Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1989 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment June 6, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gilmore, Members Gentry, Thompson, Alternate Baker and Council Liaison Birdwell MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Garrett and Henry STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Planning Assistant Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Administrative Secretary Williams AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of the Board. Mr. Gilmore opened the meeting and explained the functions • and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes - meeting May 2, 1989. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to approve the minutes submitted. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Hear visitors. Mr. Gilmore asked for any visitors other than what is on the agenda. There were no visitors. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 Consideration of a request for a variance to front and side street setbacks for structures and a variance to sign height, number of square footage regulations at the existing Gulf (Chevron) station at 420 Texas Avenue South (NW corner of University & Texas). Applicant K.D. Timmons. Mr. Gilmore called upon staff for report. Mrs. Johnson gave a brief staff report and slide presentation. The purpose of the variance is to allow two new canopies to replace the existing canopies over the fuel pump islands within the front and side street setbacks and to allow the replacement of the of the two new non-conforming Gulf signs with two new Chevron signs. Mrs Johnson directed the Board to refer to the revised Staff Report that was handed out before the meeting. Mrs Johnson stated that the Zoning Board must • consider any unnecessary hardship placed on the applicant, that the public interest is not diminished by a variance and that substantial justice be done. Mr. Gilmore asked for any questions. Mr. Birdwell questioned the two Chevron price signs, one being 140.39 sq. ft. and 79.96 sq. ft.; was applicant asking for both signs. Mrs. Johnson replied that the larger sign was what the applicant was proposing and that it is the standard Chevron sign and the smaller one being an alternative that Chevron also offers as part of their deal. Mr. Thompson replied that the smaller sign was the same height but not as wide. Mr. Gilmore asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Gentry asked since they were proposing to continue to use their fuel price sign out on the street, so none of this square footage is attributable to the allowance of the fuel price signage. Mrs. Johnson replied that a decision was made that any fuel signage signs had to be a maximum of 16 sq. ft. if they were separate and detached from a free standing sign. If the fuel signs are included in this than you are only allowed one fuel price sign which in this case the smaller one would need to be removed. • Mr. Gilmore asked if there were any more questions. Mr. Birdwell questioned the square footage of both signs. Both being the same height, same distance from the ground up to the bottom of the sign and all the other dimensions being different. Mr. Gilmore asked if applicant or someone representing the applicant was available to comment. Mr. K. D. Timmons of 2000 Quail Hollow Drive, Bryan, Texas was sworn in by Mr. Gilmore. Mr. Timmons told Board members that the light pole next to the price sign at the corner of Texas & University Drive was proposed to be taken down and they would finish out that part of the concrete. The canopies will be new and have straight sides with bright colors. They will also remodel the building and paint it. The signage they feel is necessary as an economic stand point as well as the stand point of people being able to identify as they approach at a distance which will allow them to change lanes and arrive at the site safely. Mr. Gilmore asked if there were any questions of Mr. Timmons. Mr. Birdwell asked about the height of the Chevron sign with price sign. They both show that they are 28.7' tall but when the dimensions are added up on the small one it only shows 23' tall. Mr. Timmons replied that Mr. Birdwell was correct and the 28.7' was a error on their part because of transferring drawings. Mr. Birdwell asked if the new Chevron sign would hang over the property line. Mr. . Timmons replied no. Mr. Gentry asked if the canopies were a variance also. Mr. Timmons replied yes. Mr Birdwell stated that he had no problems at all. Mr. Thompson asked what Mr. Timmons thoughts were in regard to the small Chevron sign that goes on Texas Ave. verses the one he had proposed at 140.39 sq. ft. Mr Timmons replied that he preferred the larger one, it can be seen farther and can be read easier. He also stated that he was in competition with some pretty heavy duty signage right around that area. Mr. Birdwell asked Ms. Kee if the Shell sign across is the street is in compliance. Ms. Kee replied that it was not in compliance. Mr. Gentry stated that nothing on the four corners was in compliance with the exception of Texas A & M which the city does not regulate. Mr. Gentry stated that it would be unreasonable to expect the change to come within the strict definition of the code as it now exists. Mr. Gentry feels that the request is not unreasonable. Mr. Gilmore asked if anyone present would like to speak for or against the variance request. No one replied. Mr. Gilmore asked if any Board member would like to speak. Mr. Birdwell stated that the signs were a definite improvement. Mr. Gentry moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of the ordinances at it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: The long term lease of the property combined with the signage on other surrounding properties require use similar to that proposed, because of strict enforcement of • the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being inability to adequately use existing commercial property and such that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: (1) Setbacks along Texas Ave. will be 3.5 ft. and along University Dr. 3.5 ft. (2) Sign variance on Texas Ave. will be allowed at a height of 28' 7" with a setback of 15' from pavement on Texas Ave. with a square footage of 140.39 feet. (3) The auxiliary sign on University Dr. shall have a square footage of 20 ft. and a height of 16'. (4)Subject to the existing fuel price sign and light pole be removed. Mr. Gilmore ask for a second to the motion. Board member Baker seconded and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a request for a variance to island. requirements for a proposed restaurant parking lot to be located. on Lot B University Park East (SE corner of Tarrow & University). Applicant is Golden Corral Corporation. Mrs. Johnson gave a brief staff