Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/2001 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment 1„. September 12, 2001 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Birdwell, Shelly, Richards & Lewis. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Goss & Corley, not needed. Alternate Member Allison; not need but in the audience. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Reeves & Hitchcock, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: No requests to consider. L AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consider Absence Request from meeting. Consideration of meeting minutes from August 7, 2001 Mr. Birdwell made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a sign variance at 3939 State Highway 6 South, lot 29, block 1, Woodcreek Subdivision. Applicant is Chandler Signs L.P. for Courtyard Marriott. (01 -166) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the use of a larger and taller freestanding sign than is allowed by ordinance. The applicant would like to erect an approximately 131 sq. ft. sign, 41 feet behind the curb at a height of 19- feet for a new development on Highway 6 and Woodcreek Drive, but because the highway is a greater classified street, the highway frontage is used for sign considerations. Section 12.3 K. of the Zoning Ordinance (Free Standing Commercial Signs) states that "a premise with less than 75 feet of frontage shall be allowed to use one low profile sign ". Low profile signs have a maximum area of 60 -sq. ft., a maximum height of 4 feet, and are required to be placed at a minimum of 10 feet from the right -of -way. Thus, the applicant would like a variance to the restriction that only a low profile sign is allowed on a property with less than 75 feet of frontage. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 1 of 9 The lot has an odd configuration that limits its frontage on the Highway 6 frontage road; but was platted in this way with the knowledge that signage would be limited. Hotel Village Partners, L.P. had the subject property platted for the Marriott Hotel in 1999. At that time, staff was concerned about the limitations the configuration had on signage options and expressed those concerns. Despite the known impact, the property was platted in the configuration that limits the options for the hotel. The applicant has also stated that the hotel will have limited visibility from the access road due to trees. It is staffs experience that, much like the Marriott Hotel site, when the properties at the front of the subdivision develop, many of the trees will be removed. A variance hardship is the inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law. The sign company representative believes quests and the motoring public will be inconvenienced by the lack of hotel visibility. Without the variance, the applicant would still be able to have a freestanding low profile sign along the Highway 6 frontage. Low profile signs are 4 feet tall, but because of the topography of the area, would be perceived as taller. Placing a low profile sign ten feet back from the right -of -way (as the ordinance requires) would put a low profile at an elevation of 318 feet (top of sign). The elevation of the centerline of Highway 6 varies between 308 — 310 feet from its intersection with Rock Prairie to the hotel driveway. The elevation of the centerline of Highway 6 varies from 290 feet at the Rock Prairie underpass to 298 feet at the Business 6 intersection with Deacon. Realistically, the four -foot low profile sign would be 8 — 10 feet tall from the perspective of the feeder road and 20 — 28 feet tall from the perspective of the highway. The hotel would also be able to utilize attached signage. The building has three stories with the height to the eave line at approximately 30 feet. At a finished floor elevation of 317.5, the bulk of the building stands between approximately 9 — 39 feet above than the frontage road and 27 — 57 feet above than the highway. Attached signs are allowed at this location as long as they advertise only the name of, uses of, or good or services available with the building to which the signs are attached, and as long as the signs are parallel to the face of the building, not cantilevered away from the structure, and do not extend more than one foot from any exterior building face, mansard, awning or canopy. If the property met the minimum frontage requirements for a pole- mounted freestanding sign, the sign would be allowed 50 sq. ft. To have the approximate 131 -sq. ft, of signage that is requested, the hotel would have to have 251 -300 feet of frontage. Ms. Hitchcock ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing to those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Rockford Gray, Chandler Signs, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Gray handed the Board a copy of the final rendering of the sign. Mr. Gray told the Board that the property that houses the hotel is almost 700 feet from the highway. Mr. Gray stated that the sign they are requesting is much smaller than the typical highway sign that the Courtyard Marriott tries to acquire. Mr. Gray added that the letters on the sign are only 24 ". Mr. Gray made reference to the staff reports mention of the access road. Mr. Gray told the Board that most of the people looking for the hotel are not on the access road. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 2 of 9 They are travelers on Highway 6 going North and South. Mr. Gray stated that the issues about the access road really do not apply to what this hotel needs for just basic visibility and identification. Mr. k w Gray noted that the staff report also mentions the trees on both sides of the hotel. "Once development occurs on those properties and the trees are removed a low profile sign may be seen better." Mr. Gray stated that is if the property is developed and if the trees are removed. Mr. Gray talked about a low profile sign and how it would not be sufficient for the hotel. Mr. Gray ended by telling the Board that 19 feet is low for highway signage and the 2 -foot lettering is not that large. It is adequate at this location to properly identify and properly see before exiting decisions need to be made Mr. Birdwell asked if the developer was aware of the sign ordinance at the time the property was purchased and platted. Mr. Gray replied that he heard that the developer was made aware if this. Mr. Birdwell asked if Courtyard uses wall signs on their buildings. Mr. Gray responded they will in this case and it will be near the top of the building. Again, the trees come into play plus the building is parallel to Highway 6. Mr. Gray ended by telling the Board that that sign will not be affective to the motoring public. Mr. Sheffy also questioned the developer's knowledge at the time of platting, that the signage would be limited. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Gray if the Courtyard Marriott does signs in combination with other adjacent businesses. Mr. Gray answered yes they have done that. Mr. Lewis stated that he was guessing that the two lots adjacent to the hotel are likely going to be restaurants. Mr. Richards made the statement that he did not understand why the owner of the property was not at �mr the meeting. The variance is for the owner, not the Sign Company. The owner could answer the questions concerning the platting. Mr. Lewis stated that there are two things the Board has to find to grant a variance. One could understand that a hardship could be related to traffic safety. Special conditions are related to the physical characteristics of the property, but since the developer knowing the sign ordinance decided the configuration of the lot, that would not constitute a special condition. Mr. Lewis asked if there was another special condition. Mr. Gray responded that if the property had been developed by a third party and the hotel company decided to buy the property, and they came to the Board with the same issue of needing identification from the highway, the needs, conditions, and hardships are still the same. Mr. Gray stated that the low profile sign, which is allowed, would not be seen. That is the condition of the topography. Mr. Gray ended by saying that what is allowed is totally useless. It is a major hardship for a hotel not to be seen from the highway. The hardship is presented to the Board to hear not the development - related issues. Mr. Richards stated that the developer created its own hardship. Mr. Birdwell pointed out to Mr. Gray that the Board could not consider a financial hardship and this was a financial decision made by the developer. It is obvious that Marriott could have bought the whole tract of land. Mr. Birdwell ended by saying that their option now is to either acquire more frontage or make a joint agreement with the developers of the property next to them to have a joint sign. t* A'' Chairman Hill asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the variance. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 3 of 9 Manuel Pena Jr., 9308 Amberwood Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Pena stated that the request is quite significant. Mr. Pena stated that if a sign was placed on the building that would allow the hotel to be seen from a distance. Pena expressed gratitude for being notified about the variance. He was not notified when the original approval was made for the construction. Mr. Pena summarized his complete opposition. Jeanie Baggett, 9310 Amberwood Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Ms. Baggett encouraged the Board to follow the ordinances and deny the variance. James Russell, 9302 Amberwood Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Russell stated that he and others in the area are less than pleased at the way the development of the hotel happened in relation to the housing. Mr. Russell ended by saying he is against granting the variance. Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. McClure told the Board that he owns property next to the hotel as well as being the president of the Amberlake Homeowners Association. Mr. McClure stated his concern is the traffic that will go through Woodcreek Drive. Mr. McClure also stated his concerns about the other signs for the future restaurants. Mr. McClure ended by saying that he has a little different perspective than his neighbors. Chairman Hill asked Mr. McClure if was opposed to the variance. Mr. McClure stated that as an office business owner he is for the variance because he wants them to be successful. Chairman Hill asked city staff to clarify the signage for the restaurants and Marriott Courtyard. Ms Hitchcock stated that it is possible for the three properties to have shared signage. But they would have 4 0 to replat the entire area as one plot. Mr. Lewis asked if there could be an easement granted for signage. Ms. Hitchcock answered no. With no one else stepping forward to speak, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to deny a variance to the sign regulation 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: alleged special condition was a decision by developer. Additional frontage could be acquired or a joint sign could be negotiated; 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 of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Hill stated that he does not have a problem with the developer coming before the Board for the variance knowing he had full knowledge of the sign ordinance prior to the construction of the hotel. Mr. Hill stated that is how the system works. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 4 of 9 Chairman Hill called for a vote on Mr. Birdwell's motion to deny and Mr. Richards second. The Board voted (5 -0) for denial. 