HomeMy WebLinkAbout7 December 7, 1999 SIgn Variance 70 University Chimney Hill Shop CTR. '
MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
December 7, 1999
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Bond & Hill.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy, Ellis & Dr. Bailey.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace,
Staff Planner Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik
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 NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from Meeting.
There were no requests turned in.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of Minutes from the October 19, 1999 meeting of the
Board.
Mr. Happ made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Approval of minutes from the October 20, 1999 meeting of the
Board.
This item was pulled prior to the meeting. These minutes will be presented for consideration of
approval at the January 4, 2000 meeting of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Approval of minutes from the November 2, 1999 meeting of the
Board.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to approve the minutes as written . Mr. Hill seconded the motion, which
passes unopposed (5-0).
Chairman Alexa_nder told the Board that there was a request prior to the meeting to switch items 6
& 7.
ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page 1 o/8
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 702 Hereford Street.
Applicant is Craig H. Blakely.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the
Board th at the applicant wants to receive approval for a garage and an up-stairs living quarter 's
addition built within the rear setback requirements.
The applicant received a building permit in April 1997 for a slab only to be placed between the
original garage and the existing home. Slabs are not required to meet setback requirements, as only
structures must be within setback guidelines. In August 1999, a building inspector noticed the current
garage addition being constructed without the required building permits. The applicant , who had
received notice from the inspector, applied for a building permit and was subsequently denied due to
the rear setback encroachment. The applicant was informed he would have to go before the Zoning
Board of Adjustments for a variance request. As of October 26, 1999 , a ZBA application had not been
submitted , and thus , the Building Official issued an official stop work order.
The original garage is located 0.5 feet from the rear property line and is considered non-conforming
due to the age of the structure. The non-conformity was considered to be 19 .5 feet since it was a
garage structure, which have a required rear setback of 20 feet. However, the owner has added onto
the structure in width (using the area between the existing home and original garage) in addition to
building a second floor, a 700 square foot residential space, to the original garage . These additions
did not receive building permits and would have not been allowed due to the non-conforming rear
setback of the garage structure. Since living quarters have been added to the structure, the required
rear setback is 25 feet from the rear property line. Thus, the applicant is asking for a variance of
24.5 feet to the rear setback requirement for the upstairs use and 19.5 feet for the downstairs
garage.
The applicant states that the footprint of the original structure was not changed at the back of the lot.
The applicant also states that the garage modifications were included in the original reconstruction
plans and a new foundation toward the front of the property was permitted and approved . The
applicant further explains he did not realize that the rear setback requirements for garage versus
usable space above the garage was different.
The applicant offers a hardship that framing and siding have already been completed to the garage
addition and residential space.
Hardships should not be self-inflicted .
On April 3, 1997, the applicant was only approved for a slab to be placed between the original garage
and existing home. The Building Department has not received, nor approved, any reconstruction plans
that pertain to the garage structure and the second story residential space.
Lance Simms, Building Official, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander.
Mr. Simms went over the events of this property. In October of 1996 the applicant received a building
permit for remodeling to be done on the second floor of the primary residence. The remodeling was
not associated with the garage. In April of 1997 the applicant applied for and received a slab only
permit for a garage foundation that would be located between the primary residence and the existing
garage . Mr. Simms told the Board that the Building Code makes provisions for a special foundation
permit and one was issued to Mr. Blakely . The Building codes stated that "a builder of such special
permit is proce~ding at his own risk and without assurance that a permit for the remainder of the work
will be granted nor that corrections will not be required in order to meet the provisions of the technical
codes."
ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page2of8
In August of 1999 a building inspector was in the area and noticed the construction. T he bu ild ing
inspector issued a door hanger stating there may be potential code violations and to contact the
Building Department. The applicant came in September 17 and applied for a permit to construct th e
garage that at this point was already built. At this point Mr. Simms stated that because of th e
encroachment he was not able to issue a perm it. A stop work order was issued.
Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Simms if the applicant understood that the permit was only for the slab . Mr.
