Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUT] n U Zoning Board of Ac CITY OF COLLEGE STt~ May 4, 199:, 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Baker, Members Sawtelle, DeOtte, Gaston and Birdwell. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members DeLoach, Phinney, Rife and McKean. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Assistant City Attorney Rayner and Development Coordinator Volk. 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 Apri127, 1993. Mr. Birdwell moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 27, 1993 as written. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to the side street setback requirements for a garage to allow for the construction of a new home at 8412 Wildewood Circle; lot 7, block 12 of Emerald Forest Phase 8 Subdivision Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that a stop work order has been placed on the subject property after previous issuance of a building permit. It appears that the permit was signed in error. The facts leading up to this request is as follows: (1) Building permit issued on March 29, 1993. (2) Applicant Don Sprague contacted staff on April 21, 1993 after having heard from the developer of the subdivision that there is an additional setback requirement for garages that face side streets. He informed staff that he was ready to set the forms for the foundation of the slab and that he has already closed on the lot. Staff found that the building permit had been issued even though the garage met only a 15' side street setback instead of the required 20' for garages facing side streets. (3) Staff contacted the legal department and was told that although a permit had been issued, the City is not required to allow construction in violation of setback requirements. Staff was advised to issue a stop work order, which was issued on April 22, 1993. . Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the applicant is requesting an 18' setback instead of the required 20'. The intent of the ordinance, to ensure adequate parking for vehicles left on the driveway, is met in this case because it is the corner of the garage that encroaches. The driveway itself is at least 20' long. Applicant Don Sprague approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that the variance request meets the intent of the ordinance. Architect Chad Grauke approached the Board and presented a revised site plan of the subject property. He stated the original site plan was incorrect in that the side setback line opposite the side of the variance request is wrong. The opposite side of the building is on the side setback line • and cannot be altered. Mr. Grauke stated that a driveway cannot enter from Wildewood Circle due to an existing drainage inlet. The proposed encroachment is only for one corner of the building and cars will still be able to park in the proposed driveway. Mr. Sprague explained that if the garage is altered, the entire house would need to be redesigned due to the location of a staircase, the covered drive and the recreation room. Mr. Birdwell moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638, to the minimum side street setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: the garage is skewed to the street, as a result, a short driveway exists on one side only; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being additional delay and changes in the proposed plan; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the house should be moved to the minimum side setback on the side opposite the drive. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion. Mr. Gaston expressed concern of the hardship listed in the motion. He stated that the lack of options with respect to the existing drainage inlet could be a hardship; however, the hardship listed in the motion is purely financial. Mr. Birdwell withdrew his original motion of approval and Mr. DeOtte agreed to withdraw his second to the motion. Mr. Birdwell moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638, to the minimum side setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: the garage is skewed to the street, as a • result, a short driveway exists on one side only; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being the existing drainage curb inlet blocks all reasonable alternatives except total redesign; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the house should be moved to the minimum side setback on the side opposite the drive. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Mr. Birdwell suggested that the applicant have a surveyor mark the actual field locations prior to construction. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request by Knowledge Based S~+stems to the sign requirements to allow for a second freestanding sign at 1408 University Drive East. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow an additional freestanding sign at 1408 University Drive East. The subject property is allowed one sign per building plot at a maximum height of 10' and a maximum area of 100 square feet. The applicant proposes to keep the existing wall sign and place a new sign that will be 18 square feet in area with a height of 4'. This case is coming to the Board because staff conditioned a sign permit for the new sign upon removal of the existing wall sign. The applicant argues that the wall sign can only be taken down if the entire wall is removed. Otherwise, she believes that when the lettering is removed, it will be evident that there had been a sign on that wall. The applicant argues that clients have trouble realizing they have reached their intended destination once they have pulled into the parking lot. An alternative could be advertising for the office building's tenants on a single consolidated sign. The sign may be placed such that it is visible once clients have entered the courtyard. If the sign is not visible from the street, it would be considered exempt from sign restrictions. In February of 1984, the Board granted a variance to the wall sign. At that time, the ordinance did not allow detached signs in an A-P district (the ordinance has been revised to allow one freestanding sign). The Board interpreted all wall signs to be freestanding signs. A variance was granted however, because in this particular case, the wall sign gives the appearance of an attached sign due to the architectural style of the building. Nine surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry. ZBA Minutes May 4, 1993 Page 2 Applicant Paula DeWitte approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. She stated that the proposed lettering would not fit on the existing wall and be seen from University • Drive. The existing sign cannot be removed due to the weathering of the brick and the difference in color. The proposed sign matches the signage of the adjacent buildings and would direct traffic to the front door, which is located on the side of the building. Ms. DeWitte submitted pictures of the signage adjacent to the east of the subject property. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that the adjacent property did have a sign variance to allow the existing sign. The second sign shown in the photographs is an address sign attached to the building which is allowed by the current ordinance. Mr. Gaston suggested an identification sign attached to the side of the building, to direct traffic to the front door. This alternative would not require a variance. Mr. Birdwell suggested that the sign lettering be placed on the existing wall, and an address sign be installed to help with identification. Ms. DeWitte stated that neither option would fit in with the professional image of the business. Mr. DeOtte stated that he sees a desire to have an additional sign; however, there is not a hardship or a special condition. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny a variance to the sign regulations from section 12, ordinance number 1638, from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the city and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). • AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a variance request by Mariott Homes to the rear setback requirements to allow for the construction of a new home at 3512 Regal Row. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he would remove himself from consideration of this item due to a close relationship with the owners. Chairperson Baker informed the applicant that since only four members would be able to consider the variance request, a unanimous vote in favor of the variance would be needed. Chairperson Baker stated that the item could be tabled until the next available meeting to allow five voting members to be present. Mr. Mariott stated that he would prefer that the case be considered tonight; however, if the variance is denied, he would like to come back before the Board as soon as five members are available. Chairperson Baker agreed and continued with the agenda item. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that although the lot meets minimum lot size requirements of the R-1 district, it does not meet the minimum dimensions of a 50' x 100' lot. In comparison to other lots in the area, this lot has the least amount of land. In addition, the ten foot easement on the west side reduces the buildable area by an additional 300 square feet (easements on other lots are outside of the buildable area and therefore do not further encumber those lots). The developer has placed an 1800 square foot minimum on all homes to be built in this area. The applicant argues that this lot will not accommodate this size. The Board has approved • rear setback variances in the past when the lot has an unusually small back yard, and/or when the lot abuts an area such as a park or wide easement that ensures that the intent of the ordinance (a minimum total separation of 50' between buildings) will be met. Eight surrounding property owners were notified with no response. ZBA Minutes May 4, 1993 Page 3 Larry Mariott approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that the similar sized lot on the opposite side of the subject lot is developed; however, that lot does not have the curve radius that is creating the problem on the subject lot. Mr. Mariott stated that a two story • home was considered for this lot to meet the square footage requirements; however, a two story home would not be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. If the variance request is not granted, the square footage requirements set forth in the deed restrictions cannot be met. Mr. Mariott concluded that the entire subdivision is a redevelopment of the original plan. When the Myrad company took over the property, the infrastructure was existing; however, the lots were too small for single family development. This is probably why the subject lot does not meet current lot dimension requirements. Mr. Gaston stated that the side yard setback has been increased due to the drainage easement. The drainage easement is probably there due to apre-existing condition of the original development. The applicant would not need a variance if the 10' easement was not in place. Mr. DeOtte stated that the redevelopment of the property with existing infrastructure is a unique and special condition. Mr. DeOtte moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: apre-existing drainage easement prevents making full use of the normal side setback and minimum lot depth does not meet requirements; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to develop property consistent with neighborhood standards; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the rear setback will be 20'. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0); Mr. Sawtelle abstained. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business. There was no other business. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Sawtelle moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPRO ai erson, Gle a aker A P ann ng Tec mcian, atalie Thomas • ZBA Minutes May 4, 1993 Page 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment • Guest Register Date ! Name Address 2. ~~~r~ ~ ~I~ ~- T ~~ ~ E T ~ ~~ ~~ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT r1 U FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 18, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.~ l t id h T bl A o w t ( a e ) V 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 special conditions: and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~ ~j,~~ ~~,/~~/~~ ,~~~%' ~~~~~ ~/ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: /~,~ ~~ ~~T ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~~-I l/z~ Motion made by Seconded by _ Chair Sicmatur~ Date Voting Results ~~ ~~~ v~~ssaooc ~ • ZONII~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN'P FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. . • ~ . Motion made by _ ~ c ~ ~-a-w-7~~ Motion Seconded by ~j ~ -~.., j - ~„ ~ r7'- ~ ~ Voting Results ~~' Chair Signature/ / Date ~ `7 ` ~l sxewsss.DOc • ZONII~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTN~N'P • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.