HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
August 18, 1987
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Thompson, Gentry,
Gilmore, Evans and Alternate Member Henry
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Member Julien and Council Liaison
Gardner
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney
Banks and Planning Technician Volk
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and
liaitations 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 sinutes - meeting of August 4, 198?.
Mr. Evans said that he did not remember making the motion to table consideration of
the sign variance for the Sundance Apartments. Discussion followed, with a consensus
• that he did make the motion resulting. Mr. Thompson made a motion to approve the
minutes as presented. Mr. Gilmore 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 variances to
the side and rear setback regulations (Section 7 Table A
Ordinance No. 1638) at the residence at 104 Hyle to allow
construction of a workshop. Applicants are Hurt & Judy Galey.
Mrs. Kee stated the applicants are the property owners. She described the property
as being a lot in an older subdivision zoned for Single Family residences, with
dimensions of 58 feet x 133 feet. She explained the requested action is for a
variance to the east side setback and the rear setback for the purpose of adding a
workshop which will extend to 10 feet from the rear property line, to an existing
carport which is now located on the east side property line.
She continued explaining that there are electric lines located along both the east
side property line and the rear property line. She informed the Board that the line
along the east side had originally been a Bryan REA line which was covered by a
blanket easement which went to the City when it took over the line. She described
the line along the rear of the property as being a 3 phase line which serves the
Texaco Station on Texas and Dominik and was installed for that purpose.
• Mrs. Kee stated that the Electrical Superintendent has reviewed this proposal, and
has determined that although he prefers to have the areas under power lines free from
structures, in this particular case because there is already a structure under the
line along the east property line, he will not take issue with the proposal but would
point out that a 10 foot clearance between the highest point of the structure and the
' • line will be required. In addition to that requirement, he recommends that the
structure have a composition roof for safety purposes.
In addressing the proposed encroachment into the rear setback or easement, the
Electrical Superintendent stated that as long as the 10 foot "easement" is kept
clear, he has no problem with the encroachment.
Mrs. Kee referred the Board to the application for the special conditions and
hardships listed by the applicant, and continued her report by informing the Board
that staff has determined that alternatives to granting a variance would be for the
applicant to completely abandon his project, for him to reduce the size of the
proposed workshop, or to remove existing tree(s). She finalized the report by
stating that 19 area property owners had been notified of this request and that only
one had responded and indicated that, not only does he have no problem with the
request, but said that there are other structures in the area which have been built
right on the property lines.
Mr. Ruesink asked for an explanation regarding "blanket easements" referred to by
Mrs. Kee. Mr. Gentry explained that this type of easement which covers an entire
property has been used in the past to avoid the cost of preparing a legal description
to cover a specific easement. He continued by stating that in many instances now
these blanket easements are being removed from lots and are being replaced by
specific easements prior to finalizing a sale of a property.
The applicant, Kurt Galey came forward, was sworn in and passed around several
• photographs of this lot which were taken from different angles. He stated that this
workshop will be constructed of the same material as the carport to which it will be
attached, and therefore will not be very noticeable at all. He stated that the
location chosen will allow him to build a building with ample room for the equipment
it is to house and that it will not be visible from the street.
Mr. Galey stated that the distance between the highest point of the building and the
overhead utility line is approximately 15 feet now, and he will maintain whatever
distance is required. Mr. Evans asked why he does not build the building on the side
of the carport which is referred to as "driveway only" on this site plan. Mr. Galey
said that spot will be used to pour a slab on which to park his second vehicle,
explaining that his existing driveway and carport are only 1 car wide, and each time
he wants to move the car from the carport to the street, he must first move his wife's
car.
Mr. Gentry asked Mrs. Kee to clarify the 10 feet being left between this structure
and the rear property line. Mrs. Kee explained that the Electrical Superintendent
has stated that 10 feet is what is absolutely needed in that area to cover the
existing power lines. Mr. Thompson asked the applicant to identify the hardship and
Mr. Galey explained the building must be the size requested to accommodate his power
tools to maintain safety, and the location is the only place large enough to place
this size structure and not block entrance to the house or disrupt or hinder the
growth of the existing large trees. Mr. Henry asked why he is not building next to
the carport and Mr. Galey replied that he wants to put a slab there to park his
second vehicle. Mr. Thompson suggested that he offset a portion of the driveway and
then turn the proposed building long-ways. Mr. Galey said there is not enough room
• there to do that since the building would encroach into the area needed by the
existing large tree.
