr.
Ferreri might negotiate to obtain, and Mr. Ferreri said that he has already talked to
the owner about it, but he still believes K-Mart will grant the easement, especially
ZBA Minutes 1-23-8g Page 7
a
since the area he is negotiating for has been excluded from the new paving project.
• Mr. Ferreri then stated that some of the Putt Putt patrons park at the K-Mart lot,
and the manager of K-Mart does not mind, but says he welcomes the gossible additional
traffic.
Tom Turbiville, owner of the Putt Putt Golf Course came forward, was sworn in and
read a letter he had prepared for the ZBA which endorses Mr. Ferreri's plans for the
restaurant and the variance he is requesting. He said that K-Mart has always
cooperated with him and his needs for his business, and his employees help police
part of the K-Mart parking lot for trash. He went on to say that the old Ira's
building is very unique, and has become an eyesore since it is vacant, and the
proposal by Mr. Ferreri could only enhance this area of the City.
Mr. Gentry then made a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest,
due to the following special conditions: An unusually large amount of parking is
generally available in the area, a variance will not detract from the area
development, existing parking will handle a moderate crowd for this facility, and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to use an existing facility,
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done subject to the following limitations: allow restaurant serving alcohol usage
with 22 on-site parking spaces. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (5-0).
AGBNDA ITBM NO. 6: Consideration of a request for a variance to
setback require,ents for construction of a garage with living
• quarters on the second floor at 111 Lee. Applicant is Clair J. Nixon.
Mrs. Kee explained the request, which is for a variance to both the side and rear
setbacks for the purpose of constructing a 3-car garage with living quarters on the
second floor to replace a 2-car garage which has been removed. She showed slides of
the area which is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential, and is primarily developed
with single family homes.
She explained that the required setbacks are 25 feet for the rear due to the proposed
living quarters being proposed, and 7.5 feet for the side; however, the applicants
are proposing a 10 foot rear setback and a 1 foot side setback to accommodate the
proposed structure at a specific location on the lot.
Mrs. Kee explained that the only alternatives identified by staff included building a
smaller garage structure, or eliminating the living quarter which would reduce the
rear setback requirement to 20 feet. She said that staff had located no previous
action on this property, that 9 area property owners had been notified of this
request, and she had received no responses to the notification.
Clair Nixon, 111 Lee was sworn in and identified himself as the applicant and owner
of the property. He stated his family had bought this 44 year old house about 2 1/Z
years ago and have enlarged and totally refurbished it. He pointed out that street
parking is not allowed in the area, so he must be able to contain his 3 personal
i vehicles completely on the property. He explained that he and his wife have 7
children and have come to the conclusion that they may have to employ live-in
domestic help, and the proposed living quarters would be for that purpose for a
. number of years, to be converted to perhaps a home for in-laws at some time in the
distant future.
ZBA Minutes 1-23-89 Page 8
He cited examples of similar arrangements as being the Perryman's at 701 Lee have a
• garage apartment and the Jessup garage is only approximately 2.5 feet off the
property line. He stated the neighbors have voiced no opposition to his plans since
they would only serve to enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Henry & Mr. Thompson asked what is on the property to the north and Mr. Nixon
replied that the nearest structure is probably 75 feet from the property line, on the
other side of the property. Mr. Thompson asked about the distance to a power line
and Mr. Nixon stated the distance would be approximately 20 feet. Mr. Henry asked if
this Board has considered any other cases in this old neighborhood and Mrs. Kee
replied that the Jessup's garage has been allowed by the granting of a variance. Mr.
Nixon stated that his proposed garage would have a greater setback than Mrs.
Jessup's.
Mr. Gilmore made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum side and rear
setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public
interest, due to the following special conditions: vehicular access to the residence
is required from the rear and other existing structures utilize the rear
entrance concept with no other access to this property, and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship to this applicant being: inability to rebuild a garage which would
better suit their needs, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a request for a aide setback
variance for an existing porch structure at 225 Sterling.
• Applicant is Century 21 Beal Heal Estate Inc.
Mrs. Kee explained the request is to allow an actual side setback of 1.5 feet rather
than the required 7.5 feet for the purpose of allowing an existing side porch to
remain on the house. She pointed out that the applicant is a representative of a
real estate company who is trying to sell the house, but the owner is the Mortgage
Guaranty Insurance Corporation/Texas Housing Agency.
Mrs. Kee showed slides of the property, the structure, the encroaching porch and the
residential area. She explained that the Gollege Station Community Development
office had moved several houses to Sterling Street and "rehabbed" them in 1983. She
stated 'that the contractor doing the work had received a building permit for this
particular structure for interior renovations only, and that no permit records were
found for any exterior improvements, including the porch, which would indicate that
no formal approval from either the Planning or Building Divisions was received for
the additions. Therefore, the encroachment was not discovered until the survey was
done for the sale of the house, rather than at the normal review of the application.
She explained that the house adjacent to the subject property is about 8 feet from
the property line and the roof overhang of the subject encroaching porch comes to
approximately 6" of that line.
Mrs. Kee pointed out the hardship would be that the property would not be able to be
sold without a variance, and the way the porch is attached to the roof of the house
would make removal or reduction of the porch appear awkward as well as reducing
protection from weather elements. She stated the only alternative identified by
• staff would be the removal of all or a portion of the encroaching porch.
Charles Golightly, 4345 Carter Creek, Bryan, was sworn in and explained that this
ZBA Minutes 1-23-8g Page g
house cannot be sold as it exists without a variance, and added that there are
• at least 8 houses which have been moved to this neighborhood, and one of them
has an identical porch which was probably built without a permit as well. He
then described the family who are trying to buy this house.
Following very brief discussion, Mr. Thompson made a motion 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: entry
from the side would require steps from within the setback, and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship
to this applicant being: as it was constructed without a permit and full use of
the entry would be limited, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: that
the setback requirement be waived to allow the existing porch with no added
encroachments. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0).
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Other Business.
Mr. Gilmore complimented staff on the slide presentation because it helped to more
clearly identify the subject of the request and the surrounding neighborhood. All
other Board members agreed it was extremely helpful and requested staff to continue
with that type reporting.
AQBNDA ITBM N0. 9: Adjourn.
Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried
unanimously {5-0).
•
ATTEST:
------------------------------
City Secretary, Dian Jones
r 1
U
APPROVED:
t.
o~ C
OCJ \
-----------------------------
Chairman, David Ruesink
ZBA Minutes 1-23=8g Page 10
..+
WTA
• COMMERCIAL DIVISION
Aicmher of
International
(('ouncil of
Shopping Ccntcn
FAX
January 11, 1989
Mr. Dan Burdick
KMart, Regional Headquarters
Troy, Michigan
Dear Mr. Burdick:
303 East Uni~~ersit~~ Dri~•e
College Station, Texas 77840
(409) 260-9637
As you may recall from past contracts I have worked on for the
Ira's facility adjoining KMart property in College Station, I
represent the FSLIC in a brokerage capacity for the sale of Ira's.
As with previous contracts, this one is contingent upon obtaining
a cross-parking agreement with KMart. For the sake of clarity,
let me list some critical points that you are most likely aware
• of:
1. The contract must be closed out of escrow on
January 31, 1989.
2. Your local manager is IN FAVOR of this particular
contract due to the character, reputation and
intentions of the buyer, Mr. Joe Ferreri, and the
intended use of the premises as a very well appointed
restaurant--an enhancement to KMart's business and
curb appeal.
3. The property in question has been the subject of
vandalism and theft, and it creates an unappealing
eyesore for KMart due to the unkept grounds.
4. Ira's has been associated with KMart in our community
and the fact that it has been vacant for so long does
not bode well.
5. Mr. Ferreri has spent countless hours in lifting and
satisfying an arm's length of contingencies in our
contract. The only contingency remaining is the one
concerning parking and the agreement with KMart. It
has been an exhausting search to find financing in
our severely depressed economy, but he has miraculously
obtained financing as well.
