HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes• •
REVISED VARIANCE REQUEST
The following Specific Variation from the ordinance is requested:
We request a variance from the building height limitation of 50 feet for the center lobby
section of the proposed building. We propose to construct this center lobby section with
a roof height of 53' 10".
This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions:
• This variance is necessary in order to aesthetically hide the roof top air conditioning
units, venting, water sprinkler lines, conduit, etc.
• In addition, the building must be set back from the property lines in order to
accommodate additional landscape areas and planting of trees which are proposed to
exceed code requirements. Precedent has been established to accomplish this goal by
Case # . The effective loss of the perimeter of the site for landscape purposes
requires the increased height of the building to accommodate the design.
The unnecessary hardship (s) by meeting the provisions for the ordinance other
than financial hardship is/are:
• Restrictions of the Northgate District
• Attempts to address Northgate Design Review Board comments for design changes
including density, scale, on site parking, and providing transition areas through
landscaping.
• The fragmented nature of property ownership and obsolete platting of the Northgate
area. Property is very difficult to acquire and piece together to develop any other
way and meet city redevelopment plan goals.
• Development of residential as supported by the Northgate plan and maintain integrity
of the block (replatting streets)
• Maintaining as much open area within and around the site is very important to the
design of this project and to the atmosphere desired in the Northgate area.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
The alternative to this variance would be to lower the roof height and expose unsightly
air conditioning units, water sprinkler lines, conduit, and venting.
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
facts:
• In response to the Northgate Design Review Board comments, the building was set
back and stepped back to address scale issues.
i !
• In response to Northgate Design Review Board comments, additional landscaping
will be provided.
• The proposed development is consistent with surrounding development proposals.
• The design of the exterior of the building is designed to comply with the spirit and
intent of the Northgate Development Guidelines and Northgate Redevelopment Plan,
which outline Council adopted development goals.
The facts stated in this application are true and correct.
f2 1 l coo
Appli I ' Date
0 0
VARIANCE REQUEST
The following Specific Variation from the ordinance is requested:
We request a variance from the building height limitation of 50 feet for this site. We propose to construct a
building with a primary height of 50 feet but with decorative entrance area roofs and mansard roof screens
in excess of this maximum height. The highest proposed point of our ceremonial roof is 62'-1" above
grade.
This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions:
The nature of this site encourages the maintenance of the existing perimeter site trees and the planting of
additional perimeter site trees. The building must be set back from the property lines in order to effectively
accommodate this desired site feature. The effective loss of this portion of the site requires the increased
height of the building to accommodate the design.
The unnecessary hardship (s) by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial
hardship is/are:
Maintaining as much open area within and around the site is very important to the design of this project and
to the atmosphere desired in the Northgate area. As a pioneer project in Northgate, we want to establish
this precedent as an example for future developments.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
The height of the primary roof of the building is 50 feet. The top of the roof screen at the primary roof area
is approximately 53 feet above grade. Only the roof height of the center portion of the building is in excess
of the ordinance. The building is set back from the property lines to lessen he impact of the increased
height upon the streetscape.
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts:
The design of the exterior of the building is designed to comply with the spirit and intent of the Northgate
Development Guidelines.
The facts stated in this application are true and correct
plicant
3..2 / co®
Date
April 19, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Re: Variance request for 301 Church Avenue.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a variance request for
the following property:
Applicant: TOM KIRKLAND
Subject PropertE. 301 CHURCH AVE
(See attached location map.)
Proposed Variance: Height
The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 2, 2000 at
6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall
Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas.
All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject
property have received notification of this request.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-
2989.
For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (409) 764-3570.
Sabine Kuenzel
Senior Planner
LEGAL NOTICE
DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: APRIL 19, 2000 ONLY
BILL TO: The City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
REFERENCE PURCHASE ORDER # 149
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a
height variance for 301 Church Avenue. Applicant is Tom Kirkland for The Tradition @
Northgate LTD.
The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m. meeting of the Board on May 2, 2000.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-
2989.
For additional information, please contact me at (409) 764-3570.
