Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/1981 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsI • MINUTES City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment September 15, 1981 7:00 P.M, • • MEl1~BERS PRESENT: Board Members, W. Harper, J. Upham, D. MacGilvray, G. Wagner; Council Liaison, Pat Boughton. ME~~ERS ABSENT : Vi Burke STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official, Jane Kee; Zoning Inspector, Joan Keigley, Acting Planning Technician, Julie Collins. Chairman Harper called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. AGENDA ITE147 N0. 1 - Approval of minutes of meeting of August 18, 1981. Gayle Wagner requested the initial of his first name be changed to "G" and the word "no" added in. the eighth paragraph of page 3, and this correction is hereby made a part of these minutes. Upon motion by D. MaeGilvray and second by G. Wagner, the minutes of August 18, 1981, were unanimously approved, as corrected. AC~IDA ITEM N0, 2 - Consideration for a variance to the rear setback on two lots which are platted in the University Park subdivision, Section 1. (Plat filed June 25. 1981). Jane Kee explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to the rear setback on two lots which are platted in the University Park subdivision, Section 1. (Plat filed June 25, 1981). The lots are intended for 4-plex development. Lots 1 and 2 each have trees located on the lot in such a manner that to save them the builder must encroach the rear setback by 15 feet. She reminded the board of Section 11-B.5 of Ord. 850 which addresses the elements which must exist to grant a variance. A site plat was available at the meeting. G. Wagner asked if site plat reflected the variance to setback being requested, and Jane Kee applied affirmatively. Saba Halaby, applicant, described the proposed development and the difficulties involved in completing the development with the existing utility easements and their desire to save a number of large trees on the site. He further pointed out that they have reviewed several alternative plans and the one presented appeared to be the best plan available but would require a variance to rear setback in order to save existing large trees. PAGE 2 J. Upham stated he did not feel that a unique or special condition had been • expressed by the applicant and basically this variance request is for the purpose of saving the trees and preserving the general character of the site. S. Halaby stated that was correct. He then informed the board that three different plans for the subdivision had been reviewed and the one presented was the best alternative to utilize the site. J. Upham stated he felt the problem could be solved on Lot 2 by the loss of one tree and on Lot 1 by the loss of two trees. He stated that he had problems with granting this variance which would be outside the mandate of the ordinance and could establish a precedence. Chairman Harper stated the proposed development is a high density develop- ment and the problem could be solved by building duplexes instead of four-plexes, D. MaeGilvray ask how the land is zoned and Jane Kee replied Apartment District R-4. D. MacGilvray expressed the opinion that redesigning the project could eliminate the problem, Chairman Harper expressed his feeling that the easement problem should have been taken into consideration at the time of platting, he then formed the • following motion which. was given second by D. MacGilvray: that approval of the requested variance to the rear setback requirement of Section 11-B.5 of Ordinance 850 for Lots 1 and 2, Block C of University Park Subdivision be granted in order to preserve the trees and natural character of the land will support the spirit of the ordinance and not be contrary to public welfare. The motion failed by unanimous vote of the board. ITEM NO. 3 - Consideration for a variance to the s line. Mrs. Betty R. Gillespie, applicant, stated she was requesting permission to place a sign for her business on her property line. She explained her property serves as a location for her business as well as her home. She explained it is difficult to see the existing sign which is only 43" from the property line and is also obstructed from view by the two signs on the property line of Jose's Restaurant. Chairman Harper stated he had inspected the site-and discovered part of the problem is a row of small pine trees, apparently planted by someone, which will obscure a low sign. He stated his feeling that the applicant is attempting to advertise a commercial business while maintain the privacy of her Home on the same sight. • PAGE 3 J. Upham stated he felt there was a solution to the problem but not • necessarily the way the applicant wants it. Mrs. Gillespie stated she could cut trees or put up a very high sign but instead wanted to be able to place a low sign on property line, Chairman Harper stated if the variance was granted then everyone else in that area would want to do the same thing in order to make their signs more visible. Mrs. Gillespie replied they should be entitled to a variance if they have good reason. J. Upham pointed out they would all use the same reason she is proposing which would be carYpelling the City to compromise the mandate of the ordinance . G, Wagner asked when the sign was put up. Jane Kee stated the area was annexed in September, 1980, and the sign was put up in October of that year. The business was in existence at the time of annexation and became a required nonconforming use. By inspection, the City became aware that there were two detached signs and a portable sign on the site, and only one detached sign per site is allowed by the ordinance. Chairman Harper stated alternatives such as a high sign or a sign away from • property line with selective cutting of trees could be considered. D. MacGilvray asked how long she had been at that location and Mrs. Gillespie stated six years and the gift shop is an outgrowth of her advertising business. She stated that Jose's has two signs which obstruct her sign from view. J. Upham pointed out those signs were in existence at the time of annexation and therefore were accepted but will be removed when they become old. Chairman Harper then formed the following motion which was seconded by G. Wagner: to grant variance as modified verbally from 43" to one sign completely away from 10' setback but meeting all other requirements of the ordinance, the justification being these three conditions: (1) Not contrary to public interest. (2) Unique and special condition. (3) Consistent with spirit of the ordinance. The motion failed by unanimous vote of the board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 -Other business. Jane Kee reported to the board that blr. Larrrpo who had been granted a variance • to parking in Northgate, subject to acquisition of employee parking spaces off site, has been able to lease three spaces from Loupot's which is PAGE 4 • approximately 500' from his site. Staff preference would be for the spaces to be within 200' of the site but this is better than nothing. J. Upham stated this is a trade of parking spaces. Chairman Harper agreed and stated that under the circumstances the board should be appreciative of Mr. Lampo's efforts to comply with the stipulation. Jane Kee reported that Ed Walsh would probably address the board at its next meeting to bring them up to date on his arcade project as he had promised. AGEI~IDA ITIIVI 1V10. 5 - Adjournment There being no further business to come before the body, upon motion of D. MacGilvray, second by G, Wagner and a unanimous vote the meeting was adjourned. • Chairman ATTEST: Secretary •