Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 2, 1993 7:00 P.M. [7 LJ MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Baker, Members Sawtelle, Gaston, Birdwell and DeOtte. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members DeLoach, Phinney and McKean. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Kuenzel, Assistant City Attorney Coates, Senior Planner Kee and Planning Technician Thomas. (Council Liaison Hubbard Kennady was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of Minutes from the meeting of January 5, 1993. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 5, 1993 as written. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request by Doug Stovall to the front setback requirements at 1105 Taurus Circle to allow for the addition of a room Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff repport requesting a total variance of 6'; proposing a front setback of 19' at 1105 Taurus Circle. As part of the reconstruction, the applicant will also add on to the east side of the house. This area will be used for additional bedroom and bathroom space. The addition on the side will be in compliance with setback requirements. The addition to the front will be used for an office. In an R-1 district, certain home occupations are allowed when they meet a list of performance criteria. A definition of legal home occupations and the criteria can be found in chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant argues that the intended use for the proposed room would not be compatible in any other location. The applicant also argues that more livable space is needed for the size of the family. There is room for additions on the rear of the house as well as along the west side. Eighteen surrounding property owners were notified with four inquiries. Applicant Doug Stovall approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. Mr. Stovall stated that because he is self-employed, he needs office space in his home. An addition to the rear of the home is not feasible because of the location of the condenser unit and the bedrooms. Mr. Stovall stated that he has discussed the proposed expansion with the surrounding property owners and has found no opposition. He concluded that there is room available to expand on the north side of the home; however, there are bedrooms located on this side making the office difficult to access. Mr. Stovall stated that he has a shop next to his home in which he stores tools and occasionally builds shelves, etc. A few building materials are stored in the shop; however, the primary function is a workshop. Mr. Sawtelle questioned the applicant as to relocating the shop to the rear of the home. • Mr. Stovall stated that a rear addition is not possible due to the existing utility easement and the lack of accessibility to the shop. Mr. Birdwell moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of ordinance number 1638, section 15 as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: the location of the lot being on a cul-de-sac and the distance from surrounding property owners; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being: unable to develop the property to meet the needs of the family; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell explained that the hardship in this case is not primarily financial. Looking at the aerial photograph, there is adequate distance between the proposed expansion and the surrounding property owners. Mr. Birdwell stated that he is more inclined to grant setback variances on cul-de-sac lots because of the unique pie shaped lots that are created and the visual impact is not as harsh as on straight streets. Under the current zoning ordinance, Mr. Stovall could place a portable building less than 100 square feet anywhere on the lot. The proposed expansion is much more desirable than a portable building. Mr. Gaston stated that if a cul-de-sac lot is in itself a hardship, then the ordinance should be revised to address the setback requirements on cul-de-sac lots. Home occupations should be incidental to the primary use; however, in this case, the office is proposed to be located in the setback area and would change the residential character of the home. The shop and office would both be visible from the street. • Mr. Birdwell stated that the Board is not being asked to rule on a home occupation issue and that each variance request is considered on a case by case basis. Mr. DeOtte stated that the proposed addition has a minimal impact on the neighborhood. As long as the proposed addition matches the architecture of the home, the residential character should be preserved. He added that he does have concerns with the home occupation; however, the Board is ruling on the actual building and not the proposed use. The motion to approve the variance request failed (3 - 2); Mr. Gaston and Mr. Sawtelle voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern with future requests from residents on cul-de-sacs. He stated that he would like for Mr. Stovall to be able to have a shop and an office; however, there are alternatives such as adding a second story to the existing shop that have not been explored. Mr. DeOtte explained that the shop and foundation were not designed to support a second story. There would have to be significant changes to the structure, that may not be financially feasible, in_ order to be able to support the addition. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny the variance to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of ordinance number 1638, section 15 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. Gaston seconded • the motion which failed (2 - 3); Chairperson Baker, Mr. Birdwell and Mr. DeOtte voted in opposition to the motion. ZBA Minutes February 2, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Gaston moved to table the variance request until the next available meeting. Mr. • Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Birdwell voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he would like more information on adding a second story to the existing shop. Mr. Birdwell suggested that Mr. Stovall provide some architectural sketches showing exactly what is proposed and its spatial relationships to surrounding homes. Mr. Stovall may also want to discuss the issue with the adjacent property owners to see if they would be willing to attend the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance re nest by Floyd and Jo Manning to the rear setback requirements at 307 Suffolk to allow ~or the expansion of the existing kitchen. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow for a family room addition to the home and the construction of a carport. This area was platted in 1932 before the city was incorporated. Due to its age, the subdivision contains many nonconforming structures. During the time of platting, it was typical to provide an alley between abutting lots for access and utility lines. Due to the number of existing nonconformities in the area as well as the unusually high amount of rear setback variances that have already been granted, each request should be weighed in terms of the extent of the variance requested and its impact on the immediate area. In analyzing this case, the Board should remember the nonconforming status as well as variances on other lots. At the same time however, the Board must determine if the intent of the ordinance is met by the proposed addition. Due to the 50' front setback of the house, the largest portion of buildable area on this lot is • located in the front. Additions to the front however, would have a greater impact on the neighborhood because other houses are also set back at least as far as the subject house. The area between Timber and Dexter north of Park Place has had nine rear setback variances granted. The special conditions and hardship listed on the motions included unused alleys, more efficient use of driveways, slopes, rear access, trees and aesthetic character of the area. Sixteen surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Applicant Jo Manning approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. She explained that there is room to expand the home where the deck is shown on the site plan; however, there is a huge oak tree there that she does not want to remove. Currently, the home does not have a garage. The proposed expansions would fit in with the setbacks of the surrounding properties. Mr. Birdwell explained that the rear alley was once used by sanitation trucks; however, the new automated system allows trash to be picked up from the street. Mr. Gaston stated that if the alley was abandoned by the city, the proposed garage and family room additions would be in compliance with the current ordinance. Mr. DeOtte moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of ordinance number 1638, section 15, as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: the subdivision is rather old and much of the area is non-complying already and an undeveloped alley adjoins the rear; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: unable to develop the property to meet the needs of the family without doing substantial injustice to the character of the neighborhood; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: that the minimum setback shall be reduced. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes February 2, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Gaston stated that he would support the motion if it were amended to reference the undeveloped alley to the rear of the property which further separates the residences. C--~ Mr. tc moved to amend the motion to reference the undeveloped alley. Mr. Birdwell seconded the amendment which passed unopposed (5 - 0). The original motion to grant the variance request passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance request by Barnes Tune Up Plus to the sign area requirements at 601 Harvey Road. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow for the expansion of the existing sign at Barnes Tune Up Plus. The applicant proposes a total variance of 90 square feet or 80%. The applicant argues that the lot actually appears larger because it shares drive entrances with adjacent sites. Staff does not view this situation as a special condition because the City has recently adopted ordinances that require joint access and allow only one freestanding sign per building plot. The result will be an increase in this type of access agreement and less signage. The applicant argues that a smaller sign will not be visible to motorists because of the size of the signs on neighboring properties. The applicant wishes to add a reader board to the existing sign. Currently, the sign is at its maximum of 50 square feet. The applicant could redesign the entire sign to combine the corporate emblem and a reader board within the allowable 50 square feet. The ordinance provides an alternative method for calculating allowable sign areas. An increase in setback will allow for an increase in allowable area. This provision was adopted for situations where the site is usually narrow. In this case, if the sign were set back 57 feet from the curb, it would be allowed the desired area. Staff views this alternative as a viable option that would be in compliance with the ordinance. The ordinance does not limit the square footage of attached signage. The reader board could therefore be attached to the building. The existing • pennants that are placed on the building will have to be removed because they are not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. The creation of the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor, as well as combined access and signage restrictions have been adopted in an effort to meet the City Council's goal to improve community appearance. Nine surrounding property owners were notified of the request with one response in opposition to the variance by the adjacent Diamond Shamrock station. Applicant Bruce Barnes approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that he purchased the same sign for $4000 each for all twelve Texas locations. When the sign contractor contacted the city concerning the sign ordinance, he asked for restrictions on sign height and not sign area. Mr. Barnes stated that he thought the variance request was reasonable in that he is only asking for an additional four feet in height. He stated that there is shared access between his property and the Diamond Shamrock station. Patrons of the Diamond Shamrock drive through his property to get to the station. Mr. Barnes stated that if he could count this shared access drive as a part of his frontage, the proposed sign would be in compliance with the ordinance. The original owner of this location went out of business because this location is hidden. A message board is essential to the success of the business. If the message board is placed on the building, it would not be visible from traffic along Harvey Road and will hide the building itself. Approximately 50% of the business is brought in by the reader board and the advertised specials. Mr. Gaston informed the applicant that he drove by the site today and that he could see the sign from the traffic signal at the Woodstone Shopping Center travelling west and again from the Taco Bell location travelling east. Mr. Barnes stated that you have to be looking for the sign to see it because it does not • catch the attention of drive by customers or tell them what specials are being offered. He added that the City is depriving him of business by not allowing him to advertise specials like local grocery stores and by not having direct access to Harvey Road. ZBA Minutes February 2, 1993 Page 4 • .7 Mr. Gaston informed Mr. Barnes that he can attach a reader board on the building and that the City is not depriving him of any business. Mr. DeOtte stated that the Board will consider his request; however, the Board must look at the extent of the variance and the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Birdwell stated that there are businesses all over town that share access with adjacent properties. Joint access is desired in College Station to allow for the free flow of traffic; however, the access issue does not change the frontage of your property. Mr. Birdwell moved to deny a variance to the sign requirements from the terms of ordinance number 1638, section 15, 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. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Steve Owen, manager of the Tune Up Plus, approached the Board and requested to address the members. Chairperson Baker swore in Mr. Owen. He stated that customers have complained of not being able to locate the business. Mr. Owen explained that if one of the access points were taken into consideration, the request would be in compliance. The additional height of the sign would attract the people driving by along Harvey Road. Mr. Birdwell explained that there is no way that he can support an oversized sign in this particular situation. There is nothing unusual about this case and joint access is common all over town. The original motion to deny the variance request passed unanimously (5 - 0). AGENDA TI'EM NO. 6: Other business. Council Liaison Hubbard Kennady commended the Board on upholding the ordinance in the previous case. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Gaston moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPR airperson, lenda aker Planning ech ' i n, atalie Thomas ZBA Minutes February 2, 1993 Page S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the ~~ Y2'"- ~>•~it.~~ S~-''~"/ yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback 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. Motion made by Date Seconded by Chair Signature Voting Results YAKNi638_DOC [~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJLTSZ'1VIENT i FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) _~minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following spec/ial conditions: ~.,t f~ ,,/ /~ f "~j +,..° S cc.~ d!' < J ` n~ 1 :.~ Z?' ~' `~ r ~.1 ~ C t~- O ~DI~ A h 4 l Y~ rep C ~t D ~ ~ ~, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~ ~ t AA ,_ j' and such that the spint of ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: L J Motion made by ~g ~ "~~? ~-~~ Date Z ~~b Seconded by Chair Signature Voting Results VARP1638.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) /lot depth (Table A) / minimum setback 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. Motion made by (.s~ ~ ~ ~~.rc ~ ~ E= Date Z Z ~~~ Seconded by ~ ~ w~ x ~-; ~~ --1 , r Voting Results ~ `1'~ Chair VARN1638.DOC • ~± i• i• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUE DATE NAME ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. )0. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. . 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. z3. 24. 25.