HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/2010 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsCITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Home of Tew A& M Universitys
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 7, 2010
6:00 PM
City Hall
Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas
Table of Contents
Agenda..... ..............................2
July 6, 2010 meeting minutes.
July 6, 2010 meeting minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 4
Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on
a variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance,
Section 7.4.1.2 Attached Signs, regarding the amount of
attached signage allowed for the property located at 1401 Earl
Rudder Freeway South, Lot 1 Block 1 of the Gateway Park
Subdivision. Case # 10- 00500148 (MKH)
Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 8
Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 14
Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 16
Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion
regarding a request for a variance to Section 7.1.D.1.e
Contextual Front Setback of the Unified Development
Ordinance, regarding the reduction to the contextual front
setback requirements for 1121 Ashburn Avenue, Lot 26R, Block
1 of the Baker Subdivision. Case # 10- 00500170 (MKH)
Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 21
Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 28
1
AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 07, 2010 at 6:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
1. Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board.
2. Oath of Office for newly appointed Members.
3. Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests from
meetings.
4. Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments.
• 919 William D. Fitch Parkway - 10% reduction (2 spaces) to the required
number of queuing spaces. Approved - Case # 10- 00500172 (LH)
• 1613 University Drive East - 1.3% reduction (1 space) to the required number
of parking spaces. Approved - Case # 10- 00500155 (LH)
5. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
• July 6, 2010 meeting minutes.
6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance request
to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.4.L2 Attached Signs, regarding
the amount of attached signage allowed for the property located at 1401 Earl
Rudder Freeway South, Lot 1 Block 1 of the Gateway Park Subdivision. Case #
10- 00500148 (MKH)
7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance request
to the Unified Development Ordinance to Section 7.1.D.l.e Contextual Front
Setback, regarding the reduction of the contextual front setback requirement for
1121 Ashburn Avenue, Lot 26R, Block 1 of the Baker Subdivision. Case # 10-
00500170 (MKH)
8. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items — A Zoning Board
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
9. Adjourn.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.071: possible action.
The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and
contemplated litigation subject or attorney- client privileged information. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney - client
privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of
Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held.
Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of
College Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, September 07, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the City
Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following
subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
Posted this the day of , 2010 at p.m.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Regular Meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct
copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin
board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website,
www.cstx.2ov The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all
times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on p.m. and remained so
posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City
Hall on the following date and time: by
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the
Dated this day of , 2010.
day of
, 2010.
Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas
My commission expires:
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign
interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979.761.3517 or
(TDD) 800.735.2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Hrmze Hof 7e = A6M Unir)ersi '
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 6, 2010
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1101 Texas Avenue
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Josh Benn, John Richards, Rodney Hill and Melissa
Cunningham.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick Dabney.
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Kristen Hejny, Staff Planner Matt Robinson, Staff Planner
Lauren Hovde, Assistant Director Lance Simms, First Assistant City
Attorney Mary Ann Powell, Action Center Representative Kerry Mullins.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Jay Goss called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests
from meetings.
❖ Dick Dabney —July 6, 2010
Mr. Hill motioned to approve the absence requests. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed (5 -0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments.
• 1712 Southwest Parkway, Suite 103 — 9.84% reduction (six parking spaces) to the required
number of parking spaces. Approved. Case # 10- 00500091 (BB).
• 800 George Bush Drive — 6% reduction (three parking spaces) to the required number of parking
spaces. Approved. Case# 10- 00500106 (JS).
Staff Planners Matt Robinson and Lauren Hovde gave the Board a brief explanation of the requested
adjustments.
M
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting
minutes.
• June 1, 2010 meeting ininutes.
Mr. Richards motioned to approve the June 1, 2010 minutes. Mr. Berm seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed (5 -0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a request for a
variance to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.2 Residential Dimensional Standards
regarding minimum lot depth for 501 & 503 Corredigor Drive and 2021 & 2023 Legacy Lane,
Lots 17 & 18, Block 1 of the Legacy Addition Subdivision. Case# 10- 00500082 (MR).
Staff Planner Matt Robinson presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a
reduction of 17 feet 3 inches to the minimum lot depth requirement of 100 feet in order to subdivide two
duplex lots into three duplex lots. Staff went on to state that the applicant's stated special condition is
that the density of the lots are unequal to the opposite side of the street.