Simms referenced the permit file. The applicant clearly wrote on the permit that the use of th e
structure "garage-foundation only at this point."
Mr. Bond asked if no building permit was issued , what is the Board to do in this case . Ms. Anderson
replied that the applicant is asking for approval from the Board to have the addition so close to the rear
setback.
Mr. Bond asked if a building permit has been issued to date. Ms. Anderson replied no. Mr. Bond
asked if the Board granted the variance, then would the building permit be issued. Ms . Anderson
replied that there is a stop work order pending this case. If the variance is approved the structure can
be completed. If the variance is denied the stop work order stays active.
Craig H. Blakely, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander.
Mr . Blakely told the Board that he purchased the home three years ago. The home had a single owner
since 1934. Mr. Blakely described the home as being in such disrepair, before a lender would lend on
the property he had to do foundation repair.
Mr. Blakely told the Board when the original permit for the house was obtained, there were discussions
concerning expanding the garage away from the property line and not altering the existing walls. This
would not change any of the setbacks. When the permit was approved for the slab the inspector looked
at the pour. It was done to code along the back and along the side near the house adjoining it to the
existing slab, but did not have the extra foundation trenched out along the front of the garage . There
were discussions with the inspector concerning the need to dig it out again. Mr . Blakely stated that he
was curious why that was done because the front of the garage will only have a door that would not
support any weight.
Mr. Blakely stated his assumption was since the original construction permit made reference to the
garage, their next step was to get the framing inspected before the dry wall was put into place. Mr.
Blakely told the Board that Mr. Simms had been to the property and has walked through the inside and
there is not any concern about the quality of the structure framing.
Mr. Bond asked Mr. Blakely what hardships could he give that are unique to the property and that the
Board could use in considering granting the variance. Mr. Blakely stated that the rear and both side
neighbors had written letters in support of the construction. All three neighbors liked the aesthetic look
the addition made to the neighborhood.
Graham Horsley, 703 Hereford, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander.
Mr. Horsley told the Board that he wrote a letter in favor of the improvements . Mr . Horsley stated that
he approved of the care and consideration the Blakely's have shown for their home and community in
their successfull efforts to improve the property.
ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page3 o/8
Alex Davis, 800 Hereford, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms .
Davis told the Board that she was in support of the addition and felt it was a nice addition to the
neighborhood.
Kathleen Rodriquez, 900 Hereford , stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman
Alexander. Ms. Rodriquez told the Board that she was in favor of the request and told the Board that it
is a nice addition .
Linda Cleboski, 702 Park Place, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander.
Ms. Cleboski told the Board that she wrote a letter in favor of the addition. Ms . Cleboski stated that
her property is immediately adjacent to the garage at 701 Hereford . Ms . Cleboski added that she had
no objections to the addition.
With no one else stepping forward . Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing .
There were general discussions among the Board Members.
Karen Chavis, 702 Hereford, stepped forward and was granted permission by Chairman Alexander to
speak after the public hearing was closed. Chairman Alexander swore in Ms. Chavis. Ms. Chavis told
the Board that there was miscommunication concerning the building permit. Ms. Chavis stated that it
was their understanding when they applied for the second building permit in September 1999, that
would also give them the go ahead to start the construction as well. Ms . Chavis ended by telling the
Board that they have invested more in the house on the remodeling then what they had originally paid
for the house.
Mr. Happ 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: the
structure that is being built is not changing the original setback locations of the original structure. The
new addition is either in the direction of the house or up and matches the primary house; and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this
applicant being: the options now available, i.e. destroying the new structure would serve no purpose;
and such that the spirit ofthis ordinance shaU be observed and substantial done subject to the following
special limitations: the construction maybe continued once explicit building permit has been issued.
Matt Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a rear and side setback variance at 204 A Fairview.
Applicant is Thomas L. Linton.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report . Ms. Anderson told the
Board the variances are being requested in ' order to allow an outdoor work and storage area in the
required setbacks.
