Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1994 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS May 3, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Birdwell, Members Gaston, Sawtelle, Rife and Alternate Member Hollas. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member DeOtte and Alternate Members McKean and Poston. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Birdwell called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a variance request to the minimum lot dimension requirements for lot 6, 7 and 8 of block 5 of the Cooner Addition to allow • for the construction of three duplex buildings. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the property meets the minimum front lot dimension for an R-2 development. The depth of 152' exceeds the minimum 100'; therefore, it is only the front dimension that is not in compliance. The depth and minimum lot size are m compliance with R-2. The frontage required is 70' (35' per unit in an R-2 district) and the frontage proposed is 62.5' (for a total variance of 7.5'). The subdivision was platted around the time of the City's incorporation. The current zoning ordinance requires a minimum front lot dimension of 70' for a duplex lot, which can be reduced to 60' if the lot has approved rear access. The subject lots cannot obtain access to the rear. Although the subject property is zoned R-2, it cannot be used for duplexes because of the lot dimension restrictions. Thirteen surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry about the code violations on the site. Their concern was storing of construction materials on the property. There are two buildings that were placed on the lots without bldg permits that are currently being used for storage. The construction materials will be removed from the property either by code enforcement or with new construction. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing Applicant Ralph Girlinghouse of 1616 Jim Mathis Road in Bryan approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He explained that the proposed buildings will meet the setback requirements; however, the dimension of the lot does not meet the ordinance requirements. If a variance is not granted, the only structure that can be built is a single family home. • Merlene Carter of 508 Cooner approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. She stated that she is not against forward progress in the neighborhood; however, with the proposed duplexes, the traffic in the area will only increase. Currently, there is not a turnaround at the end of Cooner and traffic would have to either pull into a driveway or back up to get out of the dead end street. Scott Raisor or 3403 Regal Row approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that his father Harry Raisor owns the property directly across the • street from the subject tract. Mr. Raisor requested that the item be tabled for a week to allow the property owner time to put together information on the numerous unresolved code violations on the property. There are currently construction materials being stored on the site. Cooner Street is an extremely narrow street that does not meet current standards and does not provide a turnaround at the end of the street. In the past several years, much work has been done to help clean up the neighborhood. The owner should not be rewarded with a variance to current ordinance requirements after the history of code violations on the property. Michelle Raisor of 505 Cooner approached the Commission and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. She stated that she has lived across the street from the subject property since 1980. When Mr. Santini originally purchased the vacant property, his plans were to build a home for his family. Instead, he built two storage buildings without a permit and stores various construction material including two campers, a trailer, a recreational vehicle, a tar machine and various junk vehicles for months at a time. Cooner Street is substandard with no curbs and gutters, adequate width or turnaround. Marvin Martin of 8600 Fern Court approached the Commission and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He informed the Board that the property at 507 Cooner will be sold in a tax sale this month and the future owner may have some concerns with the proposed development. Mr. Martin stated that he is concerned with the condition of Cooner Street and the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. • Mr. Sawtelle moved to delay action on the variance request until the property owner brings the property into compliance with current City codes. Many people in the neighborhood have expressed concern with the current condition of the property. If the variance request is denied, the property may remain in the same condition. The motion to delay action failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Rife stated that the code violations on the property should be an enforcement issue. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is not the vehicle to enforce current City codes. Mr. Sawtelle stated that the problem has been an enforcement issue for sometime and nothing has been resolved. He explained that he is trying to set up the situation where the contractor will work with the property owner to get the property cleaned up. The Zoning Board could provide some sort of incentive to bring the property up to code. The Board could send out a message that property owners must clean up their properties before they can apply for a variance. Mr. Gaston moved to deny a variance from Ordinance number 1638 to the lot width requirements in Table A 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. Chairman Birdwell seconded the motion. Mr. Gaston stated that there is no hardship in this particular case. The property owner has many alternatives available and there is nothing that would prohibit him from . building a single family home or replatting the property. There is also the issue of congestion in the neighborhood. Cooner Street is not built to facilitate the additional traffic and there is no turnaround at the end of the street. ZBA Minutes May 3, 1994 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Rife agreed that there is a problem with congestion in the area and that there is no basis for a variance. • The motion to deny the variance request passed (4 - 1); Mr. Sawtelle voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Sawtelle requested that staff keep the Board informed at each meeting of the status of the code enforcement on the subject property. He stated that he wants to see how long it takes to bring the property up to code. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to the setback requirements of the sign regulations to allow for the location of two new subdivision identification signs at the corner of Victoria and Shire Drive. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report. There are two physical aspects of the land that might be considered special conditions, the topography and the landscaping that was provided to meet Streetscaping requirements. The applicants argue that meeting the ordinance would result in the relocation of required trees and perhaps in the grading of one side of the intersection. Setbacks for most signs in the City are measured at 10' back from the right-of-way, or property line, to ensure that signs are located on private property and to ensure adequate sight clearance. Eight surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Mr. Gaston questioned staff as to the other subdivision identification signs built by the applicants. Were the same standards in effect when those signs were constructed? Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the requirements have been in effect since 1972. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Dan Bensimon of Myrad Real Estate approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that the proposed identification signs will compliment the additional landscaping installed to comply with the Streetscape guidelines recently adopted by the City. There are several hardships in this case that support the proposed setback: (1) The existing topography of the land on the northwest corner of Shire and Victoria creates a berm which would cause the sign to stick out further than the existing signs. (2) The proposed setback would allow for the sign on the northwest corner to be located exactly the same as the sign on the southwest corner and blend in with the existing subdivision signs across Victoria and other streetscape features. (3) The developer is voluntarily complying with the Streetscape requirements and installing an irrigation system to maintain the vegetation. If the variance request is not granted, the meter box for the existing irrigation system must be removed in order to relocate the subdivision sign. Mr. Bensimon explained that the proposed subdivision signs are to give the neighborhood a community feel and make the residents feel more at home. The sign is not to advertise or market the lots and the subdivision lots are completely sold out. • There was an error made when the architect originally designed the site plan in that he did not take the topography of the land into account. If a variance is not granted, the subdivision sign may not be built because it will look out of place with the surrounding streetscape. ZBA Minutes May 3, 1994 Page 3 of 4 Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. • Mr. Rife stated that the existing berm is a possible hardship; however, the real hardship seems to be the relocation of the existing irrigation system. Chairman Birdwell stated that the developer is planting a row of junipers along the property line of Victoria that will grow to be very large. This row of vegetation is being installed at the request of the City with the recently adopted Streetscape Plan. With the proposed variance request, the sign would be more in lme with that row of vegetation and blend in better with the streetscape. Mr. Gaston moved to deny a variance to the sign regulations of Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements 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. Hollas seconded the motion. Mr. Gaston stated that the ordinance requirements were clear and in place prior to the design of the proposed subdivision sign. The developer has followed these regulations in the past and there seem to be no other hardships in this case that are not self imposed. The motion to deny the variance request passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business. There was no other business. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn. Mr. Sawtelle moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPRO D: L hairman, Dick Birdwell Plan ing echnician, Natalie Thomas • ZBA Minutes May 3, 1994 Page 4 of 4 .~ • ZONIIJG BOARD OF ADJUSTNIEriT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.Z) ,% 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 ~ ~l ~'J-I ~' ~ ~~~~ Seconded by ~` "~~ Voting Results ~_ Chair Signature v~ruvrssa.DOc