Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/04/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZONING BARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • DATE August 4, 1987 NAME ADDRESS 1. ~ e S , 2 . ~ 70~ ~ ~ S'i ~ 7~zs j 3. 4. i S. ~, 6. 7. 8. ~ 9 • ,I 10. • Il. 12. ~ ' i3. 14. 15. 16. 17 i' 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. ?3. • 24. 25. MINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment August 4, 1987 7:00 P.M. MBMBBRS PRBSBNT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Thompson, Gentry, Gilmore and Evans (all regular members present) Also Council Liaison Gardner MBMBBRS ABSENT: Alternate members Henry & Julien STAFF PRBSBNT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and li'itations of Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of ainutes - meeting of July 21, 1987. Mr. Ruesink directed staff to change the last sentence of the second paragraph under Agenda Item #6 from "...there seems to be no action the City can take to allow that • carport.", to "...there seems to be no action the ZBA can take to allow that carport." He explained that he was in no position to make a statement of that nature about the City. With that change Mr. Gilmore made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Evans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM NO. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to front setback requireaents (Section 7 Table A Ordinance No. 1638) to cover an existing encroachaent by the garage at the residence at 8601 Aber Hill Court. Applicant is Bobby D. Copenhaver etux Lyrva. Mrs. Kee explained the request as being for a variance to the front setback to cover an encroachment of an existing garage to facilitate the sale of this residence. She informed the Board that an independent survey of the property during negotiations for the sale turned up the encroachment which is shown as approximately 9 inches on the application submitted by the owners. She pointed out a special condition of this particular lot as being the curve of the front property line, the orientation of the garage and the location of the driveway. She continued her report by informing the Board that under most cases of this nature when a house has existed and apparently had all the required inspections at the time of construction, and there was no • evidence that there was any intent to violate the ordinance, a Lender's Letter is issued by staff which states that the City will not take any action against the property and considers that there are no encroachments as there were none found during the initial inspections when the house was built. She stated that a Lender's Letter was issued regarding the existing encroachment of this residence on June 16, • 1987, but apparently it did not satisfy the conditions of the buyer necessary to complete the transaction, so this variance is being considered as requested by the owner of the home. Mrs. Kee concluded her report by informing the Board that there has been no previous action on this property, that 22 area property owners had been notified of this request, that one person had responded but after hearing details had indicated he had no problem with the request, and then she handed out photos of the subject garage/residence. Mr. Gentry asked Mrs. Kee what the records indicate concerning the issuance of the Building Permit and she replied that she could not find records of all inspections having been made since the records from 1979 are apparently incomplete, but described this type of encroachment (of part of a structure placed on a lot with a curving property line} as not uncommon due to the difficulty of making an accurate measurement along a curve to the forms set for the foundation of the structure. Mary Lind Bryan, 1813 Chadwick came forward, was sworn in and identified herself as the real estate agent for the owners. She explained that the surveyor had never furnished the exact amount of the encroachment, but as nearly as she can ascertain, it is approximately 9 inches. She explained the difficulties the owner has encountered in trying to sell this property, and then praised and thanked Mrs. Kee for all of her help in the past prior to this particular case, as well as for her assistance in solving this problem. She stated that she has received complete cooperation in her dealings with Mrs. Kee and her staff and wanted to voice her • appreciation publicly. Mr. Ruesink clarified what is being considered at this meeting is a variance to cover an existing encroachment, and nothing more; that is, if this variance is granted, it does not give permission to make any additional encroachments. Mrs. Bryan stated that she understands that, and that as far as she knows, nothing additional is planned or anticipated to take place on this property. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions: This property is a corner lot with a large radius curve crossing the front of the property, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: An inability to sell the property which has existed without modification since 1979, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. b: Consideration of a request for variance to the sign regulations (Section 12.3.C ~ Table II Ordinance No. 1638) to a11oW sore than one apartment identification sign at the existing complex at 811 Harvey Road. Applicant is Sundance Apartaents. Mrs. Kee located the Sundance apartments on an aerial photo, identified area zoning and uses, and explained that the current ordinance allows each complex with at least 24 dwelling units to have one apartment identification sign, either freestanding or • detached. She described the property as having frontage on both Harvey Road and on University Oaks, and as being bordered on the sides by a City park to the west and a shopping center to the east. ZBAMinutes 8-4-87 Page 2 Mrs. Kee reported that this complex has two attached signs which reflect the words "Sundance", and explained these signs were "grandfathered in" at the time the current • ordinance was adopted. She pointed out the problem arose when a sign permit was issued for a freestanding sign on this property with the condition of removal of all other identification signage. She observed that the wall sign on Harvey Road was gone and assumed that it was done to comply with the conditions stated on the Building Permit, but sometime later the wall sign was reattached to the building, and she notified the owners of the violation. Mrs. Kee enumerated alternatives to a variance as being to remove the freestanding sign and keep the two attached signs, or to remove the wall signs and have only the one freestanding sign. Charles Laningham, 12700 Park Central Drive, Dallas, Texas, came forward, was sworn in and identified himself as a general partner in the ownership of the subject complex. He explained that there apparently had been some type of misunderstanding at the time the Building Permit was issued for the freestanding sign, and that he was never informed that there were any conditions attached to that permit. He added that the transaction was handled by a former employee who is no longer available to explain the situation. He described the size of the complex and the location which is obscured by the park to one side and the shopping center