The applicant has constructed an additional work area to the existing wood shed by setting posts into
the ground and providing a cover/roof to the work area . The covered area is approximately 14'x 30 '
with a portion in the far comer going around an existing tree. A fence borders the back and front of
the work area, while the sides are open. The work area may be best described as being similar to a
carport . The Zoning Ordinance regulates that any structure, which requires a building permit,
(structures 100 sq. ft . or more), be located outside the required setbacks. The work area is considered
to be a structure since a roof is in place, which restricts the view to the sky .
ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page 4of8
The accessory structure is located 2 feet from the rear property line and 2 feet from the west side
property line, therefore the applicant is requesting an 18 foot variance to the rear setback and a
5.5 foot variance to the side setback requirements.
The applicant offers several special conditions. First, he states that the work area is a temporary type
structure built at the site of a former non-conforming garage. He also adds those neighboring
properties have non-conforming structures in the setback area, this would be due to the age of this
neighborhood. The third, and most substantial , special condition offered by the applicant is the
location of an 18' unused alley that separates the subject property from the property to the rear. This
alley is often used as a utility easement for municipal crews to do repairs .
The applicant states that if the work area were moved outside the required setback, it would interfere
with the open space appearance of the backyard area. The applicant feels the far back corner of the
backyard is the most visually appealing area to place such a work area since he will be able to easily
screen it from the road and neighboring properties.
Mr. L. Linton, 204 A Fairview, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander.
Mr. Linton described the neighborhood has being one of the older subdivisions in town. The violation
was discovered by a building inspector. Mr. Linton stated that the inspector showed him documents
showing the setbacks as 7.5 feet instead of the 20 -25 foot setback. Mr. Linton stated that he believed
that to be due to the alley. Mr. Linton stated that he understands the zoning ordinance is intended to
maintain property values. Mr. Linton told the Board that he had spoken to all his surrounding property
owners before he started the work and no one was in opposition. Mr. Linton told the Board of his
desire to retire soon. He explained his plans and stated that he wanted to keep his property from
becoming an eyesore to his neighbors.
With no on stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hill 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: the
structure which will be allowed by this variance does not distract from the neighborhood in any way;
and possibly adds aesthetic value by hiding equipment which would otherwise be visible; and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the
applicant being: the structure would be required to be toward the center of the backyard which would
be less desirable; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done
subject to the following limitations: a side setback variance of 5.5 feet and a rear setback of 18 feet to
be allowed. Mr. Happ seconded the motion.
Mr. Happ stated that even though he seconded the motion his only concern would be that the structure
could become an enclosed structure.
Mr. Hill stated that it could be enclosed but it would still be restricted to be used as a utility building
and could not be used for a living space. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the variance was for the
accessory building setback of20 feet. Mr. Hill asked ifthe variance was granted could they come back
and enclose the structure and make a garage or storage shed. Ms. Anderson replied that was correct. It
can not be occupied as a living space.
Mr. Bond stated that he would caution using 'the language of aesthetically pleasii{g qualities because he
would hate it to become a standard in which these type variances are granted.
There were continued discussions concerning the hardship to the applicant and using the aesthetics as a
special condition.
ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page5 o/8
Mr. Bond made an amendment to special conditions . The special conditions would read : The
structure, which will be allowed by this variance , does not detract from the neighborhood in any way
and the location of an 18 foot unused alley that separates the subject property from property to the rear
e~ists on subject property . Mr. Hill seconded the amendment, which passed (5-0).
Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Hill to read the entire motion with amendment. Board voted (5-0) for
granting the variances.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a sign variance at 701 University Drive East.
Applicant is McCoAd Signs.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms . Anderson told the
Board that the variance is being requested to add sign panels to an existing non-conforming sign.
The applicant offers a special condition of elevation differences along University Drive , which create
visibility problems.
The applicant states a hardship of not being able to remove the existing sign tower since it is part of the
building itself and would compromise the building's structural integrity ifremoved .
The allowable heights for freestanding signs are found in Table I of Section 12. The table assigns
allowable heights based on the distance from the distance from the curb/pavement edge from the
base of a given sign. Sign heights are measured from the elevation of the curb or pavement edge. The
maximum height for a sign not located on the East Bypass is 35 feet.
