Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1981 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustments November 17, 1981 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Members, W. Harper, J. Upham, D. MacGilvray, V. Cook, G. Wagner; Council Liaison, Pat Boughton. STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning, Al Mayo Assistant Director of Planning, Jim Callaway Planning Assistant, Chris Longley Zoning Official, Jane Kee Zoning Inspector, Joan Keigley Community Development Planner, Mike Stevens Planning Technician, Fran Collier Chairman Harper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Annroval of Minutes. October 20. 1981. D. MacGilvray moved for the approval of the minutes of October 20, 1981 as written, J. Upham seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Adoption of Board Rules and Procedures. • Ms. Cook made a motion for this item to be moved to a later part of the agenda due to the time period of discussion needed. G. Wagner seconded this motion and Item No. 2 was moved to the end of the meeting. In Favor: W. Harper, D. MacGilvray, V. Cook, G. Wagner. Opposed: J. Upham. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a variance to the side setback at 1114 Neal Pickett Drive in order to construct a carport in the name of Charles and Janet Shumway. Chairman Harper asked the Board if they had any questions with regard to this request. Charles Shumway did not have anything to add to his application. Mr. Len Colson, a neighbor stated he could not see. anything wrong with the carport. He understood it was not a permanent structure and the variance was being requested because of escalating construction costs. Ms. Cook pointed out that construction costs could not be considered by the Board in making their decision. Chairman Harper moved for the Board to grant the variance to the side setback at the house located at 1114 Neal Pickett Drive as def fined, for the construction of a car- port due to a unique condition of a creek running through the backyard. Ms. Cook seconded the motion. • Chairman Harper asked if there would be any enclosing walls since there was not enough room to put two cars side by side. Mr. Shumway explained the plans for this. The following vote was: In Favor: G. Wagner, W. Harper, D. MacGilvray, V. Cook, J. Upham. Opposed: None. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustments -2- November 17, 1981 AGENDA ITEM N0. 4; Consideration of an anneal allet~in~ an error in interpretation • regarding an off-premise sign in the name of Frank Lampo, Farmer's Market. Jane Kee, Zoning Official summarized this situation. Essentially they have a non- conforming sign. The building code requires normal maintenance which is repainting of signs. The sign which was composed of six panels, was taken down; one panel was reused and five were replaced. The Board needs to determine if Section 8-D.7 of Ordinance 850 clearly prohibits what took place. It is an off-premise and non- conforming billboard which was removed and a new one put in its place. The structure was left alone. Mr. Upham asked if the sign was removed and painted. Ms. Kee said it was. Re- painting would fall under maintenance, anything else would need to be given a permit by the Building Official. The Building Official, Coy Perry stated if he were con- tacted he would have informed them he could not grant the permit. Mr. Sam Lampo, an off icer in the corporation that owns the Farmer's Market stated his position with regard to the sign. He mentioned that Mr. Stabler (who painted the sign) had maintained it over a period of years. There has never been any question about taking down the panels. Mr. Stabler did what he did in the past. After spending considerable money they were then told the sign was wrong and they would have to take it down. He contacted Mr. Stabler who thought there was no problem. Was it important whether or not they take the sign down or leave it up to paint it? Chairman Harper asked Mr. Stabler if the sign had been erected before the property was annexed by College Station. Mr. Stabler stated it had been on the property for about 8 or 9 years. • Mr. Upham expressed his opinion that repainting and maintenance was not maintenance of the sign, but of the message. He understood that repainting is considered main- tenance, but removing and replacing. panels was rebuilding it. So in rebuilding a non-conforming sign it would never be allowed to end a usual life through deterioration. Mr. Lampo stated that there seemed to be a fine line between repainting a sign on the premises and taking the panels down and repainting them. Mr. Upham stated taking the sign down would be a convenience to the sign painter. Since paint won't hold a sign together, putting new boards in would prevent the sign from normal death which was not the intent of the ordinance. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Perry if the building code def-fined terms. Mr. Perry stated it was in the building code. Mr. Lonnie Stabler explained the length of time in business and that he has never before had a problem with an ordinance on the standpoint of interpretation. There are probably about 300 non-conforming signs in the City of College Station. You cannot single out a sign simple because it's off-premises. Apparently the City saw them reworking the sign and called them and said they couldn't do it. Mr. Stabler just wanted to know where he stood so he can go about his business. A pamphlet was given to the sign companies in the area as a way of helping them to come to an agreement with the City on the intent of the Ordinance. The actual sign panel itself is not part of the structure. He felt the determining factor was the need to consider what composes the structure and what composes the sign. • Chairman Harper asked if the sign area on a billboard was called the face. Mr. Stabler said it was called a panel. Discussion followed. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustments -3- November 17, 1981 Mr. Upham stated his understanding of the ordinance intention was for all non- • conforming signs to die a natural death. Ms. Cook said that in order to hold something up you have to have a foundation for it. That is a structure. If a pole rots on a non-conforming structure it will die, so you cannot replace the pole. If wood panels rot they too should not be replaced. Mr. Upham felt the face is not part of the structure. Ms. Cook felt it was a definite question of interpretation and Mr. Lampo was caught in the middle of something which needed clarif ication. Chairman Harper stated there was a limit to which they would allow someone to reconstruct a sign if it significantly increased the life of that sign and Mr. Stabler's replacement of new board and panels in his opinion, meant the extension of the sign. Mr. Stabler said it would prolong the advertising but not the structural lif e. Mr. Stabler wanted the Board to understand his position. In the past the City allowed him to fix non-conforming signs without needing a permit to take the sign down. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Stabler if his assurance to the owner was based on this past experience to which Mr. Stabler answered it was. They then discussed the proposed amortization which Mr. Stabler said would be helpful. Al Mayo asked what the Sign Regulations booklet said with regard to panels that are designed for easy replacement. The panels (new ones) that are either nailed or screwed on, he would question whether or not they would be easily replaced. Because this is the nature of attachment he felt these panels are put there with the idea they will stay there till they rot or else. Mr. Stabler said they are designed to be removed and reattached. Jane Kee asked the Board to please keep in mind their decision must be based on Section 8-D.7 of the Ordinance. Chairman Harper then pointed out that the Board has no jurisdiction over the uses and def initions of the building code and basically has to go by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Stabler said his first inclination was to come before the Board and ask for a ,~ variance to this situation due to unusual circumstances and that he would like to resubmit this as a variance. Chairman Harper said the Board probably wouldn't want to hear the same issue recapped as a variance. If they render an interpretation it doesn't preclude Mr. Stabler's asking for a variance, but he does not feel he has an automatic right to come back with the same issue and information. Mr. MacGilvray asked how would they convey the Board's interpretation to Mr. Stabler. Mr. Harper stated that Mr. Stabler was actually asking for an appeal of the Zoning Official's decision that this was a reconstruction and not minor repair. Ms. Cook said she was not sure whether or not she could interpret it properly. There was a gray area involved. • Mr. Upham said the City Staff made a decision and presented it to the Board. All the Board has to do is to determine the interpretation of the City Staff on remodeling. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustments -4- November 17, 1981 it together any longer that sign will die. Mr. Stabler said that is a reversal of • what the City told him through letters and the Sign Regulations booklet. Mr. MacGilvray asked about the letters. Mr. Stabler referred to a non-conforming sign located at the Cinema. The City wrote him a letter stating that it was okay to take down the sign, no permit was required to change the panels, copy or the back. Mr. Coy Perry, Building Official stated that Mr. Stabler came to the Building Department requesting the letters. The City gave him permission to take down a sign to perform maintenance because of safety reasons. If he had come with regard to the sign in question, he would have been told the Panels could not be replaced. But he did not come in in this case. Mr. Harper moved that the Board reverse the decision of the Zoning Official in her interpretation of this being a reconstruction rather than just a maintenance of a non-conforming sign. Mr. Upham seconded the motion. All were opposed, therefore they did not overrule or reverse the Zoning Official's decision. Ms. Cook recommended that the City Staff look into making a few things clearer so that she could understand particulars rather than generalities. She stressed the part about changing panels. Mr. Lampo then asked the Board if he could change the sign to a "For Sale" sign since the property on which it was located was for sale, in order to redeem some of the monies he spent on the sign. • Mr. Stabler asked if he could resubmit a variance to use the sign as is for an agreeable period of time. Mr. Upham asked if he was looking for an amortization schedule. Mr. Stabler answered of a type, yes. Chairman Harper said if the sign had not been remodeled, perhaps; but since they ruled on this, giving him a period of time would be throwing out the effect of this ruling. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5; Consideration of a variance to the side and rear setbacks on Lot B of the Ramparts Subdivision for construction of covered narking areas in the name of the Hamlets Corporation. Mr. J. VanWinkle with the Hamlets Corporation explained the reason for the variance. The owners of the units related a request for more parking area. The parking places are in place, the cars will be there whether covered or not. As far as public interest, there's an 8' brick and wood fence wall combination so they will not be visible. He felt there would be no impact on adjoining properties. There are some garages. They are concerned about quality of appearance and covered parking would be more in keeping with the prof ect . Mr. MacGilvray asked how many units were in the complex and how many covered parking spaces underneath the building. Mr. VanWinkle said there were 54 units, 34 covered parking areas. Mr. Upham asked regarding the total parking area.and Mr. VanWinkle stated they were within and probably exceeded the requirements. Mr. Upham asked Mr. VanWinkle if he wanted to cover the cars just for convenience or if there was something unique. Mr. • VanWinkle said he just wanted to cover existing parking spaces, that it would be more aesthetic and convenient. It was a concern brought to him by the clients. Mr. Mayo stated they also have a request in with Planning and Zoning to revise a site plan. Mr. Van Winkle said something about an 8' wall, they noted on the plan that it said 6' wall. He proceeded to state that the staff made the recommendation to the Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustments -5- November 17, 1981 P&Z Commission to approve the revision of covered parking on the East side which • backs up to the service area of the shopping center. The staff did not recommend approval of the North side because it backs up to a duplex area. The interpretation they had was that it would be a 6' fence and highly visible to the duplex area. If in fact it is going to be an 8' wall, they would probably change the recommendation. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the Building Code restricted the height of the fences. Mr. Perry said it did not. Mr. VanWinkle stated that they did at one time want to use precast brick texture, all masonry wall. But because the Utility Department has overhanging wires, they didn't feel it was feasible. Chairman Harper was concerned about the fire access if the covers were put up. Mr. Upham asked if the Fire Marshal felt he could get his equipment in the area with the existing structure. Mr. VanWinkle stated one reason they kept the roadway and parking around the project was to give this type of access. Ms. Cook asked if the issue here was already established that his clientele wanted some means to provide covered parking. In other words, Mr. VanWinkle was asking the Board to bail him out of a mistake for his clientele's sake. Mr. VanWinkle stated yes. Mr. MacGilvray asked if he didn't get approval to cover the spaces on the perimeter would he get the. ones on the inside. Mr. VanWinkle said definitely. Mr. Upham asked the Board if they wanted to establish a precedent of helping developers. • Mr. Harper said if they approved this, then anyone who wants to build a carport to the property line could use this as a precedent. Mr. VanWinkle stated they were willing to do certain things to make them non-damaging to the public interest. Chairman Harper moved that they grant the variance on the East Side due to unique conditions that it was~wery .near alarge shopping center service area. With the addition of the 8' fence it would not have an adverse affect on the adjacent property. Ms. Cook seconded this motion. The vote was as follows: In favor: Board Members MacGilvray, Wagner, Harper, Upham. Opposed: Board Member Cook. Chairman Harper asked if there was an interpretation of what the City considered an open carport. Mr. Perry stated the Building Code itself never mentions a carport, it is considered a shed. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Presentation by Mike Walsh concerning Parkine Plan for an Arcade in Northgate, as requested by the Board on July 21, 1981. Mr. Walsh approached the Board. Asked questions of the Board with regard to getting their advice. Does the Board want him to go on with the site plan and parking lot restriping, getting it done before the 6 month deadline. Chairman Harper said as he remembered, the concern was the overall parking problem. Council Liaison, Ms. Boughton said the problem was the landlady bringing the parking • area up to City standards. Mr. Walsh said the landlady is willing to do this but was concerned about spending the money only to have it changed in four months. Chairman Harper said he would like to leave the Board's decision as it stands. Mr. MacGilvray said Mr. Walsh could designate spaces. Mr. Walsh stated that he did not want to be told he was procrastinating should he wait until the last minute to fix the parking lot. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustments -6- November 17, 1981 Chairman Harper told Mr. Walsh that if concrete plans were not made for the general • area with regard to the community parking, he should pave the lot. Mr. Walsh asked if he brought the parking up to standard and it actually decreased the number of spaces there now, would it be a problem? Mr. Harper answered it was the Board's intent to have the owner provide the best they can with the land available putting it into the most efficient use as an interim thing. He could not say what all the options were, but suggested that Mr. Walsh engage someone that knows about parking lots and the City requirements and have them draw up a plan on what it would take, then talk to the City Engineer or Planning Director and have them check it. In the meantime he would be covered by complying with the paving of the parking area. He also stated he thought the people renting are the people wib.h the problem. The merchants should initiate such a study and then maybe the problem will be solved for everyone. But Mr. Walsh was not to wait on the City to do something. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Adoption of Board. Rules and Procedures. Ms. Cook was concerned not so much with procedures but she did not like the statements "what will be the affect on the environment" under the Notes of Consideration of a Variance Request and "is the proposed use detrimental and what will be the effect." Mr. Harper stated some of the members did not have that particular form and maybe they should take one more stab at rewording these forms. Mr. Wagner asked who filled them out and Mr. Harper stated that this needed to be discussed. • Suggestions made last time were that each of the Board members fill out the forms at this meeting as a trial. They would then become part of the permanent record. Mr. Wagner asked if they should take the time then to fill out on something that happened at this meeting. The Board proceeded to fill out the form. Jane Kee stated that the first section would normally be filled in by the staff. Mr. Harper stated it was going to take some effort and care in order to fill out this form. He then suggested they take one of the variance request forms and reword it so it is clear. Mr. Harper asked Ms. Cook to reword the form to her satisfaction and call Lowell Denton, the City Attorney and discuss it with him then the forms will be reissued in the packets at the next meeting. Mr. Harper asked if everyone, including the staff, should be placed under oath. Jane Kee said the City Attorney suggested a~~ropriate staff members be sworn in at the beginning of each meeting.. Mr. MacGilvray moved for the adoption of the Rules and Procedures with a second by Mr. Wagner. Motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Consideration of an Amortisation Plan_ The Board is going to take and study, tHen discuss this plan at the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other Business. • There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Adjourn. Mr. Upham moved for adjournment and it was seconded by Ms. Cook. All were in favor and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: