Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment June 16, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Gentry, Evans, Gilmore, Thompson and Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Julien and Henry STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of ainutes - aeeting of June 2, 1987. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Evans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for a Special Bxception (Ordinance No. 1638 Section 15) to allow expansion of a non-conforaing structure at 1800 Brothers. Applicant is Larry Landry. Zoning Official Kee explained the applicant, Larry Landry, is also the owner of this small commercial strip center at 1$00 Brothers, and his request is for a Special Exception to allow the expansion of this non-conforming shopping center. She read Section 15.2.C.[b] of Ordinance No. 1638, the applicable ordinance section, aloud to the Board. Mrs. Kee described the physical characteristics while referring to a site plan of the shopping center which was on the wall. She explained that the non- conformity of this center is that the existing parking does not meet ordinance requirements, but pointed out that when the center was constructed, it met ordinance requirements and became non-conforming when the current ordinance was adopted in 1986. She informed the Board that the proposed expansion to an existing dentist office is 1200 square feet, or 9~, will require an additional 8 parking spaces to cover requirements for that addition, and that the applicant has shown on a drawing where he can stripe 8 spaces in the rear of the center which will be accessible by an access easement. Mrs. Kee went on to mention that there has been no previous Board action on this property, that 27 area property owners had been notified of this request and none had contacted her to offer any response. She also reported that the Building Official • and the Fire Marshal had received notification of this request, but neither had offered comments. Mr. Evans requested clarification regarding parking requirements and Mrs. Kee replied • that the previous ordinance had required 1 space per 200 square feet, but the current ordinance requires 1 space per 150 square feet, resulting in this center being short 20 parking spaces. Mr. Thompson asked if a utility,easement must be free of parking and Mrs. Kee stated that although some of the proposed parking spaces may encroach slightly into the access easement, staff does not consider it a problem. The applicant, Larry Landry was sworn in and stated that the center is approximately 11 years old, that there has never been a parking problem there as a couple of the businesses have their busiest hours of operation in the evening and the dentists have their peak hours of operation between 8 and 5, so there should never be a problem. Mr. Evans stated that he has not been able to identify a hardship and Mrs. Kee explained that this is not a request for a variance, but rather a request for a Special Exception, and no hardship needs to be identified. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to "authorize the enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25X and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent return of such property to a conforming use." Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for a variance to Section 12 Ordinance No. 1638 regarding allowing detached signs at 601 Harvey Hoad, a C-N Neighborhood Business zoning district. Applicant is H. A. (Hank) Taylor. • Mrs. Kee explained that the applicant, Hank Taylor, is the owner of the land and is requesting a variance to the sign regulations so he can erect a freestanding sign at his business, Precision Tune-Up, which is located in a C-N Neighborhood Business zoning district. She read the applicable section of the zoning ordinance which states that "Freestanding signs are allowed only on developed commercial property in A-P, C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1 and M-2 zones...", and informed the Board that although the property is not yet developed, Mr. Taylor has been granted Project Plan Approval for his proposal by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She referred to a site plan on the wall while describing the physical characteristics of the lot and identified area uses as apartments to the west and north, a Tenneco store to the east, The Christmas Store and a vacant convenience store to the south (across Highway 30). She identified alternatives to the variance as being to place signage on the building or to use regulations from another zoning district other than C-1 as is being requested. Mrs. Kee then explained ordinance intent when locating C-N zoning districts as being to provide small commercial sites for residential convenience goods and personal services businesses, with typical development being 7-11 type convenience stores, laundromat facilities, small take-out food establishments, small retail stores, etc. She informed the Board that any use and site plan being proposed in a C-N district must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to receipt of a building permit. She added that this particular site and the adjacent Tenneco site are different in nature from typical C-N zoning districts found near low density residential neighborhoods in that they are surrounded by high density apartment developments, and the uses/site plans were approved by the Commission due to their location(s) on Highway 30 and the existing high density area development. • Mrs. Kee conveyed the following additional information: There has been no previous action by the Board on this property; in 1978 similar action was taken when a ZBA Minutes 6-16-87 page 2 variance was granted for a detached sign in a C-N zone at Rhea's Country Store; five • adjacent property owners were notified of this request and no responses were received. Mr. Ruesink asked if the P&Z had approved the use on this tract, but not the zoning. Mrs. Kee clarified by explaining that the latest action taken on this site was the review and approval of the site plan and the proposed use by the P&Z, but previous action in the past had been taken in the form of making a recommendation to the Council to approve a rezoning request on this tract of land from A-P to C-N. Mr. Evans asked why it had not been zoned C-1. Mrs. Kee replied that C-1 had not been requested by the applicant. Mr. Evans said he had asked simply because this tract and the one to the east appear to have been treated as C-1. Mrs. Kee speculated that perhaps that was due to the location and surrounding uses. Mr. Gentry stated the bank to the east has a freestanding sign. Mrs. Kee informed him that the low profile type freestanding sign had not been a part of the original development, but was the result of a request for variance and is actually only an address/directional sign. She continued to explain that the bank could now have a monument type sign under the current ordinance because that type is allowed in an A-P district. Mr. Gentry then pointed out that