•
COMMERCIAL SALES • LEASING PROPERTY MANAGEMEIv'T
•
Mr. Dick Burdick
Page 2
January 11, 1989
~6. Lastly, you will never find a user better suited
to this property. Few have been willing to fight
all the battles listed above. ~1r. Ferreri is
sincere in making this venture work successfully to
both his benefit as well as KMart's.
I am respectfully requesting that you give this matter utmost
priority in your schedule. I know from trying to reach you by
phone that you are a very busy man. I am asking this as a special
favor because so much is at stake - Not just for Mr. Ferreri, but
also for FSLIC and most especially, for KMart.
Sincerely,/% /'
Sheila R~ Fay
• Senior Vice-President
WTA/Commercial Division
l" SRF:sm
•
FEDERAL SAVINGS ~ LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION
AS RECEIVER
LOUISIANA OFFICE
•
CERTIFIED MAIL
P 843733712 January 6, 1989
Mr. Pat Ferreri
c/o Ms. Sheila Fay
WTA Commercial Division
303 East University Dr.
College Station, TX 77840
RE: Notice of Federal Savings
and Loan Insurance
Corporation Approval
Dear Mr. Ferreri:
Reference is made to that certain Agreement to Purchase and Sell the
property described as Ira's Fine Wines, 1804 Valley View Drive,
College Station, Texas, (the "Agreement"), which Agreement was
accepted by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation in
• its capacity as Receiver for Sun Belt Federal Bank, F.S.B.
Stipulated within said agreement is the provision that the Agreement
and the seller's obligations thereunder are expressly subject to and
conditioned upon the approval by the appropriate Federal Savings F,
Loan Insurance Corporation, as Receiver, Review Committee ("FSLIC
Review Committee").
Please be advised that the FSLIC Review Committee has approved the
Agreement, and accordingly the condition set forth within the
Agreement is hereby deemed satisfied.
SELLER:
FEDERAL SAVINGS ~ LOAN INSURANCE
CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR
SUN BELT FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B.
BY: ~
TITLE: Special Representative
• DATED:
jsb:kk
800 COMMERCE ROAD WEST, SUITE 300 • NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70123 • (504) 734-5771
January 23, 1989
Jir~1 & Bobbe Baker
• 1119 Ashburn
College Station, Texas
77840
iRr. Dave Ruesink
Chairman
Zoning Board of Adjustment
City of College Sta~ti.on
Dear i~lr. Ruesink;
On September 6, 1988, we appeared before the College Station
Zoning Board of Adjustment to request two variances related
to the placement of a structure on our property in College
Hills Woodlands subdivision. We have reviewed the minutes
of that September 6th meeting and ,have found them to be
incomplete and/or misleading on several counts. We realize
that writing a summary of such a meeting is a difficult job,
and we do not want our comments to be taken as critical of
those who compiled the minutes.
However, in the interest of preserving as accurate a record
as possible of certain passages of that meeting, we would like
to submit the attached transcripts of the pertinent passages
which were typed from the audio tapes recorded by city staff
• during the September 6th meeting. Every effort has been made
made to insure that the transcripts are verbatim records of what
was actually said at the relevant passages. We request that the
transcriptions be entered into the public records of the Zoning
Board of Adjustment to prevent confusion over what actually
transpired during the September 6th meeting.
Attached are the passages we would like included in the record:
1. City Attorney Locke speaking regarding the status of the
closed section of Woodland Parkway right-of -way adjacent
to lots 26,39, and 40.
2. Senior Planner Kee speaking regarding the status of lots
26 and 39.
3. .Chris Kling speaking about the map of College Station
located in the hall outside council chambers.. (1941 map).
4. Jim Baker speaking at the close of the meeting.
You may recall, at the close of the meeting, I circulated a map
showing the approx imate location where I intended to place the
building, based on the granting of the eave height variance. I
asked the board to affirm that the variance granted approved of
the building in the location depicted on the map; the board did
approve. Also attached is a copy of the map showing the location
where the building was actually placed in accordance with the
permission granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I ask that
the Board certify that the attached map represents our compliance
with their intent and that the map be entered in the public record.
Sincerely,
' ~~ i~~~'~ei~
Jim and Bobbe Baker
Passages transcribed from the September 6, 1988 Zoning Board
of Adjustment meeting presented for inclusion in the public
record:
1. City Attorney Cathy Locke:
Dave Ruesink to Chris Kling: "This might be a good
time for us to get a legal interpretation of that.
If you would be willing to pause for a f ew minutes,
we might ask our city attorney if we could have a
legal clarification about the position that the
board should be taking."
Cathy Locke: "ivir. Chairman, members of the Board,
I have met with the i~tayor and I have been directed
to indicate to you that the city's position is that
it does not assert an interest in any of the right-of -
way along Woodland Parkway."
Dave Ruesink: "Would you say that again, please?"
• Cathy Locke: "It is, we have been directed to
indicate to you that we do not assert an interest
in any of the right-of -way along Woodland Parkway.
If you recall in 1986, the city council abandoned
the right-of -way adjacent to lot 41. As to lots
26, 39, 40, the city of College Station asserts no
interest what-so-ever at this time."
Dave Ruesink: "Ok, so that would be the clarification
that we are working on the assumption that this is in
fact the Baker's property that we are discussing."
Page Z
Passages transcribed from the September 6, 1988 Zoning Board
• of Adjustment meeting presented for inclusion in the public
record continued:
2. Senior Planner Jane Kee:
Dave Ruesink: "I wonder if we could get clarif ication
about how many lots we're dealing with here."
Jane Kee: "You're dealing with lots 26 and 39 in
my mind. The ordinance provides that a building
plot can consist of one lot and multiple lots.
That provision is what allows an accessory structure
to be on lot 39, accessory to the principal structure
on lot 26. The ordinance further does not preclude,
at some point, lot 39 existing as a separate building
plot and having a residential structure on it,
providing that set backs and all other ordinance
conditions can be met. One of the reasons: because
the configuration of that lot was done prior to our
subdivision regulations, and if there are any non-
conformaties, they would be accepted and it could be
developed as a lot by itself."
• Board Member: "So, that lot could be sold and some-
thing developed or a house constructed on it separate
from lot 26."
Jane Kee: "It could as long as all other ordinance
requirements were met: it would have to have an access
and set backs and that sort of thing. But for purposes
of this, there is nothing in the Ordinance that precludes
this being viewed as a building plot and allowing them
to place an accessory structure on the other side of
the lot line from lot 26."
~.
Page 3
Passages transcribed from the September 6, 1988 Zoning Board
of Adjustment meeting presented for inclusion in the public
• record continued:
3. Chris Kling:
"Outside this room hangs a map that is titled the
official city map for the city of .College Station
and it is dated 1941. It includes within its
boundaries the College Hills Woodlands subdivision
and it also reflects that the piece of property where
the applicants intend to place this building is an
open street."
4 . Jim Baker
Dave Ruesink: "Alright, is there any further
business to come before the board?"
Jim Baker: "I'd like to address a couple of matters
of fact, just to be, just to have it clear in my own
mind. My understanding is that I've been granted a
• variance to have a 13 foot eave height and for that
building to be 15 feet from my rear lot line. Is that
correct?"
Dave Ruesink: "That is correct."
Jim Baker: "OK, I wanted to submit this site map that
is a copy of where it was originally permitted and see
if that is agreeable."
Jane Kee: "That is the one where you have the 15 foot
dimensions?"
Board Member : "Yes . " (The map wa s being shown to eac h
board member).
Jane Kee: "That's generally in the location that was
proposed tonight. This was what was sul~nitted with the
moving permit and it shows the structure 15 feet from
the rear line, generally in the same location."
•
Jim Baker: "And that's everybody's understanding then.
OK, I wanted to be clear on that. One other point,"
Page 4
Passages transcribed from the September 6, 1988 Zoning Board
of Adjustment meeting presented for inclusion in the public
• record continued:
4. Jirn Baker continued:
Dave Ruesink: "Anywhere as long as it's 7~ feet
from the side."
Jim Baker: "OK."
Board Member : "And 15 feet from the rear . "
Jim Baker: "One other point I wanted to clarif y
as a matter of fact that was brought up about the
map in the hall that showed College Hills Woodlands
Subdivision being part of College Station in 1941.
