Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1996 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. • • MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Sawtelle, Members Rife, Alexander, Blackwelder and Hollas. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Poston and Alternate Member Ochoa. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds, Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer and Development Coordinator Volk. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Mr. Sawtelle called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of June 4,1996. Mr. Blackwelder moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 4, 1996 as written. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a rear setback variance request and sign variance request for the Longmire Learning Center at 2718 Longmire Drive in the Southwood Valley Section 5-A Subdivision. Applicant is Vicki L. Gibson, Ph.D. Mr. Sawtelle stated that the Board will hear the staff report and consider the two variance requests separately. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report for the rear setback variance to allow the existing storage building to remain in its current location. The subject property was recently developed in accordance with current site plan requirements as approved by the Project Review Committee on January 3, 1996. At the time of approval, the site plan reflected only the 4,960 square foot learning center, which was constructed within the required building setbacks. However, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, it was determined by the applicant that additional space was needed on the site for storage. Thus, a 288 square foot portable building was obtained for placement on the site. The applicant had originally placed the storage building in the right side yard, within the required 15' building setback. However, the applicant states that she was told by an inspector that the building needed to be placed in the rear of the lot to minimize visibility from Longmire Drive. The applicant then had the building moved to the present location along the rear property line, as shown on the enclosed site plan. Due to the expense in relocating the building, the certificate of occupancy was issued with the condition that variance be sought to rectify the rear setback encroachment. Staff Planner Dunn stated that in order to rectify the existing encroachment, the applicant is requesting a variance of 15 feet to the required 15' rear setback. As shown on the site plan, a drainage & utility • access right-of--way runs along the rear of the property, which insures that no adjacent structure will be built within 70 feet of the rear of the building. The applicant feels that there is also a lack of buildable area in the rear of the lot. The applicant offers the following hardships: Relocation of the portable building would require the removal of the existing fence, and possibly some existing trees, depending on the area chosen within building setbacks. 2. Other locations within building setbacks are more visible from Longmire Drive, and therefore conflict with streetscape standards. Staff Planner Dunn stated that the following alternatives to the variance have been identified: Move building back to right side yard area within required building setbacks. As mentioned above, the applicant prefers to minimize visibility of the building from Longmire Drive. 2. Move building into rear corner or left side yard areas. These areas are also not preferred due to the location of existing trees and increased visibility from the street, as well as a reduction in outdoor child play areas. Staff Planner Dunn stated that approximately fifteen surrounding property owners were notified of the • request with several responses received from occupants of the adjacent office buildings who are in opposition to the current placement and appearance of the portable building. Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing to discuss the proposed setback variance. Applicant Vicki Gibson of 1021 Muirfield Village approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. She stated that there was a misunderstanding between the contractor and herself with respect to the building permit for the storage building. When the building was moved over from the existing site in Bryan, there were several different inspectors on the site. One of the inspectors requested that the building be moved away from Longmire Drive and behind the building. After the building was relocated, another inspector said that it had to be moved again because it was violating the rear setback. Ms. Gibson stated that she is opposed to moving the building to the side because of the visibility to Longmire Drive. Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Hollas stated that the neighbors appear to be opposed to the type of building and not the setback. The present location of the building appears to be the best alternative and is away from the traffic along Longmire Drive. Edsel Jones of 201 West Loop West approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He • suggested screening the building with photinias so that it would break up the view with little cost. ZBA Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Hollas stated that he liked the landscaping idea as a compromise and to address the concerns of the neighborhood. • Mr. Rife 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 shape of the lot relative to Longmire Drive and the presence of the 70' drainage utility and access right-of--way at the rear of the lot; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: relocation of the building would require either the removal of existing trees or the placement of the building in an area which would result in a greater visual exposure of the building; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the applicant would agree to provide additional landscaping which would be sufficient to screen the building's east and west exposure. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Staff Planner Dunn informed the Board that the applicant proposes to erect a freestanding sign as regulated in C-1 General Commercial districts. An enclosed sketch of the proposed sign features a hanging bell with a brick base to display the business name and address. Under C-1 signage requirements, the maximum height of the sign in its proposed location would be 11 feet; the maximum sign area determined by the length of frontage would be 175 square feet. The applicant feels that the request is reasonable due to the fact that the property is located on a minor arterial and that there are other freestanding signs in the vicinity of the property. The applicant states that without a freestanding sign, the visibility for parents to access the Learning Center would be limited. The main alternative to the request would be to erect an attached sign on the building. The covered drive area is located on the front setback line, and could effectively serve as a visible location for an attached sign. To staffis knowledge, • two other cases have involved requests for a freestanding in C-N district. On January 17, 1978, the Board granted a variance to Rhea's Country Store, located at the corner of Longmire Drive and Deacon Drive (several lots south of the subject property). However, on June 16, 1987, the Board heard a request for a freestanding sign at Precision Tune-Up, which was located in a C-N district at 601 Harvey Road. This request was denied, despite the applicant's effort to offer proximity to other freestanding signs as a special condition. A concern was expressed by one of the residents with respect to a visibility problem from Longmire Drive and exiting the existing driveway. Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Applicant Vicki Gibson stated that the proposed sign is a small antique bell tower. The antique bell was used by another educator in the community. The sign will have a 2' high brick base to match the building and the bell will be suspended by a cross timber. Ms. Gibson stated that she is currently working with Signs Now to put the school's name and phone number on the sign. Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Rife stated that he is concerned with the high traffic volumes along Longmire Drive and possible visibility problems that may result from the sign. He is also concerned with the intent of the ordinance not being met. There does not appear to be a special condition or hardship in this case for a sign. The proposed sign is attractive; however, granting a variance does not serve the ordinance overall. • ZBA Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Sawtelle stated that none of the other businesses along this stretch of Longmire Drive have freestanding signs. Of all the buildings in this area, the education center has the most visibility from • Longmire due to the shape of the lot. Mr. Sawtelle also expressed concern with granting a variance for this property and the surrounding neighbors wanting the same treatment. Mr. Hollas stated that the ordinance prohibits signs in any C-N zone and there does not appear to be a special condition or hardship in this particular case. Mr. Blackwelder moved to deny a variance from section 12, ordinance number 1638 to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not 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. Hollas seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Alexander voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a drainage ordinance variance request to allow development and expansion of the A&M Consolidated High School tennis courts located on the northwest corner of the F.M. 2818 and Welsh Avenue intersection prior to an effective Conditional Letter of Map Amendment. Applicant is Total Program Management for the College Station Independent School District. Mr. Sawtelle explained that Mr. Rife is unable to consider this request due to a conflict of interest. As a result, only four members of the Board will hear the request and it will require a unanimous vote in order to grant the variance. Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and stated that the variance is being requested to ex~edrte the development process for this applicant. The City of College Station Drainage Ordinance requu-es that "if modification of any watercourse is involved, an effective Conditional Letter of Map Amendment (CLOMA) shall be on file with the Administrator prior to any development." The applicant is proposing, with the development of the property, to fill within the flood plain m order to construct the proposed tennis courts. This fill will be balanced by excavating an area in close proximity to the proposed courts in order to maintain the same base flood elevation. In FEMA's process, the Conditional Letter is processed prior to any construction. In past discussions with FEMA, they stated that most communities do not require CLOMA's, but rather allow the processing through FEMA to occur during the design/construction phase of the project. Staffwould concur and support this variance, since it is the minimum necessary to allow the apphcant to proceed with thew development plans. This variance does NOT grant them the ability to waiver from the Letter of Map Amendment process, but rather shifts the time frame of such submittal. As in all drainage submittals to FEMA, the staff has reviewed the report thoroughly to assure that the applicant has met or exceeded all Drainage Ordinance requirements before allowing any construction to occur. The drainage report will be sent to FEMA for then review and comment. The applicant has submitted information to the staff regarding their expertise in this type work and they have shown that they are knowledgeable in this area. Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer stated that according to the Drainage Ordinance, the applicant must show that the variance being requested is: 1) the minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief; 2) it will not be detrimental to public health and safety; 3) the variance will not increase the water surface elevations, velocities, etc., to the extent that there will be any threat to public safety; • ZBA Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 4 of 6 • 4) the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of land upstream or downstream; and, 5) no variance shall be allowed within a floodway if any increase in water surface elevation occurs during the base flood discharge. Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer explained that this project is on a critical time frame and the applicant needs this azea to continue construction on the main high school campus. The submitted drainage report indicates no negative impacts to the surrounding properties and therefore, the CLOMA should have no difficulty in regazd to approval by FEMA. Mr. Hollas questioned staff as to what happens if FEMA does not approve the map amendment? Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer stated that the applicant is required to meet all requirements placed by FEMA. Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Tom Eyeington with Total Program Management for CSISD approached the Boazd and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He stated that construction has begun along the other side of Welsh with the civil work, pazking lot, etc. The existing tennis courts have been demolished and the school is currently without courts. Mr. Eyeington stated that it is his understanding that FEMA has never denied a map amendment; however, they usually come back with additional stipulations, etc. If by chance the map amendment is denied, the owner would be required to put the area back in its original condition. He added that their hydraulic engineer has been working with staff and FEMA on this request and is in the audience to answer any questions. • Edsel Jones of 201 West Loop West informed the Boazd that he is the property owner of the seventy-five acres just west of the subject property where Bee Creek crosses. He stated that he is concerned vv~th the drainage in the area and thought that the subject property could be used as a detention pond at some future point to help control the flooding in the azea. He suggested that staff research the possibility of a pond at this location and determine what kind of impact this facility could have on the azea. Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer stated that the plans do not show a detention pond in this pazticulaz azea. The rate of discharge will remain the same off of this property with minimal amount in comparison to the amount of flow coming through the channel. The box at F.M. 2818 is currently acting as a detention facility. Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. Mr. Hollas stated that the variance is to the timing of the development and not to a particular design standazd. He stated that he is concerned with the rate of flow in the azea; however, that is not an issue of this Boazd. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he thinks that is why the City Council placed this requirement in the ordinance originally and the Council should address this issue in the ordinance. Mr. Hollas moved to authorize a variance from chapter 13, ordinance number 1728 from the terms of this ordinance because undue hazdship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: the delay in construction would be detrimental to the applicant; and because the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right to the applicant. • The motion died due to lack of a second. ZBA Minutes June 18, 1996 Page S of 6 Mr. Hollas clarified his original motion to authorize a variance from chapter 13, ordinance number 1728 from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance • with those requirements, to wit: the delay in construction would be detrimental to the applicant and because the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property nght of the applicant, to wit: the following criteria have been met in order to grant the variance request: 1) the minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief; 2) it will not be detrimental to public health and safety; 3) the variance will not increase the water surface elevations, velocities, etc., to the extent that there will be any threat to public safety; 4) the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of land upstream or downstream; and, 5) no variance shall be allowed within a floodway if any increase in water surface elevation occurs during the base flood discharge. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern that there is a time gap at which there could be a problem if the school district shoves the dirt where it needs to go and the letter has not come back from FEMA. Flooding could occur before the District has time to implement any changes FEMA deems necessary. The Board is making an assumption that flooding will not occur during this time frame. The motion to approve the variance request failed (3 - 1); Mr. Sawtelle voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other business. There was no other business. • AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Adjourn. Mr. Blackwelder moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPRO Acting Chairman, b awtelle ~ R 1, PI ng Tec an, at ie omas • ZBA Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 6 of 6 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - ~~ ~ v1 i , and stkCh~that th spin o this or ce shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: • 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 pazking 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: Q'ko 1~ ~~¢,~ off, ~ ~o ~ ~.a.i NaarP ~~ ~ 1;~ court ~ acce SS w~fi~f. -+~'°~ t w V o~ ~~o ran c~ ~tv l~~ - - " ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ,• ~1 v~ ~~ ,~ sc~~ Motion made by T Date ~ ~ -,~ Seconded by 7 • Voting Results ~"` Chair Signature. ~ ,° YARP1638.DOC r ZONII~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN'P FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance. I move to authorize a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: • • /1 ,n~ A.l~„r:~ and because either of the following criteria are met: 1) Special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, to wit: or 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: ~- r- ~~~. -- a n ~ lysi 5 Motion made by ~~ Date ~ ~ ~ ~~~ Voting Results 3 -~ Seconded by Chair Signature DOPI728.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment • U Guest Register Name 2. 3. ~ ri ~ - ~ s 4. ~o ~~! ~c~4~i~S 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Date ~p Address .~~? ~i(~ r~rir~ ~ , C ~ S ~~8~s' t8t~ ~v~tt 30•~ s ' c ~~~ l~ ~ o ~'1 ~ Opt/ ~. s ~ T~~ 25.