Staff recommended denial of the variance request because the applicant did not demonstrate that a
special condition or hardship exists for the subject properties. It was staff s opinion that the lot density
on one street does not necessitate that other streets maintain that same lot density. In addition, staff
stated that adding an additional duplex lot would increase the number of cars taking direct access to
Holleman Drive and could increase the safety risk.
Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak concerning the variance request.
Speaking in favor of the variance requests were:
Jinn Loveless, 7050 Wood Oak Drive, College Station, TX. - Stated the 100 -foot lot depth minimum to
subdivide inhibits parking where he would like to put parking on the side of the lot. Mr. Loveless went
on to state that the lot sizes in question are twice the size of surrounding lots and therefore is plenty of
room to subdivide as the back lots are not being used to their advantage. Mr. Loveless stated that they
were proposing to put a two -story building as it would fit in the vacant area.
Kathy Loveless, 7050 Wood Oak Drive, College Station, TX — Stated that staff s opposition regarding
adding extra traffic to Holleman, would only increase by six cars.
Those speaking before the Board were sworn in by Chairman Goss.
Chairman Goss closed the public hearing.
Mr. Berm moved to authorize the variance, subject to lot size hardship and replat. The motion
failed due to the lack of a second.
Mr. Hill motioned to deny the variance request due to the lack of any special conditions. Motion
was seconded by Mr. Richards.
Chairman Goss called for the vote for the motion to deny the variance. The vote was (4 -1) Mr.
Berm voting in opposition. The motion was approved.
5
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, presentation, and possible action, and discussion on
variance requests to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.4 "Signs" for 4401 State
Highway 6 South, Lots 6, 9, 11 -13, Block 1 of the Spring Creek Commons Subdivision.
Case# 10- 00500127 (LH).
Staff Planner Lauren Hovde presented the three sign height and area variances: a Low Profile Sign, a
Vehicular Directional Sign and an Entrance Directional Sign for the St. Joseph's emergency room and
medical center. The property is currently within the allowed signage which is one free standing sign,
attached signage on the building, one low profile sign per pad sight (with a condition), directional traffic
control signs and exempt non - visible signage. Low Profile signs are capped at four feet in height.
Directional Control Signs are allowed one per curb cut (this property has four curb cuts) at a max of
three square feet in area with a maximum of 50% copy or logo. The applicant is requesting a three -foot
variance to give an overall height of seven feet from the Low Profile sign to replace the existing, urgent
care sign with a low profile sign to accompany the free standing sign. The applicant is requesting two
traffic directional signs with a variance of four feet eight inches (4'8") on the entrance sign giving an
overall height of 8'8" and the Vehicular Directional Sign variance of six feet four inches (6'4 ") for an
over -all height of 10'4 ". The applicant is also requesting a sign -area variance on directional signs of 38.2
square feet for the entrance sign, and a 31.2 square -foot variance for the Vehicular Directional Sign.
Requested is also an unlimited copy /logo percentage on directional signs (which is now limited to 50 %).
Staff recommends denial based on lack of strong hardship and lack of unique conditions for this sight.
Chairman Goss requested that the three sign variances be voted on separately to avoid confusion
separated by Low Profile Sign height variance; Vehicular Directional Sign height and area variance; and
Entrance Directional Sign height and area variance.
Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak concerning the variance request.
Speaking in favor of the variance requests were:
Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, 511 University Drive East #204, College Station, TX. — Stated
that the low profile sign is too small for drivers on the road to see when passing the slope of the land.
Hardships such as a public utility easement and power pole placement inhibit visual reading from the
wide road. The property contains a medical facility that if passed, requires drivers to travel a long
distance to return. Mrs. Morgan asked for the Vehicular Directional Signs to be exempt completely and
resized to 10'4" (6'4" variance) height and a 31.2 square foot area variance. She stated that the lettering
height must be larger to be seen from longer distances away, stating that studies show that readable
height from distances makes COCS half of the readable size. Mrs. Morgan asked for the Entrance
Directional sign text height to be raised to 12" logo height and a lettering text height of 4.5 ". She also
requested a variance to a height of 4'8 ", a 50% copy variance and a 38.2 square foot area variance.
David Hall, 3922 Park Meadow Lane, Bryan, TX — Based on a 50 % percent copy limitation, 50% is still
not going to allow many tenant names to be placed on the sign, as the text will have to be small enough
to fit all names and therefore will not be legible to drivers.
