Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 17, 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Birdwell, Members DeOtte, Sawtelle, Rife and Gaston. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members McKean, Hollas, Jones and Poston. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel and Assistant City Attorney Coates. (Council Liaison David Hickson was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Birdwell called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of July 20, 1993. • Mr. Gaston moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of July 20, 1993 as written. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA TI'EM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request by Buster E. Pruitt to the rear setback requirements at 900 Park Place to allow for the addition of a garage. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing a rear setback of 7' and a side street setback of 7', for a variance of 13' on both sides. The subject area was platted in 1932 before the City was incorporated. Due to its age, the subdivision contains many nonconforming structures. During the time of platting, it was typical to provide an alley between abutting lots for access and utility lines. This lot has a 10' alley that separates it from the adjoining property. Due to the number of existing nonconformities in the area as well as the unusually high amount of rear variances that have already been granted in the area, each request should be weighed in terms of the extent of the variance requested and its impact on the immediate area. In 1958, the abutting subdivision was platted. Lot 2 of Woodson Village I has a house fronting Pershing Avenue. The rear of that lot extends toward the subject property. Due to the shape and vegetation of lot 2, it is unlikely that there will be a structure located in the rear of that lot. In analyzing this case, the Board should remember the nonconforming status ("grandfathered" structures) as well as variances on other lots. At the same time however, the Board must determine if the intent of the ordinance is met by the proposed addition. There is an alternative location in the rear yard; however, the applicant would like to maintain as much of the back yard as possible. Thirteen surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. • David Woodcock, an architect representing the applicant, approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He informed the Board that the utility line located in the rear alley is inaccessible. The alley is heavily wooded and overgrown with vegetation. The extension of Suffolk street located on the side of the house, serves only one property owner and has never been paved. It is the sole access to two rental units on the property where Suffolk dead ends. Mr. Woodcock stated that the applicant plans to convert the existing single car garage into a family room and possibly a place for their elderly parents to live in the future. Mr. Woodcock stated that if the proposed garage is located the appropriate distance from the rear property line, it would be a poor utilization of the property in that there would be a large piece of property located behind the building. The proposed garage is 28' by 21'. Mr. Woodcock stated that • there is a precedence set in this area in that several buildings are built closer to the rear alley than the Zoning Ordinance would allow. • • Mr. Gaston questioned staff as to the possibility of abandoning the rear alley or the Suffolk right-of- way. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the City will not initiate abandonment because an easement is needed for the existing utilities. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. The Board agreed that they would consider both variance requests to the rear and side street setback requirements at the same time. Mr. Rife explained that the subject property has some special conditions. In this situation where there is an alley that is not being used and a street that is almost never used, you are able to meet the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he sees Suffolk as more of a driveway instead of a public street. Mr. DeOtte moved to authorize a variance form Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the street in question is unimproved and is a minimum traffic avenue and the alley is unused; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to improve the property to meet the needs of the family; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the added structure shall be limited to a single story. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Mr. Sawtelle stated that in looking at the "similar requests" portion of the staff report, the Board may need to recommend to the City Council that they revisit the issue in terms of the current ordinance and the condition of the unused alley in this neighborhood. He stated that he is not sure if it is worth staffs time and the Board's time to view each one of these requests on a case by case basis. Mr. DeOtte stated that he has served on the Board for four years, and in that time, he has only seen two or three cases where this situation existed. The only reason the City Council should look at this issue is to ensure equity in the neighborhood. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he was more concerned with looking at equity throughout the entire city. The majority of the alleys in College Station are overgrown with vegetation. Chairman Birdwell suggested that this issue be placed on a future agenda to allow further discussion and the Board to make a more formal recommendation to the City Council. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request by James Griffin to the sign requirements at 700 University Drive, the Village Shopping Center, to allow additional square footage to the existing sign. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the City views the shopping center and Blockbuster Video as a single building plot where access, parking and signage is shared. Only one freestanding sign is permitted for these two lots. The front portion of the subject property is located within the University Drive Overlay District, which contains additional requirements relating to aesthetics. Sign colors and lettering styles are restricted, and the sign height is limited to the height of the building. The sign area permitted by ordinance is 125 square feet. The applicant is proposing a sign totalling 190 square feet (for a variance of 52%) and a height of 17' 7" (for a total variance of 13%). Through the platting process, the Golden Corral site was allowed a separate freestanding sign. The applicant believes that the Golden Corral and Blockbuster Video hide the shopping center. ZBA Minutes August 17, 1993 Page 2 Staff Planner Kuenzel added that the original plat of the area showed a smaller corner tract where the restaurant is now, and more frontage on University Drive for the remaining center. The replat in 1983 • split the University Drive frontage in half between two parcels, and left an access easement to the center behind these two lots. Apparently the center has had a low success rate. Tenants have complained that they have no visibility from University Drive. The applicant has submitted three alternatives, in order of his preference. The first alternative would require a height variance as well as an area variance. The second and third alternatives would require only an area variance. From a zoning viewpoint, there is no difference between alternatives two and three. Staff has suggested additional attached signage on the shopping center buildings. The applicant does not feel that this would meet his needs. The Board has not granted sign area variances except in cases where an existing nonconforming sign (on sites such as the Mitsubishi or service stations) was to be replaced. In these cases, however, the requests were either to maintain the area of the existing nonconforming sign or to replace the sign with a smaller sign. Thirty surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Jim Griffin of 2510 Fitzgerald in College Station approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. Mr. Griffin explained that he recently purchased The Village Shopping Center from a corporation who had previously purchased the property a year earlier from the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). Currently, only 16,000 of the 81,000 square foot center is occupied. Reasons for the low occupancy are numerous, but one factor is the low visibility from University Drive. Mr. Griffin explained that with the Golden Corral and Blockbuster developments, the center is not visible from University Drive. The variance request would allow an additional 65 square feet of signage on the existing sign located on the Blockbuster track. The sign would allow a marquee that would show the name of an anchor tenant, with four spaces for smaller tenants. Mr. Griffin stated that when the RTC sold the Blockbuster track to Mr. Seligmann, the deed included a signage easement which would allow the Blockbuster site and the Village Shopping Center to place their sign. However, the deed did not specify the size of the sign and Mr. Seligmann installed a sign that takes in the remaining square • footage allowed by ordinance. Mr. Griffin informed the Board that he discussed this matter with Mr. Seligmann but he is not willing to reduce the existing signage. Mr. Griffin's attorney advised him that the chances of winning a legal battle are slim and costly. Mr. Griffin stated that out of the three options, he would prefer the Board to allow him to raise the existing sign 2' and then display the marquee followed by the Blockbuster sign. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle stated that there are some unique problems with this particular site. Outside of the problems created by the language in the deed, there is a problem with this entire corner. The elevation of the shopping center is lower than University Drive and is not very visible from the street. Mr. Sawtelle suggested that the applicant could work with staff on some suitable landscaping around the bottom of the sign to make the sign appear to be not as tall. Mr. DeOtte stated that the existing sign is aesthetically pleasing with the use of brick and landscaping. Mr. Gaston explained that there is currently shrubbery around the bottom of the sign that is approximately one to two feet tall. He expressed concern with varying from a plan adopted just a few years ago. Mr. Gaston questioned what conditions have changed that would constitute a change in the adopted plan of the University Drive Corridor? Chairman Birdwell stated that the changed condition is the development of the Blockbuster site that took up all of the signage. Mr. Gaston stated that there is a significant amount of frontage along Tarrow