Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1983 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment August 16, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cook, Members Wendt, Wagner, Upham and Alternate Member Meyer; (Alternate Member McGuirk in audience) MEMBERS ABSEPJT: MacGilvray STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Asst Zoning Official Dupies & Planning Tech- nician Volk Chairman Cook opened the public hearing and stated the duties and obligations of this Board. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of July 19, 1983 Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. l~endt seconded. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Meyer abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of a variance request to the rear setback as required by District Use Schedule Table A) of Ordinance 850 on all lots in the Ashford Square Subdivision located on the south side of Southwest Parkway immediately south of the intersection of Cornell & Southwest Parkway. Application is in the name of M.H.B.J. Joint Venture (Ashford Square PUD Mrs. Kee located the subject project on an area map, identified the particular lots in question and explained that Ordinance allows zero lot line construction on the side, but does not address rear zero lot line construction. 4Jic McKean, 2400 Frost was sworn in and explained that rear and side zero lot line construction would allow development of front parking thro~..ighout the subdivision. Mr. Wendt asked about firewalls and Mr. McKean explained that tilt-line 4 hour firewalls would be used. Mrs. Cook asked for an explanation of the term "PUD", and Mr. McKean explained that in this instance it refers to a Private Utility District, and that this entire subdivision would be developed on private property. Mrs. Meyer asked how this would affect rear setbacks in Block A which is adjacent to property which is not in this subdivision. Mr. McKean replied that he does not know, because he does not own that property, and is only asking for variances on land which he does own. Mr. Upham asked if it is correct to assume that this Board is being asked tonight to address an omission in the Ordinance and Mrs. Kee said that staff is currently working on an Ordi- nance which would address commercial PUD development and that she assumes that whatever type of Ordinance the City adopts will address lot line construction on various sides. Mrs. Meyer said that she is still worried about how granting a variance to rear setbacks in Block A will affect the property owner of the adjacent properties when he is faced with buildings built on his property line. Mrs. Kee replied that she had been contacted by the owner of that property who asked if he would also be allowed zero lot line con- struction if this variance is granted, and that she had informed him that she could not answer that question because this is a request for a variance at a particular location, and until the Ordinance is changed each request must be addressed separately. • Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) note "E" from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (1)This situation is not addressed in the ordinance for commercial development as it is for residential development, and is considered an omission rather ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 2 than a denial by ordinance, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being the inability • to use this property to its maximum feasibility through no fault of his own; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion, after which Mr. Wendt asked if the current requirements such as firewall, landscaping, etc, should be included in the motion, and Mr. Upham agreed and amended his motion to include the statement "subject to all current legal require- ments such as firewalls, landscaping and parking to being met." Mr. Wendt seconded the motion as amended, which carried unanimously (5-0). Staff was then asked to keep the Board apprised of any new ordinance which is approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3~ Consideration of a variance request to sign height as regulated by Ordinance No. 1409, an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 50 at the site location of a retail lumber store just north of the intersection of Highway 30 and the East By- pass. Application is in the name of Payless Cashways, Inc./Barry Moore. Mrs. Kee presented the request and explained the interim Sign Ordinance which limits signs to 35 ft. in height, and stated that this approved site plan meets all setback requirements, etc., for a 50 ft. sign under the old sign ordinance. Jack Burke, 5015 Lamar, Mission, Kansas ~~as sworn in as a representative of the appli- cant and explained that this slte is approximately 20 feet below the major traffic artery in this area (Highway 6 East Bypass), and spoke of his understanding that the intent of the interim ordinance as allowing a 35 ft, sign on major fronting streets which are usually at grade