Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment November 4, 1986 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Meyer, Members McGuirk & Gilmore and Alternate Members Swoboda & Julien MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Evans & Ruesink STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Elmore, Assistant Zoning Official Johnson & Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1. Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, then explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2. Approval of ainutes - special meeting of October 28, 1986. Assistant City Attorney Elmore requested that the word "where" be added before the word "alcohol" on the 8th line from the bottom of page 3. With that addition, Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which • carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Julien abstained). AGBNDA ITBM NO. 3. Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance to the attached sign regulations (Sec. 12.3.L. Ord. 1638) to allow a sign perpendicular to the face of the building at the Creekside Shopping Center. Applicant is 8uth 11. Cain - The 3titchery. Zoning Official Kee explained that the applicant, Ruth W. Cain, is the owner of the business "The Stitchery" which is located in a lease space in the Creekside Shopping Center at 809 University Drive Bast, adding that Creekside Joint Venture, represented by Mack Randolph, owns the shopping center. She explained the variance request to attached sigh regulations has been submitted because the applicant wants to place a sign which is perpendicular to the building face rather than parallel to the building as the zoning ordinance allows. She read the section from the zoning ordinance which addresses attached signs, adding that the ordinance also refers to the restriction that the attached, parallel sign shall not extend more than one foot from the building, and the applicant is proposing that her perpendicular sign be allowed to extend 24 inches from the building at the bottom of the sign, further explaining that the proposed sign is L-shaped. She informed the Board that access to the site is from University Drive, that the site slopes steeply to the north away from University Drive and the finished floor elevation of the building is actually 8 feet below street level. She pointed out that although the property is in the flood plain, • nothing additional would be required in that area for a sign permit. She stated area zoning is C-1, with adjacent structures to the east being the Inn at Chimney Hill and to the west as being the Hilton, with vacant land to the north. She added that although the utilities for this particular business were activated on 8-19-86, the • shopping center itself was constructed in May of 1983 by Randy Goldsmith. She stated the shopping center has one freestanding sign located along University Drive which contains all tenant names, and each tenant in the center has a sign hanging from the porch of each respective business. She stated that only 2 property owners within 200 feet were notified of this request and the only response has been the letter handed out by the applicant at this meeting from the owner of the shopping center, Mack Randolph, who has indicated he is in favor of the Board granting this variance. Mr. McGuirk asked if tenants had been notified and Mrs. Kee replied that only property owners within 200 feet of the subject property receive notification by mail, but the legal notice appears in the newspaper prior to the meeting. Mr. Julien mentioned that the sketch furnished by the applicant indicates it is not drawn to scale and Mrs. Kee pointed out the drawing attempts to locate the shop in the building in relation to its location to University Drive. Mr. Gilmore asked if all other signs meet the regulations of ordinance and Mrs. Kee replied that they do. Mr. McGuirk asked if there are any size or height restrictions on the proposed sign and Mrs. Kee replied there are no such restrictions on attached signs. Applicant Ruth Cain, 2607 Hollow Oak Circle, Bryan, Texas was sworn in and explained the reason for requesting this sign is due to the location of her business in the shopping center, explaining further that people cannot see her store until they are right in front of the building, and it cannot be seen from University Drive at all. She stated that the proposed sign would be more visible and she would like to attach the proposed sign to an existing post in front of the store. She then showed pictures of the shopping center to each Board member to exemplify that her store cannot be seen. She added that when she leased this space she understood that she • would be able to put up this sign, and in fact had one made on which the contractor misspelled the name of her shop. Mr. McGuirk asked her how large she proposes her sign to be and she replied she wants her sign to be 8 feet tall and extend 12 inches from the building at the top of the sign and 24 inches from the building at the bottom, but she could do without the 24 inch protrusion at the bottom, since she only wants to direct customers to the location of the store, and not to attract people from University Drive. Mr. McGuirk asked Mrs. Cain what makes her think the existing sign affects business, and further, how she thinks this proposed sign will improve business. He added that when he visited the center he had no trouble seeing the signs. Mrs. Cain replied this proposed sign would make it easier for people to find the store, adding that she has many calls from her customers asking her exactly where in the shopping center she is located, since they have not been able to find the store. She said you have to be right in front of the store before you can see the business. Mr. McGuirk asked again if she thinks a different configuration of sign would affect the business, and if people actually get into the shopping center and then are unable to find the business. Mrs. Cain cited at least 2 instances when this has happened. Mr. Julien stated that the proposed sign