Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/2004 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment August 3, 2004 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, John Richards, Ward Wells, Jay Goss & Alternate Joshua Benn. (Jason Schneider was in the audience) MEMBERS ABSENT: Graham Sheffy. Alternate Donald Braune (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planners Jennifer Prochazka, Jennifer Reeves & Molly Hitchcock, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Regina Kelly. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider any absence request forms. Graham Sheffy was absent from the meeting. No absent request was received. The Board did not vote on his absence. Joshua Benn was in the audience and was asked to serve in Mr. Sheffy's absence. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from July 6, 2004. Mr. Richards made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Wells seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (S-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance for 4742 Stonebriar Circle, lot 22, block 15, Pebble Creek Phase 2-A. Applicant is Mike Lane for Jana Schweitzer Lane. (03-227). Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves presented the staff report and told the Board that the builder is requesting the variance to construct a house on the lot. The applicant states as a special condition: a smaller buildable area than what is seen on adjacent lots. This approval allows this home to be built on the same size buildable area as the home next door. The applicant states as a hardship: the rear lot line not being square to the front yields an impractical buildable area as platted. Ms. Reeves also stated that along the rear property line there is a 30-foot public utility easement that the property line follows. It was platted that way to keep the easement off the property. There is an 18- • inch sewer main that runs along the 30-foot easement. ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 1 of 6 A rear setback of 20-feet is required for R-1 Single Family homes. • The setback requested is a rear setback 19-feet to 14-feet 4-inches. This case involves a lot that does not have the buildable area as the neighboring lots due to size and shape of the lot. The rear setback line decreases the buildable area as the neighboring lots. Thus, the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 5-feet 8-inches. Ms. Reeves ended her report by saying that the applicant has met with and acquired 22 signatures from surrounding owners that have stated that they are in support of the variance request. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Mike Lane, the applicant, stepped forward and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Lane spoke in favor the variance. Mr. Richards stated that the special condition and hardship are not strong. Mr. Lane responded that the utility easement creates the shortage of the lots buildable area. Mr. Lane told the Board that he spent a lot of time visiting with the surrounding property owners. They all felt that it would impact no one because of the distance across the back. Mr. Lane stated that he began his process with Davis Young, the developer, to make sure he was comfortable or he would have never pursued the case. • Mr. Benn asked what the end result would be if the variance is not granted. Mr. Lane replied that the home would be 5-foot 8-inches less in length on that side. In a garden home that is a narrow lot line configuration. He ended by saying it makes it worth coming to talk to the Board. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Lane when he bought the lot was he aware of the lot lines, building lines and that the back line was not parallel to the front. Mr. Lane replied yes. He added that he purchased the lot two years ago and at that time he inquired with the developer and the neighbors near by what their feelings would be. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: configuration of the lot, the existence of a utility easement behind the lot that forms the boundary of the lot in an unnatural manner, the existence of an iron fence that creates an illusion of the lot line, and the general nature of construction of garden homes in Pebble Creek, as well as the fact that the lot backs up to the golf course and is not visible and will not have an impact from the back; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the house would not line up to the neighboring houses and would be required to be smaller than it would have been but for the utility easement; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be • observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Benn seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page Z of 6 Chairman Hill stated that Mr. Richards voiced many of the same concerns he was having. The rules and procedures of the Board state that in order to grant a variance the Board must determine the existence of special conditions. In the case he is not seeing anything special to this lot. The lot and the • building area are shorter than the adjacent lots but that is the way the lot was platted. The owner was aware of the lot size and building area when he purchased the lot. However, on a personal basis he does not have any particular problem with this variance. As a member of the Board, and the rules and procedures, he does not see a special condition to this lot. Mr. Goss stated that he agreed what the Board is here for but he thinks government has to be flexible in some instances. This is an instance where there is clearly a difference in the neighboring lots. There is an ability to enhance the neighborhood by building a larger home as opposed