level. He clarified to the Board that the applicant had been aware of the interim sign ordinance at the time the proposed development of this land had begun, but added that they had considered this to be only one problem among many, • and they were facing one problem at a time. Barry Moore, Kansas City, Missouri was sworn in and identified himself as the project manager for this project. Mr. Wagner asked about the marketing analysis which had determined that the Bypass is the major artery for this area rather than the Frontage Road and Mr. Burke explained that from the standpoint of a retailer, Highway 6 is the major artery locally, but from outlying areas, it would definitely be Highway 6 East Bypass. Mr. Upham stated that he does not know why this land is unique as there is high and low land everywhere and the company knew this land is low land when they agreed to purchase it. Mr. Wendt asked if the elevation of the access road is the elevation of the origi- nal property, and it was determined that no one knew if the frontage road had been built up or not. Mr. Burke responded to the unique situation by pointing out that anytime a retailer puts in a project, there are some obstacles to face, but the City usually does not want to stop development. He said they were aware of many problems at the onset of this project, and offered that the interpretation of Ordinance would be unique in that its aim was to have signs a maximum of 35 ft. above a major artery and in this case, the major artery is high above this land and the ground is far below grade level of the major artery. Mr. Upham said that this is not the intent of the ordinance as it reads. The ordinance specifies the height of signs farther than 20 ft. from the pavement edge to be measured from the base of the sign, and not to be measured above the grade level of the major artery. • Jim Jett, 206 Emberglow was sworn in and identified himself as the local real estate agent who had dealt with these people a long time ago, and further stated that at the time the business transaction began, the old ordinance was in effect and the site had ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 3 had been analyzed prior to the current sign ordinance. Mr. tJendt asked about the Manor House sign and Mrs. Kee explained how it had been approved at 85 ft. in height under the old ordinance. Mrs. Meyer asked how the interim sign ordinance had come about and Mrs. Kee explained that it was arrived at as a result of a survey of local signs and of other ordinances from other cities. Mrs. Cook asked if Council had discussed signs on the Bypass or the Frontage Roads and Mrs. Kee explained that she did not know if Council had addressed this, but the committee working on the proposed new sign ordinance has discussed it. Mrs. Meyer asked what kind of hardship would be created and Mr. Burke explained that this is impossible to judge in terms of number of clientele lost. Mrs. Cook asked when the sign committee would be making a recommendation and Mrs. Kee said hopefully a new ordi- nance would be ready by this fall. Mrs. Cook asked Mr. Burke when this project would be completed and Mr, Moore answered that it should be completed g months after begin- ning of construction, and construction is scheduled to begin in one month. Mr. Burke asked what would happen if this request is denied and the ordinance is changed in the meantime, and Mrs. Kee said that in her opinion, when the Building Permit for the sign is applied for, the current ordinance would apply, and if at that time, taller signs are allowed, the applicant would follow the new, current ordinance. Mr. Wendt made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations (Section 8) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (1)the individual purchased the property prior to the ordinance change and a penalty would now apply; (2)the elevation of the access road is not the natural grade but rather has been built up and the sign would conform if the elevation had not been changed; and (3)there would be no visibility of this sign to the Windwood Subdivision • to the south and no protrusion above the Bypass; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Normal drive-in traffic would be diminished from the Bypass in that this appli- cant is a retailer and derives much of his business from signage which he would not have with at 35 ft. sign maximum; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be ob- served and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: That the sign will not exceed 35 ft. above the centerline of the access road and the square footage will be within the maximum of the current City Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. After discussion concerning a set time limit for the variance, Mr. Upham amended the motion to include "as per the suggestion of the applicant, this variance is authorized for 3 years, at which time the detached sign will be brought into compliance of the current ordinance at that time." Mrs. Meyer seconded the amendment to the motion; however, Mr. Wendt objected to the amendment and asked to amend the amendment to include "as the Ordinance reads as of 8/16/83". Mr. Wagner seconded this amendment to the amended motion. Votes were cast on the second amendment (which included the date 8-16-83) and carried 4-1 (Upham voting against). Votes were cast on the motion as amended and failed by a vote of 2-2 (chairman did not vote) . AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a variance request to sign regulations prohibiting detached signs in A-P and C-N zones as required by Ordinance 850 section 8-D.5 at the site location at the southeast corner of State Highway 30 and Stallings Drive. Appli- cation is in the name of Texana National Bank "In Organization". ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 4 Mr. Upham was excused for a few minutes and Mrs. Kee explained that the zoning is A-P • at this location and detached signs are not allowed by ordinance. Mr. Upham returned. Mrs. Kee presented staff's alternative which would allow small, detached "entrance/exit" signs with no name on the sign and serve as directional signs only. Jim Jett again came forward (previously sworn in) and stated that although financial institutions are allowed in A-P zones, they must offer more parking, and really should be in a special zoning district. He went forward to the site plan on the wall and pointed out exactly how the bank hopes traffic will flow and stated that this sign will help insure how the traffic will flow. He stated that any other manuever would create a hazardous traffic situation and this request would be in the public's interest regarding safety. Mr. Wendt asked for explanation from staff concerning problems, and Mrs. Kee explained that detached signs are not allowed in A-P zones because this zone is primarily used as a buffer between residential and certain commercial projects. She stated again that staff has no problem with small (apex. 2'x 3') entrance/exit signs but does have a problem with detached signs with names of businesses. • • Mrs. Cook spoke about traffic situations in late afternoon at this motor bank as being hazardous at the point of ingress and egress at the curb cut off Highway 30, and sug- tested perhaps an "exit only" sign to help. Mr. Jett pointed out that this curb cut will be serving both this project and one adjacent to this, so two-way traffic is imper- ative. Mr. Jett continued discussion with the Board concerning a small directional sign, and came to the conclusion that in the interest of public safety, the words "motor bank" and a directional arrow, as well as the address only would be acceptable, and the words "Texana National Bank" could be eliminated, as direction of traffic is the purpose of the sign. Mr. Upham suggested that perhaps "Motor Bank" could be in larger letters than proposed, and Mr. Jett agreed that Mr. Upham might be right. Mr. Upham asked Mr. Jett if he and the applicant could come up with something less com- mercial than proposed originally, and Mr. Jett agreed that they could. Mrs. Kee offered to make the decision on the suitability of the sign if the Board would so direct, and also if they think that the words "Motor Bank" and a directional arrow are appropriate. Mr. Wagner said in his opinion a detached sign is a detached sign, and if entrance/exit signs are allowed, he has no problem with this new proposal, which deletes "Texana National Bank" and adds an address. The applicant then offered to withdraw his request for variance if the Board gives Mrs. Kee the authority to follow the direction of the Board regarding this detached directional sign. Mr. Wendt made a motion to give Mrs. Kee this authority, and Mr. Upham seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5~ Consideration of an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission concerning denial of issuance of a Building Permit for additions to the business ting under the name of Alfredo's Tacos Al Carbon located at 509 University Drive. Application is in the name of Alfred Gutierrez, Jr. Mrs. Kee explained that the P&Z had denied a revision to the site plan primarily because no revised site plan (which included the proposed parking in front of the business and the addition of the awning and seating) had been presented by the applicant, and further because the applicant was not in attendance at the meeting. She further explained that the City Engineer has looked into the matter, and has set a time limit of December 15th for the applicant to bring in a revised site plan which shows the parking proposed in front of the business, and that tonight the Board is being asked to consider the canopy era- decision ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 5 and seating only. Number of seats and availability of parking in the approved lot to the rear was discussed, and Mrs. Kee pointed out that there are 30 seats under the canopy, • bringing the total seating to 110 and the ordinance would allow 99 seats for the avail- able parking in the rear, therefore