Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER . DATE November 18, 1986 NAME ADDRESS I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25. MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment November 18, 1986 ?:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All regular members MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate members Swoboda & Julien STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee & Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITEM N0. 1. Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, then explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2. Approval of sinutes - aeeting of November 4, 1986. Mr. McGuirk requested addition of the word "stated" before the word "emphatically" on the second line of page 4. With that addition, Mr. McGuirk made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3. Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4. Reconsideration of a request for a variance to the attached sign regulations (Sec. 12.3.L. Ord. 1638) to allow a sign perpendicular to the face of the building at the Creekside Shopping Center. Applicant is Ruth W. Cain - The Stitchery. (This ites was tabled at the aeeting of November 4, 1986.) Mr. McGuirk made a motion to take this item from its tabled position; Mr. Ruesink seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Zoning Official Kee referred to her memo and city council minutes of a meeting during which this item was discussed which she handed out prior to the meeting, and announced that Council has scheduled a Special Joint Workshop with the ZBA on December 2nd. She advised the Board to take a few minutes to read those items before discussing this item, adding that the Board may want to leave this agenda item on the table until after the workshop. Mr. McGuirk asked to make a statement about the workshop covered by the minutes Mrs. Kee referred to, as he had been at that meeting. He explained that he had explained to Council that the ZBA did not want to grant a variance in this particular case because doing so might be setting a precedent, as well as establishing policy which the Board does not believe is a part of its job. He did, however, explain that the Board would like the Council to consider an amendment to the sign section of the ordinance. The council's immediate response to that was that amending the ordinance was an unwise thing to do, but apparently felt unanimously that some satisfaction should be given, and it further appeared that each councilman's personal opinion was that a variance should be granted, that considering this sign an "exempt" sign would demand that this sign not be "visible" or "readible" from the street, and to avoid that, a variance could be granted. Council considered taking a vote on that, but Mayor Ringer said action would be the ZBA's rather than Council's job. Chairman Meyer asked the applicant, Mrs. Cain if she had anything further to add to • this and she replied that she does not, but she asked if consideration of her request could again be postponed until after the ZBA/Council workshop. The Board agreed that she could do that, and Mr. McGuirk made a motion to again table this item; Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Gilmore asked to be allowed to discuss the minutes of the council meeting sometime during this meeting and Chairman Meyer suggested that be done under Other business. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5. Consideration of a request for a variance to side setback (Table A Ord. 1638) to allow a carport at the residence at 2913 Normand. Applicant is Mike Trojan. Zoning Official Kee explained that the application from Mr. Trojan and the staff report are identical to those presented at the September meeting, therefore she would keep her explanation brief, and if the Board had any questions, they should be sure to ask them. She explained the applicant, Mike Trojan, is the owner of the house at 2913 Normand which is a single family residence in an R-l zoning district; that he is requesting a variance to the 7.5 ft. required side setback to allow a carport which is constructed to within 1 to 1.5 feet of the side lot line. She explained that not only is there supposed be 15 feet of separation between buildings, but the 7.5 side setback must be maintained as well, therefore the encroachment is the entire length of the carport, and not simply where the 15 foot separation is not maintained. She went on to explain that when a variance is granted to the side setback requirements, the Board is also granting a variance to the 15 foot separation of buildings, as granting one property owner a variance to a requirement could not at the same time • penalize the adjacent property owner. She then reported that she had received one phone call about this request during which the caller stated that if this variance is granted, he wanted to do exactly the same thing. She continued by stating that she had also had a visit from another property owner who had received notification and who had voiced opposition to this request. She finalized by stating that Mr. Trojan had requested an inspection from the Fire Department, the results of that inspection being reported in the letter included in the packets from Assistant Fire Marshal Bland Ellen who is in the audience and available to answer any questions the Board might have. Mr. McGuirk asked if Mr. Trojan could add a wall to the carport without a building permit if this variance is granted. Mrs. Kee replied that he could not, and further, as she understands it, the wooden fence may even be considered a wall and there is a possibility that a fire wall could be required. Mr. McGuirk asked for clarification and Mrs. Kee explained anyone wanting to close in this carport would require a Building Permit, and beyond that, it may or may not have to come back before the Board for consideration, depending upon whether or not there are changed conditions. Assistant Fire Marshal Bland Ellen, 3005 Red Rock, Bryan was sworn in and explained that he was contacted by Mr. Trojan who requested an inspection of his carport. He (Mr. Ellen} complied, and found no fire-spreading problems or conditions, and the only problem which might come up is if Mr. Trojan does not keep the roof of this structure clean, leaves and debris from trees could build up in the deep grooves of the material, and if so, could become afire hazard. Mr. McGuirk asked if a variance is granted for this • someone later close in the carport to make a garage, any authority in the matter. Mr. Ellen replied that of a building permit. Mr. McGuirk asked if there is carport by this Board and should would the Fire Department have it would not except for approval a problem with the outer wall ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 2 and Mr. Ellen replied that there is not as he would not consider the fence a part of • the structure, adding it was there before the carport. He added there is the possibility that the fence itself could cause more of a problem than the carport, but it does not add to any structural problem. He further explained that anytime a fence is built it slows the fire department down, but even if the structure were removed, the fence would remain. Mrs. Meyer asked him what is behind the carport and Mr. Ellen replied that it is an open back yard, adding that the side of the house where the carport is located would not be used as a driving entry to the backyard to fight a fire in the house. Applicant Mike Trojan, 2913 Normand Drive was sworn in and handed out additional information which was apparently a shaded drawing of his site. He then read an excerpt from Table A, note F, page ?