ZBA Minutes 8-18-87 Page #2
There were no other questions. Mr. Evans made a motion to deny a variance to the
• minimum setback (Table A} 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. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion for purposes
of discussion.
Mr. Evans explained that he had made this motion because he believes there are other
ways to construct a workshop and at the same time meet the 15 foot setback
requirements. He added that he cannot see any hardship in this case.
Mr. Gilmore said that he sees no special conditions or hardships other than the
property itself. Mr. Evans said that there are many other similar lots in that
neighborhood and to approve this request could be setting a precedent. Mr. Gentry
said that special conditions could be the size of the foliage and the existing lot
line construction. He went on to say that he has no problem with either building on
the side lot line or with building to within 10 feet of the rear lot line since the
purpose of setbacks is to create space and due to the nature of the neighbors to the
rear, additional separation would not be necessary. He added that the hardship could
be that any alternatives proposed might require the removal of a large tree. He went
on to explain that the difference between this property and other lots in the
neighborhood is the fact that this lot backs up to Whataburger and Texaco.
Mr. Thompson said he has no real problem with the setback to the east, particularly
since there seem to be several other buildings built on the side property lines in
the area, but he does believe the proposed building might be designed to fit the lot
• and not interfere with the existing trees.
Mr. Galey described the equipment he will be putting in this building and explained
the building is the minimum size and shape to hold it all and still provide a safe
place to work. He said that an "L" shaped building would not allow adequate room.
Mr. Henry asked if the building could be shortened and use half the length of the
parking space, then the car could be parked partly in the gravel drive. Mr. Galey
said that it would look architecturally "out of sync".
Votes were cast on the motion to deny the request for variance and carried by a vote
of 4-1 (Gentry opposed}, The Board then informed Mr. Galey that it would be
acceptable for him to file another application if he had additional information, but
it would not be acceptable if the request and the information were identical.
AG$NDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variances to
rear and aide setback regulations (Section 7 Table A Ordinance
No. 1638) at the existing 4-plex at 710 Wellesley Court to allow
construction of a carport over an existing parking pad.
Applicant is Aric Danen.
Mrs. Kee identified the tract of land, area zoning and land uses. She explained the
request for a variance to the rear and both side setbacks is being made by the
applicant/owner Aric Danen to enable him to construct a carport over an existing
parking pad for a fourplex. She pointed out that it has been determined by staff
that even if this variance is granted, it will be necessary for Mr. Danen to receive
• a "License to Encroach" from the City Council because the carport as proposed not
only encroaches the required rear setback, it also will encroach a 10 foot utility
easement which is platted adjacent to a 10 foot access easement along this rear
ZBA Minutes 8-18-87 Page #3
property line. Mrs. Kee stated that there are no other carports in this subdivision
except behind one duplex on the south side of Vassar, and along the rear of the
• single family homes which front on Lincoln Street, and these all meet setback
requirements.
Mrs. Kee suggested as alternatives to the proposal, that the applicant relocate the
parking pad closer to the fourplex, then cover it with a carport which meets the rear
setback, and which would be out of the easement, or to make the carport shorter in
both length and width.
Mrs. Kee then referred to the memo from the Electrical Superintendent which states
that he prefers that no structures be built under power lines. She finalized her
report by stating that 15 area property owners had been notified and she had received
no responses to that notification.
Aric Danen was sworn in and passed around photos of his property. He stated that he
wants to keep a symmetry in the area, and plans to add at least one tree along the
side of the structure.
Discussion followed regarding the type of construction and the building materials
planned. Mr. Danen stated there are other electric lines which cross over carports
along Lincoln street with only 1 foot of clearance in some instances and even
touching the structures in others. He continued to state that he would maintain at
least 10 feet of clearance from the highest point of his proposed structure to the
existing utility line.
Discussion followed with Mr. Evans stating that in his opinion, the location of the
• carport could be moved toward the house a very small distance, perhaps without even
adding to the parking pad by allowing the front overhang of the cars to simply be
over what ever is already there, and using wheelstops or curbing to preclude the
vehicles from pulling forward too far. Mr. Gilmore stated that if the structure
were moved forward and reduced in size, there would be no encroachment. Mr. Danen
stated he does not want more pavement.
Mrs. Kee was asked how much overhang could be into the easement area and she replied
that she was not sure, but would be happy to work with the applicant to reach a
solution. She added that typically an 18" overhang is allowed into setback areas.
