Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2012 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments (2) Zoning Board of Adjustment September 4, 2012 6:00 P.M. Regular Meeting City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments.  12-161 (AA-Residential Dimensional Standards) 1123 Phoenix St. 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.  August 7, 2012 meeting minutes. 4. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a front setback variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.2., ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ at 15412 Baker Meadow Loop. Case # 12-00500165 (MTH) 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a front setback variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.7, ‘Design Dimensional Standards’, at 1915 Dartmouth Street. Case # 12-00500157 (TR) 6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a height variance to the Conical Zone for Easterwood Airport, at 717 University Drive. Case # 12-00500167 (LAH) 7. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 8. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071; possible action. The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of College Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this the_____day of__________, 2012 at______p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By _____________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary By _____________________________ David Neeley, City Manager I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on___________________p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by _________________________. Dated this _____ day of____________, 2012. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_____________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____ day of_______________, 2012. ______________________________ Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:_________________ This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979.764.3517 or (TDD) 800.735.2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting August 7, 2012 Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hunter Goodwin, Josh Benn, Jim Davis, Marsha Sanford, and Dick Dabney STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Planners Morgan Hester and Teresa Rogers, Assistant Director Lance Simms, Assistant City Attorney Adam Falco, Action Center Representative Jordan Wood. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goodwin called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments.  Case 12-139 – AA - Residential Dimensional Standards; 1216 Westover Street (PAZ)  Case 12-151 – AA – (Residential Standards); 4925 Whistling Straits Loop (JPaz) There were no questions from the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.  July 9, 2012 meeting minutes Mr. Benn motioned to approve, Mr. Davis seconded, and Mr. Dabney abstained. Motion to approve passed (4-0-1). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance request to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.4.I.2, “Attached Signage”, to allow for an additional 20 square feet of attached signage for Subway, located within the Wal-Mart Supercenter. Chairman Goodwin called for a motion to remove the item from the table. Mr. Davis motioned to remove, and Mr. Benn seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). Staff Planner Hester gave a brief overview of the case and ended by telling the Board that staff recommended approval. There was a general discussion amongst the Board. Bert Keller, the applicant, 2031 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South, College Station, was sworn in by Chairman Goodwin. Mr. Keller spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Benn motioned to approve the sign variance due to special conditions of: the size of the building, the buildings location relative to adjoining roadway and the visibility of the attached signage from public streets, the hardship being: the inability to have effective communication for commercial information; and the limitation of an additional 20 sq. ft. to previous variance granted. Ms. Sanford seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. Assistant Director Simms asked the Board if they would like to continue with the presentation that Mr. Falco with the Legal Department did on the Roles and Responsibilities of the Zoning Board of Adjustments. The Board was in favor of continuing. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________________ _________________________________ Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Assistant Hunter Goodwin, Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 September 4, 2012 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 15412 Baker Meadow Loop REQUEST: A variance of 6.9 feet to the 20 foot front building setback. LOCATION: 15412 Baker Meadow Loop APPLICANT: Jeff French, Stylecraft Builders Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Stylecraft Builders, Inc. PROJECT MANAGER: Morgan Hester, Staff Planner mhester@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in Creek Meadows Subdivision and is zoned as a Planned Development District, which allows for single-family residential uses. On July 26, 2012 the City was contacted about a discrepancy regarding the home’s location due to a setback encroachment. The encroachment was indentified when an “as built” survey was performed prior to the closing on the home. The survey revealed that the home was built 6.9 feet into the 20 foot front setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of to 6.9 feet to the 20’ front building setback. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 5.2, ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’. ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 5.2, ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ establishes design standard that usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. In this case, the front building setback is 20 feet as established by the Planned Development District for Creek Meadows. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 September 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 September 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 September 4, 2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: September 4, 2012 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Creek Meadows HOA Property owner notices mailed: 13 Contacts in support: None at the time of writing the Staff Report. Contacts in opposition: None at the time of writing the Staff Report. Inquiry contacts: Three at the time of writing the Staff Report. ZONING AND LAND USES PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: the subject property has approximately 50 feet of frontage on Baker Meadow Loop. 2. Access: The subject property is accessed by Baker Meadow Loop, a street located within Creek Meadows Subdivision. 3. Topography and vegetation: The site is relatively flat and has little to no vegetation. 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated flood plain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant has stated that the setback line was not shown on the plat and the site plan submitted by the applicant was approved by the City. However, setbacks are rarely shown on plats and the site plan that was approved by the City indicated that the structure would be built within the building setbacks. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property PDD Planned Development District Single-Family Residence North PDD Planned Development District Single-Family Residence South PDD Planned Development District Single-Family Residence East A-O Agricultural Open Undeveloped West PDD Planned Development District Single-Family Residence Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 September 4, 2012 This variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant because the current use of the property as a single-family residence meets the purpose Planned Development District that was approved for this property. If the proposed variance request is not granted, the City cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy for this structure because it does not comply with the standards of the UDO. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements because no portion of this property is located within the floodplain. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The 20’ front building setback is required for all properties within the Creek Meadows Residential Subdivision. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. A hardship does not exist in this case. The encroachment of the building into the 20 foot front building setback was due to an error by the builder, who failed to locate the front setback before placing the foundation. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of this UDO. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 September 4, 2012 The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. If the structure was demolished or structurally altered, it could be built within the required building setbacks. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has suggested removal of the portion of the structure that is located within the 20 foot front building setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request. A hardship or special condition does not exist in this case as the error is the result of the applicant’s own actions. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Survey Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 September 4, 2012 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 1915 Dartmouth Street REQUEST: An eight foot variance to the 15 foot front building setback. LOCATION: 1915 Dartmouth Street – proposed lot 1, specifically 150.38 feet along Dartmouth Street originating at the southern corner of Lot 5, Block 2 Woodstock Section I APPLICANT: Travis Martinek, Clarke & Wyndham, et. al. PROPERTY OWNER: Organized Capital Inc. and Real Alchemy 1 LP PROJECT MANAGER: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner trogers@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan which shows an existing fifty (50) foot gas easement crossing proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the future development. In addition, the existing right-of-way for Dartmouth Street is eighty (80) feet. As part of the Preliminary Plan, staff will be requesting an additional right-of-way dedication from the applicant based on the proposed right-of-way in the Thoroughfare Plan. These factors create a limited buildable area for the subject property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 5.7, Design District Dimensional Standards to allow for a reduction of eight feet to the 15 foot front setback. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 5.7, Design District Dimensional Standards ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the City’s setback regulations is to allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 September 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 September 4, 2012 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 September 4, 2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: September 4, 2012 Property owner notices mailed: Seven Contacts in support: None as of date of Staff Report. Contacts in opposition: None as of date of Staff Report. Inquiry contacts: None as of date of Staff Report. ZONING AND LAND USES Directio n Zoning Land Use Subject Property WPC Wolf Pen Creek Vacant North R-6 High Density Multi-Family Apartment buildings (Huntington Apartments) South WPC Wolf Pen Creek Across Holleman Drive E is Wolf Pen Creek Amphitheater East R-1 Single Family Residential City of College Station Utilities West WPC Wolf Pen Creek Across Dartmouth Street is Wolf Pen Creek Parking Area PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: Approximately 150 feet of frontage on Dartmouth Street. 2. Access: Access to the subject property is proposed from Dartmouth Street. 3. Topography and vegetation: A large amount of natural vegetation currently exists on the property. 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within the FEMA designated floodplain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Staff feels a special condition exists in this case due to the fact that a 50 foot gas easement bisects the property, reducing the buildable area. The applicant has also stated that the right-of-way dedication will create a hardship. However, Staff feels that the right-of-way dedication is not a special condition because this is a common occurrence when platting property within the City of College Station. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 September 4, 2012 Due to the 50 foot gas easement, applying the standard setback requirements would result in a limited buildable area, depriving the property owner of a reasonable use of the property. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City administering the UDO. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements because this property is not located within FEMA recognized floodplain. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The gas easement runs through other properties in the vicinity, however, it is generally located further back on those properties. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. A hardship does exist on the property. A 50 foot gas easement which crosses the property was dedicated prior to this development, thus creating a special condition of undevelopable land on this property. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of this UDO. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Strict application of the current residential dimensional standards would reduce the buildable area and unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 September 4, 2012 ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the variance request. It is possible to develop the property under the current required setbacks; however, doing so would result in a limited buildable area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Due to the location of the gas line and associated 50 foot easement, a special condition exists such that the strict application of the provisions for the UDO would deprive the applicant reasonable use of the land. Additionally, based on the surrounding properties, staff feels that approval of the variances to design district dimensional standards for the subject property would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or future development of this area. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Concept Plan Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 September 4, 2012 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 717 UNIVERSITY DRIVE 12-00500167 REQUEST: Height Variance to the Conical Zone for Easterwood Airport LOCATION: 717 University Drive APPLICANT: Dan Hrankowsky, Campus Acquisitions PROPERTY OWNER: DRI/CA College Station, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner lhovde@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval BACKGROUND: The height of the proposed building at 717 University Drive, located at the intersection of Church Avenue and University Drive, will be 519 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). As planned, the height of the building would penetrate the conical zone of Easterwood Airport as established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and local ordinance. The conical zone is an area established around an airport to protect the airspace from obstructions that may interfere with airport operations. According to the FAA, any structure exceeding a height of 511 feet AMSL in this particular location would intrude into the conical zone. An appeal to this restriction was submitted to the FAA and the FAA issued a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” (see attached). This determination stated that, “…the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.” Due to a local ordinance shared by the City of College Station, City of Bryan, and Brazos County, the applicant is still required to seek relief from the applicable jurisdiction. Since the proposed structure is located within the City of College Station, the Zoning Board of Adjustments is the appropriate body to consider the request of an 8-foot variance into the conical zone to allow the construction of a structure 519 feet AMSL at 717 University Drive. Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 September 4, 2012 APPLICABLE ORDINANCE: Airport Zoning Ordinance ORDINANCE INTENT: To protect the airspace required to serve and accommodate the operations of Easterwood Airport. Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 September 4, 2012 Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 September 4, 2012 Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 September 4, 2012 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: September 4, 2012 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: None Property owner notices mailed: Eight Contacts in support: None Contacts in opposition: One Inquiry contacts: None ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property NG-2 Transitional Northgate Vacant Northeast C-U College and University Texas A&M University Southeast C-U College and University Texas A&M University Northwest NG-2 Transitional Northgate Taco Bell and vacant property Southwest NG-2 Transitional Northgate Citi Bank PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject tract has 150-feet of frontage along University Drive and approximately 300-feet of frontage on Church Avenue as it extends to the west. 2. Access: Access is permitted along Church Avenue for structured parking and a loading dock area. 3. Topography and vegetation: The subject tract is relatively flat with no vegetation. 4. Floodplain: There is no FEMA regulated floodplain on the subject tract. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Hardship: A strict application of the ordinance may constitute a hardship in this case since the request does not violate the spirit of the ordinance as described in the ordinance language. Furthermore, the stated purpose of the ordinance is to protect the airspace necessary for the use and operation of Easterwood Airport. Since the FAA has determined that there is no hazard to air navigation in this case, the spirit of the local ordinance has been fulfilled. 2. Public Interest: The requested waiver will not increase the height of the building to an extent that is discernible by the general public, nor will it affect the future subdivision of property in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance. The FAA has determined that the Easterwood Airport will not be negatively affected by the proposed intrusion into the conical zone. Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 September 4, 2012 ALTERNATIVES The applicant did not provide any alternatives. However, it is possible to construct a building that respects the height limit of 511 feet AMSL as established by the conical zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request since a strict application of the ordinance represents a hardship and the request is not contrary to public interest. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Building Elevations (provided in packet) 3. FAA documentation 4. Copy of Airport Zoning Ordinance