Sabine Kuenzel
Senior Planner
G
03/21/2000 16:40
6969752
0
909 Southwest Parkway East
Suite E
Col fte Station, TX 77840
Phone: (979) MUM
Fax: (979) 6WO752
Fax
To: Natalie Ruiz
URBAN DESIGN GROUP
•
From Deborah L. Keating
P GE 01
Fava (979) 764-3498 Date March 21, 2000
PUeaee (979) 764-3570 Page= 1
Rm The Tradition at Northgate CCe
O Urgent 0 For Revs m ❑ Please Contmad 13 !Masao Reply 13 Please Recycle
•Conmenlse
Natalie, here is the legal description of the dorm site:
W.C. Boyett Estate Subdivision
Blocks-7; Lots 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13
College Station, Brazos County, Texas
J.E. Scott League, A-50
Please call if you need anything else.
0 MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
MAY 2, 2000
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Bond, Alternate Members Searcy & Dr.
Bailey.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Happ, Hill, Alternate Members Lewis, & Ellis.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace,
Staff Planner Anderson, Assistant City Attorney DeCluitt,
Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock. Assistant City
Manager Brown was in the audience.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order - Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. (John Happ).
Mr. Bond made the motion to approve the request from Mr. Happ. Mr. Searcy seconded the
motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from the April 4, 2000 meeting of the Board.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Searcy seconded the
motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration to remove from the table the front setback variance
for 7704 Sherman Court.
Mr. Searcy made the motion to remove the item from the table. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of front setback variance at 7704 Sherman Court, lots
3 & 4, block 1, Raintree Subdivision. Applicants are Laurie & Boyd Sorrell.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the
Board that the purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of a new garage. The applicant
wishes to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested
variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550-sq. ft. (22'x25') garage to replace the one that is
to be renovated.
ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page I of 8
The applicants propose to co*ct the new garage in front of the exisla garage space. This location
however, calls for approximately 350 square feet (14'x25') to extend 10 feet from the property line.
Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 15-foot variance to the front setback.
The applicant states two special conditions as:
1) the property has several large, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the
garage was placed at a different location and;
2) a pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that would be added to
the side of the home.
The applicant states two hardships as:
1) cannot build behind the house due to the lack of space, utility lines and no drive access and;
2) cutting down the trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond.
Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board Members pictures of the property.
There were discussion among the Board Members about the pond, wood deck and the trees.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing.
Boyd Sorrell, the applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman
Alexander. Mr. Sorrell presented the Board a petition from the neighbors on the street that are in favor
of the request. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that he and his next door neighbor are some of the original
Raintree residents. Mr. Sorrell explained that the project was designed to not destroy any of the trees
on the property as well as to have the addition set back far enough from the street. Mr. Sorrell
explained to the Board pictures that he had taken of the property. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that
TXDOT has easements that run through the pond and therefore the pond cannot be covered up. Mr.
Sorrell told the Board that the addition would conform to the existing home. Mr. Sorrell ended by
telling the Board that if this addition required the removal of many of the native trees they would chose
not to build the addition. The cul-de-sac and the pond limit what can be done on the lot.
Dr. Bailey asked if the proposed garage doors would open on to the street or a driveway. Mr. Sorrell
replied that they would open on to a driveway.
Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell if he was familiar with the alternatives the city staff had for his plan. Mr.
Sorrell replied that the alternative of placing the garage on the left side of the house, that is the side
where the bedrooms are and city codes requires that all bedrooms have windows to the exterior. Mr.
Bond questioned the alternative of removing the wood deck adjacent to the house. Mr. Sorrell replied
that was not possible because there is not enough area and there are huge oak trees there that would
have to be removed. Mr. Sorrell stated that area in the back where the wood deck is; the highway
department will not allow any fill toward the pond where they have their easement.
Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell how far into to his property do the TXDOT easement extends. Mr.
Sorrell replied that the easement runs through the cannel of the pond that runs through both his lots.
ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 2 of 8
Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrellev many total trees would be remover this addition. Mr. Sorrell
replied that only 1 tree would have to be removed for the proposed garage. If the garage were placed
some other place on the lot it would be at least 7 or 8 trees. Dr. Bailey asked if the trees are all native.
Mr. Sorrell replied yes.
Mr. Searcy stated that the staff report listed an alternative for the Board to grant less than what is
requested. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell if that would be feasible if the variance was less. Mr. Sorrell
replied that the garage door was planned for 22 feet but it could easily be cut down to 20 feet.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: a
TXDOT easement makes this the only feasible plan; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions
of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the destruction of mature
native trees; and such that the plan is not changed. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed
unopposed (4-1). Mr. Bond voting against granting the variance
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a side street setback variance at 2100 Maplewood,
lot 27, block 18, Emerald Forest Phase 10. Applicant is John J. Albernaz Inc.
Mr. Bond told Chairman Alexander that he needed to step down from hearing this case due to a
conflict of interest. Chairman Alexander told the applicant that positive action from this Board would
require the remaining members to all vote in favor of the variance. Chairman Alexander asked the
applicant if he wanted to reschedule this when a full Board was voting. Mr. Albemaz stated that he
would proceed with the hearing.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the
Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an encroachment into the side street
setback. The subject property is located on the corner of Maplewood Court, a cul-de-sac, and
Appomattox Drive. Maplewood Court is considered to constitute the front of the home, while the West
Side of the home has frontage along the side street Appomattox Drive. This case involves a recently
constructed home that, at the time of sale, was found to encroach into the required side street setback
along Appomattox Drive. A survey of the subject property shows an 18.21 foot section of the home
that is only 13.35 feet (instead of the required 15 feet) from the property line along Appomattox Drive,
thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.65 feet to the side street setback requirements.
The applicant offers a special condition of a subtle curvature in Appomattox Drive that resulted in a
foundation placement miscalculation that led to the subsequent encroachment. The applicant adds that
the site plan and construction was approved by the College Station Building Department, however
these inspections were based on erroneous site data that did not take into account the curvature of the
road.
The applicant has stated a hardship of the only remedy to the encroachment being the removal and
replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. He argues that such removal and replacement would
cause the structural integrity of the entire structure to be unsafe.
ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 3 of 8
• •
The City is not currently under the policy of enforcing setbacks when encroachments are found,
however failure to remedy the encroachment through reconstruction or variance could make future
sales of the home difficult.
The only alternative to the variance which would clear up future surveys that has been found by the
applicant and staff is to remove the area that is encroaching into the side street setback.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request.
John Albernaz, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr.
Albernaz told the Board that he believes the Board has all the information in their packets and he is
there if there were any questions.
Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Albernaz if the home was constructed according to the plans and in the location
approved by the city. Mr. Albernaz told the Board that there was an error in the site plan. The plan
showed a 94-foot frontage and it is actually 91 feet because of the curve in the road.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: a
slight curvature in the road that was left out of the site plan resulted in the encroachment; and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this
applicant being: the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. Such action would
result in an unsafe structure; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a rear setback at 102 Church Street. Applicant is
William O'Brian for Connie Wortham.
Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson told
the Board that the variance is to allow accessory buildings to be within the required setbacks.
Currently existing on the site is a walk-in cooler and a portable metal building. If they were not to be
moved they would be considered legally nonconforming.
The applicant is proposing to do three things:
1. Move the walk-in cooler to the east, inline with its present location, not encroaching into
the setback any farther than currently.
2. Enclose the area where the walk-in cooler is presently located, to provide for additional
food preparation area.
3. Move the portable building to allow for the new location of the cooler.
If the Board decides to grant this variance, staff would recommend that the Board limit the variance to
the three buildings listed in this request and require that they be located according to the site plan
submitted in conjunction with this request.
ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 4 of 8
• 0
The applicant offers a special condition that there is insufficient space in the building for the type of
food preparation needed. Another special condition that may be considered is that the existing building
predates the current and several previous zoning ordinances and site planning requirements.
The applicant states that there really is no other room on the lot itself to do any enlargements or
additions. Additionally, because of the existing layout of the site and the building, the amount of
unusable space is even further reduced.
