Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER . DATE June 17, 1986 NAME ADDRESS 1 . ~rz,ry ~- -~,~j iC ~ i ~ 1.~,7~ l ~-4 l ~ ( ~~~. (,a.~ ~ ~ 1 2 . ~~.-C~ ~l ~~ Z ~ ~1~~~ l~ ~ 5. ~7~ , 4. 5. 6. 7- 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. • OATH OF OFFICE • I~ do solemn]S~ swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of Member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of College Station, State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- tion and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. ~o}{y( B. Evans r ~~~ . SiNORN TO and Subscribed before me this ~j` day of ~/~~~' t~L-t',~~ ,`19 _ - ?' Notary Pu lic, Brazos Coun*y, exas, My commi ~j.on expires C_ .;~ ~'d' ~~ Mayor Pro Tem, Patr c1a Boughton • OATI1 OF OFFICE I DAV I D RUES I NK do so 1 emn l y swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of Member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of College Station, State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- tion and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directl}• nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure • my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. ~ ' ~-~ C David Ruesink / ~ / SWORN TO and Subscribed before me this / /~ day of \ ~,.~c ~_~ 19 ~G~ Notary Pu lic, Brazos County, `texas My commiss_io~ expires ~~ /'~~ I F~~ ~TGGZ~.ILL_ Mayor Pro Tem, Patri is Boughton • • OATII OF OFFICE I ARCH I E JUL I EN do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of Member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of College Station, State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- tion and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure • my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. ~' ~l~ _-- Archie Ju11en ~~ ~. ., SWORN TO and Subscribed before me this ~~%~'~ day o ~~ _,_ ~19~•~, ~~ Notary Pu ic;; Brazos Count , T~xa.s My commis~i-on expires / ~~/Cy~ ~'~~~. Mayor Pro Tem, Patr cia Boughton • OATH OF OFFICE I ~ ROBERT GILMORE do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of Member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of College Station, State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- tion and laws of the United States and this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God. ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ Robert Gilmore 'v ,1 •, SWORN TO and Subscribed before me this ~~ day of ,19_~• ~ , ... '~, I Notary Pula i Brazos County T xas My commir~sio expires ~ ~_, Mayor Pro Tem, Patri a Boughton • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) ________lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) ________sign regulations (Section 12) ________minimum setback (Table A) ________parking requirements S ction 9 ~ .0 from the terms of this ordinance as it not be contras to the C~l~l.~ public interest, due to the ,f llowing special conditions: c~>~~ ~. t~---------- and because a strict enforcement of the providions of the ordinance would resglt in unnecessary hardship to this applicant bpin~g~: ~ ~~~ -- ~.~:-~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and LI%GO'G. ubstantj.al ju tice done subject to the, following limitations: _ - ---------------- I~-------- Motion made by _ /"_i_~' _ __ Date ----- ------------- ----------------- Seconded b iJe'S'~ 1.., //,, y ____~______ _____________ Voting Results S V - --------- - Chair signature ~ ~- ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMfiNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) ________lot width (Table A) _____ lot depth (Table A) ___!%___sign regulations ` (Section 12) ________mi~imum 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: -- CvN~ -N~---------- --- -- ~L!~tc_/~- NE~.~CO ~S/~=,N _TD_ ~L./~ _1",/~E' fa?l~~'~=ie`' ~'--------- ------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the providions of the ordinance would result in,,un^necessary hardship to this applicant being: and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: _ T~/~i__~,.y!C~_t/~4/Z~i9NcLc SBcc_C-~29~1~11~ ~-- -i9~V _ L~ ~'~D _T~ - - -- ------ .~ , M tion ma e ~!~~~ ----------------------------- Date ----------------- Seconded by _____ ~ ~~~~ -------------- Voting Results --~ - ~ - •Chair signature -~/~~ ~~' AGENDA n LJ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment June 17, 1986 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Meyer, Members McGuirk, Gilmore, Evans and Ruesink; Alternate Member Julian and Mayor ProTem Boughton in audience. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Member Swoboda STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, Assistant City Attorney Elmore, Planning Technician Volk; Zoning Official Kee and Assistant Zoning Official Johnson in audience. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Mayor Pro Tea Boughton to adainister Oath of Office to newly appointed aeabers of the Zoning Board of Adjustaent. Mayor ProTem Boughton administered Oath of Office to newly appointed members/alternate members Gilmore, Evans, Ruesink and Julian. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of Board. Mr. McGuirk called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board at the request of Chairman Meyer who had a sore throat. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 3: Approval of Minutes: a. Meeting of April 1, 1986 b. Special Legal Norkshop on June 3, 1986. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting on April 1, 1986 as to form only, adding that he had no objection to the substance of the minutes, but that only 2 of the members at this meeting were present at that meeting, thus there is no quorum to approve the actual content of the minutes; Mr. Gilmore concurred and seconded the motion to approve the minutes of 4-1-86 as to form only; votes were cast and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. McGuirk then thanked the Legal staff for making a complete transcript of one of the items in the minutes. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes of the special legal workshop held on 6-3-86; Mr. Evans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance Ordinance 1638 Section 8.18C regarding ~axiaua height of satellite dish antennas at a location at the existing motel • 320 Texas Avenue South, such location being within 100 feet residential lot. Applicant is Haapton Inn. to at of a ZBA Minutes 6-17-86 page 1 Assistant Director of Planning Callaway explained the request is to allow the • applicant to install a satellite dish antenna of more than 12 feet in height within 100 feet of a residential lot. He identified the location of the proposed antenna, pointing out that this is a fully developed lot, stating that the residential lot in question is bounded on 3 sides by commercial zoning, adding that the site plan for this motel site was approved prior to the adoption of this ordinance and further that the previous ordinance did not address satellite dish antennas. Paul Williams, 2221 Round Rock, Carrolton, Texas was sworn in and identified himself as the representative of the applicant. He stated that this variance is being requested in order to provide the 3 movie channels plus the ability to provide telecommunications in the future, and to be able to receive a signal strong enough to provide these services, a dish with a minimum diameter of 16 feet will be required. He confirmed that when site plans were approved for this project, and when the project was under construction, there was no ordinance on the books addressing satellite dishes so the applicant did not know there would be a problem providing the required services. He went on to explain that to place the antenna in any other location would require the motel to give up parking spaces, and even then highlights from the adjacent Ramada Inn would block signals. Mr. McGuirk asked Mr. Williams to address the requirement the Board must consider, that is special conditions not contrary to public interest. Mr. Williams stated that he believes the facts that plans were completed and approved before the ordinance was in effect, as well as the fact that other locations on this site are not adequate to provide guaranteed services would be the special conditions to be addressd. Mr. Callaway concurred that this site plan was reviewed prior to the adoption of the • new ordinance and further that the satellite dish was not shown on the approved site plan, so the location of it was never addressed during review of the project. Mrs. Meyer asked Mr. Williams to explain why the dish needs to be this big and Mr. Williams replied that a dish this size is the minimum size which would be required for good reception of the movie channels and also the size which will be needed for future telecommunication service. Mrs. Meyer asked staff if the owner of the residential lot in question had made contact with staff and Mr. Callaway replied that he had no contact from the owner, and further that he believes the house is a rent house which will likely be rezoned in the future, adding that it was unfortunate that the lot had not been incorporated into the adjacent parking lot and rezoned accordingly at a previous date. Mr. McGuirk asked Mr. Williams what the total maximum height of the structure required if this variance is granted to which Mr. Williams replied that the optimum height would be 5.05 meters. Mr. Ruesink asked if 20 feet would adequately cover the needs and Mr. Williams replied that a 20 foot maximum height would be adequate. No one else spoke. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to the satellite dish regulations as covered under Ordinance 1638 Section 8.18C from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: plans for the building and P.R.C. acceptance predated the new satellite dish ordinance, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being the inability to provide customary services which would normally be expected of C-1 along Texas Avenue, and • such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: The dish limited to a maximum height of 20 feet and to the southern side of the swimming pool. Mr. Ruesink seconded the motion ZBA Minutes 6-17-86 page 2 which carried unanimously (5-0). • AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Consideration of a request for variance to Ordinance 1638 Section 7.11 I District C-NG Northgate Sign Regulations on Lots 1, 2 A 3 Block 9 Boyett Batate Partition Subdivision. Applicant is Henry ill. Park~an. Mr. Callaway located the site of the proposed sign, explained existing