is L-shaped with the top only extending 12 inches out, but the bottom is 24 inches out, and if the bottom were changed to match the top, the entire sign would only extend 12 inches away, and would be in compliance. Mrs. Cain replied the catch happens to be that the letters on the sign would be perpendicular rather than parallel to the building at a location above the awning on an existing post. • Discussion followed regarding how the proposed sign does not comply with ordinance restrictions because it will be perpendicular to the building rather than parallel, ZBA Minutes 11-4-86 Page 2 but since there are no restrictions regarding size or number of attached signs, it will comply in all other areas. • Mr. Swoboda stated that there are several areas in town where shopping centers are being developed off the street, adding that there seems to be a tendency to develop them in this manner now, and many businesses are affected because their signs cannot be seen from major streets. Mr. Gilmore stated that if a variance is granted for this sign, other businesses behind this shop in this center will also want perpendicular signs, each one sticking out a little further than the one in front so they will be more visible. Mr. Swoboda stated the purpose of the ordinance was to do away with distasteful signs and to discourage signs which hang under awnings which people sometimes ran into. Discussion followed among Board members regarding what the purpose of the sign ordinance may have been. Mr. McGuirk asked Mrs. Kee what the ordinance was prior to this one and Mrs. Kee replied the previous ordinance had basically very little control over attached signs. Mr. McGuirk asked what the new ordinance was trying to eliminate and Mr. Swoboda answered that this new ordinance was written mainly to prevent billboard type signs. Mr. McGuirk wondered about that, since, as he explained, this ordinance section addresses no maximum size of attached signs, but only addresses perpendicular/parallel signs. Chairman Meyer explained that a special condition which also represents a hardship other than solely financial must be found in order for this Board to grant a variance. Mrs. Cain replied that the hardship and special condition is that the terrain of this area is not usual or normal thus causing the shop to be 8 feet below the street, and in addition, the shop is hidden in a corner of this building. Mr. Julien stated that perhaps compliance with the ordinance might be found which • would allow a sign if it would be a rectangular sign with 3 sides; the sign itself being parallel to the building, but the 2 sides containing lettering. Mrs. Kee responded by stating that should a proposal such as that arise, she would in all probability bring it before this Board for interpretation. Mrs. Cain stated that her shop attracts a lot of out-of-town people; people who are in town for Aggie games, who also have had trouble finding the store, and she would like to make it easier for them to find the shop as well. She stated that she doubts that her proposed sign could be seen from the street. Mr. McGuirk agreed. Mr. Gilmore said that he sees a problem with granting a variance for this sign creating multiple requests for signs of this nature which would follow. He added that there is a sign out front, so everyone who knows the store is in this shopping center can find it. Mr. McGuirk stated that he agrees with Mr. Gilmore, but he also agrees with Mr. Swoboda regarding the probability of more centers of this design which will be developed, and although he has no problem with all the signs in the shopping center being perpendicular except that the ordinance does not allow it, he thinks that if the City Council would study this ordinance it would be changed to address off-street shopping centers like this one, and because of that, he is reluctant to address a variance request at this time. He added that all shops in this center have the same problem, and by driving in the normal way, you really do not see the signs, and that he does not want to grant a variance to this request because he believes not only more requests for the same type variance will be received from other businesses in this shopping center, but that businesses in other areas that face major streets will • want to rotate their signs, and he would rather refer this section of the ordinance back to the City Council for reconsideration. Mr. Swoboda agreed, adding that this Board should send it back to the Council for consideration with a recommendation that ZBA Minutes 11-4-86 Page 3 other shopping centers of this nature be allowed to turn their signs. Mr. McGuirk emphatically that he did not want to make a recommendation to Council, but merely to • ask Council to reconsider this section of the zoning ordinance. He~added that he believes granting a variance to this request would entail making a policy decision, and he would prefer that policy decisions be made by elected officials. Zoning Official Kee referred to page 12-9 of the zoning ordinance, adding that there was some thought snd consideration given to this type of situation, then read aloud the section regarding "BXBMPT SIGN" which states "The following sighs are exempt from the requirements of this chapter: 1. Signs that are not easily read from beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel on which they are located or from any public thoroughfare or traveled right-of-way. Such signs are not exempt from the safety regulations contained herein and in City building and electrical codes."