Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/1985 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment December 17, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Upham, Members Meyer, McGuirk, Herzik and alternate Member Swoboda MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM NO. 1. Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of Board. Chairman Upham called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 2. Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3. Approval of Minutes - meeting of November 5, 1985. Mr. McGuirk pointed out a typographical error on page 2 ("ever" repeated). He • requested that one of the words be deleted, and with that correction, made a motion to approve the minutes. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). (At this point in the meeting, Mr. Herzik had not yet arrived}. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4. Consid sign height regulations as 1576, Sign Regulations, an 850, the Zoning Ordinance. Whataburger, Inc. Subject College Station. • eration of a request for variance to established by Table 1, Ordinance amending ordinance to Ordinance No. Applicant is W. R. Weathersby for sign is located at 105 Dominik in Mrs. Kee explained the request is to allow the applicant to remodel the existing freestanding sign while utilizing the existing poles. She added for the Board's information that the existing roof sign on this premises is considered a second freestanding sign under the amended ordinance. She explained that the requested sign would be 25 feet high, but ordinance would allow a sign a maximum of 11 feet in height, thus the variance request is for 14 feet. She then listed the alternatives as being leaving the sign as it is, lowering the sign poles to bring the sign into conformance, or move the sign poles to a location which would allow a 25 foot sign. (Mr. Herzik arrived at this time.) Dub Weathersby, 1029 Cunningham, Corpus Christi, Texas came forward as representative of the applicant, explaining that he works for Federal Sign Company and would be doing the sign work for Whataburger. He explained that this business is becoming a part of the Whataburger Corporation rather than a franchisee, and the corporation is changing all the signs to what is being proposed at this meeting. He explained that he believes the hardship in lowering the sign would be that this business is on a side street off the Texas Avenue, and the purpose of the sign is to bring in business from Texas Avenue. 1 ZBA Minutes 12-17-85~ • Questions followed from Board members which Mrs. Kee answered by re-explaining what had been presented in the staff report. Mrs. Kee offered additional information that the height, setback and area of a sign are interconnected, in that the further back from the property line the sign is located, the taller and bigger it can be. Mr. Upham asked where the sign would have to be located to be 25 feet tall and Mrs. Kee stated it would have to be another approximately 30 feet back. Mrs. Meyer said there is not a place to put it there as that is a driving area. Mr. McGuirk explained that three conditions must be met before a variance can be granted by this board and briefly explained to Mr. Weathersby that there must be unique and special conditions, unnecessary hardship to the applicant other than financial and the variance cannot be contrary to the public interest. He went on to explain that he cannot find any unique and special conditions, and as far as the request being contrary to the public interest, while he agrees that the new sign might be better than the existing sign, the intent of the ordinance is to bring signs into conformity as they are replaced or repaired. Mr. Weathersby stated that the uniqueness of this request is that the sign needs to be tall to address the traffic on Texas Avenue, because this business is approximately one block off that major thoroughfare. Mrs. Meyer asked how long the existing sign has been there and if there are any other non-conformities on that street. Mr. Weathersby speculated the sign has been there for approximately 10 years and Mrs. Kee replied that the Danvers sign is non- conforming. Mr. Herzik asked what would happen if this variance is not granted and • Mr. Weathersby said he guessed the existing sign would remain. Mr. Herzik asked if Whataburger would consider removing the roof sign to which Mr. Weathersby replied that it would probably be removed only if the premises was remodelled completely. Mr. Upham pointed out that a variance which is granted goes with the land and is forever. Mr. McGuirk asked if anyone could identify a unique and special condition, and Mr. Swoboda said he believes that because the business is located on a side street off a major street would be unique. Other members agreed that would not constitute a unique or special condition, as that is the case all over the City. Mr. Swoboda said to have a business survive it must have some identification from Texas Avenue. Mrs. Meyer said that because there is already an existing non- conformity might be a unique condition. Mr. Upham disagreed, explaining there are non-conformities all over town, and the object of the ordinance is to eliminate them. Mrs. Meyer said the proposed sign would be a lesser non-conformity. Mr. Herzik asked if the charge of the ordinance is to eliminate non-conformities. Mr. Upham said the charge of this Board is to uphold the ordinances of the City. Mr. McGuirk said the new sign would reduce the non-conformity. Mr. Upham stated a variance of this nature would also perpetuate the non-conformity. Mrs. Meyer said that would exemplify the uniqueness of this request. Mrs. Kee then explained "non-conformity" and "variance" and referred to page 13 of Ordinance 1576 which refers to the intent. Mr. Herzik said this would be a defacto variance now. Mr. McGuirk disagreed explaining the existing sign is non-conforming and no variance has been grantned. Mr. Swoboda stated that the uniqueness could be that if the sign is lowered it could not been seen from Texas Avenue. Mrs. Meyer stated that is a hardship, but not a unique condition. • Mr. McGuirk made a motion to deny a variance to the sign regulations (Ordinance 1576) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public 2 ZBA Minutes 12-17-85 • interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions not generally found within the City: Not being located on Texas Avenueis not a unique and special circumstance, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, specifically (1}ready alternatives exist (relocation or lowering the sign) and (2}a second freestanding and non-conforming sign, visible to Texas Avenue exists on the site, 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. Herzik seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mr. Herzik stated that this Board would now be saying essentially that this sign must be kept as an eyesore until it absolutely must be replaced. Mr. McGuirk explained that is not an issue. Mr. Swoboda said that part of the purpose of the sign ordinance is to prevent clutter and hazards, and if the existing sign is not allowed to be replaced with the proposed goodlooking sign, it will not be replaced until it becomes hazardous. Mrs. Kee explained that the Building Code requires routine maintenance to avoid hazardous conditions. Question was called and votes were cast. The motion to deny carried by a vote of 3-2 with Mr. Swoboda and Mrs. Meyer voting against the motion. Mr. Swoboda said he thought it took 4 votes for a motion to carry and Mrs. Kee explained it takes 4 votes for affirmative action, but a motion to deny a request only takes a simple majority. AGENDA ITBM N0. 5. Other business. i Mrs. Kee announced that she anticipates there will be a meeting of this Board on January 7th and wondered if any member would not be available. None were identified. Mr. Upham announced that an additional alternate member has been appointed and would be sworn in when he (the member} could be present at a meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6. Adjourn. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Herzik seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • 3 APPROVED: FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION: s ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Variances: From Section 3.A. Ordinance 1576 (amending Ordinance 850) I move to deny a variance to the sign regulations (Ordinance 1576) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions not generally found within the City: NdT /jF/N~ t c~cAi ~"~ p t~ ,~'~4S ~1 yl-' /-s ~yoi A y~y~dVF /ENO ..s~"~G/A(` C //L G UM.rT,4iyC ~= ~sP!-Cl/=/(/~( 1~,~2~A~J ALTi~2/V.¢TI~/~,I~ !~'IS'~ ~QFLo c~r~dn/ v2 ~owF?~~G T~~ .f'iGN and because a strict enforcment of the pr visions 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 they general interests of the ~ublic an ~he applicant served. l Z~ ,A fF~DNf~ FYIEE~STi}NJ/NC-'~,~'/G/~~ v~S//3j~ Mot ion made by ,/~~Gu~2 Seconded by y~Q~~ Variance denied by the following vote: 3 - ~i OF CHAIRMAN i~~~~~ DATA r~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • DATE December 17, 1985 NAME ADDRESS ~ ~~ ~ 2. 3• 4. 5. 6. 7• 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 4 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 22. 23. • 24. 25.