The Corridor Overlay District gives additional regulations pertaining to signs. Once such additional
regulation is not only the limitation of freestanding signs adhere to the restrictions of Table I, but also
freestanding signs shall not exceed the height of the building. The Chimney Hill Shopping Center
was measured to have a height of 13 .5 feet. Thus, the maximum allowable height for a sign located at
the Chimney Hill Shopping Center is 13 .5 feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance in order to maintain the current non-conforming height of 72
feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 58.8 feet.
The sign tower located at Chimney Hill Shopping Center is considered non-conforming in height
because it pre-dates the sign height ordinance. The sign is allowed to keep its non-conforming status
as long as no changes to the sign height or square footage is made. The applicant wishes to add two
17x20 foot sign panel boxes, (ten 4x8 panels on each side), to the existing sign tower. These additions
would cause the sign to loose its non-conforming status. The proposed sign would meet the square
footage requirements since the shopping center has over 670 feet of frontage along University Drive .
Thus the applicant is only requesting a variance to the sign height.
Past discussions with the Legal Department have resolved that such alterations as seen here are the
only opportunity to eliminate non-con-conformities and gain compliance to current standards.
Ms. Anderson ended her staff report stating that this Board has never seen nor granted a sign variance
of this magnitude.
ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page 6of8
Mr. Murphy asked since the structure is four sided, can signs be added on the other sides . Ms.
Anderson replied that would exceed the square footage .
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance.
Fred Bayliss stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Bayliss told the
Board that he is the general council for the company that owns and manages the property. Mr. Bayliss
explained that tenants feel their potential customers have a hard time locating their businesses . Mr.
Bayliss told the Board that McCoAd signs drew up a proposal and presented to city staff that was
approved. When the signs were ready to be placed the city told them the signs would not be allowed .
Mr. Bayliss told the Board that there are improvements being made to the shopping center to present a
better appearance. Mr . Bayliss described the proposed signs . Mr. Bayliss ended by saying that the
new sign will improve the property .·
Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Bayliss would a sign closer to the road attract more attention then the existing
sign. Mr. Bayliss replied that he and Tara with McCoAd signs spent a lot of time driving along
University Drive figuring which median would be best for that type sign . It was when the city told
them that they could not have that type sign is when they began working on the signage for the tower.
Mr. Bond asked Mr. Bayliss if he is asserting that visibility is a problem with a sign that would
conform to current standards . Mr . Bayliss replied yes. A 13-foot sign next to the building would not
have good visibility. Mr. Bayliss told the Board that the trees along University Drive were planted for
aesthetics purposes and that has accomplished. The trees also make it difficult to see a sign.
Tara Norsworthy , with McCoAd Signs, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman
Alexander. Ms . Norsworthy told the Board when she was first contacted to do the freestanding sign ,
she knew that this area was a special district and the city needed to be contacted. Ms. Norsworthy
wanted to make sure before any money was spent on a new sign that they get approval from the city. It
was then that a fax was sent to the Planning Department. Ms. Norsworthy was told that a second
freestanding sign would not be allowed . It was then that she was told about the tower being a pre-
existing structure and she would have to use it for any additional signage for the center. Ms.
Norsworthy described the second hardship on the tenants , as being 4 signs would be needed to cover
all sides. Ms. Norsworthy stated the dollar range would be anywhere fyom $6,000 to $25,000 per
tenant. Ms. Norsworthy explained that after the ZBA application was turned in she received a call
from the Planning Department saying that the new signage would not be allowed due to the Overlay
District guidelines . Ms . Norsworthy showed the Board pictures of the tower structure . Ms.
Norsworthy explained to the Board the installation of the signs and their descriptions.
