HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2012 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments
Zoning Board of Adjustment
November 6, 2012
6:00 PM
City Hall
2nd Floor Conference Room # 1
1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas
AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 6:00 PM
City Hall 2nd Floor Conference Room # 1
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
1. Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board.
2. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
October 2, 2012 meeting minutes
3. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a sign variance to UDO
Section 7.4.N, Freestanding Commercial Signs, to allow a freestanding sign to be located
1150 University Drive East. Case # 005000206 (TR)
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 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of College
Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall 2nd Floor
Conference Room # 1, 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:
• September 4, 2012 meeting minutes
Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve 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:
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.
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)
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:
No action was taken.
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.
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
November 6, 2012
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
1150 University Drive East
REQUEST: A sign variance to UDO Section 7.4.N, Freestanding Commercial
Signs, to allow a freestanding sign to be located on University
Drive.
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 contained 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 exceeds 75 feet. Phase One of the lot was site planned as a Red Lobster in
2006 and subsequently developed. Under the current property owner, a sign permit was
granted for a Freestanding Sign of 197 square feet based on the maximum allowable sign
square footage for this lot of 200 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 7.4.N, Freestanding
Commercial Signs to allow for a Freestanding Sign on University Drive for Phase Two of
the lot.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 7.4.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
November 6, 2012
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6
November 6, 2012
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6
November 6, 2012
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: November 6, 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: Three 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. There is also access from
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 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.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6
November 6, 2012
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
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 attached signage would be visible from the street. The
applicant has 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, current ordinance would allow for the placement of Directional
Traffic Control Signs to guide visitors to the location. Therefore, in Staff’s opinion, t he
applicant has not provided evidence that a special condition exists on the property such
that the strict applications of the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance 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 at the corner of University Drive East and Lincoln Avenue.
The sign is currently being used by Red Lobster, but may be modified to accommodate
signage for the proposed business. The property owner may also remove the
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.
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 or to the City administering 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 are required to abide by the same standards outlined in Section 7.4
Signs of the UDO.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6
November 6, 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 business is
permitted to utilize the allotted Freestanding Sign area for the building plot and is also
allowed additional 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.
1. 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, multiple
types of signage are allowed if they meet the requirements of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
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 business. The property owner may also remove the
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
Letters/E‐mails for the Board
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 11:59 AM
To: Teresa Rogers
Subject: FW: Variance to property at 1150 University Drive East
On behalf of GVM TPS College Station LLC, the owner of the Towne Place Suites on University Drive, and
in response of the city’s notice of a public hearing for the applicant: TEXAS HOTEL MANAGEMENT, the
owners oppose the granting of a sign variance for the applicant. When our property was constructed,
we were prevented from establishing adequate signage on University. As such, we do not feel another
hotel competitor should get an advantage that the Towne Place Suites was not allowed. Please ensure
our opposition to the sign variance is noted in the public hearing.
Thanks,
Feliz
Feliz Jarvis
Chief Hotel Operations Officer