Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout189 ZBA Steve Parker May 18, 1982 Automotive Serv. World sign appealEA N E )( >( 01'.I UN.I U [;£St TY ~ NAC-LE 5/16(82-- POLACO LOR 2 Hl 1 8 7 31 · 13KoAQ(-{ Eeos. SHELL UNIUc~SITL( ~ /t:XA S 5) r~l 82 POLACOLOR 2 Hl 18 7 31 '?1L-Q-El2. txxoN TE><As ~ (-/ wt.y · :So 5/18/~?.- POLACOLOR 2 Hl 18 7 31 ZO NING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. ---- Name of Applicant Automotive Se rvice W orld --~~~~~~~~~~--'-'---==-==----------------~ Mailing Address 2200 Longmire , C olle g e Sta tion, Texas 778 4 0 --------------------------------~ Phone 6 9 3-0 616 ------------Part o f Location: Lot NI A Block 14 Subdivision Southwood V alley, Sectibn 6B Description, If applicable ---------------------------- Action requested: A ppeal an interpretation by the zoning official regarding Section 8-D. 10-- Fue 1 Price Signs. NAME ADDRESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) -, -! l I ........ .. . -,. "-1 i...\ .... • • . ,. •, , ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Present zoning of land in question C.-\ ~--"----""---~--------------.-~----~ Section of ordinance from which variance is sought ....... ~~-~./,.........,.'------------~~-~ i"+urrcd-o..-l> O"' o-f The following specific en• t• z f the ordinance is requested: This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the ~and not found in like districts: The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following i~ci:~: --1..:NL:''LA.Lo_. ____________________________ _ The facts stated by me in this applica tion ar e true and correct. (!_. ;§ ~~. IL_~ __ 5_/7_/8_2 ____ _ Applicant 7 Date LEGAL NOTICE : DATE(S) TO BE PUBLISHED : M y BILL TO: THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P. 0. BOX 9960 COLLEGE STAT ION , TEXAS 77840 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCE RN : The Zoning Board of Adju s tm e nt for the City o f College Stat ion will consider a request for a variance in the name of: Automotiv e Se rvic e World 2200 Lon gm ire Coll ege Station Texas 77840 ~aid case wi ll be heard by the Board at th eir reg ul ar mee ting in th e Council Room , Coll ege Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue on The nature of the case is a·s follows: The applicant is appealing an int e rpretation of Sec t. 8-D. 10 of Ord. 850 concerning Fuel Price Signs for a commercial project at 2200 Longmire. Th e appeal concerns whether fuel pric e signs c an be portable or mu s t be permanently attached to either a building or the detach e d s ign for the bu s ines s . Further information is available a t the office of th e Zoning Official of th e City o f Colleg e Station, (713) 696-8868 ext . 247. Jane Kee .Zoning Officia l Planning and Zoning Co mmission Ag en da Items, April 5, 1979 (8). The ordin a nce pre se ntly a llow s on e detac hed si~n per buildin g plo regardless of the siz e of the plot o r the type of project. It viould -, certainly be advisable to allow more than on e for very large commercia~ ' projects with frontage and access on more than one arterial thorou gh- fare. Items to consider mioht be: (a). size of site ~ (b). amount of frontag e on each major street and total frontage (c). type of project ·and zoning (d). minimum distance between proposed signs (e). adjacent develop ment and zonin9 The ordinance does not specifically a ddress portable and trailer signs. The Building Official has adopted a policy based on his interpretation which defines these signs and allows them. rv fe eling and that of Jim Callaway, who should be the Zoning Official soon, is that these signs should be treated as detached sign s . Certainly the intention and spirit . of the ordinance are being violated on such sites as Woodstone Shopping Center. We would propose that they be removed as soon as legally possible. (9). Ordinance 850 requires only one par king space per single family residence. Nost actually have two to four s paces provided. Apparently more and more students are "grouping" to occ up y single dwelling units and reduce individual housing expenses. Historically, when a singla family residen- tial area begins the transition fro m owner to renter-occupied units, the area deteriorates. Lack of maintenance beco mes evident and property values decr~ase. Allowing as many as four unrelated persons to constitute a "family" \;las an acceptable provision when it \'1as adopted but times have changed. To protect and preserve the single family residential ar~as, the definition should be lowered to three or even two. There are, how- ever, neighborhoods that have been undergoing this transition for man y years now and could remain if the ordinance allowed it._ The single family zone could be split for t wo different definitions. Such areas are Northgate and South$ate. MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 1979 7:00 P.M. Page 5 l AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 --Consideration of a landscape parking plan for Del Taco. I I I I I \ I I ( ·\ I ! l I I I I I I I l I I I \ I i I I i I ( \ I I I The item was withdrawn from the agenda. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 --Discussion of the sign ordinance as it pertains to the number of detached signs per site, portable and trailer signs. The Commission discussed the existing sign ordinance and possible revisions to it which would set up a permit system for temporary and trailer signs. They suggested that a time limit might be set on such signs. It was suggested that the permit application for temporary signs include specific location, size and other nec~ssary information. The Commission discussed the methods employed by the City to investigate and handle violations of the sign ordinance. They advised Mr. Mayo to check with the City Attorney on this question. The Commission advised the staff to prepare an amending ordinance as discussed for consideration at the earliest possible date. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 --Discussion of number of unrelated persons constituting a family in Single Family zoned districts. The Commission discussed the problems caused by more than four unrelated persons _ living in a single family residence. They noted that, ~ince most residences provided only two off-street parking spaces, one of the main problems was one of several cars parked on the streets. Excessive noise and waste disposal problems were also mentioned. The Commission also discussed the fact that a need existed in the City for the type of housing where more than four person lived in the single family residence. ! Ms. Vicky Rinkey, Gunsmith Street, stated that she was very concerned about the problem. She noted that traffic and parking were now a problem in her area that did not exist before the homes were occupied by stadent !renters. Mr. Gordon Echols, Lair Lane, stated that ·the townhomes in which he lived had begun to attract several students and that this had made his neighborhood less desirable for permanent residents. He stated that he ·felt the Zoning Ordinance gave the Commission the power to protect the character of single family areas and asked that this be done. A resident stated that he felt any change as discussed would be an economic hardship on owners of single family rental units. Commissioners Watson and Etter agreed to work together to study the question and con- sider posssible ordinance revisions addressing the problems discussed and providing a means for enforcement. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 --Other · business. Mr. Mayo reminded the Commission of the joint meeting between the Planning Commissions and the County Commissioners on April 10 at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Mayo proposed that the policy on zone change request~ be chan~ed to ~rovide.that the applicant not be allowed to publish notice for the City Council hearing until after the Commission had made a recommendation on the request. He noted that this would give POST O F FI C E BOX 9900 I I u I I t:.Ar\.::> f "\V L.:.i'UL. COLLE G E STATI O N . T EXAS 7 7 &1 0 July 16, 1979 MEMORANDUM: TO: FROM: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Al Mayo, Director of Planning ~.,....... Agenda Items, July 19, 1979 SUBJECT: 3. The additionof a fellow s hip hall does not require any additional parking s~aces according to the Zoniny Ord"inance . . The staff sees no problems. 4. ·I have p~epcired two ordinances but at this time I can only · present one of them for consideration. This ordinance merely . . . defines portable and trailer signs as detached signs for enforce- ment purp6ses~ Obviously, this means th at if a site already . . has a detach~d sign it could no t h~ve a por table sign unless it also rn~ets ihe.requirements of the section included dealing -with detached signs for large s ites. (T fi is accompli s hes the obvious intent of the or din an c e which is to allow only one sign that is not attached to t he buildin 9 to prevent the vis ua l blight of multipl~ signs. Part of the reason for not proposing a pe'rni)t sy~tem is .that we f a iled to get a Zoni~g Inspector appro~ed . in this ye~r's budget. To add another p~nnit tq .keep ' . . . . . - up with at this time is just too much to handle ef f iciently ~ - The other portion of the ordinance sets up requirements to allow very large commercial and industrial projects to have more than one detached sign. 5. I frankly feel that the isl ands Mr. Culpepper is proposing in Phase I will be built anyway, whether we approve this revision or not. Phase II is relati ve ly well desi gned, and I see no reason to back off now. I thi_nk this revision is pr oposed to balance the appearance of the whole proj ect. If you recall I said almost two years ago tha t \~hen Ph ase II is built th at the ( \ ( ( MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: MINUTES City of Colleg e St ation Planning .and Zoning Co mmission Meeting July 19, 1979 7:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Etter; Co mmissioners Behling, Hazen, Sears, Stover; Coun _cil Liaison Boughton; Director of Planning Mayo, Zoning Official Callaway, Planning Assistant Longley. Commissioners Sweeney, Chairman Watson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 --Approval of minutes -meeting of July 5, 1979. Commissioner Sears moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Commissioner Stover abstaining. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 --Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 --A public hear in g on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit to Our Savior's Lutheran Church located at Cross and Tauber Street for the construction of a fellowship hall and Sunday School rooms as an addition to its . existing facility. Mr. Mayo showed the proposed plan and stated that the staff saw no problems with the proposal. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Blaezen, Chairman of the Church's Council, spoke in favor of the requested use permit. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sears moved that the permit be granted .. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Commissioner Stover voting against. Commissioner Stover stated that he was not opposed to the particular project, but felt that something should be done about the overall problem of parking and access in the Northgate area. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 --A public hearing on the question of adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850 as it applies to detached sign s , temporary signs and trailer signs. Mr. Mayo outlined the proposed ordinance. He noted that the ordinance would classify trailer signs as detached signs t hus allowing only one sign per building site. He stated that the ordinance also pro vided for more than on e detached signs on very large sites having at least 1,000 f eet of frontag e on more than on e major Planning and Zoning Commission July 19, 1979 7:00 P.M. 1· arterial street. ~ The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ron Cruse asked if any variance proceedure to the requirements of the ordinance had been proposed. Mr. Mayo stated that no variance proceedure was included in the proposed amendment. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Mayo pointed out that a problem would exist with service station pr~ce signs. Commissioner Behling suggested that a permit system could be worked out for the trailer signs. Mr. Mayo noted that another ordinance had been ~repared that included a permit system. He explained, however, that at the present time, the Planning Department did not have enough staff to take on another permit proceedure. He advised that a recent survey had shown between 35 and 40 existing trailer signs. Commissioner Stover suggested that a 11 purpose 11 section be added to the ordinance stating the intent of the amendment. The Commission discussed the question of service station price signs. ( Com~ssioner Hazen suggested that a maximum size be set for the price signs. ( Commissioner Behling suggested that service station signs should not be exempted from the ordinance. Mr. Mayo stated that he would check with service station owners and trae i\sign companies on the cost and usefulness of the price signs. Commissioner Stover moved that the ordinance be tabled and reconsidered .after a determination had been made on how to handle the service station signs and the writting of a purpose statement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sears and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 --Consideration of a proposed revision to the parkihg 'iot layout for Culpepper Plaza. Mr. Mayo presented the proposed revision. He stated that he thought the revision would improve .the circulation.and appeara~ce in th~ ent1re parking lot, but that he felt the City should not give up what it had gained in phase 2. The Commission discussed the proposed revision with the developer, Mr. John Culpepper. Mr. Culpepper stated that he could not afford to buil'd phase 2 as shown on the approved plan plus the proposed additions to phase 1. The Commission discussed the need to work out the circulation problem in the area in front of 3-C and Trudie's. Me mo Page 2 probably be a tract of land between the dam and the ex t ension of Holle man for lighter co mm ercial use accessory to the mall . across Holleman, is the mall, although certa inly ~n exp anse parking lot will separate the mall itself from Hollemari. I would submit that the mall is not "across the street" from Sutton Place. Aside from this, Sutton Place is not a oood tract for commercial -~ development. Richard Smith already has one flood plain C-1 tract at Harvey Road and Texas Avenue. How many projects has he built there? 8. The problem may be getting a site plan approved for an apartment project on Tract B unless it is developed as part of the Courtyard Apartments on Tract A. The access should be on Stallings. The zoning is R-6, and I would certainly hope that the City would not consider commercial _ zoning fo~ a tract only 191 feet deep on this thoroughfare. 