Chairman Alexander asked Ms . McCully to address the Board since she was referenced as the city staff
who talked to Ms. Norsworthy in this case : Ms. McCully told the Board that she apologized for the
confusion with this case . Ms. McCully did recall speaking with Ms . Norsworthy concerning a second
freestanding sign and what would have to occur. Ms . McCully stated that she did not remember
talking about the option of removing all of the signage. Ms. McCully told the Board that her
understanding before talking to Ms. Norsworthy is that the sign could be removed. At that time it was
discussed to use the existing freestanding sign . There was only information on the sign that was to be
installed. Ms. McCully stated that is probably where the miscommunication occurred.
ZBAMinutes December 7, 1999 Page 7of8
\
/
Mr. Hill asked Ms . McCully if she felt In any way that her discussion with Ms. Norsworthy was
misrepresented. Ms . McCully did not feel that the applicant misrepresented it. There was just too little
information .
With no one stepping forward to speak in opposition of the request , Chairman Alexander closed the
public hearing .
Mr. Happ 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 special conditions not
generally found within the city : the primary frame structure that the additional signs will be added per
dates the present sign ordinance. A conforming sign would not be as visible and may even block
visibility. This freestanding sign is a city landmark; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions
of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: constructing a new
structure would require additional freestanding sign when one already exists 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: that the additional signage on the present structure will not
exceed codes i.e., amount of square footage per sign. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion .
Mr. Hill stated that he is sympathetic to the situation and he does not see a feasible alternative to
granting the variance. Mr. Hill stated that he is concerned about the president this will set.
There were discussions among the Board Members.
Chairman Alexander made comment that by granting this variance if something catastrophic should
happen to the sign it will be allowed to be replaced at the same height.
Board vote for granting the variance (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Discussion of Board Meeting dates & times.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and explained a memo the Board Members had
received from Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services. The memo stated that the demand for
having two ZBA Meetings do not exist. Based on the Planning Department deadlines and workloads
the ZBA Meetings have been changed to meet the first Tuesday of each month. The present time of
6:00 P .M. can be changed or continue as scheduled .
Chairman Alexander expressed his concern of only having one meeting a month. There are cases
where time is of the essence. Ms. Anderson stated that there would still be deadline days and felt sure
if there was an extreme circumstance the Board could call a special meeting.
Chairman Alexander asked to place this item on the next agenda and have Jim Callaway address the
Board with their concerns.
ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page8of8
STAFF REPORT
Date: December 1, 1999 ZBA Meeting Date: December 7 , 1999
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PURPOSE:
Tara Norswortz for Mc Co-Ad Signs
Sign height variance.
701 University Dr. East
To add sign panels to an existing non-conforming sign.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant:
Property Owner:
Applicable
Ordinance Section:
Sign Contractor
SSRS , Inc.
Section 12 -Table I Allowable Heights for Freestanding
Signs.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land Use:
Subject Property:
North:
West:
East:
South:
Frontage:
Access:
Topography &
Vegetation:
Flood Plain:
C :\My Documents\PZ02343 .DOC
Zoned C-B & Corridor Overlay District, Commercial
Business --Overlay District. The property is currently
utilized as the Chimney Hill Shopping Center.
C-1 , General Commercial. Currently used as a retail and
office strip center.
C-1, General Commercial. Currently developed as the
Albertson 's grocery store and other retail uses.
C-B & Corridor Overlay District. Developed as the Hilton
Hotel.
C-B & Corridor Overlay District. Developed as the
University Village Shopping Center.
The Chimney Hill Shopping Center has approximately 670'
of frontage along University Drive.
The subject property has two access points along
University Drive, one access point onto Tarrow, and one
access point onto Tarrow East.
The property is relatively flat with commercial landscaping
in place .
The property is not located with a flood plain.
VARIANCE INFORMATION
Sign Height Allowed: The allowable heights for freestanding signs are found in
Table I of Section 12 . The table assigns allowable heights
based on the distance from the curb/pavement edge from
the base of a given sign. Sign heights are measured from
the elevation of the curb or pavement edge. The maximum
height for a sign not located on the East Bypass is 35 feet.