report and slide presentation. The variance is to allow a 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant to be developed with the required 100 parking • spaces but lacking the required number and size of raised islands as required by the Ordinance. Mr Birdwell asked if another alternate would be to get a variance for the number of parking places and go ahead and put in the islands. Mrs. Johnson replied that it would be an alternative and the applicant wanted as much parking as they could have Mr • Thompson asked which curb cut the applicant was going to use along University Dr. Mrs. Johnson answered that both curb cuts are existing and she understood that during the time that University Dr. was being reconstruction the opening on the left side on University Dr. was to be reconstructed by the State. However it did get rebuilt. There is currently now a existing curb cut there for the use that was there which used to be a real estate or insurance building. They had a curb cut but because the property was vacant when the State did its revisions it was not supposed to be replaced. Mrs. Johnson also stated that the two driveways are going to require a variance to the driveway policy. The existing major entrance to the shopping center is the one on the right. Mr. Gilmore asked if there were any other questions of Staff. There was no reply. Mr. Gilmore asked for the applicant or anyone representing the applicant. Mr. Bruce Jeppson of 383 West 100 South, Utah was sworn in by Mr. Gilmore. Mr. Jeppson handed to the Board Members a floor plan of the restaurant and also what type of structure they planned to build. Mr. Jeppson stated that it was mentioned to possibly reduce the size of the building and that it • would be totally impossible because they have already tested this size building and to reduce it they might as well not even bring it to town. He also stated that they do have a location in Bryan but they prefer the site in College Station. It was also brought up by Staff to reduce landscaping verses decrease landscaping and increase the number of parking. Mr. Gilmore asked what was the approximate seating capacity. Mr. Jeppson answered 366 seats. Mr. Birdwell asked if it was a cafeteria style restaurant.. Mr. Jeppson replied yes. Mr. Gilmore asked if there were any questions for Mr. Jeppson. Mr. Gentry asked who preferred the 96 spaces to the 100. Mr. Jeppson answered that they do prefer the 100 and Staff has requested that they go with the 100 spaces. Mr. Gilmore asked if there were no more questions, does the Board have any discussion or a motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that they need to grant a variance but feels that the variance be on the 96 parking spaces and more landscaping since it is a new construction. Mr Gentry also agreed with Mr. Birdwell and mentioned the large parking lot adjacent to this space that could be used. Mrs. Baker emphasized that the landscaping in College Station is one of its assets that really stands out when people come to town. • Mr. Thompson stated that the added islands, with the north corner being the primary entry point, would detour people from flowing diagonally across the lot when it was not totally full. Mrs. Johnson told the Board that if they were leaning towards islands and a variance to the parking • spaces, keep in mind that the two islands on the lower right and left corner do not meet ordinance dimensional requirments. Mrs. Baker agreed with Mr. Birdwell about not minding the islands being smaller. Mr. Gentry asked applicant if he had any objection if the Board gave him 96 space. to putting in two other islands or is that going to change whether or not he would use the property. Mr. Jeppson said that it was close enough. Mr, Birdwell also stated that you can park on Tarrow Street. Mr. Birdwell asked Ms. Kee if we gave the applicant a variance for one thing could they also give him another variance. Ms. Kee replied that the notification was for a parking and/or island variance in case such happened. Mr. Gentry made a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of the ordinance, that it is will not be contrary to the public interest. Due to the following special conditions: The proposed use will adequately be served by the proposed parking and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being inability to reasonably use the property and such that the spirit of the ordinance be observed and substantial justice • done subject to the following limitations: (1) Allow 96 parking spaces and (2) allow two parking islands to be 6' in width. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thompson and carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business. Kim Johnson told the Board bring an application for a away. Since July 4th is a would the Board be willing currently one is scheduled to go with the possibility of an applicant that wanted to sign variance before them right meeting date and also a holiday, to set a second meeting in July, for July 18. The board decided of having a June 27th meeting. Mr. Gilmore asked for a motion to adjourn, Mr. Thompson seconded. Motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) minimum setback (Table A) ___ / __parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: . n ~~~ -,~,~~..~r'"' p_ ~__ mar,~+,.,,.~_..___~'_c_,._*-~,,.~°,---=`-------------- ----- -i---- ~-~'- f~ f-„ ... ~.~ ~, t _ _ a s ~' ,; _g~r~ _ _._ ~ s' - j ~L 1 - - - - - ` /~ .. ~~ r ~' f`~ , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ,~ ~i ~~~ - ----- --- =---~sr----- ~---------r"~---°" ------ ~ __ _ `fie. -_ ~- ~~..~---- and such that the spirit of'`this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: / - _/ / ----------- ---------a ---~ ----------- -- - Date Motion made by --~~-"--- ~ ~ --------------- ----------------- Seconded by ____ Voting Results _ ~_ ~ __ ------------------ --- Chair signature _ __ _ __ ____ __ ------ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) . L/ minimum setback (Table A) ________parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: _ _, .. -; _ ~, G -,. - `II ~~i ~ ....!~'1CYY~ Y _~~'Y"M"me _ ~"""~~' ~ ~r CC's se..c 1,..:_ "4' ~~~ -- --- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of would result in unnecessary hardship to th~is~applicant . r -- ---- ,. ys and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: N '~ ~ A t ;~ C' "~ ~ ~ S'r r -QCs r C !? ,~ C~ /~' ; n S ~ ~` Motion made by ___~'~~''" Date ---------------- ----------------- Seconded by ________ ___________ __ -sting Results ~ = d___ Chair signature f' the ordinance being: ~~~yfl~ _ _ _ _ ZONING-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE June 6, 1989 NAME ADDRESS 2 ,'fir c. ,-„ ~ 970 l ~ ~~/. ~._~ [o//.~ ~t 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. il. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.