to the other. He stated that this complex should be allowed more than one means of identification since it has frontage on two very busy streets and additional identification is necessary not only for visitors, but for emergency vehicles as well. Mr. Evans asked if the addition of an address and/or a telephone number could be made to the existing wall signs without a variance. Mrs. Kee read the definition of an • apartment identification sign and stated there may be a way to allow placing the address on the building by the existing script without the necessity of a variance. Mr. Evans said that if a street address were allowed on the building, it would be visible to all, and the freestanding sign which the applicant states is often blocked by cars, would not be necessary. Mr. Laningham stated the freestanding sign is already in place and is consistent with other signs in the area, and he would rather not incur the additional expense of placing the street address on the buildings. Mr. Gilmore stated that the permit for the freestanding sign was issued with the condition that the wall signs come down, and there was no compliance with this condition. If other complexes have the same type of sighs, apparently they are not in violation of the ordinance, but pointed out that this particular complex is in violation of that ordinance. The applicant stated he had no comment except that he does not know how this has happened, since he has his office in Dallas, and the employee who handled this action is no longer an employee. Discussion followed covering how identification of the complex could be made on University Oaks, whether or not granting this request would set a precedent for other complexes in the City, and what action would best serve both the City and the applicant. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Laningham what kind of compromise would work for him, adding that this Board is not inclined to go overboard with granting variances, but is more than willing to listen to reasonable compromises. Mr. Laningham said he would prefer to keep both wall signs and the freestanding sign, but if he had to make some other • type of choice, he would probably want to keep the wall sign on University Oaks and the freestanding sign on Harvey Road. ZBAMinutes 8-4-87 Page 3 Mr. Gentry asked Mrs. Kee if a freestanding sign on this property could be 10 feet in height and Mrs. Kee replied that if it was the only sign on the property, it could be • 10 feet in height, but if a variance is granted, it would be up to the Board. Mr. Ruesink stated that if the freestanding sign is left, the variance would be for the attached sign. Mrs. Kee replied that the applicant has 3 signs now, and ordinance allows only one sign, so it is up to the Board to make the decision. Mr. Ruesink said that he does not see a problem here since the attached signs are not eyesores, and the configuration of the property seems to warrant the need for more than one sign. Mr. Gentry asked if the freestanding sign would be left at the existing height if the variance is granted and the applicant replied that it would. Mr. Evans pointed out the height of that freestanding sign has been listed as one of the hardships on the application. He continued by stating that he still has a problem understanding just how the three signs came about. Mr. Gentry said that was probably due to the problems involved in having out-of-town owners, and additionally, if the inclination of the Board is to deny this request, he would be inclined to make a motion to allow a sign on the front of the property and also on the rear, leaving the applicant a choice of what sign he keeps. Mr. Evans said he would prefer to deny this request, and direct staff to go to the Council for an opinion regarding signage for apartment complexes with multiple exposures. He added that before an ordinance change, he understands that more than one request should be received. Mr. Gentry stated that he agrees that changes should be made to ordinances if they are not workable, but he also has no problem with granting variances to ordinances if a justifiable occasion arises. Mr. Gilmore said that apparently the 2 attached signs have not been a problem for years, and only have • become one now with the addition of a third sign. He added that he has a problem with having 2 signs in the front, but he does believe this complex should have identification on both streets. Mr. Gentry addressed the applicant and reported that the Board seems to be inclined not to allow 2 signs on Harvey Road, then asked what the applicant would rather have on Harvey Road, the 10 foot unlighted freestanding sign or the existing wall sign with street or telephone numbers added. The applicant said he would like to see a motion made which would allow him to have one sign in the front, and one in the back, and to allow him time to decide what he would prefer. Mr. Gentry said then that another option would be to table this item until the next meeting to give him (the applicant) time to seriously consider this matter. Mr. Laningham replied that he would prefer the Board to table this item until the next meeting. Mr. Evans made a motion to table consideration of this request until the next meeting (8-18-87). Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM NO. 6: Consideration of a request to the parking requireaents for the operation of a nightclub at 413 South Texas Avenue (foraerly Pizza Inn). Applicant is Joe Carney. Mrs. Kee announced that this request has been withdrawn by the applicant. AGBNDA ITBM•N0. 7: Discussion of Fuel Price Signs. The Board declined to have this discussion during this meeting, and directed staff to • include it on the agenda for the next meeting. ZBAMinutes 8-4-87 Page 4 AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Other business. • Mr. fivans asked Council Liaison Gardner to discuss signage of apartment/condo complexes which have multiple exposures with the Council, explaining that he is of the opinion that additional input is needed. Mr. Gardner agreed to introduce the subject to the Council for discussion. There was no other business. AQBNDA ITBM N0. 9: Adjourn. Mr. Gentry made a motion to adjourn. Mr. fivans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVBD: ATTBST: --bey"',---- -------------- City Secr a y, Dian Jones • ~ ~ C airman, D vid Ruesink ZBAMinutes 8-4-87 page 5 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) ___~___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: 1~' ~ ~ ~~ ~-(1 S ~ G.. nI u ~', P. ~' A14 d, rr t,, o ~ ~Y'd'~x t. ,!`~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: .~-_~__ ~~1`3 +~~__w Lr~ll~-:~Lt~!~' _~~~1~2`-',r`~,~;_7'~-~,s~~'-- ~~`!~=`=s=~-- ~~ ~7 ~' and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ------------ - ---------------------------------- ~/ ~ ar Q Motion made by ___-~--t~-~" ~ _________ ____~Date _ p `r ~'~'~"~ _'__ Seconded by _~d~, X~ dw1,~OS v~ __________ Voting Results ,~ ~J ~a ~ Chair signature _ _ ~_ _~___~''~ ________________ ZONING Bt7ARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE August 18, 1987 NAME ADDRESS I . ~ ~ ~ 'r7~ ~ ` C 1~ IDa! -~-~ ~` 2 . r't~ Irl, / d .Sw~ ~ ~ I °~'L 4. 5. 6. 7• 8. 9. '{ 10. 11. ~. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 'I 17. 18. 19. ;I i~ 20. i I 21. ' i 22. 23• . 24. 25.