Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/2009 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments~i CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment May 5, 2009 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Conference Center 1300 George Bush Drive 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Rodney Hill, John Richards, Robert Brick, Josh Benn, and Alternate Melissa Cunningham. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Hunter Goodwin (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistants Deborah Grace-Rosier and Amber Carter, Staff Planners Matthew Hilgemeier and Jason Schubert, Assistant Director Lance Simms, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, First Assistant City Attorney Mary Ann Powell. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order - Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goss called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests from meetings. There were no requests to consider. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments. • 302 Stone Chase Court, 18-inch rear setback encroachment. Denied. Case # 09- 0050073 Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Lance Simms discussed the case with the Board. Mr. Simms told the Board that the application was denied due to the applicant moving an accessory structure on the property without a permit. Also, the president of the Woodland Hills Home Owner Association called and voiced opposition. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes. April 7, 2009. Mr. Hill motioned to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Benn seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a request for a variance to Chapter 2, Section 1. B-5, of the College Station Code of Ordinances regarding the required distance between a poultry structure (i.e. a chicken coop) and neighboring dwelling units for the property located at 316 Suffolk Avenue in the Oakwood Subdivision. Case # 09-050069 Mr. Hill recused himself from the case. Alternate Melissa Cunningham stepped in. Staff Planner Matt Hilgemeier presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum distance required between a structure housing poultry (chicken coop) and neighboring residential structures. The ordinance requires that the livestock or poultry housing be at least one hundred feet (100') from any neighboring dwelling unit, other than that which is occupied by the owner of the livestock or poultry. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of fifty feet (50') to the dwelling unit at 511 Dexter and ten feet, two and a half inches (10' 2'/z") to the dwelling unit at 310 Suffolk to the one hundred foot (100') separation between the poultry structure and neighboring dwelling units as required by Chapter 2, Section 1, B-5, of the College Station Code of Ordinances. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Hugh Stearns, 316 Suffolk, stepped forward and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Stearns argued his case and apologized to his neighbors for stirring up such a ruckus. Larry Reynolds, 511 Dexter, stepped forward and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Reynolds stated that the Stearns have been good neighbors and he felt confident that they would maintain the property. Chairman Goss called for those wanting to speak in opposition to the variance. Charles McCandless, 310 Suffolk, stepped forward and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. McCandless stated that he was disappointed that Mr. Stearns was a builder and P&Z Commissioner and was not aware of City Codes. Gwen Stacell, 800 Park Place, stepped forward and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Ms. Stacell spoke of the runoff water when it rains and felt that it would drain toward her home. Hillary Jessup, 115 Lee, stepped forward and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Ms. Jessup told the Board that she is on the Landmark Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee and they are working very hard on an Overlay District to preserve what they have in the subdivision. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Richards motioned to deny the variance. Motion failed with a lack of a second. Mr. Benn motioned to approve the minimum setback variance from the terms of the Ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to following special conditions: location of the adjacent housing structures; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the requirement to build a poultry housing structure in its legal location; and such that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance of 50 feet to the 100-foot minimum distance required to be between the livestock structure and the dwelling unit located at 511 Dexter and a variance of 18 feet 6- inches to the 100-foot minimum distance required to be between the livestock structure and the dwelling unit located at 310 Suffolk. Ms. Cunningham seconded the motion for discussion purposes only. Ms. Cunningham stated that it is a lose-lose, situation because the location that Mr. Sterns can legally place the building is much more visible. Chairman Goss stated that he would be for denial due to no special condition or hardship. Mr. Brick stated that he would be for denial because the variance runs with the property and due to the way the applicant handled the process. Mr. Richards stated that there is no special condition or hardship. Chairman Goss called for the vote of approval. The motion for approval was denied with a vote of 1-4. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.6.13.12 Sign Standards regarding projection signs and Section 7.4 Signs regarding attached signs and permanent banners for 614 Holleman Drive East, Reserve Lot, Woodstock # 1 Subdivision. Case # 09- 00500070. Staff Planner Jason Schubert presented the staff report. The requests are as follows: 1) Projection Signs: a. Allow projections signs in the Wolf Pen Creek District; b. Allow more than one projection sign per building (two are requested for this project); c. Allow 65 square foot projection signs, a 47 sq. ft. variance; d. Allow projection signs to project four feet and four inches (4'4") from the building, a one - foot and four inch variance (1'4") 2) Permanent Banners: allow projection signs to consist of banner material. 3) Attached Signs: allow sign to project four feet (4') above the canopy, a three-foot (3') variance. Staff recommends denial of all variance requests since based on an evaluation of review criteria set for in the Unified Development Ordinance and as detailed in the report, only two (2) of the nine (9) criteria have been affirmative. It is Staffs judgment that the applicant has brought forward requests that are matters within the policy discretion of Council, as made through adopted ordinances, and are not based on substantive conditions or hardships that exist on this property. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance requests. Jane Kee, 511 University Drive #205, College Station, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Ms. Kee argued her case and told the Board that the property location is unique along with the size and shape of the lot. It is located within a Design District that is focused on mixed use that has to also focus on vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the signs also need to focus on vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Mark Lindley, 5151 San Felipe # 2050, Houston, Texas, stepped forward and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Lindley gave an overview of the project and stated that the signage is a part of the architecture of the project. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill motioned to (deny all sign variance requests) to the sign regulations from the terms of the 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 the applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of the Ordinance shall be preserved and general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Richards seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Mr. Benn stated that he has no problem granting the attached signage but he feels the Board should not decide on the projection signs and permanent banners. Chairman Goss called for the vote to deny all sign variance requests. The vote was (2-3). Motion failed. Chairman Goss, Mr. Brick and Mr. Benn voting against denial. Mr. Benn motioned to approve a variance (request # 3 attached signs only) to the sign regulations from the terms of the Ordinance, as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the unique special conditions not generally found within the City: the property is a unique large piece of land that would be detrimental to any other property or property owner and it may enhance the safety of pedestrian and vehicular public because it is a large sign that can be seen from the road; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant; and such that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served subject to the following limitations: to allow attached signage to project four feet (4') above the canopy, a 3-foot variance. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed (4-1). Mr. Hill voting against approval. Mr. Benn motioned to approve a variance request to (projection signs) the sign regulations from the terms of the Ordinance, as it will be not contrary to the public interest, due to the special conditions not generally found within the city: the property is a unique large piece of land that would not be detrimental to any other property or property owner and it may enhance the safety of pedestrian and vehicular public because it is a large sign and can be seen from the road; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would 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 applicant served. Mr. Richards seconded for discussion purposes. Chairman Goss stated that his reason not to grant the variance would be due to the amount of time that has passed since the WPC Guidelines were put into place. Chairman Goss called for the vote to approve the variance request for the projection signs. The vote was (0-5). Motion failed. Mr. Richards motioned to deny a variance to (permanent banners) the sign regulations from the terms of the 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 the Ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Hill seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). Ms. Kee asked the Board to please direct the staff to ask Council for direction on getting the sign regulations for Wolf Pen Creek updated. Staff Planner Jason Schubert stated that staff did add an item for Council consideration concerning signage in Wolf Pen Creek; it was ranked and is up for consideration this summer. 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. There were no items addressed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 PM. AT Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Assistant OVED: cam` Jay Goss, Cl irman ZONING BOARD OFADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DA TT May 5, 2009 NAME 1. 111"k 7 7 9144 4. ~NI~~ ~~Ck..l 20 5 LC~IBC 02D 5T C5 rlrl X40 5. CS- 776-If-0 7. 2 77F r l C c~ Z7&-?() 9. r- v, '7iV cq lrL*J Cs ~5y0 10. (7-S -7 -IS, ~ o 12. 6" Lam/ ! -7 13. C4C' u L ~y7 U 14.C'~f~ ~~r SCfI~-~L~C ~S ~k L~~ 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ADDRESS (*//q" CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Services ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION VARIANCE TO SIGN REGULATIONS: - FROM SECTION 7.4 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE I move to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of the 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 applicant served. Motion made by: Rodney Hill Seconded by: John Richards Voting Results: -3 - otin a113 sign variance requests. Motion Failed. Chair Signature Date k/ (*t1q" CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION VARIANCE TO SIGN REGULATIONS: - FROM SECTION 7.4 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE I move to approve a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of the ordinance, as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to unique special conditions not generally found within the City: The property is a unique large piece of land that would not be detrimental to any other property or property owner and it may enhance the safety of pedestrian and vehicular public because it is a large sign that can be seen from the road and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: 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: to allow sign attached signage to project 4 feet above the canopy, a 3-foot variance. (Variance request # 3 only) Motion made by: Josh Bern for approval of attached canopy sign Seconded by: John Richards Voting Results $4-1(Mot* n proved) Chair SignaturDate J CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION VARIANCE TO SIGN REGULATIONS: - FROM SECTION 7.4 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE I move to approve a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of the ordinance, as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: The property is a unique large piece of land that would not be detrimental to any other property or property owner and it may enhance the safety of pedestrian and vehicular public because it is a large sign and can be seen from the road; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: 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: Motion made by: Josh Benn for discussion purposes for variance requests# 1 projections signs Seconded by: John Richards Voting Results Chair Signature Date 646 q (*t/q" CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Services ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION VARIANCE TO SIGN REGULATIONS: - FROM SECTION 7.4 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE I move to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of the 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 applicant served. Motion made by: John Richards for denial of permanent banners. (Variance request # 2) Seconded by: Voting Result Chair Signature Date J Rodney Hill s: 5- Mo ' oved