Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/2012 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments16 4r MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment May 7, 2002 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS JUN 1 1 2002 6:00 P.M. -Y: MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Sheffy & Alternates, Goss, Corley & Allison. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Birdwell & Lewis. Member Richards was in the audience. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Hitchcock, and Planning Intern Flannery, Assist. City Attorney Robinson, Assistant Development Review Manager George, Customer Service Representative Smith. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the absence requests from Lewis, Birdwell and Richards. Mr. Goss seconded the motion, which passes unopposed (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action of meeting minutes from February 5, 2002. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Allison seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a sign variance for 101 Greens Prairie Road, lot 1, block 1, Alam Addition. Applicant is Ron Blatchley. (02 -60). Planning Intern Flanery stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Flanery told the Board that the applicant is requesting the sign variance to allow the use of three directional traffic control signs, larger than is allowed by ordinance. The applicant has three existing directional traffic control signs at the McDonald's Restaurant on the corner of the Highway 6 feeder road and Greens Prairie Road. The ordinance allows for one directional traffic control sign per curb cut with a maximum height of 4 feet and a maximum area of 3 square feet. Table 12.2 Section 12.3 of the ordinance allows the logo of directional traffic control signs to occupy a maximum of 50% of the square footage of the sign. The first sign is not located at a curb cut and is 5 feet -1 '/2 inches tall and 9.3 square feet in area. The logo on the sign occupies 60% of the total square footage of the sign. The applicant is requesting a variance from the curb cut location and a variance of 1 foot -1 /4 inches in height and 6.3 square foot variance to maximum allowable area. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance of 10% to the allowable size of the logo. ZR4 Mares May 7, 2002 Page 1 of 6 The second sign is located at a curb cut and is 5 feet -1 '/4 inches tall and 9.3 square feet in area. The logo on the sign occupies 60% of the total square footage of the sign. The applicant is requesting a variance of 1 foot -1 1 /4 inches in height and a 6.3 square foot variance to maximum allowable area. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance of 10% to the allowable size of the logo. The third sign existing on the site is located at a curb cut and is 3 feet —1 - inches tall and 3.3 square feet in area. This sign does not include a logo. The applicant is requesting a variance of 0.3 square feet in area for this sign. As a special condition, the applicant states that the traffic approaching the intersection of Green's Prairie and Highway 6 feeder road needs to know to turn east on Greens Prairie Road to conveniently and safely enter the McDonald's For a hardship the applicant states confusion to the customer by not setting the McDonald's sign apart on the property. The applicant also states that there is a need to direct the traffic to enter the proper entrance for the use of the drive -thru. A customer turning into the McDonald's at the northern most entrance would have to cross through all the traffic on the lot to find the McDonald's drive -thru entrance. One alternative suggested by the applicant would be to remove the arches from the existing signs, but the applicant feels that if this were done it would be lost amongst the other signage Chairman Hill asked if the signs were within compliance, would the current ordinance only allow 2 of the signs. Ms. Flanery responded that it would allow more than two but they have to be located at a curb cut. Mr. Corley asked if a distance from the curb is specified. Ms. Flanery responded that it is 4 feet from the curb. Mr. Goss asked what is the purpose for requiring a sign at the curb cut. Ms. Flanery replied that it would be for directional purposes and not advertising. Mr. Goss stated that the signs are not very big but they are in violation of the ordinances. Ms. Flanery replied the signs with the arches are in violation. Mr. Goss asked if any other McDonald's have these signs and if so was a variance granted. Ms. Flanery replied that no other McDonald's with directional signs has the arch on them. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Ron Blachley, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Blatchley explained his reason for placing the arch on two of the directional signs and his reason for not choosing to place the one directional sign at the entrance on the feeder road. Mr. Blatchley explained that people in the neighborhood would find out and know very readily where they are and how to get to them. It is the traveler that will have the difficulty and confusion. Mr. Blatchley explained the corner lot and described it as being confusing. Mr. Blatchley went on to say there are 4 telephone poles and 7 other poles of some type on that lot and the directional signs are among them. That is the reason the arches were added to the signs. Mr. Blatchley ended by saying that if the Board decides that the arches need to be removed from the two signs he understands. ZBA Minutes May 7, 2002 Page 2 of 6 With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. �% Chairman Hill stated that he does not see it being a detriment if the arches were removed from the signs. In doing so it would bring the signs in compliance. Chairman Hill added that the traveling public is going to know what direction they need to go in order to have the drive -thru window on the driver's side of the vehicle. Chairman Hill ended by saying that most of the traveling public will realize that it will be easier to get to McDonald's from Greens Prairie. Mr. Goss stated that he would agree with that for the # 2 sign, but on the # 1 sign the arches would identify for sure the entrance to get to the drive -thru. Mr. Goss added that there is a special circumstance that it is not at a curb cut, but it is also a pretty far distance away from the intersection. Mr. Goss stated that if the sign were to adhere to the height requirement it would be so small that it would be insignificant. Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations to sign # 3 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: small shape of the sign and the small area of the sign; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: there could not be a smaller sign that would be effective; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be observed and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: a variance of 0.3 square feet to the area of the sign. Mr. Allison seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations to sign # 1 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: unusual shape of the lot and the shape of the sign is such that it is not obtrusive; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: that the sign would be useless if it was any smaller; 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: 1). Total height variance of 1 foot -1 1 /4 inches; 2) total area variance of 6.3 square feet; 3) 10% variance on the allowable size of the logo; 4) variance to the requirement that the sign be a the curb cut. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations to sign # 2 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: unusual shape of the commercial lot and the shape of the sign is such that it is not obtrusive; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship of this applicant being: the sign would be useless if it were any smaller; 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: a variance of 0.3 square feet to the area of the sign and remove the arch. Mr. Allison seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). ZBA Minutes May 7, 2002 Page 3 of 6 N AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a rear setback variance at 2803 Arroyo Court North, lot 103, block 45, Southwood Valley Section 25 -B. Applicant is Kenneth Henton. 