Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/1998 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES . Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 3, 1998 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexander, Blackwelder, Warren, Hill, Taggart MEMBERS ABSENT: Hollas, Alternate Members Pyrtle and Hill STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Battle, Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, Assistant City Attorney Robinson, Staff Assistant Grace AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board Acting Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from meeting November 18,1998 • Board Member Blackwelder made the motion to approve minutes as written. Board Member Hill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a variance request to the side setback requirement at 927 Grand Oaks Subdivision. The applicant is David Scarmardo. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a 1.5' variance to the rear setback in order to legitimize an existing encroachment and clear the title. The applicant states that he thought he was in compliance with the setback requirements when construction began. It was not until after the structure was in place that the encroachment was discovered. The applicant also states that the lot is irregular shaped and that a different measurement method was used. The applicant further added that the existing encroachment could hinder the sale of the home. Ms. Warren asked if the encroachment is something a city inspector should have caught before the foundation was poured. Staff Planner Battle responded that typically the inspectors are supposed to measure and if he had to speculate they may have only measured to the wall of the building and not to the bay window and therefore missed the extension. Mr. Battle further added that the ultimate responsibility is on the builder to meet all setback requirements. Acting Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of ~ the request. • Resident Tom Auginbaugh of 1036 Rose Circle approached the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Alexander. Mr. Aughinbaugh stated his lot is directly behind the subject property and he is in • favor of the variance. He states that he is most pleased with the development that Mr. Scarmardo has completed. He continued by saying that from his standpoint, it is just an error which happened that no one caught and it has no material affect upon his neighborhood or upon the neighborhood being developed. Mr. Aughinbaugh asked the Boazd to approve Mr. Scarmardo's variance request. There was discussion among the Board Members concerning what the hardship would be. Applicant David Scarmardo approached the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Alexander. Board member Taggart explained to Mr. Scarmardo that the law requires the Board to find a hardship other than a financial one. The Board continued discussions. No one else approached the Board to speak in favor and there was no one present to speak in opposition to the variance request. Mr. Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Taggart moved to approve the variance which Ms. Warren seconded. The motion was then amended by Ms. Warren and seconded by Mr. Hill and the Board approved motion as amended (5-0). The positive motion as approved reads: Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. Variance to the minimum rear setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: The building line encroachment is trivial and is not capable of being viewed by anyone and will not damage public health, safety or welfare; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: The inability to close a real • estate transaction, or the possibility of delay due to same, the loss of light that would result from replacing a bay window with a window or door in line with the back wall of the house; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: The setback variance limited to 1.5'; specifically for the bay window. AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a variance request to the side set back requirement at 3009 Normand Drive, part of 23, block 23 of Southwood Valley Subdivision. The Applicant is Chuck Taylor. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to rectify an existing encroachment into the side setback for replatting and clear the title for future resale. Lot 23 is located on the corner of Normand Drive and Treehouse Trail. To. the northwest is Lot 22. At some time in the past, presumably the 1970's, a 6 ft. strip of property along the property line was sold from Lot 23 to Lot 22. This increased the width of Lot 22 by 6 ft., and decreased the width of Lot 23 by 6 ft. along its northwestern property line. At the same time a 6 ft. strip was exchanged from Lot 21 to Lot 22. These changes were never replatted and is considered an illegal subdivision. The applicant purchased Lot 23 after these exchanges were made. The involved property owners aze now trying to rectify this with amending the plat. Because the northwest property line of Lot 23 moved 6 ft., the existing garage is now within the required 7.5' side setback. The applicant is requesting a variance to the side setback to legalize this encroachment. The applicant states that he purchased the home in 1994 and was unawaze of the encroachment until a recent survey was done. The applicant also states that this will hinder his ability to do construction on the house and sell the house in the future. Since this is • the result of activity that occurred before his purchase of the property, this maybe an inherited hardship. Therefore the applicant is requesting a 2.1' variance to the required 7.5' side