The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/04/1990 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZONING -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NAh I. 2. 3• 4. ADDRESS _ ~ v 7 • ~z~~~ hii ~1~~~i, '~ i , I -e~~s C: s , ~ ~ f3 ~o 8. 9. l0. 11. ~12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. zt. 22. 23. GUEST REGISTER DATE ~~ 24. 25. ~~-~ ~SI~~~~N ~ S. r` L_~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMfiNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: ---~~ __ ~9~~-mss--~~i 4l ~~~~ _~1/_~/~ __~~?'' _----- // O" ----~~rrd~_--~~gk j-~~---~.~~---~~~~--~~-~'---fie `'-~~D"~ d _ ----~e --~'1''~--c~-.~-~--~.~12~~'~------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: ~ ,~ , ~/' ' / ~t 1l Lv~ ~J S/ sn i ~a1 !~ /hq rz c 5 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: / ' ir~_~'Oh _oV/~S --1_2--~f~°___~L~!2_~L1~1"1~2~b~L°---~~ -~E --- --------------- Motion made by: ___~ ~sf _j~__~ ~J~~_______ Motion seconded by: _~~,~~____________________ Voting res l~ts :,/__~c..~~d~ ~~~------------------ --,~~'~-~-~~-~---~~~ --~i ----------------- -------------------- Chair signature date ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTM$NT ~RMAfi FOR NBaATIVB MOTIONS- fiances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 -' ., .. I move to deny a variance to the ~,~,~~~~~~• _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (.Table A). minimum setback -------4~ .~ ~ ^ _ ____ __parking requirements (Section 9) 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 b observed and substantial justice done. ``~~ tion made b G Seconded by ---------------------------------------------- -Voti-ng resul-ts: - - _ ~ ~ _ - _ . --------------- ---- Chair signature ____~~~~dz~_-~- y ------------------ Date f2--~_~l~ _ ~.. 4' • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT -~- - -- ~aRMAT FOR HSaATIVB MOTIONS- riances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) ______lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (.Table A). _______minimum setback ~nF~ ~,~ __ i/ __parking requirements (Section 9) 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. /~~ , ~tion made by /'"~i ~~ ~c~Gt~ Seconded by -------'-~~-/~-- ~~ ---------------------- -Vot ing resul-ts : - ----~~- ~ - - _ . --- ~---- /.~ - ~/._ Chair signature ----_-_~~- -------------------- Date 5f 90 ,~,~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS _pecial Exceptions - From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to author}-ze the a. ____ substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. 1 b. _____enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25~ and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. c. __reconstruction of a non-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60X of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformity. Motion made Seconded by r. ~ ~, L~ ~r ., Voting results. ___~,~;~~.~ E. ~ __~-'~______ Chair signature ~ Date .~`~' • M I NUT E S • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment December 4, 1990 7:00 P.M. n U MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Henry, Vice Chairman Baker, Member Yarbrough and Alternate Member DeOtte°F`~-7'~k.kcd~~*~ MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Cronan and Alternate Members Webb, Gaston, Kennady, and Phinney. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Coates, Planning Assistant Kuenzel, and Planning Technician Thomas. (Council Liaison Gardner was in the audience.) A[;FNflA TTFM tJn _ ~ ~ Cal l to Order - explanation of functions and limitations of the Board. Chairman Henry called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. Ar:Fxna TTFM Nn_ ~~ Approval of Minutes - Meeting of November 6. Ms. Baker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Lane seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Ar:RiJna TTFiM Nn _ ~ = Request for the Board to consider a previously denied request for a sign variance. (Dour Chene Apartments - See agenda item number 6.) Mr. Lane moved to consider the request to reconsider the variance request of Doux Chene Apartments later in the meeting because the applicant was not present. Ms. Baker seconded the motion which passed unanimously (5-0). A(:FNnl- TTFM Nn _ e ~ Consideration of a request for a variance to the parking space and parking island requirements for a Movie Theater and Restaurant to be located on 4.51 acres off of East University Drive. Applicant is Richard Smith. Planning Assistant Kuenzel presented the staff report to the Board. The applicant requested the allowance of 404 spaces • instead of the required 455 spaces and 43 islands compared to the 50 required. Applicant is requesting approximately 10$ less of the required parking spaces. If the Board decides that the • parking requirement for a movie house of .25 per seat is too high, the matter should be .resolved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (This figure was derived from a 1988 study of the City's stand alone, three screened theater at peak use during 708 capacity.) Eleven property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Henry swore in applicant Richard Smith as he approached the Board. Mr. Smith stated that