Sharma Hall, 3922 Park Meadow Lane, Bryan, TX — Mrs. Hall stated that during construction she has
seen many people come and go asking for directions to other parts of the medical plaza, therefore more
and bigger directional signs are needed, especially for the elderly patients.
0
Mr. Hill motioned to approve the requested height variance of the Low Profile Sign with a three -
foot berm due to a special condition of the slope of the land. The motion failed due to the lack of
second.
Mr. Berm motioned to approve the requested height variance of the Low Profile Sign with a
three -foot (3') variance because of the stated hardships. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Cunningham.
Chairman Goss called for the vote for the motion to approve the height variance. The vote was
(4 -1); Mr. Hill voting in opposition. The motion was approved.
Ms. Cunningham motioned to approve the requested height and area variance for the Vehicular
Directional Sign limited to one sign as requested in the variance. The vote was seconded by Mr.
Richards.
Chairman Goss called for the vote for the motion to approve the height and area variance for the
Vehicular Directional Sign variance. The vote was (4 -1); Mr. Berm voting in opposition. The
motion was approved.
Mr. Berm motioned to approve the requested height and area Entrance Directional Sign of 38.2
square feet and a 4'8" height limited to one sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Richards.
Chairman Goss called for the vote for the motion to approve the height and area variance. The
vote was (4 -0); Mr. Hill was not present for vote. The motion was approved.
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.: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 7.35 PM.
APPROVED:
Jay Goss, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kristen Hejny, Staff Assistant
7
ITS' OF COLLEGE STATION
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
1401 Earl Rudder Freeway
10- 00500148
REQUEST: Sign Variance
LOCATION: 1401 Earl Rudder Freeway S.
Lot 1, Block 1 of the Gateway Park Subdivision
APPLICANT: Patti Coley, NEC Signs
PROPERTY OWNER: Cinemark Theaters
PROJECT MANAGER: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner
mhilgemeier(a)cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
BACKGROUND: The subject property, developed in 1992 as Cinemark Theaters, is
currently in the process of upgrading some of its technology to improve the quality of
movies they provide to their customers. As a part of this upgrade, the theater would like
to increase the amount of attached signage currently allowed on the building to make the
public aware of the theater's new features.
Section 7.4.1 Attached Signs of the UDO limits the amount of attached signage that a
commercial building or tenant lease space can utilize to a total of two and a half (2.5)
square feet per linear foot of all public entry facades, with a maximum of 500 square feet
of attached signage allowed for any one tenant in a single -story building. Multi -story
business are allowed an additional 100 square feet of attached signage
Due to the length of the public entry fagade (approximately 246 feet), and because the
structure is a multi -story building, Cinemark is permitted a maximum of 600 square feet
of attached signage. However, because the existing signage attached to the building
was constructed prior to the adoption of the City's current sign regulations, the area of
the existing signage attached to the Cinemark Theater building (765 square feet)
exceeds the maximum amount of attached signage allowed for any one building.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 7, 2010
Page 1 of 6
i
Cinemark is proposing to add an additional 380 square feet of attached signage to their
building fagade for a total of 1,145 square feet of attached signage. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to Section 7.4.1 of the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) to increase the amount of allowed attached signage by 545
square feet.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Attached Signs — Section 7.4.1 of the Unified
Development Ordinance.
ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the City's sign regulations is to promote an
attractive community, foster traffic safety, and enhance the effective communication and
exchange of ideas and commercial information.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 7, 2010
Page 2of6
E
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 7, 2010
Page 3of6
10
tz
V
.5 z= (Lf
a .. -, �." -~� t _ G
Of
U
no
J r3
LT
4
\ X, I I
LL
L:
LL ZI L-:
fD
LLI
CL
L
=0
r c
CL
-3 0
L
U I- (L
LL]
- VU - X.
LU
- X
LL
LU
- a
LL
1 4 03 t74 13. If: E E IL
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 7, 2010
Page 4 of 6
11
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: September 7, 2010
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College
Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this
public hearing:
None
Property owner notices mailed
Contacts in support:
Contacts in opposition:
Inquiry contacts:
ZONING AND LAND USES
Zero at the time of writing this staff report
Zero at the time of writing this staff report
Zero at the time of writing this staff report
Direction
Zoning
Land Use
Subject Property
C -1 General Commercial
Cinemark Theaters
North
C -2 Commercial - Industrial
Varsity Ford
South
C -1 General Commercial
Sam's Warehouse
East
C -2 Commercial - Industrial
Overflow parking for Cinemark
Theaters
West
N/A
Earl Rudder Freeway Frontage Road
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: This site has 441 linear feet of frontage along Earl Rudder Freeway and
451 linear feet of frontage along Associates Drive.