setback. ZBA Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 2 of 7 Acting Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. • The applicant Chuck Taylor approached the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Alexander. Mr. Taylor expressed his concerns when he found out about the encroachment. He stated that he had done extensive research using Brazos County records to research the history of his lot and that was when he discovered the divisions of the 3 lots. His research showed the divisions took place in 1971-72 and his house was built in 1976. Mr. Taylor discussed the hardships from this, saying it would be difficult in selling his house or refinancing it for a lower mortgage rate. He further added that he likes his house and does not plan to move. Ben Goswick of 3001 Longleaf approached the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Alexander. Mr. Goswick stated to the Board that he is dealing with a similar problem and may come before the Board himself. He told the Board that he worked as a carpenter's assistant in the 1970's and heard of other similar problems in Southwood Valley. He stated that Mr. Taylor's problem is a very minor problem compared to other problems he has seen and problems he himself is experiencing. No one else approached the Board to speak in favor and there was no one present to speak in opposition to the variance request. Acting Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Ms Warren moved to approve the variance which Mr. Blackwelder seconded. The motion was then amended by Ms. Warren and seconded by Mr. Blackwelder and the Board approved motion as amended (5-0). The positive motion as approved reads: • Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. Variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: This was an historical problem that occurred in the 1970's, possibly before the house was built; and because strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: A restriction of the applicant's ability to obtain a permit to remodel the dwelling; and on interference with the replatting process and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: 2.1' variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of sign variance to allow the erection of a second free standing sign at 1612 FM. The applicant is Bell Signs for Scholtzsky's Inc. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to the number of freestanding signs allowed on a building plot. The applicant wants to construct a freestanding sign. for a new restaurant being built at 1612 FM 2818. This property is part of the Southwood Plaza Shopping Center which includes seven lots. When shopping centers with several lots are platted, the Planning and Zoning Commission establishes building plots for the purpose of signage. The plat for this center sets lots 4A, 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G and 4H as one building plot. The Zoning Ordinance allows one freestanding sign per building plot in C-1 districts. Therefore this shopping center is required by ordinance to have one freestanding sign. One freestanding sign exists at this center, it is currently being used only by Albertson's. Also existing on the site are several businesses along Longmire and one business on a site along FM 2818 ~enerschnitzel) that do not have freestanding signs. • ZBA Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 3 oj7 The subdivision plat for the center was approved in 1990. Over the next several years, the City approved other plats for shopping centers, also with the provision that the centers be considered single • building plots for signage purposes. However, in more recently approved subdivisions, some out- parcels have been permitted an additional low profile sign. The applicant states that there would be poor visibility without the freestanding sign: The following alternatives have been identified: 1. It appears that the existing Albertson's sign is not the maximum size that would be allowed for this center. An additional sign could be placed on the same pole. 2. Use only attached signs on the building as other businesses at this location have done. 3. During recent platting, the P&Z has allowed out parcel sites to have a low profile sign. The Zoning Ordinance limits signage in order to prevent the "proliferation of signs [that] create commercial confusion and make it difficult for travelers to locate goods and services they seek." Ms. Warren asked for clarifications as to the entrance to Schlotzsky's. She referred to the site plan included in packet. The entrance as shown on drawing is from the Albertson's parking lot. Ms Warren asked in terms of traffic management, what would be the effect of an additional freestanding sign versus having the sign contained in the existing Albertson's expanded sign? Staff Planner Battle responded that the intent of the sign ordinance is to prevent a proliferation of signs and to reduce • confusion among motorist. There were discussions among the Board about the entrance and clarification of exhibits to the Albertson's letter. ., Acting Chairman Alexander open the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Larry Haskins, a local Real Estate Attorney representing Scholtzsky's approached the board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Alexander. He handed the Board Members excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance, as-built survey and the site plan that was submitted to the City for approval. Mr. Haskins referred to the access of the subject property. He told the Board that there is no access to the proposed Schlotzsky's other than through Albertson's parking lot as indicated on the site plan. He spoke of the vast expanse of area between the proposed building and the highway because there is no service road. Mr. Blackwelder asked where the existing Albertson's sign is located. Mr. Haskins pointed to it on the survey. Mr. Haskins spoke about the zoning ordinance requirement of signs needing to be 150 feet apart and the proposed sign would be 150 feet apart from the Albertson's and the Circle K signs. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Haskins if Scholtzsky's is built yet. Mr. Haskins responded that it is a proposed location and as part of the permitting process a site plan has to be prepared. Development Coordinator Ruiz stated that a building permit has been issued subject to the sign; however the sign will be permitted • separately. ZBA Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 4 of 7 Mr. Haskins handed the Board Members pictures of similar Schlotzsky's and described the nature of what it will look like when it is built. Mr. Haskins described the building as a very soft appearing • building that will have brick and siding. Mr. Haskins stated that normally the City would not have any problems approving this type of variance request because it does meet all the criteria, as far as spacing, size of the sign, distance from the right- of-way and all other requirements of the sign ordinance. Mr. Haskins made comment to the notes on the final plat "# 4" which states: For the purpose of signage lots- 4A, 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G & 4H are considered on one building plot. Lot 4B is a separate building plot. Mr. Haskins stated that they are asking in a way for a variance from the provisions stated on the plat because everything else they are asking for is contained within the sign ordinance and it does meet that criteria. Mr. Haskins made reference to the verbiage on the plat, as to plot, plats, and lots and it does not mention what the sign ordinance states as parcel. He added that with the exception of the existing one drive-way the site plan to him suggests it to be a single comprehensive project. Mr. Haskins gave examples of Olive Garden and Outback Steakhouse. He further described the properties of having no separation of property and that they all share the same parking lot. Mr. Haskins spoke of the definition of parcel. He said the proposed Schlotzsky's is it's own premises and it is not mentioned on the plat. There were discussions among the Board and Mr. Haskins concerning Albertson's allowing Schlotzsky's a place for a sign on their existing sign. Mr. Haskins spoke of the sites hardship of not having any direct street access. One hardship would be with the speed that vehicles travel on 2818, it is difficult to see Schlotzsky's without a freestanding sign. • He further stated that this site is also unique because it is totally isolated from any non-commercial property. Nlr. Haskins asked Staff Planner Battle if staff had received comments from anyone in opposition to this request. Mr. Battle replied there had been no one in opposition. Mr. Haskins stated that this could also be perceived as an inherited hardship because the original Developer who agreed to the sign restrictions is no longer around to assist with the current problems. Mr. Hill made a remark concerning Wienerschnitzel signage. He stated that he felt that they have been very effective in their visibility with the sign on their building and asked Mr. Haskins why Schlotzsky's could not achieve that same visibility. Mr. Haskins responded that he feels that would be successful, but to what degree. Mr. Haskins further added that Wienerschnitzel is closer to FM 2818 and they are not close to any other buildings as would Schlotzsky's. Mr. Taggart asked Mr. Haskins if they had submitted this through a normal sign request with staff? Mr. Haskins responded that staff did look at the situation and they were told by staff it did need a variance. There were discussions with Mr. Haskins and Mr. Taggart concerning the definition of "premise" Acting Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Battle to clarify. Mr. Battle responded by saying that in the Zoning Ordinance, building plot and premise share the same definition which follows: "All of the land within a project, whether one or more lots, developed according to a common plan or design • ZBA Minutes February 3, 1998 Page S oj7 for similar or compatible uses, which singularly ar in phases is treated as such for site plan review purposes". The determination of the boundaries of a building plot shall be made as the first step in the site plan or project review, unless such determination has previously been made at the time of plat • approval. For development not subject to site plan review, the building plot or premises shall be the exterior boundary of any included lots, in the event that the structure is built upon more than one lot. Mr. Haskins stated that he would say that would be true if you had a situation like Target where it is not a separate project. He reiterated that this is very much a separate project, the parking lot is not being shared. Acting Chairman Alexander stated that he takes an exception to the subjective comment about Wienerschnitzel's visibility and their success without a freestanding sign. He continued by saying that Wienerschnitzel has obtained the highest visibility possible by ordinance to make them successful. Mr. Hill stated that he drives by the site frequently and in his opinion, they do have good visibility. Mr. Hill feels that there will not be any obstructions from 2818 and Texas Avenue for the subject property. Ms. Warren asked the question, if Schlotzsky's was granted this variance, would this set a precedence? Mr. Battle responded that in this particular shopping center, you have a whole row