Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/2004 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment February 3, 2004 • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, Ward Wells, Graham Sheffy, Rodger Lewis & Alternate John Fedora. MEMBERS ABSENT: John Richards. Alternate Jay Goss (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planners' Jennifer Reeves, Jennifer Prochazka, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Development Review Manager Natalie Ruiz & Action Center Representative Regina Kelly. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. John Richards Mr. Lewis made the motion to approve the absence request. Mr. Wells seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action on approval of meeting minutes from January 6, 2004. Mr. Lewis made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Wells seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance at 1410 Texas Avenue South (Corner of George Bush & Texas Avenue South) in the Redmond Terrance Subdivision. Applicant is Coastal Sign, Inc. for Brad Sondock -Texas Avenue Crossing L.P. (04-03). Development Manager Natalie Ruiz presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow attached signage in excess of what the UDO allows. The request represents nearly six times the amount of sign area allowed by code. Ms. Ruiz told the Board that the applicant has two requests pertaining to the attached signage allowed for Hollywood Video to be located on the end cap of the Texas Avenue Crossing shopping center. The Board is only being asked to consider the sign variance only. The interpretation appeal is a separate process from the variance. Information about the interpretation was included in the staff report as a basis of the variance request. Interpretation of the main or entry facade: The total amount of signage allowed per tenant lease space or commercial building is determined by the amount of building frontage of the main or entry facade. Section 7.4.1.2 states that the "attached signs on any commercial building or tenant lease space shall not exceed a total of two square feet per • linear foot of the main entry facade with a maximum of 500 square feet of attached signage allowed for any tenant". ZBA Minutes Februnry 3, 2004 Puge 1 of S The Administrator determined that the main and entry facade of Hollywood Video is parallel to Texas Avenue. The determination was based primarily on the fact that their public entrance is on that facade. The only opening along George Bush Drive facade is the service entrance. Variance to the sign area requirements: Based on the determination that the Texas Avenue facade is the main and entry facade, Hollywood Video is allowed a total of 114 square feet of attached signage that can be located anywhere on the Hollywood Video portion of the building including the end cap, front or rear. (57 ft. facade x 2 = 114 square feet in area). The sign regulations provide the tenant the flexibility of placing their allowed signage anywhere on the lease space. For example, they could have 57 square feet of attached signage on the end cap that faces George Bush as well as 57 square feet that faces Texas Avenue. Also, the tenant could have multiple signs that total 114 square feet in area or one large sign that totals 114 square feet in area. On an end cap in a shopping center, the tenant chooses the amount of allowed sign area they want on each facade. The applicant is requesting attached signage of approximately 790 square feet. (390 square feet in area x 2 attached signs = 790 square feet) Thus the applicant is requesting a 676 square feet in area variance to the 114 square feet that is allowed. This represents nearly six times the amount of the allowable area. The applicant argues that part of the sign should be excluded from the area calculations. A purple mountain is incorporated behind the words "Hollywood Video" that is part of the company's trademark. Section 7.4.F of the UDO regulating how all signs are calculated is clear and states that "the area of a sign is the area enclosed by the minimum imaginary rectangle or vertical and horizontal lines that fully contains all extremities". The applicant states as a special condition: "the additional building that is closest to Texas Avenue will • inhibit the viewing of Hollywood Video's sign". The applicant states as a hardship: "the use of the registered trademark "Purple Mountain" will increase viewing area inhibited by the additional building". The applicant states as an alternative: "they could omit the exposed neon and utilize halo lit rays". Mr. Wells asked if the developer indicated the intention of a particular band on the building to be used for signage. Ms. Ruiz responded that she not was aware of the original intention but in preliminary meetings with the developer they did talk specifically about the attached signage regulations. When they were in the design phases of the project the UDO was being adopted and she made them particularly aware of the attached sign requirements. After that meeting the UDO was amended because the attached signage regulations did not read how they intended them to read. There was a 500 sq. ft. limitation on attached signage per lease space. That was the intent and it was also the intent of the City Council and Planning & Zoning. The actual wording said per building. In realizing that mistake through working with the developer on the signage a year ago the code was amended so this would not be an issue today. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Don Welch, Director of Real Estate, representing Hollywood Video stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Welch spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Welch gave the Board a brief overview of Hollywood Video. Mr. Welch asked the Board to consider the painted mountain and rays as an architectural element of the building rather than the signage. Mr. Welch also added that they are flexible to making a second entrance on George Bush. The signage can then be calculated based on that side. ZBA Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Wells asked Mr. Welch to explain his rational for distinguishing the mountain and rays as non- graphic but rather as architectural. Mr. Welch explained the "Bed Bath and Beyond" sign has a huge tower element that sets off the sign. In this case there is no element there so they are asking to create that element by having the mountain and rays. They need something that is going to attract you and draw your attention to Hollywood Video. At the same time the same element is going to allow them to off-set the letters so they stand out. Mr. Lewis questioned the size of the proposed letters for the sign. Mr. Welch stated that the letters for the word "Hollywood" are 36" in height and the letters for the word "Video" are 24" in height. Mr. Lewis responded that if he was to comply with the ordinance the letters for "Hollywood" would be 1- foot tall. Mr. Welch added that the out parcel building impedes the sight from Texas Avenue. Chairman Hill made for clarification that Texas Avenue is the primary entrance facade for the center. In order to consider the frontage off of George Bush it would require an appeal of the Zoning Official's Interpretation. This is something that is not before the Board now and therefore they can not discuss or consider it. Ms. Ruiz stated that that the option to use George Bush frontage has always been available to the developer, they just never chose to put their main entrance there. If they would like to propose that to staff they can certainly do that outside of this meeting. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Welch if he could state a hardship or special condition for the Board that they could consider. Mr. Welch stated that the out parcel building creates a physical hardship. You can not see the sign when you're traveling south. Mr. Welch ended by saying that he hopes a resolution can be reached that will work for everyone. He added that he would consider a smaller letter size or something to that effect. Arron McKinnah, Architect for Hollywood Video, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Ms. McKinnah spoke in favor of the variance. She stated that the mountain and the spot lights are the logo for Hollywood Video. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Wells stated that there is a hardship with the building out front blocking the view. It does present a unique condition. Mr. Lewis made the motion to approve 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 condition not generally found within the City: corner portion of shopping center building is blocked from the street view by another building; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: not able to use standard company logo such that words may be read from the street; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following special limitations: variance of 100-sq. ft. for total allowed 214 sq. ft. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Mr. Lewis stated that he is sympathetic to a large company wanting to use their recongnized logo to mark their location. If they stay with their logo at 114 sq. ft. they are going to have letters smaller than what is on a stop sign. Mr. Wells stated that he would be inclined to approve the variance as presented by Mr. Lewis He definitely would not be for granting the variance as submitted. Chairman Hill stated that the mountain and the search lights are a part of the sign. The ordinance clearly states how to calculate the footage. As far as visibility that is an issue that he is very sympathetic to. He understands they want it large enough to be read but at the same time the city is trying to restrict the size of signage and he likes what the ordinance is trying to accomplish. He ended • by saying that he is opposed at this time to do anything which grants more signage. There were continued discussions among the Board members concerning the variance request. ZBA Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 3 of S Chairman Hill called for a vote. The Board voted (4-1). The variance request passed. Chairman Hil[ voting against granting of the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration, discussion and possible action concerning penalties i for violating setback requirements. Ms. Ruiz told the Board members that looking at the last several years it was found that the number of people asking for forgiveness is proportional to the total number of building permits issued. In 2002 it was a record year for single-family homes. The City issued over 740 new permits and there were 12 total setback variance but only 5 were because of a mistake by the builder out in the field. What was found was that over the last several