zoning and defined the boundaries of this newly established zoning district, adding that the requested action is to allow a freestanding sign which is prohibited in this zoning district according to Section 7.11-I of Ordinance 1638. He went on to explain that this lot is currently being used by students for an unofficial parking lot and the applicant is proposing to establish an improved, commercial parking lot which would help eliminate the existing problems of mud and dust caused by the current use. He went on to explain the alternatives might be to place smaller sighs at entrances into the parking lot, to place the signage directly on the front of the brick structure since there will be no building on this site, to somehow combine both of the above alternatives, or perhaps the Board might even consider using the standards of C-1 zoning districts in the placement and size of freestanding signs, even though freestanding signs are considered prohibited in this zoning district. He explained the ordinance intent was to recognize the character of the Northgate commercial area, and that freestanding and roof signs were prohibited due to the allowable intensity of development and to keep signage consistent with that found in the developed portion of the district. Chairman Meyer asked if the purpose of the proposed brick construction is to hold the • sign and Mr. Callaway replied that the applicant can better answer the question, but he thinks the brick structure will also hold a safe or drop box which will be used for monies in the operation of the business. Mr. McGuirk asked for clarification as to how this Board could apply C-1 regulations to this request and Mr. Callaway explained that he had only offered that as a possible alternative and to point out the way this sign would be different. Mr. McGuirk then asked if the application itself was wrong where it states that the specific variation from the ordinance requested is "to allow a freestanding sign ...closer to the street than normally would be allowed" and Mr. Callaway replied that is correct, that freestanding signs are prohibited in the C-NG zoning district according to ordinance. The applicant, Henry W. Parkman was sworn in and stated that although the current zoning does not allow freestanding signs, he has attempted to have a sign designed which would be aesthetically pleasing to help enhance the Northgate area, explaining that the brick structure had been designed for that reason, along with the purpose of holding the safe. He explained that in this area, there is a need for a large, permanent structural type of sign due to the high incidence of theft and vandalism of signs. He went on to explain that the law requires signs for commercial parking lots to explain the hours of operation and to notify the public that vehicles will be towed, and to list the phone numbers of the towing companies, as well as the rules of operation. He said that he had gone one step further, in that the actual design of the sign/brick structure will also help enhance pedestrian safety by adding lighting to reflect along Patricia Street. He added that he realizes that if this variance is granted, the Board will be giving its o.k. for a billboard type sign, and because of that, he would accept a variance with conditions attached regarding use and ownership of the lot. Mr. McGuirk said that this Board has no option regarding the condition r of ownership, that the variance goes with the land. Size of the proposed sign was discussed, with an attempt by the Board to perhaps sway ZBA Minutes 6-17-86 page 3 the applicant to agree to a smaller and/or lower sign. Visibility of the proposed • sign from the street, from vehicles, from University Drive was discussed, as well as size of lettering, advisability of lights so tall, with the applicant referring to Stabler Sign Company representative who designed the sign. U Lonnie Stabler of Stabler Sign Company was sworn in and stated that he had designed the sign to allow a driver the ability to read it quickly which helps with traffic control. He added that this particular site/sign will be visible from several blocks away which will also be helpful in addressing traffic control. He admitted that it might be made a little smaller, but he was trying to work with the lights and at the same time make the sign look pleasing. He said that perhaps more background and less lettering would help. Mr. McGuirk said he objects to the height for the very reason that it will be visible from several blocks away, including from some residences which might object. Mr. Stabler replied that visibility from University Drive would aid in traffic control in getting vehicles off University Drive, adding that he believes it will be more aesthetically pleasing at the proposed height, adding that it is at streetlight height, which has been determined to be the optimum height for light distribution. Mrs. Meyer asked if there is a rule or ordinance for this and Mr. Stabler replied that he knows of none. Mr. McGuirk asked if the Board granted a variance for a lower height sign, just what height could the applicant live with to which Mr. Parkman replied that to be perfectly honest he could live with any height sign granted, but he believes the proposed plan is good and