to a smaller home. This is going to be a positive impact on the people around it. Mr. Goss stated that the alternative is to have the lot replatted. This would be easy to do since the city and developer are in favor of it but it would be expensive. He ended by saying that he can not see requiring a builder to do something where no body is objecting to it. Mr. Richards stated that he agreed that government needed to be flexible but he also knows that builders need to be flexible too. The only benefit he can see for the builder in building a larger home is financial. That is something the Board cannot consider. Mr. Wells stated that the variance is to the buildable area. In granting the variance the variance runs with the land. Mr. Wells added that he is looking at it from the standpoint of hardship and he has concluded that there is no hardship. On the other hand you have the "no harm" aspect. Ms. Reeves pointed out to the Board that on the application as an example for special condition it lists; • a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots. She ended by saying that is what the applicant is also stating. Mr. Goss stated that if the Board went by the strict letter of the law there are no variances that they could grant. Chairman Hill stated that he sees no downside to granting the variance or any harm in granting the variance. But in his opinion this particular variance request does not meet the requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Board to grant the variance. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (1-4) Board Members, Hill, Benn, Richards c~ Wells voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance for 1604 Rock Prairie Road, lot 1R, block 3, Belmont Place Subdivision. Applicant is David Watkins, PWCRA Architects for College Station Medical Center. (04-156). Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting on additional freestanding sign. ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 3 of 6 • The College Station Medical Center facility began development in 1983. The Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time reflected the sign regulations of today -that each commercial building plot is allowed one freestanding sign or any number of low profile signs as long as they are a minimum of 150 feet • apart along the frontage. In 1986, the ZBA granted the hospital's land a sign variance to allow three freestanding signs. There is one freestanding sign located at each entrance from Rock Prairie Road. The applicant is requesting an additional freestanding sign for a new entrance off of Birmingham Road. The special condition stated in the motion for a variance in the previous ZBA hearing was that "a Conditional Use Permit was granted to construct the hospital facility in this area requiring directional signs for access to the property". The applicant has stated that a need exists to identify the hospital entrance along Birmingham for patients seeking medical attention. The only alternative to a freestanding sign on Birmingham is a directional traffic control sign. The ordinance allows one per driveway and they are limited to three square feet in area (50% or less being copy or logo), four feet in height, and setback four feet from the right-of--way. Mr. Goss stated that they have to identify special conditions and hardships. They are asking for an additional sign to identify the emergency room, hospital and offices. Mr. Goss asked if they could do that with a smaller sign without approval by ZBA. Ms. Hitchcock replied no. All they would be allowed is the directional sign which is 3 square feet in area. It would be limited to the amount of • wording it has on it. Mr. Wells asked about the placement of the signage. Ms. Hitchcock replied that the placement of the signage is going to be based on the roadway and not the front or back of the building. If the building had no driveways onto Rock Prairie and the building did not face Rock Prairie that might be a different situation. Rock Prairie carries more cars so that is where the freestanding sign is placed for the most visibility. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Frank Hartman, Director of Facilities for College Station Medical Center, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Hartman spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Hartman told the Board that the future Longmire Drive which is located one block east of the CSMC is due to be a major north south corridor thoroughfare for the city. It is the belief when this happens they will have more patients and visitors that will access the facility off of Birmingham Drive. The additional sign would make the medical campus easily identifiable. Mr. Hartman also stated that they where told from city officials that a median will be placed on Rock Prairie Road. The median will cut off one of the main entrances to the medical facilities as you are traveling west from Highway 6 down Rock Prairie Road. This will reduced the medical facility to two entrances off of Rock Prairie Road. Mr. Hartman ended by saying that they feel people will have easier access coming off of Birmingham Drive. • ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Chairman Hill asked if they are planning on closing the entrance that will not be available to west bound traffic. Mr. Hartman replied that after meeting with the city traffic engineers they indicated the best plan would be for them to have curb cuts for the west bound traffic at the emergency room, the • medical office building, but not at the main entrance. Mr. Hartman explained that the expansion is currently underway. The access way off of Birmingham will provide for: the emergency room, same day surgery and intensive