I invite anyone to inspect that map: there's a city
boundary there shown on that map. College Hills
Woodlands is clearly outside that boundary. College
Hills Woodlands was admitted to College Station by
Ordinance 127 in 1949. There are a number of other
• fact--points that I could .address, but I wanted to
just correct that one.
I'd like to thank all of you for your consideration
here and I know that this is a lot of energy and time
that you invest in public service and I certainly
appreciate the time and attention that you've all
put into this matter. Thank you."
~ r
•
•I
S?i?~?~3~5~
i
~?l
f
9
i
a
-P
C71
w n.
~° /
~®
~~
e
~'
.~~
4
n o ~-~
~~ a
Jp
.a
~ ,~
.,
~, ~~
`~
~ ~
~
;~
~
~ ~; ~ tb Rai
~ ~
~ ;11 ~ 0
~
O
;;; ~~.
~~
~~
-P ~ f ;
,' ' 1
1. • . !
• ~,~ ~ .~
' ~~
~~`
,
~n,~ ~
, ~' ~ ` ~ Z
- - '~
p (~ c
ii ,~
~
o
` a v
M
~ ' a' e
Y (~ N
D
~{d
l
.
a
a
~ N
y
z ~
~ V
~+
~~ ~
~
zz
(D j
~ ~ ~
O ~
(~D
~w O
~~~
S
V
~n.~I}~
V 3~
ro
D
i z S ~ Q
~ p' A ~o
ti ~
R P ~
cs P s
~
~' s
~
s
~ o
.h T
o ~
pp 3
G ~1-
s
~ M S ~
h ~~
N ~ 0
t 7
s -~ o
N ~ s W
~
w ~ F S
w^ F
~- F- s
o
..,
~~ ~ z ~
~ ~ ~ ~c
r jZ
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the
___ ____yard (Section 8.7)
__ ~___lot width (Table A)
________lot depth (Table A)
~'~~~~
________minimum setback (Table A)
________parking requirements
(Section 9)
from the terms .of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
public interest, due to the following special conditions: _
~~~~~
L'am'- --~''-'=`=~='~"'=~ =-- --- '~---=~,~.=- - ~'~! ` - ay---
._
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~=~-•~-= . - -- a~~ - - ~---- ----------------- ~~~ --- ~ D
~. \.4 ° ;
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be erved and ~
substantial justice done subject to the followin imitations:
//~~~~,'' / ~, ~r'
...-
Motion made by ___.~JC~~~ ---------------- Date -----------____--
~~~--t {-1~ ~ ~ ,~ ~.°N o t i n g Results ~!!~ _ _ __
Seconded by ----~1 ~_"-=-v ---~ - ~~-='`-t-.. _
Chair signature '~.J~~
-- -~ -'~~(.I~'~------------------
.- ~'
~. ~ ~ ,
~A=i2!~~~~1/"V"~ ~"~-•. ~.~%1""F.i i~T•-i.-iL~.~, a`..~.w"`~°e ,1d~` ~ /~":i ~,,,,~~~i~~.+w.~v qp.,. ~,K ~..~ /. ~ T
(,~,.~ „°'` C'•"G".a,°~,._ ! 1G/~h:.+~-,w ~-!` .'~~ #. M~~~~.i. >. ,,,Ls,.. .. «, ~"'.. - ~W"'~ .L-,,, ~a ~h'„'' Z..!!L i1G " """'y ~- fr`"~.
Joe Ferreri
1804 Valley View Drive
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the
________yard (Section 8.7)
________lot width (Table A)
________lot depth (Table A)
__ /minimum setback (Table A)
___f/_ __parking requirements
(Section 9)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
public interest, due to the following special conditions:
K~~ ~'
~.