Mr. Searcy asked what is the setback now with the existing building. Ms. Jimmerson replied that is
about 6 inches.
Mr. Bond asked for clarification in the staff report as it states "on this particular block, this type of
access area will not occur unless the entire area is redeveloped". Ms. Jimmerson replied that there are
exiting buildings there that do not meet the 15 foot rear setback. If this variance were approved this
would make the other existing structures come into compliance.
Mr. Bond asked what is to the rear of the building now. Ms. Jimmerson replied that it is vacant
property. Mr. Bond asked who owned the property. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she did not know that
but it may be on the survey. The survey showed Jack Boyett as the owner.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing.
William O'Brian & Costa Dallis, the applicant & tenant, stepped forward and were sworn in by
Chairman Alexander. Mr. O'Brian told the Board that they are wanting to expand the kitchen area of
the restaurant due to its small area. The walk in cooler would be moved down to allow more food
preparation. In order to move the cooler the portable building would have to be moved.
Mr. Dallis told the board that it is desirable to have direct access to the walk-in cooler and it not be free
standing on the property because of the fresh fish. Mr. Dallis stated that the Health Department would
like it as well that they did not have to go out side to access the cooler
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Alexander closed the
pubic hearing.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of
this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions:
existing development predates the zoning ordinances; and because a strict enforcement of the
provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: significant
removal of existing development and also the failure to meet health ordinances; and such that the spirit
of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: no
change in the site plan. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion.
Mr. Bond made an amendment to add under special conditions "and in order to assure space for
rear access per the ordinance intent the entire area would require redevelopment." Mr. Searcy
seconded the amendment.
The Board voted (5-0) to approve the variance.
ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 5 of 8
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Onsideration of a height variance *est at 301 Church Street.
Applicant is Tom Kirkland for the Tradition @ Northgate, LDT.
Senior Planner Kuenzel stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Kuenzel told the
Board that the variance is being sought to allow for the construction of the proposed dormitory with a
roofline that will screen roof top equipment.
The area was rezoned in 1996 with the rest of the Northgate area subsequent to the City's adoption of
the Northgate Redevelopment Plan. That plan targets the Northgate are for rehabilitation and
redevelopment as an urbanized historic business area near the Wellborn and University Drive with
residential uses behind the commercial areas. The plan provides for high-density development in all
three of the Northgate subdistricts with pedestrian and bicycle-oriented uses. In an effort to achieve
these goals, site design review is discretionary through the Northgate Revitalization Board Review
Subcommittee (NRB). Future development and redevelopment is to occur in more of an urban,
compact style, rather than the suburban style that occurs in other parts of the City.
In November 1999, the NRB and City Staff held a predevelopment meeting to discuss the conceptual
plan for the dormitory. At that time, the NRB expressed some concern regarding the scale of the
project, and gave the applicant direction to focus on the site areas between the building and the streets
such that these areas would create a semi-public transition with landscaping and pedestrian-friendly
facilities (sidewalks, benches, lighting, etc.) The NRB recommended approval of a slight increase in
height in order to effect these goals on the rest of the site.
The overall permitted building height in this subdistrict is 50 feet - the visible roofline of the proposed
dormitory will be 53 feet 3 inches. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 3 feet 3 inches,
or 6.5%.
Mr. Bond asked if the alternatives listed in the staff report are the only ones available to the applicant.
Are there any structural changes that can be made. Ms. Kuenzel replied that staff had not identified
any but there possibly could be some. Ms. Kuenzel referred the question to the applicant.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing.
Tim Kirkland, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr.
Kirkland told the Board that he has been working with the city for a better part of a year and the NRB
to come up with a concept that both the city and the NRB would be pleased with. Mr. Kirkland told
the Board that 4 significantly large air conditioning units are being proposed and placed on top of the
building. The fagade is to cover the units from being seen. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that one of the
alternatives is not to place the units on top the building but rather have them on the ground and build
some structure around them. Mr. Kirkland explained that the landscaping plan that is being worked on
by the NRB and the city involves Second Street, Church Street & Boyett Street. Aesthetically it would
not be ideal for the plan to place the units on the ground. It would impact the sidewalks, the pedestrian
ways and the bicycle routes. Mr. Kirkland stated that the best architectural thing to do would leave the
units on the roof and cover them up. Mr. Kirkland ended by telling the Board that the architect was in
the audience if they had any questions.
ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 6 of 8
John Garrison, the architect, ~Wed before the Board and was sworn io Chairman Alexander.
Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Garrison if there has to be a certain number of feet per floor. Mr. Garrison
replied that clear heights are needed that a ceiling can not encroach. To be able to accommodate all the
infrastructure in the plenum you have to have a certain floor to floor height to accommodate that.
Mr. Searcy questioned the overhang shown on the drawing and asked if the screening could be
provided inside that edge, which would then still hide the equipment but not require the variance.
Mr. Garrison replied that it was possible. When working with the NRB and the ordinance, one of its
intents is to have the buildings step back from the street and have some movement and scale to them.
Mr. Garrison explained the proposed building and how the canopy on the ground level projects the
base of the building out and as the building rises the roof screen overhang creates some relief and
shadow at the top of the building. This makes it look more active and vibrant. Mr. Garrison told the
Board that the screen could move back to be flush with the building but the shadow would be lost. Mr.
Garrison explained the shadow as being an important part of the building. Mr. Searcy asked Mr.
Garrison if he would agree that the primary reason for the variance is for the aesthetics of the building.
Mr. Garrison stated that he would agree to that statement.
Mr. Bond asked Mr. Garrison if 3 feet 3 inches reduced the building height, would it in some way
violate the southern building code requirement for clearance in each floor. Mr. Garrison replied that
the top four floors of the building have minimum clearance. From a floor to floor stand point once
everything is installed; the bathroom ceiling heights are at the minimum height they can be. The only
place for additional height is on the ground floor. This could be lowered down but that is the main
plenum for all the infrastructure to go up through the building. It then would have to go to the top of
the roof and be exposed and that would be a severe hardship to the design of the building.
Chairman asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request.
Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman
Alexander. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Board that when he first saw the project he understood it to only
be four floors. Mr. Flores-Meath agreed that placing the heating and cooling units on ground level on
the side of the building is not very practical. Mr. Flores-Meath suggested taking out a few of the inside
dorm rooms on the fourth floor and install the a/c units there, then a variance would not be required.
Mr. Flores-Meath told the Board that a lot of money has been spent in the Northgate area to make it
quaint and now this monster box appears in the middle. Mr. Flores-Meath described the project too big
for the area.
With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing.
ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 7 of 8
Mr. Bond made the motioe authorize a variance to the build height requirement from the
terms of this ordinance as it ll not be contrary to the public intere, due to the following special
conditions: area blocks were created prior to city incorporation making consolidation of property and
redevelopment difficult and the effective loss of the perimeter of the site for landscaping purposes
requires the increase height of the building to accommodate the design; and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being: the alternative of additional land acquisition to make the project feasible and to leave enough
transition area is not feasible in the Northgate area as elsewhere in the city, and maintaining as much
open area within and around the site is important to the design of this project and to the overall
Northgate area. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.9: Discussion of topics for future workshop agenda.
Mr. Bond stated that he understood that eventually this Board would have a workshop meeting. No
topics where discussed.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
David Alexander, hai man
AT I EST:
Deborah Grace, S aff Assistant
ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 8 of 8
• 0
STAFF REPORT
Date: 4-26-00 ZBA Meeting Date: 5-2-00
APPLICANT: Tom Kirkland for The Tradition at Northgate, LTD
REQUEST: Building height variance
LOCATION: 301 Church Avenue
PURPOSE: To allow for the construction of the proposed dormitory with a
roofline that will screen roof top equipment
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant: Project manager and property owner
Applicable
Ordinance Section: Table A District Use Schedule
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land Use:
Subject Property: NG-1 Historic Northgate; former church site with vacant land
North: NG-3 Residential Northgate; mixed residential
West: NG-1; mixed residential, vacant, Satchels restaurant
East: NG-1; current site of Presbyterian church; future city parking
garage
South: NG-1; parking lot and residential
Frontage: Roughly 500' along Church; 1200' along both Second Street and
Boyett Street
Access: Will be solely from Boyett Street into a parking garage that is
associated with the proposed dormitory. Two service access
points are shown, one off of Boyett and one off of Second.