care traffic. They feel as the citizens get used to the medical campus layout they will have a lot of traffic that will utilize that entrance strictly because it will be easier than Rock Prairie Road. Chairman Hill asked if it would be realistic to remove the sign on Rock Prairie and place it on Birmingham Drive. Mr. Hartman replied they had considered that. One of the signs out front is for the medical offices. The other two are for the hospital and emergency room traffic. They still think they need the sign on Rock Prairie for identity. Chairman Hill asked about incorporating the signs. Mr. Hartman replied that they are bound by Texas Department of Health to sign the emergency room separately so there is no confusion. Mr. Goss asked about incorporating the medical offices sign and the hospital sign. Mr. Hartman replied that there are laws that say they have to separate physicians and hospital practices. Mr. Benn asked is there a difference in just having a directional sign off of Birmingham saying "hospital" or "emergency room". Mr. Hartman replied that obviously they would want to have their name on it. They want the citizens to know that they are at CSMC. He added that having a sign similar to what you would find out on Highway 6 saying "hospital" is not what they are trying to achieve here. Mr. Hartman added that the signs out front will be removed and replace with signs that . are lower in height. Troy Ransdale, with PWCRA Architects, stepped before the Board and was sworn m by Chairman Hill. Mr. Ransdale spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Ransdale talked about the picture graphics included in the Boards packets. With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Richards made the motion 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: a conditional use permit was previously granted to construct this hospital facility in the area requiring directional signs for access to the property; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: a standing need exists to identify the hospital entrance along Birmingham for patients seeking medical attention; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be preserved and general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Well seconded the motion. The topics of finding a limitation, special conditions and hardships received considerable discussion. Mr. Wells made a motion to amend the motion to add under limitations that the sign would be approximately 9 feet by 7feet tall as shown on the existing drawing. Richards seconded the motion. • ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page S of 6 Chairman Hill stated that using the word approximate in the motion is not good. He suggested being more specific. Mr. Wells made a motion to withdraw his motion to amend. Mr. Wells made the motion to amend the motion to add under limitations that the sign size shall be equal to what has been submitted in the Board's packet. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. The board voted (4-1). Mr. Goss voting against the amendment. The amendment was approved. Chairman Hill stated when he first got his meeting packet; he thought the hospital needed more signage because he believed it is very critical that they have good signage. In this case, this piece of property already has three freestanding signs and they should be able to achieve what they need. He went on to say that as far as identifying the emergency room there are allowances for proper identification. He added that he does not feel that the property has special conditions that require that they give them a forth freestanding sign. He ended by saying that hospitals should have been dealt with differently in the UDO. Chairman Hill called for the vote for authorization of the sign variance. The Board voted (3-2). Chairman Hill & Mr. Benn voting against granting the variance. The motion was denied. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. No adjustments to report AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items - A Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: The meeting was adjourned. Adjourn. `ATTEST: h Deborah Grace, SI'aff Assistant ~~`" APR VED: t _, - ~ ~~ \ ~`~ Leslie Hill, Chairman ~~,~ ~~. ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 6 of 6 ZGNING B OARD (~F ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE `' ~ ~:0~~ ar~a,rn. ATITID~C'~C 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. • 10. 11. 12 13 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23 24 25 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUS'T`MENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table R) lot depth (Table R) / minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public ' terest, due to the following special conditions: f~c. ~//S~{w~ ~ ~( ~ ~t ~i~1~w ~Q~ ~,..- and b ~ ause a stric~ nforce nt ofd the pr/ov~isions of the ordinance would tesult unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~'~`~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance done subject to tine following limitations: be observed and substantial justice ~1 ~ ST ~S Moaon made by Date ~~~a Seconded by ~OS~ !J~'yw~ Voting Results ~~ Chair Signature VN2P! 638.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTP , FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the teens 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: JJ` ~~ %~ 0 /~~J 7lGOl/e~~ L1 S~J ~~,~r, ~ i,(',,45 ,~~/>U~t S~~ ~ ~~'~>/~ _~0 CO~rJ ~"~Ltc`~ 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: _.i , Motion made by ~ h %~ C /~ ~0 5 Motion Seconded by L~I~/~ ~ vi~ell S Voting Results Chair Signature d«~ r Date ~ ~ ,1 ~¢ SRP1638.DOC and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: