Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment October 7, 1986 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRBSBNT: All regular members present. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Swoboda & Julien STAFF PRBSBNT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Elmore and Planning Technician Volk Ageada Item Xo. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of the Doard. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, then explained the functions and limitations of the Board. Agenda Item No. 2: Approval of minutes - meeting of September 2, 1986. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Evans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • Agenda Item No. 3: Hear visitors. Mike Trojan spoke from the audience, requesting that the Board allow him to resubmit a request for a variance which had been denied at the meeting on September 2, further explaining that he had additional information which had been unavailable at that meeting and which he believed might well represent sufficient cause for granting the variance. The Board unanimously agreed to allow Mr. Trojan to resubmit his request for variance if additional information is available. No one else spoke. Agenda Item No. 4: Consideration of a request for variances to side setback, rear setback, sad sign regulations at the existing Shell service station at the northeast corner of ?exas Avenue and University Drive. Applicant is ?he Southland Corporation. Zoning Official Kee explained this application actually covers a request for a variance to rear setback requirements, aide setback requirements and also sign regulations. She outlined the applicant's plans as being to replace the existing Shell service station at the northeast corner of Texas & University with a new building which would house a 7-Eleven convenience store, to continue to sell gasoline, and to remove the existing sign on the corner of the property, but to remodel the existing Shell sign located along the north property line. She referred to the site plan on the wall which had been reviewed and approved by the P.R.C. pending ZBA variances to point out the location of the subject variances, those being the rear setback which is to the northern property line, and adjacent to the existing former Pizza Inn, the side setback which is to the eastern property line and adjacent to the parking lot of the bank. She informed the Board that the rear setback required by ordinance is 15 feet, and the applicant is proposing a 3 foot setback; 1 that the side setback must be either 7.5 feet or 0 feet with a specific firewall, and • the applicant is proposing a 2 foot setback, and lastly that the existing Shell sign which the applicant is planning to remodel is a non-conforming sign in that it is now 42.8 feet tall, and ordinance would allow an 11 foot sign with the 21 foot setback which is provided. She added that the applicant is not only requesting to remodel this sign which is 31+ feet too tall, he is proposing to add a 7-Bleven sign to the top of this sign, which would make it 49 feet in height. She reported that the existing sign is non-conforming in area as well as in height, as it is now 216 square feet in area and only 75 square feet would be allowed under current ordinance and the applicant is proposing to add area which would bring it to a total of 433 square feet. She reported that she had notified both the Building Official and the Fire Marshal of this application, and she has not received any consent from either official. She concluded the staff report by stating that a total of 5 adjacent property owners were notified of this request, and to date no responses have been received. Bill Wetterman, the applicant was sworn in and invited to make cassents about his application. He stated that he actually is representing The Southland Corporation, and the drawings on the wall cover the request thoroughly adding that extensive studies have been made and the drawings reflect the findings of those studies in developing a workable project. He continued by explaining that plans include continuing the use of the existing Shell sign with the addition of a 7-Bleven section, snd to remove the existing smaller sign at the corner. Chairman Meyer reminded Mr. Wetterman what must be found by the Board in order to grant any variance. Mr. McGuirk stated that this applicant actually requests 3 variances, and he wondered if the Board should consider them together or separately, • and if it is an all or nothing situation. Dan Cole, Round Rock, Texas came forward and was sworn in and stated that he, too, is representing The Southland Corporation, and continued explaining the changes to the site which are being planned which include removing the existing building, closing a drive, widening another, removing one sign and enlarging the remaining sign. He pointed out that if the proposed building is moved forward so that required setbacks are met, delivery trucks would not be able to get into the site to make needed deliveries. He then asked about the zero lot line construction referred to by Mrs. Kee. Mrs. Kee explained that ordinance requires either a 7.5 foot side setback or that the structure actually be set on the property line (zero lot line construction). Mr. Cole