Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment October 20, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Gentry, Gilmore, Thompson, and Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Julien & Baker STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of ainutes - aeeting of Septeaber 1, 198?. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. • No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to sign regulations (Section 12.3.8. Ordinance No. 1638) to allow sore than one freestanding sign at the existing cosiaercial business located at 110 Nagle. Applicant is Stabler Sign Co; tenant is IIniversal Grocery; property owner is George Boyett. Mrs. Kee explained that the applicant is the contractor for the tenant, that the area is zoned C-1 General Commercial and the requested variance to the sign regulations would allow more than one freestanding sign on this building plot. She described the physical characteristics of the lot, including the fact that the building housing this store is on the same building plot as the Exxon station on the corner which faces University Drive. She pointed out that there are now 3 existing freestanding signs on the plot and the application indicates that plans are to remove 2 of those signs (the old Circle Drive-in sign and the smaller sign on the northwest corner of the site) and to erect 1 new sign for the Universal Grocery store which will be placed in the general location of the Circle Drive-in sign, but will conform to the C-1 regulations for freestanding signs. She then identified adjacent structures and described the proposed new sign. She referred the Board to the application for the special conditions and hardship described by the applicant, and stated that the only alternative to this request would be to leave signage as it currently exists; that is, with 3 freestanding signs on this building plot rather than the proposed 2 freestanding signs. She finalized • by reporting that a parking variance was granted to Universal Grocery in 1985. Mr. Thompson asked if the land on which the Exxon station, the Universal Grocery and the Notes-N-Quotes businesses is actually platted as 1 large lot. After Mrs. Kee replied that is the case, Mr. Thompson stated that it certainly appears to be 2 • building plots since the filling station is a separate building and is oriented toward a different street. The applicant, Lonnie Stabler of Stabler Sign Co., was sworn in and identified himself as the contractor for the tenant who had originally made contact with him to redo the existing signs. He said that he advised the tenant that there was already too much clutter on the site, and that it would be to the business's advantage to remove 2 of the existing signs and to replace them with 1 smaller, more attractive sign if a variance could be obtained. Mr. Thompson asked if the proposed sign meets all ordinance regulations for the zoning district except the fact that it will still represent more than the allowed number of signs on a "building plot". Mrs. Kee replied that it does, and in fact in area is even smaller than would be allowed. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Stabler how many years are left on the fixxon lease and Mr. Stabler replied that he does not know, but explained that there is a small curb which physically separates the 2 building sites, and seems to function as a natural divider between them. Mr. Thompson stated that the physical features and layout of the buildings would tend to make him think these are 2 separate properties. Mrs. Kee agreed that they do function that way since they are oriented to 2 different streets. Mr. Gentry asked if the other company, Notes-N-Quotes, functions as a separate business. Mr. Stabler replied that it does, and is a company which primarily prepares notes from classes at TAMU to sell, therefore, most of its traffic is walk- • in from the campus, and draws very little business from any other sector of the city. He went on to explain that the new sign being proposed is small enough in area, that additional small signage could be added to it at a later date if the other business in this building desires. Mrs. Kee replied that if the Boards wants to allow additional area or signage to be added in the future, the motion should include that clarification. She explained that a variance could be granted for either (1)the sign as proposed, or (2)a sign which meets the C-1 regulations. Mr. Stabler stated that in his opinion, if Notes-N-Quotes decided a sign is necessary, an addition of approximately 8 square feet could be made under the Universal Grocery part of the sign, and would be perfectly adequate for that business. Mr. Gentry made a motion to "authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: one lot exists with multiple buildings under separate lease; and, pre-existing conditions allow 3 signs where 1 sign only would be allowed by ordinances in effect this date; and the proposed variance would improve the existing condition, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: that adequate signage would not be allowed other than pre- existing conditions, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: allow a variance to provide for 2 freestanding signs, those being the existing "Exxon" sign, and the new sign proposed by the applicant, not to exceed 40 square feet in area." • Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0. ZBA Minutes 10-20-87 Page 2 AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to the rear setback regulations (Section 7 Table A Ordinance No. 1638) to • allow construction of an accessory structure at the residence at 1401 Post Oak Circle. Applicant is J. 8. Birdwell. Mrs. Kee explained the applicant and property owner, Mr. Birdwell, is requesting a variance at his residence at 1401 Post Oak Circle to the required 15 foot rear setback for accessory structures, in order to construct a greenhouse 7.5 feet from the rear property line. She referred to a site plan snd a letter from Mr. Birdwell