2. Access: The site can be accessed via a driveway located along the Earl Rudder
Freeway Frontage Road or via two driveways located along Associates Drive
3. Topography and vegetation: The site has a gradual slope running from west to
east with minimal landscaping and vegetation in the parking islands and around the
perimeter of the site.
4. Floodplain: This property is not located in a floodplain.
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Extraordinary conditions: The applicant did not provide a special condition that
exists with the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Unified
Development Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their
property.
The site currently has 765 square feet of attached signage on the building, which
exceeds the 600 square foot maximum allowed by the UDO for two -story commercial
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 7, 2010
Page 5of6
12
structures. The existing attached signage was permitted in 1992 before the City's
current sign regulations were adopted in 2003.
2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: This variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. If the
request is denied the applicant is still allowed the use of the existing signage or sign
cabinets.
3. Substantial detriment: The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the
City in administering this UDO.
4. Subdivision: Since the type of variance requested does not relate to the subdivision
of property, the granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing the
orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provision of this
UDO.
5. Flood hazard protection: No portion of the subject property is located in a
floodplain, therefore the granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing
flood hazard protection in accordance with the provision of the UDO.
6. Other property: All commercial properties are required to meet the standards set
forth in Section 7.4.1 Attached Signs for permitting any attached signage.
7. Hardships: The applicant did not provide a hardship that would justify the granting
of this variance. Staff was not able to identify a special condition with the property
that would justify granting the requested variance.
8. Comprehensive Plan: The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of this UDO.
9. Utilization: The application of the UDO to this particular piece of property does not
prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant did not provide any alternatives to the requested variance.
Staff proposes the following alternative to granting the requested variance:
• The applicant could reallocate area of existing attached signage to the desired
location to allow for a sign that meets the standards of the UDO
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial based on an evaluation of the review criteria stated in the
Unified Development Ordinance. It is staff's judgment that the applicant has not shown
that a special condition exists with the property that creates a hardship which deprives
them of a substantial property right.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Proposed sign elevation
3. Photos of existing sign locations
Zoning Board of Adjustment
September 7, 2010
Page 6of6
13
2' $250 Zoning Board of Adjustment Application Fee.
FZr Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used
and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided.
® Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details,
and floor plans. The applicant shall be informed of any extra materials required.
Date of Optional Preapplication Conference
ADDRESS 14 t? % is ,, e L-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block, Subdivision)
APPLICANT /PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Phone Number Fax Number
Current zoning of subject property V t �►�sS V— F— C- I In-k-
Action requested (check all that apply):
❑ Setback variance ❑ Appeal of Written Interpretation
❑ Parking variance ❑ Special Exception
Sign variance ❑ Drainage Variance
❑ Lot dimension variance ❑ Other
Applicable ordinance section to vary from:
�- .,mac �c
10/09
Page 1 of 5
14
-L
1. The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
96154)m
RATri Grp}- his variance is necessary due to the following special conditions:
Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving
the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself,
not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land.
Example: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, specimen trees.
Note: A cul -de -sac is a standard street layout in College Station. The shape of standard cul -de -sac lots are
generally not special conditions.
3. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is /are:
Hardship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements
of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition.
Example: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when
compared to neighboring properties.
4. The following a lternatives to the requested variance are possible:
f �ifJv� IDES �ifc �V�ttc COMMVIA)m or CJL1-eei'a
5. This var i a nce w ill not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts:
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are
true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is
more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the
application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its
behalf.
4d
le ��c c j��y� Date
10/09
Page 2 of 5
15
0 5E
7 r
Oa
z
Z;u
C3 0
rn
0
R
rn
0 5E
7 r
Oa
z
Z;u
C3 0
m
x
N
Z
C)
4n
O
C
C_
G
m
L/f
m
r
m
O
Z
Np„pcZ I'n
�aY u, r
> O
zoco C
G 6 -z m
> � D�
_
O O~ x O
Z
O m
x
I
- 114
I;
. p
r.
O 0 `
CO
Z.