-30 of the Zoning Ordinance, "...The following restrictions shall apply to garages and carports: a minimum rear setback of 20 feet is required; and a minimum side street setback of 20 feet is required for garages or carports that face onto side streets...", adding that is the only reference made to carports, and if that statement were carried up to residential districts shown in the table, the only place note F is cited is under minimum side street setback and minimum rear setback. He pointed out that there is no mention of carports on the side setbacks, which would help explain his ignorance when he constructed the carport. He then read from note C of the same table and page which refers to zero lot line construction in the case where a developer owns 2 lots, then asked why an owner of 2 lots gets that special privilege since the lots could be sold at a later date. He explained the residence on the other side of his lot where the structure is only 3 feet from the property line was probably approved under this note. He offered his interpretation of this to be that some flexibility has been built into the ordinance, as that note goes on to say that ..."in no case shall a single family residence or • duplex be built within 15 feet of another building.", thus reinforcing his argument that there is in excess of 15 feet between his structure and the house on the adjacent lot, therefore he could not see a problem. He went on to say that he really had not used zero lot line construction, but rather was 1 to 1 1/2 feet off the lot line. He added that this exemplifies his opinion that the ordinance, at best, is vague regarding side setback requirements for carports. He continued by stating that nothing has changed on his application and that he had erected his structure on a slab which did not require a building permit, not knowing that the structure itself would require one. He stated the hardship is also the same - that he wants to protect his belongings from the elements. He then referred to letters attached to his handouts from neighbors who are in support of his project. He then said he would like to address concerns voiced by the Board, citing the first being one of fire safety which has already been answered by Assistant Fire Marshal Ellen, and the second being that his carport would preclude the adjacent property owner from building up to his 7 1/2 foot side setback if he desired. He handed out a prepared "legal" statement which indicates that he agrees to remove his structure if the neighbor wanted to build up to his setback, and also guaranteeing that if he should sell his residence, he would also remove the carport since he would be taking it with him. He then addressed what the Board referred to as "the domino effect" stating that he would be willing to add lattice work to the top of his gate which would prevent his structure from being observed from the street, and thus would preclude the domino effect from taking place. He finalized by stating that should this second request be denied, he would request some kind of statement as to why it was denied so he could present the reason to the courts. • Mrs. Meyer thanked Mr. Trojan for his most thorough preparation of this request, adding that he should understand that if a variance is granted, the variance goes ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 3 with the land. She then asked if staff had any comments and Mrs. Kee replied that • she realizes that she deals with the ordinance so much and is so familiar with it that she probably finds it easier to read than others who pick it up for the first time. She then referred to Section 8.7 of the Supplementary District Regulations on page 8-1 "Required Yards: Yards as required in this ordinance are open spaces on the lot or building plot on which a building is situated and which are are open and unobstructed to the sky by any structure except as herein provided." She then referred to Section 8.7.C. Side Yard Required: "A yard located on a lot or building plot extending from the required rear yard to the required front yard having a minimum width measured from the side property line as specified for the district in which the building plot is located." She added that the Building Code defines the carport as a structure, and it therefore is regulated by the zoning ordinance as a structure under both setback requirements and requiring a Building Permit. She then explained that zero lot line construction in a residential district is allowed when a developer brings a site plan for a group of lots being developed as one project; further explaining that if one structure is built on the lot line, the adjacent structure must be a minimum of 15 feet inside the adjacent lot, therefore maintaining the 15 foot building separation. She added that this can only be accomplished and approved when complete site plans of all involved lots are presented together which show the exact location of each building on the lot, and approval is given as a "package" from which there can be no variation. Mrs. Kee then explained to both the Board and to Mr. Trojan that granting a variance to his carport would not preclude his neighbor from building up to his 7 1/2 foot side setback, therefore not only would a variance be granted for his (Mr. Trojan's) side setback, but also a variance would be granted to the required 15 foot building separation. Mr. McGuirk stated then that in principle, if this variance were • granted, there could be a building separation of no more than 9 feet. Mrs. Kee referred to Mr. Trojan's "legal" statement, indicating that she would have to forward that letter to the Legal Department for review before making any comments on it. Mrs. Meyer stated she considers this letter as part of Mr. Trojan's testimony with no legal effect. Mrs. Meyer then went on to point out to the Board that the requirements of this ordinance are minimum requirements and this is explained in Section 19.1 of the ordinance on page 19-1. Mr. McGuirk stated that note F