Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1979 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments • • MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment September 10, 1979 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Harper, Mathewson, Bailey, Jones Boughton, Burke Dubois STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Zoning Official Callaway, Building Official Koehler, Planning Assistant Longley, City Attorney Lewis Agenda Item #1 -- Consideration of a request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in the name of Minnie Smith Todd, 609 Marvem. Mr. Wayne Todd expressed his desire to expand the house to 609 Marvem. Zoning Official Callaway explained that a non-conforming structure existed on the lot at 609 Marvem but the principal structure and the proposed expansion met all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mathewson stated that the Board had determined that a plat be sub- mitted locating all buildings on the site when non-conforming structure was involved. Callaway replied that it was his inter- pretation that this policy only involved situations where property line locations were questioned. Mathewson asked if any neighbors had made objections to the request. Callaway replied that no objections had been received. Chairman Harper stated that the Board had not established any policy which would require all drawings submitted to be prepared by a surveyor. Callaway replied that the board had requested the prep- aration of site plans by a surveyor in cases where the information submitted by a property owner was challenged by others. Chairman Harper moved that the expansion of a non-conforming structure of 609 Marvem be permitted as this would not increase the existing non-conforming or prevent the structure from returning to conformity. Mathewson seconded and the motion passed unanimously. MINUTE S September 10, 1979 2 Agenda Item #2 -- Consideration of a request for a variance in the name of C. E. Olsen, 409 Dexter. Mr. Jim Holster presented the request for a variance to the board on behalf of Mr. C. E. Olsen, Halst~r explained the modifications made to the orginal request for a variance so as to provide 25 foot setback .from the adjacent lot owned by Ms. Caroline Mitchell and .f_orwarded a letter from Ms. Mitchell to the board. Chairman Harper read Ms. Mitchell's letter to the Board. In said letter, Ms. Mitchell expressed no objections to Mr. Olsen's request, provided that approval of the request would in no way affect the use of her property. Harper stated that in his opinion the request before the board provided an acceptable setback at that location. Mathewson inquired as to the reasons for the request. Holster related Mr. Olsen's desires to provide a separation between the house and garage and to save existing trees. Mathewson stated that the site under consideration was larger than the minimum lot required and could be utilized in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Harper stated that the request was com- patible with the existing pattern of land use in that area. Mathewson restated that the site, being cleared, could comply with the Zoning Ordinance. • Mr. Tim Kenneip, a resident of the neighborhood, related the history of the neighborhood and stated that the requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance were more appropriate for new developments. Chairman Harper moved to approve the request for a variance in the name of C. E. Olsen, permitting a structure to be built within 17 feet 7 1/2 inches from the existing alley as this is not contrary to the public interest and due to the unique circumstance of existing rear garages in the neighborhood. Bailey seconded the motion, which was approved by unanimous vote. Burke recommended investigation into non-conforming uses in such areas and that the Planning and Zoning Commission investigate the possibility of addressing problems through ordinance revision. Agenda Item #3 -- Reconsideration of a request for the expansion of a non-conforming use in the name of Larry Hickman, 300 West Dexter. Chairman Harper gave background information concerning the past actions of the Board with regards to this request. John Hawtrey, attorney for Larry Hickman, presented excerpt, from Ordinance 850, the Zoning Ordinance for the City of College Station. Hawtrey related past events which. led to Mr. Hickman's original • request previously denied by the Board. MINUTES September 10, 1979 ~• 1. Mr. Hickman's structure is a non-conforming use; 2. A use permit authorizing said non-conforming use was granted upon adoption of Ordinance 850; 3. The Board does have the authority to revoke such a use permit, but that is not the question currently before the board; 4. The Zoning Ordinance regulates modifications of non-conforming uses under Sec. 4-C; and that Sec. 4 and Sec. 11 do not accurately correspond. 3 Hawtrey further stated that the Zoning Ordinance gave the Building Official some degree of responsibility in determining when building permits will be issued in conjunction with. non-conforming uses, and whether such building permits would require action by the Board. Hawtrey conch~ded by stating that there was no necessity for referring Mr. Hickman's request to the Board. City Attorney Lewis responded to Mr. Hawtrey's points stating that Hawtrey's arguments raised a legitimate question for the Board to address. Lewis further stated that the City was not attempting to discontinue Mr. Hickman's Use Permit but Mr. Hickman was attempting • to amend his permit and that the language of Sec. 4-C, Ordinance 850 is broad enough to reconcile the instances where the language of the various sections were unclear. Mathewson stated that the Board had the authority to authorize the extension of a non-conforming use if the