1
Z Z_
O
mD=
Off
o;
m
0
m Z
0
En
2 Z
O�
D�
00
2
<n
O
c
Z
p
u I - 1
l
Oli
ZH
_ p
Zm
- c
m
RZ
a0
d
- rre
O- !Ci
Pfl Cr `.p
s0
Wm
= m
AZ
C
v�
rm
H.-
Cm'
p
,
O
-•
0
�p O
DO
.:E
2
DD S
mZ�
v
�a
m
��•
a
11'- 814'(SIGN Fff.)
O n
mm
mv
m n
m
3 09Z
OD
ym
Z�
03
c z
3 O
H
3
Y�
mC
!n
0
C
n
O-
r0
o
m
115 a
C. x
-
mry
O
Z
G
t
33
m, n
O
Z
0
mx"
n o
mN
,,, g
�
i
O
m
'C)Z
p0
y9
Z.
mnmz
Z
O
mOs0
Cx
P
no
xm�
ry
z
z
v_
W
I •�
!
mm
H
nm
p
Z O
C
M. F A D
z
r
O
Z FnnO
o
—
Cm
oD
��a
Pa
;m
G)
2
m
Z
A
�
O
Z
z
DOn
I
w
�m n pgm
AO g mom a2 Omm ~ ffZ
NN
v m
Z
o�o
L.
O
v n
r
i
°
y
x
Wpz
r mp�
m
O
9
m
r
rmmmv
m
OT
v
�o
a
to a
A
Q
s0
Wm
= m
AZ
C
v�
rm
H.-
Cm'
p
r \
O
-•
m
OZ
v
n
mm
�n
ur�
O
\`
b.
a
mC
^)9
O n
fn
0 l
-A m
Z
fM t"
O
Z�
03
c z
3 O
H
3
Zn
O�
9DD
c
n
0
Zom3
Z
m
9 1
I D�
C. x
-
mry
al
m
Z - - - --=�
In
ti
n
O
Z
i O
2
n o
mN
,,, g
�
i
m
Z
c
Z
O
O
>o
z
z
v_
r
T
ACC
mm
H
nm
p
p
Z
Z
z
r
ti
14 3116'
14 3/16' 14 3116' 1
C
1H
r D
O
O
-•
n
Z
O
z
a
vmN
pmnu
g
DO
m�
m nOC
O p
p ��
c1,y
mD<n �i
�n S
O
- xl ' _
pDC'�
22
A.
00
Zm
A
AS
O 0H3
5 P!I �
O�c
C
Zom3
n
!.
xr ._
,_.. .
Z$
C A
' Zf
A
n
O
m0
i O
2
�,
app
�
Zl
UK
3 F?
m'
�
2 H
n
D
OZC
mm3
O
O
i " J
p o
ACC
mm
m
nm
03
apmpNCn
D
t
Z
n
i
O-
Z FnnO
o
—
Cm
oD
��a
Pa
;m
G)
00
m
O
m
�p
DOn
d
w
ti
14 3116'
14 3/16' 14 3116' 1
C
1H
F
O
O
m n
4m x
n
Z
dd000
C)
a
vmN
pmnu
O
Oar
DO
m
i mu
S pm
v�
v
C�
- xl ' _
pDC'�
22
A.
m 5
> Op
mZ3.
m
m
� On
in n�
xr ._
Dm
nw
Z$
C A
' Zf
n
n
O
m0
i O
2
OD
cn
app
�
�c
O
m
v
m
0%
O
O D
$ a
n0
Cm•
3
big.
Z
m
Z
apmpNCn
D
v
Z
C
N m
¢•gym
m
8;0
'D
D
F->
�
00
N
m
ti
14 3116'
14 3/16' 14 3116' 1
C
1H
1H 1H
0
jl
I
v
• rt7_ I
b
a
vmN
pmnu
Am
Oar
Z O �O �➢z�
^Zr'f
p0
D ZxD
���CO m
O
am
Om
nmac
Dm
nw
TO20
�Hmn
Z = ~ Or
n
n
O
C
3
�'C ;O
D
�
Om
m
0%
Om
ocz
q=8 ;>
3
big.
n
OH
5i O
apmpNCn
D
1
-Di6
m
8;0
'D
D
F->
�
00
DOn
SNE
w
�m n pgm
AO g mom a2 Omm ~ ffZ
NN
v m
Z
o�o
L.