that should be considered. The design of the entire shopping center lends itself to orientation to Tarrow. When Gyms of Texas was located in the shopping center, there was a tremendous amount of traffic in this area. At that time, visibility was not a problem and did not impair the land use. ZBA Minutes August 17, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Rife expressed concern of the Board getting involved in a private dispute between two parties. He stated that the Board should not have to determine which tenants receive a certain percentage of the • allowed sign. Mr. Gaston questioned the applicant if he was aware of the signage issue prior to purchasing the property. Mr. Griffin approached the Board and explained that he read about the signage agreement previously made by the RTC; however, he was not aware of the entire situation. He stated that he believed he would be able to resolve the problem. Mr. DeOtte stated that University Drive and Tarrow is a very busy intersection and there is a visibility problem. The variance request is considerably less than the existing Golden Corral sign. Since the Golden Corral sign was built prior to the overlay district, the City has no control over that sign. Mr. DeOtte added that if the Board can see ways for the subject property to be better utilized than in the past, it would be in the public's best interest. Mr. Sawtelle stated that the additional area is not precluded by the overlay district. If the sign height is maintained, the intent of the sign restrictions in the overlay district is met. The proposed variance request has less impact on the signage in the area than a second freestanding sign along Tarrow. Mr. Gaston suggested that signage along Tarrow would help to re-route traffic to Tarrow. Access from Tarrow would be an advantage to the future tenants. Mr. DeOtte moved to table the variance request for the Village Shopping Center pending further recommendations and alternatives by the applicant. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which failed (2 - 3); Mr. DeOtte and Mr. Gaston voted in favor of the motion. • Mr. Rife stated that a freestanding sign along Tarrow will not help the existing situation because it cannot be seen from University Drive. Mr. Gaston stated that access to the site is a much bigger problem than signage. Even if you know where the shopping center is located, it is hard to get into the site especially from University Drive. Mr. Gaston concluded that he is not convinced that the existing development blocks visibility from University Drive. Mr. Sawtelle informed the Board that if they determined that there is limited visibility due to obstructions like the City water tank, Golden Corral and Blockbuster Video, the Board would be consistent with past decisions. Mr. DeOtte stated that if the Board grants the variance, there is no guarantee that the additional square footage will be used to advertise tenants in the shopping center. The Board has no control over what businesses will advertise on the sign. The private matter between the applicant and Blockbuster Video cannot be a part of this consideration because with the variance, Blockbuster could use the additional square footage. Mr. Rife moved to authorize a variance from section 12, ordinance number 1638 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 generally found within the City: that the subject property is in a depression and has low visibility from University Drive in conjunction with the presence of a water tank which blocks visibility to the east bound traffic on University Drive; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: that the property cannot be developed and utilized to its fullest potential; 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: the variance being limited to the existing height, but the area being increased by 65 square feet and that at least 1' of landscaping surround the base of the sign. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes August 17, 1993 Page 4 Mr. DeOtte stated that he is sympathetic to the concerns outlined by the applicant; however, there are no assurances that Blockbuster Video will not use the remaining area of the sign for a future tenant on their site. In that case, the variance has not resolved anything. • Assistant City Attorney Coates informed the Board that they could table the motion as written and wait for some type of guarantee from Blockbuster Video that if the variance is granted, the sign will be utilized as proposed by the applicant. Mr. DeOtte moved to table taking action on the motion to grant the variance request to allow the applicant time to obtain assurances from Blockbuster Video that the additional square footage will be utilized by the tenants in the Village Shopping Center. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Mr. Gaston requested that the public hearing remain open and re-advertisement take place since new evidence is being introduced. Chairman Birdwell agreed. The Board decided to take a five minute recess before going on to the next agenda item. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of an appeal of the Zoning Official's decision to allow for a corporate logo to extend above the roof line of the Red Line Burgers Restaurant located at 2401 Texas Avenue. If the decision is upheld, the applicant is requesting a variance to the sign requirements. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the applicant would like to be allowed one freestanding sign and three signs that all extend above the roof line of the restaurant. The applicant argues that the burgers are a part of the roof itself and will not extend above the roof line because they define that roof line. Staff disagrees with this interpretation. Staff believes that the obvious intent of the design is to have the logo draw more attention to itself by extending past the roof line. If the Board is inclined to uphold the Zoning Official's interpretation, and agrees that the burgers • are indeed roof sings, then the applicant wishes to seek a variance to allow three roof signs on this property. In effect, then he is asking for a variance to allow four freestanding signs where only one would be permitted by ordinance. The applicant has not presented any special conditions that pertain to the property. An alternative to the variance request is to raise the parapet wall and raise the actual roof line to allow the burgers to be contained completely on the wall. Four surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing and informed the public that comments should be limited to the interpretation of the ordinance only. Steve Schiffman, the Vice President of Red Line Burgers approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He explained that the company does not see the hamburger as a sign but as an integral part of the building. The design of the building is unique and it is necessary from a marketing standpoint to keep the design of the buildings uniform throughout the state. The ordinance does not show a diagram of a flat roof and is not clear on what is considered the roof line. Mr. Schiffman stated that a design team talked to City staff about signage before purchasing the property. At that time, they were told that the City did not regulate signage attached to the building. The top of the hamburger is the top of the parapet wall and is the actual roof line of the building. Mr. Schiffman explained that three other Texas cities reviewed the sign package of the building and granted variances. Red Line Burgers has thirty-five stores throughout the state. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle moved to uphold the decision made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of section 12, sign regulations, of this ordinance as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance • and substantial justice was done. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing and informed the public that comments should be limited to the variance request only. ZBA Minutes August 17, 1993 Page S ~- Mr. Schiffman approached the Board and was reminded that he was still under oath. He explained that the proposed design of the building is a new trend of the hamburger industry. Fast food chains • such as McDonalds and Burger King are beginning to incorporate the double drive thru into their design in order to increase the quantity of business. Red Line Burgers across the state sell an average of $600 worth of hamburgers per hour. Because of the small size of the building, the company compensates with aggressive signage. The three hamburgers around the building is a trade dress of the building itself. The standard trade dress also includes a drive thru cover with the company name around the cover. In order to save two large oak trees on the site, the drive thru covers have been eliminated and the site has been redesigned five times. Mr. Schiffman stated that since the company has compromised on their standard trade dress to save the existing trees, it is crucial that the hamburgers on the building stay the way they are designed so as not to suffer further loss of identity. If the variance request is denied, the company may look at the possibility of removing the oak trees and installing the standard drive thru covers. Mr. Schiffman concluded that a tree surgeon has been hired by the company to examine the trees and provide suggestions to save them. The chances of saving the trees are close to 70% and the company is willing to take their chances. Mr. Rife questioned the applicant to the alternative of raising the parapet wall to the height of the proposed hamburger logo. Mr. Schiffman stated that they could have circumvented the ordinance by doing so; however, they would prefer to deal honestly with the City and follow the proper procedures. Mr. Sawtelle questioned the applicant as to a hardship in this particular situation. Mr. Schiffman stated that the hardship is the uniqueness of the building and the two large oak trees. Mr. Gaston informed the applicant that the design of the site is not a hardship because it was selected by the applicant. He expressed concern with linking the sign variance with the preservation of the existing trees. If the parapet wall was raised to the height of the hamburger, the change would be so slight that most people would not notice the difference. Mr. Schiffman informed the Board that visibility from Texas Avenue is crucial to doing the large volume of business they anticipate. The large oak tree in the front blocks visibility of the restaurant from southbound traffic along Texas Avenue. The price of the hamburgers is based on the volume sold; so, the building has to be easily identified. Mr. Gaston stated that the proposed building will be hard to miss from Texas Avenue. If the tree will block visibility from southbound traffic along Texas Avenue, then the company