would be less subject to vandalism, as well as being more aesthetically pleasing than a lower sign. Location of existing street lights was discussed afterwhich Mr. Evans said he is still concerned about the sign itself; that he would rather have the higher but smaller sign. Mr. Stabler said there are some ways they could pursue but both he and the applicant would rather not designate all the information required by using a lot of small signs, adding that small, stick-like signs must be replaced often in this particular area, and he is trying to inform the public as to what the project is, but finished by stating that perhaps the size and height could be altered some. Mrs. Meyer asked staff if this ordinance pre-empts other commercial ordinances and asked for clarification as to the .alternate mentioned by staff. Mr. Callaway explained that the option was listed by staff only as an alternate variance, adding that the Northgate ordinance prohibits freestanding signs. Mrs. Meyer asked if any freestanding sign in Northgate would require a variance, and Mr. Callaway replied that any freestanding sign in Northgate would require a variance, adding this this particular project is a development occurring with no other structure on which to place an attached sign. He explained that there is another commercial parking lot in an area adjacent to but not included in the Northgate zoning district, which has limited signage, but he is not sure whether the 2 lots can be compared. Mrs. Meyer asked why this district prohibits freestanding signs and Mr. Callaway again explained the intent of the ordinance as shown on the staff report. Mrs. Meyer asked if this particular problem had not been anticipated and Mr. Callaway replied that would be hard to say, but pointed out that other regulations had been relaxed to allow more private parking. Mr. McGuirk stated he wanted to address a question to the Legal staff. Assistant City Attorney Carol Elmore was sworn in. Mr. McGuirk stated that in the past variances have been granted with conditions attached which would limit the use of it to a particular kind of business and asked if a variance could now be granted to limit the use of a sign variance to a commercial parking lot only. Mrs. Elmore replied that ahe would be unable to answer the question without first researching past actions by Zoning Boards of Adjustment. Mr. McGuirk then said that he has some concerns with the size and height of the ZBA Minutes 6-17-86 page 4 proposed sign, but would readily agree to a variance which would allow a low, small • sign, but the applicant thinks that he knows what is necessary to use his property to its highest and best use, and that he believes a sign such as the one being proposed will enhance parking in the Northgate area, Mr. Gilmore said he has no problem with the overall sign, but he does have some concern regarding the lights on this tall sign possibly causing some problem. Mr. McGuirk stated he has no problem with the lights proposed. • Mrs. Meyer stated that the height and size of the sign are not the issue, but that a special condition does exist in that there is no building being proposed on this project, and she would hate to see the Board place a height or size limitation on a variance which would allow an otherwise prohibited freestanding sign. Mr. McGuirk said he still has a problem with the height of the proposed sign; Mr. Evans said that he believes a sign any lower than proposed might block the view and become a visual barrier affecting safe ingress and egress at the driveways of the lot. Mr. Evans then read from Ordinance 1638 Section 15 regarding hardship to the applicant. Mr. McGuirk agreed that the lack of a sign might cause a hardship, also pointed out there is to be no building at this project and he would agree that a business needs a sign, but he would like to limit the use of a freestanding sign to a commercial parking lot. Mr. Callaway replied to someone's question that staff had received several calls regarding this variance, but none of the calls expressed any objections to a proposed freestanding sign. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to authorize the terms of this ordinance as it will not b the following special conditions: This busi place a needed conforming sign to utilize th strict enforcement of the provisions of the hardship to this applicant being that the la effectively regulate the business, and such t be observed and substantial justice done subj the variance be granted for and limited to a seconded the motion which carried unanimousl AGENDA ITBM N0. 7: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITBM N0. 8: Adjourn. a variance to the sign regulations from e contrary to the public interest, due to ness has no building; no location to e property as business, and because a ordinance would result in unnecessary w requires some kind of sign to hat the spirit of this ordinance shall ect to the following limitations: That commercial parking lot. Mr. Evans y (5-0). Mr. McGuirk made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Beans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: ~0 ~ ------ - ---- --------------- Chairman Doro by Meyer • ATTEST: ------------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes 6-17-86 page 5