Topography &
Vegetation: Relatively flat - existing trees will be removed in order to effect
an urban landscape plan that will meet the city adopted Northgate
Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines.
Flood Plain: None
VARIANCE INFORMATION
\\COLLEGES\QDLS\PZTEXT\PZ02993.DOC
• •
ANALYSIS
The area was rezoned in 1996 with the rest of the Northgate area subsequent to the City's
adoption of the Northgate Redevelopment Plan. That plan targets the Northgate area for
rehabilitation and redevelopment as an urbanized historic business area near the Wellborn
and University Drive with residential uses behind the commercial areas. The plan
provides for high density development in all three of the Northgate subdistricts with
pedestrian and bicycle-oriented uses. In an effort to achieve these goals, site design
review is discretionary through the Northgate Revitalization Board Review
Subcommittee (NRB). Future development and redevelopment is to occur in more of an
urban, compact style, rather than the suburban style that occurs in other parts of the City.
In November, 1999, the NRB and City Staff held a predevelopment meeting to discuss
the conceptual plan for the dormitory. At that time, the NRB expressed some concern
regarding the scale of the project, and gave the applicant direction to focus on the site
areas between the building and the streets such that these areas would create a semi-
public transition with landscaping and pedestrian-friendly facilities (sidewalks, benches,
lighting, etc.) The NRB recommended approval of a slight increase in height in order to
effect these goals on the rest of the site.
The overall permitted building height in this subdistrict is 50' - the visible roofline of the
proposed dormitory will be 53' 3". Therefore the applicant is requesting a variance of 3'
3", or 6.5%.
Special Conditions: The Board may wish to take into consideration the fact that the
area streets and blocks were created prior to the City's
incorporation, which makes consolidation of property and
redevelopment difficult.
Hardships: The alternative of additional land acquisition to make the
project feasible and to leave enough transition area is not as
feasible in the Northgate area as elsewhere in the City.
Alternatives: Acquire addition property or spread the building out to its zero-
setback lines.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Intent: The intent of the 1996 ordinance revisions to create and
regulate the 3 Northgate subdistricts was to encourage
redevelopment of the area into a older style, urban downtown.
The intent of the building height restriction is to assure that
future buildings fit in with the overall goal and that they relate
well to the existing structures.
Similar Requests: None in the Northgate districts. Recently, the Board approved
a height variance on an R-4 zoned tract on Southwest Parkway
to allow for a 3rd story in a proposed apartment development.
The special conditions and hardship in that case included a
desire for additional open space on the site.
Number of Property
\\COLLEGES\QDLS\PZTEXT\PZ02993.DOC
•
Owners Notified: 26
Responses Received: None as of date of staff report
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Application
Site Plan (will be available at meeting)
Building elevations
•
\\COLLEGES\QDLS\PZTEXT\PZ02993.DOC
00
C~
N
W
° ^a
o ~ o
~b
o ^ tiJ rn
rn Q Z
N ~ ° ^ yid 1 O ~
00 ^ Q
< A o
°o
> a
o
j r
V C~
41
a
[M
o° ~ ~Cl
R , ~J
~O
S
^
Q~l
RFL
Orb
C~J
f
t_,
~T
O
~7 n n
LJ
oe
f1nf1
L
J
o
J
~
~
Q
~
~
1
ZOF FO tnU ¢.~4]
nO
F U
= Z
c7 d
W~
0
0
C\l
o
1-1
Ln
0
N
w
V)
U
W
F-'
L7
x
x
O
F-'
d
Z
O
H
Q
d
E-'
W
x
E-1 M
V x
F
op
~Q
o
O J
y .`.a
U