... Mrs. Kee continued explaining that staff's decision was based on its opinion that an 8 foot by 2 foot sign would be visible from University Drive. There is an exemption in the ordinance for perhaps something smaller which would not be easily read or visible from a public street or right-of-way. Mrs. Meyer asked if the proposed sign were smaller, would it fall into this exempt category and Mrs. Kee said that if it's not visible from beyond the boundaries of the lot it might be exempt, but staff was of the opinion the proposed sign would be visible. Mrs. Meyer told the applicant that she had two choices now: She could continue on with the variance request as proposed, or the Board could table consideration of this item to allow her time to redesign a sign which would perhaps be considered exempt. Mr. McGuirk asked how long it would take for Council to respond to a request for reconsideration, and Mrs. Meyer and Mr. Gilmore stated that should not be a • consideration now. Mrs. Cain questioned whether a 12 inch sign, located 8 feet below University Drive, even if the sign is 8 feet tall, would really be visible from University Drive, and further, who is to decide if it will be visible or not. The Board stated together, that is the problem. Mrs. Kee stated that she believes this is something the Board can do at this meeting in terms of interpretation, and further, that there are no guidelines given in the ordinance in terms of size, setback, etc. but the Board can make the determination with what they've seen tonight that it should be an exempt sign. Mrs. Cain said she would be flexible and could either continue with this request or redesign the sign. Mr. McGuirk stated that is not the problem he is having, but rather his problem is that this situation looks like it may become a very common problem and he does not think the City should be conducting business by granting variances to solve a common problem. Mr. Gilmore said this is his problem also, that there is a problem if "you" vary from the ordinance, and once you drive down in the shopping center you can see the sign, and that seems to be the intent of the ordinance. He continued by stating he cannot condone creating a situation where once you look down at this shopping center you have 12 signs you have to look through to find whatever you are looking for. Mr. McGuirk said that may not be a problem as he cannot picture what that would look like. Mr. Gilmore stated again that is a problem for him. Mrs. Meyer explained that the problem this Board is having is that if a variance is granted for the request, then any subsequent shopholder who is a tenant in that place • has a variance, and it is something that cannot be taken lightly. Mr. McGuirk stated that there are only 2 ways he would want to proceed: Tither to ZBA Minutes 11-4-86 Page 4 direct staff to interpret this and to accept certain pieces of evidence that they have not been willing to accept to make this an exempt sign or to table the request for a • variance and ask City Council to consider what policy they want to establish for off- street shopping centers. Mrs. Meyer said she would like to know how far this sign will stick up as she does not have enough information; Mr. McGuirk stated it will stick up 16 feet. Mrs. Meyer said then it is obviously geared to attract University Drive traffic, and Mr. McGuirk said with the shop sitting down in that hole, you would not be able to see it from University Drive. Mrs. Cain said she already has a sign out front for the purpose of attracting traffic from University Drive, and now she wants a sign so that people can tell which shop is hers. Mrs. Meyer stated that it is possible that Mrs. Cain might be able to get what she wants without a variance. Mr. McGuirk stated emphatically that if you are driving down University from west to east you would never see that sign, and if you were going from east to west you probably would not see the sign. Mr. Julien said then that it would not be visible. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to direct city staff to accept this sign shown in the picture as an exempt sign. There was no second to this motion, so the motion failed. Mr. Gilmore then made a motion to deny a variance to the sign regulations (section 12) 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. Mrs. Meyer seconded for purposes of discussion. • Mr. McGuirk asked Mr. Gilmore just what this motion would accomplish and Mr. Gilmore replied it would accomplish what this Board is here for - to grant a variance to the ordinance or not, and he does not want to grant this type of variance. Mr. McGuirk agreed that he does not want to grant this type of variance, but believes this Board is here to provide relief to people for whom the zoning ordinance is creating a hardship and in this instance the hardship has been stated. Mr. Swoboda said he thinks this Board has forgotten the point, that being that signage is the one most important marketing tool - an undesirable necessity - and people in locations like this do not have the same advantages as everybody else. They can do all the TV and radio advertising they want, but if people don't know where they're at, it won't do any good. The freestanding shopping center signs just don't do any good. Mr. McGuirk asked him what he wants the Board to do, and Mr. Swoboda replied that he does not know, but these people don't have the location where people will see the business. Mr. Gilmore called the question on the motion. Votes were cast on the motion to deny the variance request and the motion failed by a vote of 1-4 (only Gilmore in favor). Mr. McGuirk repeated his idea to call this an exempt sign and asked why Mr. Swoboda had not seconded his motion. Mr. Swoboda said that he did not agree with staff being directed to call this sign exempt, and he would rather address this particular case only. Mrs. Meyer asked Mrs. Kee why staff does not think this sign falls into the exempt sign category and Mrs. Kee replied that staff thinks this sign being proposed can be seen from the street, and therefore would not fall into the exempt category as the ordinance is written. Mrs. Kee went on to say that if the Board finds that this particular sign falls into the exempt sign category, in the future staff would have a • guideline to follow regarding signs up to this size and this far back from the street. Mrs. Cain stated that if she were granted this variance, there is no one else in this center who falls exactly into her same situation. Mr. McGuirk stated ZBA Minutes 11-4-86 Page 5 that he does not want this Board