Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/1989 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment December 19, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Gilmore, Cronan, Henry and Alternate members Gaston and Phinney; also Mayor Ringer for the first portion of the meeting. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Baker and Alternate Member Webb STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Development Coordinator Volk and Planning Technician Rosier AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, and deferred the explanation of functions and limitations of the Board until after the Mayor administered the Oath of Office to the new member. The meeting was turned over to the Mayor. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Administration of Oath of Office to newly • appointed Alternate Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mayor Ringer administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Alternate Member Chuck Phinney. He then turned the meeting back to Chairman Ruesink, who welcomed Phinney and proceeded to explain the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of the minutes - meeting of October 17, 1989. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Hear Visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a request for a variance to the maximum height allowed for satellite dish antennas at 1805 Shadowwood Drive, a residential area. Applicant is Charles S. Lessard. • Ms. Kee stated the purpose of the request is to allow the existing ten foot satellite dish to be relocated from the front yard to the back yard and to exceed the maximum height allowed by two feet. Ms. Kee gave the staff report and a slide presentation of the subject lot, antenna and area residences. She then read from the applicable ordinance, section 8.18 C: "The maximum height of any dish antenna is twelve (12') feet above grade on residential Lots and on non- residential Lots when the antenna is located within 100 feet of a residential Lot". Ms. Kee stated that the request is to allow the dish to be fourteen feet tall. Ms. Kee addressed the difference in elevation between Mr. Lessard's backyard and the surrounding properties. Pending a positive motion, she asked the Board to specify what grade would be and from where the height would be measured. She read an excerpt from the Building Codes which defined "grade". "GRADE - a reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls." Ms. Kee then stated the special conditions identified by the applicant; the neighbor's pine trees inhibit optimal .reception. • She also noted that Mr. Lasell, the property owner to the south, had originally voiced opposition. After viewing the proposed site plan, he indicated no opposition if the applicant was limited to the specified site. Mr. Lasell also asked that a date for. compliance be imposed by the Board. Mr. Henry asked if there was any other opposition. Ms. Kee said there was one letter of opposition and some property owners who called but did not identify themselves. The callers voiced some opposition but they were not even of the understanding that satellite dishes were allowed in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Henry asked staff if there is any building set back in terms of real property lines where the dish can set. Jane explained that there is a twenty foot easement along the rear of the property where the dish could not set. Other than that, the ordinance does not specifically classify that in such a manner to apply set backs. If we consider it an accessory structure then we would apply the fifteen foot rear building line. In this case, we would require a twenty foot minimum because of that easement. She said there did not appear to be any problems with the proposed site in regards to set backs. Chairman Ruesink asked staff if the fence is on the property line. Ms. Kee referred the Board to the applicant's representative in the audience. Mike McMikin of McVideo came forward and was sworn in by Chairman Ruesink. He explained that he used a four foot satellite dish to check various backyard locations for optimal reception. He described the proposed location; approximately 50-51 feet from Mr. Lasell's fence and 24 feet from the back fence. Mr. McMikin stated that these dimensions relate to pole placement and that the actual dish would hang 5 feet to each side of that given the fact that it is a 10 foot dish. He did not think this location would encroach any easement. He proceeded to explain the geometrical of the satellite dish: The dish faces South. If it is turned to face southeast, it requires a 43 degree elevation above grade. In order to pick up the most easterly satellites, the dish must be placed at least 50 feet from a tree which is approximately 45 feet tall in Mr. Lasell's backyard. This distance allows reception to barely clear the trees. The variance request would allow for some growth of the trees while still providing Mr. Lessard a clear signal over the years. To the west satellites are lower and require a 30 degree elevation above grade. Being back behind the pool, allows the signal to clear Dr. Lessard's house. Therefore the best location for the dish is narrowed to about a 5 foot square area. The proposed location is the same grade as the grade at the top of the pool. Mr. Henry asked if the visibility of the dish would be significantly affected in terms of aesthetic appeal if it were allowed to stand 14 foot instead of 12 foot tall. Mr. McMikin said he did not think it would make a significant difference in view from Mr. Lasell's backyard. Mr. Henry added that the dish is in view anyway at 12 feet tall and it exceeds the top of the fence. Mr. Gilmore said he felt it would be two more feet of eyesore. Mr. McMikin explained that the entire dish must clear the trees not just the center. Trees interfere with the signal. He also stated that Mr. Lessard's decoder will not properly work if it does not receive a clear signal. Mr. Cronan asked if the shape of dishes are always circular. McMikin stated that approximately 99% of satellite dishes are circular. Mr. Ruesink asked why the applicant did not wait until the trees interfered with reception to request a variance. Mr. McMikin said it would very expensive for Mr. Lessard to change the height at a later date. • Gaston asked about the proximity to the pool. McMikin said that he spoke to the Building Official who indicated no objections to the proposed location which is approximately 14 feet from pool; 8 feet behind the cement walk. Mr. Gaston said there might be a code restriction concerning electrical equipment installed around a pool. Mr. Gilmore expressed the same concern as the last time this variance request came before the Board. He does not see the inability to view certain television channels as a hardship. Mr. Cronan said the