9. A survey of gas stations (including drive-in grocery stores with gas pumps) revealed 24 stations total, 10 of which had n~_gas price infor- ' rriation advertised. Of the 14 with gas pr-fee information, only seven had that ·information on a portable sign. We have not yet talked to any . station operaters . We recommend leaving the ordinance as it was at . the last meeting. One thought might be, however, to add to the ordinance wording to allow gas stations, speci.fically, to add price information to existing detached signs. or lights wHhi"n certain l imi t a_ti ans . without the area being included in the allowable area of the detached sign. The exact location should be approved by the City. 10. Since we approved the Landscaping and Safety Ordinance for parking lots we have had several inquiries from potential applicants (some of whom eventu a lly made appl i cation) who tried to ci r cu mvent th e or dinance by building 19 parking spaces. It is my feeling that a ll parking lots for the ge neral public should rec~ive proper review and have some standard. Sm a ll lots on .major thoroughfares can cause many problems just as large lots can, and certainly a lot with 18 or 19 spaces is vi r tually no differ ent from a _ lot with 20 sp aces. This ordin a nc e requires all co m- mercial and industrial lots to co me under t he juri s diction of th e park i ng ordin ance ; ho wever, lots wi th less tha n 20 spa ce s ca n be reviewe d by .Q!!.]_y t he P.R .C. unl e ss the ap pl-fca nt wi she s t o go t o th e P & Z. ( Planning and Zoning Commission August 2, 1979 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Sweeney moved that the plat be de nied. \ The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and unanimously approved. ( AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 --Consideration of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850 as it applies to detached signs, tem porary signs and trailer signs. Commissioner Stover moved that the item be removed from the table. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sweeney and unanimously approved. Mr. Mayo went over the results of a survey of gas stations and their price signs. Mr. Mayo suggested that the ordinance allow gas stations to affix their portable price signs to an existing detached sign or a light standard after obtaining a permit for the sign. He suggested that the area of the price sign not apply to the total sign area allowed. Mr. Mayo stated that he had written no specific wording for this section b~t that he could prepare it before presentation of the ordinance to Council. Chairman Watson stated that he felt if the portable sign did not create a traffic hazard or in some way damage the public .intrest that the City should not be .,'',)·, allowed to regulate them. Mr. Mayo stated that a sign did not have to be a traffic hazard to oamage the appearance of the City and that there were many citizens who are :concerned with the appearance of the City. Commissioner Stover moved that the Commissio n recommend adoption of the ordinance with the inclusion of a statement regulating gas station price signs. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Chairman Watson voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0.10 --A public hearing of the question of adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850 to exp and the jurisdiction of the land- scaping and safety requirements for parking areas in co mmercial and industrial zones. Mr. Mayo explained that the amendment would require all parking areas in commercial and industrial zones to be considered by the P.R.C. but that only those with 20 or more spaces would be submitted to the Com mission. He pointed out that the ordinance now gave the City Engineer the power to approve all parking lots with more than 5 spaces but that this often put the Engineer in a difficult position and it would be helpful to have the P.R.C. to back up his decisions. Chairman Watson suggested that the process would slow down the building permit process on small commercial projects. Mr. Mayo stated that P.R.C. meetings could be set up very •1quickly and that the proposed system would not slow down the process. ( , Commissioner Behling suggested that the City Engineer could take care of the situation as stated in the present ordinance. The public hearing was opened. C ity of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I I 0 I TEXAS r\VEf\'UE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 August 20, 1979 MEMORAtmur.1: TO: .fROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Counci~men Al Mayo, Director of Planning Agenda Items, August 23, 1979 Annexation of a 184.8 acre tract: The Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend this annexation. Part of this tract is in the flood plain, but some development could take place. Utility service is no problem. Mr. Wheeler has ·said that the development could be of a nature to "support" the Wheeler Ridge and Texas Instruments projects. Annexation of a 250 acre tract: This is the Texas Instruments site. Utility service is no problem. The staff and P & Z recommend the annexation. Annexation of a 323.2 acre tract: This is an expansion of Southwood Valley to Wellborn Road. Utility ·O-. service is no problem. The Staff and P & Z recommend the annexation. I Request for rezoning -Sutton Place: The Planning and Zoning Commissioff .recommends approval '.:of the rezoning. I cannot in any way, however, support this actfon. There is . absolutely no logic to