HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 17, 1988
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gilmore, Members Thompson,
Gentry, Henry, Alternate Member Baker; also
Council Liaison Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ruesink and Alternate Member Julien
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney
Banks and Planning Technician Volk
AGBNDA ITBM N0. l: Call to order - explanation of functions and
liaitationa of the Board.
Acting Chairman Gilmore called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and
explained the functions and limitations of the Board.
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of minutes - aeeting of April 19,
1988.
Mr. Thompson made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Henry seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
• AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGBNDA ITBM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to
the lot size in an A-O {Agricultural-Open) zoning district at the
site of a uobile hone residence on a 1.58 acre lot located on the
east side of Bock Prairie Hoad, approximately 100 yards northwest
of Greens Prairie Hoad. Applicants are Harold ~ Lou Caapbell.
Mrs. Kee explained the request, located the site and the City limits line, and
identified an adjacent structure as being another mobile home residence which is
located in the County outside the City limits.
Mrs. Kee explained the Special Conditions which apply to this request as being that
the applicants purchased this property which is part of a large tract of land which
is mostly outside the City limits. She explained that the Campbells worked with the
City of Bryan, which supplies utilities for developments in the County, in placing
their mobile home on this tract with the understanding that it would be located
outside the City of College Station, and thus, be served by the City of Bryan. She
continued by stating that apparently an error was made in locating the structure on
the lot, because when the Campbells actually made application for utility services to
their home which was in place, the Gity of Bryan determined that it was inside the
City of College Station, and therefore, denied service to the home.
• Mrs. Kee continued her narrative by stating that at that time, the Campbells came to
the City of College Station for relief because they had to occupy their new residence
in a matter of days, and could not get utility service to the structure. College
Station City staff determined that there were 2 problems with the request in that the
• structure was located in an A-0 zoning district in which there is a 5 acre lot size
minimum and this tract is just over 1.5 acres, and that the property had never been
officially subdivided, so there is no plat of record showing the tract. The case is
further complicated by the fact that the City's zoning ordinance does not allow the
placement of mobile homes in any zoning district other than A-0 and R-?, so zoning
the area to R-1 Single Family Residential would solve the problem of the lot size,
but would create the location of a non-conforming structure in a district where
mobile homes are prohibited.
City staff worked with the Campbells to make provisions for addressing all the
problems in the very near future {through a development agreement), and made the
necessary hookups so the Campbells could have temporary utility service until all
requirements could be addressed.
Mr. Henry asked about the size of the adjacent tract and why the City only annexed
250 feet on either side of Rock Prairie Road. Mrs. Kee described the adjacent tract
as being similar in size, and explained that to the best of her knowledge, annexation
of a strip of land on either side of Rock Prairie Road was for land use control along
that major road, as well as to make a physical connection to the Gity-owned
industrial acreage on the south side of Greens Prairie Road.
The applicant, Harold Campbell came forward and was sworn in, complimented all of the
City staff for its help in solving a major problem he met after locating his mobile
home on the land along Rock Prairie Road, and explained his plans for making this
large "mobile home" a permanent structure by building a foundation around it and
bricking it in. He also explained the steps he had taken with City of Bryan
• officials to make sure his residence would be located outside the City limits.
Mr. Thompson asked him how the final configuration of his lot had been determined and
he replied it just worked out that way with the intent to have enough of his tract
located in the County to accommodate his residence.
Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Campbell how much it would cost to have the mobile home moved
across the City limits line and into the County, and Mr. Campbell replied it would
cost in excess of $3600, because that would be only the cost for having it moved and
placed on a specific site; that preparing the site and finishing after the move would
be extra; and, that probably he would have to move a utility pole, since that pole is
inside the City limits. Mr. Gilmore asked if there is enough land left on the tract
which is outside the City limits to accommodate this large mobile home and Mr.
Campbell replied that if there is, it would be extremely tight.
Additional discussion followed with Mr. Gentry asking Mrs. Kee if Mr. Campbell could
build a single family home without a variance and Mrs. Kee replied that he could, but
Mrs. Banks pointed out that a variance would still be required since the minimum lot
size in A-0 is 5 acres.
Mr. Gentry said that his only problem with this request is that over the long term,
this area is intended to be used as low density residential development, and mobile
homes are not allowed in single family residential districts. He added that if the
area actually develops into commercial uses, he has no problem with this type use,
but he would like to be able to put a time limit on a variance for this mobile home
just in case the area actually develops as is planned, that is for single family
• residences.
Mr. Henry pointed out that there are currently several mobile homes located along
ZBA Minutes 5-17-88 Page 2
Rock Prairie Road, but he does not know how much acreage each tract contains. Mrs.
• Baker said she would certainly hate to set a precedent for allowing mobile homes in
single family residential areas, or allowing lot sizes in the A-0 districts to be
smaller than 5 acres. Mr. Gilmore said he could not see any hardship other than
financial in this case, but Mr. Thompson pointed out that under the specific
circumstances heard in this case, Mr. Campbell would not be able to fully utilize his
lot if this variance is not granted, as there may be some physical constraints which
would preclude moving the mobile home to a location on his tract which is outside the
City limits.
Mrs. Kee reminded the Board that the hardship listed on the application is that the
specific location for the mobile home was established by the City of Bryan, and this
applicant actually inherited the hardship since someone other than himself made the
error.
Mr. Gentry made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum lot size from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the
following special conditions: The property is located in a currently undeveloped
area, subject to zoning primarily as a result of annexation process, and the proposed
development is in keeping with current development along the thoroughfare, and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being the fact that the actions of public
officials caused the applicant to rely to his detriment upon the placement of his
home, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done subject to the following limitations: To allow a minimum lot size at
this location of 1.58 acres. Mr. Henry seconded the motion.
• Mr. Gentry then explained that he had tried to evaluate the pros and cons, the legal
Council Liaison Gardner asked if the motion could be more definite in reference to
the public official, and specify perhaps "a public official from another
jurisdiction". Mr. Gentry agreed to amend his motion. Mr. Henry agreed that is
would suit him, so Mr. Gentry amended his motion as follows: To authorize a variance
to the minimum lot size from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary
to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: The property is
located in a currently undeveloped area, subject to zoning primarily as a result of
annexation process, and the proposed development is in keeping with current
development along the thoroughfare, and because a strict enforcement of the
provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being the fact that the actions of public officials from another jurisdiction other
than the City of College Station caused the applicant to rely to his detriment upon
the placement of his home, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: To allow
s minimum lot size at this location of 1.58 acres. Mr. Henry seconded the amended
motion. Votes were cast on the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-
0).
• AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to
the sign regulations relative to the a1loNable nuaber, height and
justification, the long term planning needs of the City, and finally used "common
sense" because somebody was put into a position of relying on a public official,
followed the instructions they were given, made every reasonable effort to comply,
and nonetheless found themselves with a problem. They now appear to be making every
reasonable effort to utilize their property in the manner that will present a nice
residential face with intentions of significantly improving the property, and there
seemed to be adequate justification for granting a variance in this instance.
ZBA Minutes 5-17-88 Page 3
area of freestanding signs on the site of the Bxxon Station at
• 1721 Texas Avenue South. Applicant is Stabler Sign Coapany.
Mrs. Kee explained the request is actually for 2 variances; one to the allowable
number of freestanding signs and the other for the allowable area of freestanding
signs. She said the applicant has stated that if the request is granted, 4 of the 5
existing freestanding signs on the site will be removed and 1 new sign installed,
leaving the site with 2 freestanding signs. She described the lot as having frontage
along 2 major arterials; 191 feet along Texas Avenue and 109 feet along SH30 (Harvey
Road), and the new sign would be oriented to both arterials, being placed along a
diagonal line between the driveways closest to the corner on each street.
Mrs. Kee went on to explain the area allowed for a sign is determined from the
frontage of the greater of 2 streets if the lot is located on a corner, but if both
frontages were used in this case, an area of 175 square feet would be allowed, but
the proposal is for an area of 220 square feet, so a variance would still be required
for the sign being proposed.
Mrs. Kee concluded her brief review of the staff report included in the packets by
referring to a site plan on the wall to help explain the location of the signs which
will be removed and the location of the proposed sign. Mr. Gentry asked if the 220
square feet of area included the area of the 88 foot sign which will remain and Mrs.