O
v n
r -no
z
mz ?.O
m n_D
°
y
Wpz
r mp�
m
300
>C9A
M
X10
w
m
OT
Z
_1zZ
n r
ti Z m r
jl
I
v
• rt7_ I
b
|� « |■ ~
4 1
: § q
�[ ■�
|| � ' # |f ,
2■
, .
z
IF -8
|1 �| (/ /
Ifl
J #
2»�
]± �
z7 »;
/,
/
< 1'5
§,
.
.
-
\ %
�
�
�
i\
^ <
..
�..
� �
• !.
|� « |■ ~
4 1
: § q
�[ ■�
|| � ' # |f ,
2■
, .
z
IF -8
|1 �| (/ /
Ifl
J #
4 .
]± �
z7 »;
/,
s=.
g" rl lcn P F v
20 r C3
ITS' OF COLLEGE STATION
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
1121 Ashburn
Case # 10- 00500170
REQUEST: Contextual front setback variance
LOCATION: 1121 Ashburn, Block 1, Lot 26R of the Baker Subdivision
APPLICANT: James Baker, property owner
PROPERTY OWNER: Same as applicant
PROJECT MANAGER: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner
m.hilgemeier(o)cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
BACKGROUND: The subject property was originally platted in 1939 as three lots in the
Woodland Hills Subdivision. In 1999, the property owner replatted the three lots in order
to adjust the size of the lots, location of lot lines, and dedicate a portion of the property to
the City of College Station for use as a public park. The lot has remained vacant since
1999 and the owner is now interested in building a single - family residence on the lot.
Since this subdivision was established prior to July 15, 1970, the City of College
Station's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires that any new, single - family
dwelling unit constructed in the subdivision must use the adjacent lots to determine the
appropriate front yard setback (Section 7.1.D.1.e). New dwelling units are not allowed to
be closer to the street nor farther back from the street than the nearest neighboring unit.
The contextual front setback for the subject property is based on the location of the
structure located at 1119 Ashburn Avenue, which is setback 50 feet from the front
property line. Due to the subject property's triangular shape, the applicant states that the
remaining space available for a single - family structure does not allow for the
construction of a reasonably sized structure when a 50 -foot front setback is applied to
the property. The applicant would like the typical R -1 Single Family front setback of
25 feet; therefore, he is requesting a variance to Section 7.1.D.1e of the LIDO to
allow for a 25 -foot reduction to the 50 -foot contextual front setback.
Zoning Board of Adjustments
September 7, 2010
Page 1 of 7
21
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 7.1.D.1.e — Contextual Setback
Requirements
ORDINANCE INTENT: Building setback requirements usually allow for some degree of
control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These
standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. The
intent of Section 7.1.D.1.e is to insure that any infill development in older neighborhoods
is sensitive to the context and complements the character of the existing development.
Zoning Board of Adjustments
September 7, 2010
Page 2 of 7
22
Zoning Board of Adjustments
September 7, 2010
Page 3 of 7
23
°- ' - �' + r� �r' '' r. `r te • r - �l f-� +S
k -x = ..i�` ' { r k , �_ �• ir,•''� s t r �`�
Cl
Kz
y f w ° e`I .
ILA Vk s � \n � \' ^.l•-- [- -
� x L—
{ _
l• k k y { ... \ - �! :wry -fi' r j � k � x
i ,
CIS 0
• - f�k I `
F 1 CC
w
Z
OM
W
W
W
V
J
W
W
CJ
�I
Zoning Board of Adjustments
September 7, 2010
Page 4 of 7
24
-
{
II'I %�Yfix -
i kv T
-
'.
- s it .
F 1 CC
w
Z
OM
W
W
W
V
J
W
W
CJ
�I
Zoning Board of Adjustments
September 7, 2010
Page 4 of 7
24
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: September 7, 2010
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College
Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this
public hearing:
College Hills Woodlands Neighborhood Association
Property owner notices mailed: 47
Contacts in support: 1 at time of writing this staff report
Contacts in opposition: Staff received 2 calls in opposition of this variance
at time of writing this staff report. The callers
expressed their concerns that allowing the variance
would not be in keeping with the intent of the
ordinance and does not preserve the contextual
front setback of the block.
Inquiry contacts: 5 general inquiries at time of writing this staff report.