The Corridor Overlay District gives additional regulations
pertaining to signs. One such additional regulation is not
only the limitation of freestanding signs adhere to the
restrictions of Table I, but also that.freestanding signs shall
not exceed the height of the building. The Chimney Hill
Shopping Center was measured to have a height of 13 .5
feet. Thus, the maximum allowable height for a sign
located at the Chimney Hill Shopping Center is 13.5
feet.
Sign Height Requested: The applicant is requesting a variance in order to maintain
the current non-conforming height of 72 feet. Therefore,
the applicant is requesting a variance of 58.5 feet.
Background Information: The sign tower located at the Chimney Hill Shopping
Center is considered non-conforming in height because it
pre-dates the sign height ordinance (both Table I and the
Overlay District). The sign is allowed to keep its non-
conforming status as long as no changes to the sign height
or square footage is made. The applicant wishes to add
two 17'x 20 ' sign panel boxes, (ten 4x8 panels on each
side), to the existing sign tower. These additions would
cause the sign to loose its non-conforming status. The
proposed sign would meet the square footage requirements
since the shopping center has over 670' of frontage along
University Drive. The applicant therefore, is only
requesting a variance to the sign height.
ANALYSIS
Special Conditions:
Hardships:
The applicant offers a special condition of elevation
differences along University Drive, which she believes
create visibility problems.
The applicant states a hardship of not being able to remove
the existing sign tower since it is part of the building itself
and would compromise the building's structural integrity if
removed.
************************************************************************
According to past discussions with Legal hve resolved that
such alterations as seen here are the only opportunity to
eliminate non-conformities and gain compliance to current
standards. As you know, a variance would go with the
C:\My Documents\PZ02343 .DOC
Alternatives:
property and allow the sign to be replaced with a new sign
of the same dimensions in the future.
The following alternatives have been identified :
1. Remove the existing Chimney Hill signs from the tower
and construct a new freestanding sign that meets current
regulations .
2. The Board may deny or grant a variance less than
requested.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Intent:
Similar Requests:
Number of Property
Owners Notified:
Responses Received:
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Application
Sign Description
C :\My Docum ents\pZ02343 .DOC
The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of signage in order
for "the establishment of a reasonable maximum height for
signs that will allow effective communication, prevent
altitude competition, and will not penalize smaller business
concerns which may not be able to compete for aerial
superiority."
The Board has never seen nor granted a sign height
variance of this magnitude. In August 1996 , the Board
denied a request by Pilger 's Tires , located at 400 University
Drive East , to allow them to replace the panels of their non-
conforming sign. The proposed new panels were actually
going to be smaller than the existing panels , however the
Board was still concerned about the non-conforming sign
height (28.9 ' instead of the required 4.5 '). Several
variances have been granted to rectify nonconforming signs
in the Northgate and other older commercial areas ,
particularly within the old Albertson 's Shopping Center.
Special conditions cited in those cases had to do with site
visibility and the lack of adequate business identification .
16
None at time of staff report.
SPRING LOOP
r~WJ 5A
BLOCK D
BLOCK V
5A
5A
BLOCK V
CHIMNEY
HILL
~-SHOPPING
CENTER
1213 123
11-05-1999 04=41PM FROM TO 97643496 P.01
•ug Vi'fll.1! l.lli>Jl ONL
C.\SKNO.: (§"~ DATE SlJIJMnDD:--
-~;::
COU(t;{ ~"lAr•O~
ZONING BOARD OF AD.JUSTMENT APPLICATION
-· Ylli.nt Feeo£$75 .00.
-~ coniplea:d in full .
-·-~lest form complccc:d in full.
_ Additioaal 1nalerials may be ftJq1llftJd oftte :appliamt sucll as site _plans. elevation drntrtings.. .sip detaib and 6oor
plaa5. 1'he ZOl\tf\g Official sllaD. imi:lnn the a:ppfacant ol any cictla materials required.