09 Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the variance requested is to allow for the construction of a home expansion. The applicant would like to expand and enclose the existing patio to create a room approximately 18 ft. x 20 ft. Since the house sits 27 ft. from the rear property line, the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 16 feet. As a special condition the applicant states that the location of utilities limits the placement of the home expansion. As a hardship the applicant states that it is an expansion and not an addition. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the applicant had not pulled a building permit for this project, which is when city staff would have identified that the work would require a variance. Construction had begun on the project when city inspectors placed a stop work order on the construction. The city inspector states that construction has not proceeded since the stop work order was issued. The applicant has come in and applied for his building permit and variance request. No work will continue until the outcome of this meeting. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. �%w Kenneth Henton, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Henton told the Board that he is a framing contractor and generally he works through the homebuilder. The homebuilder is responsible for acquiring the building permit. Mr. Henton stated that he assumed when he was hired on the homeowner had taken care of getting the building permit. Mr. Henton told the Board that he had a list of homeowners in the neighborhood that had no objection to the addition. Mr. Goss asked if the variance was granted the addition would be 9 feet from the back property line. Mr. Henton replied that would be correct. Mr. Goss asked if the fence was on the property line. Mr. Henton replied that he would presume that is was. Mr. Allison asked if the slab for the expansion was already poured when he began his framing or was that a part of his work. Mr. Henton replied that was part of his job. Forrest Parker, the homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Parker told the Board that the square footage of the house is 1700 -sq. ft., the square footage of the addition is 360 -sq. ft. and the fence is located on the property line. Mr. Parker added that the addition is going to be a hobby room and will not be air- conditioned. He wanted to enclose the back porch. There are skylights and windows and it will be an open -air type addition. Mr. Parker stated that he has contacted all his neighbors and has found no one in opposition to the addition. ZBA Minutes May 7, 2002 Page 4 of 6 Chairman Hill asked Mr. Parker if he was unaware that he needed a building permit to begin construction. Mr. Parker replied that this is the first time he has lived in a town. Mr. Parker added that he laid the plan out and instead of having a metal building he wanted something nicer and attached to the house. Mr. Parker stated that as he went through the process he realized he could not construct the addition by his self. Mr. Henton is a friend of a friend and he asked him to take a look at it. Mr. Goss asked for clarification to the air conditioning. Mr. Parker replied that the addition would be closed in and roofed with skylights and screened in windows. Mr. Parker stated that his intention was to have all his tools and hobbies stored in the addition. His garage is full and he just purchased a car that needs to be in the garage. Mr. Corley asked staff what are the requirements on a detached shop. Ms. Hitchcock replied that any accessory structure (not attached to the house), if it is under 100 sq. ft., is not on a permanent foundation, and if it does not have utilities to it, it can be placed within the setback. You are allowed one accessory structure. Any additional accessory structures have to be permitted. These are also limited in size by the size of the home. When attached to the home it would have to meet the setbacks as any part of the home structure. If the subject addition were just the slab there would not be an issue. Mr. Goss asked if there was a roof over it but not enclosed would city ordinances allow that. Ms. Hitchcock stated that a covered patio would be acceptable. Chairman Hill made clarification that the existing slab and roof with posts supporting the roof, with out walls or enclosure of any kind, that would be in compliance. Ms. Hitchcock stated that at this time that is what she understands. Mr. Goss stated that the amount of the variance being requested is more than they are used to considering. Mr. Goss added that if the ordinance allowed the homeowners to salvage some of the work that is done by leaving the roof, maybe something could be worked out with staff. Ms. Hitchcock stated that she does not, at this time, see anything that precludes the slab and roof. Ms. Hitchcock added if it comes down to staff interpretation, she sees restrictions in the front -yard, and restrictions in the rear -yard for carports, which are basically roofed structures. Staff would interpretative it as falling in the same intent. The intent of setbacks to the access to light and air, a structure of this size would be restricting light. Ms. Hitchcock added that this is something that is not black and white in the ordinance. If staff had to make the interpretation, the Board would know which way the staff would go. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that they could delay their decision until further research was done. Chairman Hill asked if that meant staff was not prepared at this time to say that it would be in compliance. Ms. Hitchcock replied that was correct. Chairman Hill stated that he is having difficulty with a contractor beginning a project of this size without knowing that the required permits have been obtained. Mr. Parker stated that even if he ended up with a covered porch that would be nice. However it defeats the purpose of getting his tools out of the weather. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor opposition, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes May 7, 2002 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Corley asked staff if they were working under the assumption that the covered patio option is within code. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that she was just reminded by Legal of a case several years ago concerning a covered patio and latticework that was serving as a sun screen in a required setback. i The Building Department considered them structures and they were not allowed in the setback. Chairman Hill asked based on that, is it her feeling that if the subject structure was continued as a covered patio, with the roof structure supported by posts, would it be in compliance or not. Ms. Hitchcock replied that it would not be in compliance. Chairman Hill stated that he is struggling with the amount of the encroachment. Mr. Goss made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, 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. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Mr. Corley stated that he is sympathetic with the applicant but there are certain rules the Board has to follow in order to grant variances. Chairman Hill added that he could not, with a good conscious, vote in favor of the request. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (5 -0) to deny the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda '%w items. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting. APP ! D: 4 Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: 'Es� Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZBA Minutes May 7, 2002 Page 6 of 6