Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTBS • CITY OF COLLBGB STATION, TBXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment January 7, 1986 7:00 P.M. MBMBBRS PRBSBNT: Chairman Upham, Members Meyer, McGuirk, Wagner, Herzik and newly appointed Alternate Member Gilmore MBMBBRS ABSBNT: Alternate Member Swoboda STAFF PRBSBNT: Zoning Official Kee, City Attorney Locke and Planning Technician Volk AQBNDA IlBM NO. 1. Call to order - explanation of inactions and liaitations of Hoard. Chairman Upham called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. Chairman Upham then administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed alternate board member Robert Gilmore. AtiBNDA ITEM N0. 2. Hear visitors. No one spoke. • AaBNDA I?BN ItO. 3. Approval o? Minutes - aeeting of Deceaber 17, 1985. Mr. McGuirk pointed out an error in the 2nd to last paragraph on page one which should have stated "ordinance would allow a sign a maximum of 11 feet in height," rather than "14 feet" as shown. Mr. Herzik pointed out an error in the 5th paragraph on page 2 which should indicate "Mr. Herzik asked if the charge of the ordinance is to eliminate non-conformities" rather than "Mr. Herzik said that" as is shown. With those changes, Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Herzik seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AaBFDA I?BM ItO. 4. Consideration of a request for variance to Section 2.L. Ordinance 1676, Sign ~tegnlations to place a sign on as existing canopy at 40b Mest Oniversity Drive. Applicant is Pietro Perri. Mrs. Kee explained this variance request regarding the location of a sign which is 32 square feet and 4 feet high. She explained that Section 2.L. of Ordinance 1576 states that an attached sign "...shall not extend above the roof line, shall be parallel to the face of the building, shall not be cantilevered away fry the structure, and stiall not eactead so~~e than aoe foot Eras the prifary snrfsos of the building...". She then explained that the definition of an attached sign on page 3 of Ordinance 1576 is "A sign attached to or applied on and totally supported by a part of a building, that does not pro3ect sore than ooe (1') foot irate any exterior buildi~ faoe ar mansard. • . She referred to the application which shows the applicant wants to erect his sign on the edge of an existing canopy rather than within one foot off the wall. She then passed around photos furnished by the applicant and 2 taken by the staff which show L ZBA Minutes 1-7-86 • various angles of the building, as well as the canopy and existing signs, both on the face of the building and on the edge of the canopy. She explained that there seem to be alternatives to this request which the Board should consider, those being that there appears to be room on the surface of the building to place a sign similar to the existing Aggieland Barber Shop sign; that Aggieland Barber is upstairs and perhaps could relocate its sign to the face of the building above the business which would leave more room for the applicant's sign; or perhaps the owner of the building could work out relocation of some or all of the signs on the building to allow room for each, and to conform to ordinance requirements. She referred to previous action taken by this Board on this property, adding that no previous sign variance requests for this location have been considered by the Board. Mr. McGuirk asked Mrs. Kee if there is a problem with multiple signs on this building and Mrs. Kee replied there is no problem. He then asked her if the Aggieland Barber sign is non-conforming and she replied that it is not. He asked her if there is a non-conforming sign at this location and she replied that there are two non-conforming signs, both advertising Carpus Photo Center. Additional questions followed concerning the sign, height and location of the non-conforming signs. Pietro Perri, applicant, 3300 South College Avenue ~9A, was sworn in. Mr. McGuirk asked him where his establishment will be in this building and Mr. Perri replied that it will be located at the end of the building. Mr. McGuirk asked him where he • proposes to locate his sign and he pointed out the location on the photo (under the barber shop sign, but at the edge of the canopy). Mr. McGuirk then asked Mr. Perri who is intended to read his sign and he replied he is aiming for both pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic along University Drive, as well as the dorms across the street (on campus}. Mr. McGuirk then asked the Board just how much walk-in traffic there was in the surveys done of the Northgate area and Mr. Wagner replied that walk-ins account for a large percentage of the business. Mr. Herzik asked Mr. Perri if he had considered locating the sign under the canopy as an option and Mr. Perri replied that he had, but the sign could be too easily broken at that location. Mr. Wagner asked Mr. Perri if he had spoken with the owner of the building (Mr. Shelton) regarding the alternatives given by staff. Mr. Perri stated that Mr. Shelton does not care where he locates his sign. Mr. Upham interjected that customarily the owner retains control over signage, and should provide signage apace. Mr. Wagner asked Mr. Perri if