Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1992 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments_.., MINUTES C. • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 10, 1992 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Baker, Members Sawtelle and DeOtte and Alternate Members Davis and DeLoach. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Birdwell and Gaston and Alternate Members Phinney and McKean. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Kuenzel, Planning Technician Thomas, and Assistant City Attorney Coates. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of September 1, 1992. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of September 1, 1992 as written. Mr. DeLoach seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of variances to the single circulation drive width and parking setback requirements by University Drive Robert Pyeatt for the property located at 702 Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report requesting two variances to allow for the redesign of the parking area to meet current standards. Currently, there is no curb along the perimeter of the property. As a result of the loss of nonconforming status, this request must undergo site plan review, which calls for complete compliance with all ordinance requirements. Through the driveway access location and design ordinance, staff has the authority to review existing drive locations and close any that are not in compliance. During site plan review, it was determined that two access points would be allowed -one off of Nagle and one off of University, each to be located as far as possible from the corner. The drive off of University will be an "entrance only" with the existing median precluding any left hand turns into the site. The drive off of Nagle will be an "exit only'. Traffic will be directed either to the south or the north around the building; a "do not enter" sign will be located in the parking island on the south side of the Nagle drive to prevent two way traffic. Because of the age of the site, it does not meet current parking and landscaping restrictions. Nonconforming status, which would allow a use to continue without meeting all current codes, is lost when that use is abandoned. In this case, the nonconforming status was lost when the service station ceased to exist. The subject site was platted and built a number of years ago, and the small size of the lot does not lend itself well to commercial use. It is zoned g-1 General Commercial, which allows a wide range of uses. Most of the uses listed however would require more parking than the site could accommodate. Uses such as the one proposed have the lease amount of parking that would be required for a commercial use. The Board should consider the age of the building and the size of the lot in finding hardship. One alternative to the variances requested would be to decrease the size of the building to provide adequate aisle widths and setbacks. Nine surrounding property owners were notified with two inquiries. Applicant Robert Pyeatt approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that the proposed site plan will allow for an effective use of the property. He offered to answer any questions of the Board members. • Mr. DeLoach asked if a normal vehicle could make the turn around the building with the proposed drive width and parking layout. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the engineering department did not have a problem with the proposed site plan; however, maneuvering may be more difficult for larger vehicles. Engineer Earl Havel of Garrett Engineering approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that the access points will be marked with directional signs and pavement markings to direct the flow of traffic. There will be a sign attached to the building that will direct traffic in front of the building. The rear parking shown will be for employees and not the general public. Mr. DeOtte questioned staff as to the possible visibility problems with the parking lot being so close to University Drive. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that Transportation Planner Hard has reviewed the site plan and his main concern was with the vegetation located on the corner of University Drive and Nagle and not the parked cars. Traffic will only be allowed to exit along Nagle and should not pose a visibility problem. Mr. Davis stated that he is concerned with traffic making right turns off of Nagle onto University Drive and not being able to see oncoming traffic due to the parked cars being located immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. Vehicles will have to pull into the crosswalk in order to see oncoming vehicles along University Drive. • Bill Scott of Saint Mary's Catholic Church approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. Mr. Scott requested that adequate sidewalks be placed in this area to keep the pedestrian traffic off of the streets. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that there will be 6' wide sidewalks installed along both University Drive and Nagle. Mr. Sawtelle moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: reduces the nonconformity of the lot, improves pedestrian traffic safety of the intersection and better accommodates the existing structure to the zoning code, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: size of the lot and age of the building, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: that signage as designated on the site plan be strictly adhered to. Mr. DeLoach seconded the motion. Mr. DeOtte expressed concern of causing a permanent site clearance problem in this area. The site will definitely be improved; however, the Board may be allowing a site clearance hazard to exist permanently. Mr. Havel explained that the only item planned for the corner of University and Nagle is a bicycle rack that will not interfere with site clearance. There is no signage proposed at this location; all signage will be attached to the building. • Staff Planner Kuenzel explained that this site is part of a larger building plot. If the occupants of this building wanted a freestanding sign, they would have to come before the Board and request a sign variance. ZBA Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 2 The motion for approval failed (3 - 1 - 1). Mr. DeOtte abstained and Mr. Davis voted in • opposition to the motion. Mr. DeOtte stated that he is still concerned with creating a permanent visibility problem added to the high pedestrian and vehicle traffic flows. He suggested that the City s traffic engineer submit a report to