Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/1983 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES C. • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment October 18, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Wendt, Member Meyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook and Alternate Member McGuirk STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Asst Zoning Official Planning Callaway and Planning Technician Wagner, Upham ~ Alternate Dupies, Asst. Director of Vo 1 k Mr. MacGilvray opened the public hearing and explained the duties and obligations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes of September 20, 1983 meeting Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes as presented with Mr. Upham seconding. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Meyer abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of a re uest for variance to the side setback re uire- ment for construction of a carport at 2 09 Brothers in the name of Chalon Jones. Mrs. Kee explained the request, pointing out it is for a variance to the side setback to allow construction of a 3 car carport. She further informed the Board that there is a 10 foot easement between Lots 5 ~ 6, so the limit of the variance could be for no closer than to 5 ft. from the property line. She explained that an electric line for a street light is in this easement, however, the applicant could go to the City Council to request abandon- ment of the easement. She further explained that a variance may be required concerning the regulation of maintaining 15 feet between structures, should the easement be abandoned as the adjacent structure is approximately 11 feet from the side line. Chalon Jones came forward, was sworn in and asked to make a presentation to the Board. He handed out photos to the Board members, stating that he does not know where the electric line is but if it runs in a straight line from the pole, it appears to be on the neighbor's property. ~Ar. MacGilvray asked about the storage building shown on the site plan and Mr. Jones said that is a proposed building. Mr. Upham pointed out that building has no bearing on this request. Mrs. Meyer asked several questions and Mr. Jones approached her seat and explained the answers privately. Mr. Upham asked Mr. Jones to address the require- ment that in granting a variance, unique and special conditions of the land must be shown. Mr. Jones said there are 33 ft. between the house and the fence, and if this was completely built up, it would look better than if a building was constructed on only a part of it. Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Upham explained that unique might mean a gully or the shape of the lot, if it was unlike others In the area, but that the explanation offered does not. Mr. Jones stated that there is no unique matter of geography that he know of, and he had nothing further to offer. No one else spoke. Mr. Wagner 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 unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts 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 the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration b the Board to rehear a re uest for variance to the rear setback requirement for the construction of a garage at 700 Greenleaf in the name of Frank Cinek. ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 2 Mr. MacGilvray reminded the Board that this request for variance had been denied at the last meeting but also that the applicant had not been present at that time, and is present at this meeting, indicating further, that in order to rehear this request, the Board will have to have a motion to that effect. Mr. Upham made a motion to rehear this request for variance with Mr. Wendt seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). C Mrs. Kee explained that this Is a request for variance to the rear setback requirements for construction of a garage addition to a Tilson home, and that this builder does not ordinarily build garages or driveways. Mr. MacGilvray cited a surveyor's error as being part of the reason for this request as pointed out in the last hearing. Mrs. Kee explained that the front lot width dimension was distorted on the Xeroxed copy, and then mentioned the trees in the yard which would have to be destroyed if the garage was located within the guidelines of the ordinance. Frank Cinek, applicant who .resides currently in New Jersey came forward and was sworn in and explained that he had requested a garage at the time his building was ordered, and had been advised to bring that up at a later date. Now the prices have climbed too high, and a local builder has offered to help out. He explained the request, the hardship on them caused by the loss of lot through the setback requirements and the loss of the trees. Mr. MacGilvray explained again that in order to grant a variance it must be shown there are unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts. Mr. Cinek asked if these rules were enforced throughout the City and spoke of lot line construct- ion in some areas, It was pointed out that different zoning districts have different re- quirements, and also how older, existing structures were "grandfathered" into the City at the time the ordinance was accepted. Mr. Cinek said that he had "no pull" in the City, and knows no one to help him, and Mr. Upham spoke up and said this entire Board works for him and quoted from the minutes concerning this request at the last meeting. He went on to speak of the opinion given that there was too much house on too tittle a lot, and Mr. Cinek said he had changed the plans once already. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Cinek if he had considered any alternatives, and pointed out it is possible to put a garage on this site, although it might Interfer with some windows; he also pointed out the 25 ft. setback which is required at the rear. Lillian Cinek, 8700 Greenleaf Drive was sworn in and stated the one main reason for placing the garage in the location indicated is because of the 6 trees which would have to be destroyed, and further that she is on the Conservation Garden Committee of the Federation of Women's Clubs in New Jersey, and has a particular interest in saving any existing trees. Mr. MacGilvray said that several of the Board members have visited the site and are aware of the trees, and they, too agonize over the loss, but repeated this Board is governed by certain rules. Mr. Wendt asked Mrs. Kee if a 15 ft. setback would be o.k., and Mrs. Kee said If it is a side setback, it is only required to be 7~ ft. from the pro- perty line, and the adjacent structure does meet its setback. Mr. Upham asked if a front door designation can be changed, and Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the 25 ft. setbacks have to be met on opposite sides of the structure. Mr. Wendt said it is an example of unfortunate platting of a lot. Mr. Upham 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 unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts 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. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimous ly (5-0) • AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to the sign regulations for the Ashford Square Subdivision in the name of MHBR-Joint Venture. THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS PJOT AN EXACT TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TAPE OF THE ZONING BOARD CF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1883, AGENDA ITEP4 N0. 4, BUT RATHER A MINIMAL AMOUN~i OR PARAPHRASING HAS BEEN DONE. ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 3 ' TRANSCRIPTION WAS MADE JOINTLY BY JANE KEE AND SHIRLEY VOLK. • Jane Kee reminded the Board that this same subdivision had recently been granted a variance to rear setback on certain lots and the, developers are now back to ask variances to cer- tain sections of the sign ordinance. At the time the Ashford Square plat was approved by PAZ and Council, there was a stipulation that essentially no detached sign permits would be granted until an approved sign plan is .presented by the applicant and developers of the subdivision because at that time they were planning to propose some overall plan for this entire subdivision. The P&Z will also see the same presentation that the appli- cant will propose before the Board. In devising this plan it became necessary for this applicant to come before the Board for various reasons and she tried briefly to explain what they are proposing. She stated the applicant is in the audience. Kee: This green strip that you see out here is an area that's been reserved for land- scaping and proposed signage, There is a zone line that runs through it to divide C-1 from A-P zones. You will recall in the ordinance A-P zones are not allowed detached signs. What the applicant is proposing is that for these interior lots they be allowed separate detached signs in this area; they are proposing some low-type of sign in a berm and I believe the applicant is here to make a presentation concerning what those signs would look like. There are 2 variance requests that are necessary in order to do this: (1)Be- cause the staff and PAZ Commission view this as a building plot, by our ordinance they would be allowed one detached sign for the whole subdivision. They need a variance to the one detached sign limitation. (2)They also need a variance to the requirement that in commercial zones, detached signs must be 10 ft. behind the property line, and they will be out in this area which would be the 8 ft. setback area. They are only requesting detached signs in the green area, and not in the A-P zone. Another item the Board needs to consider also is that part of the request (pointed to as-built plat, Brazos Savings is on Lot 1 and Wendy's is on Lots 1 ~ 4) is the applicant is asking that Brazos Savings • and Wendy's each be allowed their own detached sign on their piece of property. Mr. Wendt asked about A-P zones, and Kee said signs would be allowed on the buildings. Kee: What essentially~we are considering are 8 separate detached signs plus one each on Brazos Savings and Wendy's lots. MacGilvray: ( am under the impression that C-1 allows detached signs on the property. Kee: The way the ordinance reads is that a building plot is composed of one lot or multiple lots and this whole development is viewed as a building plot and would be allowed one detached sign. Upham: It is "viewed as a building plot", but in fact, it was presented as one building plot. Kee: It was presented as a commercial P.U.D, (Planned Unit Development) which is some- thing we don't have in our ordinance. MacGilvray: Was it presented originally fihat way, and if so, would that preclude it being viewed in any other way. Kee: The development has private drives and not City streets, and this also makes the staff even more convinced that this is a building plot, and not separate individual lots. • MacGilvray: So we're being asked to consider 2 things; approving 2 detached signs that are on the property and 8 detached signs that are not on the property of the store they advertise. ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 4 Meyer: I didn't understand the variance request for BrazosBanc and Wendy's. • Kee: Because we're viewing this as a building plot there could be one detached sign in which case we would not allow detached signs on any individual lots. In discussions with Planning staff because this is a new type of development we are not opposed to some kind of treatment in this green area. We do have some concern with the two detached signs on the Individual lots as that seems to be contradictory - either you have a building plot with one detached sign or you have detached signs on individual lots. To try to accomplish both In my mind seems contradictory. Upham: The previous situation actually we had no precedent and we made precedent. The precedent is now binding on the rear setback as far as that's concerned. Our statutes do in fact cover specifically on the sign situation. Wendt: No, not on a development that has interior lots where everything goes to the center of the street. It's not like a face front store - it's a different situation. Upham: We have that same situation at the Mall. Only thing is property is owned separately but has many stores, each of which might expect to have a right by virtue of leasing the property. MacGilvra Is there anything which would prevent a single sign that would have the names of or 10 like over in Culpepper. Kee: As long as it met setback and height requirements. Wagner: If nothing passes tonight, then there could be one detached sign with BrazosBanc, • etc., and then signs on the buildings also. Kee: All buildings can have signs on them. Wagner: Even the ones facing the street? Kee: Yes, if nothing happens tonight I don't know what right now would be the opinion of the PAZ Commission with respect to the overall plan for this development in terms of signage. Anything more than one detached sign out there would require action by this Board. MacGilvray: I'd like to hear from the developer or spokesman on behalf of this request. Steve Hansen came forward and was sworn in, and stated: There are several items I'd like to address tonight. First being that the outcome of our P&Z meeting concerning the final plat of Ashford Square. The only direction we got from PAZ at that time concerning signage was that it was to be limited. As Jane said, we were to come up with some kind of a plan for signage - detached signs and signs in the common area. We were not directed at any meetings in any way that we were; to have just one detached sign for the whcle development. As you know, Ashford Square is a unique development. It's more what you'd call a commercial P.U.D, with each lot having its own ownership and each lot having its own parking, its own 4 walls and it really does not resemble a Mall situation in any form. I'm having trouble seeing the analogy between a mall and this type of development. We have indivi- dual buildings and sites on each lot. What we're trying to do is in fact limit our signage to prevent a detached sign on each lot. Let me address the signage that we're proposing in the common area. We're proposing a maximum of 8 low key signs for Lots 2 ~ 3 Block A, • Lots 2,3, 5 ~ 6 Block B and Lots 7 & 8 Block D. If you would pass this around. This is a drawing of the sign we'd like to use, This would also have indirect lighting. That is not drawn in here. The sign would be approximately 3 ft. high and 12 ft. long, and it would go in the common area that is outlined in green on the plat. ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page $ MacGilvray: There would be 8 of those essentially, is that right? • Hansen: That would be the maximum amount to cover each lot ownership. What it would be, would be a series of signs which I've seen done very well in Houston on several commercial lots. It would be a bermed area and it would all be landscaped and I think it would be a much better situation as far as the neighborhood is concerned with this low type signage. There would be very little illumination on this type of sign versus one large detached sign that would be a directory sign that would have a number of signs elevated in the air. In first talking to-City staff, they were in favor of some type of low profile sign and this is what we were more or less directed, and this is what we aimed to do to cover the detached signage on the interior lots. Let me add the other portion of our variance request. That would 6e 2 detached signs for Brazos Savings and Wendy's Restaurant. There is a representative from Wendy's who would like to speak a few words after I do. And if there is someone from Brazos Savings, I think they'd like to, too. They feel Brazos Savings' sign would be a detached sign that would be located on their property that would be very similar to the sign on the corner property they own on Southwest Parkway ~ Texas. It's not a - it's more or less a low profile sign. I'm not exactly sure what the height is. But that is the type of sign they are proposing. I would like Wendy's to explain their type of detached sign. In summary, this is basically what we are trying to do - this is a Planned Unlt Development. We have more or less with our zero lot tine request and variance that we have had - this enables all the buildings to be centered in the center of each lot. Let me explain on the plat. (He went to the plat to point). Most of the buildings we're trying to do is in this area with flow through parking here and here. That is why we have zero tot line development. We feel it would be an attractive situation to have detached signage all the way down each lot. That's why we're requesting low profile signs for each lot. • Meyer: Does the Brazos Savings and Wendy's building match all the other buildings archi- tecturally? Hansen: Yes. Meyer: So they'll look all the same? Hansen: Yes. The developer does have deed restrictions that do reflect similar type concrete tilt wall construction. MacGilvray: Are any buildings there? I haven't been by there. Hansen: Yes sir. The buildings shown on the plat are in place. MacGilvray: I knew the Daycare Center was. Hansen: Excuse me, Phil Blackburn's building is under construction. MacGilvray: What's the litfile building behind the obvious drive-through? Hansen: That's their little office location. MacGilvray: It's not just a moneystore - there'll be people there. Hansen: No, it's predominately just a drive-in. • Upham: You addressed one thing here - you remarked this is a unique situation which we recognized so far as the variance we granted last time. Hansen: Yes sir. ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 6 Upham: However, I'd remark to you that so far as signs and things like this I would think that your development is unique pretty much only in that it is a first development. So • you see the problem we have or are presented with. The first - inevitably not the last. I further point out what we're actually talking about is a sign ordinance which is designed against proliferation and bad placement of signs - what we're looking at is 18 signs on one area as opposed to nine - provided for one large detached sign with everybody on it and one on each building and those 18 signs to be congregated in an area which perhaps is 1/10th the size of the mall or the areas in here. Hansen: What l8 are you talking about? Upham: You see if you want 8 up front, 8 on each building and 2 detached plus your 1 development, you have in essence 18. You have one on each building which is provided for so that's8, then 1 for each building down by the street, so that's 16 and then you're allowed 1 detached sign for the whole area anyway which would allow you to have those same businesses on one big pole. We have a situation when you want one for Brazos Savings and Wendy's so you're asking for 18. If you should come back and say ,you know,we forgot about it, but we'd like to put this one up on the corner which we're allowed anyway and put 8 more up here. Hansen: No, you're not allowed detached signage on A-P. Upham: As what I'm talkPng about is one large pole up here with 8 signs on it, which you're allowed - and then we're going to put 8 more on the street. You haven't applied for the one pole, but you could. What we're asking for is 18 signs with the potential possibility of 27. • Hansen: That's not what we're asking for - it's clear that whatever would make that clear... Upham: I brought out this unique situation being first. I'm trying to get the gravity of the multiplication factor Involved in the thing out thoroughly in the open so we can be fair to you. Hansen: To address that point - If we do - if you look at each one of these lots as a separate building, which in fact they are in any other situation, each lot would have their own detached sign with a sign on the building. There would be 26 signs in the commercial area versus what we're asking now. Our intent is to limit the signage and do it in a tasteful manner with our low profile signs. That's our whole intent - to limit the signage which we were directed to do by the PAZ Commission. Meyer: I'm trying to visualize the 8 low signs. They would be situated how? Hansen: We would angle them slightly and they would just be spaced in a berm type situa- tion with landscaping right in front of the commercial area with just the name and possibly the street address. MacGl1vray: Will all this thing develop reasonably quickly - wondering if all these 8 signs will be built at the same time or will they come gradually? Hansen: I think it would be a gradual situation just depending upon the market situation. I really can't answer that. There has been good progress to this date. We've been under construction several months and we have 4 buildings under construction right now. • Meyer: I think this would be attractive, prettier than a sign on a pole. Hansen: (n Houston, Cottillfon (?) West has the same situation. It is done in the same manner. ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 7 MacGilvray: If this were approved would it prevent them from building one single detached sign at some future date as Mr. Upham worried? • Kee: If that was their only sign, no. I think what the Board is being asked tonight is to accept either their proposed plan in whole or in part, or reject it, in which case they would be allowed theft one detached sign. They would not be allowed more than what the Board grants them tonight. MacGilvray: Then Mr. Upham's fear was not founded. In other words, it would not be possible for them to build these 8 signs and then at some later time come back and decide they wanted to have one big one. Kee: .That was the only misunderstanding that he (Mr. Upham) had. Upham: Which is what I was sitting here trying to get straightened out. In any event, we do have a situation where this being a first such development. It is not in fact unique, just first. MacGilvray: Yes. Hansen: If I may make one more comment - in reference to the 2 detached signs (Brazos Savings ~ Wendy's) we wanted to keep the 2 detached signs to a minimum and we felt that by allowing 2 detached signs versus 12 others, we felt this would be limited signage. We felt the type of tenant or owner we have here it is a necessity to have detached signage and that's why we've asked for the 2 detached signs based on their situation. Upham: What situation - what was in your restrictions so far as the remainder of the lots are considered. What do you have written in there which would prohibit the other 6 pieces from coming up here saying Brazos Savings has their detached sign, we want ours. Wendy's has theirs, we want ours. In essence, if we were to approve those 2, by precedent we are automatically approving 6 more. Hansen: Our deed restrictions are going to reflect the exact same thing we are requesting if it is granted in that Interior lots would just be allowed to have a low profile sign and the other 2 lots that have access to Southwest Parkway would have detached signs on their property. Upham: Run that by again. Hansen: Repeated his previous statement. Upham: You keep saying would be allowed referring to Brazos Savings ~ Wendy's. You do not have your restrictions as yet completely developed. Hansen: No sir. the restrictions are incmnplete pending this outcome. Upham: What you are saying here is in fact included in your restrictions on Lots 2-8 and in fact there now. Hansen: Yes sir. Upham: You have no expectation of taking it out. • Hansen: No sir. Upham: So I presume the businessman who goes in here will be charged a little less because he's... ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 8 Hansen: Yes sir. • MacGilvray: I was going to say - since we're talking about the other detached signs you mentioned there are other people here who might like to speak to that, so unless you have some other comment we'll ask you questions as we need to as this goes on. Hansen: Thank you. MacGilvray: Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Bil Youngkin, representing Wendy's was sworn in and stated: Here as an observer to see what the Board does with this situation because our use of this property depends on the actions of the Board tonight. We have no objections to the Board allowing a variance to be within so many feet of the street which is not ordinarily allowed, but we want to make sure we do have our separate detached sign and we do not want to put a sign in that other area, but with our business it is necessary we have our marketing logo sign, as MacDonalds, etc. have across the street. We have looked at our property being a building plot because we do own our property, it's a free standing building with our own access, parking, etc. I assume the purpose of the ordinance was to prevent (quoted parts of the sign ordinance) and persons having multiple signs over their property, but it does not preclude us, if you consider our property a plot, as we do. And that's the only thing we want to have understood at this meeting Is that we do have our right because we do have, or think we have, one plat and whether or not we develop is contingent upon this Board's action tonight. MacGilvray: I wonder if, in fact, the applicant is MHBR, the developer, whether or not Mr. Youngkin's concern ought to beyseparate application, because in that he's viewing this as an individually owned lot, with it's own integrety and therefore, it's own sign require- ment, but it falls out of th~~??~~ de~finition given us by Mr. Hansen and taken by the City Planning and Zoning Commissicl'H~~i~ws this as one tot only. Upham: Which is correct, that is, his opinion and Mr. Hansen 's opinion are between them. Kee: My understanding is that when the plat was presented to the PAZ and Council was that their overall sign plan would involve all the lots in the subdivision, and Mr. McKean came in and made this application. Part of this application was to allow Lots 1 & Lots 1~4 to have separate detached signs. I feel that this should be considered with this. Wagner: Contradictory! It seems exactly contradictory; we're asking Mr. Hansen to view it as one building lot and Mr. Youngkin to view his as one building lot. Kee: That is why I pointed out earlier the staff has concern with both of those requests because they seem to contradict the intent to either view it as a building plot and allow one detached sign in that fashion, or we don't. Wendt: In most of those other ought to be is that the 2 that because they're probably going back also want to have somethi all are trying`to separate lt, frontage on Southwest Parkway. interior lots don't have exposure and what I think there have frontage naturally want to have something you can see to be the highest traffic generators. The ones in the ~g so that when you drive by you can see they're there. You and the only people who are asking for detached signs have Youngkin: We are not asking for a variance, because our sign would be under the 35 ft. • minimum as opposed to MacDonalds seventy plus feet and Arbys. Our sign is going to be within your ordinance of 35 feet, but our sign is indigenous to our project and our building+ ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page g MacGilvray: That's what I wondered, and that was the thrust of my question. I can see that if the dark line on this plan outlines everything but this, and is only for this, • but Pt doesn't. The request includes all of the lots... Upham: We do only have a request from the individual concerned with the entire project. MacGilvray: That's right. Upham: We have a concerned citizen who. is