The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/16/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • DATE December 16, 1986 NAME 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. ADDRESS ~ ~~ ST/ ~'f/Etj/ /~ C,QEE.~sio~ Sao~P.rdb ~rv.~ a~~~-~' -r ~ . L~..~~ ~.. ~.c.~ J /` ~d~~~--~e- ~~~~~ ~" - ~, ~-. r e~s~, G~~~ _ `~ ~t <~7L/~(JCX-/~M~~ ~J /~,t~.. ~'~ f tai/ .4'.-«,. ZmW~ ~ `~,.~~~ G J ""'^'~~, , MvU~~ -~ McCV iRl~ S~C.v~v~Fl~ ~-y~~ ~FvR DISC ursi~~v~ ~0~9~~ ~~~~r • ,~~G/~6 5f ~ ~ y ~ ~GI LMo~F ~ P~as~0 iN ~AV~2 • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the Ex.3~ f~r/~ ~ (~i~~/E•eSi7f~-~~ ________yard (Section 8.7) ___lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) ___V _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: .SdvT~L~}N/_~__C..viQ/° •_yAS -i2,c~.jod.~v/X-~~ /~U ~ Sv~;~.('T/G~~/ ,Qy 7~~~' ~~~ 7 U 1.~5/CN ~} -~UC'TU.e~ ~/.~//G~ w~LG - -- -- - - - - --------- --- --- ~~ f-~,~l~L ~ F%T fir' ~oNiN fi CoO~------------------ - 2 ~ T'c~F /~'~'OL/ C' ~vTS ,~,eD~s•9L ~ r M4~F ~9Ccc~ol~9~Ll= 72.E-~' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ---- --- - --------- and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done ~d .~., -------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion made by _ M C~~'V)~~________________ Date _________________ Seconded by ~1~,/`!)O~~___________________ Voting Results _~~=V • Chair signature ___ ~~!ULFJ,~~i_r~___{~G~__10~~~~~/~ 4 _----- ~,~ ~vT,vl~.r/~ ~~O/2~B ~ ~ .9~~ ~ ~~~dc~~~l~ -, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR IdBOA~IVB MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance 1638 I move 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 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. Motion made by: _~?~~~12~_ Motion seconded by• ~UCS~N~ Voting results: ~~~-- - J~'1~ ----------------- -!z =%= ~~ ---------- Chair si nature~~~ Date ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT . FORMAT FOR MOTIONS APPBAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S IN?BHPIIBlAlION - From Section 15.5 Ord. 1638 I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section L~I.,__ of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. / ~ t~ Motion made by _~~t~-~.T~~=~t~,~~S.__c~------- Date - 7y~~6- ~?R l~ - Seconded b ~ -U ~+ i~-~ y --- -~--------~t`G-~----C------- Results of voting: _____ ~ 0 Chair signature _-__~ __ _-L/1~`~~f~ MHBN BULINfi NOT !0 UPHOLD !HB DBCISION Oft IN?BBPHBlAlION MADB HY !HB ZONING OFFICIAL, USB !HB FOLLOMINB FOY~I: I cove to interpret Section _______ of Ordinance 1638 in the • folloNing canner: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion made by --------------------------------- Date -------------- Seconded by -------------------------------------------------------- 8esults of voting: ____________________ Chair •isnature ---------------------------------------------------- • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR NBaATIVB MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the sign regulation8 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: v~iti~ `~~ P~2FCE'~ENi Nis ~.~ ~ ~=.s?ta, ~~.!~MF4 ,qrr /=v~eRowct' ~O ~yE yic.ra/ .SAC=~,~ fcFG~FsTS~_2~201~1~'_ NISI(~IL.IJ'.y and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, nd such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be pres d and the general interests of the public and the applicant serve Tye,, X1/9/ZGiS't/~,~~ .I'F~/= ',~ti1l~LlS~~ • Motion made by: ___~ ~ 1~~`3' _ CCtI- --------------------------- Motion seconded by: _~/~Q~~__________________________ Voting results: --------------------+-~-~ ~Mfrl~~ ---- Chair signatur Date • MINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment December 16, 1986 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Meyer, Members Ruesink, McGuirk, Gilmore, Alternate Member Julien and Council Liaison Brown for part of the meeting. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Evans and Alternate Member Swoboda STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Elmore and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1. Call to Order - explanation of functions and limitations of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, then explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2. Approval of minutes a. Regular meeting on November 18, 1986. b. Special workshop with City Council on December 2, 1986. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting on November 18, 1986. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • Mr. McGuirk directed staff to delete the words "and in his opinion, the ZBA is doing an excellent job" from the third paragraph on page 2 of the minutes from the December 2nd meeting, and with that change, made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Meyer abstained}. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3. Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4. Reconsideration of a request for a variance to the attached sign regulations (Sec.12.3.L. Ord. 1638) to allow a sign perpendicular to the face of the building at the Creekside Shopping Center. Applicant is Ruth W. Cain - The Stitchery. (Item tabled on 11-4-86 and on 11-18-86.) Mr. Ruesink made a motion to take this item off the table. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mrs. Kee briefly explained the request, pointing out that on page 2 of the staff report she has incorporated sections from the Zoning Ordinance which pertain to this request. She passed around the photos which the applicant had supplied as part of her application. The applicant, Ruth Cain, 2601 Hollow Oaks Circle, Bryan was sworn in and stated that this requested sign is quite important to her business and offered to answer any • questions the Board wished to pose, adding that the sign is only 12" x 8' and will enable customers to more easily locate her business without verbal directions. 