Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2003 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment November 18, 2003 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, Rodger Lewis, John Richards, Ward Wells & Graham Sheffy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate's Jay Goss & John Fedora (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planners', Jennifer Prochazka, & Molly Hitchcock, Planning Intern Lauren Harrell, City Attorney Carla Robinson, & Action Center Representative Regina Kelly, Development Manager Natalie Ruiz. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. No requests were received. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action on approval of meeting minutes from September 2, 2003. The minutes were not available for consideration. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, presentation, discussion and possible action on a variance at 1400 Texas Avenue South (Corner of George Bush and Texas Avenue South) in the Redmond Terrace Subdivision. Applicant is Quality Signs Inc. for Texas Avenue Crossing L.P. (03 -257 JR) Staff Planner Prochazka stated that since the time of the staff report, the applicant has changed the sign proposal. The applicant is now proposing a 35 -foot tall sign located 25 feet from the curb. In the UDO, the allowable height is determined by measuring the distance from the closest point of the sign to the curb edge and dividing this distance by two. (so as you move the sign closer to the street the allowed height becomes lower, as you move it further from the street, the allowed height becomes higher.) This proposal of 35 feet tall at 25 feet from the curb, will require one of two variances. With the sign proposed 25 feet from the curb, a sign may be 12.5 feet tall. The applicant wants a 35 -ft. tall sign, so it would need a 22.5 -foot variance to the height. The second variance option is to the setback: The applicant is requesting a setback of 25 -feet for a 35 -foot tall sign. The sign would have to be set back 70 -feet for the proposed height of the sign; so it would need a 45 -ft setback variance to be located in the proposed location. As stated in the ordinance, a special condition is a unique circumstance related to the land. The special condition offered by the applicant is that "fast moving traffic needs a larger, taller, and closer sign to be effective." ko The ordinance also states that the hardship must be a direct result of the special condition and deprives the property owner of reasonable use of his land. For a hardship, The applicant states that other competing businesses in the area are using larger, grandfathered signs. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Marvin Baker, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Baker spoke in favor of the request. He stated the following reasons for determining the placement of the proposed sign: safety purposes for cars turning, storm drains in the esplanade that they want to stay away from, and parking lot lights that are on the last esplanade islands that are approximately at the 57 foot setback. They would like to keep the sign from being inline with the lights so they would not be an obstruction to the view of the sign. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Baker what would they do if the variance was not approved, where would the sign be placed. Mr. Baker replied that would be up to the owner. He added that they could consider a further setback or a lower sign. Mr. Baker ended by saying that it would be beneficial to go with a lower sign. Brad Sondock, the Managing Partner for Texas Avenue Crossing, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Sondock spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Sondock gave the Board a brief history of the project. He stated that the entrance throat into the project was the most confusing item to deal with to meet city code and to meet the needs of the project. The other concern was drainage since the shopping center receives rainwater runoff for Texas Avenue. Because they could not take the water underground it was sheet flowed toward Milliff Drive. There are two large steel sheets that take the flow. This area can not be blocked which gives another reason for the placement of the proposed sign. Mr. Sondock also stated that the parking and landscaping has made the parking lot tight. Mr. Sondock ended by telling the Board that the tenant "Bed, Bath and Beyond" has a requirement to have a sign of 35 -feet tall. Mr. Richards asked what is the height of the building on the north pad of the shopping center. Mr. Sondock replied that the building is 24 -feet tall. Mr. Richards asked if that building would be a problem for the sign. Mr. Sondock replied that the further the sign is placed back on the property will be a problem and it would be more effective if the sign were closer to the road. Mr. Richards called the sign a self inflicted problem. Mr. Sondock disagreed. There were continued discussions with Mr. Sondock concerning the shopping center layout. Chairman Hill asked if the parking for the shopping center meets or exceeds the amount needed. Mr. Sondock replied that it exceeds. Chairman Hill asked how many spaces does it exceed. Ms. Prochazka replied that it is 40 spaces in excess. Mr. Sheffy asked what would the alternative be if the variance is not granted. Mr. Sondock replied that he does not have an alternative and he is at the mercy of the Board the get the sign he needed. Chairman Hill asked if he could move the sign over and sacrifice a few parking spaces. Mr. Sondock replied the extra parking is on the roof and not on the ground. Chairman Hill called for anyone wanting to speak in favor or opposition to the request. With no one stepping forward Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. ZBA MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 4 Mr. Richards stated that a lot of time, thought and history have been put into designing the ordinances. It is the responsibility of the developer to design a sign that fits the city ordinances and not the responsibility of the Board to design an ordinance to fit a sign. (W Chairman Hill stated that he likes the overall effects the ordinance is having and he likes the affect. Mr. Wells added that this shopping center has the advantage of facing Texas Avenue as opposed to the Culpepper Plaza and the shopping center with Hobby Lobby. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: due to the fact that the sign regulations were put in to keep our city within the beautification process and the hardship for this variance does not comply with that ordinance. Safety and beautification were reviewed in this process and were considered by the Board; 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. Hill seconded the motion. Chairman Hill clarified that the denial would be for the 45 foot setback. Chairman Hill stated that he is reluctant to do anything to negate what the city ordinance is doing at this time. He likes what they are doing. Mr. Richards stated that he has sympathy for the developer but it seems that the sign was the last thing planned in the project. Chairman Hill added that he is not at all without sympathy to the developer. Chairman Hill said the Board would be dealing with this issue as more development goes in. Chairman Hill stated they needed to stay within the ordinances and what they are trying to do. Mr. Lewis stated that the property does have several unique characteristics but the developer did not offer any options or room for compromise. Mr. Wells added that advertising is not going to be the issue. Marking the entrance is going to be the issue. Mr. Sheffy stated that grandfathered signs could not be considered because they are in the past. We are dealing with ordinances that are in place now. Chairman Hill called for the voted. The Board voted (5 -0) to deny the sign variance request. ZBA MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2003 PAGE 3 OF 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion and possible action to update the Board's Rules and Procedures. Advertise notice of meeting in the Eagle 4 — Rehearing Mr. Lewis made the motion to approve the revisions. Mr. Sheffy seconded, which passed unopposed (5 -0). Mr. Richards asked that notifications also be sent to the Neighborhood Associations. Ms. Grace responded they are notified if a HOA exists. Mr. Richards also referenced the notification given to property owner's 200 feet from a variance request. He feels that this should be a judgement call. Ms. Grace responded that is the reason the public hearing sign is also placed on the property. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. The Board asked when any Administrative Adjustments are given that the Board is notified. It was decided that an agenda item will be added to the Board's agenda and any adjustments would listed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZBA MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 2003 PAGE 4OF4