intent of the ordinance is to not inflict aesthetic hardship on the neighborhood and previous objections have been withdrawn. If there are no exceptions to the ordinance, then there is no reason for the Board to address. He felt that reception is the only hardship to address. Mr. Gilmore disagreed. Mr. Cronan asked Gilmore what would constitute a hardship. Mr. Gilmore said that he could not identify one. Mr. Henry felt the hardship could be identified in part as the expense incurred by the applicant in buying a satellite and not being able to get total reception. Mr. Cronan said that City Council in Section 18.18 E states that a dish can be placed in the front yard for suitable reception. He felt that this would be a greater variance from the intent of the ordinance than taking it two feet higher with negligible difference. Assistant City Attorney Banks said the fact that the trees belong to a neighbor might constitute a hardship because Dr. Lessard is not at liberty to trim the trees. Chairman Ruesink solicited questions from the audience. Newly appointed alternate member Phinney stepped forward to state concern over the definition of "suitable reception". Ms Banks stated that the definition of "suitable reception" would be left up to the Board. Mr. Cronan made a motion to "authorize a variance from the 12 foot height ordinance to a 14 foot height as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: Public interest is served in that the objections of the Lasell's have been met and they no longer object Secondly, Dr. Lessard will achieve suitable reception for several years in the future. Thirdly, the 2 foot difference in height from 12 feet to 14 feet, will not significantly nor adversely affect the aesthetic character of the neighborhood, • and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: His reception would be reduced, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: The pole location be 50 feet from the Lasell's fence, 24 feet from the rear fence of the property owner at pool grade within 3 feet of the distances, and completed by January 20, 1990." Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-1. Mr. Gilmore opposed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a request for a variance to the sign regulations at the East Gate Square Shopping Center. Applicant is Area Progress Corporation. Ms. Kee stated that the purpose of the request is to allow more than one freestanding sign for this building plot. She presented the staff report accompanied by a slide presentation identifying the location as East Gate Square, the shopping center containing Red Lobster. She stated that the applicable Ordinance Section is 12.3 K which allows only one freestanding sign per premise. Ms. Kee stated that fifteen letters to which there were no responses, were sent out to surrounding property owners. Ms. Kee explained that Computer Access Schwinn building and they wish to move sign to the prospective location along identified the only alternative which Lobster sign to make it a multi-tenant the Red Lobster sign anyway. This may alternative. wants to move into the their current business Texas Avenue. She could be to redo the Red sign since Exxon hides or may not be a viable Mr. Gaston mentioned the possibility of removing the Red Lobster sign and including a new sign further north. He asked if the Red Lobster sign was placed before or after the Exxon Station added its canopy. Mr. Henry said that the Red Lobster sign existed prior to the Exxon canopy. Mr. Cronan asked if the Board should consider signage only for Computer Access. Ms. Kee stated that the Board may want to consider a variance for additional signage which could be used for additional businesses. Steve Hansen of 1807 Rosebud Court came forward and was sworn in. He stated that Computer Access is in the process of buying the building on Tract E, formerly known as the Schwinn Bicycle Shop. However, visibility of the building is blocked by the old Las Palmas restaurant, making it difficult for travelers on Texas Avenue to locate the site. He said that he • wanted to move the current sign and to replace with a directory sign later if more development occurs. Mr. Hansen stated that Tract D is currently undeveloped. Future development of Tract D would increase the need for a directory type sign. Mr. Gaston expressed concern in trying to determine a changed condition. Mr. Gilmore said that the changed condition is the potential tenant who wants signage. Mr. Gaston stated that there is a note on the plat which is filed for record which limits signage. He could not identify any conditions to merit change. Mr. Cronan stated that public interest and economic interest are strong components and it seems to be in the interest of the city to allow this to happen. Mr. Gaston summarized the issue as simply a request for additional signage. Mr. Cronan said that in order for this problem to be resolved, the City must be more flexible. f ~ Mr. Henry made a motion to "authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: The inability of the property owner to provide adequate signage for further development of the property, 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: That any proposed/future sign conform to the current C-1 zoning regulations." Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion. Mr. Gaston said that he could not understand the hardship. Since the Red Lobster sign cannot be seen from the south anyway, he believes a convincing argument can be made to that company which would better serve all businesses in the subdivision. He had concern about a ground sign such as the proposed sign because of possible negative impact on visibility. He did not think that public interest is best served by granting this variance. Mr. Henry asked if Red Lobster owns the lot on which it is located. • • Mr. Gilmore said that he did not know but, he thinks that development is limited and this could enhance visibility of the existing building. Mr. Henry stated that he viewed this property as a retail center like others where individual signs are allowed but the Lots are not platted together. Mr. Ruesink stated that if the sign obstructs view, the City could control. Ms. Kee stated that if the sign is 6 foot tall, it would have to be located at least 15 feet from pavement edge with site control only at the intersection. Mr. Hansen said that if the sign does not meet C-1 regulations, then it could not be used. Ms. Kee stated that if there was an easement, the sign could not be placed in the easement. Mr. Gilmore called forth the question of a vote. The Board voted to grant the variance. (4-1) Mr. Gaston opposed. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Henry seconded. The meeting was adjourned. (5-0) ~y APPROV m ~ /• Chairman, David Ruesink ' ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA minutes 12-19-8g