the applicant would be 4 parking spaces short, or 11 seats over, whichever way the Board wishes to look at the matter. She also pointed out that the purpose of the revised site plan is due to concern over ingress and egress at the front of the building directly to University Drive, which had never been approved. Mr. Wagner asked if this Board is in order in considering this Northgate project, and Mrs. Cook said this Board cannot consider parking variances in that area, but can con- sider this appeal of the decision involving a canopy with seating. Al Gutierrez, Jr. of 509 University was sworn in and spoke of the hardship which had previously been imposed on him by the requirement of establishment of a parking lot in the rear of this business which is now never used. Mrs. Cook interrupted by saying that this Board is not, and cannot address any parking problems in the Northgate area due to the mora- torium the Council has handed down. After discussion, Mrs. Meyer made a motion to reverse the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance as it applies to the approval of this canopy, contingent on the applicant submitting a parking plan to be reviewed by December 15, 1983, as that canopy and parking request were both denied as a package due to the applicant being unable to be present at the Commission meeting. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEP1 N0. 6: Other Business Mrs. Cook announced the public meeting concerning the Northgate Committee's recom- mendations on Wednesday, 10 a.m. at the Presbyterian Church. Mr. Wendt made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Wagner seconding, Motion carried unanimously (5-0) . APPROVED: ,, ;~ e_ ., r Violetta Cook, Chairman • MINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment September 20, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cook, Members Wendt, Wagner, MacGilvray & Upham (Alternate Member McGuirk in audience) MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Member Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Asst Zoning Official Dupies & Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of August 16, 1983 Mr. Upham made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried 4-0-1 (MacGilvray abstained). Chairman Cook then opened the public hearing and explained the duties and obligations of this Board. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of a request for variance to the rear setback re uire- ments Table A, Zoning Ordinance No. 850 to allow construction of a garage at the resi- dence at 700 Greenleaf Lot 24 Block 2 Emerald Forest Phase IV. Application is in the name of Mr. ~ Mrs. Frank H. Cinek. Mrs. Kee explained the background which led to this request, referring to the Staff Report • which is included in the packets. Allen Swoboda came forward to represent the applicant and was sworn in. Mr. Upham pointed out that the Board normally does not take action unless the applicant is present in person, but the Board decided to make an exception in this case, as Mr. Swoboda is the developer of the subdivision in which this home is located. Mr. Swoboda explained that the proposed location of the garage has been chosen in order to save the trees on the lot and to maintain a backyard of acceptable size. Mr. 4lendt asked Mrs. Kee's opinion regarding this request, and she explained that she has difficulty identifying any hardship or any special conditions which would allow for this variance, in that the applicant knew at the time he requested a building permit that there would be a problem in locating a two-car garage. She did, however, point out that separa- tions between the buildings would present no problem if this is granted, and identified front, side and rear setbacks. Mr. Upham stated that he believes the Board is being asked to do two things: (1)to overlook a surveyor's scaling error, and (2)to bail the owner and builder out of inadequate planning; and that he needs to be convinced that these problems warrant a variance. Mr. Swoboda said that the location chosen would help pre- serve the looks of the neighborhood, and locating the garage up against the house would not look as good. Mrs. Cook pointed out that alternatives are available: (1)to do without this garage, or (2)to take out the trees. Mr. Wagner said that in all fairness the trees in question are not very large, and could be replaced at other locations. He went on to say that he believes this house is too big for the lot, and that he agrees with Mr. Upham in that there are no unique or special conditions, drainage problems, etc. which would warrant a variance in this instance. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found jn like districts 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 was second- ed by Jack Upham and carried unanimously (5-0). ZBP, M i nutes g-2o-83 page 2 AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a request to substitute one nonconforming use for another as per Section 11-63 a of the Zoning Ordinance; specifically to remove an exist- . ing barn and construct a new barn on Lot 14 of the Sandstone Subdivision. Application is in the name of Russell & Kim Hanna. Mrs. Kee explained the request and referred to an aerial photo. She gave the history of annexation, the building and subsequent rezoning to R-1 Single Family Residential, which resulted in the barn becoming a nonconforming building. Kim & Russell Hanna, 1700 Austin came forward and were sworn in. They added that their lot is a 2 acre lot, and stated that Mrs. Kee had given a complete background for the request. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the deed restrictions would allow horses, and wondered if granting this variance would cause problems in the future. Discussion followed concerning the question of whether or not the City took in this land while recognizing the deed restrictions. Mr. Upham stated that he thinks this property is unique in that the only justification for Single Family zoning would be for the purpose of taking in an entire area, and he believes that the pro- perty was given a zoning which is not compatible with the intent of the land use. Mrs. Kee stated that the purpose of R-1 zoning is for single family homes and A-0 zoning would restrict lot size to a 5 acre minimum. She further stated that when the City annexes an area, it would not break existing contracts, nor cause nonconforming structures to be torn down. Mr, Upham said this land was platted, zoned and developed for a specific purpose, the deed restrictions would cover allowances for animals and the City should not change the character of this approximately g0 acres; therefore, this is a special and unique situation. After discussion, Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to authorize the sub- stitution of one nonconforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Other Business There was none. Mr. Wendt made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Upham seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0) . APP OVED: ,A Vice Chairman, Dan MacGilvra APPROVED: City Secretary, Dian Jones • • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE .,•c'~'r ~.._ ~ -' -r-~-~- 6. r 7. 8. 9. 10. NAME ADDRESS 2 ~" ,~+.. ..,;t ~ ~ a A ~r'f^ .urn .-, .'~ .. --- ~ ~ 4 . ~,~ ~ - ri~~,-G ,10 ~,~ %;;.,~t, ~ ~.o 5. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. lg. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. '~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.5 move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) (, minimum setback (Table A) ~!~d / }~ L' parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: • l ~~ e ' /'~ /~ 1~ d~ ~~ r,'y}~ %h-' rrJ~~ ~ ~ // ~? J~,~' 11/L /fin l v~Gt~ L_; --t 3 • ' ~~'~ n- `~ ' ~~; ~' % J~Z % ~~~ tri" ~~ spa t 5 5~ ~-~.~i u ~, l~i~i~i~'ut ~1~~„~~~'"~ ~''~ ivi/~~ . 4. 5• 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance ~' would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: t~- t~~ f o"~¢~~ ur ~`~" ~d zI SLt" ~n .r,~~.- ~,vi-h,~ ~;~0/ ~1-~' ~ ,rJ,/o~ ~ ,w~ ,~~ and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and`subsi~antial l`~. , justice done, s e o owing imi _----- r- ~ r yX~ 2 ~ [( ' ~. ~ ~. ~ ~ 1 4. Th i s motion was made by 7 _~ ~; :: ".`'~--~____,__ '° r ?S ".:f t' _ rS j Seconded by ; ~,~ ~' ~ ~ ,,.: ; D e The variance was granted y the following v~ te: G ~- ~~~~,~ _-~'r~--~~~-~ ~_ } ~ ~J Chair Si nature ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) .% sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) • • from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: ,. ~; y ~ , ~ r ~- ~ , i 2 . ~ .1 '' t' l ~. ~=r ( I ' ~l 1 j ~. i ''.'~, ~ _ ~I` `~ .~~ [~ 1 ~~ "v-'~~ I ~ v% [n 4. ~ ,~ -t ~ ~' ~ ~~, (,~,, ~ t ''~ ~;~ 6 . `~' t ~ ~ t_ ~ ~ ~ r e ~ ~ jL _ __.~ \ _. - ~ and b i ecause a str ct en orc wo ld l i emen t ~f the provisions of the Ordinan ce C~ ~~_-d ~ ~„~ ~ _, ~u h u resu t n unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: / ° 4:-1 Ya _ ` ,__. .. . t y-~.- ~, and ~such that the spirit df tf~ i s Ordinance shy 1 1 be observed and substant i a 1 _ ~.<'t~t.~,~ F'a justice done, subject to the following limitations: _ r ~ r ~ -UY~; t ~ i ~ . 4 . ~.~-° a .-.~r~' c~ ~ ~. This motion was made by S ~2. ~` ?~~ ~ ~-~` ~'' econded by ~p e !~> The variance was granted by the following vote: ``~ - ~' _ -': Char`' i nature • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS Appeal of Planning & Zonin Commission Decision (Section 7-D.11 & 11-E) move to uphold the decision made by the Planning & Zoning Commission in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance, as the decision meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. I move to reverse the decision made by the Planning ~ Zoning Commission in the enforcement of Section, 7_Di3_~f this ordinance for the following reasons: ~ i ~ `. I ~ ~ v `, ~, U-+ ~~ I S :: - ~, y__T. w ~, ~ ~`'~ EYE " t ~,k i-~~--'' ~, ..~ '~, f '~~ ~' ~ ~,. .. ~ _ v - ,; :. ~ ~` `t t , i - 1~ I ~ h ti / I/ ._ - s , ;. ;~. ~.. J „ •- ~. ~._~,~, ~, „~;, (~ ~~~~ ~,: r ,-