~ 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 special conditions: • R llv~- errs ~~u ~ ~7ys~<hR e ~ ~ ~<-~ ye s~ T S~1 //y.~1.C'i ~~ ~' ~~iip/ / ~ SL" c'~ 7 ~~° li or s~i~'/ and because a strict enforcement of provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~ ~ / ~ ,i > i ~' s~~ /19i`.~ fir//// ~~' z~ • Motion made by o ~ E Seconded by ~~ ~~ S ~~ !~( Chair Signature Date Voting Results ~ ~~ u.~i sss.DOc MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 1, 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Baker, Members Sawtelle, Gaston and Birdwell. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member DeOtte and Alternate Members Deloach, Phinney, Rife and McKean. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel and Assistant City Attorney Rayner. 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 May 4, 1993. • Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of May 4, 1993 as written. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request by Lonnie Stabler to the sign regulations to allow a low profile sign at 209 University Drive East. This variance request was withdrawn prior to the meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request by Lonnie Stabler to the sign regulations to alter the existing nonconforming sign at 317 College Avenue. Chairperson Baker informed the property owners and the applicant that since only four Board members were present, it would take a unanimous vote to grant the variance request. The applicant has the right to have all five members present and the Board could table this item until the next available meeting. The applicant agreed to allow the Board to consider the variance request with the four members present. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the subject site currently has five freestanding signs where only three would be allowed by variance. In 1990, the Board granted a variance to the Mr. Gatti's sign to allow its replacement. In 1992, the Board granted a variance to allow the replacement of the Jewel Osco sign with the Albertson's sign. The site is therefore allowed three signs, one by ordinance and two by variance. The site was platted and built long before most of the current ordinance restrictions. In terms of signage, the site used to have seven freestanding signs, one of which was a spectacular sign. In the past, nonconforming signs were • replaceable through the "special exception" process, which is no longer an available option for these cases. All nonconforming signs must now obtain a variance to allow their continuation upon application for a sign permit. The site has shown a slow trend toward compliance. The spectacular sign for the drive through building at Mr. Gatti's became smaller and its moving parts were removed in 1979. Some time during the 1980's, that sign was removed, but the sign poles remained. In 1990, Mr. Gatti's applied for a variance to use the existing poles for a new sign, with the agreement to remove the existing freestanding sign at the main building. This request was approved with the condition that the sign height and area would have to comply with the ordinance. In 1991, • Jewel Osco took over Skaggs and wanted to replace the sign cans. At that time, Skaggs had two freestanding signs, one on University Drive and one on College Main. Jewel Osco decided to replace the two signs with a single one on College Main, thereby reducing the number of signs on the building plot from six to five. The new sign complies with height and area restrictions. Without a variance, the applicants may replace the face of the existing nonconforming sign but not the entire can. Four surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Applicant Lonnie Stabler approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He stated that the proposed sign would help reduce the clutter of the shopping center. The existing taller sign is not desirable because it is not clearly visible by traffic along College Main due to the height. By reducing the size of the existing sign, the traffic will be able to see the reader board more clearly. Mr. Stabler informed the Board that he is also working with representatives from the cinema to redesign their existing sign. The cinema sign is too close to the feeder road of College Main and to the overhead utility lines. Ideally, the owner of the shopping center should provide one sign for the entire shopping center to use; however, in this particular situation, the owner is not willing to pay for the sign and the tenants do not want to give up control of their individual signs. Mr. Sawtelle stated that this is an opportunity to correct the overall nonconformity of the shopping center and have the owner work with the tenants on a solution. Mr. Gaston informed the Board that he is not opposed to the variance request; however, he would not favor any additional variance requests for the shopping center. Mr. Birdwell stated that in this case, he does not feel the property owner will work with the tenants on resolving the situation and the applicant should not be delayed any further. Mr. Birdwell moved to authorize a variance from section 12, ordinance number 1638, 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: an old shopping center with multiple signs; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: continued use of an old sign that is bigger and less effective; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served: the sign will be 3' shorter with 114 square feet. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Sawtelle moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). A ~. • P ng Technician, at lie omas APP // .. / .U~ Chairperson, a aker ZBA Minutes .Tune 1, 1993 Page 2 ZONING BOARD OF ADjUSTN1ENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION J Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 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 s ecial conditions not generally found within the Ciry: - ©L-Cl. ~,~~p`ii~/~ ~~ /191f1.T/~',~ ~~ ~T i,~ ) 1 n 1 I~ v s~ ' 1~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: ~ and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served Motion made by ~~= /~~~ Motion Seconded by ~)~~~ Voting Results Chair Signature Date • SRP1638.DOC