1 Mrs. Meyer stated that staff has indicated that the Board has 2 options: To consider • a variance to the sign ordinance or to consider this an exempt sign, continuing to explain that if the sign is considered an exempt sign it will be directional only and should only address the business to patrons after they have entered the shopping center, adding that in her opinion, this is not the case with this sign as she thinks it can be easily seen from University Drive. Mr. McGuirk pointed out that the key words in the Zoning Ordinance are "easily read" and not "easily seen". Mrs. Kee explained the purpose of this section of the ordinance, but added that this Board has the authority to change that interpretation. Mr. McGuirk replied that he believes City Council has given this Board direction that this sign does not fall within the code, adding that he would not be able to vote for a variance for this sign, but in his opinion this sign will not be "easily read" from University Drive. Mr. Gilmore agreed that a variance should not be granted for this sign, but disagreed that it might be considered an "exempt" sign. Mr. Julien and Mr. Ruesink both agreed with Mr. McGuirk. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to direct City staff to interpret the proposed sign as an "exempt sign" for the following reasons: {1)It will not be readable from University Drive and thus should not fall within the strictures of the sign ordinance; and, (2)The readability is linked inextricably to the geography of Creekside Plaza, that is the distance below street level at which the buildings are constructed. Chairman Meyer seconded for purposes of discussion and questioned the words "direct City staff" included in the motion to which Mr. McGuirk replied that is exactly what this Board does; i.e. directs City staff to interpret a certain way. Mr. Julien made a motion to amend the motion to insert the word "easily" in front of the word "readable" to more closely follow the wording in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. • McGuirk seconded the motion to amend. Votes were cast on the motion to amend the motion and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Votes were then cast on the amended motion and that motion carried by a vote of 4-1 with Mr. Gilmore voting against it. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5. Reconsideration of a request for variance to side setback, rear setback and sign regulations at the existing Shell service. station at the northeast corner of the intersection of Texas Avenue & University Drive. Applicant is The Southland Corporation. (Ite' tabled on 10-7-86). Mr. Ruesink made a motion to take this item off the table; Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}, Mrs. Kee briefly reviewed the application while referring to a revised site plan on the wall which depicts a change in the size and position of the building and thus, eliminates the need for a side setback variance as well as reduces the amount of variance requested to the rear setback. She added that the sign variance request remains the same and replied to a question that she had received no comments from adjacent property owners who were notified of this request. Bill Wetterman, real estate representative of the applicant, The Southland Corporation, came forward, was sworn in and explained that following the last meeting, the company representatives went back and reworked their plans, which resulted in a smaller building which has been repositioned on the side lot line and further from the rear lot line, thus eliminating the need for a variance to that side setback and reduces the amount of variance required to the rear setback. He added that the • company has also determined that the sign request can be changed so the 7-11 addition will be placed under the existing Shell lettering, thus would not add to the non- conformity which is already there. He finalized by stating that removal of the sign ZBA Minutes 12-16-86 Page 2 on the corner would also be satisfactory to the company, and would give the City the • opportunity to eliminate one non-conforming sign. He then indicated that the owner of the sign, Kenny Broach is in the audience and would be willing to answer any questions. Kenny Broach, 2706 Wingate Circle was sworn in and explained that the subject land is tied up in a Broach estate which is soon to be litigated, and in all liklihood this business will be closed within 90 days, and remain closed for the next 7 years if nothing can be worked out with The Southland Corporation. He described the rundown condition of the property, and explained that due to the pending litigation and lack of business, the property would continue to deteriorate because his family has determined that renovation, maintenance and operation of that business is not worth the effort to them. It was determined by the Board that each part of the request would be handled by separate motions, afterwhich Mr. McGuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: (1)The Southland Corporation has responded to a suggestion by the ZBA to design a structure which will more nearly fit the zoning code; and (2)The applicant's proposal is more acceptable than the probable abandonment of the structure, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Inability to effectively utilize the property as a successful business, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. This motion was seconded by Mr. Gilmore and carried unanimously (5-0). • Mr. McGuirk then addressed the portion of the request dealing with the sign and stated this type of sign is the very kind addressed in the zoning ordinance to be eliminated, and as such, he would not want to address it with a