he had ever considered a neon sign on the inside of the building. Mr. Perri said he wants the sign which he has already had made to be located where he has indicated because it will be visible to both the dorms across the street and to vehicular traffic. • Mr. McGuirk asked staff if the standard notification to businesses around this location had been made and Mrs. Kee replied that notification had been made to property owners within 200 feet of this building. Mr. McGuirk then asked Mrs. Kee if this variance is granted, could this Board expect to hear from other businesses 2 ZBA Minutes 1-7-86 • in the area, and Mrs. Kee replied that she had already been contacted by 2 other businesses regarding sign variances. Mrs. Meyer asked if this variance is only for the sign to be located on the edge of this existing canopy and Mrs. Kee replied that it is, and then explained the regulations on attached signs as listed in the ordinance. Mrs. Meyer asked if this were a freestanding sign, would it exceed allowable dimensions. Mrs. Kee stated that she could not answer that question, as the allowable dimensions of a freestanding sign are a function of its location on the property. She went on to say this sign is definitely not a freestanding sign, but neither is it an attached sign as defined by ordinance. Discussion followed concerning what is attached, what is a part of a building, what is the primary surface of the building. Mr. McGuirk called Mr. Perri forward again and asked questions regarding dimensions of the canopy, dimensions from the top of the canopy to some point referred to on the photo. (All questions were asked while pointing to the photo, so specific questions are not on record either in written form or on the recording of the meeting.) Mr. Herzik said this Board has pointed out several alternatives which could be considered by this applicant, those being to place the sign on the wall of the building below the canopy, to use a neon sign inside the business either above or below the canopy, to move the barber shop sign to allow room for this sign, but the applicant seems unwilling to consider any of these. Mr. Perri replied that his sign is already constructed and was finished before he was aware of any regulations. Discussion followed concerning type of sign (materials, lighting, how it will be attached, etc.) with Mr. Herzik asking if the way it is to be secured • follows regulations to which Mrs. Kee replied that is governed by the building code. Mr. Wagner stated that the hardship appears to be financial as the sign is already made. Mr. Herzik 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 interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions not generally found within the City: As the canopy is not a unique condition to this establishment and sufficient and superior alternatives exist so as not to constitute a hardship, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion to deny. Discussion followed with Mr. McGuirk disagreeing regarding statements about the hardship being only financial, because he sees the location of the canopy at the right-of-way as being a hardship. Therefore, he has no problem with the hardship requirement, and he has no problem with the unique and special conditions of this canopy, but he would have problems with serving the best public interests if this variance is granted. Mr. Wagner disagreed with some of Mr. McGuirk's statements regarding unique and special conditions, after which Mr. Herzik said there are 3 businesses with signs which conform at this location, which indicates this is not a unique or special condition, and there are alternatives available with at least (in his opinion) one superior to the proposal. Votes were cast on the motion to deny, with that motion carrying unanimously (5-0). • 3 ZBA Minutes • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5. Other business. 1-7-86 Mrs. Kee stated there will be no meeting on January 21st. She then referred to the handouts at the meeting which include the list of staff members and the schedule of meetings for the next few months. She also asked the Board to consider having the meetings at 5 P.M. when there is only one item for consideration on the agenda. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6. Adjourn. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones U `~`'~. _. ` 1 Cha r n, Jack~~Upham i 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION: Variances: From Section 3.A. Ordinance 1576 (amending Ordinance 850) 1 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: ~-- l~c~a (A~~ Yom- G~ndr~o-, ~ ii+~~" and because a strict enforcment of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this Ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. ~~~~r ~~, Mot 1 on made by Cs/ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Seconded by C~~LE `~~ dj.i/c~ Variance denied 6y the following vote: I ATURE OF AIRMAN .~ DAT . ._ • OATH OF OFFICE I , ROBERT (BOB) G I LMORE do solemnly swear ( or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of MEMBER, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. • ROBERT (BOB)GiLMORE -_ JA UPHAM, CHAIRMAPI ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE: .lanuary ]y 1gRFi •