~. ,, .,
-- - -------- ----- `_G
='~ _ ~'" _
a
~v ~ r r
.~ y ,/
~ r'
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance ~.,'
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
- -- ---~ ~-~==-~-=~=---~ --- +-y~-
._, ~, ~
--------------------------------------------------------------------
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done subject to the following limitations:
~'r.rv~.~,~' ~,kolo/
c..~:~,~,~--~
Motion made by --- - -- -~~-~---------- Date 1_23.=$~----_-----
__,~ a-""~ Voting Results
Seconded by ----~~~ -- ----------- -~=Q-------
Chair signature _ ~_ ~ ,.~~t.~
Putt-Putt~Golf Cours¢s P~TT~P~?T
Jan . 23 , 1989
Zoning Board of Adjustment
City of College Station
College Station, TX 77842
Dear Board Members:
Please accept this as my personal endorsement of Mr. Joe Ferreri's
plan for a restaurant pro.7ect at 1804 Valley View Drive.
The above mentioned property is located directly across Valley
View Drive from Brazos Valley Putt-Putt, which I own. I believe
that a high quality restaurant, such as Mr. Ferreri plans, would
be a further enhancement of the business and residential area
surrounding this location.
Being a family entertainment business as I am, I believe that
Mr. Ferreri's business would attract similar clientele, therefore
we would highly compliment each other.
I urge the Board to grant Mr. Ferreri's parking variance request,
so that one of College Station's more unique buildings can resume
operation as soon as possible.
Tom B. Turbi ,
Brazos Va11eY Putt-Putt
1705 Valley View Dr.
College Station, Tx 77840
incerel ,
~`~ ,
-11J~~~ i l le Owner
"Sennng over 20.000.000 people omuoly with fun"
ZONING BARD OF ADJUSTMENT
-~ GUEST REGISTER
DATE January 23, 1989
NAME
ADDRESS
2. ,f
3. i
r/~ ._--
4 . t~ v ~~. ~ ~ ~~„i
5 . cz. ~'~ c~~
6 . (,</
~~o ~ ~~~. ~ - ~ S .
~ D `l ~~-c,~G~t r ~
~~ ~v ~
~. ~ .
`l _
~o. `~jrh~-D~d~~P_ ~~ P_~ .~~~~~ ~~~~ C~ S
12 . ~ - ~,Ll~~ll ~ ~~D~ / L.
13.
14.
15.
16.
~~,
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT
• FORMAT FOR POSITIOB MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the
________yard (Section 8.?)
________lot width (Table A)
________lot depth (Table A)
__~ ____ninimum setback (Table A)
________parking requirements
(Section 9)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
public interest, due to the following special conditions: _
---- ~~~ -~-'-~'--- ~ -=------~=-- '-----------1-~-~---~-------------
.. ,
v c~. ~ 1~- .. 1,,, ~~, .G- ~.~ n - rte. ~:. ~ a` -------
• ~.~ ~_ti u_~i~ ~.~. ~~-~`~---t_~.~~'r~_Ct~ `~'=~ ----~-~~._c~ ?/ ~t ~.v "-t' ~d_~ ~vl~,u c ~' ,
--- - -------------------------
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
I I
_f / q,,.~ f
l ~,,,~ ~-~t 4~ 4 C~ C L.-C' 1 `'{ Aj ~ ~ f ! ~ ! 1 t ~, ~. r ...~. ~ /r .:
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done, _~ ""'+°}'^^
Mo t i o n made b y _ _ _ _ _ _ =~-~" ' - w4--1.~-~•t.~ _ D a t e _
- -
Seconded by _____~~~_~ -____-- Voting Results _1/V~~,[~__--
Chair signature ___~ __~'~,~~:~
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
• FORMAT FOR POSI?IVB MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the
________yard (Section 8.7)
_lot width (Table A)
________lot depth (Table A)
___!!___minimum setback (Table A)
________parking requirements
(Section 9)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
public interest, due to the following special conditions: _
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
--- ~'~'" c ~-~' fir'` CC '~IZ~t.~.~,~-
_~G~ _ ~'
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done subject to the following limitations:
fI
Motion made by _~,~~I~~-°----____-- Date ~~if71~~
,_
Seconded b / ~` _________ Voting Results<<« '"v
----------
- - i - /
• Chair signature ~ Q~_~ _ ,~(,t„Q1~1..~,,.y,~