variance, adding it is already non-conforming and the trade-off of removing the other small sign does not balance the impact. Mr. Ruesink asked for clarification of the proposal and Mr. Wetterman replied that if the corner sign stays, the face would be changed to reflect 7-11, and then hopefully the Broaches would paint the tall non-conforming sign when 7-11 makes its addition. Mr. Broach replied he had no problem with that. Mr. McGuirk re-explained that a variance would allow the tall, non-conforming sign to stay forever and the current sign ordinance strives to eventually eliminate these types of large, non-conforming signs. Mr. Wetterman spoke again stating the company is content with the variance granted to the setback for the structure, and would simply have to live with the signs. He added that the larger sign would no doubt be an asset to the company, but even without it, the company would probably finalize the project. Mr. Gilmore asked Mr. Broach what his family's opinion of the large sign is and Mr. Broach replied that it is a disgrace and he would like to take it down and reduce it to approximately 144 sq. ft., but he does not think that is possible due to the regulations in the current sign ordinance. Mr. Wetterman stated that perhaps it will be possible for The Southland Corporation to work with the Broaches in designing a smaller, but still non-conforming sign. Mr. McGuirk replied that this Board cannot rule on something it cannot see, but it would be happy to consider a proposal at a later date which reduces the non-conformity. Mr. Gilmore agreed. Mr. McGuirk then made a 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 and special conditions not generally found within the City, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in ZBA Minutes 12-16-86 Page 3 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. Ruesink seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6. Consideration of an appeal of staff interpretation/variance to sign regulations regarding the existing sign at, the Omni Center Office building which i~ located at 2700 Bast Bypass. Applicant is Brazosland Realty, Inc. Mrs. Kee explained that this request is actually for an appeal of staff's interpretation of what constitutes a Development sign and a Real Estate sign, and if this Board upholds staff's interpretation, the applicant is requesting a variance to the sign regulations to allow the existing sign to remain. She passed around photos of the existing sign and referred to graphics which were included in the packets, explaining that staff has determined that the existing sign is actually a real estate sign advertising Brazosland Realty and as such is much larger than the allowed 32 square feet in total area. Mrs. Kee then gave a brief history of this site, explaining the site plan for the Omni Center was approved in 1983, a permit was issued in February 1984 for a Development sign announcing the Omni Center, and referred to Exhibit 1 which is a graphic detailing that sign. She continued explaining that that permit was renewed in April 1985 and would continue to be renewed until the center becomes 75~ leased, however within the last 2 months that sign was repainted to its present copy, which staff now determines is a Real Estate sign. She further explained that she was made aware of this sign as the result of a complaint received from a local real estate company. She then read excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance which cover regulations • for both Development signs and Real Estate signs. She then showed additional photos of other existing signs in the City which are considered by staff to be Development signs. Paul Clarke, 2103 South Texas Avenue, a representative of Brazosland Realty came forward, was sworn in and stated that he would reluctantly have to admit that the sign as it exists is probably a real estate sign, adding that at the time it was repainted, it was also reduced in size, and further that it was a competitor who had recently complained about the sign. Mr. McGuirk asked him what had happened to the Omni Center logo and Mr. Clarke replied that it had been removed as it was unuseable. Mr. McGuirk asked the official name of this project and Mr. Clarke replied it is platted as The Omni Center. Discussion followed concerning what it would take to make this sign a Development sign again, and Mr. Clarke interjected that changing the paint on the sign is not a reasonable alternative due to the heavy cost involved, and if he was directed to do that, the sign would in all probability be removed and moved. Mr. McGuirk stated he tends to agree that the existing sign is a Real Estate sign, adding that there seems to be a reasonable compromise available to make it into a Development sign, but Mr. Clarke again replied that the company probably will not change the paint. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 12 of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Ruesink seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. McGuirk then asked if a temporary variance is possible since this applicant is • asking to leave this sign in place until it is 75~ leased, adding that his question is does a variance have to be forever, or can it be until the building is 75~ leased. ZBA Minutes 12-16-86 Page 4 Carol Elmore, Assistant City Attorney was sworn in and stated that in her opinion a temporary variance can be granted under certain conditions, and when the property is sold or leased, there would no longer be a need for that sign. Mr. McGuirk asked if a certain amount of time should be named and Mrs. Elmore replied that a variance must be based on a condition or conditions. Mrs. Meyer stated that a special condition can be that the building has been built, and has gone through foreclosure, and is now under