the hardships in this particular case were: (1) The lot is too small to contain all of the required parking spaces and islands. (2) The owner, Cinemark, would be required to revise the standardized glans of the theater. (3) The facility is unique. (4) Density will be lower due to the large number of screens and additional parking will not be necessary. (5) The lot configuration is unique because it is long • but not wide. The Board considered the alternatives of reducing the size of either or both buildings. Discussion centered on whether or not the lot is truly unique. Ms. Baker moved to deny a variance to the parking requirements (parking islands - Section 9) 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. DeOtte seconded the motion which carried unopposed (5-0). Mr. Lane moved to deny a variance to the parking requirements (parking spaces - Section 9) 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. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. DeOtte suggested that the applicant reduce the number of seats by 200 to conform to the Ordinance. He also suggested that • the Planning and Zoning Commission consider whether the number of screens is a factor in determining spaces. • A~FNnA TTFM Nn_ ~~ Consideration of a request for a variance to the sign requirements for Treehouse Village Apartments located at 800 Marion Pugh. Applicant is Treehouse Village Apartments. Planning Assistant Kuenzel presented the staff report to the Board concerning the allowance of a second free standing sign to be located at the Holleman entrance of Treehouse Village Apartments. This site has access from Marion Pugh and from Holleman. Marion Pugh dead-ends shortly after the drive into the complex; the street does not extend to Holleman. Ms. Kuenzel offered small directional signs or wall signs attached to the buildings as alternatives. Three property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Henry swore in Property Manager, Barbara Jones. Ms. Jones stated that a second sign was needed to distinguish the property from the other two phases which are separately owned. She added that the sign would make the property more identifiable and sellable. Ms. Jones assured the Board that the sign met all building code requirements and would match the existing sign. The Board discussed the size of the complex and the frontage along Marion Pugh and Holleman and found these aspects to be special conditions. Street improvements also render the site unique. • Mr. Deotte moved to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: the City has changed the traffic pattern since the land was originally developed and such changes are beyond the control of the property owners and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being that the property is poorly identified and there are apartments in close proximity with similar names 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: that it conforms to the sign ordinance of the City of College Station. Ms. Baker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). A~FNnA TTFM Nn_ ~. Reconsideration of a request for a variance to the sign requirements for Doux Chene Apartments located at 1404 FM 2818. Applicant is Doux Chene Apartments. Ms. Baker moved to not reconsider the variance request submitted by Doux Chene apartments. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). (Applicant was not present.) A~FNnA TT~M Nn_ 7. Consideration of a request for a Special exception at 1314 Milner. Applicants are Victoria and Peter • Sharp. • Planning Assistant Kuenzel presented the staff report to the Board stating the request is for reconstruction of a garage into a children's recreation room. The garage was built when the side setback requirement was 5 feet instead of the current 7.5 foot requirement. The garage encroaches into the rear setback area and is located 17 feet from the rear property line. Converting the garage to an accessory use will lessen the non-conforming status of the building because,,it will no longer encroach into the rear setback; the rear setback for a garage is 20' but an accessory structure such as the proposed use has a rear setback of 15'. Chairman Henry swore in applicant, Victoria Sharp who informed the Board that work was stopped when she realized that a building permit was required. Ms. Sharp stated that additional space was needed to accommodate her family of five and there would be adequate room in the driveway for both family vehicles. Ms. Yarbrough moved to authorize the substitution of one non- conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. Mr. Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0?. Other business. • The Board discussed whether an applicant must be present in order for a request to be considered. The Board agreed to revise the current rules to state that the Board does have the authority to consider a request with or without the applicant being present at the meeting. AI:FNnA TTFM N('1 _ Q ~ „ Adjourn . Ms. Baker moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board. of Adjustments. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the motion which carried unopposed (5-0). APPROVED: ~~ Brett Henr Chairman ATTEST: • Connie Hooks, Secretary