Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1999 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 16, 1999 6:00 P.M. r~ • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Bill, Happ & Alternate Member Bailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: Boazd Member Warren, Alternate Members Lewis, Seazcy, Lanier, & Hausenfluck. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace & Assistant City Attorney Robinson. 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: Approval of minutes from the January 16, 1999 Meeting. Mr. Hill made correction to page 6, paragraph 5. The corrected sentance should read " Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize the variance..." Mr. Murphy made the motion to approved the corrected minutes. Mr. Hill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a sign variance to allow a detached sign in an NGl District. The applicant is Grant Barnby with Signs now for University Lutheran Chapel and Student Center. Senior Planner McG~lly presented the staff report to the Board. Ms. McCully stated that the variance was to allow for the replacement and relocation of an existing detached sign. The existing sign was installed during a time when the property was still zoned C-1 General Commercial, which permits one freestanding sign on a building plat with certain size and height restrictions. The azea was rezoned in 1996 with the rest of the Northgate azea subsequent to the City's adoption of the Northgate Redevel~ pment Plan. That plan targets the Northgate azea for rehabilitation and : edevelopment 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 Boazd (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 keeping with the desired development style, signage in the Historic Northgate subdivision was restricted to signs attached to the building only. ZBA ~~~+ Fibrwuy 16,1999 Page 1 oj7 The request to substitute the existing sign with another was discussed at the January 20th NRB meeting. The Board_ felt that. the_alternatves of attaching the. sign. to the. building or__maintaining_the_exiting sign were not as aesthetically pleasing as a new monument sign in a landscaped bed. The Board approved • the aesthetics of the sign, with the condition that it be no more than 18" off of the ground and that it be placed into the landscaped bed. If the Board approves the variance, staff recommends that the NRB conditions be included. Dr. Bailey stated that she has concerns that the Northgate Review Board wants to make policy concerning signs. Dr. Bailey added that it seems that it is going to create more Boards that signs have to be dealt with. Ms. McCully replied that it has to do with where the standard is written. It is not written in the guidelines that the NRB uses, it is written in the actual ordinance section of the Zoning Ordinance which directs sign variances to the ZBA. Chairman Alexander stated that he shares in some of the same concerns. Dr. Bailey & Chairman Alexander asked Ms. McCully to pass those concerns to the appropriate individuals. Ms. McCully replied that those concerns would be taken in to consideration at the time that staffbegins reviewing the ordinance. Ms. McCully explained to the Board that the city has three specifically planned areas and each one having a different character. Boards have been established for these areas that deal with the aesthetics. The Northgate area being one of the planned areas. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those to speak in favor of the request. Pastor Larry Krueger from University Lutheran Chapel stepped before the Board and was sworn in by • Chairman Alexander. Pastor Krueger told the Board that he is pursuing the sign to improve the outside looks of the facility. Mr. Krueger described to the Board the existing sign as being a weathered 4 x 8 frame. Pastor Krueger stated the other reason to upgrade the existing sign is to better serve the community that the church serves. Pastor Krueger stated that the church caters to many international student groups. These groups are allowed access to the facility. At the present time the goups have difficulty figuring out who they are with no sign stating that they area "All Nations Christian Center". This name showing that all are welcome Dr. Bailey questioned the maintenance of the landscaped bed around the sign. Pastor Krueger described to the Board the proposed sign and the low growing shrubs that would be planted and it would be maintained Chairman Alexander asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition of the variance. With no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the 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: The Northgate area is unique within the city and currently available alternatives are not as aesthetically pleasing; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: the facility would become less visible than it presently is if required to install an attached sign; 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: it will comply with the recommendations of the Northgate Revitalization Board. (recommendations included as part of these minutes). Dr. Bailey seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). Page s o f~ AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a variance to the side street setback at 4775 Stonebriar Circle to allow for the addition of a patio to a patio home that is currently under construction. Applicant is Ben Rush. • Ms. McCully presented the staff report and stated that this area of Pebble Creek is platted as zero lot line (or patio) homes, which means that each individual home is permitted to build to one side lot line as long as the opposite side maintains a 15' setback, for a total building sepazation of 15'. The net effect is that the minimum house separation is the same as in other single family developments, but the two side yards are combined into one on a side rather than 7.5' on each side. This home is currently under construction and was originally designed to include a patio that would extend out of the side entrance of the home toward the side street (Stonebriaz frontage). The homeowner discovered after permitting that there is a 15' building setba.