Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/1992 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS City Hall Council Room May 5, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Lane, Smith and Sawtelle, and Alternate Members De Otte and Phinney MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Henry, Vice Chairperson Baker, and Alternate Members Kennady and De Loach STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Kuenzel, Planning Technician Thomas and Assistant City Attorney Coates AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order -Explanation and Functions of the Board • Mr. Lane 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 AprO 21, 1992. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 21, 1992 as presented. Ms. Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to Ordinance #1638, Sign Regulations, by Dean Coffer for Albertsons, to replace can of existing Jewel Osco sign for Albertsons sign at 301 College Main. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report requesting a variance to the sign regulations to allow Jewel Osco to replace the sign can on the existing Albertsons sign at 301 College Main. The site currently has five freestanding signs where only one would be allowed by ordinance. In 1990, the ZBA granted a variance to the Mr. Gatti's sign to allow its replacement. The site is therefore allowed two signs, one by ordinance and one by variance. The site was platted and built long before most of the current ordinance restrictions. In terms of signage, the site used to have seven freestanding signs, one of which was a spectacular sign. In the past, nonconforming signs were replaceable through the special exception process, which is no longer an available option for these cases. All nonconforming signs must now obtain a variance to allow their continuation. The site has shown a slow trend toward compliance. The spectacular sign for the drive-through building at Mr. Gatti's became smaller and its moving parts were removed in 1979. Some time during the 1980's, • that sign was removed altogether, but the sign poles remained. In 1990, Mr. Gatti's applied for a variance to use the existing poles for a new sign, with the agreement to remove the existing freestanding sign at the main building. This request was approved with the condition that the sign height and area would have to comply with the ordinance. • Staff Planner Kuenzel added that in 1991, Jewel Osco took over Skaggs and wanted to replace the existing sign cans. At that time, Skaggs had two freestanding signs, one on University and one on College Main. Jewel Osco decided to replace two signs with a single one on College Main, thereby reducing the number of signs on the building plot from six to five. The new sign complies with height and area restrictions. This particular case did not come before the ZBA because staff determined that this would not have been a request for an additional sign, it was a willing abandonment of the use of the second sign. The new sign was replaced with the sign contractor's knowledge that the new sign would be considered nonconforming; it is this sign that is the subject of the request in this case. The age of this site has resulted in the nonconforming number of signs on the building plot. Again however, the site has slowly been moving toward compliance with code requirements. Without a variance, the applicants may replace the face of the sign but not the entire can. An alternative to the variance request would be to replace the sign face or combine all of the signs on the plot (except for Mr. Gatti's, whose variance would allow a separate sign) on one sign. As it would pertain to this case, the intent of the ordinance is to limit the number of signs to prevent; "the proliferation of signs (that) creates commercial confusion and makes it difficult for travelers to locate goods and services they seek". Recent sign variance cases to allow more than one freestanding sign that have been granted by the Board have dealt with second signs on sites with access points on two or three separate streets. In these cases, it was difficult to tell that the second access drive lead to the subject establishments. Thirty- three property owners within 200' of the subject property were notified with two inquiries. Mr. Lane opened the public hearing. Applicant Dean Coffer approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Lane. He offered to answer questions pertaining to the variance request. He stated that the proposed size of • the sign is less than would be allowed by the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lane closed the public hearing. Mr. De Otte expressed concern of other tenants in the shopping center applying for a variance request to allow each business a freestanding sign as a result of granting this variance. Ms. Smith moved to authorize a variance from section 12, ordinance number 1638, 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: being the configuration of the site, the number of curb cuts and the fact that the property was developed prior to the sign ordinance; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: lack of store identification on street; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public served, subject to the following limitations: to 30 square feet of area and 24 feet in height. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Mr. De Otte stated that he is opposed to the variance request because the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is not being protected. This variance is establishing a precedence because each business in this building plot is going to want their own sign. The proliferation of signs is not being eliminated. Once a variance is granted for this sign, the City has lost control of the sign forever. Mr. De Otte stated that he would prefer to move closer towards compliance with the ordinance. • Mr. Sawtelle stated that Albertsons is willing to compromise compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. This sign restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance. and is helping to move towards area was developed prior to the ZBA Minutes May S, 1992 Page 2 • Mr. Coffer stated that he could not foresee the owners of this building plot working together and agreeing to share one sign. Mr. Sawtelle called the question on the original motion to approve the variance request. The motion passed (4 - 1); Mr. De Otte voting in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn. Mr. De Otte moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Phinney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPROVED: ~~ ~ hairman, r t enry • TTS + Plannin echnician, atalie homas • ZBA Minutes May S, 1992 Page 3 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 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 generally found within the City: (~/V~ .E ~ 1 t ~ f ~. i ~. n I_ r t~~ t o .~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: ~~~ ~~~ ~ _~ 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 Motion Secondec Voting Results ~^~ Chair Signature ~////t~ ~[ t Date ~ '~" `,` ~ "° SRP1638.DOC i• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST-REGIS DATE NAME _~ ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. lg. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. :.,~r~