addressing the situation within the context of the request itself. MacGilvray: That's why I'm wondering how to view this because if we go by Jane's opening remarks which were that this thing was not going to be viewed as individual parcels under a C-1 zone, but as one parcel, then it seems that our actions would tend in another direction. Upham: Our actions would take Into account the specific request as presented. Kee: As I understand it, the Brazos6anc and the Wendy's requests are included in the application. Youngkin: The only thing I wanted to say is that the way the application is made is fine with us. We have, in the deed restrictions will take care of the other property, and I think what they're trying to do is good for the community and everyone else. I think everyone recognized that it's better to have signs low profile and landscaped than to having a Culpepper Plaza sign that you can see when you top the hill at the raceway. I think that's an Pmprovement, but our particular business requires that, it's like the Arby's or MacDonalds that we have that sign, and therefore we just do not want to be included in the deed restrictions, and the deed restrictions depend on what the Board does tonight, and that's why we wanted to voice our approval of their request with the understanding that we do want to have our separate detached sign. MacGilvray: It would not be a tow profile sign. It would be a 35 ft. Youngkin: I understand, but their restrictions would limit everybody else to a low pro- file sign except Brazos Savings and ourselves. MacGilvray: I make my point again. Wagner asked about their stores In Lubbock, Texas and Washington, D.C., saying the signs are not as high as he is. He went on to say he didn't see why this had to be a package - that is, the store and the tall sign. Don Mills was sworn in, Identified himself as the applicant for Wendy's and said: Where you have like competition and everyone has the same level of sign elevation, it works all right where the customer is accustomed to that. But in areas where all the competition has higher signs, it doesn't help the business any, and as a matter of fact, it's very detrimental. Wagner: This Ps true, but wouldn't you like to be the first on the block? Mills: No, and I hate to be that mercenary, but money is what it's all about. • Wick McKean came forward and was sworn in and asked to clarify one point, stating: We are asking fora variance concerning rear lots and I know Jane pointed out initially as one building plot, however if you look at that plat, those are individual lots, and if we read our zoning ordinance as it pertains to signs, we are really not asking for any ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 10 variance whatsoever on Lots 1 and Lots 1 ~ 4, the front lots. We are requesting a variance to, as far as the detached signage on those rear lots in an attempt to give them some • exposure to Southwest Parkway and to also limit, we feel with respect to limiting signage with the low profile and giving people exposure. Here again, I don't want to confuse the Issue here, we have got individual lots and we are not asking for any variance whatsoever. We do want to point out that we have that situation with those front lots and we want to make you all aware of that situation. Typically this thing would be if you were not subdividing, it would be one C-1 piece of property with the one marquis type situation. We don't have it here and you know we've had the problem with the setbacks, and we've got a little problem here as we're deeding individual lots, and they would really fall under the sign ordinane.,e "per tot". The way I understand it and interpret the zoning ordinance, each one of those interior lots would be allowed a detached sign on-premise, and we're asking fora variance here that those on-premise signs be off-premise signs in this de- signated area. That's what we're really looking at here tonight. MacGllvray: Let's clarify, if Mrs. Kee would comment on that and give your understanding of how this was approved by the PAZ. Kee: My understanding is that this subdivision was presented as a package or a Planned Unit Development which involved all of the lots, and there was to be some overall plan for signage. Because it was presented as a package, we feel it is one development unit (one building plot) which would be allowed one detached sign. Any variation from that would require action-from the Board, and I think the PAZ Commission in their motion on this plat made that even more clear, in that they not on1y...What they said was that signage would be limited, and I think in saying that they realized that there might be some justification for a variance-from the one detached sign that we would allow fora building plot, but how much of a variance and how it would be accomplished they were leaving to the ZBA if • need be, and then later on for their decision when that plan was presented to them. MacGPlvray: As I see it, Mr. McKean, if these were each C-1 lots, then those would be City streets running in front of them, and I don't know if that raises other...lt may be to the developer's advantage at one time as a one-package plan, and at another time as 8 or 10 pieces of land. I think we need to arrive at some consistent view of this thing. Wendt: What exactly did the PAZ and Council state on this plat? Kee: That signage would be limited and that at some future date, the applicant was to work out wPth the staff or whatever steps were necessary, if that involved the Board, for some sign plan. MacGilyray: I wonder if it might be appropriate instead of guessing what the PAZ Commission said for us to obtain copies of the minutes of that meeting and defer action on this until we have it. Meyer: What approval given conditioned them presenting a sign plan? Kee: Mr. Miller made the motion to approve the final plat with a note indicating that signage .may be limited, and it went on to instruct the developer that this should be worked out with the staff. When Mr. McKean presented the sign plan to the staff, we felt that it would require Board action because of the number of signs. Wendt: What do you think about that plan? • Kee: What he's proposing? I don't have a problem with the low profile signs in that area out front which would require a variance to the 10 ft. setback, and to the number of detached signs. I have some concern with the number of low profile signs if they're 12 ft. long and spaced in an area that is a little under 300 ft., they're going to be ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 11 rather close together. I have some concern with the separate detached signs for Brazos Savings and Wendy~s because we have to be consistant with how we view this. Either we • view it as one overall development unit or as individual lots. It bothers me to jump back and forth between the two. Wendt: Why can't we just say we're going to do it a particular