of Table A does not address side setbacks, therefore should not be applied to this case. Mrs. Kee explained that note F had been an amendment for rear and side street setbacks in a previous ordinance and had been retained in this new ordinance. Mr. Evans said that it is his opinion that the applicant has not interpreted the table in the zoning ordinance correctly. Discussion followed between various members of the Board and the applicant regarding when the house was built, who the builder was, why the house on the other side of this one is within 3 feet of this property line, definition of carport, whether or not a carport is a structure, with Mrs. Meyer explaining the Building Official's interpretation of structure. Philip Taetz, 1103 Rio Bravo Court, College Station, was sworn in and stated that he is the owner of the rental residence at 2908 Normand which is across the street from the subject residence, and although he is sympathetic with Mr. Trojan regarding his desire to place all his belongings under shelter, he knows there is not room to legally construct a structure along side of the homes in this neighborhood. He • explained that when he lived in the house he owns there he wanted to do the same thing Mr. Trojan has done, but upon checking with the City, found he could not legally do it, so he was compelled to cover his boat with a tarpaulin cover. He ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 4 pointed out that there are many boats in Southwood Valley, and many of the boat- . owners would like to have their boats under cover. He stated that his concern with a fire hazard in this instance is only marginal, but his real concern is maintaining the integrety of the single family neighborhood; that is, a spacious lot with side setbacks. He went on to explain that if this variance is granted, he is concerned that there will be an avalanche of similar requests when the word gets out that the codes of the city can be ignored if ignorance of the code is claimed and a variance will be granted after the fact. He stated that this type of structure in the setback is in direct conflict with R-1 zoning regtilations, and would set a precedent that he would not like to see established. No one else spoke. Mr. Gilmore asked Mrs. Kee if someone else had expressed a desire for a structure similar to this one and Mrs. Kee replied that she had received a telephone call from an unidentified person who had so indicated. Mrs. Meyer stated that she sees the need for this variance, but she cannot identify a hardship except that Mr. Trojan will not be able to store his belongings in a covered structure. Mr. Evans asked if anything had changed in the area since this Board last denied Mr. Trojan's request for variance. Mrs. Meyer said that the request has been more clearly defined, the applicant has presented a letter from the fire department, and he has presented questions regarding the ordinance. Mr. Evans said he sees no changes other than the letter from the fire department which states the material is not combustible, and if this variance is granted with another variance granted next door resulting in structures 10 feet apart, there will be a problem. • Mr. Gilmore stated that he does not see any change in this situation, that he still has trouble seeing a hardship and believes that setbacks were included in the ordinance for a purpose in a residential area. Mr. McGuirk said he believes 3 things have been mentioned which are not relevant to this request, those being the fire issue, the idea that the structure will be hidden behind the fence and will not be seen from the street and the third being that the structure now exists, adding that he is willing to accept that this structure was built in ignorance and not in malice. He went on to say that there are 2 things which he does believe are relevant; one being that there has been opposition voiced to this variance, and it is the Board's duty to address whether or not the granting of a variance will be "contrary to the public interest", and if opposition is stated, there appears to be good evidence that it is in some form opposed to the public good. He added that in considering whether or not there is a hardship involved, he has a way that he uses to make this judgement, which is to suppose the subject residence could be built on the lot in such a way that a "boatport" could be added which would fall within the setbacks, in which case he would tend to consider the variance favorably, but if he cannot do that, then he has a tendency to come up with the opinion that perhaps there is too much structure on too little lot, and in this instance that seems to be the case, therefore he does not see sufficient grounds for determining there is a hardship. Mr. Ruesink stated that after the Board had considered and denied this same request before, he had visited with several people who had indicated they believed the Board had come to the right conclusion in its denial of the request. Mr. McGuirk repeated that he did not think the intent of this applicant was to do something he shouldn't • without the proper permits. Mr. Gilmore agreed. Mrs. Meyer stated that in addition to finding a hardship, this Board must find a ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 5 special condition. No one offered a special condition. • Mr. Gilmore then made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) 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. Mr. Bvans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Chairman Meyer then explained to the applicant the reasons for the denial of his request and informed him that a copy of the actual motion form would be available upon request on 11-19-86 and that the minutes and all other pertinent information would be available upon request at a later date, and for him to contact the Planning Department for any copies he would like to have. AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6. Consideration of a request for a variance to sign regulations (Table II Ord. 1638) to allow location of a sign in the required setback at the existing building at 1500 University Drive. Applicant is Dean Coffer/McCo-Ad. Mrs. Kee explained that the applicant is Dean Coffer of McCo-Ad Sign Company and the owner of the building is 1500 Joint Venture; that the request is a variance to the sign regulations to allow the applicant/owner to place a low profile sign closer than the required 10 feet from the right-of-way line. She further explained the applicable ordinance section as being Table II which provides for a low profile sign limited to 60 square feet in area and 4 feet in height to be placed no closer than 10 • feet to the right-of-way line, and referred to a site plan which shows the location of the right-of-way as being where the wall of this project is located, with the building 22 feet behind