ZONING AND LAND USES
Direction
Zoning
Land Use
Subject Property
R -1 Single Family
Residential
North
R -1 Single Family
Residential
South
R -1 Single Family
Residential
East
R -1 Single Family
Woodland Hills Park
West
R -1 Single Family
Residential
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: This property has 202 feet of frontage along Ashburn Avenue.
2. Access: Driveway access does not currently exist on this property, but access will
be from Ashburn Avenue upon development.
3. Topography and vegetation: This site is moderately vegetated with a 2 -foot slope
running southeast across the property.
4. Floodplain: N/A
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Extraordinary conditions: Due to the triangular shape, a special condition exists
such that the strict application of the provisions of this Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) would restrict the applicant the reasonable use of his property.
When the 50 -foot contextual setback is applied to this lot in conjunction with a 20-
foot rear setback, and 7.5 -foot side setback, the remaining buildable area is reduced
to approximately 2,200 square feet. When compared to other lots in the nearby
vicinity, the buildable area of this lot is much smaller due to the shape of the lot.
Zoning Board of Adjustments
September 7, 2010
Page 5 of 7
25
2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: The granting of this variance is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. A
single - family structure can be built on the lot in the current configuration with a 50-
foot front setback.
3. Substantial detriment: The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the
City administering the UDO. Granting of this variance would create a more flexible
setback for the adjacent property if it were to redevelop in the future.
4. Subdivision: The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing
the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of
the UDO.
5. Flood hazard protection: The granting of this variance will not have the effect of
preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design
and Improvements because no portion of this property is located within the
floodplain.
6. Other property: The subject property is located at the intersection of two local
streets and has a triangle configuration. There are three other triangular shaped lots
located in the area, which are occupied by single - family structures. These lots were
all developed prior to the City's adoption of the contextual front setback
requirements.
7. Hardships: Due to the lot's triangular shape, the buildable area is greatly reduced
when a 50 -foot contextual front setback is applied to the subject property, thereby
creating a hardship that is not the result of the applicant's own actions. The property
was platted in 1999 before regulations regarding contextual setbacks were adopted
by the City in 2003. When this property was platted, the front setback was 25 feet.
8. Comprehensive Plan: The granting of the variance would not substantially conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of the UDO.
9. Utilization: Due to the existence of a special condition, the application of the
standards to the particular piece of property would unreasonably restrict the
utilization of the property.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant did not provide any alternatives to the requested variance. In lieu of
granting the requested variance, Staff identified the following alternative:
• While not an actionable item at this time, in the future the applicant could request a
reduction to the property's rear setback. This would allow for a larger buildable area
on the subject lot, while preserving the front contextual setback of the block.
Because the subject property backs up to a City park (Woodland Park), a reduction
to the rear setback distance would not have the effect of reducing open space
between two structures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Zoning Board of Adjustments
September 7, 2010
Page 6 of 7
W
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to reduce the 50 -foot contextual
front setback by 25 feet. Due to the subject property's triangular shape a special
condition exists whereby the application of a 50 -foot front setback creates a hardship
that unreasonably restricts the applicant the use of his property.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Letter from the Applicant
3. Survey
Zoning Board of Adjustments
September 7, 2010
Page 7 of 7
27
W M01—Irglo
Home of Texas A&M University'
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
❑' P50 Zoning Board of Adjustment Application Fee.
❑' Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used
and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided.
{ Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details,
and floor plans. The applicant shall be informed of any extra materials required.
Date of Optional Preapplication Conference
ADDRESS 1121 Ashburn Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block, Subdivision) Lot 26 R, Baker Subdivision, College Station
APPLICANT /PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Name James Baker E -mail ibakerl @suddenlink.net
Street Address 1119 Ashburn Avenue
City Colle Station
State Texas
Phone Number ( 694 -2801
FOR OFFM U,F F
CASE NO.:
DATE SUBMITTED:
TIME: , e
STAFF:
Zip Code 77840
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name James and Kimel Baker
State Texas
Street Address 1119 Ashburn Avenue
City College Stati
Phone Number ( 694 -2801
Fax Number
E -mail ibakerl @suddenlink.net
Fax Number
��
Current zoning of subject property R -1, Single Family Residential
Action requested (check all that apply):
❑x
Setback variance
❑
Parking variance
❑
Sign variance
❑
Lot dimension variance
❑ Appeal of Written Interpretation
❑ Special Exception
❑ Drainage Variance
❑ Other
\pplicable ordinance section to vary from:
7.1.D (2e) - Contextual residential setbacks
10/09
Page 1 of 5
1. The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
That the front setback for Lot 26R, Baker Subdivision, be set at 25 feet.