rezoning a flood plain like this commercial use. Mr. Smith already owns a flood plain commercial tract at Texas Avenue and Harvey Road. Please take note of the "activity" on that site! There is now and can always be more than adequate buffer between these larqe single-family lots and the regional ·mall. We will surely receive requests from many developers in the future foi commercial zoning on the bypass. Proper planning would allow only the best of those requests to be approved unless we want strip commercial development on the bypass. This request could only rate as one of the worst. I might refer you to the minutes of this item. Mr. Smith owns all of the street in Sutton Place, not half of it, and should be responsible for improvfog the whole street, himself. Amend Zoning Ordinance -Siqns: This ordin a nce will allow more than one detached sign on very large sites under prescribed conditions. It also treats portable and trailer signs just as detached signs because their i mpact is exactly the s ame as a detached sign. The ordinance is included as recommended by th e P & Z including special wording about gas price signs at filling stations. This is added because we feel that this informatio n is Memo Page 2 needed by the public. Unli ke the other portable signs, gas price signs have been around for many years. Amend Zoning Ordinance -expand jurisdiction of parking review: The P & Z recommended approval of the ordinance as presented. The problem the Staff is having is applying similar requirements of the existing ordinance to small com me rcial projects with less than twenty (20) parking spaces. These small businesses can generate a substantial amount of traffic, especially when several are concentrated in a strip on a major thoroughfare. The small businesses would not need a P & Z review unless they request it. The P.R.C., including-- the City Planner, City Engineer, and P & Z Commissioner;, can usually assemble for a review on very short notice. This should not cause any more delay to the building peYill it process. Amend Zoning Ordinance -filing fees Permit fees should not be set by ordinance. Council policy should be adequate action to change the fee for rezoning requests and conditional use permits. The ordinance books are cluttered enough -now. The P & Z recommends approval. If passed we will request a fee for rezonings to cover the actual cost of rezonings at the next meeting . . i Final Plat -Lakeview Acres At some time we will need to acquire additional right-of -wa y on these lots on Miller's Lane for the extension of FM 2818; however, at this time we do not know just exactly how much we will need. The Highway Department has not begun the construction plans siJice this fs: not yet a high priority project. The P & Z approved the pl at adding a note requiring a 75-foot front setback which was agreeable to Mr. Bertrand, the owner. Policy on Driveway width: The P & Z considered this item and determined that the ordinance was very adequate and recommends no change. / ( ( REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Page 2 August 23, 1979 7:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6--A public hearing on the question of rezoning the Sutton Place Addition from Single Family Residential District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1. The rezoning in initiated by the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission. City Planner Mayo presented and explained the proposal. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one spoke. Agenda Item No.7--Consideration of an ordinance rezoning the above tract. Councilman Dozier moved to table this item because no one was present to represent the area being considered. Councilman Jones seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Agenda Item No .8--Consideration of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance No.850 as it applies to detached signs, temporary signs and trailer signs. City Planner Mayo explained the proposed amendment. Councilman Adams asked if a trailer was defined. Councilman Dozier suggested adding a proviso stating that this ordinance does not apply to moving vans and such vehicles. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one spoke. Agenda Item No.9~-Consideration of an ordinance amending Ordinance No.850. Councilman Adams moved to table this item. Councilman Jones :seconded the motion, which failed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Adams, Jones Against: Councilmen Dozier, Halter, Ringer The general opinion of the Council was the trouble with section 8.D.10 . Councilman Ringer suggested that permits be issued for a short period of time for special sales allowing "trailer signs". Councilman Ringer moved that the proposed amendment be passed, with the omission of 8.D.10. Section 8.D.11 would then be labeled "8.D.10, Special Proviso". Councilman Dozier . seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Ringer, Dozier, Halter, Jones Against: Councilman Adams. This motion hereby created Ordinance 1174. · Agenda Item No.10--A public hearing on the question of adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance No.850 to expand the jurisdiction of the land- scaping and safety requirements for parking areas in commercial and industrial zones. ( ( ORDINANCE NO. 1174 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 850. ~IHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing in the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. on August 23, 1979, on the question of amending the Zoning Ordin ance No . 