to conduct policy regulations with variances, so the • only alternative he sees is to send the request to Council to ask them to reconsider the ordinance. Mrs. Meyer pointed out that the ordinance concerning exempt sighs states that an exempt sign is one which cannot be "easily read" from a street, rather than "Not seen" from a street. Mr. Swoboda made a motion to authorize a variance to this request in that the proposed sign will not be distasteful and will not be contrary to the provisions of the ordinance and the hardship to the applicant is that due to her location in the shopping center and this sign would simply direct traffic to this business. There was no second to this motion, so the motion died for lack of second. Mr. Julien made a motion to deny a variance to this request on the basis that this sign is already in compliance with the section on exempt signs, and is therefore not in violation of the ordinance. Mr. McGuirk seconded for the purpose of discussion. Mr. McGuirk then asked what the point of this motion would be and Mr. Julien stated the sign really does not need a variance as it is an exempt sign. Mr. McGuirk stated that he is really reluctant to rule on a variance request even if this motion does not grant a variance. This case is not something to be decided with a variance. It needs to be handled, but not this way. Mr. Swoboda asked if the Board could interpret that this sign is not in violation, and both Mr. McGuirk and Mrs. Meyer agreed that is within the realm of duties of this Board, and it has, in fact interpreted the ordinance before. Votes were cast on the motion to deny this variance because the sign is in compliance • with the ordinance as it is an exempt sign and this motion failed by a vote of 2 (Swoboda & Julien) to 3 (Meyer, McGuirk & Gilmore}. Chairman Meyer then made a motion to table this item to allow staff and the applicant time to gather more information to present to this Board regarding whether or not this sign fits the category of an exempt sign. Mr. Julien seconded the motion. Mr. McGuirk asked where is it possible to get more information. Mrs. Meyer stated that more information is needed regarding whether or not this sign can be simply "seen" from the road, or if it is "easily read" from University Drive, and perhaps staff can develop more information along these lines. Mr. Gilmore said he has all the information he needs to vote, but will go along with tabling this item so the Board can move on to the next item on the agenda. Mr. McGuirk asked if the motion to table needs to be amended to ask Council to consider the ordinance. It was decided not to amend the motion. Votes were cast on the motion to table this item until more information was furnished, and the motion carried by a vote of 4-1 (Gilmore against). Mrs. Meyer then explained to the applicant that more information is being requested when the sign is reconsidered. Mrs. Cain asked what in the world she can do short of putting up the sign, which is not an option because it is too expensive. Mrs. Kee stated that staff has some ideas which it should be able to try which might provide additional information so this item can be reconsidered on the 18th of November. Mr. McGuirk announced that his plans are to take this matter up with the Mayor and the Council and he asked if the Board wanted to direct him to act or if he should do it on his own. The Board agreed to so direct Mr. McGuirk to make contact with the • Mayor and Council for consideration of the ordinance. ZBA Minutes 11-4-86 Page 6 AGgNDA ITBM NO. 5. Consideration of a request for a variance to • rear setback regulations (Table A Ord. 1638) at the existing residence at 1301 Laura Lane to allow construction of a single car garage. Applicant is Charles L. Page. Mrs. Kee explained the request, pointing out the applicant is the owner of the residence and is requesting a variance to rear setback requirements to construct a single car garage 13 feet from the rear property line. She informed the Board that the original garage has been converted to living area, that access to the property is from Haines Drive, that the property is surrounded by single family residences and that the original builder of this home was Bill Scasta, with construction being in 1964. She offered the additional information that currently there is a large portable building in approximately the location of the proposed garage. She suggested as an alternative that some trees on the lot could be removed and the garage relocated to that spot. She pointed out that the ordinance intent in setback requirements is to provide privacy and separation, and in this case, outdoor living space in the rear yard. She referred to a memo from the Building Department which lists requirements of the building code in the event this variance is granted, but which this Board should not consider as it is not within the realm of this Board's duties to consider building codes. She clarified by stating the Building Department and the Fire Department have no problems with this request. Applicant Charles L. Page, 1301 Laura Lane was sworn in and stated that although the property has a For Sale sign in its yard, he will probably not sell it if he can get this variance, although he does have contract on another property pending sale of this house. He explained the existing portable building in the back yard has been sold and will be moved from the property, and the proposed garage will not actually • extend to within 13 feet of the rear property line, but that he had requested a variance of 7 feet to allow latitude for the contractor in the event special drainage was required. He stated that Mrs. Kee's alternative of removing trees is not a viable option as these are very old and very beautiful trees, and rather than to remove them to locate the garage at a different spot, he would go ahead with the sale of the house and move to a house which is larger and can better house his family. Discussion followed regarding whether or not it would be feasible to reduce the size of the existing patio and