4 AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration of a sign variance for 800 Earl Rudder Freeway, lot 3, block 1, The Gateway Subdivision. Applicant is Clayton Rhoades for Chicken Express. (01- 170). Mr. Hitchcock stepped before the Board and told them Staff is recommending that the Board deny this variance request. The case as presented by the applicant is not appropriate for consideration by the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Property owners that are aggrieved by the Zoning Ordinance may apply for a variance as allowed by the ordinance, or request that the Council changes the standard. If a variance request is appropriate, the Zoning Board of Adjustments is legally bound to find special conditions and hardships related to the subject site to grant it a variance. Since variances run in perpetuity with the land, it is necessary for applicants to show special conditions that are tied to the land and not to a personal situation. The special condition(s) of the land must result in a hardship that is other than purely financial. Challenges that a standard in the Zoning Ordinance violates a federal act can not be resolved by the ZBA but must be resolved through legislative or judicial processes. Since ordinance standards are adopted by the City Council, land or business owners arguing not the application of a standard, but the existence of the standard may ask the City Council to change the standard. If unsatisfied with the outcome of the legislative process, arguments may be made in court. In the case of Chicken Express, the business owner would like to use a third font on a freestanding sign in the University Drive Overlay Corridor zoning district. The City Council adopted the Overlay Corridor District to enhance the image of key entry points, major corridors, and other areas of concern, as determined by the City Council, by maintaining a sense of openness and continuity. To help reach this vision, the City Council adopted the standard that only two fonts could be used on a sign in this district. On his original ZBA application, the applicant did not list special conditions, but stated that the ordinance standard violated federal legislation. Staff called the applicant and his sign contractor, Mc Co -Ad Signs, and explained how Lee Einsweiler of Duncan & Associates (the city's consultant for the Unified Development Code project) had informed the city that the two -font standard was acceptable. The applicant and sign company were also told that the ZBA was the wrong venue for the argument they were using to gain permission for their desired signage. They were informed that the Zoning Ordinance is currently being updated as part of the drafting of the Unified Development Code and that the opportunity exists to share their opinions with City Council and request consideration of changes to the code. After this discussion, the applicant was still interested in pursuing a variance. Staff reiterated the purpose and requirements of the variance procedure. Mr. Rhoades submitted a new request form that still challenges the legality of an Overlay Corridor sign standard and does not provide special conditions appropriate for ZBA consideration. The applicant may ask the City Council to change the standard they have adopted for the Corridor Overlay District or apply to a court of law. Ms. Hitchcock ended her report by showing the Board pictures of the property. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Birdwell stated that there are two variance requests in this case. Ms. Hitchcock replied that was correct. Mr. Birdwell stated that one request does make reference to special conditions. Ms. Hithcock replied that it not how city staff sees it. The applicant is arguing there are three businesses and they should be allowed three fonts. That is not the standard that the City Council has set. Each sign gets a maximum of two fonts. Mr. Richards asked if the Board approves this variance, does that approve it or would the applicant have to go the City Council. Ms. Hitchcock replied that if they approved the variance they would have to find special conditions that are tied to the land. Mr. Lewis asked if the two -font rule applied only to the freestanding sign or to the building as well. Ms. Hithcock replied that it would apply to the building as well. But each attached sign is a different sign. The freestanding sign, because it is a shopping center they would all have to share one sign. Mr. Richards asked when did the applicant become aware that the ordinance would not allow this. Ms. Hitchcock replied that the applicant would have to answer that question. Mr. Birdwell asked if the graphic that was presented, was it otherwise acceptable in terms of size, area and height. Ms. Hitchcock replied yes. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Clayton Rhoades, the applicant, College Station, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Rhoades showed the Board a graphic of the sign. Mr. Rhoades stated that his argument is a legal issue. Mr. Rhoades explained that when you look at the property and the sign that has been approved that will be on the building itself, it would not be visible from the highway or the I frontage due to the canopy in the front. He stated he does not understand why an agreement could not be reached to get this sign approved. Mr. Rhoades told the Board that there already is a billboard up on Highway 6 visible with the logos of Exxon, Subway and Chicken Express. When people exit the University Drive exit they are not going to be able to see where Chicken Express is because it is not visible from the freeway until your right there. Mr. Rhoades ended by saying that he wants to get the visibility. He stated that he did not see how this would be a hindrance. Mr. Richards asked Mr. Rhoades if he was aware of the signage limitation before he signed his lease. Mr. Rhoades replied that he was not. Mr. Rhoades stated that he signed his lease prior to Subway to appling for their sign permit. Mr. Richards asked Mr. Rhoades when did he become aware of the requirement. Mr. Rhoades replied that it was right about the time Subway's sign was put up. It was then that the landowner mentioned that there might be some difficulties. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Chairman Hill began the discussion by saying that this variance request does not meet the purpose of the Board. According to the staff report this can not be resolved by ZBA, but must be resolved through legislative or judicial processes. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Birdwell stated that is why he asked staff about the second variance request. The applicant does have a general variance request. It clearly states a special condition and makes no reference to the constitution. Mr. Birdwell stated that he sees no problem with it. He came to the meeting with the 4 6 thought of deferring action but now that he has been provided a graphic he is prepared to make a motion. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance tot he sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions not generally found within the City: ordinance prohibits use of existing trademark sign; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to the applicant being' inability to use national recognition sign; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be observed and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: use of a sign as presented in the graphic to the Board. Mr. Shef1'y seconded the motion. Mr. Richards stated that he has difficulty with this for the simple reason that they do not have the authority to grant it. Mr. Richards stated the intent of the ordinance is to maintain a continuity of signs. Mr. Birdwell did not see how they could argue fonts. The Board discussed the sign and their jurisdiction. Chairman Hill asked is the color limited as well. Ms. Hitchcock answered that the ordinance does limit the color and height. The ordinance reads no more than three colors and two letter styles. Ms. Hitchcock stated that black and white is a free color. `1 w With no further discussion Chairman Hill asked Mr. Birdwell to re -read his motion. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Rhoades if the graphic presented is how the sign would look. Mr. Rhoades replied that the trademark would actually be smaller and placed below the Subway sign. The Board voted (4 -1) to approve the variance. Mr. Richards voting to deny. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a rear setback variance for 3212 Nueburg, lot 7, block 11, Edelweiss Estates Phase 14. Applicant is Kerr Surveying for Stylecraft Builders. (01- 174). Staff Planner Reeves stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Reeves told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an error made during the survey. The result is an encroachment that reaches 23.3/4' from the property line to the closest part of the home; thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 1.5 feet. As special conditions the applicant offers that a human error made during the survey and that the house backs up to a common area, which backs up to Wellborn Road. Because variances run with the land, special conditions must relate tot he particular property, therefore, staff does not consider these reasons to be special conditions. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 7 of 9 The applicant states that the buyers are awaiting approval. A hardship should be a direct result of the special condition. y The applicant states no alternatives; however, staff feels to legitimize the encroachment without a variance they would need to remove the portion of the home that is encroaching. Ms. Reeves ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Randy French, Owner Stylecraft Builders, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. French told the Board that he is coming to the Board acknowledging the encroachment. Mr. French spoke about the lot being on a cul -de -sac. Mr. French stated that in this case there is a common area to the rear of the property and no other house or residential structure will be placed on the adjoining land. Mr. French ended by telling the Board that he takes this extremely seriously. Mr. Richards stated that looking at the survey he does not know how that house could be placed on the lot. Mr. French replied when they went in for the building permit it did work. Mr. French told the Board that he does have a buyer that has children in the house. They did know prior to moving into the house of this issue. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the case, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: variance is deminimus; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: causes encroachment; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance limited to the encroachment of existing structure. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Chairman Hill told Mr. French that he personally has a problem with the Board validating mistakes like this that should have not happened. But at the same time he will agree with Mr. Birdwell that this is very minor and the rule of common sense should kick in at some point. Chairman Hill called the vote from Mr. Birdwell's motion and Mr. Shelly's second. The Board voted (5 -0) to grant the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO 7: Future Agenda items. Mr. Birdwell stated there is a need to hold a workshop with the Board to discuss the Unified Development Code. City staff should be given the authority to approve small variances. Mr. Birdwell asked to have the consultants make a presentation to the Board with the changes being implemented. The Staff Planners told the Board they would get with Senior Staff and report back to the Board. The Board expressed a desire to get a draft copy and overview of the UDC. City staff will follow up and report to the Board. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 8 of 9 AGENDA ITEM NO 8 Adjourn i kow The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Ll)\, c - Deborah Grace, taff Assistant ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 9 of 9