850 ; AND WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to amend Ordinance No. 850; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS:· The Zoning Ordinance No. 850 is hereby amended as follows: Section 8-D.6. delete the following: "No more than one (1) detached sign shall be allowed on any one building plot.'' Section 8-D.9. add the following: No more than one (1) detached sign shall be allowed on any one building plot except when all of the following conditions are met: (a). the site (building plot) must be zoned General Commercial C-1, Commercial Industrial C-2, Planned Industrial M-1, or Heavy Industrial M-2. (b). the site must oe a minimum size of twenty-five (25) acres. (c). the site must have a minimum of 1,000 feet of continuous, unsubdivided fronta~e on each major arterial on which a sign is requested; only one (1) sign will be permitted on each major arterial; the major arterials are designated on the Comprehensive Plan for the City of College Station. Add Section 8-D.10. as follows: Section 8-0.10. SPECIAL PROVISO -FUEL PRICE SIGNS: Filling stations :will be allowed one sign per site advertising the current price of fuel only, the area of which will not be included in the allowable area of their detached sign. These price signs shall have a maximum area of fifteen (15) square feet and cannot be located within the right-of-way. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of approval and publication. PASSED AND APPROVED this 23~ay of August, 1979. APPROVED ' Memo September lQ? 1979 (\. . Page 2 REZONING 2.47 ACRE TRACT C-l to R-5 -Southwood Valley: . . This tract is directly across Airline Drive from the townhouse project just built by Larry Landry. Mr. Fitch and Mr. Landry intend to build more townhouses and possibly some four-plexes on this site. The P & Z recommends approval. PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS: This ordinance would establish a permit system for portable/trailer signs .. Transport vehicles are excluded in Section 8-D. l l. l. · Perm"its would be issued to shopping center ·tenants for special purposes only. This is to prevent signs advertising job applications, apartments for rent, etc. Everyone but a shopping center tenant has got exposure and should not need another sign. The rest of the ordinance deals with location, time " allowed, violation notification, etc. Please note Section 8-D.11.12. This would enable us to clear up the existing situation. We propose to notify everyone of the permit provision who now has a portable/trailer sign if this ordinance is approved. :LANDSCAPING/SAFETY -Parking Areas: t ' This ordinance is exactly as presented at the last meeting except that the staff will handle the smaller lot review instead of the Project Review Committee. The only thing that this ordinance does is to make the standards of 1the landscaping/safety ordinance apply to the parking lots with less than twenty (20) spaces. · · r MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT -l~illiamsb e rg Addition: Th~ staff, P ~& Z, and the project engineer, Don Garrett, all agreed at the P & Z meeting that -this is not actually a preliminary plat review. I ~equest th~t the Council make this clear also. This is a proposed planned unit development. The project engineer is requesting approval/disapproval from the City for the basic concept and any problems seen before he and his client, Glen Williams, proceed with the exoense and work of p~eparing the P.U.D. plans and data for presentation.:· They; in fa .ct, cannot get · approval-of a preliminary plat yet because they have not presented all ·the information requ1red of a P.U.D. · · FINAL PLAT -Resubdivision Lots 13 and 14, Block 28; Southwood Valley: The P & Z approved the plat conditionally .. They wa nt the utility easement added back to the side lot line betwe en Lots 13 and 14 . Th e plat merely takes property from Lot 14 and adds it to Lot 13. Both are still well over the minimum lot size. FINAL PLAT -Resubdivision -Colle ge Heights, College Vista , and D. A. Smith Additions:· · The developer proposed to build a s hopping center on the tract made up of all these lots. The P & Z appro ve d the plat. ( ( REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Sept. 13, 1979 7:00 F.M. page 3 Councilman Dozier asked that P&Z later rezone the tract R-4 when the ordinance is changed. Agenda Item No.10--Consideration of early repayment to Clyde Bickham for land. Assistant City Manager, Finance Van Dever explained the request and recommended repayment of around $20,000. Councilman Halter moved to repay Mr. Bickham out of the bond funds. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilman Ringer, Boughton, Halter, Jones, Adams Against: Councilman Dozier, Mayor Bravenec Agenda Item No. 11--Consideration of an ordinance rezoning the Sutton Place Addition from Single Famill Residential District R-1 to General Conunercial District C-1. Councilman Ringer moved to take this item off the table. Councilman Boughton seconded the motio~, which passed unanimously. City Planner Mayo presented and explained the plat. Richard Smith, owner, spoke in favor of the rezoning. City Engineer Ash pointed out that the street was not wide enough for a commercial street and would have to be widened before a building permit could be issued. He --2;, asked whose responsibility this would be .. 1 Richard Smith said he would upgrade his part of the street and stated that CBL said they would ftrr their part of the street. Councilman Halter moved approval of the C-1 zoning, creating Ordinance 1182. Councilman Dozier seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Ringer, Dozier, Halter, Jones, Adams Against: Councilman Boughton; Mayor Bravenec Councilman Halter moved that the staff not issue a building permit until the present street is curbed and guttered. Councilman Ringer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Agenda Item No.12--Consideration of an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance as _it applies to portable signs and trailer signs. City Planner Mayo presented and explained the proposed ordinance. The Mayor noted that the public hearing had already been held for this item. Cullen Mancuso spoke against the p r o p osal s a ying that people had ma de considerable investments to be told .they coµld not use the ir signs. Councilman Ringer moved to adopt Ordinance 1183 including amendments by the City Man age r. Councilman Boughton seconded the mo t ion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Ringer, Boughton, Halter, Ma yor Bravenec Against: Councilmen Dozier, Adams, Jones ( ··., 'l ( ORDINANCE N0 .1183 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDIN AN CE NO. 850 ESTABLISHING A PERMIT TO BE REQUIRED FOR PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS. WHEREAS, the City_ Council held a public hearing in the College Station City Hall at 7:00 p.m. on Auqust 23 , 1979, on the question of amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850; AND WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to amend Ordinance No. 850; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THg CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: The Zoning Ordinance No. 850 is hereby amended as follows: Add Section 8-D.ll. as follows: 8-D.ll. PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS: 8-D.11.1. Portable/trailer signs ~re defined as those signs · that are not permanently affixed to the ground, excluding trucks, trailers, and other vehicles whose principal use is for transport instead of adver- tisement. -8-D.ll.2. It shall be unlawful to loca t e a portable/trailer sign on any site within the City limits until the Zcning Official has determined that it is in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, and a building permit has been issued for said sign. 8-0.ll.3. Permits for portable/trailer signs can only be issued for special purpose~, such as sales and grand openings, in General Co mmercial C-1 zones. 8-0.11.4. The maximum time allowed by permit shall be seven (7) days. 8-0.11.5. No more than one permit shall be issued for each business each ninety (90) days. 8-0 :ll.6. An adequate site plan must be submitted with the application to locate the sign. 8-0.11.7. The portable/trailer sign shall be located only in a designated parking space on the site no closer than eight (8) feet from the curb of the street and no closer than twenty (20) feet from any curb cut or intersection. 8-D.11.8. The maximum size of th e porta ble/trailer sign face shall be five (5) feet high.and twelve (12) feet wide or sixty (60) squ are feet, with a maxu mum height of six (6) feet. 8-D.11.9. No portable/trailer si gn shall be li ghted or have any moving or flashing parts. ( 8-D.11.10. If the Zoning Official shall find a violation of any prov1s1on of this ordinance, he shall notify the person responsible to cease such violation within a reasonable time to be determined by the Zoning Official. 8-D.11.11. If the violation is not remedied within the time prescribed by the Zoning Official, the said official may cancel the portable/trailer sign permit, if any, and bring action against the party or parties in violation pursuant -to Section 14 of Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance. 8-D.11.12. All existing portable/trailer signs in use as of the effective date of this ordinance must comply with the provisions of this ordinance within ninety (90) days of the effective date or be found in violation thereof. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of approval and publication. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13!!!_ day of September, 1979. APPROVED .· I I ;· ....... · • j \ \ In a mom ento us decision that greatl y broadened the tort liability of municipal governments, the Texas Supr eme Court recently r ul ed th at citi es must ke ep traff ic int ersect ion s clear of visu a l obstruc- tions or pay for the accid ents that result. Th e imm ed i ate loser in th e suit was th e City of Midl and (pop . 