Kee replied that it does not, and would be 220 square feet of area in addition to the
existing 88 foot tall sign which will remain.
Mr. Gentry asked what the ruling had been on fuel price signs at the Exxon station
and Mrs. Kee replied that it was determined that if the fuel price sign is included
• on the 1 allowable freestanding sign, it can be as large as the company desires, as
long as the total square footage stays within the allowable area of the 1
freestanding sign, but if the fuel price sign is a separate sign, the square footage
can be no more than 16 square feet.
The applicant, Lonnie Stabler was sworn in and explained this proposal is to try to
meet the intent of the ordinance by reducing the total number of signs. He stated it
is not always easy to meet the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance because
major companies have standard signs which they use all over the country. He added
that if a smaller sign is used, it would not give enough visibility if it is oriented
toward a corner as is planned in this case. He said the intent of the ordinance was
to reduce the number of signs, and this proposal would reduce some of the clutter,
and improve the visibility of the signs of the adjacent businesses to the east. He
added that the signs on this site now are non-conforming, and this proposal would
reduce the non-conformity.
Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Stabler if he has any idea of the total footage of signage on
the site right now. Mr. Stabler said he is unsure, but the price signs are about
3'x4' and the 88 foot sign is about 8' x 16: He explained that Exxon, in the future,
possibly has plans for that location which might include increasing uses on the
property to make it similar to the Exxon station on Harvey Road at the Bypass
Frontage Road, which could mean the addition of a car wash. He stated that if that
does happen, there is the possibility that the ancillary sign which indicates
"diesel" may be removed, but in the interim, they would like to include one ancillary
sign for "diesel" and another ancillary sign for "car wash" if that indeed develops.
• Mr. Gentry said this proposal is actually for 2 signs which he could justify on a
corner lot, but the maximum area he can figure would be for 191 square feet, and that
would be using both frontages which is not normally the way area is figured. The
ZBA Minutes 5-17-88 Page 4
proposal as it stands now is for 348 square feet of signage, and he thinks that is
• too much to ask. Mr. Stabler said that the high rise sign is not a part of this
request, but Mr. Gentry pointed out the total signage must be considered. Mr.
Stabler said that he had worked on writing the sign ordinance, and the intent was to
reduce clutter, and this request would be reducing clutter; furthermore, if dealing
with the high rise sign, because of its elevation it does not cause clutter at this
site. Mr. Gentry said that he could agree that this proposal would reduce clutter,
but he thinks that 348 square feet of signage seems too much.
Mr. Stabler said he would be willing to strike a compromise if it is fair. Mr.
Gentry asked what the chances are of getting the high rise removed. Mr. Stabler said
that he is 90~ sure the high rise will come down if the additional improvements are
made on this site, since that type of sign is obsolete and not in the company's plans
for the future. Mr. Stabler then suggested that if this variance is granted now and
a new variance request comes in for this site at the end of the year, then the Board
should rule that the high rise must come down; or, he suggested that a time limit be
attached to this variance.
Mr. Gentry said that the ancillary signs total about 35 square feet, and if they were
eliminated, the proposed sign would be approximately 185 square feet, and might
represent a reasonable variance, but he would not be comfortable with even that
unless a condition could be attached that within 18 months the high rise must come
down or the variance will be canceled.
Assistant City Attorney Banks stated that could be included in the motion which would
eliminate the need for a development agreement and still give sufficient enforcement
powers to staff.
• Mr. Stabler said that he would prefer that all sides of the property be used to
figure allowable area and he would prefer allowance of 200 square feet.
No one else spoke.
Mr. Gentry then made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from
the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the pubic interest due to
the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: The
lot location is at a corner where both streets are heavily traveled and current
sign usage far exceeds the provisions of the zoning ordinance, and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial
hardship to this applicant being: The inability to present signage on major
thoroughfares adjacent to the property 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: Total square footage of
signage including fuel price sign not to exceed 191 square feet, said variance
conditioned upon the removal of the existing high rise sign no later than 24
months following the granting of this variance.
Mrs. Baker seconded the motion.