to point out alternate locations and explanations for each location. She reminded the Board members that this identical request had been denied by them on 9-1-87, and since that time, Mr. Birdwell had erected a model of his proposal, and had contacted neighbors, many of whom had submitted letters indicating no objections to his request, and which have been included in the packets. Mrs. Kee continued her explanation by reminding the Board that the Building Official does not require permits for accessory structures that are no larger than 100 square feet, and which have no slab or utilities; and, typically are not required to have specific setbacks. She stated that reducing the size of the greenhouse and eliminating any slab or utilities would alleviate the setback problem as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance, but the structure might still require a license to encroach if it were located in the easement, as is being proposed. Mrs. Kee concluded her explanation of the request by stating that the ordinance intent regarding setback requirements is to provide adequate separation between residences for light, air, privacy and aesthetics. • Mr. J. R. Birdwell came forward and was sworn in. He showed slides of his property and then explained a site plan of his lot, including location and size of trees, to exemplify the preferred location (#1} gets morning sun, and locations (#2 & #3) would require removal of a number of fairly large trees. He explained the purpose of the setback requirement is to allow adequate light and air, and also prevent overcrowding of land. He stated that his lot is in excess of 29,000 square feet, his house only takes up a small portion of the lot, .and the addition of a 160 square foot greenhouse would hardly constitute an overcrowded condition. Mr. Birdwell then addressed the unnecessary hardship by explaining that Webster's definition indicates a hardship is anything that causes suffering or privation. He stated that locations 2 & 3 give the choice of being deprived of morning sun or suffering the loss of trees. He went on to state that he could move the greenhouse closer to the drive by about 2.5 feet, thus keeping a 10 foot setback rather than the requested 7.5 foot setback. He said that additionally, he would be willing to build a fence to screen the view of the greenhouse from Shady Drive if the Board preferred, but personally, he did not think that would be a good idea. Mr. Gentry discussed with Mr. Birdwell the fact that location #3 would not require a variance, but would also deprive him of morning sun, and the differences between morning sun and afternoon sun as they affect a greenhouse and the plants within. Mr. Thompson discussed the location of the greenhouse in location #1 as it relates to the location of the power line overhead, with Mr. Birdwell stating that the line is so high he doubts there would be a problem. Mrs. Kee stated that even if Mr. Birdwell moved the greenhouse forward toward the drive 2.5 feet, he would still need • the license to encroach, and in fact, she believes that action would put the greenhouse more directly under than power line than the original proposed location. She went on to explain that whatever the location, if it is in an easement and ZBA Minutes 10-20-87 Page 3 requires a license to encroach, all utility departments will be required to sign off on the application prior to final action by the Council. • Mrs. Frances O'Brien, 1001 Shady Drive came forward and was sworn in. She stated that she is opposed to locating the greenhouse in location #1 since it will be so close to Shady Drive, actually even closer to that street than her home, which faces the street. She stated that she is willing to have a variance granted to Mr. Birdwell's rear setback if the greenhouse were to be moved to a location further away from the street, and in fact to a spot near a diseased tree which will have to be removed soon anyway. Mrs. O'Brien stated that she had recently read an article in the Austin American which indicated that 4 to 6 hours of daylight are needed for a greenhouse to function properly, and on one of the slides Mr. Birdwell had shown, it looked like sunlight is available all the way down the easement. She said that she believes a compromise might be in order, and went on to explain that for the first 20 years after platting the lots in this subdivision, the owners had to stay 20 or 25 feet from the rear property line. She concluded by stating that in her opinion the desires of all neighbors should be considered. Mr. Gilmore asked Mrs. O'Brien if her only objection is that this structure will be so close to the street which her house faces, and she replied that is correct. Mr. Gilmore said from the views shown in the slides, it appears that a person would almost have to consciously look for the greenhouse from Mrs. O'Brien's house to see it. Mr. Thompson agreed that the trees serve to screen the view as well as the existing fence. Mrs. O'Brien replied that it is not at all hard to see the model from her house, and she would like to have it moved back to be at least even with her • house. Discussion followed regarding the advantages and disadvantages of moving the greenhouse more to the east. Mr. Birdwell spoke from the audience to say that the model sets 52 feet from the curb, and 40 feet from the property line, and moving it to the east would cause a loss of the advantages of the morning sun. Mr. Gentry asked how old the fence is and Mrs. O'Brien stated it is old enough that she is about to replace it. Mr. Gentry suggested that she make it 8 feet high rather than 6 feet and she replied she would not appreciate having to bear the additional expense of an 8 foot fence. Mr. Gentry made a motion to "authorize a 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: The lot line in question serves as a side lot line to the adjoining neighbor, and the proposed variance would fall within the minimum side lot setback; therefore, the public interest intent of the