years it is about one half of 1 % comes in to request a variance after the fact. That is about what has been seen over the last few years. Ms. Ruiz told the Board that for violating anything in the UDO there is a possible penalty of $2,000.00 per day, per offense. In order for that to happened the city would have to actively prosecute and take someone to court. The judge would determine what the monetary amount is. Mr. Lewis asked if any other city had any penalties. Ms. Ruiz responded that the only ones she is aware of are the ones that are similar to ours and that is there is a possible penalty for any violation in the zoning ordinance. There is not a flat fee for violating it. Chairman Hill asked if City Council could amend the UDO in such a way that specifies an automatic monetary penalty for certain violations. Ms. Ruiz stated that her and Ms. Robinson had discussed this and they could not identify anyway that that could be done without City Council direction. Chairman Hill asked could the City Council put something in the UDO that would specify an automatic penalty. Ms. Robinson replied that Municipalities have the authority to enforce ordinances under state law. The process for doing that is code enforcement. A complaint would have to be filed in Municipal Court, it would need to be investigated and a person prosecuted. The City could file a civil action and the court could impose a civil fine. She added that she has not found anything under state law that would allow a governing body to just impose a fine without any due process. Ms. Robinson ended by saying that the tools are already in the ordinance to enforce the code against people who are violators. It is just a matter of enforcement on the city's part. Mr. Wells said what they could do is require the builder to supply a survey. Ms. Ruiz replied that that was something that they had talked about after there was a violation in the field that ended up into a utility easement. They brainstormed different ideas of what they could have done to prevent it. One was to require the survey before the slab is poured. That suggestion was taken to a local development group and they were opposed to that primarily because of the number of violations. They did not see it as a substantial problem. The complaint is that you are penalizing everyone for the mistakes of a few. It was also mentioned about the additional cost and the time delay in getting someone to do the survey within a couple of weeks. Chairman Hill asked if the builders have an aware of the ZBA's concern over this issue. Ms. Ruiz stated that in her conversations with builders she thinks they have a genuine concern about getting it right. Chairman Hill asked if there is awareness in the building community that this Board has become increasingly concerned over the issue. Ms. Ruiz replied that she does not know if that is necessarily out there but she knows from talking to some of the builders that have been before the Board they say they don't want to go through the process again. Mr. Lewis stated that a survey is needed to be performed for the closing at the bank. He would question the additional cost to make sure at the beginning that the slab was correct. Ms. Ruiz stated when it was looked at staff standpoint it is pretty minor, however some development fees were increased by about $50 a lot and that was seen to be too much. Ms. Ruiz ended by saying the Board needs to deny variances and that will send the message. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussions of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. No adjustments were reported. ZBA Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 4 of S AGENDA ITEM NO 7: items. • No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: The meeting was adjourned. Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda Adjourn. ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant • • ZBA Minutes February 3, 2004 APPROV D: eslie Hill, Chairman Page S of 5 • 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 intexest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: ~y ( ~~ _ r and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance -would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: • _T 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 ADJLTSTMII~TT Motion made by ~~~~ L~ Ltl¢~% Voting Results 1 " Motion Seconded by _ _ ~-~°G«z~~ ..S ~(,-~., Chair Signature ' , ~~'~'~E' l7i'( vJ~Pv~ G9clivt> ~ Date ~ ~e ~ ~ (, ~ • SRP1638.DOC • City of College Station Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers • ._r ~ Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ,`Irv .~' ~ '< ;: ~ ~~ -1'~ ! ; ' Request Submitted on Date: ~ ~; i I will not be in attendance at the meeting of .~_ , ~, ~ ~ y for the reason(s) specified: (Date) ,i it t } ~~ j ~1{` .l J. ~~ ~' ~ ~.- ~, ++ ~ ~' ~, w. ` ~r~'t `~`~ y ,' ' T. l j ~ ~ ~ 1 + ~ 1 x ~ / t Signature This request shall be submitted to Deborah Grace one week prior to meeting date. Fax 764-3496. City of College Station, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77840 Attn: Deborah Grace o:council/absenreq.doc ZONING B OARD OF ~DJUST1l 1rENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE~~:..1 C C,i, ~ ~~ NAME ADDRESS 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. 1. SG~ a- IJOY Ex rt SCE r~Gt r(n 3~V ~S~ S~v~ ~ • 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.