stated the applicant would be willing to build the structure on the property line if there are no electrical problems, that in fact, they would take the electrical service underground to their structure if necessary. He added when questioned that the company would prefer to build the structure just off the property line as proposed, as has been the preferred company policy for security reasons in the past. Discussion followed as to whether or not there is an easement along the eastern property line, how circulation will take place on the site, difficulty of ingress and egress on this site, location of new fiberglass fuel tanks, and if moving the location of the proposed building would make abetter plan. Mrs. Meyer stated that each variance would be considered as a separate item, and the first setback to be considered would be the rear, or northern setback. Mr. Gilmore stated that he could not find any hardship other than financial since • this company apparently wants to build a building on this lot which is larger than the lot can accommodate and maintain the required setbacks. He went on to explain that plans are to raze everything currently on the lot with the exception of one ZBA Minutes 10-7-86 Page 2 sign, and start fresh to develop the lot, and it would seem to him that it should be • done with compliance to all existing city regulations. Mr. Beans agreed, adding that he is aware that some large firms have corporate designed buildings which they prefer to use on all sites, but that appears to only represent a financial hardship since a building could readily be designed to fit this lot. Mr. Gilmore pointed out that this Board must have some hardship other than financial to consider in order to grant a variance, and he agrees with the applicant that the company would not be able to use the proposed building without several variances, but he does not understand how that could be construed as anything other than a financial hardship. Mrs. Meyer said that the shape of the lot could be considered a special condition, but all other Board members disagreed, pointing out that this would be an empty, regular shaped rectangular lot at a busy intersection, and these things could in no way be construed as "special", as there are other similar lots and intersections in the city. Mrs. Meyer then pointed out that there is nothing wrong with consideration of a financial hardship, but it must not be solely financial, and in her opinion the hardship would be that the applicant cannot develop the lot as he wants. Mr. McGuirk disagreed, stating that what is being considered tonight is a lot that is too small for the proposed project. Mr. Beans stated that he agrees, that the building chosen does not fit the lot, but he thinks this is a corporate decision anyway. Mr. Ruesink asked Mr. Cole if there is any other land available that he can lease or purchase. Mr. Cole replied there is none. Mrs. Meyer said that the owner has chosen a certain kind of business which corporately has chosen a certain sized building. Mr. Gilmore & Mr. Beans replied that they both agree, but that a smaller building • would work, and this represents a self-imposed hardship. Mrs. Meyer said the Mr. Beans made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum rear setback (Table A) from the terns of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion. hardship would be that this is a franchise setup with standardized equipment, etc. Mr. McGuirk said the same building would work without gas pulps. Mr. Beans agreed, adding that the lack of a variance would not leave this property undevelopable. Mrs. Meyer finally said that perhaps the special condition could be that this property is surrounded by driveway. Mr. McGuirk stated he does not think that would be a special condition. Mrs. Meyer said that she does see a hardship in that the applicant already has an approved site plan, therefore there is apparently no problem to the City, and the hardship is that the applicant is not able to develop the lot as planned, although she does agree that the proposed building is too large for the lot. Mr. McGuirk stated that he does not believe what the P.R.C. has done is relevant to what this Board does. Mr. Svana said that he works with things like this frequently, and the norm is that the property is reviewed, the laws are reviewed, and then the lot is developed accordingly. Votes on the motion to deny the variance to minimum rear setback requirements were cast with the motion to deny carrying by a vote of 4-1 (Meyer against). • Mrs. Meyer announced the Board would next consider the request for variance to the side setback. Mr. McGuirk speculated that perhaps the applicant would like to ZBA Minutes 10-7-86 Page 3 withdraw that request at this time. Mr. Cole stated that he and Mr. Wetterman would • request the Board to allow them time to go back to the corporate directors for direction regarding redesign of this project, but he would like for the Board to consider the request for variance to the sign regulations at this meeting. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to table this applicant's request for variance to side setback requirements to allow the applicant time to reconsider his request and perhaps redesign his site plan. Mr. Gilmore seconded that motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Cole then re-explained the plans for using the larger, existing non-conforming sign and adding to that a section which would indicate the project is a 7-Bleven convenience store. He explained that although the application includes alternate plans, the applicant would prefer the taller sign. Mr. Gilmore stated that he is against adding height to a sign which is already too tall, but he has no problem with adding the section underneath the existing sign. Mrs. Hee reminded the Board that both height and area variances are needed as the sign is non-conforming due to both items. General discussion followed regarding what might or might not be done with this sign or with the sign closest to the corner which the applicant plans to remove. Mr. McGuirk stated he is concerned about this request, as granting it would be legalizing a sign which is 42.8 feet off the ground, and he would prefer to see these extremely tall signs phased-out as they need repair. Mrs. Meyer stated this sign is a non-conforming sign which belongs to another owner. Mr. Cole stated the only other • alternative would be to put a 7-Bleven sign on the existing sign at the corner. Mr. McGuirk asked if it would be possible for this applicant to get the existing, tall, non-conforming sign lowered and Mr. Cole replied the owner will not lower the sign. Mr. McGuirk said he would like to see some coapromise take place here which would allow same type of 7-Bleven sign, but he is unwilling to sake a sign of this size legal. Mr. Beans agreed. Mr. McGuirk said if the applicant or owner would be willing to lower the sign by 8-12 feet, he would then be willing to consider allowing additional square footage. Additional general discussion followed with Mrs. Meyer making a motion to table consideration of this item to allow the applicant time to develop additional alternatives. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Cole asked if he would be able to come back with another request for variance to the rear setback if he was not able to develop an acceptable alternative. Mrs. Meyer summarized the Board's action as being to deny the request for variance to rear setback requirements with the agreement that the applicant could re-submit that request at a later date; to table both the request for variance to side setback requirements and sign regulations to allow the applicant time to develop additional alternate plans. ZBA Minutes 10-7-86 Page 4 Agenda Item No. 5: Other buainess. • Mrs. Ree announced there would be no meeting on October 21st or December 2nd. Agenda Items No. 6: Ad3onrn. Mr. Beans made a motion to adjourn with Mr. McGuirk seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-Ct) . APPROVBD: Chairmah', Dord~thy Meyer ATTBST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones • r~ U ZBA Minutes 1C • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT 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 (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: - --'~ ~~F ~~cvi~~s_ T~~~9~vT-_ F,vc~~,~,v~2~~ _~vo _~~2/~~~/C' _ ~'./~o13Z ~J''~.~ - - - - ---- - - - - -r,~~ ry /~2Fnr~/~L ~/ ST/1 /N~~iVI f'h~2,~/>rt~C' /~t~G~v'~ (~F~/J" ---------M~ ~------------------------------------ 2~ /-~ C'2oSS -oUE2 ~.9/1/J~'(.t~' ~/~f-FF•~~idT /,2~1//DDS /~-~ Ll~9..5'~" ------------------ - - --------------------------------- Zv /~i99/~it'~N~ s•~9C~'S /~~ /~ Ti/vl~' ~v~/~"N, Ti~~~9N~r' ~ CZ U_SF~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.~ r~r Ur% C~vti ClL ,~~.r~~.oS T.~Y~i /'~92iN l~t/l-' 2F4U~/1C=~~v~ .f ----------------------y--------~ ------- -------------------------- ~-2l~ ~.s.S -sFr~F~I lti /~h'ti ~9Lco~/OZ s'~21/1~' 2F.~ii~~i2,9..v~ :T ~~/~} ~t~ --- ~----------- f-r------- ----~9~/•~ GoG~~LLy Till-s' F/~c; -s~~ar~Lp~~y 7o ccues. ~s ~~L.. and because a strict enforcement o~ t~e provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: l~~N~.~lG/t~ - r-U _usl'_ /~' rS'~-~!/%~~..9~ 11 sr/~ Uc1rJ-Pl _ ~-~~1'_~ -- ----- - -------------------------------------------- and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: - -~~ T'Y~9% _T~i~' _ ~2GtS",lD1.GC ,~ir~2 _l~/C _ /G?~.•vle~•_v_1 _ _,W~~ c~f'U!'L l~ Motion made by _~ eC'C~I~/~ ---------------- Date ----------------- Seconded by _ ~r ~~~~ __________________ Voting Results y_~~EI/i4~I,~J Chair signature I _ <<i~/ C/V - ---L~~ --------------- _ ~~ 4 • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR 11NOA?IO)< MOTIONS Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I cove to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) _______sign regulations (Section ___ xx ainiaua~~a~etback (Table A) _______parking requiresents (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. • Motion made by ___Evans_ ---------------------------------- Seconded by _____Gllmore___-_--_ --------------------------- Voting results: 4-1 (Meyer against the motion) -------------------- Chair signature _~~ ~~_ _ rye,' ,, -~ -- Doroth Mey/e~, Z_-----_-'-'-_--------- Date 1Q=Z-86____ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • DATE October 7, ~g86 NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. 3• ' 4. 5. 6. ~'' 7. ~ - 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. - 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25.