way? MacGilvray: That would be fine if there were no detached sign requests, but they're want- ing us to do it two ways. Upham: We can make a motion to allow so much of this request as it's presented or leave some of It out. Me er: Were permits given on buildings on the basis that they furnish a plan for signs? Kee: There were sign permits pending for BrazosBanc that have not been issued simply because there was not a sign plan at the time. McKean: There was a note on the plat at the time it was approved that signage would be limited. because of the number of small lots, and that's what we're trying to determine - what, in fact, we can or cannot do, and I think we ought to come to a decision one way or another on that because we have people who are buying property and need to know. The fact that we look at it as one building plot one time and as multiple lots another is new, and It's why it requires that this Board take action. We are selling lots, and the concept here is to promote individual proprietors to have their own shops, so naturally I share the opinion that it is individual lots and signage in a commercial-retail area is of importance. Our reasoning behind those front tots, they share Southwest Parkway • frontage, and we do have a limited amount of area to put the rear signs, so the on-premise sign would be a way to solve that problem, as far as how many signs we did have and where we could put them. Deed restrictions and maintenance in the common areas was discussed by all, after which Mr. MacGilvray said this is not the consideration of this Board. No one else spoke from the audience. MacGilvray: ( suggest separating this into 3 separate requests - a variance to the requirement for the location of a sign off the lot that a particular business occupies; the setback 10 ft. from the street for that sign if it's located on the lot; and to approve 2 individual detached signs for lots which are sub-parcels of a larger parcel that could have one sign under the conditions of the ordinance. Upham: I see it as 2 variances - that off-premise detached signs be allowed in the designa- ted area for the interior C-1 lots which would not allow Brazos Savings and Wendy's to have their signs in that bermed, designated area. McKean: The request is for 8 interior lots to be allowed signs in the common signage area, and allow signage for the front lots also; also whether it be pole signs or low profile signs, one way or another, addressing signage for, everybody. MacGilvray: If we allow the placement of 8 signs off the property, that the other 2 signs fronting on Southwest Parkway to fit into the pattern someway, defining the area as one development. • Meyer: Can we vote on 3 separate motions? MacGilvray: Yes UPham: I make an affirmative motion in so far as it relates...) move to authorize a ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 12 variance to so much of the request as refers to detached signage to be allowed in desig- • Hated frontage of Ashford Square, signs to be of low profile design and restricted to lots within the subdivision; that covers all lots including the front lots, too, - the C-1 portion of the subdivision. And further that they be allowed within the 10 ft. set- back requirements as required by Section 8-D.6 from the terms of this ordinance as they will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique and special cond tions, they being that this is a pilot project and that the establishment of this sign allowance establishes precedence for it and all others to follow. Wendt seconded. Upham: By way of clarification, it will be noted that this refers to C-1 lots within the subdivision. Also for clarification, there would be allowed one sign per lot, for a maximum of 11 signs. i- Wendt: I want to make sure that there is not any substitution factor available for the interior lots. Kee: In this case, if a sign is allowed off-premise in that area, it would preclude a detached sign on the lot, Wendt: I amend the motion to say no substitution on Lots 2, 3 of A, 2, 3, 5, 6 of B, and 7 ~ 8 of D. MacGilvray: I'll clarify It to say that no detached signs will be allowed on those lots. Upham: I second the amendment to the motion, • Amendment to the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Meyer. I want the motion limited to uniform signs as presented by the developer at this meeting. Upham: The developer brought in a picture of what he intends to do with the signs. I amend the motion again to say that signs should be of a general character in style as presented in the picture by the developer to the Board. I amend the motion to indicate the type and style of signs which will be that as presented by the developer in his testimony before the Board as indicated on the drawing as presented. Wendt: I second this amendment. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Motion, as amended twice carried unanimously (5-0). signage on Lot 1 and Lots 1 & 4 was discussed and then Upham: I make a motion to deny a variance to sign regulations for Wendy's and Brazos Savings, to Lots 1 and Lot 1 S 4 as are applicable to Lots 1 Block A and Lots 1 ~ 4 Block B, that they not be allowed detached signs on-premise within this designated area, as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to lack of unique and special conditions of the land. MacGilvray: I second the motion, and as a point of clarification, Wendy's and Brazos Savings will be allowed their one detached sign in the bermed, common signage area. This motion to deny carried (3-2) with Wendt and Meyer against. • ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 13 • AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a request to extend a conditional variance to the Qarking requirement at 315 University in the name of Edward Walsh. Mr. MacGilvray spoke of the history of the conditional variance which had been granted for this location in the past (1881 & 1982) and quoted the current policy regarding the moratorium as adopted by the Council this September 22, 1983, explaining that he is now under the assumption that no parking variances can be granted to any business which would create a more intense use of a building than is already existing. Mrs. Kee then stated that the applicant may want to address the Board concerning whether he is asking for a variance for as long as he has a lease on this business, or for a continuation of the variance as has been given in the past. General discussion followed concerning the development or repair this applicant had made to the parking lot as re- quired by this Board. Edward Walsh, applicant, was sworn in and reiterated that he has a lease until 1989 and gave the background of all the past parking variances granted, stating that he had paved 18 parking spaces on the lot and designated that 6 of those spaces are for his business, then stated that he would like to receive a variance for this business for the life of his lease. Mr. Upham pointed out that the variance goes to the land, and not to the appli- cant or the individual after which Mr. Walsh asked the Board to amend his request to a permanent variance. Mr. Upham then made a motion to authorize a permanent variance to the parking requirements at 315 University (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: There are no like districts in the City; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would • result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordi- nance shall be observed and substantial justice done. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner, and passed unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a re uest to extend a conditional variance to the parking requirement at 11 University in the name of Lone Star Yogurt. Mrs. Kee explained that in July 1982 a conditional one year variance was granted to the property, but to a different applicant, and when this business developed at that location, staff determined if the use was the same, the same variance would apply. Mr. Upham stated that this is essentially the same case as was last considered, but Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that Mr. Walsh had a designated parking area with hPs lease and wondered if the same situation would apply in this case. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Wendt seconded. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Cosmos Guido, applicant came forward, was sworn in and gave the background of the business stating that in August of this year, he had run a survey of patrons for 19 days to deter- mine just how many people drove/walked to the business. He gave figures indicating a total of 536 people were surveyed, 308 indicated they had walked, 34% drove, and 8% had driven to the area to another store, and had dropped in to this business. He stated that in his opinion, this business does not create a parking problem in the area, and the re- sults of his survey back this up. Mr. Upham reminded the Board that the variance goes with the land, and Mr. MacGilvray pointed out this is a part of a building which has some park- ing and wondered how many were designated for this business. Mrs. Camp was sworn in, identifying herself as the owner of the building and stated there is a total of 28 spaces • in the rear of this building, but that none had been designated specifically to this business, as none had been requested. Mr. MacGilvray stated that the study committee had suggested that employee parking be provided elsewhere, and referred to the last case which ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 14 had been heard which had provided some of the required parking. He went on to suggest • that if this varlance is granted, it be for a certain period of time with the stipulation that off-street parking be provided somewhere else for employees. Mr. Upham pointed out that this is a unique district; that each block is uniquely differ- ent with some having available parking and some which do not, and the Board should place conditions and make them consistent on a block-by-block basis, with the applicant attempt- ing to assure that employees will not park permanently on-street. Mr. Wagner asked if the Board can require that the applicant negotiate with the owner of the property to have some spaces designated for this business. Mr. Guido answered that most employees walk to work with perhaps 1 or 2 driving and only one or two working at a time. Mr. MacGilvray invited Mrs. Camp forward again and she stated the patrons of this business do use some parking in her lot, and Mr. MacGilvray asked if she would designate "X" number of spaces (number to be negotiated between Mr. Guido ~ owner) for this business, and she said she would be agreeable to that. Mr. MacGilvray said that since there is some parking for this building, It may be like the last case, and a stipulation could be made concerning improvements as had been done in the earlier case - that the surface be brought up to City standards and spaces striped. Mrs. Camp said many much needed spaces would be lost if this was done. Mr. MacGilvray then made a mofiion to grant an extension of the parking variance for a period of one year from this date for this business. Me. Wendt seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Loupot asked to be heard, came forward and was sworn in. He asked to be allowed to charge a fee to park on his lot, and Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that this is not to be • considered tonight, but rather should be considered part of the solution to the problem of the Northgate area, and be included in the committee report, and suggested that Mr. Loupot should contact the City staff, and perhaps his suggestion could be included in the Implementation Plan which is to be presented to Council on PJovember 22nd. AGENDA PTEM N0. 7: Consideration of a re uest for variances to the setback, arkin and lot dimension requirements for the reconstruction of the burned structure at 10 -112 College Main in the name of Fred Nabors Mrs. Kee furnished background, stating this structure had previously been used as a laundry, but had burned and never been reconstructed due to the variances which would be required and the moratorium on variances in the Northgate area set down by Council. Fred Nabors, applicant was sworn in stating he now has a bicycle shop around the corner from this building and wished to move It to this location, so he would not be adding any intensity to traffic or parking problems in the area. He said the dimensions of the lot do not meet ordinance requirements, and he would like to renovate and reconstruct this building, and believes by doing so, would contribute to the business climate in this area. His present business takes up approximately 2200 sq. ft., and this location would be about the same size. Mr. MacGilvray asked how many employees he would have, and Mr. Nabors answered there would norms lly be 2 employees, but in rush times, there would be perhaps 4. Mrs. Meyer asked how close this building is to others, and Mr. Wagner pointed out that it is built on the property line with a firewall. Mr. MacGilvray said he had less problem with granting a variance to a setback than to a parking requirement, and if this varlance Ps granted, it should be with the stipulation that this businessman should help develop some type of off-street parking at a remote location. Mr. Wendt asked why the • Board doesn't earmark all these requests that way, Mr. Upham said this use is not more intense than the building he would be vacating, and that overall the best interest of the City probably would not be improved by razing this building, even if it was developed as a parking lot, because there could be no more than 8 spaces on the lot. ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 15 Mr. PJabors said that renovating this business would not be a sound economic venture if • he was granted only a one-year conditional variance, but Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that economics cannot 9nfluence this Board's decision. Mr. Upham said the motion from the Council is general, and essentially the report had been accepted without instruction. Mr. MacGllvray explained that staff is to present an Implementation Plan by 11-22-83. Mrs. Meyer made a motion to authorize a variance to the lot width, lot depth, minimum setback and parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be con- trary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: This business is in the Northgate area which is unique and there are no like districts, and because a strict enforcement of the pro- visions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Prevention of any use of the property, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by Wagner, and carried unanimously (5-0) . AGENDA.iTEM N0. 8: Consideration of a request for variance to the parking requirement for the expansion of the business at 509 University in the name of Al Gutierrez. Mrs. Kee explained the request which is for 30 additional tables (120 seats). She in- formed the Board the Fire Marshal has reported to her that the structure is limited to an occupancy of 85, and there are 99 seats existing which are covered by the required number of parking spaces (33)• Al Gutierrez, 509 University Drive, applicant, was sworn in and repeated his request, stating he wants to add 120 more seats, 30 tables, which would necessitate a variance • for 40 parking spaces (1 per 3 seats). He said this would not adversely affect this area, because he has, in the past, roped off thPs available parking in the rear of this store and business had not been affected, which proves that most of his business is walk-in trade. • Mr. Wagner asked if he would be willing to curb the area along University Drive to pre- clude parking in front of his restaurant, and he (Mr. Gutierrez) said that it may all be enclosed, allowing only parallel parking in front. Mr. Gutierrez further stated that he is not bothered by the head-in parking along University Drive, but reported that the City planners are against it. Parking on University Drive was discussed, and Mr. Gutierrez expressed a preference for head-in parking. Mr. Wagner pointed out that this is the only head-in parking along University Drive and that abolishing this may help alleviate park- ing and traffic problems on University. Mrs. Meyer disagreed because of the state of disrepair of the parking lot which is provided at this location. Mr. MacGllvray asked the applicant to point out to the Board the unique situation, and Mr. Gutierrez offered financial hardship and making the site look better as unique. Discussion of any possible hardship was discussed, including "Northgate", curb cuts, parallel parking. Mr. Wagner stated that the City has been given a mandate for this applican to come up with an acceptable plan by December 15th. Mrs. Kee explained that this Board had reversed the decision of the PCZ which then allowed the existing canopy at this busi- ness. Mr. MacGilvray said if the applicant could provide a plan with additional parking, then perhaps additional seating could be allowed, if an addition to the building is made, as suggested by the applicant as being a possibility. Mr, Upham pointed out the appli- cant is asking to more than double his seating with no increase in available parking. Mr. MacGilvray said he believes walk-in traffic is a fact which should be considered in this area, but it is not the law now and this Board has to decide what it will allow this applicant to do. Mr. Wagner asked if tabling this item would be in order at this time until a more exact instructions are received. Mr. Wendt pointed out that business in that area could be dictated by seating capacity. ZBA Minutes 10-18-83 page 16 Mr. Wendt then made a motion to table this item until an acceptable site plan is • received from the applicant. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Wendt then suggested that a survey of walk-in traffic on this site might be taken and presented at a later date. The applicant agreed to present a site plan to the Planning Department for review. AGENDA ITEM N0. g: Consideration of a request for variance to the front setback require- ment for the reconstruction of the burned structure at 313 University in the name of Herbert Affron. Mr. MacGi1vray pointed out that the address shown (313 University) is a mistake, and should be 313 College Main. Mrs. Kee gave the background of this building, leading up to the necessity of requesting this variance which is for the front setback. She explained that this applicant had an approved site plan but then the. building burned and destruction was more than 60q of the building. Now, in order to rebuild this building, the applicant must request a variance, as ordinance requires that any non-conformities must be brought into compliance when rebuilding. She pointed out that in order for the applicant to use the portion which was not destroyed, this Board must legitimatize the front setback, which appears to be approximately 11 ft. from the property line. She further informed the Board that the original building had been larger, but available parking would limit the amount which can be used, and the applicant will reconstruct only that portion which would comply with the available parking. Lisa Affron was sworn in and gave the history of the approved site plan, and spoke of the fire which destroyed the building. She stated that available parking would only allow a building of 2250 sq. ft., which is what they are planning. Discussion followed concerning what is planned with suggestions offered by the Board. Mrs. Kee assured the Board that • the available parking in the rear would comply, but repeated the front setback is approxi- mately 14 ft. short of compliance. Other setbacks were discussed, with the decision made that this building sets back further than most other buildings in the area. Mr. Upham said he could live with a setback variance which would not contribute to the parking prob- lem. Mr. MacGilvray said this building is not inconsistent with others in the area. Mr. Wagner made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (front) in the amount of 14 feet from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not nor- mally found In like districts: Fire caused the need for this variance and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 1D: Other Business Mr. Upham announced that the City Attorney has gotten a summary judgement against the Shelton case, but it will probably be appealed to a higher court. Motion was made by Mr. MacGltvray to adjourn, and seconded by Mr. Wagner. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). APP/ROV(ED ATTEST: ilvray, Acting Chairman • Dian Jones, City Secretary