locate the new garage closer to the existing house, with Mr. McGuirk stating he has a problem considering a variance for a project for which a reasonably attractive alternative has been suggested. Mr. Page stated that removing part of the existing patio would not only be very expensive, but would cause difficulties as there is a gas line which runs to that patio and also decreasing the size of the patio would make it undesirable to use, and further would detract from the property. Mrs. Meyer stated she sees 2 hardships, those being the fact that this is misshapen lot and to tear out part of the patio would leave a patio which is too small to be comfortably used. Mr. McGuirk disagreed that the lot is misshapen, but did concede that because the house predates the current ordinances it is located in a spot which precludes the addition of a garage, even though the size of the lot is large enough to accommodate both structures. Mr. Swoboda suggested a different location for the garage and pointed it out on the site plan directly to the applicant, but Mr. Page stated that location had been considered and discarded because it would block air and light from the existing residence, as well as to create a very difficult turn in the driveway. Mrs. Meyer asked Mr. Page exactly how much of a variance he would need since she disagreed with the prospect of granting a variance for more than was absolutely necessary, and Mr. Page replied that he could manage with 2 feet less than requested, which would give the structure a 15 foot setback (or a 5 foot variance). ZBA Minutes 11-4-86 Page 7 Chairman Meyer then offered a motion to authorize a variance of 5 feet to the minimum • rear setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: Shape of the lot, location of existing structure and existing or old value, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: He could not have a detached garage without setting the garage back which would reduce the light and air flow to the master bedroom, require cutting down trees and require reducing the size of the patio thus limiting its usefulness, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by Mr. Julien and carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (McGuirk abstained). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6. Consideration of a request for a variance to rear setback regulations (?able A Ord. 1638) at the existing residence at 1406 Sunny Court to alloN construction of a back porch ad3oining the asin house. Applicant is Sobert G. Fechhela. Mrs. Kee explained the applicant is the owner of the property and his request is for a variance to the rear setback requirement so he can complete construction of an enclosed porch which will be 20 feet from the rear property line. She pointed out that there is an electrical easement 20 feet in width along the rear property line, all 20 feet of which are on this property, that the lot is odd shaped as it is located on a cul-de-sac and the lot backs up to Anderson Park, a City park. She stated that the ordinance intent in requiring 25 foot rear setbacks is to allow ample space for outdoor living space and the combined 50 feet separation from structures on adjacent lots is conducive to privacy, but in this instance there is no rear yard neighbor, but rather a City park. • She further informed the Board that Sections 8.A. & B. of the ordinance allow porches open on three sides to extend into the front setback, and stairways, balconies and other building extensions to extend into the rear setback, but that staff has always considered a porch, even when enclosed by simply a screen, to be more than a building extension and must meet the setback for living quarters. She finalized by stating that 14 property owners within 200 feet of this property had received notification of this request and that she had only received one inquiry about the request, but after she explained what the variance would entail, that person had no problem with the request. Applicant Robert G. Fechhelm, 1406 Sunny Court was sworn in and stated that the reasons for his request are stated in his application, and had been re-stated by Mrs. Kee. He stated the hardships are the strange shape of the lot, that relocation would place the porch too close to the neighbor's bedroom window and intrude on his privacy, and a different location would block light and air to the existing structure. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum rear setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: (1)A property this size would generally support a structure of the nature proposed; (2)The position of the house which predates the zoning code prevents full implementation of the rear portion of the property; (3)The existence of a large city-owned athletic park behind the property satisfies the desire for building separation, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship • to this applicant being the inability to utilize the property in a typically acceptable manner for properties in this area, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by Mr. ZBA Minutes 11-4-86 Page 8 Gilmore and carried unanimously (5-0). . AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7. Other business. Mrs. Kee announced there will be a meeting on November 18th. Mr. McGuirk stated that the variance(s) requested by the Southland Corporation will remain on the table until staff either brings it back for reconsideration, or the applicant withdraws his request. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8. Adjourn. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Julien seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: - ~ y == -- ----- - - ------ Chairman, D othy ever ATTEST: • City Secretary, Dian Jones • ZBA Minutes 11-4-86 Page 9 ..:.i ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • No emb 4 DATE v er 1 86 9 • • NAME t. ADDRESS 1~ (L f ~nri/t Q d ti-wG_ 2 • 1 ~o l S uh/'h /5/ ~T 3. ~ 3 v~ L~ L ~,-.~, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9• 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25.