the wall, as well as the existing island of the proposed location of the sign. She also pointed out that University Drive has approximately 200 feet of right-of-way at this location, the line of which at this location is 65 feet behind the pavement edge, but at a location just beyond this, the right-of-way line is 72 feet from the pavement edge. She offered an alternative to this proposal as being to place signage on this building, but pointed out the trees in the ayes might obscure vision for westbound traffic. She finalized by stating that 21 property owners within 200 feet of this property had been sent notification of this request, and she had received only 1 inquiry about the request and no objections. She also pointed out the Fire Marshal and Building Official had been notified of this request but neither had responded. The applicant, Dean Coffer of 3704 Stilmeadow in Bryan came forward, was sworn in and explained that this building has recently been bought by this group of investors who are attempting to upgrade the building, and because of the 200 foot right-of-way of University Drive, the location of the wall on the right-of-way line, the highway department will not allow a sign which would hang over the R.O.W., and the numerous large trees in the area which would obscure any sign in another location, he has determined this location is the only one remaining which would give good visibility and identification for the tenants. He again referred to the number of trees in the area, explaining that the subdivision adjacent to this building is completely obscured by the trees. Then he asked how many of the Board members actually know where the building is located. Some knew, and some did not, and he commented that is exactly the problem, that the building itself is hard to see and the small sign on • the building only indicates "1500 University Drive", but does not say what businesses are housed in the building. He described the sign, finalizing by stating that the sign would not detract from the trees or surrounding area but would simply provide ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 6 information for customers to help them locate the offices in the building. • Mr. McGuirk inquired about the fate of the existing trees in the island. Oran Beal, 3009 Rustling Oaks, Bryan came forward, was sworn in and identified himself as one of the owners of the building who also had his insurance company located in it. He identified other tenants whose names would be included on the sign. He stated that he believes the smaller tree in the island is already dead, and that he thinks the sign can be placed in front of the other trees. Mr. McGuirk asked if the sign could be backed up in the island another 3 feet and Mr. Beal said the building is already behind the setback of the wall, and any further backing up of the sign would make it vulnerable to traffic and would certainly necessitate the removal additional trees. Mr. Evans asked staff if the sign could be located on top of the fence and Mrs. Kee stated since the fence is on the right-of-way line, it would not only encroach the setback, but exceed the maximum allowable height as well. Mr. Beal pointed out that the existing trees overlap the fence and would probably obstruct view of the sign if it were placed on the fence. He went on to explain that the group of investors who have purchased the building are trying to upgrade the building by adding a watering system for the landscaping as well as other things, and the problem is that the tenants inside this building have no way to identify themselves. Mr. McGuirk stated there seems to be some vague similarity to this request and one requested by the owners of French Arbor, which is the building next door, and went on to explain the similarities. Mrs. Meyer stated that in this case, the special condition is location of the existing island which would preclude location of a sign in it without a variance. Mr. McGuirk said that was his question - was this the hardship or is this similar enough to the French Arbor request to treat in the same • matter. Mr. Evans pointed out that the new owners of this building did not design the existing wall, so this is the case of an inherited hardship. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion 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 special conditions not generally found within the City: (1)The existence of an inherited hardship of a poorly placed brick fence precludes applying precedent of the French Arbor (Square) decision; (2)The placement of a legal sign requires destruction of mature trees and creates a potential traffic hazard, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being the inability to effectively identify a professional building and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served. Motion was seconded by Evans. Mr. McGuirk stated that although he made the motion, he is vaguely troubled with the number of sign requests this Board is receiving along University Drive, but added that this particular request is a special one. Votes were cast and the motion to approve this request carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITBM N0. 7. Consideration of a request for a variance to sign regulations (Table I Ord. 1638) to allow relocation of an existing sign at the business located at 524 University Drive B. Applicant is David F. Dean; owner is Handy Woodard. Mrs. Kee explained that the applicant for this request is David Dean who is a tenant in a lease space owned by Randy Woodard, and the request is to relocate a non- conforming sign on the property from its present location to the northwest corner, • which represents a request for a variance to height regulations for signs as specified in Section 12 Table I of Ordinance 1638. She explained that Mr. Dean is proposing a setback of 15 feet for a sign which is 24 feet in height, adding that the ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 7 required setback would be 50 feet for a sign of this height and a 15 ft. setback • would allow a sign a maximum of 8 feet tall. She listed as alternatives to leave the sign as is, to construct a new sign which meets current regulations or to use a low profile sign up to 60 square feet in area, 4 feet high and placed only 10 feet behind the right-of-way. She pointed out that a variance was granted in 1985 to the height of this sign with the condition that only a 12 square foot addition could be made to this sign, adding that part of the special conditions found for granting that variance was the location of trees to the east of this property and that bringing the sign into conformity would create a greater public nuisance (a traffic hazard) than existed. Mr. Gilmore asked if the subject sign is non-conforming now, and was non-conforming at the time of the variance due to the fact that it was built before the current ordinance, and Mrs. Kee replied that the previous request had to be handled as a variance because the ordinance at that time had no provisions for adding to an already non-conforming sign. She stated that now conditions are changing since Mr. Dean wants to relocate this existing sign, so the Legal Department advised her to handle this as a completely new variance request. Applicant David Dean, 2206 Barak Lane in Bryan was sworn in and passed around photos of the site which exemplified the difficulty in seeing the sign when travelling from east to west if the required setback were maintained. He explained that the trees in the Lions Club park adjacent to this property preclude observation of the sign from the street when going east to west. Mr. Evans asked him why he wants to move the same sign from its existing location to a location due west and Mr. Dean said the owners were leasing a part of the building to a tenant with the provision that the sign will be moved. He added that the sign has been in its existing location for • about 15 years. Mr. McGuirk asked what the new tenant will do for signage and Mr. Dean replied his plans are to attach a sign to the building. Mr. Gilmore asked about the possibility of reducing the sign in height so it can be seen under the trees and fit under the planned attached sign. Mr. Dean replied that the top of this sign is 24 feet from the ground and he would rather not lower the sign, as the grade elevation of University Drive is 3 to 3 1/2 ft. from this grade elevation. Mrs. Kee stated the buildings are at the high point of University. At this point Mrs. Kee explained how a low profile sign could be used. Mr. McGuirk stated then that apparently a low profile sign could be placed at the approximate proposed location. Mr. Dean stated he does not want to change his present sign as it is sturdy and well maintained and his customers are familiar with it. Owner of the property, Dorothy Woodard of 3515 Spring Lane in Bryan was sworn in, stated the current sign is approximately 15 years old, and she is desirous of having it moved to accommodate a potential tenant of the building. She went on to explain that she owns land behind this which is also zoned commercial, and she plans soon to develop that land, at which time she would erect a sign which will meet zoning ordinance requirements. She finalized by stating that leasing her building is contingent upon moving the sign. Mr. Dean then stated the part of the sign which indicates "groceries" will be removed from the existing sign when it is moved. Mr. Evans asked what Mr. Dean's opposition would be to moving the sign somewhat further back from the right-of-way but not the entire 50 feet back which would be required to make it conforming. Mr. Dean stated he might be willing to move it back some, but not the entire 50 feet. Mr. Ruesink • asked how tall a sign would be allowed if he moved it back 24 feet and Mrs. Kee replied it could be 14 feet tall. Mr. Gilmore stated he still has a problem with moving a non-conforming sign which will continue to be non-conforming. Mr. McGuirk ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 8 stated the sign should be considered to be a legal sign as it already received a variance. Mrs. Kee replied that the Legal Department says the variance was granted for a specific reason, and is therefore legal, but not legal to the point of allowing it to be moved to another location, and that is why this variance is being requested. Mr. Gilmore stated that he believes if a person is changing a "legal" non-conforming sign, he should be required to make it a conforming sign. Mr. McGuirk quoted part #2 of the previous motion (ZBA minutes of 6-18-85 meeting) "bringing the sign into conformity would create a greater public nuisance than exists", adding he does not now see that the same conditions would apply to moving the sign. Mr. Gilmore stated that the variance had nothing to do with the height of the sign. Mr. McGuirk stated there had been several options, one of which would have been to move the sign and make it a huge billboard-type sign, and this would have been less obtrusive than that type of sigh. He went on to point out that the changed conditions are that the request is to move the sign, so the applicant has options to place it in a spot which will be much more visible or it could be replaced, as it has been indicated will be done in the near future, with a conforming sign. Mrs. Meyer stated the changed condition for the use of the building as a condition for utilizing this property could be both the condition and the hardship since it is a requirement placed on this tenant by another person in order to fully utilize the property. Mr. Dean stated moving the sign would not have a negative impact on the city, whereas a lighted sign 20 feet back might have a negative impact and even might impede traffic. Mr. Evans stated he had hoped the sign would be lowered to be conforming, therefore legal and this Board would not have to grant a variance. Mr. Gilmore stated that this Board is having a problem with granting a variance to a sign of this height. Mr. Dean stated that members should look at the proportions of the sign. Mr. Evans said the key seems to be the hardship being that to rent the store the sign • must be moved, but he does not see enough of a hardship to require a variance of the magnitude being requested. Mrs. Meyer stated the special conditions could be that the sign was erected before the current ordinance, the variance was also granted before the current ordinance, and the hardship offered is not solely financial as Mr. Dean is not moving this sign of his own volition. Mr. Evans stated that another tenant is requiring him to do it. Mr. Gilmore stated he has no problem with that, but he disagrees with moving a non- conforming sign and leaving it non-conforming. Mrs. Meyer stated that a hardship might be that the visibility of this sign is obscured by trees not on this property. Mr. Gilmore disagreed. Mr. McGuirk stated the proximity of the sign as it currently stands to the Lions park made visibility an issue, but moving the sign eliminates that factor. Mr. Dean stated that moving it back the required 50 feet would place it behind the building (for visibility while driving down University Drive). Mr. McGuirk and Mr. Gilmore both stated they do not see that as a hardship. Mr. Ruesink stated an alternative would be for Mr. Dean to start from scratch with a new sign. Mrs. Meyer agreed, but added that in the past where something existed that is non- conforming and special conditions were found, a variance has been granted, and she does find special conditions as well as a hardship in this case. Mr. McGuirk and Mr. Gilmore indicated they do not. Mrs. Woodard spoke from the audience and stated that this is a very expensive sign and she wondered if it was lowered, could it be placed closer to the street. She added that Mr. Dean would be willing to do that if the Board would tell them what to do. Mr. McGuirk stated that they should be able to find an elevation within the regulations which would be satisfactory. Mr. Dean asked if he could have the same • height if he would agree to move the sign 30 feet back. Mrs. Kee explained that if Mr. Dean were to do this, he would still need a variance. ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 9 Mr. McGuirk made a motion to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms • of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of special conditions not generally found within the City: (a)There are at least three viable options: (1)Move sign back 50 feet from front property line; (2)Move sign back some distance and lower sign; (3)Replace sign with low profile sign, and (b)The conditions which existed considering the variance granted on this sign on 6-18-85 do not exist for the sign at the new location, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. Motion was seconded by Gilmore. Mr. Dean asked if a setback could be negotiated. Mrs. Meyer stated at this point a motion is on the floor and only the motion can be discussed. Votes were cast with the following results: McGuirk and Gilmore for the motion to deny; Meyer, Evans and Ruesink against the denial. Mr. Evans then made a motion 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: of an existing sign that has been approved by a prior variance by this Board, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being a hardship of an existing sign built prior to the city sign ordinance and the request of a potential tenant to move the sign to allow visual access to their business and their sign which will be placed on the building, 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: that the height of the sign be no higher than 21 feet and the sign be 30 feet from the curb. Motion seconded by Meyer. Mr. McGuirk asked for a re-reading of the first part of the motion and Mr. Evans then read the motion as follows: "...not generally found within the City because of a approval of a previous variance on this sign, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship..." Mr. McGuirk proposed an amendment to that motion, and then moved to strike the words dealing with the previous variance; Mr. Gilmore seconded this motion to amend the original motion for purposes of discussion, and then stated that the sign was not authorized to be there, authorization was given for a grocery sign to be added to the bottom, but the Board has never authorized a variance for the sign to be there; it's a non-conforming sign. Mr. McGuirk stated that his basic reason for proposing an amendment is that he believes the previous variance is irrelevant, and that this variance can be decided on its own merits. Mr. Evans said that it goes back to his argument that when you approved the variance to the sign, did it not approve the sign. Mr. McGuirk stated he could not answer that and his motion dealt with the fact that he does not feel that the conditions which existed when that previous variance came up exist any longer. He read from the motion made in 1985 and stated that in his opinion the limitations placed indicate the variance was given for just that additional sign. Mrs. Kee stated that it is her opinion that the variance addressed that sign as proposed at that location, and not that the sign could ever be moved. Mrs. Meyer stated that by removing the grocery part of the sign, the applicant is removing the variance, and it is still a non-conforming sign, and she would agree • that the previous variance would not be pertinent to this motion. Mr. Evans then agreed, but asked when the variance was approved did it approve the ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 10 sign with an addition to it not to exceed something, or did it only approve the • attachment. Mr. McGuirk stated that his concern with the item is that it gives the implication that a variance gives carte blanche to that sign. Mr. Evans then read the motion as amended: "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 and special conditions not generally found within the City and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being of an existing sign built prior to the city sign ordinance and that the request of a potential tenant to move the sign to allow visual access to their business and their sign which will be placed on the building, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance whall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: that the height of the sign be no higher than 21 feet and sign be 30 feet from the curb." Mr. McGuirk stated he believed Mr. Evans had 2 items there under special conditions. Mr. Evans then moved a hardship of "an existing sign built prior to the city sign ordinance" to become a special condition. Votes were case on the amendment to strike the words regarding the previous variance, and the motion carried 4-1 (Ruesink). Mr. Evans then moved to restate the unique special conditions and hardship to read: "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: of an existing sign • built prior to the city sign ordinance, and because a strict enforcement of the Mr. McGuirk seconded this motion with new wording. Votes in favor of the new wording were cast and passed 5-0. Mrs. Meyer asked why the limitations were added and Mr. Evans stated that this variance would represent a compromise - that the applicant will have to give on the height of his sign, and the Board will be giving on the required setback. Mr. McGuirk asked why Mr. Evans feels this variance is necessary and Mr. Evans explained that by placing the sign as required (50 foot setback) it would not be visible because of the building, and by lowering the sign, the lower part of the sign might be low enough to be dangerous to traffic and pedestrians. provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being that the request of a potential tenant to move the sign to allow visual access to their business and their sign which will be placed on the building 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: that the height of the sign be no higher than 21 feet and the sign be 30 feet from the curb. Mr. Gilmore said he is still opposed to moving a sign which does not comply but he can look favorably upon a compromise, since the owners plan to change the sign in the near future to one which will comply. Mr. Ruesink stated that it would be better if it were 35 feet back and Mr. Evans said that based on the testimony of the applicant, a 30 foot setback would be the maximum distance back from which it could be seen. Votes were cast on the amended motion and the motion as amended carried unanimously (5-0). • ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 11 AGENDA ITEM N0. 