Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/1991 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS December 3, 1991 7:00 P.M. i• MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Henry, Members Lane, Yarbrough, Sawtelle and Kennady. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Baker and Alternate Members DeOtte and Phinney. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Kuenzel, Assistant City Attorney Coates and Planning Technician Thomas. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order -Explanation and Functions of the Board. Chairman Henry called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of Minutes -Meeting of November 19, 1991. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 19, 1991 as written. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Setback variance request at the Bentley House Apartments located at 216 Dominik. Applicant is Paul Clarke for Bentley House. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report requesting a variance to the front setback requirements to allow for the addition of a canopy. The applicant requests a 13' setback, for a variance of 6'. He proposes that the property is zoned one half residential and that the setback for residential would only be 15'. In fact, the entire property is zoned C-1, which is the sole district that allows apartment /hotels and only after a conditional use permit has been issued. The front setback for all districts is 25' except for the following exceptions: (1) The setbacks for R-6 zoned property are determined by site plan review. It is possible, then, that the front setback is reduced. (2) In all residential zoning districts, the front setback may be reduced to 15' when approved rear access is provided. This exception is not available for commercially zoned property. i• The ZBA should focus on the applicant's second argument for special conditions to determine if visibility from Texas Avenue constitutes a special condition. Perhaps the placement of the building in relation to its building lines could be considered, as well as conditions on the street and surrounding property. The applicant must show hardship before a variance can be granted. The fact that the building has been constructed near the front setback line does not allow for building extensions toward the front. An alternative is to bring the canopy back 6' for a total length of 11' instead of the desired 17'. The ordinance intends the setback requirements to provide for adequate light and air and control density. Nine property owners were notified within 200' of the subject property with one inquiry. • Chairman Henry opened the public hearing and swore in applicant and owner of Bentley House Apartments, Paul Clarke. Mr. Clarke distributed pictures of the proposed awning and explained that the two existing signs would be removed in order to add the awning. The property needs to be identified and accessed from Texas Avenue. The awning would help provide this exposure to traffic along Texas. He added that he would prefer a 17' awning opposed to the proposed 16' to allow for sidewalk expansion. If the awning were shortened to comply with the allowable setback, it would not be visible from Texas Avenue. The property is at a disadvantage because Dominik is curved so as not to allow visibility from Texas Avenue. The Culpepper Plaza shopping center blocks the view of the Bentley House Apartments. Mr. Sawtelle stated that the only hardship in this case is economic. It is not reasonable to request that this property be visible from Texas Avenue. An awning that would be visible from Texas Avenue is hard to visualize. Chairman Henry suggested that the applicant use a color contrast to achieve the needed visibility. A variance will run with the property and allow the building to expand to the proposed setback. The applicant should be able to improve the aesthetics of the property and remain within the required setbacks. Mr. Lane stated that there is an economic advantage to the applicant by the granting of a setback variance. He stated that he was in favor of granting anything that would help improve the appearance of the property; however, the awning will not help visibility from Texas Avenue. Mr. Kennady stated that the applicant can still improve the property without a variance. The property lacks special conditions. He requested to cease discussion. • Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny a variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638, minimum setback, from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary t the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Kennady seconded the motion which carried (3 - 2); Ms. Yarbrough and Mr. Lane voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that Brenco Marketing has submitted a revised sign variance request for the gas station at the intersection of Texas and University. The request will be considered by the Board at their next meeting on Tuesday, December 17, 1991. She also stated that AAA Defensive Driving School has decided not to come before the Board to request a reconsideration of a previously denied sign variance request. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn Mr. Kennady moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). ~~ ~ ~ ~!' lan mg echmcian, atalie homas APPROVED: ~~~ hairman, rett enry ZBA Minutes December 3, 1991 Page 2 ZONII~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) ' urn setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion made by Seconded by Chair Signature ~J-w'fiG~ ~ ~ ~ Date ~~ c n n .~ ~ ~/ Voting Results 2 ~o f 3 ~j-a r .-, s i ~~~ Y•+iRN1638.DOC