Additional discussion followed concerning how the applicant might be able to have his
carport without the need for a variance or a license to encroach. Mr. Evans stated
that there are no other carports in this entire fourplex area, and he would not like
to set a precedent for others to follow.
Mrs. Kee pointed out that even if the rear setback encroachment is solved, the
encroachments into the side setbacks must still be addressed. Mr. Gilmore said that
this seems to be a problem place to erect a carport. Mr. Gentry agreed and pointed
out that these parking pads were built after the current setbacks were established,
and carports were never anticipated in the area. He went on to state that a carport
cannot be built which will cover all the spaces on this pad without encroaching the
side setbacks. More discussion followed regarding the problems with building a
carport over this particular parking pad.
Mr. Gentry then made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A)
• requirements 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
ZBA Minutes 8-18-87 Page #4
applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done. Mr. Evans seconded the motion to deny the request. Votes
• were cast on the motion to deny the variance, and the motion carried unanimously (5-0},
Mr. Danen asked the Board if it would reconsider his request and Mr. Gilmore said he
would be reluctant to reconsider the very same request. Mr. Evans agreed. Mr.
Gentry agreed, but stated he would be willing to consider another request on the same
property, but with different specifics, i.e., perhaps addressing one of the
alternatives.
Mr. Evans stated that he thinks that a carport requiring no variances could be
designed to cover 6 parking spaces.
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a request for variance to
the parking requireaents (Section 9.2.B Ordinance No. 1638) to
allow the existing coaaercial facility at 1804 Valley View Drive
(foraerly "Ira's") to be converted into a nightclub. Applicant
is Brazos Valley Bntertainaent, Inc/Paul Winston. Owner is JDCL, Inc.
Mrs. Kee explained that she had been contacted by the applicant who requested that
the Board table consideration of this request until the next meeting as he hopes the
problem will be solved by that time.
Mr. Evans made a motion to table item number 6 until the next meeting. Mr. Thompson
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
AGBNDA ITBM NO. 7: fleconsideration of a request for variance to
• the sign regulations (Section 12.3.C g Table II Ordinance No.
1638) to allow sore than one apartaent identification sign at the
existing coaplex at 811 Harvey 8oad. Applicant is Suadance
Apartaents. (This items was tabled at the previous aeeting on 8-4-87.)
Mrs. Kee briefly outlined the request and the tabling action taken by the Board at
the previous meeting following lengthy discussion regarding the existence of a
freestanding sign and 2 attached signs on this property. Mr. Gilmore made a motion
to take this item from its tabled position. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (5-0).
The applicant, Charles Laningham of 12700 Park Central, Dallas, Texas was invited
forward and was sworn in. He stated that he has reconsidered his request, and has
made the decision to continue pursuing the request to retain the signs currently
existing on the Sundance apartments property since he believes they are consistent
with other signage on like properties in the area. He passed additional photos of
other signs in the area to substantiate his claim. He continued with his explanation
by stating that the traffic on Harvey Road has the second highest count in the City,
the visibility of his complex is blocked on 2 sides and reduced signage could cause
traffic hazards. He finalized by stating that he is reaffirming his request to keep
all 3 signs because he needs them for property identification and they are consistent
with other signage in the neighborhood.
Mr. Gilmore stated that other signage in the area is not what is being considered at
this meeting; that signage at the Sundance apartment complex does not meet ordinance
requirements, and if other complexes are outside compliance they would be considered
• separate issues. Mr. Laningham stated that in a community the ordinance should meet
the needs of that community. He continued by stating that his signs are necessary
and are not inconsistent or incompatible with other signage in the neighborhood.
ZBA Minutes 8-18-87 Page #5
Mr. Gilmore rebutted by stating that all signage should comply, otherwise the rules
should be changed.
Mr. Gentry refreshed everyone's memory by stating that Sundance has a freestanding
plus a wall sign on one frontage (Harvey Road) plus another wall sign on another
frontage (University Oaks), and although the ordinance says this complex would be
allowed one sign only, he would be of the opinion that a variance to allow 1 sign on
each frontage would not be unreasonable. He added that he also believes that other
complexes in the area do not have more than 1 sign on each frontage.
i•
n
U
Mr. Laningham stated there seems to be every type of combination; from 1 sign on
Harvey Road to a sign on every building at Courtyard apartments.
