Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1994 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 1, 1994 7:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Sawtelle, Poston, Rife, Hollas and Alternate Member Blackwelder. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Birdwell, and Alternate Members Ochoa and Alexander. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn and Assistant City Attorney Sexton. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Mr. Sawtelle 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 October 18, 1994. Mr. Hollas moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of October 18, 1994 as written. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a variance request to the front setback requirements for the proposed Texas Aggie Credit Union located at 501 University Drive in the Northgate zoning district. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum building setback of 10' from the front property line for buildings in the Northgate District. The applicant wishes to remove the existing "Pizza Hut" canopy and replace it with a more authentic cable supported canopy design which was common for most commercial buildings of the early 1900's. Both the existing and the proposed canopies would encroach 5' into the front setback. The removal of the existing canopy will cause the structure to lose its non conforming status, thereby requiring a variance to construct the new canopy in the same area of encroachment. The applicant claims that the following are special conditions which require a variance from the terms of this ordinance: (1) protection from inclement weather; (2) historical nature of Northgate; and, (3) architectural inappropriateness of existing canopy. • The applicant has also identified two alternatives of either keeping the old canopy or removing the old canopy without replacement. The building face is exactly 10' from the front property line. Therefore, no smaller sized canopy can be constructed without a variance. In general, front setbacks are required to get structures on the properties away from street rights-of--way. It has been the policy of staff to require canopies and other roof structures to meet minimum building setbacks. However, this particular standard in the Northgate District was originally intended to apply primarily to the setback of the building face to allow for pedestrian circulation and minimal landscaping or streetscaping features. Staff Planner Dunn informed the Board that on April 21, 1981, the Board granted a variance to the parking requirements relative to the property's previous C-1 General Commercial designation. • In 1986, the property was given the new CNG Commercial Northgate designation which contained more flexible parking standards. In the early 1980's, several front setback variances were granted for buildings in the Northgate area. However, all of these were variances to the 25' front setback as required under the previous C-1 General Commercial designation. Nine surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing Applicant Brett Cumpton of 3715 Ravenwood in Bryan approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He stated that the facade of the building will be improved with the proposed canopy and preserve some of the historical aspects of that building. Mr. Cumpton showed pictures of other facades in the Northgate area, many with a greater encroachment into the setback area. The comment in the application with respect to the highway department right-of- way is for informational purposes only. The property owner is not interested in purchasing that property back from the highway department. Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. He stated that the intent of the ordinance is to address the face of the building in this particular area. A canopy will enhance the pedestrian traffic in the area, not restrict it. Mr. Rife expressed concern that without a canopy, patrons using the Automatic Teller Machine will not have protection from the weather. He 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: the credit union's heavy reliance of walk-up and pedestrian traffic and the historical nature of the area; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary • hardship to this applicant being: the unusually small area available to fully develop the property to achieve the highest and best possible use; an such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the canopy be limited to 5' from the face of the building. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a variance request to the minimum lot size requirements of lots 24 and 25, block 1 of the Cooner Addition, 503 and 505 Cooner. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and stated that the request is a variance to the minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the construction of four duplexes (eight dwelling units) on two lots. The Zoning Ordinance allows more than one principal structure to be built on a lot if all setback requirements can be met. These lots have enough depth to be able to fit two duplex buildings and two front and rear setbacks on each lot. However, the ordinance also requires a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit for R-2 Duplex Residential districts, as long as all off-street parking is provided in the rear. Because four units are proposed on each lot, the total area of each lot needs to be 12,000 square feet to meet the ordinance. The lots are 11,687.5 square feet each, or 312.5 square feet too small for the number of units proposed. This proposal would require a variance of approximately 2.6 percent. The applicant claims that the blanket easement and the electrical line location are special conditions which require a variance from the terms of the ordinance. The blanket easement allows the City to alter any portion of the property in order to service the lines. The applicant and staff have identified the following alternatives: (1) construct one duplex on each lot; or, • (2) construct one single family house (as long as it meets the minimum yard requirements) and one duplex on each lot. ZBA Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 2 of 4 Staff Planner Dunn stated that the minimum square footage requirements usually allow for some • degree of control over population density and access to light and area. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. On February 14, 1976, the Board granted a variance to the minimum lot width requirement (which was at the time 60') for the property located on 408 Cooner Street to allow for the construction of a duplex. The variance was granted with the condition that the "existing zoning ordinance did not take older parts of town into consideration". Sixteen surrounding property owners were notified with one call in opposition to the request. Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing Applicant Jay Burch of 4309 Warwick in Bryan approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He informed the Board that the proposed development would improve the neighborhood and provide access to the existing electrical lines through the proposed entrance drive. Mr. Burch stated that he has met with staff and can fit the required sixteen parking spaces on the site with the proposed duplexes. The parking will be located under the existing power lines between the two sets of duplexes. He stated that the duplexes will consist of one and two bedroom units and target the student market. Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. He expressed concern with respect to equity in the area if the variance was granted. Even though the variance request is small in nature, the existing neighborhood is substandard as far as streets and drainage are concerned. Mr. Rife stated that he has a problem granting the variance since the intent of the ordinance is to control population density. The existing neighborhood is already crowded and additional units will only add to the problem. Limited access due to the dead end of Cooner Street is also a problem in the area. Mr. Rife stated that if the variance is granted, the spirit of the ordinance will not be preserved. He moved to deny a variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum area requirements per dwelling unit 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. Sawtelle seconded the motion which failed (2 - 3); Mr. Sawtelle and Mr. Rife voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hollas stated that the alternative to not granting a variance could be worse that the proposed eight dwelling units. The applicant could build a larger duplex on each lot and a larger single family dwelling so that more total living area would be allowed without a variance. Ms. Poston stated that new construction in the neighborhood may actually improve the area. She stated that she would like more information on the actual layout of the duplexes. Mr. Rife moved to table the variance request until a site plan can be presented showing the required parking and setbacks. Ms. Poston seconded the motion. Mr. Sawtelle stated that the site plan will be required at the time of building permit. The applicant is asking for a specific variance to the minimum area requirements only. The site plan will be reviewed by staff and has no bearing on the subject variance request. There are no hardships in this particular case and the applicant is able to develop the property without a variance. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that the Board cannot tie the variance request to a specific site plan or limit the number of bedrooms because the Board would be limiting the rights • that the applicant has without a variance. ZBA Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 3 of 4 • • Assistant City Attorney Sexton stated that the Board cannot attach a condition that is not immediately tied to the variance itself or a "taking" issue could be considered. The motion to table the request failed (0 - 5). Mr. Rife introduced his original motion to deny the variance request from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum area requirements per dwelling unit 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. Poston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business. Mr. Rife expressed concern that the property located across the street from 503 and 505 Cooner still has some code violations that have not been resolved. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that she will report back to the Board at the next meeting on the status of this case. Code enforcement proceedings had been put on hold because the applicant was in the process of getting site plan approval and building permits; however, nothing has been issued to date. Staff Planner Kuenzel also informed the Board that a legal workshop will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994 at 5:30 in the City Hall Training Room. The regular Board meeting will begin at 7:00 on that day. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn. Mr. Blackwelder moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPROV iG~ , Chairman, Dick Birdwell • T Pl nn g echnician, Natalie homas ZBA Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 4 of 4 i~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN'P FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) .minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) ~~ ~t ~wtu wt o~. v~ ea ~ v K ~ ~ 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. `~~L Date 1 Motion made by - ~ Seconded by ~ ~ Voting Results -~ Y~~ Chair Signature s ~O 2 n a~ --~w.--ems ~ , ~, vv3tvi sss.DOc • Zoning Board of Adjustment [. ~~ LJ Guest Register Date ~° ~ t -' / Name _. Address ~, 1. ~ ~~ ~ ~ c,~~-~l ~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.