2. This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions:
Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving
the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself,
not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land.
Example: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, specimen trees.
Note: A cul -de -sac is a standard street layout in College Station. The shape of standard cul -de -sac lots are
generally not special conditions.
Lot 26R (about 130' deep) is a triangular shaped lot. By requiring it's setback to be the same as Lot 39R (1119
Ashburn -over 250' deep), the only adjacent property, over half of lot 26R is lost to the setback and any house would
have to be jammed into the small remaining space without regard to preserving threes or reasonable placement.
3. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is /are:
Hardship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements
of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition.
Example: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when
compared to neighboring properties.
The large setback reduces the buildable area so greatly as to make a reasonable use of the lot very difficult and
works a hardship on the owner while serving no benefit for the city or neighborhood.
4. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
5. This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts:
A 25 foot setback would allow construction of a house compatible and consistent with existing homes in the area,
and would serve the city by increasing the tax base without significant additional infrastructure expenses.
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are
true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is
more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the
application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its
behalf.
,j
)wf
Sigfi ture and ti le
) &,� 1 6 - d
Da
10/09 Page 2 of 5
29
Regarding Variance Request for Lot 26R, Baker Subdivision
In August, thirty years ago we purchased our house and approximately 3 acres of land
in the College Hills Woodlands subdivision. In 1999 we did a re -plat of our property and
gifted to the city of College Station 1.3 acres as a nature preserve and a conservation
strip. On the remaining property we plated three lots, as there had been before the re -plat,
the lot lines were rearranged to make a more logical arrangement. We worked closely
with the city to accomplish this and met all requirements for the lots. Sometime after our
re -plat, the city passed ordinance 7. LD. (2e), dealing with contextual residential
setbacks. We were not aware of the impact that ordinance would have for our lot 26R of
the Baker Subdivision, but it seriously impacts the lot. The setback on the 1999 re -plat
was 25 feet. (the original set back for the neighborhood had been 20 feet). The setback
required by Ordinance 7. I.D. (2e) is determined by how far the adjacent properties are
setback from the street right-of-way. Being a corner lot, Lot 26R has only one adjacent
property, and that is our house at 1119 Ashburn Ave. Because our lot is quite large (.897
acre), and quite deep (over 250 feet) it is set quite far back from the right -of -way,
approximately 50 feet. Because Lot 26R and Lot 39R are so different, it is not
appropriate to require that Lot 26R be configured like Lot 39R which is nearly 3 time the
size of Lot 26R.
Ordinance 7. LD. (2e) would require that any house built on lot 26R be set back 50
feet. Because Lot 26R is triangular in shape, such a setback deprives the lot of over half
of the size of the lot, and reduces the area so as to make the lot nearly useless, as too little
space remains in which to build a house compatible with others in the neighborhood. We
feel that such a large setback requirement for lot 26R serves little purpose and actually is
contrary to the intent of the ordinance which was insure continuity of setbacks in
neighborhoods. Our house at 1119 is setback much farther than the houses which are
across the street from 1121 Ashburn and it seems arbitrary to use only 1119 Ashburn as
the determining factor in establishing a setback for 1121. We would ask that the Zoning
Board of Adjustments consider the unusual shape of the lot for 1121 Ashburn and the
hardship imposed on the lot which renders it nearly unbuildable, and that the ZBA
approve a variance which would re- establish the 25 foot setback that was in the 1999 plat
as the required setback for Lot 26R of the Baker Subdivision.
We have gone to great lengths to preserve the character of our neighborhood and to
maintain the ambiance found there. To that end we donated to the city nearly half of our
property as a nature preserve to insure that the forested area would remain secure for all
and to keep it as a green belt in the neighborhood. It is not our wish or intent to build or
to have built on lot 26R a house that would not fit into the neighborhood. We feel that
our request is in the best interest of the city which is seeking to infill vacant lots and
utilize existing utility infrastructure rather than to encourage sprawl which requires the
great effort and expense to extend that infrastructure. We also feel certain that our
request is compatible with the spirit of Ordinance 7. LD. (2e) and in no way imposes a
hardship on the city or the neighborhood.
30
k�
31