ordinance would be accomplished, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being that he would be required to remove a large number of trees in other locations on the lot, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done." Mr. Henry asked if he wanted the setback to be 7.5 feet as originally proposed, or 10 feet as Mr. Birdwell has indicated is possible. Mr. Gentry reworded his motion to include the following statement at the end of the motion: "...and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and • substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance to rear setback of 10 feet from rear property line, subject to the approval of the City Council and Utility authorities; and if no such approval is obtained due to the ZBA Minutes 10-20-87 Page 4 location of the utility line, then to a minimum of 7.5 feet." • Mr. Gilmore seconded the reworded motion. Mr. Gentry then explained the motion as stated would allow some flexibility should there be a problem with the utility line at the 10 foot location. Votes were cast and the motion as reworded and seconded carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: 8econsideration of a request for variance to the parking requireaents (Section 9.2.B. Ordinance No. 1638) to allow the existing coaaercial facility at 1804 Valley View Drive (foraerly "Ira's") to be converted into a nightclub. Applicant is Brazos Valley Bntertainaent, Inc/Paul Winston. Owner is JDCL, Inc. (This itea was tabled at the aeeting on August 18, 1987, and allowed to regain in the tabled position at the seeting on Septeaber 1, 198?.) Mrs. Kee explained that she had attempted to make contact with the applicant more than a week ago, and he had never called her back to give direction, so staff is advising that the Board remove this item from its tabled position, and take action in the form of a motion to deny without prejudice at this meeting. She went on to explain that because this item was tabled 2 months ago at the request of the applicant, and allowed to remain on the table 1 month ago, again at the request of the applicant, it would not be fair to adjacent landowners to take the item off the table and take any type of action which might affect them without re-notification of pending action after a delay which has extended this long. • She continued her explanation by stating that this type of action will allow the applicant to reapply for an identical variance without the necessity of coming to the Board for permission, and should he decide to reapply, then all affected adjacent landowners will again receive notification of the request. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to take this item from its tabled position. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Thompson then made a motion to "deny a variance to the parking 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. Further, no evidence denying or supporting this variance request has been presented and this motion is made without prejudice." Mr. Gentry seconded this motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Other business. • Mrs. Kee announced there will be no meeting on November 3, 1987. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Gentry seconded. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: City Secretar tan Jones o'C,ba{~ Chairman, Da id Ruesink ZOA Minutes 10-20-87 Page #`~ S ~ ~~/Il~~ JE~e~i~ ~~e~cE,es/ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT • FORMAT FOR P03IlIYB MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12~Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize s variance to the sign regulations fros the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: ~'= -- ---- Y `.~`-L - - ------- ~- _ ~ . and be ause s r~ic~t enforcem~t of thelprovisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: --~ ~ ~ r --- t;~ti~,.r and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant serfv7~e'd, subject to the following limitat~io~ns:,~ _.~:~. Motio a e y: _ _ _____________ ____ --- - - -- Motion seconded by: ~. ~ _ - ---------------- Voting results: _ ~ ~~~ ____~_~.~____________ Chair signature date ~~~"~ , • ~~P~3i~Ot~/E[1~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Sect ion 8.7) ___lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) ___!/ _minimum setback (Table A) ________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: ~~~~ ~ tom-. ¢,,~c.~f?_.~2.eQ...~. _,~,~%z-c~P~ _ eL.ti Q- ..kL.e.c~~' _?~~~ • .~!/~-~G~r~+~/~_~~L~~~r`ts.e- -_'~fiL'~,-'C.~w ~ ~ / / ~«-4~--_e!~~ _ ~L~-• ~ Lam"' `~- ~- S ~ ,. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: - ~ SQL _ ~!!CG'`Gr''Gt..^' ~ _ _ _ t~- 4-~`._ .~~ G''A~"_c-"_! ~f. - -`'-~~='~_- = -~- - r-_~-_- - ~_ ~ _ t_ t C.. a~"~.~.ct~`_ Sd_~~_''4 _~' Je' ° ~ C _, 4.-_ _ ~".,C_'1 :~~_ ^'(. _~ ST_+'.`1n_ c~^Q-~_-«_-~.,/S,+ ~ _~•_'_ f~C •''_I _ "'~ "c<.. .r'~''~F and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ^G'~~~ ~= - C C °!~ ~---zX V~~ 1r 1~ i~ JH~GY i ~ ~ tlf eR' J4~:~ ~ ~_ ~ - r ++,,,. Motion made by ~ Date --------------a s _-t.'~---~-- ~. ----------------- Seconded by ~ ,~,~.~~ ~~_____ ______ Voting Results ~__~ ~~c~ ` ~O-~d- • Chair signature _~0~.,.0 C d7 ~~ C.~'. G= `'C Gam-'' L~~ ~'Gt" ~-CE.JCrG" ~-~G~' _ ~ fn~~~~n auk ~ ~~~~mu~1 l.~' ~G n ~ `` w l~ ~ --~1~aCC s ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT • FORMAT FOR KBasiivg MOTIONS Variances: From Sect}on 15 Ordinance 1638 I cove to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) _______minimum setback (Table A) _______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 aubst~~ al justice done. ~z~~~~ ~~ ~~~r~t.GCi ~ :~e9~ Motion mad by _ ~ v' ~ Seconded by _ `-~~fr ti~ Voting results: _~~ -- --------------- Chair signature __~a_,Q C , -- -- -- -------------------- Date CO --~.~- d~ 7 • ZONING BARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER i• DATE October 20, 1987 NAME ADDRESS r 2. 3 , ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ . ~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25.