enlargement met the require- ments of Sec. 11 and that the issue in question should have come to the Board, that the question to be addressed is the necessity of the extension and whether or not it is incidental to the existing use of the building. Hawtrey stated that Mr. Hickman's request did not constitute an enlargement, but was an addition and did not increase floor area. Mathewson disagreed with that definition with regards to the deck addition. Chairman Harper stated that the Zoning Ordinance addressed the building area of the lot and defined a building. Hawtrey restated that Mr. Hickman's rea_uest was .not an enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use, and should not have been referred to the Board. Mathewson inquired as to how this case orginally came before the • Board. Zoning Official Callaway related the events that led to the original request and added that he could not approve Dr. Hickman's Building Permit without approval of the Board,. unless the Board found otherwise. MINUTES September 10, 1979 Chairman Harper invited comments from any interested parties. Mathewson suggested that the Board review the advice of both councils to determine whether or not the Board had authority in this matter and the Zoning Official. and the Building Official acted properly in referring this matter to the Board, and that the definition of floor space should be determined. Mathewson moved that the Board find that the Zoning Official and Building Official acted properly in referring this matter to the Board under Sec. 4-C, Ordinance 850 and that the Board had the authority in the question of the deck and the granting of its building permit. The motion was seconded by Burke and passed unanimously. Harper moved that the Board find that the Board authority under Sec. 4-C and that the Zoning Official and the Building Official acted properly in the attic. The motion was seconded by Jones and passed unanimously. Chairman Harper suggested that the Board reexamine the issue of request for an enlargement. Hawtrey requested that the Board issue a Use Permit for the enlargement of a building devoted to a non- conforming use, such extension being necessary and incident-al to such use of the building, does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non-conforming use by more than 25o and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use and does not prevent the return of such building to a conforming use. The request was broken into two parts: 1. The addition of insulation, flooring, and ventilation to the attic. 2. The addition of a deck and balcony. Jones inquired as to whether or not the Board should reconsider a request which. had previously been denied. Hawtrey stated that the original request was an appeal to the decision to require a permit for the additions completed and that the appropriate. action would be to now hear the request. Callaway suggested the the Board determine whether or not the Board desired to rehear the case. Mr. Hawtrey restated that an actual request for a Use Permit had not formally been made. Chairman Harper moved that the Board reconsider its previous decision to deny permission to enlarge a non-conforming use at 300 W. Dexter. The motion was seconded by Mathewson. 4 • Jones inquired as to whether or not the additions requested or the feelings of the neighborhood had changed since the first time this issue came before the Board. • • MINUTE S September 10, 1979 Jim Basset spoke in favor of the request. Hawtrey stated that much of the discussion at the previous con- sideration was not relevant to the question of the deck, attic .flooring, and ventilation. Lambert tnTilkes stated that the work undertaken increased the floor space of the structure. Duanne Cofe stated that the structure had been extended, and that such extension undertaken without a Building Permit had been a practice at that location in the past. He stated that his opposition to the proposal with regards to the attic modification would be withdrawn if Dr. Hickman removed certain structures from the site. Mrs. Lambert Wilkes stated that she represented others in the neighborhood in saying that the requested additions would not be an improvement in the neighborhood. Chairman Harper pointed out that liking or disliking the appearance of the structure was not an appropriate consideration for the Board. Chairman Harper called for the question and the motion before the Board passed by the following vote: For: Harper, Mathewson, Bailey, Burke, Boughton Opposed: Jones Chairman Harper stated that his original Apposition to the request was due to his concern of a possible. intent to use the attic for purposes of adding habitable space, but that this concern was probable inaccurate, but that fie was still concerned about the bulk added by the decks. Hatrey stated that the Board could place restrictions upon the Use Permit granted for any extension. Chairman Harper moved to approve the modifications to the attic, including the additions of approximately 200 square feet of windows and adding flooring under the following conditions; 1. Use of such space shall be used for plant growth and storage space. 2. No habitable rooms or structures shall be constructed. 3. The external greenhouse shall be removed in 180 days. • Dr. Richman expressed that the attic was not for residential use. The motion was seconded by Bailey and passed ~ unanimously. MINUTE S September 10, 1979_ • Chairman Harper moved that at the attic level for the area for plants. Mathewson the following vote; 6 a use permit for a 30 square foot balcony sole purpose of providing an outdoors seconded the motion which failed by For: Mathewson Opposed: Harper, Baily, Boughton, Jones Abstaining: Burke Chairman Harper moved to grant up to a 25~ extension of the second floor with a deck on the basis that it is necessary and incedental to the use of the existing structure. Several members of the audience questioned the necessity of the second floor deck. Hawtrey replied stating that the second floor apartment was entitled to outdoor living space. Mzs.Lambert Wilkes restated that she spoke for several property owners in saying that the deck was not an improvement to the neighborhood. Hawtrey inquired as to whether those in opposition were absentee owners or residents of the neighborhood. Mrs. Wilkes replied that she was a property owner, but that the Spriggs, Adams, and Vroomans, were residents. Mr Basset stated as a resi- dent~'that the improvements made to the structure were improvements ~,,to the neighborhood relative to past conditions at that site. • Mathewson pointed out that the deck included 384 square feet while the second floor included 1176, which would only allow an extension of 293.5 square feet, if the second floor were to be the basis for justification. Harper pointed out that ground area coverage should be use as justification. Chairman Harper amended his motion to include "the deck as built". Mathewson seconded the motion which failed unanimously. Mathewson stated that he would have voted in support of a smaller deck. Chairman Harper concurred, as did Burke, Boughton, with Jones uncertain and Bailey reserving comments. Following questions from the audience Harper stated that the Board would not consider any proposals which did not represent a substantial change from the porposal previously denied. Agenda Item #4 -- Consideration of a request for a variance in the name of John Paul Jones, 405 University Drive. Mr. Tim Keneipp presented a history of the actions taken in pre- paring documentation for a Building Permit for the proposed Corner Pocket, y-y S" University Drive. He further addressed the problems with meeting the parking requirements of the Zoning • Ordinance within the Northgate area, the need for a spirit of cooperation in addressing this problem, and efforts underway b~ Northgate Merchants to address this parking problem. Burke related recent problems she had experienced M INUTE S Septeinbez 10, 1979 7 • in attempting to park in the Northgate area. Mr. John Paul Jones addressed the Board with regards to the need for a variance. He pointed out that the hours of operation of his proposed business differed from those of nearby businesses. That he has observed parking available in the vicinity of his site, and that the location and nature of his proposed business would not contribute to the Northgate parking congestion. Efforts taken to address the parking problem were described as: 1. Efforts to obtain additional police personnel for patroling the Northgate area. 2. The formation of a legal entity to address the overall Northgate parking problem. 3. Working with the City and other Northgate merchants to develop a parking area located behing Loupot's. 4. Leasing a lot for the operation of a parking lot. Bailey inquired as to the distance from the lot behind Luopot's to the proposed Corner Pocket. Mr. Jones replied that this distance is approximately 350 feet, and that his request for a variance was for a variance from the requirements that such parking be within 200 feet and under the same ownership as the proposed place of business. • Callaway related City Planner Mayo's comments regarding his concern over whether or not customers of the Corner Pocket would utilize the parking lot proposed at Church and First Streets, but that any parking problems created by the Corner Pocket should be off- set by this lot. Chairman Harper and Mr. Tim Kenneip stated that this represented Mayo's opinion. Bailey disagreed, stating that granting such a variance would compound the existing parking. problems. Mathewson desagreed with Bailey, stating that the parking problem was Northgates loss, that a large number of potential customers were within walking distance, and that the change of use would not adversely affect the Northgate problem. Callaway restated the ordinance requirements and the need for a variance in order to grant a Building Permit. Mr. Jones stated that if a variance was necessary that an ordinance amendment might be in order. Jim Berry, President of the Northgate Merchants Association, con- curred with Mr. Jones remarks concerning efforts of the merchants • to address parking problems, relating the history of these efforts and efforts taken to work with the City in addressing these problems. M INUT~S September 10, .19.79 8 Mr. Jones restated his request for a variance. The need for such • variance, and his efforts to provide off-street parking. Chairman Harper moved that the variance be granted, with off-street parking to be provided in either or both of the proposed parking lots. The motion was seconded by Mathewson. Bailey inquired as to how many alternate Board members should vote on the motion before the Board. Chairman Harper appoointed Boughton to vote on the motion. iI'niK.Q JwreS Y~''~rCS~~~~w A representat-ive 1 A & M United Methodist Church spoke in opposition to the variance, stating that patrons of the Corner Pocket would utilize church parking facilities. Ms. Jones inquired as to whether or not the proposed business would operate on Sunday and what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Jones replied, stating that this would depend upon the economics of Sunday operations. The granting of the variance failed by the following vote: For: Harper, Boughton, Mathewson Apposed: Bailey, Jones Tim Kenniep expressed a need for a spirit of cooperation in address- . ing Northgate problems. Harper expressed a concern over denying the use of the land in question. Bailey stated that the-Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council should address the Northgate problem. •