8. Other business. • Mr. Gilmore stated he wanted to discuss item #7 of the Council minutes, as he found them very disturbing, adding that the discussion did not follow the path he anticipated, and what is reflected on page 3 of those minutes does not reflect the reasons he thought this Board went to the Council at all. He wondered if the information was presented in enough detail for the Council to understand what was being asked. He went on to say that he agrees with Councilman Tongco's statement regarding the fact that the lessor would probably consider the sign regulations before leasing a building, and then addressed Mayor Ringer's statements on page 4 regarding the ZBA being the only body which has the authority to consider special conditions to grant variations from the zoning requirements, adding that he knows that, but he believes Council lost sight of what was being asked. Mr. McGuirk said that Mr. Gilmore should not be too hasty to be upset, as he had explained early in the meeting that this Board is having difficulty in considering the subject sign an exempt sign because more than likely it would be visible from the street, but also pointed out that seemed to be the direction the Board would head. He also informed them at the beginning of the meeting that this Board did not want to grant a variance which would establish precedent, afterwhich somehow a discussion began regarding the nature of excluded signs which did not fit the ordinance, and the impression seemed to be that this Board does not understand that it has the authority to grant a variance. It appeared that it was forgotten that he (Mr. McGuirk) had stated at the very beginning of the meeting that a variance would not be the appropriate action because it would be "policy making". Mr. Gilmore stated that his particular concern at this point is that he does not want • Council to tell him how to vote or how to do his job on this Board. Mr. Evans asked Mrs. Meyer stated she had 2 things to say about this - one being that the Council has now proposed to hold a joint meeting to hash this out, and the other thing was that she got to that workshop late by accident, but after the meeting in conversation she was told that this Board seems to be hung up on hardships and if we can find special provisions we can grant variances. Mr. Gilmore stated he agrees but there is no way the Council can write a definition of hardship. Mr. McGuirk stated the enabling act says "hardship". Mrs. Meyer clarified by stating that the definitions of hardship are not in the enabling act, but rather in case law and then cited one example. if the purpose for going to Council was to find the current Council's feeling of the sign ordinance. Mr. McGuirk agreed, adding that he believed Council had 2 options - one to consider modifying the code and the other was (for the Board) to take the zoning code as it is written and make a decision. He felt now like the Council basically hedged by indicating that this Board should take the zoning code and make its decision, but "we would like to see you grant a variance". Mr. McGuirk added that he was astonished that the Council did not want to consider an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Evans then read from the zoning ordinance as to the "spirit of the ordinance" (page 15-1), adding that what this Board was asking the Council was what is the "spirit of the ordinance". Mr. McGuirk stated "hardship" was never mentioned at the workshop meeting. Mr. Gilmore stated that at this point he is aggravated because the Council believes • it should direct this body how to vote. Mr. McGuirk said he thinks there are 2 basic issues - this particular variance and then the Council's wish to sit down with this Board. He thinks it was Council's intention to meet with all the various boards of ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 12 the City, and because of this question, Council thought this might be a good time to • meet with the Board. Mrs. Kee pointed out that the minutes this Board has received are merely a draft, and she suggested that each Board member take the time to listen to the actual tape of the meeting for clarification. Mr. McGuirk said that he has the feeling that all parties at the workshop got sidetracked, and that the Council actually decided they did not want to amend the ordinance and that this Board could deal with this issue with a variance. Mr. Gilmore said that this Board cannot simply grant a variance, and if that were the case, there would not be a need for a Zoning Board of Adjustment, further that variances must only be granted by following the guidelines set down by law. Mrs. Meyer stated that her point is that the Zoning Board of Adjustment has the authority and can interpret the ordinance, and as so, should not ask Council how to act. • Mrs. Kee stated that she believes the Board has the authority to interpret the ordinance, and perhaps the Council will give guidance as to whether the interpretation should be liberal or exact and narrow. Mr. Evans changed the subject and stated that he is troubled by the threat of legal action mentioned by one applicant at this meeting. Mr. McGuirk stated that he does not think this statement was made as a threat. AG$NDA ITBM N0. 9. Adjourn. Mr. Evans made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: Chairm n, Dor t®~ eyer ATTEST: ---------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes 11-18-86 Page 13 November 18, 1986 • TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment Zoning Department of College Station FROM: Michael Trojan (homeowner) 2913 Normand Drive College Station, Texas 77840 On September 2, 1986, the Zoning Department of College Station and the Zoning Board of Adjustment expressed several legitimate concerns pertinent to the close proximity of my carport to the property line. These concerns included the following: 1) structure does not allow fire department access and may prevent fire safety; 2) the structure prevents the owner of the adjacent property (2915 Normand Drive) to build additions up to his 7.5' side setback line. Currently, the spacing between my carport and the adjacent house is as much as 17.3'; however, should a structure be constructed on the adjacent property, the spacing would be reduced to as little as 8'; 3) the very top of the structure can be seen from the street, and other property owners may desire • building a similar structure. Following an inspection of the carport by the College Station Fire Department, it was determined and confirmed that the structure is not combustable and that its presence does not interfere with fire department access. Nevertheless, I do recognize concerns. Therefore, I propose carport be granted, it would conditions to which I agree: the Zoning Department's other that should a variance for my be granted under the following 1) Should the owner of the adjacent property (2915 Normand Drive) desire to add a structure to his 7.5' setback line, and should these plans materialize, I will take down the carport immediately. Furthermore, upon future sale of my property (house), I will take down the carport. 