Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/1997 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 5, 1997 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hollas and Members Blackwelder, Alexander and Warren and Alternate Member Hill. (Member Taggart and Alternate Member Happ were in the audience.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Member Pyrtle. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Planner Battle, Planning Technician Ruiz and Assistant City Attorney Reynolds. AGENDA l[TEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hollas called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. Planning Technician Ruiz swore in newly appointed members and alternate members. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of June 17, 1997. Mr. Blackwelder moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 17, 1997 and July 1, 1997 as written. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of minutes from the meeting of July 1,1997. See above agenda item number two. AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a variance request to the minimum setback requirements at 2703 Normand, lot 85, block 9 of Southwood Valley Section 5-A to allow the construction of a storage building and a carport. Applicant is John Sleeper. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant recently purchased the property with plans of building an additional garage and storage building. The survey completed during the purchase shows a 5' "building line". The applicant applied for a building permit using the survey as a guide, and discovered it did not represent the City's setbacks as established by ordinance. The 5' "building line" is also not shown on the approved plat. The applicant is now proposing a 10'x10' storage building which requires a 15' setback, and a carport which requires a 20' setback. The applicant is proposing that the storage building have a 7' setback, and that the carport have a 17' setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an 8' variance to the required 15' rear setback for the storage building and a 3' variance to the required 20' rear setback for the . carport. The primary special condition offered in this case is the large area of undeveloped land to the rear of the property. The applicant feels that the intent of setbacks is to maintain rrurumum distances between buildings, and that the 100' drainage easement provides a substantial buffer between this and other properties. The applicant feels that without the variance there would not be enough room to construct a functional dnveway and carport. StaffPlanner Battle presented the following alternatives to the variance request: • 1. Do not construct the storage building and/or carport, or construct a driveway only. 2. Construct the carport and/or storage building in a different configuration in order to meet the setback requirements. The applicant feels that the functionality of the structures cannot be maintained with this alternative. Staff Planner Battle stated that in the past, the Board has granted several variances to the rear setback. Conditions have included lot and yard size, shape, vegetation, and public impact. Twenty-six surrounding property owners were notified of the request with several inquiries. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing. Applicant John Sleeper of 2703 Normand approached the Board and sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He stated that the storage building is existing; however, he would like to run electricity to the building and add a light inside. If the variance is denied, the storage building will stay in its present location and a light will not be installed. Mr. Sleeper stated that the variance for the carport is necessary because of the angle of the existing driveway. The existing driveway will have to be reconfigured in order to construct a carport that meets the minimum setbacks. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. Mr. Alexander moved to grant a variance request to the minimum setback requirements for both the carport and storage building from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the large undeveloped area to the rear, a 100' drainage easement, that will provide a buffer between the properties; and because a strict • enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: prevention of the applicant to construct a usable driveway; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Mr. Blackwelder expressed concern about the lack of a hardship in this particular case. There are several alternatives available in this case that do not require a variance. He stated that he does not have a problem with the request; however, it does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. Mr. Alexander stated that the location of the existing drainage easement meets the intent of the ordinance. The only question concerning the storage building is electricity. The building can stay in its same location vv~th or without a vanance. The motion to grant the variances failed (1 - 4); Mr. Alexander voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Blackwelder moved to deny the variance to the minimum setback requirements for the carport 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. Ms. Warren seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Alexander voted against the motion. Ms. Warren moved to deny a variance to the minimum setback requirements for the storage building 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. Hill seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Alexander voted against the motion. ZBA Minutes August S, 1997 Page 2 of S AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a variance request to the minimum setback • requirements at 2909 Bolero Court, lot 19, block 57 of Southwood Valley Section 24D to allow an addition to the existing home. Applicants are James and Cynthia Sampson. StaffPlanner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicants have an elderly pazent who is coming to live with them. The applicants need to create a living space that is wheel chair accessible. The existing home cannot be easily modified, so the applicants wish to build an addition to the home that would accommodate the pazent. The home is currently 10' from the rear setback line (35' from property line), however the applicants state that they need at least 15' to make the addition functional for the pazent. Therefore the applicant is requesting a 5' variance to the reaz setback. The primary special condition stated is the need to expand the existing home to make it functional for the elderly parent, and the lack of available space on the property available to do so. Because the expansion must be wheel chair accessible, there aze additional design limitations on the size and shape of the addition. The applicant feels that this would not be contrary to public interest because the expansion would have a 20' setback, which is the same that is requued for a gazage. The house next door has a gazage in the reaz, and the applicant states that the addition would not look any different, possibly better, than a gazage. The applicant also states that this would not negatively surrounding property values. Without this variance, the applicant feels that the house could not reasonably be modified to accommodate their needs. The applicant also feels that the alternatives to the variance (as outlined below) would not work. The following alternatives have been identified: 1. Limit the expansion to stay within the setbacks. The applicant does not think that a functional space could be easily designed within this azea. 2. Not build the expansion and attempt to modify the existing house. The applicant does not believe this is practical, and it may have an impact on the marketability of • the home in the future. 3. Move to another home. It would be difficult to find another home in College Station that meets their needs and is already built for wheel chair accessibility. Staff Planner Battle stated that the Boazd has granted several rear setback variances in the past. The conditions have included lot size and shape, existing vegetation or large easements, and a lack of impact on surrounding properties. Approximately 32 surrounding property owners were notified with several inquires. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing. Applicant Cynthia Sampson of 2909 Bolero approached the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. She stated that an additional room must be added to the home in order to accommodate her mother-in-law. The survey shows a 10' rear building line and plans were made based on that information. The original plans were modified so that only a 5' variance would be requested instead of the original 10' variance. There aze no other alternatives to the variance request. The front of the home would have to be totally restructured for an addition in that azea. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. He stated that the variance request seems reasonable and that there aze no other azeas on the lot that are available for expansion. Mr. Blackwelder moved to authorize a variance 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: size of the lot limits any reasonable expansion; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hazdship to this applicant being: inability • to accommodate elderly resident; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Hill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). ZBA Minutes August S, 1997 Page 3 of S AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration of a variance request to the sign regulations at 201 Southwest Parkway for the Aggieland Credit Union to allow a second freestanding sign. Applicant is Mc Co-Ad Sign Company. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is zoned C-1 and is permitted only one freestanding sign. One freestanding sign that meets the height and size requirements has already been permitted for this site. The applicant feels that one sign will not adequately lead customers onto the site and is proposing to erect an additional freestanding sign. The request is for a second freestanding sign. The primary special condition offered is the need to direct traffic to enter the site through the eastern driveway and exit through the western driveway, and the proximity to the intersection at Texas Ave. The applicant wants to lead motorists away from the traffic that may be stacking up at the intersection at Texas Ave. The applicant feels that inadequate signage (or lack thereof) along Southwest Parkway is a hardship in that it may lead to improper traffic flow. The following alternatives have been identified: Erect smaller directional traffic control signs at the driveways. Traffic control signs do not require a permit, and are allowed a maximum 3 square feet with 1.5 square feet usable for copy or logo. One traffic control sign is allowed per curb cut, with a maximum height of 4 feet, and a minimum setback of 4 feet from the curb. The applicant does not feel that this signage would be big enough and would request that a directional sign be at least 12 sq. ft in size. 2. Construct two low profile signs instead of the one freestanding sign. C-1 regulations would allow any number of low profile signs on the property, as long as they are at least 150' apart. This site is acceptable for two low profile signs, one at each driveway, without a variance. • 3. Attach the sign to the building. Any number of attached signs are allowed under C-1 sign regulations. However this would probably have muumal effect on traffic control. Staff Planner Battle stated that approximately 27 surrounding property owners were notified of the request with no response. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing. Applicant Michael Coffer of Mc Co-Ad Sign Company approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He stated that the property owner would like to at least allow more sign area on the directional sign. The request is to allow one directional sign of 12 square feet on the ease side of the property. Mr. Coffer explained that the larger directional sign will help identify the property and direct traffic through the site. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. Ms. Warren stated that there are alternatives available to the applicant and there are no special conditions in this case. Mr. Blackwelder agreed and moved to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the • applicant served. Mr. Hill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). ZBA Minutes August S, 1997 Page 4 of S • AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO.8: Adjourn. Mr. Blackwelder moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPROVED: ", ,r Y r F[` Chairman, Stephen Hollas • r~ LJ .:a r' ..._ Augur: ~, (_ y ! _ _ ~ c~ : _ ,_"'' ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN'P 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) minimum setback ~ Gu ~~~ 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 b ~ ~~G~~ Y Seconded by Chair Signature Date ) Voting Results y YfiRN1638.DOC ~' t ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNIII~IT • ON FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTI Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) -~ 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 ~~GC i'i~L~ Date Seconded by ~~ ~~ e ~ ~ ~ Voting Results y_ ~ Chair Signature / ' ` ~ ~°'~ vgxtvtssa.~oc • ~~a r ZONII~TG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) ,lot depth (Table A) ,/ minimum setback • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the 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 conditions: and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: C/1 a6,~i ~ ac ~~H..,~,Ey~, ~ ~c~,~ti ~'~SiGYC/1.L~ • and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by _ ~~~ t`~~~ / ~ Date 0 I ~I~ Seconded by Voting Results j ~~ Chair Signature ~,~ ~"~C,~-- , Y.4RP1838.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. Motion made by Motion Seconded by ~~..~a-i ~'~ ~~ Voting Results ~ ~ ~ Chair Signature ~T"~~-" ~ ~ ~/`~~ Date ~ I ~ I ~ ~ SRNI638.DOC • Zoning Board of Adjustment .7 Guest Register Date Name 1. r~ ~, Address 2. - h/~~-~i' 3. o s~~~,~ 4. ~pGlh 5• ~ (/~ cfU/~ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ~ ~0 3 ~~ ~,~.~~ C~ ~~ ~~