different management. Mr. Clarke stated that this property is unique; that the East Bypass is unique due to the distance and speed of the traffic, and a sign only 32 square feet in area would be almost impossible to read from the Bypass. He added that his company handles approximately 80X of the office space in the City, and there is no other property like this one, and he is requesting a variance for that sign until the building is 75~ leased or until the property is sold to a new owner. He added that this area seems to have an influx of large investors and without a sign it would be hard to identify the person or company handling the lease of that building. Mr. Gilmore stated that he does not think a potential investor would drive by a building and get a number from a sign without at least stopping to get a closer look, and then a 32 square foot sign would be visible. Mr. Clarke argued that if an investor could not read the 32 square foot sign from the highway, they might not even stop because this building looks like a building under construction. He added that this City has a half-million square feet of vacant office space, and something must be done to help fill it. Mr. McGuirk stated that any hardship in this case might be considered self-imposed because a proper sign could be constructed. He went on to say that the Omni Center on the East Bypass is not unique, citing sign requests from both the Hilton and Furrows along that highway which were denied in the past. Mr. Clarke stated that those requests were not comparable as the Hilton was asking for an off-premise sign • and Furrows does not have the same impact on the City as does this very large, empty building along the highway. Mr. McGuirk stated the existing sign could easily be modified to fit the ordinance and a variance granted at this location would open requests for other real estate companies all over town. Mr. Clarke stated that this is a dead piece of property and his company is trying to create interest in the project, and further that he does not think that a description of the property on the sign would help anything. Mr. Ruesink stated the original sign was conforming and this sign is even smaller, and if they had just reversed the size of the lettering it could then be a conforming sign. Mrs. Kee agreed, adding that if the major advertising would be to emphasize the project the sign could be even larger than it now is. Mrs. Meyer said this ordinance was passed after the original sign was located on the premise and a special condition might be that the sign has been up for 3 years and the project is still incomplete. Mr. McGuirk stated the position of the sign is not relevant but that a variance could be given to the location of it. Mrs. Meyer said the applicant is only asking for a limited amount of time, which is also a special condition, and explained this request is not like the Hilton's, which was for a temporary off-premise sign. Mr. Clarke stated that this building simply sits empty until it is either sold or at least 50~ leased, and even then special permission from Washington, D.C. would be required. He went on to say that he does not think there is anything comparable in the City as both the site, the location and the marketing of the building is unique. Mr. McGuirk made a 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: precedent has been ~~ established with the Furrows and the Hilton sign requests ,regarding visibility from the East Bypass, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, the hardship being self- ZBA Minutes 12-16-86 Page 5 imposed, 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. Gilmore seconded the motion. Mr. McGuirk made a statement that anything which would ensure the sale and development of this structure should also apply to any structure in the City, and that is not the issue. Votes were then cast on the motion to deny and the motion carried by a vote of 4-1 with Mrs. Meyer voting against the motion. Mrs. Kee asked for clarification should the applicant move the sign and come back with a 32 square foot Real Estate sign which does not meet the setback requirements; must he come back before this Board for a variance and the Board agreed he would. Mr. McGuirk then explained that if the applicant repaints over the sign and makes it become a Development sign again, he would not have to come back. Mr. Ruesink clarified by stating that the applicant could make a Real Estate sign which conforms or get a variance for the setback requirement, or he could make the existing sign back into a Development sign, or even a larger sign than it now is, without coming back to this Board. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 7. Other business. There was no other business other than wishing all present a Happy Holiday Season. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 8. Adjourn. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn which Mr. McGuirk seconded. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: Chairma Dorot~~er------- ATTEST: ----------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes 12-16-86 Page 6 I.UNING BOARD OF' ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB 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 public interest due to the following unique special conditions not g~en/erally found within the City: ---~---- -- ---- --L h.~~ ~ _ _~_~_~. ~ ~.,~ ~-- k is --- l - - -- - -------- -L ---- -- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship t this applicant being: -- ~~~~ - ~~- r~---10 ` -1` - -------- ~ 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: - ---- ----------- -------------------------- Motion made by: _____ ~,~,- k~~^^~',~- --- Motion seconded by: ,,'-- ~..®-~ ------ Voting results: - ---------- Chair si ature - --~ ~~~-----_____ date ~--