APPUCANTIPROffiCT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Ccmaa fi:ir die P1oject):
Name /Y1 t.! C.a ._ -A:d ~ l..j. t1
MailiAg.Adctreu ft,[Q ~arson city P0ryf:{..n-
stat¢ ___ TI----3.--_ Zip c.ooc _:J .l</O I E-Mait Address -ili~.~t
~oi~--Uf8'1 _Fu.Nurnbet_.n)-3Ce:C9' " Phooe Number
J>ROPF.RTY OWNER'S JNFOR.MAnON:
Name SS R._S
Mailing_A__,;ddr;;;:_c:ss_;;;;;_ ___ lj ........ 1-.Q--. -'S-.-~'t~~ ~ uty ~o ll~ sELh\~~
Swe T( Zip Code · ( l~'/ Q E-Mail~ ---'-
PboOe Number fiL/l?-L/ ~ ':{ ~ Fax Num~ · ~{p -~.-f'2----7,_; ----·-·-
------------"·---·--
... ~---"·-----
Action~: (Circle One) Appeal ofZoniog Official's ~winn
P....OOnt'. VariaDoc. Special. ExGCptioa
~vari3 Other __ ·------
Cu1·rmt Zooiog afSubjec:t Property ....... ~--·---···------~-------
A.pplicabJC Ordioance ~ \ 'd. -d~es aer (f ~ec i:J ib:fS ease --------. ~ q; ~ \,'\ c MBLE I ... s~e·fi6!t 7.,z..
The applirant has prepar~ tJW. application lZlld ~rtifit>.s tJ.a1 the facts stLJted herein and ~*bits attach~d
'i1tr'fto are tnl cornet and t:.~&lnlt~. ~~~~~~· i (()defk! -Dale--_LJjJ/'ij --·--
11-05-1999 05:02PM FROM TO 97643 496 P.01
ru.o. u" •.L'-':& Uail!. UftLl
.... :{II; f , .. ~-::~--f. .::·:.
. . ·' . ' .
. . CAS&Na.: .. JM.ft:~------
SIGN .VARIANCE RE'QUEST .. :~ .·
The following 8Pecific, ~·&om the sign ~ons is requdect:
3;? +ef.Gi. over e_C:(sii"'-{3 s~ l\ x-e.!)u{gi-;~o.t/... .-
-·-.. ·-·--------------------·-----.,.....--: .....
-.--·---:-:--______ ...... ---··---·" -·-
Stria enforcement uf the ordinance in this ClSC would CD:Wr 'the folJowing hacdship:
±ow~Y-C.-0'fi.1Ao+ h-e. Y'~'Movel s~r...~e. ·,~Ls 'f>tl.v-..f o{-cf~h_f_
bu~ Lil \l\.;:9 if se f! Q'll. r1 ._ W~u.Lol co~ tom I .:s~ ±~'fr hu.itJ l "j's
:s.ir 1.us(.uy-a I i 't-.ff.8 r ( f y .. -----~-
This variance is necessuy due to ti~ fullowing unique and speciaJ conditions not ~aally tOund withio lhe City :
e.fe.v a..+ioh. d~H e.v e.k\.c~ c.-te.o..-tt._~ ... v.J.si bl /1../:-y ...... _. __ _
==t-ra bieW\ wb.~c..~ w~~-why +hie. ~cnuev-wa.s ~u i It
a±-±he {'c1vri:d . he it;b.± --·--·--------·-·-------
The fo11"wing altt:matiws to the requested variance are possibk:
__ __.(i)_r.._]<e move c fo~Mwc)' h ~ ( l ~ ~ 11 s oft -l-h:e.__-{p_w-ev--"J 7>rt .
---~-----u....,:pF--_...Q,'1'.b+t"'Y-{ree sfaw1'i "\1 s !~ h-·--
-----------------·----......--~---·---
.. This ~arianoe win not ·be contBry" to the general interests of the .public by viI1uc of the following ta.as:
. ___ , ___ TJ..e. +1Awer~ .. :4esibg.{~ ca Uy 12 leasc utj--_h.f ca use. .. rLrrQ:rJ..:5 __ ~(§.a_"(I
_____ -/::¢... he :pav-f o-£ i:h~JJ..l{d!Ylj's aubi-fec±t!v-e. 1>u..i-+.;~
u-p o..~_±heir {ru-s1-a..,._d.;~ ~7e\t\. Je::rfa·oy.s ±he ~a+ .... o.Li.h..~-
c:li-y's ~de\'\ r-eeu.la:.f..-~oJAS, Ir.. o..tl.J..li-i'o1'1., J..{,11).s tre.tJ,fe.s a. h.a.vJ~h~~
{ev--tr-..~ -t-e~Q.'t\.+::s-o.; +~~ bu.~ldiVlj b€.~a..u.:se i-he. "l::.f.lfd!lc. ~QYo.V\O+
le ~o:J:-e. -+~ ~ M. w~'t-L'. ~\I\ 't-h ~ .s ~o '}:.7=> ~kj <! e 1A..-fe r .
The fscts staUxi in this ADDlllC'ACllO
...
"Z)'il\ f\ ~\\c__\ ~
4 K ~
of CL ( Io
Ofl e.l~
~o
l
.t----------_______\_ ,___ ________ _
~l))icenter
~AVERN
1ST BANK
OF SNOOK
REAL ESTATE
OFFICE
FOR LEASING INFO
CALL 409-234-3456
. I/
----~ / '7 I l./fQ r'lr1V.'{ --
/j-.r City of Co ll ege St ati on , Texas
"" PLANN I NG DlV ISJON VARIANCE
/
November 24 , 1999
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Re: Variance request for 701 University Drive East
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a variance request for
the following property:
Applicant : MC CO-AD SIGNS
Subject Property: 701 UNIVERSITY DRE
(See attached location map .)
Proposed Variance: Sign
The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 7,
1999 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City
Hall Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas .
All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject
property have received notification of this request.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-
2989.
For additional information, contact the City Planning Office , (409) 764-3570.
SHAUNA ANDERSON
Staff Planner
LEGAL NOTICE
DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: Wednesday , November 24 , 1999
BILL TO: The City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
REFERENCE PURCHASE ORDER# 149
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
ONLY
The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a
sign variance for 701 University Drive E. Applicant is McCo-Ad Signs for SSRS.
The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p .m. meeting of the Board on December 7, 1999.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-
2989 .
For additional information, please contact me at (409) 764-3570 .
SHAUNA ANDERSON
Staff Planner
99-171
Pangloss Properties In c.
408 Tarrow
College Station, Texas 77 840
99-171
Anthonette Ruffino
3908 Ch eshire Court
Bryan, Texas 77802
99-1 71
Tom Giesenschlag
P. 0. Box 4704
Bryan, Texas 77805
99-171
Hubbard E . Kennady III
8900 Sandstone Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
99-1 71
UIRT/University Park I-L.P.
5847 San Felipe #850
Houston , Texas 77 05 7
99-171
CNL Income Fund VIII LTD.
400 E. South Street STE 500
Orlando, Florida 328 01
99-171
Creath Brazos Baptist A ssociation
P.O. Box 4012
Bryan, Texas 778 01
99-1 71
CH Prop erties LTD.
P.O. Box 10539
B everly Hills, CA 90213
99-1 71
Thomas G. & Doris Homeyer
6103Knightsbridge
Bryan, Texas 77 800-5635
99-1 71
Gainer B . Jones Jr.
3308 Lookout Lan e
A ustin , Texas 78 746-1431
99-1 71
Richard A . Smith
411 Texas Avenue South
College Station , Texas 77840-1 723
99-1 71
Wesley Hall & Hugh Lindsey
412 Tarrow
College Station, Texas 77 840-7811
99-1 71
Wads Joint Venture
170 7 Broadmoor
Bryan, Texas 77803
99-171
David Price Homebuilders Inc.
P. 0. Box 2666
Bryan, Texas 77805
99-171
E.L. Putz
8 15 Ashburn
Colleg e Station, Texas 77840
99-1 71
N eal M & Nina M Roth
10 754-2 Scott Mill Road
Jacksonville , Florida 32223