Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/2000 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXA5 MAY 2, 2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Bond, Alternate Members Searcy & Dr. Bailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Happ, Hill, Alternate Members Lewis, & Ellis. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Assistant City Attorney DeCluitt, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock. Assistant City Manager Brown was in the audience. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. (John Happy. • Mr. Bond made the motion to approve the request from Mr. Happ. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of minutes from the Apri14, 2000 meeting of the Board. Mr. Murphy made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration to remove from the table the front setback variance for 7704 Sherman Court. Mr. Searcy made the motion to remove the item from the table. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.5: Consideration of front setback variance at 7704 Sherman Court, lots 3 & 4, block 1, Raintree Subdivision. Applicants are Laurie & Boyd Sorrell. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of a new garage. The applicant wishes to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550-sq. ft. (22'x25') garage to replace the one that is • to be renovated. ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 1 of 8 • The applicants propose to construct the new garage in front of the existing gazage space. This location however, calls for approximately 350 squaze feet (14'x25') to extend 10 feet from the property line. Therefore, the applicants aze requesting a 15-foot vaziance to the front setback. The applicant states two special conditions as: 1) the property has several lazge, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the gazage was placed at a different location and; 2) a pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that would be added to the side of the home. The applicant states two hazdships as: 1) cannot build behind the house due to the lack of space, utility lines and no drive access and; 2) cutting down the trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Boazd Members pictures of the property. There were discussion among the Boazd Members about the pond, wood deck and the trees. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Boyd Sorrell, the applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Sorrell presented the Boazd a petition from the neighbors on the street that are in favor of the request. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that he and his next door neighbor are some of the original Raintree residents. Mr. Sorrell explained that the project was designed to not destroy any of the trees on the property as well as to have the addition set back faz enough from the street. Mr. Sorrell explained to the Board pictures that he had taken of the property. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that TXDOT has easements that run through the pond and therefore the pond cannot be covered up. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that the addition would conform to the existing home. Mr. Sorrell ended by telling the Boazd that if this addition required the removal of many of the native trees they would chose not to build the addition. The cul-de-sac and the pond limit what can be done on the lot. Dr. Bailey asked if the proposed gazage doors would open on to the street or a driveway. Mr. Sorrell replied that they would open on to a driveway. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell if he was familiar with the alternatives the city staff had for his plan. Mr. Sorrell replied that the alternative of placing the garage on the left side of the house, that is the side where the bedrooms aze and city codes requires that all bedrooms have windows to the exterior. Mr. Bond questioned the alternative of removing the wood deck adjacent to the house. Mr. Sorrell replied that was not possible because there is not enough azea and there aze huge oak trees there that would have to be removed. Mr. Sorrell stated that area in the back where the wood deck is; the highway department will not allow any fill toward the pond where they have their easement. Mr. Seazcy asked Mr. Sorrell how faz into to his property do the TXDOT easement extends. Mr. Sorrell replied that the easement runs through the cannel of the pond that runs through both his lots. ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell how many total trees would be removed for this addition. Mr. Sorrell replied that only 1 tree would have to be removed for the proposed garage. If the garage were placed some other place on the lot it would be at least 7 or 8 trees. Dr. Bailey asked if the trees are all native. • Mr. Sorrell replied yes. Mr. Searcy stated that the staff report listed an alternative for the Board to grant less than what is requested. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell if that would be feasible if the variance was less. Mr. Sorrell replied that the garage door was planned for 22 feet but it could easily be cut down to 20 feet. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy made the 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: a TXDOT easement makes this the only feasible plan; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the destruction of mature native trees; and such that the plan is not changed. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-1). Mr. Bond voting against granting the variance AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration of a side street setback variance at 2100 Maplewood, lot 27, block 18, Emerald Forest Phase 10. Applicant is John J. Albernaz Inc. Mr. Bond told Chairman Alexander that he needed to step down from hearing this case due to a conflict of interest. Chairman Alexander told the applicant that positive action from this Board would require the remaining members to all vote in favor of the variance. Chairman Alexander asked the • applicant if he wanted to reschedule this when a full Board was voting. Mr. Albernaz stated that he would proceed with the hearing. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an encroachment into the side street setback. The subject property is located on the corner of Maplewood Court, a cul-de-sac, and Appomattox Drive. Maplewood Court is considered to constitute the front of the home, while the West Side of the home has frontage along the side street Appomattox Drive. This case involves a recently constructed home that, at the time of sale, was found to encroach into the required side street setback along Appomattox Drive. A survey of the subject property shows an 18.21 foot section of the home that is only 13.35 feet (instead of the required 15 feet) from the property line along Appomattox Drive, thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.65 feet to the side street setback requirements. The applicant offers a special condition of a subtle curvature in Appomattox Drive that resulted in a foundation placement miscalculation that led to the subsequent encroachment. The applicant adds that the site plan and construction was approved by the College Station Building Department, however these inspections were based on erroneous site data that did not take into account the curvature of the road. The applicant has stated a hardship of the only remedy to the encroachment being the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. He argues that such removal and replacement would • cause the structural integrity of the entire structure to be unsafe. ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 3 of 8 The City is not currently under the policy of enforcing setbacks when encroachments are found, however failure to remedy the encroachment through reconstruction or variance could make future • sales of the home difficult. The only alternative to the variance which would clear up future surveys that has been found by the applicant and staff is to remove the area that is encroaching into the side street setback. Chairman Alexander opened the public heazing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. John Albernaz, the applicant stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Albernaz told the Boazd that he believes the Boazd has all the information in their packets and he is there if there were any questions. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Albernaz if the home was constructed according to the plans and in the location approved by the city. Mr. Albernaz told the Boazd that there was an error in the site plan. The plan showed a 94-foot frontage and it is actually 91 feet because of the curve in the road. With no one else stepping forwazd to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy 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: a slight curvature in the road that was left out of the site plan resulted in the encroachment; and because a • strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hazdship to this applicant being: the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. Such action would result in an unsafe structure; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Consideration of a rear setback at 102 Church Street. Applicant is William O'Brian for Connie Wortham. Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board that the vaziance is to allow accessory buildings to be within the required setbacks. Currently existing on the site is a walk-in cooler and a portable metal building. If they were not to be moved they would be considered legally nonconforming. The applicant is proposing to do three things: 1. Move the walk-in cooler to the east, inline with its present location, not encroaching into the setback any farther than currently. 2. Enclose the azea where the walk-in cooler is presently located, to provide for additional food prepazation azea. 3. Move the portable building to allow for the new location of the cooler. If the Board decides to grant this variance, staff would recommend that the Board limit the vaziance to • the three buildings listed in this request and require that they be located according to the site plan submitted m conjunction with this request. ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 4 of 8 The applicant offers a special condition that there is insufficient space in the building for the type of food preparation needed. Another special condition that may be considered is that the existing building • predates the current and several previous zoning ordinances and site planning requirements. The applicant states that there really is no other room on the lot itself to do any enlargements or additions. Additionally, because of the existing layout of the site and the building, the amount of unusable space is even further reduced. Mr. Searcy asked what is the setback now with the existing building. Ms. Jimmerson replied that is about 6 inches. Mr. Bond asked for clarification in the staff report as it states "on this particular block, this type of access area will not occur unless the entire area is redeveloped". Ms. Jimmerson replied that there are exiting buildings there that do not meet the 15 foot rear setback. If this variance were approved this would make the other existing structures come into compliance. Mr. Bond asked what is to the rear of the building now. Ms. Jimmerson replied that it is vacant property. Mr. Bond asked who owned the property. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she did not know that but it may be on the survey. The survey showed Jack Boyett as the owner. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. William O'Brian & Costa Dallis, the applicant & tenant, stepped forward and were sworn in by • Chairman Alexander. Mr. O'Brian told the Board that they are wanting to expand the kitchen area of the restaurant due to its small area. The walk in cooler would be moved down to allow more food preparation. In order to move the cooler the portable building would have to be moved. Mr. Dallis told the board that it is desirable to have direct access to the walk-in cooler and it not be free standing on the property because of the fresh fish. Mr. Dallis stated that the Health Department would like it as well that they did not have to go out side to access the cooler With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Alexander closed the pubic hearing. Mr. Murphy made the 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: existing development predates the zoning ordinances; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: significant removal of existing development and also the failure to meet health ordinances; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: no change in the site plan. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion. Mr. Bond made an amendment to add under special conditions "and in order to assure space for rear access per the ordinance intent the entire area would require redevelopment." Mr. Searcy seconded the amendment. • The Board voted (5-0) to approve the variance. ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 5 of 8 AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Consideration of a height variance request at 301 Church Street. Applicant is Tom Kirkland for the Tradition @Northgate, LDT. • Senior Planner Kuenzel stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. Kuenzel told the Boazd that the vaziance is being sought to allow for the construction of the proposed dormitory with a roofline that will screen roof top equipment. The area was rezoned in 1996 with the rest of the Northgate area subsequent to the City's adoption of the Northgate Redevelopment Plan. That plan targets the Northgate are for rehabilitation and redevelopment as an urbanized historic business azea neaz the Wellborn and University Drive with residential uses behind the commercial azeas. The plan provides for high-density development in all three of the Northgate subdistricts with pedestrian and bicycle-oriented uses. In an effort to achieve these goals, site design review is discretionary through the Northgate Revitalization Board Review Subcommittee (NRB). Future development and redevelopment is to occur in more of an urban, compact style, rather than the suburban style that occurs in other parts of the City. In November 1999, the NRB and City Staff held a predevelopment meeting to discuss the conceptual plan for the dormitory. At that time, the NRB expressed some concern regazding the scale of the project, and gave the applicant direction to focus on the site azeas between the building and the streets such that these azeas would create asemi-public transition with landscaping and pedestrian-friendly facilities (sidewalks, benches, lighting, etc.) The NRB recommended approval of a slight increase in height in order to effect these goals on the rest of the site. The overall permitted building height in this subdistrict is 50 feet -the visible roofline of the proposed • dormitory will be 53 feet 3 inches. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 3 feet 3 inches, or 6.5%. Mr. Bond asked if the alternatives listed in the staff report aze the only ones available to the applicant. Are there any structural changes that can be made. Ms. Kuenzel replied that staff had not identified any but there possibly could be some. Ms. Kuenzel referred the question to the applicant. Chairman Alexander opened the public heazing. Tim Kirkland, the applicant, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that he has been working with the city for a better part of a yeaz and the NRB to come up with a concept that both the city and the NRB would be pleased with. Mr. Kirkland told the Boazd that 4 significantly lazge air conditioning units aze being proposed and placed on top of the building. The facade is to cover the units from being seen. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that one of the alternatives is not to place the units on top the building but rather have them on the ground and build some structure azound them. Mr. Kirkland explained that the landscaping plan that is being worked on by the NRB and the city involves Second Street, Church Street & Boyett Street. Aesthetically it would not be ideal for the plan to place the units on the ground. It would impact the sidewalks, the pedestrian ways and the bicycle routes. Mr. Kirkland stated that the best azchitectural thing to do would leave the units on the roof and cover them up. Mr. Kirkland ended by telling the Board that the azchitect was in the audience if they had any questions. ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 6 of 8 John Garrison, the architect, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Garrison if there has to be a certain number of feet per floor. Mr. Garrison replied that clear heights aze needed that a ceiling can not encroach. To be able to accommodate all the infrastructure in the plenum you have to have a certain floor to floor height to accommodate that. Mr. Searcy questioned the overhang shown on the drawing and asked if the screening could be provided inside that edge, which would then still hide the equipment but not require the variance. Mr. Garrison replied that it was possible. When working with the NRB and the ordinance, one of its intents is to have the buildings step back from the street and have some movement and scale to them. Mr. Garrison explained the proposed building and how the canopy on the ground level projects the base of the building out and as the building rises the roof screen overhang creates some relief and shadow at the top of the building. This makes it look more active and vibrant. Mr. Garrison told the Board that the screen could move back to be flush with the building but the shadow would be lost. Mr. Garrison explained the shadow as being an important part of the building. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Garrison if he would agree that the primary reason for the variance is for the aesthetics of the building. Mr. Garrison stated that he would agree to that statement. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Garrison if 3 feet 3 inches reduced the building height, would it in some way violate the southern building code requirement for clearance in each floor. Mr. Garrison replied that the top four floors of the building have minimum cleazance. From a floor to floor stand point once everything is installed; the bathroom ceiling heights aze at the minimum height they can be. The only place for additional height is on the ground floor. This could be lowered down but that is the main plenum for all the infrastructure to go up through the building. It then would have to go to the top of • the roof and be exposed and that would be a severe hardship to the design of the building. Chairman asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Board that when he first saw the project he understood it to only be four floors. Mr. Flores-Meath agreed that placing the heating and cooling units on ground level on the side of the building is not very practical. Mr. Flores-Meath suggested taking out a few of the inside dorm rooms on the fourth floor and install the a/c units there, then a variance would not be required. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Boazd that a lot of money has been spent in the Northgate azea to make it quaint and now this monster box appears in the middle. Mr. Flores-Meath described the project too big for the area. With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. • ZBA Minutes May z, aooo Page 7 of 8 Mr. Bond made the motion the authorize a variance to the building height requirement from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: azea blocks were created prior to city incorporation making consolidation of property and redevelopment difficult and the effective loss of the perimeter of the site for landscaping purposes • requires the increase height of the building to accommodate the design; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hazdship to this applicant being: the alternative of additional land acquisition to make the project feasible and to leave enough transition area is not feasible in the Northgate azea as elsewhere in the city, and maintaining as much open azea within and around the site is important to the design of this project and to the overall Northgate azea. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Discussion of topics for future workshop agenda. Mr. Bond stated that he understood that eventually this Board would have a workshop meeting. No topics where discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. • AT''EST: ___~ Deborah Grace, S aff Assistant APPROVED: --.. ~ c~~ David Alexander, hai man • ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page g afg • ZONING B OARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE ~C1~~ ~ x.000 NAME 1. (' ~~~C t~~ C_Ll .S 2. 3. 4 ADDRESS i`~ ~ (~ o~ ~--- 7~0! ~. ~~ i~ ~-. ... s. ~ ~ 1 U/tc. VL ~ ~ ~~ 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ls. 16. '~ 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 2s. -11 b~- 5~-.ec r~q~ ~ ~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 16, 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 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 ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~~.e.~s ~ ,.~ • Motion made by Seconded by Chair Signature ./ v I.Q. Date ~,~{-y ? Zpoo ~~~e~ doting Results ~v V/{RP! 638.DOC and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: a~ oo cc~ P~ew~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .. FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, 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 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 ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: l~~ ~- ~~(/cc,/ oc~/~ a"„~°%c_~./~CnJ ~° '"' `~- 7`m~-n.~a,,~c,// and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~G- • Motion made by Seconded by Chair Si ~~-4-~T ~f~~.~y ~ n / ~ir_ 1' mid Date ~~ Z ZdOo Voting Results vii s3a.ooc l o a, C~v cC,~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) of depth (Table A) muumum 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: ~~~©~~„r~,~- L ~~ r • ~X ~ S ~ ~v r~ do•-/-mss ~t 7~~~i. d ,~~~...io.,.rc-mss' ~c~/ ~ %/ ®~`-~-e-~" / m G~ SSyr~. S/~ 7'a r /`ea ~` c~- ~G> S er- ~~ a ~o'i.%/c~-c ~..~ ~~/~ 7'~ e..._ ~e. n// s'~ o~~~ arc vld !` u~i`e. re ~ ~/~ /oo•Hr.~/7` and because strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: / t ~ 1`-~MO~./a-l G~i A) `tom r lv,~ ~ ~ .>..~,. -tee.-7'L ~. ~~ !7`~ c ~ `..~~..~'~ ~5 ; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: /' N~ ~ G~..i~ ~. • Motion made by ,,~~~~ ./'~/ ~~'-~/~7 Date Seconded by Chair ~7 - - Z - X00 Voting Results ~ ~ ,s e ~'1 ~~ ~a ~ c.~~~cl.,~/j /~ ~ ~,~16 8.~ ZONING BOARD OF F,DJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to/the /~ _ ~~ ~t i .~-c yard (Section 8.7) of width (T e A) lot (Table A) ' um s ack parking require nts (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: • , C , s. an'a"because fiat's t e orc~~ of rovi~b"ri~'ofj~h~or~~ce unnecessary hardship to this applicant eing: Motion made by ~ Date ~ '~ ~ 0 ~ Seconded by Voting Results .~ C7 Chair Sianax s f~ VARF'l 638. DOC done subject to the following limitations: /~ ,. ~ (~ `'~/!~~'L~`w~ ~j ~s/l f~rk~Gt G'~l-lr,~ Qi~.C_~ o/~~~ 04/14/00 13:53 $409 845 5168 EASTERWOOD ARPT. 1~j001 61/29/00 69:16 To: John Hepp From:Qeborah Gracs 76-3995 Page 1~1 C'l~ O, f L'Ol~ge S'tti~lOfi Absence Request Farm For Elected and Appointed Officers Name ~~NN 1~~PP Request Submitted on ~2 ~i°~'/L 2ooD I will not be in attendance at the meeting of ~ ~~ For the reason(s) specified: (date) ~~~n~c'a~io yi os~ his ! ~:. Signature '1]lis request shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board one-week prior to the meeting. 200o Cz~~~