Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/2012 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments Zoning Board of Adjustment December 4, 2012 5:30 PM ~ Workshop Meeting 6:00 PM ~ Regular Meeting City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas Agenda Zoning Board of Adjustment Workshop Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 5:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order. 2. Discussion of Regular Agenda items. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Role and Responsibility of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 4. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 5. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071; possible action. The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of College Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 5:30 PM at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this the day of , 2012 at p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By _____________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Workshop Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by _________________________. Dated this _____ day of____________, 2012. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_____________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of_______________, 2012. ______________________________ Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:_________________ This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3541 or (TDD) 1-800- 735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Discussion of approved requested Administrative Adjustments.  Case # 12-239 ~ 201 Holleman Drive East ~ Off-Street Parking (TR)  Case # 12-240 ~ 4207 Norwich ~ Residential Dimensional Standards (MTH) 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.  October 2, 2012 meeting minutes. 4. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on a sign variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.5.N, Freestanding Commercial Signs, to allow a freestanding sign to be located at 1150 University Drive East. Case # 12-005000206 (TR) 5. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on a sign variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.5.N, Freestanding Commercial Signs, to allow a reduced setback for a freestanding sign at 12850 Old Wellborn Road #300. Case # 12- 00500210 (MTH) 6. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on a sign variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.5.Y, Signs for Permitted Non-residential Uses in Residential or Agricultural Districts, to allow a height and area increase for a sign at 2541 Earl Rudder Freeway South. Case # 12-00500219 (TR) 7. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 8. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071; possible action. The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of College Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this the_____day of__________, 2012 at______p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By _____________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary By _____________________________ David Neeley, City Manager I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on___________________p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by _________________________. Dated this _____ day of____________, 2012. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_____________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____ day of_______________, 2012. ______________________________ Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:_________________ This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979.764.3517 or (TDD) 800.735.2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting October 2, 2012 Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hunter Goodwin, Jim Davis, Dick Dabney, Scott Simpson, Josh Benn MEMBERS ABSENT: Marsha Sanford STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Planners Morgan Hester, Assistant Director Lance Simms, Assistant City Attorney Adam Falco, Action Center Representative Jordan Wood AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goodwin called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of absence requests.  Josh Benn ~ September 4, 2012 Board Member Jim Davis motioned to approve the request. Board Member Simpson seconded the motion. Board Member Josh Benn abstained from voting. Motion to approve passed (4-0-1). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.  September 4, 2012 meeting minutes Board Member Dick Dabney motioned to approve the September 4, 2012 meeting minutes. Board Member Jim Davis seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.2., ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ at 1023 James Parkway Case # 12-00500185 (MTH) Staff Planner Morgan Hester presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance of 1-foot to the 7.5’ side building setback to rectify an encroachment. Ms. Hester ended her staff report by telling the Board that staff is recommending denial. Chairman Hunter Goodwin opened the public hearing. Tammie Bissett, 1023 James Parkway, College Station, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hunter Goodwin. Ms. Bissett spoke in favor of the request. She explained to the Board the details of how the encroachment happened. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Chairman Hunter Goodwin closed the public hearing. Board Member Josh Benn motioned to approve a 1-foot variance to the side building setback due to special conditions of: the shape of the lot, alleyway, utility easements and right-of-way; and the hardship being: lack of reasonable use of the property. Board Member Jim Davis seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed (4-0-1). Board Member Scott Simpson voting for denial AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. No action was taken. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:18 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________________ _________________________________ Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Assistant Hunter Goodwin, Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 December 4, 2012 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 1150 University Drive East REQUEST: A variance to allow an additional freestanding sign LOCATION: 1150 University Drive East APPLICANT: Texas Hotel Management c/o Stalworth Real Estate PROPERTY OWNER: Mae Dean Wheeler, Trustee PROJECT MANAGER: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner trogers@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. BACKGROUND: In 1999, the subject property was final platted as one lot and contains 356 feet of linear frontage along University Drive. According to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) each building plot is allowed one freestanding sign, or a number of low profile signs if the linear frontage of the property exceeds 75 feet. If a freestanding sign is used, it is common for the tenants to share the allowable signage area. In this case, Phase One of the lot was developed as a site for Red Lobster in 2006. Under the current property owner, a sign permit was granted to Red Lobster for a freestanding sign of with an area of 197 square feet. The maximum allowable sign area for a freestanding sign on this lot is 200 square feet, leaving three square feet of signage for other establishments on the site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to UDO Section 7.5.N, Freestanding Commercial Signs, to allow an additional freestanding sign. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 7.5.N, Freestanding Commercial Signs ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the City’s sign regulations is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations pertaining to signs in the City of College Station and to promote an attractive community, foster traffic safety, and enhance the effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information. The UDO seeks to provide a reasonable balance between the right of a person to identify his or her business or activity and the rights of the public to be protected against visual discord and safety hazards that result from the unrestricted proliferation, location, and construction of signs. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 December 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 December 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 December 4, 2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: December 4, 2012 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: College Station Grand Oaks Homeowners’ Association Inc Property owner notices mailed: 23 Contacts in support: None as of date of Staff Report. Contacts in opposition: Two as of date of Staff Report. Inquiry contacts: Four as of date of Staff Report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property GC General Commercial and OV Corridor Overlay Phase One: Restaurant Phase Two: Vacant North GC General Commercial and OV Corridor Overlay Hotel South R-1 Single-Family Residential Across Lincoln Avenue is single-family residential East GC General Commercial and OV Corridor Overlay Across Lincoln Avenue is a hotel West R-1 Single Family Residential and R-4 Multi-Family Single-family residential and apartment buildings PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: Approximately 350 feet of frontage on University Drive East and approximately 850 feet of frontage along Lincoln Avenue. 2. Access: Access to the subject property is from Lincoln Avenue and University Drive East (via a private cross-access easement). 3. Topography and vegetation: The site consists of a mixture of impervious surfaces for the existing Red Lobster development and some natural vegetation in the floodplain. 4. Floodplain: Portions of the subject property lie within the FEMA designated AE floodplain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant states, “The property is L shaped and the building pad will be over 400 feet from the centerline of University Drive and behind the creek and its related Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 December 4, 2012 vegetation.” However, it is Staff’s opinion that the existing freestanding sign on the property is clearly visible from University Drive. Furthermore, since the proposed hotel will be multi-storied, the allowable attached signage would also be visible from surrounding streets. The applicant also stated that a University Drive address would be confusing to users trying to find the location if they are looking for it on University Drive and the driveway is not marked. However, the UDO allows directional traffic control signs (in addition to free standing signage and attached signage) to guide customers to the location. Therefore, in Staff’s opinion, the applicant has not provided evidence that a special condition exists on the property such that the strict applications of the provisions of the UDO would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The subject property is allowed one freestanding sign, which is currently located near the corner of University Drive East and Lincoln Avenue. Most of the allowable area of the sign is currently being used by Red Lobster; however, it could be modified to accommodate signage for the proposed development. The property owner also has the option of removing the existing freestanding sign and replacing it with any number of low profile signs, so long as there is a minimum separation between signs of 150 feet. Additionally, attached signs and directional traffic control signs would be allowed for the proposed development. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. The granting of this variance would be contrary to the provisions of the UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. All businesses in the vicinity are required to abide by the same standards outlined in Section 7.5 Signs of the UDO. In fact, there are several examples on University Drive where establishments have shared freestanding signs, including hotels. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 December 4, 2012 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. It is Staff’s opinion that a hardship does not exist on the property. The proposed development is permitted to share freestanding signage with the existing building (Red Lobster) Furthermore, the proposed development would also be allowed to utilize attached signs and directional traffic control signs under the ordinance. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan but does conflict with the provisions of the UDO in that it does not protect the public’s right to be protected against visible discord and safety hazards that result from the unrestricted proliferation, location, and construction of signs. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. If the variance is denied, the applicant can still develop the property. Additionally, as mentioned previously, the proposed development can take advantage of several types of signage allowed by the UDO. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the variance requests. However, the applicant could modify the sign currently being used by Red Lobster to accommodate signage for the proposed development. The property owner may also remove the existing freestanding sign and replace it with any number of low profile signs, so long as there is a minimum separation between signs of 150 feet. Additionally, attached signs and directional traffic control signs would be allowed for this development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. In Staff’s opinion the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a special condition or hardship exists in this case. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Applicant’s Exhibits Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 December 4, 2012 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 12850 Old Wellborn Road #300 REQUEST: A variance of 20 feet to the 70 foot freestanding sign setback. LOCATION: 12850 Old Wellborn Road #300 APPLICANT: Chris Pletcher, Wakefield Signs PROPERTY OWNER: Chuck Moreau, Moreau Family Investments Ltd. PROJECT MANAGER: Morgan Hester, Staff Planner mhester@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located off of Old Wellborn Road. The applicant has stated that due to the site’s location being 150’ setback from Wellborn Road due to a railroad easement, visibility of their site is difficult. Additionally, a future plan to construct a driveway connecting to the adjacent property prevents them from putting the freestanding sign in place that complies with the 70’ freestanding sign setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 20 feet to the 70 feet freestanding sign setback. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 7.5.N ‘Freestanding Commercial Signs’ ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of UDO Section 7.5, ‘Signs’, is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations pertaining to signs in the City of College Station and to promote an attractive community, foster traffic safety, and enhance the effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information. Signs are recognized as being necessary for visual communication for public convenience. Furthermore, it is recognized that businesses and other activities have the right to identify themselves by using signs that are incidental to the use on the premises where the signs are located. The UDO seeks to provide a reasonable balance between the right of a person to identify his or her business or activity and the rights of the public to be protected against visual discord and safety hazards that result from the unrestricted proliferation, location, and construction of signs. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 December 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 December 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 December 4, 2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: December 4, 2012 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: N/A Property owner notices mailed: Four. Contacts in support: None as of date of Staff Report. Contacts in opposition: None as of date of Staff Report. Inquiry contacts: None as of date of Staff Report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property CI Commercial Industrial Retail – Brazos Valley Floor and Design North A-O Agricultural Open Undeveloped South PDD Planned Development District Retail – Granite Storage and Sales East (Across Wellborn Road) GC General Commercial Across Wellborn Road is a retail center which includes fast food and offices. West PDD Planned Development District, A-O Agricultural Open Undeveloped PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject property has approximately 260 feet of frontage on Old Wellborn Road. 2. Access: The subject property is accessed by Old Wellborn Road. 3. Topography and vegetation: The site is relatively flat and has little to no vegetation. 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated flood plain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant has stated that because they are located on a smaller road and have a 150 foot railroad easement between their building on Old Wellborn Road and Wellborn Road (FM 2154), passerby traffic is not able to see their business. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 December 4, 2012 This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property as the applicant has the right to install a sign in other locations on their property without seeking a variance. 3. Substantial detriment: That granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would be contrary to the provisions of this UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements because no portion of this property is located within the floodplain. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. All businesses along Wellborn Road are required to abide by the same standards outlined in UDO Section 7.5.N ‘Freestanding Commercial Signs’. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own action. The location of the proposed driveway is based on the applicant’s own plan for the future and is not based on any restrictions on the site or from this UDO. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan but does conflict with the provisions of this UDO in that it does not protect the public’s right to be protected against visible discord and safety hazards that result from the unrestricted proliferation, location, and construction of signs. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of this UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 December 4, 2012 ALTERNATIVES The applicant has suggested allowing a larger freestanding sign to be allowed further back on the property; however, the maximum height for a freestanding sign is with square footage being based on the site’s linear frontage. Staff believes that alternatives to the location of the sign could be based on moving the proposed driveway or putting the sign closer to the building in the grass area adjacent to the parking lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application Grirl FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASENO l DATE SUBNIITT 10 I TIME CITY OF COI STATION Home ofTexas A MUnive iry STAFF ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 350 Zoning Board of Adjustment Application Fee Wi Application completed in full This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered Please attach pages if additional information is provided Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans elevation drawings sign details and floor plans The applicant shall be informed of any extra materials required Date of Optional Preapplication Conference ADDRESS 14 t dii rn PIC LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Block Subdivision LI 9 glad 1 n APPLICANT PR JIECT MANAGERS INFORMATION contact for the project T1D Name 41 P 1lakef We E mail W c6aV Sy11t Cc7X Cor Street Address 7 Cit f 311 TJJ p Cit tThtfb 1 State L Zip Code roils Phone Number 776 5 CE O Fax Number 776 g 2 PROPERTY OWNERSI MATION Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners ViNNa l Name LI OVIC A Email C Ov441 CBS Street Address Gfi i City State Zip Code J 1O Phone Number 76q 03 Fax Number Current zoning of subject property C i Action requested eck all that apply Setback variance Appeal of Written Interpretation Parking variance Special Exception Sign variance Drainage Variance Lot dimension variance Other Applicable ordinance section to vary from CreCht 7 it 14 I 1010 Page 1 of 5 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST 1 The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested RAIniECibli to inslul s Fak sr r b H SCY SeKacc ins of 70 ige ac 2 This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions Special Condition Definition To justify a variance the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving the particular property The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself not to the owners personal situation This is because regardless of ownership the variance will run with the land Example A creek bisecting a lot a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots specimen trees Note A cul de sac is a standard street layout in College Station The shape of standard cul de sac lots are generally not special conditions 6flf uhasfhetrq Ue stluctfihc of omit do a small facie roacccldWalbornwheheneeds1vacfvllvacn1mainroadctsna t e0 rrbwlit Q In1 ttr his Ca skor rS ave1 tralre Ii Sift hbn yhor unl ue fco ac ct Ivran roo a t L a no ecSewi2i3Theunnecessaryhardshipsinvolvedbymeetingtheprovisionsoftheordinanceotherthanfinanciahardshipisarefc Hardship