~..k. Due to the fact that a permit was issued for the home that includes the encroaching patio, the city is required to allow the continued construction of the approved project, despite the encroachment. However, the applicant has c:~osen instead to begin building the home without the patio, and bring the question to the Zoning Board for consideration. Ms. McCully told the Boazd that the applicant has made note that the Pebble Creek Subdivision has a Board that reviews items conce'r-ning aesthetics and architecture for that area. That Board has reviewed this and they did not have any concerns. Ms. McCully stated that in fact, the Boazd preferred the patio because it added some azchitectural character to the site. Ms. McCully handed the Board pictures of the site. • Mr. Happ asked if a sidewalk was going to be required on the outside of the patio. Ms. McCully replied that if a sidewalk was required it would already be in place because sidewalks in subdivisions aze required as part of the subdivisions platting requirements. Dr. Bailey asked how close will the patio be to the traffic on the street. Ms. McCully stated that the applicant could better answer that question. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor. Ben Rush stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Rush briefly gave the Boazd a scenario of the events that led him to ask for the variance. Mr. Rush told the Board that he and his wife designed the house and they knew about the 15' setback. The plans were submitted to the Pebble Creek Architectural Board for review and it was approved. Plans then were submitted to the City for review and was approved for a permit. The contractor was selected and the gro~~:nd work began. Mr. Rush stated that he called in his surveyor the day before the slab was to be poured to make sure they were in accordance with the zero lot line. The surveyor told Mr. Rush that everything looked fine except for what looked like to him as plans for an attached patio. The surveyor told Mr. Rush that he hoped that he had approval from the city for the patio. Mr. Rush told the surveyor that he felt that he did have approval due to the fact that he had approve plans. Mr. Rush stated that after that conversation he tried calling the city but it was past working hours. Mr. Rush stated that he then called the Chairman of the Pebble Creek Architectural Board and they went over the plans again. It was then • re.3lized that that Board had also over looked the patio cover extending irto the setback. Mr. Rush asked if he need to redesign or what exactly he needed to do. ZBA Mbuder February 16,1999 Page 3 oj7 Mr. Rush stated that it was the Pebble Creek Boards decision that they liked the look of the patio cover because it added to the aesthetics, but it was still a city ordinance and he would need to cleaz it with the city. Mr. Rush stated that he went back to the city and city staff did admit to missing it on the plans. It was discussed at this point to proceed with asking for the variance. Mr. Rush stated that he had concerns that if some time in the future if he tries to sell the house, if he did not have the variance it would cause problems for the new owner acquiring title insurance Mr. Rush ended by saying that he wanted :o go through the proper channels. Mr Rush ended by saying that he never intended to build illegal or out of compliance. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Rush why did he design a house, knowing that it had a zero lot line, and that the patio went out further then that. Mr. Rush stated that he did not know that a cover over a patio would be considered part of a the building setback. Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Rush how far out to the street did the patio go. Mr. Rush replied that it went out 10 feet. Mr. Rush added that the patio homes in that area are required by Pebble Creek to have a 6 foot tall brick and iron fence that goes around the property line. Mr. Rush stated that with or without the patio cover he has a 6 foot high fence on his property line containing the patio cover inside toward the house. Mr. Rush stated that beyond the brick fence he has another 10 ft to the curb line which has a sidewalk and grassy area. Mr. Rush ended by saying that he is not asking to go outside his property line. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Rush how high above the street level will the patio base be. Mr. Rush replied that it depends on which way you aze looking at the house. If your standing even with the patio on the street looking at the house the rock wall is at 4 feet and then a 9 foot tall patio. Mr. Happ stated that is very important to convey that the elevation of his lot is above the street level and the elevation is much • higher then a flat lot that is equal and level to the street. Mr. Happ stated that the setback on Mr. Rush's lot is not going to be so noticeable because of the height. Mr. Rush stated that most of the houses even with the setbacks have a pretty good common azea that is maintained by Pebble Creek. That area is between the fence and the street, and it is usually a 4 or 5 foot grassy area and a 5 foot sidewalk outside the property line. Mr. Rush ended by saying that everything he is doing is inside that line. Chairman Alexander asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition of the request. With no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback for the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: a street borders the property on the side in question thus it will not encroach upon an adjacent structure; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hazdship to ±his appiicant being: the applicant has received previous approval for this house plan by both the city and subdivision and construction has progressed beyond the point where redesign is feasible; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: only the patio and its covering structure and supports for the structure shall be allowed within the area to which the variance applies. Mr. Happ seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). C, ZBA ~ Febroary 16,1999 Pags ~ oj7 AGENDA ?1'EM NO. S: Consideration of a variance to the minimum IRt depth at 207 Cooner. Applicant is Sam McLewis. • Staff Planner McCully stepped before the Board and gave the staff report. Ms. McCully stated that the applicant is requesting the vaziance to allow for the construction of two duplex buildings. The original lot sizes were intended for single family units. At the time the property was platted, a rrux of residential uses was allowed under the previous R-1 zoning. Subsequent rezonings were accommodated as R-1 standards and uses became more restrictive. Now that the area is zoned R-5, the existing lot sizes make it difficult to develop multi-family units under current standards. The Zoning Ordinance allows more than one principal structure to be built on a lot if the structures are within the mirimum setbacks and lot sizes required, as if the property is divided into separate lots. R-5 Apartment/Medium Density distrcts allow for the construction of apartment buildings. However, duplexes that are built in R-2 duplex district standazds. R-2 standards would require minimum lot depths of 100' per duplex. Therefore, two duplexes would require a total depth of 200'. The depth of the proposed lot is 188', which would require a variance of 12 feet, or 6 percent. The Board could consider conditions such as the 15' electrical easements, which prevents the construction of a single R-5 apartment building; or the narrow lot width ,which does not lend itself to the development of an R-5 apartment building. If the owner were to consider building a 6 unit apartment building, which is a permitted use in this zoning district, the electrical easement would limit the footprint of the building such that multiple stories would likely be required. The associated parking (between 15-18 spaces) would be difficult to • accommodate as well. The following alternatives have been identified: Construct medium-density apartments on the lot, under R-5 standards. There would be no restriction on lot size or area; but again, it would be difficult to fit such a development on this lot. Construct one duplex on the lot. Construct one single family house on the lot. On January 17, 1995, the Board granted a lot depth variance to allow the construction of two duplexes at 403 Cooner, a few lots to the east of the subject property. (these minutes are included as ~ a part of these minutes) If the Board decides to deny this variance, the motion should be accompanied by a statement delineating the difference between this request and the one that was granted to 403 Cooner. Ms. McCully handed the Board pictures of the property. Dr. Bailey made clarification to the electrical line dissecting the property. ZBA Mauau February 16,1999 Page S ojT Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. • With no one stepping before the Board to speak in favor of the variance, Chairman Alexander called for anyone wanting. to speak in opposition. With no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. • C. Dr. Bailey stated her concern about the location of the driveway. Ms. McCully referred to the site plan and stated that the standard lot width for a duplex is 70 feet but it can be reduced to 60 feet when parking is not located in the front. This site plan is shown with the parking in the center along with the driveway. Mr. Happ referred to the section in the staff report concerning the alternatives. Mr. Happ called for clarificationto constructing medium-density apartments, under R-5 standards with no restriction to lot size or area but yet the staff states that it would be difficult to fit such a development on the lot. Mr. Happ asked why would it be difficult to fit it on the lot if there are no restrictions. Ms. McCully replied that there is no minimum lot size in R-5 and no minimum lot dimensions. Ms. McCully stated that she thinks it would be difficult to develop an R-5 development verses the R-2 which is being proposed. The current requirements have fire lane requirements, parking, landscaping & irrigation requirements. Ms. McCully stated that there is an alternative, but if forces a particular property to meet and develop under different constraints. That is usually part of the Zoning Boards charge to look at those individual requests. In order to meet the constraints you would be putting one particular property in a situation where it is having to do more to develop that site then others around the property. Mr. Happ stated that he sees only one alternative and that is to put amulti-story building there and then there is the problem with the electrical line. So the development would have to all be place all on one side or front or back of the electrical lines and that is not conducive to anything on Cooner. Mr. Happ stated that that would be an eye sore and he did not know if there was any other alternative rather then to put duplexes on the lot. Dr. Bailey asked if 2 four plexes (1 in front of the lot and 1 in back of the lot) could fit there. Ms. McCully stated that it would not work due to the parking requirement and that would be 8 units which would exceed the density restriction for R-5. Mr. Happ asked if the lot next door is the same size at this lot. Ms. McCully replied that she believes it is the same size. Mr. Happ asked if it was a four plex that was built there. Ms. McCully replied that she is not sure how many units where there but that is anon-conforming building and it does not meet any of the current parking requirements. Mr. Happ asked does that mean that it was built prior to zoning requirements. Ms. McCully replied prior to the existing development requirements today. Mr. Hill asked does that mean the one on the adjoining property is grandfathered. Ms. McCully replied yes. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny a variance to the lot depth 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. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion which passed (3-2). Mr. Happ and Chairman Alexander opposing the denial of variance. AGENDA ITEM N0.6 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. zaa ~v~ Fi6ruory 16,1999 Pags 6 oj1 AGENDA ITEM N0.7. ADJOURN • Mr. Happ moved to adjourn. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. Motion passed unopposed (5-0) IVieeting was adjourned. • • zap u Fi~irwary 1~ 1999 Dv • \ f.~~ Chairman, David Alexander Pugs 7oj7 • NORTHGATE REVITALIZATION BOARD REPORT January 26, 1999 T0:. Pastor Krueger, University Lutheran Chapel 315 College,Station Main, College Station, TX 77840 Greta Watkins, Signs Now 116 A Walton, College Station, TX 77840 FROM: Northgate Revitalization Board Subcommittee Julius Gribou, NRB Chairman Leslie Randolf, NRB Member Cheryl Anz, NRB Member James Massey, P&Z Chainman Steve Parker, P&Z Commissioner Others Attending: Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator Bridgette George, Asst. Development Coordinator Sabine McCully, Senior Planner Randy Brumley, Housing Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Proposed Free-standing Sign Changes; existing sign is located at University Lutheran Church, 315 College Main. (99-401). A Northgate Revitalization Board Subcommittee (NRB) meeting was. held, Wednesday, January 20, 1999 to discuss the above sign changes. Pastor Krueger was present to propose chang'mg the existing sign. face and moving the sign from its current location to_allow -for future additional parking. He inquired about constructing additional parking spaces. Pastor Krueger was encouraged to submit a conceptual parking lot plan back to NRB for review. Since the district does not allow free-standing signs, Sabine told the applicant that he had two options: Keep the sign in the current location and replace the face or pursue a variance. The Board reached a consensus and directed staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment allowing the NRB to have mor;, discretion with the sign regulations. The amendment should allow the NRB to consider sign variances without further review by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Leslie Randolf moved to recommend approval of the proposal with the following condition: that the applicant replace the face, lower the sign to 18" off the ground, and include a landscaping bed around the sign. Mr. Parker seconded the motion to approve the sign changes with the above mentioned conditions which passed (5-0). Zoning Board of Adjustment i~ i• Guest Register ~ ` ,, Date '~~ ~Q. ~ `~' Name Address 1. 13r~ N ~' uS~ a ~ e (, Col ~~~,n 7~~~b 2. Reu. ~..u.V'rH i~Y`u2~Pr~` 315 Colley -Me~,t-1~ C~I~e~,e,S~r.,h'e~'~"X 7~'8$p 3. L_in149 ~a- r~14 ~Qti ~ ~i A~,~~o3 ~,o-,J,l~ ~78oa1 4. n ~ ~ ll 5. _ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ---- - _ ZONING BOARD OF~ADJUSTMENT ~ ,~ FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. I move 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 fAUnd within the City: - ~ ' Tti e /~dr f~ afe Rhea / 5 uh~r4U e c.~,',~.K ~Li e C~ t!v UNGt ___ ~LII"YCh tIY AyAirlA~l't AI~CN`lA1~. /CS ArC Ne9~ ~S 4QS ~~P ~~ Cq~~~. MICAS/~~. . . - and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: ~~ ~ ~~~~.~ /~Y GdDUIc~ laeCot~te ~CSf LAS-r~lt r''~7Ah i f O~CSe~,f/v HS15~/ /S /F Yeltu.rrtc~ ~7 AH gY~fiiC~i~ St9h. ; • 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: r r F w,'ll CO~DIy w, f~ ><ti e r ~~ .~~ra041~.o,~S ©~ t~iQ ./~~rt~i A4 tC ,~~~~~A~.©n ~~g~ Motion made by j e. Motion Seconded by Q ~, Voting Results - C7 Chair Signatur • Date ~- - J /.; - 4 g s~issB.DOc ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.Z) 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: f~+e S~ia~e iK ~~sf.o.. ~ius~ w.~// prof ehcrogc~r uoDn uh aG~/~q C e h 7~ s 7~ru c fu~^ e ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result _ in unnecessary -hardship to this applicant being: caK _ /?AS j^t°c~. vea' ~r~~j,~uS al~Ds°Dva/ ~r ~i, s ~ouse •D/4y ,Fly bD/~6 fl,e C.rJ~y As,~ SubG?~v,1'•o~r aN~ ors~uc~,~., o ~ !rl~ I.~iQr~ r~~es~y~r ~S 1Ce4S~/e and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following Limitations: 4i~~y ~!~ e ~Q~~ o ~Ia~ .l~S rL/ r lrii (~~'/iN ~Li P gre4 ~ .fin, adi ~~ O liQrsaN c e sfD~ ~ e ~ Motion made b L ~° .S' i~ / ~ / - /- Y C ~Y ~ / / >ate ~ ~ lX ~t Seconded by _ Chair Voting Results ~- ~ YARP1638.DOC - - _ __ ZONIlVG BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN`P FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the . yard (Section 8.~ lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback 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 substantial justice done. Motion made by ~ s ~i ~ ~~ ~~~ Date ~ - 1 [ G `' 1" Seconded by ~ f c~~ 1_P `'~~-----,~_ Voting Results 3- a~ Chair Y1/l ~ ~` . ~~ a ~~ ~ ~ \~~~CG~nQ~~` a eQosP Y/~RN1638.DOC