Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/1997 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS March 18, 1997 6:00 P.M. • C MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife and Members Sawtelle, Blackwelder, Alexander and Hollas. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Ochoa and Taggart. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Planning Technician Ruiz, Development Coordinator Volk, Senior Engineering & Planning Secretary Charanza and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Rife called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Boazd. AGENDA TI'EM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of March 4, 1997. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of March 4, 1997 as written. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a request for variance to the number of parking spaces and islands required for a proposed night club to be located in an existing warehouse building located at 305 Marion Pugh Drive. Applicants are Hans Betters and Tracy Moody for Traditions Night Club. Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the request has been revised to only include the one parking space. The applicant has been able to satisfy the end island requirement. The applicant is proposing 125 parking spaces instead of the required 126 parking spaces. The site is currently nonconforming in terms of parking number, specifications, curbing, materials, and landscaping. These non-conformities will be brought up to code with the exception of the requested variance. The use of a nightclub must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission before the site plan is approved and any permits are issued. The Board may wish to consider the age and shape of the property as possible special conditions. The Boazd may opt to consider that the conditions of the existing property may make it difficult to improve the site to meet current standards. Conversion of some of the future nightclub area to storage is one alternative. A second alternative would be for the fire lane to be relocated such that ahammer-head turnazound would be placed on adjacent property. Such an easement would reduce the number of drive aisles needed and additional parking could be created. The nightclub use has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and has been denied. The applicants were scheduled to appeal,the decision to City Council but must return to the Commission first because the original public hearing had not occurred pursuant to proper notification of all property owners within 200' of the subject property. The Board has heard several cases for parking space variances. In cases where new development was planned on properties that had been recently subdivided, the variances were denied. In older areas where the applicants were attempting to retrofit the site to meet current requirements, the variances were typically granted. If the Board finds that there are special conditions that result in hardship in meeting the strict letter of the ordinance, then Staff recommends that the variance not become effective until a conditional use permit has been granted by the Commission or by City Council. Approximately sixteen surrounding property owners were notified. Several residents of the Southside area have expressed opposition to the use of the site during the conditional use permit process. One resident has requested additional information. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle moved to table the variance request until the conditional use permit has been successfully appealed to the City Council. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny the variance request. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Mr. Sawtelle explained that by tabling the item, the applicant will not have to reapply for the variance request. In the past, the Board has waited to make sure that the variance is a valid issue before considering the request. The City Council may not allow the night club use or change the site plan submitted that could impact the variance request. There may be other factors involved when the City Council reviews this case that could influence the Board's decision. Chairman Rife stated that at some point, the Board must find a hardship in order to grant the request. The burden is on the applicant to show hardship and not on the Board to find one. He stated that he is not convinced there is a hardship in this case given the alternatives identified by staff. The motion to deny the variance request failed (1 - 4); Chairman Rife voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Sawtelle moved to table the variance request until the conditional use permit has been successfully appealed to the City Council. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed (3 - 2); Mr. Blackwelder and Chairman Rife voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a request for variance to the sign regulations to allow an addition for Computer Access on the existing pylon sign facing Tezas Avenue in the Redmond Terrace Shopping Center. Applicant is John Flynn for owner, Rosemary Redmond. Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the Redmond Terrace shopping center has roof signs attached to the building that rise above the building. These are regulated as free standing signs. Because only one free standing sign is allowed on this size property, the sign located in the parking lot is nonconforming. By requesting addition to the nonconforming sign, the applicant is asking the sign be legitimized to conforming status. The proposed sign would meet all other sign requirements. The applicant states that the addition would not increase the height or width of the existing sign or cause any public safety concerns. The applicant feels that inadequate signage would result in a loss of drive by business. One alternative is to construct a parapet behind the existing roof signs. This would raise the roof line above the signs, changing them from freestanding to attached signs. This would make the subject sign the only freestanding sign and thus conforming. Other shopping centers in the city have requested and have been denied variances for more than one freestanding sign. However, some requests have been approved relative to the size of the projects and that an additional freestanding sign meets the intent of the ordinance. Variances have been ganted due to the following special conditions: 1) larger than average commercial development, 2) the sign did not increase the possibility of "sign proliferation" and 3) topography, vegetation, building placement, and frontage on more than one road. Approximately seventeen surrounding property owners were notified of the request with no response. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition the request, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle questioned staff about the possibility of conditioning the sign variance upon the lowering of the existing Computer Access roof sign. Senior Planner McCully stated that the applicant did not alter the structure of the roof sign and therefore it keeps its nonconforming status. Requiring the applicant to lower the existing nonconforming sign • would be taking away a right that they currently have. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny the sign variance request. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion for discussion. ZBA Minutes March 18, 1997 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Sawtelle stated that he does not see a hardship in this particular case. By granting the variance, the Board opens up the possibility of other tenants needing the same accommodations. • Mr. Hollas stated that there are multiple tenants in the shopping center. The roof signs predate current ordinance regulations and the new sign does not appear to be obtrusive. If it were not for the existing roof signs, the variance request would not be necessary. Mr. Blackwelder moved to amend the motion to allow the public hearing to be re-opened to allow the applicant to speak. Mr. Hollas seconded the amendment which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Applicant John Flynn approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. He stated that his objective is to capture some "drive by" business from Texas Avenue. The shopping center was built in 1965 prior to current sign regulations. The original freestanding sign was removed by Academy and replaced with the existing sign. The center does not have a sign agreement per lessee so this is the only opportunity that Computer Access has of locating on the existing sign. There is the opportunity to redo the freestanding sign and bring the entire center into compliance; however, that is out of the tenant's hands. There are no public safety issues involved. The applicant would have had the opportunity to be on the sign when it was installed; however, he was not a tenant at that time. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. The motion to deny the request as amended failed (1 - 4); Mr. Sawtelle voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hollas expressed concern that the Board is making a decision that effects the property owner at the request of a tenant. The decision of the Board runs with the land and not with the tenant. • Mr. Sawtelle stated that the property owner has the final veto power of the variance regardless of the Board's decision. Chairman Rife stated that the only hardships he can identify are the age of the center, the existing roof signs that predate current ordinance requirements and the previously permitted freestanding sign allowed by the city. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny the variance request due to the absence of a hardship. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Mr. Blackwelder moved to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: existing pole sign meets the size and setback requirements; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to the applicant being: the existing sign permitted by the city and the roof signs predate the effective date of the sign ordinance; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: the sign's square footage not be increased once the Computer Access sign is attached and if relocated, all signage must be brought up to current code. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Sawtelle voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a request for variance to the rear setback requirements for a proposed second story addition to the existing garage on lot 57, block 45 of Southwood Valley 25A at 2803 Mescalero Court. Applicant is William Purcell. • Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the applicant wishes to make an addition to the house by adding a second floor to the garage. The garage is currently located 2.5' within the 25' rear setback. This is conforming as a garage only requires a 20' rear setback. ZBA Minutes March 18, 1997 Page 3 oj4 Senior Planner McCully stated that the addition of living quarters above the garage necessitates the 25' rear setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 2.5' to the rear setback. The house is set farther back on the lot than similar houses on that street. In addition, the garage is set at the back of • the house, and turned to face the side lot. This reduces the azeas available for expansion. The board may want to consider these physical conditions of the property. According to the applicant, utilization of the existing reaz wall of the garage is necessary for structural support of the second floor. Construction inside the 25' setback may result in structural requirements excessive to standard construction practices. Approximately twenty-six surrounding property owners were notified of the request with one call received in opposition to the request from the owner of 908 Val Verde. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Applicant Bill Purcell of 2803 Mescalero approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. He stated that the proposed addition will remain within the existing roof line so that it is aesthetically pleasing and does not adversely affect the back yazd area and the surrounding neighborhood. The remainder of the house is approximately 50' from the rear property line except for the existing garage. Mr. Purcell stated that he has spoken with many of the surrounding property owners and received positive responses from the owners of the following addresses: 2800 Mescalero 2801 Mescalero 2805 Mescalero 2807 Mescalero 2809 Mescalero 2804 Cimmaron Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Mr. Hollas moved to authorize a variance to the minimum rear setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the house is farther back than similar houses on the street, construction of the wall vv~th no variance would be contrary to normal construction concepts, the difference in the lot depth (east and west boundaries) and the fact that the property borders a cul-de-sac; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the aesthetics of the structure would be unsightly without a variance; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (S - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Other business. Mr. Sawtelle requested that staff keep the Board updated on the Traditions conditional use permit. He also expressed concern of the new Exxon service station signs that extend above the roof line. AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Adjourn. Mr. Alexander moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APP airman, Wayne Rife Pl ng Technician, atah ~ ZBA Minutes March 18, 1997 Page 4 of 4 ZONING BOARD OF~ADJUSTMFNP S MOTION FORMAT FOR PO ITIVE Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generLally fours l~within the City: f / ~,,~ ~ZXIS I II'Y ~ SlLrh ire ~iTJ ~I 2~ ~ ~C~d~~'~2~'~~~Y~~ • and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance w uld result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: ~/~ ~~/ ~ ~.,,~ S ~~ (~~ c~ and such that th .spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the .general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the follLowing limitations: wa . ~~~~ ~` v~ G~® s~ ~ ~ ~ 6~~ ~~ J~ J' ~~ Motion Seconded by Voting Results Chair Signature Date .~~ ~, /~ Motion made by SRP1838.DOC r~ u ZONIIVG BOARD OF ADJUSTNi1J'1VT FORMAT FOR POSPI'IVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) t~ minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special cond/i~tions: nn {{~~ pp ~1~- . ~ ~ n "~'~-- - ~-~ ~ - - -- 'fir,. ,bGa,~..~..~ .,....~n nxAnaR asrinXuc 1~nI A'' -~ .. ._,,,~ .,..a~- : ~ ~_._„ , ,..rte _ ~FY~ A(~A~IAUN.Ct ~ v,, ~'"l .~,t ~ tJ G~ c,r.ll e4 0~ and because a s 'ct enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~ ~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: iJ ~ C Motion made by I Date 3 ~ 61 9 7 i Seconded by ~6 Voting Results ~~ ~ Chair Signature YAIiP1638.DOC i• i• Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register Date ~ "N1 Name Address 1. 2. ~-I (~ ~~C~ l 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.