Definition The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements calroa4 of the law The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition ietCk Example A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot when compared to neighboring properties The prt gen ce err jh ray mac e aSex 4rt ac tua ll ses his pnpeA y I Itne a ro eel the main 149hwa y fvukteiv 11 chi isu ff for wstoo eAis iD toCx4e h 1 g a o4 21511 o va ty C 4 The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible at0wS11 ssi rl to 3Q UST 1cur 11at o9 a av er pole sijri Iv be plat ea ftceIhe k OV r ac IC h rfY h Firwarei 5 This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts V bli Cowl143S h0y12dtureArsIocall1hist1Anessca Si n a y r 1S ccf v 1ir r r le e vhtoo f rope r A1Ij d tre cns The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true correct and complete IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner If there is more than one owner all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney If the owner is a company the application must be a companied by proof of authority for the companys representative to sign the application on its behalf ZA e 11 1 AILararealaeper a y2siWandtieDate 10 10 Page 2 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 7 December 4, 2012 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 2541 Earl Rudder Freeway South REQUEST: A variance of 30 feet to the allowable low profile sign height and a 225 square foot variance to the allowable low profile sign area. LOCATION: 2541 Earl Rudder Freeway South APPLICANT: Reverend Father Edwin Kagoo PROPERTY OWNER: Diocese of Austin PROJECT MANAGER: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner trogers@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. BACKGROUND: The front portion of the subject property is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and the rear portion is zoned A-O (Agricultural Open). The site is currently developed as the St. Thomas Aquinas church. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) allows a place of worship in any zoning district. However, when non-residential uses are located in residential zoning districts, stricter sign regulations apply. Given the residential zoning on the subject property, the UDO allows a low profile sign. Low profile signs are limited to four feet in height and 60 square feet in area. The applicant is requesting a freestanding sign 34 feet in height and 285 square feet in area. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the UDO Section 7.4.X, Signs for Permitted Non-residential Uses in Residential or Agricultural Districts to allow a 30 foot variance to the maximum sign height and a 225 square foot variance to the maximum sign area. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 7.5.X, Signs for Permitted Non-residential Uses in Residential or Agricultural Districts and also Section 7.5.F Sign Standards ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the City’s sign regulations is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations pertaining to signs in the City of College Station and to promote an attractive community, foster traffic safety, and enhance the effective communication and exchange of ideas and commercial information. The UDO seeks to provide a reasonable balance between the right of a person to identify his or her business or activity and the rights of Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 7 December 4, 2012 the public to be protected against visual discord and safety hazards that result from the unrestricted proliferation, location, and construction of signs. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 7 December 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 7 December 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 7 December 4, 2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: December 4, 2012 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: N/A Property owner notices mailed: Ten. Contacts in support: None as of date of Staff Report. Contacts in opposition: None as of date of Staff Report. Inquiry contacts: None as of date of Staff Report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property R-1 Single-Family Residential and A-O Agricultural Open Place of Worship North M-1 Light Industrial Light Industrial and Scientific Testing South R-1 Single-Family Residential Single-family residential East R-1 Single-Family Residential Single-family residential West R-1 Single-Family Residential Across Earl Rudder Freeway South (SH 6) is undeveloped. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: Approximately 471feet of frontage on Earl Rudder Freeway South (SH 6). 2. Access: Access to the subject property is from the frontage road of Earl Rudder Freeway South (SH 6) and North Forest Parkway. 3. Topography and vegetation: The site is relatively flat and has little to no vegetation. 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated flood plain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant has stated that current R-1 (Single-Family) zoning on the property doesn’t allow for a freestanding sign of required height and size for adequate visibility given the church’s location on State Highway 6. In Staff’s opinion, the applicant has not provided evidence that a special condition exists on the property such that the strict applications Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 7 December 4, 2012 of the provisions of the UDO would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The current zoning allows low profile signage. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area. However, it is contrary to the provisions of the UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. All non-residential uses permitted in residentially-zoned districts are required to abide by the same standards outlined in Section 7.5.X. of the UDO. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. It is Staff’s opinion that a hardship does not exist on the subject property. The church is permitted to utilize the allotted low profile signage or pursue a non-residential zoning for the property. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan but does conflict with the provisions of the UDO in that it does not protect the public’s right to be protected against visible discord and safety hazards that result from the unrestricted proliferation, location, and construction of signs. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 7 of 7 December 4, 2012 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of the property. In fact, the site is currently developed and utilizes a low profile sign. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the variance requests. However, the applicant could pursue a rezoning to a commercial zoning district in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to allowing a free standing sign by right, a commercial zoning district would allow attached signs and directional traffic control signs for the development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. In staff’s opinion the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a special condition or hardship exists in this case. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Applicant’s Exhibits