70,948 ) which will pay $975 ,000 in d amages. because of its all eged n egligence in n ot correcting h azard- ous conditions at a blind inter- section. The suit was brought by David J ezek on beh a lf of his son, K eith , who was hurt in a 1977 motor v ehicle accident. J ezek h ad edged hi s car into an int e rs ec tion b ecause hi s vi ew of traf fic was blocked by brush and me squite trees growing along-side the ro adway . Jezek 's auto was hit by a tru c k trave li ng at high speed; he s uffer ed severe injuries, including perman e nt brain damag e . · The tri a l jury found that mesquit e and oth er brush had grown up at the int ersection ; that su ch obstruct ed the vi ew; and that the City fa i l ed to maintain the inte rsecti on in a r easonab ly s a fe condition, which constituted n eg li- gence and a prox im ate cause of the injuri es sustained . D esp ite the jury's findin gs, the trial j udge rendered jud gment against J ezek, ho ldin g th a t th e City w as not l i able for accidents caused by visu a l traffic obstru ct ions . Th e Court of Civil App ea ls affirm ed, citing T ex as ' "close prox - imity rule .'' Under th e clos e pro x imity stanclard, as it w as previously int e rpre ted by th e courts, th e r ecovery of dam ag es against citi e s w as li m it e d to accidents arising out of physica l defects in t he travel ed portion o f a mu n ic i pa l street; a nd cities were not li able for accid e nt s cau sed by visua l obstruc- tion s within the unimproved portion of a stree t ri ght-o f -w ay. Th e T exas Supreme Court August , 1980 rev er sed the Co urt of Civil App ea l s , s aying the lower co urt e rr ed in i ts n a rrow in terpretation of the close proximit y rule. Th e Supre me Court pointed out t he "we ll -established rnle th at the m ainte nan ce of st r ee t s in a safe con dition is a proprietary function, and that a cit y is I i a ble f or its n egligence in the perform ance of this function.'' Moreover, the Court said, th e duty to maintain streets in a safe con dition ''is no limited to the t rav eled portion of the stree t a l one, but exte n ds to the prevention o f def ects outsid e_ -the t rav e l e d or imp roved portion of th e street if its pro xim ity th ereto renders it prob- abl e that s uch defect wil l r esu lt i n inju ry to tho se using t he i mproved port ion o f the street." Th e Cou rt's decis io n in J ezek was strong ly influen ce d by the f acts that: • At least one oth er w reck had o ccurred at th e same int ersec tion; • Pr ior t o Je zek 's accident , th e City h ad be en informed of the h az ardous sit uati o n; an d • The Ci ty had taken no action to r ec tify the h aza rd o us s it uation. Thus, th e Co u rt fou nd , "th e City of Midl and k n ew or should h av e known of the ob struct io n of view; t he City di d not main ta in t he int e r sec t ion in a r easo n ab l y saf e co ndition ; and this was negligence and a p ro ximate c ause of th e acci dent." ''We th erefore hold,'' th e Co urt said, "th at where a city kno wing l y m aint ain s an int e r sec ti on ri ght -of-wa y in a manner whic t d angerous ly o bstructs t he vision of mo tor i s t s u sing the street, it i s u nd er a duty t o warn of-th e danger or , if necessary, make safe th e d efecti'1e c ondition. Wh ere, as h er e, the city has been g ive n notice of the d a n ger and doe s not ac t , l iability wil l attach_" 0 City of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I l 0 l TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 May 10, 1 982 INTER-OFFICE MEMOR~NDUM TO: Jane Kee, Zoning Official FROM: ~-6 . John Black, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Portable Signs Portable signs do not convey information to drivers as well as permanent lighted signs placed at heights above eight feet. These signs (portable signs) also create sight distance hazards for drivers exiting driveways and adjacent city streets. For these reasons, portable signs should be discouraged . Many owners place these signs just off the curb because the information on the sign is at or below eye level of the approaching driver. A driver with good vision can only decern 3 or 4 word messages from a sign using 6 inch letters and mounted at an 8-10 ft. height. Portable signs at ground level convey only 2 or 3 word messages effectively. Portable signs are useless in areas where on-street parking is permitted and at night because non-reflective materials are used for the sign background. Because of their poor visibility, property owners often place these signs in city or state right-of-way whicn causes blind intersections at adjacent driveways and intersecting streets. Attached is an article which outlines our municipal responsibility to remove visual obstructions in the right-of-way. Our city sign crew includes a sigh t distance check in their peri-0dic sign maintenance and inspection schedule. If during an inspection or in response to a citizen call they find the right-of-way obstructed, our crew will remove the sight distance problem.