should not install the proposed freestanding sign in the same general location. The Board reached the concensus that raising the parapet wall will not change the trade dress of the building and that the only hardship in this case is aself-imposed hardship created by the applicant by the specific design of the building. The Board agreed that having to comply with local codes and ordinances is not a hardship or a special condition. Gene Garrison, the President of First Community Capital in San Antonio and a consultant of Red Line Burgers, approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He informed the Board that he put together the financial package for this development. He stated that from a marketing standpoint, it is important for a company to keep the same identity throughout the state. Red Line Burgers is currently working on adding fifty new restaurants in the Houston area and a full blown commercial campaign. Consistency is crucial in the marketing of the Red Line Burgers chain. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. He explained that the preservation of the existing trees • could be tied to the variance request; however, the chances of the trees surviving for more than five years are slim. Chairman Birdwell informed the applicants that he is glad their company is coming to College Station to do business; however, in this situation, there is an obvious solution to the variance. ZBA Minutes August 17, 1993 Page 6 .] Mr. Gaston stated that he would prefer to have the burgers attached to the building instead of the Red Line Burger logo all over the building. The entire package is very intense and the aggressive signage is not necessary to attract business. Mr. DeOtte moved to deny a vari the terms of this ordinance as it special conditions not generally fog company and does not constitute enforcement of the provisions o applicant, and such that the spiri interests of the public and the unopposed (5 - 0). ince from section 12, ordinance number 1638, sign regulations, from will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique nd within the City: to wit, the building package is the choice of the a unique special condition of this property; and because a strict the ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general applicant served. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. Mr. DeOtte stated that the Board should discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council pertaining to attached signage. In many cases, attached signage that is not controlled by the Zoning Ordinance, can defeat the purpose of the ordinance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Sawtelle moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPI;. L Chairma ick it ell ATTES . ,~, . Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas ZBA Minutes August 17, 1993 Page 7 i• • '~J C Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register Date Na--- - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ,, ~~ __~ S ~j G _~ _, /Address ~-~ q ~ ~ ~~ ~ Crew ~'~ r ~~ i / /~ f Dy ~ yi, ~~ Z~ ~Z y ~y~/ ~ ~prr,~a 7~~ ~ 6 ...-- ~_____- -~/ ~~ v ~ ~ ~C7~~'o5 ZONING BOARD OF ~1DJUSTNIENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) _ /~ minimum setback 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: ire/ ~.~ ~ ~., ~S • ~ ,_ , R /-n ~ h i h~ H Lv, ~r ~ ~ C Ad ~ Li ti ~ .., ~. ~/ ~L, ~o .~/~.i . ~C G~ h !~ S ~ GC o ~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~ h ~ i T ,v v v ~ 7~~ ` e'er 7D !~i e° ~°~ , ,,~ ~~ ~ < and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to t~~l~wing llimitations: / ~/ / "~~ SY%`kc % uv ~ ~~/~ ~~ ~~. T G~ TD Motion made by ~~~y ~' ~~ ~~~ Seconded b _ • Y c _ S a ~y~j~° Chair Signature Date ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g 3 Voting ~esults S ~ b uRrta~ sss ooc ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • • • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. i~ac'~t. $~Q.s. usac~~~,c U.~ne~eC ~ ~ Vri~vu-d i ~ -~'--a and because a stnc erlforceme o t e p substantial hardship to this applicant being: Motion made by ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 't'-Q Motion Seconded by would ~~C u- °dk '~? pa Voting Results ~_=_111' ~ ~' „„ W~i'~-i~,~ ~-d b ~O~ d',(~.~. j_,~ ,~-~m ~{~yd"~ 1,~Glp(,W'l aw4dt ~1oexa`0115'}" v~- e.a i'o~ ~ ctSS v V-aMt ce s d-I~o ~-„`.~. 5 YI Chair Signature ~~ ~ v~ee.~.d ~.e 4rpee i co ~ ~k ~ ovvt sa ~ s Date c~! ~-i~ d~o 1 tC~aac s ~a~- ~e SRP1838.DOC ~~ 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 generally found within the City: n 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: • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS APPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION -From Section 15.5, Ordinance Number 1638 I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Motion made by ~ c~ ~, S.~.uF-r~ ~/-~-~ Date ~ " ~ 7' ~~ Seconded by Voting Results S-_ d Chair Signature W~~N RULING NOT TO UPHOLD TIC DECISION OR INTERPRETATION MADE BY • THE ZONIIITG OFFICIAL USE THE FOLLOWII~TG FORM: I move to interpret Section of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: Motion made by Date Seconded by Voting Results Chair Signature • .4PfNTERP.DOC i ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 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 ~d ~ r T ~i~ ~ ~ ZL~ Motion Seconded by .~~~ r'/-, e ~~ Voting Results Chair Signature Date ~ ~ ~~ a y s ~ / 9 ~ 3 sxtv~ssaDOc •