Mr. Gentry explained that 175 square feet would represent the allowable square
footage for both streets, plus 16 square feet for the fuel price sign equals 191
square feet, and would allow for only one of the ancillary signs illustrated on the
sign elevation included in the packet. He added that this number is justifiable
• regardless of how many ancillary signs which Exxon uses. He added that perhaps it is
not well stated in the motion, since the application is indicating that as part of
the application they will take down the existing street signs, and he is assuming
ZBA Minutes 5-17-88 Page 5
•
•
that any action this Board takes is conditioned upon the provisions of that. Mrs.
Kee said it was clear to her and she would condition that the small signs must be
removed prior to issuing a Building Permit for the new sigh.
Mr. Henry said he does not have any problem with the variance, but he wonders if the
time limit for the high rise might be reduced to less than 2 years since Mr. Stabler
has so readily agreed to that, and he hoped perhaps 1-1 1/2 years might be the limit.
Mr. Gilmore said he would agree to 2 years, if it will just come down. Mr. Gentry
said that Mr. Stabler has indicated that there is some likelihood that it will
come down sooner due to Exxon's improvement programs, but on the other side,
commercial development is at a pretty sluggish pace now, and 2 years would not be
unreasonable.
Mr. Stabler said that he would request that the Board would consider allowing the
ancillary sign, the additional one to include both diesel and a car wash, since the
station has diesel now, and he does not know if they will be including that service
in the future. Mr. Gentry said that the variance as stated in the motion would allow
them to put "diesel" on the sign now and they don't have a car wash now so they don't
need that sign, and if they take down the high rise in the future and want another 30
square feet for another ancillary sign which says "car wash", they can come back
before the Board with another request, and there is a good chance the Board would
grant the request.
Mr. Stabler said they would put in "full service" and "diesel" now, and get rid of
both of them when they put in "car wash". He added there are not many full service
stations left.
Mr. Gentry said he would not like to change the motion. All members agreed. Votes
were cast on the motion as stated and seconded, and carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Other business.
Mrs. Kee requested that the motion forms be filled out by the person making the
motion at the meeting so they can be signed by all parties since the decision becomes
final at noon on Thursday following the meeting, and the completed motion form is the
official document.
Mr. Gardner suggested to staff that they take "before" and "after" pictures of the
signage on the Exxon property so they can be used for study at a later date to see
exactly how much the site is improved by the granting of this variance tonight.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
Mr. Thompson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
,~-
ATTEST:
I •
City Secretary, Dian Jones
ZBA Minutes
5-17-88
Page 6
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the minimum lot size from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public
interest, due to the following special conditions: The property
is located in a currently undeveloped area, subject to zoning
primarily as a result of annexation process, and the proposed
development is in keeping with current development along the
thoroughfare, and because a strict enforcement of the
provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship to this applicant being the fact that the actions of
public officials from another jurisdiction other than the
City of College Station caused the applicant to rely to his
detriment upon the placement of his home, and such that the
spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done subject to the following limitations: To allow
s minimum lot size at this location of 1.58 acres.
Mr. Gentry made the motion.
Mr. Henry seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously {5-0).
• -------- -----/ - - -'!-.. ,_ ,~--~.~ May 1~, 1988
Acting Chairman Ro ert 7'. Gilmore
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
•
•
FORMAT FOR POSITIV$ 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 pubic
interest due to the following unique special conditions not
generally found within the City: The lot location is at a corner
where both streets are heavily traveled and current sign usage
far exceeds the provisions of the zoning ordinance, and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would
result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: The
inability to present signage on major thoroughfares adjacent to
the property 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: Total square footage of signage including fuel
price sign not to exceed 191 square feet, said variance
conditioned upon the removal of the existing high rise sign no
later than 24 months following the granting of this variance.
Motion made by Michael Gentry.
Motion seconded by Glenda Baker.
Voting results: 5-0 (unanimous)
r
__ ______ __~~ ~ 0~ _=_u__ ~ __ May 17, 1988
Ac ing Chairman Robert'A'. Gilmore
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
• GUEST REGISTER
DATE May 17 ~ 1988
NAME ADDRESS
I . ~T ~ ~X 4~~f~ c. S ~ ~7~~z
2
~ ~ ~o~ ~~
~ s
c
. . .
, _
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
t0.
• 11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
i6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25•