of businesses, as well as other shopping centers throughout the city under this ordinance, that have to abide by these rules. Additional variance requests by the other property owners is a good possibility. Mr. Blackwelder discussed the feasibility of using a roof sign. Mr. Battle replied that attached signs are not regulated by size; however roof signs are prohibited. • Acting Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Battle about the dead end service road which runs in front of Circle K. Mr. Battle replied that it is in the states right-of--way and from what he understood, the road is not planned to expand at this time. Acting Chairman Alexander asked if it should ever go forward, would the location of the proposed sign ever present further problems as far as proximity to the service road? Mr. Battle responded that the height of the sign is based on the distance from the street and in cases where there is a frontage road it would be measured from the main street. Mr. Battle gave the example of the Sonic on Texas Avenue. In this particular case if the road was to ever go through it would be measured from 2818. There were further discussions among the Board Members on the interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Haskin's summation was that if the provision on the plat did change the sign requirements and the unique conditions of the site, then it would warrant a variance from the ordinance . Larry Gutherie, Construction Manager for Scholtzsky's approached the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Alexander. He offered the Board background information on the subject property. He stated that the seller of this lot is not affiliated with Albertson's and the lot has changed ownership. That was the reason Schlotzsky's went to Albertson's and asked for the possibility of having a sign on the existing Albertson's sign. ZBA Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 6 of 7 The representative they spoke with at Albertson's said they did not want another sign attached to theirs, but would not be adverse for Scholtzsky's to have their own sign on their own property. The seller • further added that he did not see why there would be a problem getting a variance. Mr. Gutherie said the seller my have misled them in that statement but that they are just trying to sell the property. Mr: Gutherie further stated that the sale of the subject property is still pending, however, whether they close the sale is not depending on this variance. He continued by saying that they like the College Station area and this is just an effort to increase their visibility. No one else approached the Board to speak in favor and there was no one present to speak in opposition to the variance request. Acting Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny the request which Mr. Blackwelder seconded. Voting results (4-1) with Mr. Alexander voting against the negative. The negative motion reads: Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. Motion 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: another business in the immediate area has achieved good visibility without the use of a freestanding sign 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 of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business. • Mr. Blackwelder wanted it stated for the record that there is no screening on the store building at the Longmire Day Care Center. He added that the Board has talked about this several times. Development Coordinator Ruiz stated that the bushes have been there for several months; however, they are just tiny and have not grown yet. AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Adjourn Ms. Warren made the motion to adjourn and it was seconded by Acting Chairman Alexander which passed unopposed (5-0). APPROVED: f I .~ l Chairman, Stephen Hollas ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Debor Grace • ZBA Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 7 of 7 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) 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: ~~ ~ ~. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: would result in v1 `{""~- 61055 (^~l (l ( / ~ o -~ ot'~ C a-y ~"`~ - P~ &6V/ti-~ r a`fid such that the spirit of this orvd~nanc~ shall be observed and substantial ~usti~ done subject to the following limitations: ~~(~'lc~ Motion made by l~ Date Seconded by J2~'~- CJ Voting Results 5 25 ~ K C> Chair Signa ~ C'r' - -V ~ C ~~ l~ ~ i~ v.~lsss.ooc ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSPI'IVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yazd (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) l~minimum setback pazking requirements (Section 9) . `~ ~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~ 7~ i r/Y1 l r~/n©~~ ~ ~cve~~:~ J /laL' Q' n r`y~~'e1~~-e~y~c ~ ~.l} t1`l1 ~h~ ~^e pl~~~y ~ac ~~S ~1 and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by (~~ Date 3 ~~~ l ~~8 Seconded by ~i'~pNZ/~G~gOCiy~ Voting Results Chair from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: ~ ~ r, N~ c N~ ~~ v,~,s38.~oc ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENP 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: ~"f h0 ~lnpr bus,n QSS i ~~ P ~cH~ ed'•~a 1~N Qr~og ~QS ac~i, eved 944d' V~S,rD~I~.,~Y ~~~d~w~~C~~~~~fplQ~ W,~7'~LiOU f ~~tN G[Se ©~` a 00~ ~ e Q Sfg~d~yl9 S~9n. 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. ~ y~ -~ Motion made by ~ PS ~~ e U• /~' Motion Seconded by c ~ d~C. IJ 1 aGt~~(~ Voting Results Chair Signa \ ~'~, J Date -'3 '~~ SRN1638.DOC • Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register _ _ a Date ~ -\~ Name Address Z. 3. 4. S. . 6. 7. 8. 9. ~~ 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.