Additional discussion followed regarding how a freestanding sign could be lighted on
this property, whether or not the applicant has reconsidered adding script to the
wall signs to include an address, with the applicant stating again that he wants to
be able to keep what he has.
Mr. Evans then made a motion to deny this request for the purposes of discussion.
Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion.
Mr. Evans stated the applicant has 2 choices: He can leave the freestanding sign and
remove both wall signs, or he can leave the wall signs and remove the freestanding
sign. He added that he does not believe other alleged violations should be addressed
at this meeting, but that staff should investigate those allegations.
Mr. Gentry said he might like to amend the motion to allow the applicant the option
of having 2 signs, with the sign on the Harvey Road frontage being whichever sign the
applicant wants. Mr. Evans said that he agrees that there is a problem with the
ordinance which should be addressed regarding complexes with multiple frontage. Mr.
Gentry said he would be inclined to grant a variance to any request for allowing one
sign on each frontage of a complex. Mr. Thompson said he also agrees, but this
applicant apparently wants to keep all 3 signs.
Votes were cast on the motion to deny the request, and the motion carried unanimously
(5-0).
Mr. Gentry said he would like to consider a motion to allow the applicant a choice on
what type of sign he uses on the Harvey Road frontage. The applicant said he didn't
want to take any more of the Board's time, and would abide by the rules. He went on
to say the City has accepted authorization to do something (to replace the wall signs
with the freestanding sign as shown on the Building Permit which was signed by the
sign painter) which was not authorized by either him or anyone else connected with
the company.
Mr. Gentry stated that he thinks there has been a misunderstanding, and would like to
restate what he would like to do. He then explained to the applicant that he would
like to make a motion which would allow him (the applicant) to keep the wall sign on
the University Oaks frontage, and which would also let him have a sign on the Harvey
Road frontage, and he could decide if he wants to keep the wall sign or the
freestanding sign. In effect, he would make a motion to allow one sign on each
street frontage for the Sundance apartments. The applicant agreed that he had
misunderstood what Mr. Gentry was saying earlier, and said he would like to have that
option if it would be agreeable to the Board.
Mr. Gentry then made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from
ZBA Minutes 8-18-87 Page #6
the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to
• the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: That
being that the property occupied by the Sundance apartments has frontage on 2
parallel roads of significant distance one from the other, such that a single sign
for the property as a whole would not provide notice to the public of the identity of
the subject apartment complex, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of
the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: That the
applicant would be unable to provide adequate identification of the apartment complex
on major thoroughfares for safety and emergency response purposes, 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
applicant may maintain 2 signs on the subject property; one such sign being on the
University Oaks Boulevard as it currently exists on the building structure, and the
other such sign being at the Harvey Road entrance to the apartment complex, and the
signage on the Harvey Road entrance may be either the present script sign located on
the building itself, or the freestanding sign located on Harvey Road.
Mr. Evans seconded the motion.
Mr. Henry pointed out that if signage is not allowed on every street with frontage,
the advantages of the property owner for having bought property with multiple
frontages is discounted.
Votes were cast on the motion to grant the variance as stated by Mr. Gentry
and that motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Gentry then pointed out that i
• sign, he can enlarge it, light it
with the ordinance as it addresses
applicant thanked the Board.
f he (the applicant) decides to have a freestanding
and raise it, as long as that sign is in compliance
freestanding apartment identification signs. The
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Discussion of Fuel Price Signs.
Mr. Gentry passed around a draft of a suggested ordinance interpretation regarding
fuel price signs which he had prepared. After discussion, it was agreed that the
Zoning Official should interpret the ordinance section regarding Fuel Price Signs as
follows: "Businesses that sell fuels for automobiles and other vehicles may
advertise fuel prices on only one sign per site. As an alternative to advertising
fuel prices on a sign otherwise allowed by this ordinance, fuel prices may be
advertised on a separate "fuel price sign". There may be only one separate "fuel
price sign" per site, and the size of the sign may not exceed 16 square feet. The
size of the "fuel price sign" will not be included in the allowable area of any other
sign allowed by ordinance on the site; however, such other signs on the site will not
advertise fuel prices when a separate "fuel price sign" is located on the site. A
separate "fuel price sign" cannot be located within the right-of-way."
Mr. Gilmore made a motion that the above interpretation should be used by staff in
the future. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion. Votes were cast, and the motion to
direct staff to use the motion as read by Mr. Gentry to interpret the ordinance in
the future carried by a vote of 4-1 with Mr. Evans voting against the motion.