the Board addressing the site clearance issue at this corner. The reason for the 8' parking lot setback is to ensure adequate site clearance. Mr. DeOtte moved to deny the variance requests from section 15, ordinance number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements 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. Mr. Davis seconded the motion which failed (2 - 3); Mr. DeOtte and Mr. Davis voted in favor of the motion. Mr. DeOtte moved to table the variance requests to allow further review of the sight clearance issue by staff. The motion passed (3 - 2); Chairperson Baker and Mr. Sawtelle voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concerned of the applicant and the public present having been delayed again since the first meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum. Chairperson Baker apologized to the audience for having to make a second and third trip to the meeting. She stated that the variance requests would be considered at the next available meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 17, 1992. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of variances to the side setback re uirements by . W. E. Crenshaw for the properties located on lot 7 of block 2, lot it of block 4, lot 14 of block 4 and lot 11 of block 5 m the Praine View Heights Subdivision. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report requesting variance requests for 501, 601 and 607 Chappel Street and 609 Columbus Street. The presentation for the requests will be made together; however, the Board must vote on each variance request separately. The applicant is proposing a 13.5' setback instead of the required 15' for the side street which is a total request of 1.5'. The buildable portion on a minimum R-1 lot is 1750 square feet. On these lots however, the buildable portion is reduced to 1375 square feet because there is an additional 7.5' of setback that must be met on the side street. Subdivisions that have been platted in more recent years have larger corner lots to accommodate the increased setback requirement. This variance would add an additional 75 square feet to the buildable area on each lot. This area has been the target of the Community Development Department's rehabilitation effort. Several houses are being remodeled as a result of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The other variance case that has come before the Board involved the investment of a private homeowner that moved to the area. The Board may consider the size needs of the homes that are needed to accommodate the families that will move into the area. Fifty two surrounding property owners were notified with seven inquiries. Housing Programs Coordinator Pitcock approached the Board and stated that the City of College Station's Community Development department would like to recommend that the proposed variances be granted. The Eastgate subdivision is a target area for the city and has not seen private development funds since 1954. The Community Development department has spent federal funds in the amount of $136,000 constructing four new units • and have budgeted $120,000 for four additional units this year. Mr. Crenshaw is proposing to spend over $250,000 on seven new units. This private investment would provide more affordable housing in this area. ZBA Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 3 Applicant W. E. Crenshaw approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He presented the site plans for the proposed four single family homes. The variances would allow for larger 3 bedroom homes. He requested that his original request of a 1.5' variance • to the side street setback be extended to 3' 4" to the slab to allow for a larger bedroom. This additional request will allow for a home totalling 1200 square feet. The proposed homes will be brick veneer and consisting of 3 bedrooms and either 1 1/2 or 2 baths. Mr. Sawtelle moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements totalling 11' 6" side street setback requirement at 519 Chappel, 601 Chappel, 607 Chappel and 609 Columbus from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: age of the subdivision and size of the lots; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to provide much needed rental housing for moderate to low income families as recommended by the Community Development department; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). (The Board voted on each of the four address separately and the vote was unanimous to approve the variance requests.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Sawtelle moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). • APPR airperson, en a ker A P an 'ng Tec mcian, atalie homas • ZBA Minutes November 10, 1992 Page 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJ[TSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) ~L minimum 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 ,~ ~ ~~ 0 ~~ Date i0 ~I/m d 9 z Seconded by Chair Signature Voting Results YARN! 638.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJITSTMEN'P • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) ' / ~~ 3i minimum setback `-~' ~ ~ ~ h--,~~Q'~ parking requirements (Section 9) • ~~ja(6~ ~yr ~;s from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due~o ` ~~'"'~ h`~ S the following special conditions: _ ~ ~ ~ , ~ a -~ ~-- ~t S ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~, r ~ ~ .-r -- S ~ z .~ ~~ ~ -r' ~.-~ t o `T' s and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: I-~ ~ ~~ I t'~'~i ~C 1~~"~'~~ ~P Svc '! c" ~~~ C~X aiid such that the -spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by ~ ~ ~ Sa ,~ .~ l l~ ~r Date Seconded by Chair Signature Voting Results ~ 1 l u.~t sss.ooc ZONIIVG BOARD OF ADJLTSTNIEN'P i• FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) / minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) r~ and because a strict enforcefYlent of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: 1//~ ~ 1 ... C,,_.T.- ~ F v- -~ ~' ~ 2.!~ n~t wt ..~`" F' s' -7" ,2 ~ w ~ r' t~ C T s~~-2 [~ ~~ ~ ?~ i S Ti s T ~~ 11 c-- h. ~d'~ ~ ~ ~ 4-r and such that the spirit of this ~ ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ l ~ h ~ c~.-C --~ `~' c ~e cl c~ ~-r-~Tc ~~ ~ 1~~ u vRxn! sss.ooc Motion made by ~' ~ ~ S ~ ,,~, -~ ~, ~ ~ ~. J~, C Date ~'~~ Seconded by Voting Results Chair Signature ~- ~;. ~ ' ~~~,1 / ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REG STER DATE ~ "~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. • lo. I1. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. . 23. 24. 25. NAME ADDRESS 1. l3 3. r „r'`,~1