the Tenneco store has a freestanding sign, and Mrs. Kee replied that sign is a "Fuel Price Sign" as is allowed by ordinance, but it is not a typical freestanding sign which would be for purposes of advertising the name of the company at that location. Mr. Gentry asked what size sign is being proposed by this applicant and Mrs. Kee stated that specifications of the sign itself have not been discussed with the applicant; that he is simply requesting to be allowed to use a sign which would be allowed in a C-1 district; and, that size and height would be determined after a location is designated and approved. • Mr. Evans asked if the applicant has considered using an attached sign. Mrs. Kee replied that the applicant is aware that one would be allowed without a variance. The applicant, H. E. (Hank) Taylor came forward, was sworn in and stated that he hopes the Board is aware of a recent Supreme Court decision which was reached concerning certain rights to use private property. He stated the other two points he wanted to make were included in his application. Mr. Gilmore asked Mr. Taylor exactly what it is that he wants and Mr. Taylor replied that he wants to be able to erect a sign allowable in any C-1 district because of the current, existing uses in this area. Mr. Ruesink asked him what he has planned and Mr. Taylor replied that he has no specific plans yet and wants only whatever would be allowed in a C-1 district. He added the sign would likely have a company logo since the business is a franchise. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Taylor if he is the franchise owner and he replied that he is. Mr. Gentry then asked him when he bought the land and Mr. Taylor replied that he has been involved in negotiations for the land for approximately 3 months, but will close on the land this Thursday. Mr. Gentry asked if he now has only a contract to purchase the land and he replied that is correct. Mr. Gentry asked why he is asking for a C-1 sign and Mr. Taylor replied that he believes that actually this is a C-1 tract because there does not seem to be a difference between what he proposes and The Christmas Store across the street which is zoned C-1; and in addition to that, both are located on a major thoroughfare which is heavily traveled. Mr. Thompson asked if the applicant had ever considered land to C-1, to which Mr. Taylor replied that he is not of that. Mr. Gentry asked when he became aware that he • a freestanding sign and Mr. Taylor replied that when he Approval" he was aware of the restrictions of the zoning requesting rezoning of his sophisticated enough to think would not be allowed to have received "Project Plan district. ZBA Minutes 6-16-87 page 3 Council Liaison Gardner explained how some rezonings of land happened in the past, • adding that this may have been one of those instances of consideration of area uses and deciding that the adjacent A-P and this C-N would provide a buffer between the C- 1 development and the apartment development. Mr. Ruesink asked if the site plan was approved without a freestanding sign and Mrs. Kee replied that there was no consideration given to a sign because the zoning district limits signage to attached signs which do not require approval by the P&Z. Mr. Thompson asked if a positive motion could be made contingent upon the contract for the sale of the land being completed and Assistant City Attorney Banks replied that if the Board wants to grant a variance which would apply only to this project, it should include that in the motion. Mr. Gentry asked if there is any problem with the applicant not being the actual owner and Mrs. Kee replied there is no problem. Mr. Evans made a motion "to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served." Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion. Mr. Evans explained that he had made this motion because approval has been given for this uae in a C-N district, and if the applicant wants to be considered a C-1 use, he can apply for C-1 zoning. He stated that in requesting this variance, the burden has been placed on this Board, and there are viable alternative routes the applicant can take. • Mr. Gentry asked if the P&Z can approve the applicant's sign since they have approved the site plan and use, to which Mrs. Kee replied that the P&Z cannot consider a variance to sign regulations. Mr. Evans stated that if the City wants to treat this tract as C-1, it should rezone it to C-1. Mr. Ruesink explained the applicant's alternatives as being to apply for rezoning of the tract or to place the sign on the building. Mr. Gentry stated that the nature of the lot, that is its location on Harvey Road and the other commercial uses in the area could make the tract unique and possibly be justification for granting a variance. Mr. Evans stated again that the use for this C-N tract has been approved, and if the tract is to be treated as C-1 it should be zoned C-1. Additional discussion followed concerning whether signage allowed in an A-P district would be a third alternative, and whether or not it should be considered by this Board at this meeting. Mrs. Kee stated that although she did not think consideration of that type of signage would be inappropriate, she did not believe the applicant has even given any consideration to that type of low profile sign. Mr. Gentry stated that this business will be a franchise business, and there is a possibility that the franchise might not allow that type of sign. Mr. Gilmore called the question, votes were cast on the motion to deny the request, with the motion carrying unanimously (5-0). • ZBA Minutes 6-16-87 page 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE June 16, 1987 NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. • 11. 12. 13. -- - - 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Zo. 21. 22. 23. 24 • 25. i • 'CONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NB(iATIVS MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: ----------------------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. • Motion made by: _ -------------- Motion seconded by: .m Voting results: ---------------------------------------- ------------ --------------- C air signature Date • • ZONING HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOIL POSITIVE MOTIONS Special F.xceptiot~s - From Section 15 Ordinance 1G3f3 I move to authorize the a. substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environruent than the first. b. _~__enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25~: and doCs not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent r, return of such property to a conforming use. c. _____reconstruction of a non-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60°6 of the appraised value of the structure ar~d because the reconstruction would • not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformity. ~ ~ ~ ~ Motion made by _ -~_-~_~+~-t~~_~ ________~f~-~_ Seconded by __C~~t1~s~ _ ~_ Vo 'ng results: ~~ ~D~--~/' -- - --.~ - --- --------------------------- ~- `t-_1g~7_ Chair signat re llate •