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 9: Other business.
• Mr. Ruesink announced that Mr. Evans had stated his intent to move from this area
which would result in his handing in his resignation from the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. All thanked Mr. Evans for his service on the Board and wished him good
ZBA Minutes 8-£8-87 Page #7
luck in his new endeavors.
• Mrs. Kee asked if the Board wanted to continue having the list of property owners
receiving notification of a request included in the packets. After brief discussion,
it was decided a final decision would be made at the next meeting.
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 10: Adjourn.
Mr. Gentry made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Evans seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
-----------------------------
City Secretary, Dian Jones
i•
•
- -a"-`D -~ ----- --------------
Chairman, David Ruesink
ZBA Minutes ~ 8-18-87 Page #8
•
•
w~~, ~~ 5 ~ le s
a~~ JeG;
~~ o~~er
``,~~ e 15 ~--~
Businesses that sell~(~.e~~'' may advertise fuel
prices on only one sign''`` per site. As an alternative to
advertising fuel prices on a sign otherwise allowed by this
ordinance, fuel prices may be advertisedn on a separate "fuel
price sign". There may be only one~~' sign~~per site, and the
size of the sign may not exceed 16 square feet. The size of the
"fuel price sign" will not be included in the allowable area of
any other sign allowed by ordinance on the site; however, such
other signs on the site will not advertise fuel prices when a
separate "fuel price sign" is located on the site. A separate
"fuel price sign" cannot be located within the right-of-way.
•
~.~~ ~ Y
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT
• FORMAT FOR NSA?IOB MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I cove to deny a variance to the
_______yard (Section 8.7)
_______lot width (Table A)
_______lot depth (Table A)
___/ ainimu^ setback
(Table A)
_______parking requirements
(Section 9)
fros the terse of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public
interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result
in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of
this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.
•
Motion made by _ ~__
---------------
Seconded by _____' ~
______r_ _ __________________
Voting results: _____~-~__~____~_
Chair signature Ot~.Q Date U ~P~7
_ ~ . ~~
--- -----
- ~.~
•
Danen
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
• FORMAT FOR NBGATIVB MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to deny a variance to the
_______yard (Section 8.7)
_______lot width (Table A)
_______lot depth (Table A)
_~(g__minimum setback
(Table A)
_______parking requirements
(Section 9)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public
interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result
in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of
this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.
• Motion made by Michael Gentry
Seconded by .Inhn Evans
Voting results:
Chair signature
to _8_18=8Z___
-~I~I~E APTS
~'~:'
U
LUN[NC BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR NB(iATIVB MOTION
Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance 1638
Y 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.
.r~
Motion made by: ~ ~~~,~.~,/
-- ~ ~
- -----------
--- ---
---
----------
_----- ~h
Motion seconded by: ~ ~Ct
-- ------ '--~~ '~--~-~-_c_.~--
------ _
Voting results:
Chair signature--------------- -~~~- ~--1~-'~_~.~~
---- Date -------
,~ .
Sundance Apts ~~--~5
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT
FORMAT FOR POSITI{IB MOTION
Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public
interest due to the following unique special conditions not
generally found within the City:
Shad bej,ng that the_~ro~ert~ occupi_ed_b~ the Sundance apartments has _frontage on
- -------- ---- -
2-Qara11e1 roads of significant distance one from the other, such that a single
--------------------------------------------------------
sign for_the property as a whole would not provide notice to the public of the
------------------------------------------------------
idepttty_of the subject apartment complex,
------ -------------------------------------
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant
being:
That the a~~licant would be unable to provide adequate identification of the
-------- ------------------------------------------
• apartment_c_omplex on _major_thorou~hfares for safety and-emergency response--_
purposes,
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 app1lcant may maintain 2 signs on the subject property; one such sign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
being on the University Oaks Boulevard as it currently exists on the building
structure, and the other such sign being at the Harvey Road entrance to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------
apartment complex, and the signage on the Harvey Road entrance may be either the%%~%~
Motion made by: __ Michael_Gentry__________________
Motion seconded by: _John Evans __________________
Voting results: ______~-0 ______________________
---~a!'``~-~- - - -------------- ---$-18_87
-----------
Chair signature date
%~%~present script sign located on the building itself, or the freestanding sign
located on Harvey Road.
L~