2) While the carport remains standing, a 1' addition of lattice board to the top of the gate will obstruct the carport from view from the street. This letter will serve as a legal agreement to which I agree. Michael Trojan ~~~. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR IIBQA?IYR MOTIONS Variances: Fron Section lb Ordinance 1638 I Wove to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) __ ~__nininun setback (Table A) _______parking requirements (Section 9) 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. • Motion Wade b Seconded by =_~ Voting resul Chair signature ____ -~ ~~2' -------- Date _~/f~~~~~ • i ~,:- ~~ 'CONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NB(iATIVB MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance 1638 • • I move to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of a-Ai-q-~re~,special conditions not generally found within the City: ,~ '. ~. , ?~ Alf' -_- -- -------- ---------------------------------- ------ 3 ---------- ---- - --- ----------------------- a d because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the 0 dinance would not result in substantial hardship to this pplicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance hall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. Motion made by: ~!I(~.V~~.~'~ Motion seconded by: /~ ----------~-- ~.~!e~----------------- ,, Voting results: ^' -~ l ----------------=------------------ Chair signature ---------'-------------- Date lr J T't / F <__0~.~~xl~!' ~ `''~1 c' -~ ' X ?S'7`~J/ C ~-N.11'AF~WF ~~ ~ ~1~e~/~ tJ e~ C/~?N'.T~1> • 'CONING GUARD OF AUJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 1638 I move to auttior•ize 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 special conditions not generally found within the City: _ i7_ i !~iF__ ~X>ST7~./ eE - -~'~.- :~~.'!~ _~%~/C~2~~~ i j~9„eDS c~~ !~- 1 c/~~ T~i~eC= ~~cLu~F,r' ~Ly~~~ ---------- ------------------------------ ---------------------- _~~ Tom'' ~~.9~c'~M,~'~ mil" ~ ------- --- ~• LPL sl~.~ ,eF~~,2~,I' -- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant • being: zG~ - . and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served y, subject to the following limitatiorr~g-;--~. -------------------- Motion made b _ ___ --M('~''~j)/~~ - ------------ Motion seconded by: ___ - ----------------- Voting results: "--~- ------------------- Cheri --~~,~~_----------- ~~~f1 r si ature --- --- 1- -- date ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMfiNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 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: ~ ~ , ~' - --~--~-~ r ~ ~_~r~f'~~..~.~~~--~----------------------------- ~ --- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: ~,/ ~ ` _ / ---- --~'~~°1. _ 'T~_ G~ -~(O vc,/ _~ l S cJ a.. ~ - GL ~ G eS_ _ S_ .T~7 and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance sha21 be preserved and the general interests of the ~'`'' ~(Gr"" served, subject to the followin limitationsublic and applicant _. ----~--~_--=- ~• .fir __~?~__ ..lam ~~ ~~ `C'_. - G~r~-c---------------- -----y--- - ----- -_- ------------- Motion cede by: __ '~'._1 ~-_~_,, ~~,..,~_ Motion seconded by• ----- - -- ---- Voting res lts: ------------------ --- - - -- --- -- - ---1~~~~,~~6 Ch r signs re ------- - date ~~. ~ - z sue, ~~~ y~,~~~ - ~~ .~ ALISTER-RAND nvc. Developers /Brokers November 3, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This letter will serve as notice of my full support regarding a sign to be placed on the building occupied by Ruth Cain who owns and operates 'The Stitchery' located in the Creekside Retail Center. Mrs. Cain and I have discussed her need for an additional exterior sign and understanding the flexibility that is needed in today's market, we both feel this would be a benefit to her business and could be aesthetically compatable with the shopping center. • We are requesting a variance from the restrictions placed on Mrs. Cain regarding a vertical perpendicular sign attached to the building. If further information is needed you may contact me at 260-9621 at Alister- and, Inc. Si a y, Mack Randolph Presi nt MR : jm r. • V 809 East University Dr. • Suite 200 • P.O. Box 10250 • College Station. Texas 77840 • - ZONING BOARD OF ADJIJSTMBNT FORMAT FOR POSI?IYB MOTION Veriance_s from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to suthot'i~ee a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) ________lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) ________siga regulations (Section 12) _ / ___mini,us setback (Table A) ________parking requireeents (Section 9) from the terms oR-this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, ,due to the following special conditions: ,- "'~p--{------~--~~~,~~~--~--------------------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~/ r^/' ,. (rGl A'.~fi .. ~,C~fj ~ ~"'~ ~ /a~~~tl7{h -' r~' r ,~~,?.f'.~s' P--- ~~~~il' /'// ~~'f/•'~ !!` ~ -'C%lX,; ~ ~F P' ~,- ll such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, Motion made by _~"~_ ~%~~,~ ~~,~ Date ~~f4~i"~-" ---=~t-------------------- •Seconded by __ ~C~_~~~~;-------------------- Voting Results - ! Chair sign ' 4 November 3, 1986 A This sketch is not precisely to scale, but is presented to show that Creekside Shopping Center sits in a bowl-shaped area that is below the level of University Drive. Note that the level of University Drive coincides approximately with the level of the second floor of the, building occupied by The Stitchery. At least once a day we answer a phone call asking, "Where can I find Tha Stitchery?" We have to say turn into Creekside by K-Bob's and keep going until you see the sign. It is only visible when one gets to the front of the store. Having a vertical sign, perpendicular to the building would be extremely helpful. L U • ~~~ w_ ~~ z~ -~., • ~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIYB 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 p is i rest, a to the following special conditions: Thy- ~I A ------------- ----- -------------------- -- --------- ---- ---------- ~~ ,~ ~; ~ - and ecause a s riot enforcement of ttfe provisions of the '°ordina ce. would result in unnecessar hardshi JQC~~~Z~ Y p to this applicant being: ------~ ----- ~~°-------- --~~ -- -- -~'~'-a- ---- - ` - - _ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: l Motion made b '"~~ _ Date y -------------------- r -------- -------------- - .Seconded by __ ^ v _______________ __________ Voting Results -- ------ Chair signature _/ 4