Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment March 1, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Thompson, Gentry, Gilmore and Henry MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Julien & Baker; also Council Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AaBNDA ITBM N0. l: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AaBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of sinutes - seating of February 16, 1988. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0). • AaBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AaBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to sign regulations at the existing coaaercial developaent at 601 University Drive. Applicant is Phil Trapani; Owner is Jerry Skibell. Mrs. Kee identified the subject development as the building at 601 University drive which is the location of 31 Treats (Baskin-Robbins), Lil' Caesars and Subway Sandwich Shop (all food businesses). She explained that this property is located on the eastern edge of the Commercial Northgate zoning district, thus is prohibited by the zoning regulations of that district from erecting a freestanding sign. She went on to point out that there is a freestanding sign on this property which was there for another business before the Commercial Northgate zoning district was created, and when the building was remodeled for 31 Treats, the sign face only was changed out to advertise that business which made it a legal, but non-conforming sibm. • Mrs. Kee then explained the ordinance intent for establishing this special zoning district which applies only to this area was to aid development and redevelopment in a manner compatible with the character of the area which was determined to be unique and to contain some historic significance. She continued to explain that because the area is oriented to a certain degree to pedestrian traffic, the prohibition of freestanding signs was an effort to maintain the urban scale associated with a pedestrian area. She stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to these regulations to allow him and the Subway Sandwich Shop to add sections to the existing sign which would advertise the location of those businesses. • She informed the Board that 11 area property owners had been notified of this request, and that only one had responded, but had indicated he had no problem with the request. Mr. Thompson asked if the proposed sign would meet regulations of the C-1 General Commercial zoning district and Mrs. Kee replied that it would not, and in fact, the existing sign does not comply with those regulations now, but since the sign existed before current regulations were adopted, it is legal, although now non-conforming. Mr. Gentry asked if the district were C-1, and if the sign were moved, would the proposed sign exceed limitations. Mrs. Kee said that although she had not made an investigation along those lines because it is not the C-1 zoning district, she would speculate that it would not necessarily exceed C-1 limitations if it could be moved far enough from the pavement edge. Mr. Thompson asked if this development had received a parking variance and Mrs. Kee replied that it had not, since there are no specific parking requirements in the C-NG zoning district, but rather is reviewed by the Project Review Committee to determine impact/requirements. She added that the C-NG district also has no landscaping requirements as do the other commercial zoning districts in the City. Mr. Gilmore asked if signs must be mounted to the building in the C-NG district and Mrs. Kee replied that they do, and that freestanding and roof signs are specifically prohibited in that district. Mr. Gilmore stated that he recalls signage has always • been perceived as being a problem in this area and that there have been several variance requests in the area in the past several years. Mr. Henry asked why all current zoning requirements are not required to be met when the uses change in an existing building, similar to the requirements of other code regulations, i.e., wiring, plumbing, etc. Mrs. Kee stated that the City Council apparently chose not to amortize non-conforming signs within this district, and historically uses of buildings snd the signs themselves have always been regarded as Z different uses and are permitted separately. Mr. Ruesink said that the point is that the 31 Treats sign is o.k. even though it is non-conforming, and the request before the Board is to increase that non-conformity. The applicant, Phil Trapani, 2920 Kent Street X158 was invited forward and was sworn in. He stated that he and the Subway owners believe that moving vehicular traffic cannot determine the location of these businesses and have a tendency to swerve around while looking for them, which creates a hazardous condition on a street which has both heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic. He said that this sign had previously had fuel price signs attached when it was the B&W service station, and he is requesting that the 2 subject businesses be allowed to re-attach signage to the approximate size of those fuel price signs. Mr. Trapani went on to say that he and the Subway owners had inherited a signage hardship because that had leased the spaces for their businesses with the understanding that they would have signage, but then the owners had given all the •allowed signage to 31 Treats, and the other businesses have been unable to have adequate identification signage. He went on to explain that since this location is on the most eastern edge of the Northgate zoning district, they must compete with businesses to the east out of the Northgate district, which are allowed large, tall freestanding signs. He added that although they are requesting illuminated signs, they would be willing to compromise if necessary to get the added signage which would • help eliminate a traffic hazard. Mr. Gentry said that to him a lighted or non-lighted sign are not important, but in terms of a compromise, asked if he would consider smaller signs placed above the 31 Treat sign. Mr. Trapani replied that he would consider anything as long as it is attractive and workable. Mr. Henry pointed out that Mr. Trapsni's reference to putting up signage to replace the fuel price signs which had previously been located on this property is not a valid request, since fuel price signs are special signs which are only allowed at gas stations, and no other place. He went on to say that it appears that 31 Treats beat all other tenants to the signage, and personally, he thinks signage should be shared, but that is not the question to be considered. Mr. Thompson suggested that perhaps the face of the existing sign could be enlarged and then shared. Mr. Ruesink stated that he has been impressed with the existing signage on that property and believes it can easily be seen, and suggested perhaps additional signage on the awning if he determines more is really necessary. Mr. Trapani said it would block visibility to the Subway shop. Mr. Gentry stated that the problem is that this area is specifically designated as an area where freestanding signs are inappropriate, and asking for additional signage is actually asking for approval of a freestanding sign where one does not exist and where it has been determined that they are inappropriate. He went on to explain that it does not matter whether or not a pole is already there, but the request is for • additional square footage of air space. He added that the sign was already there, and if it ever it taken down for any reason, it will never be allowed again. He concluded by stating that allowing additional signage would seem to work against the ordinance in this instance. Mr. Henry agreed, explaining that the Board is being asked to allow an addition to an already non-conforming use, which is against the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Gilmore stated that he is against any enlargement of this non-conforming freestanding sigma. Mr. Henry said he is not in favor of enlarging it, but he would favor sharing the existing square footage which could be done with no problems. Dean Coffer, Vice President of McCoad Sign Company was sworn in and stated that having 3 businesses advertised on the one existing sign face would make them all too small to be seen from a traffic lane. He said the specific size applied for had been necessary for legibility and visibility from a distance. He went on to say that having signage to small to be easily seen would create an even worse hazard than now exists because the student pedestrians are not very careful in crossing that busy street, and drivers would have an even harder time dodging them and trying to read a very small sign. He said that the additional signage would be good for business which would be good for the community, and it would also be in the best interests of the safety of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. He explained that while most businesses in the Northgate district cater to mostly walk-up traffic, Lil' Caesars is definitely not a walk-up type business, since it is primarily known as a business which sells 2 pizzas for the price of one, and most people phone ahead for their order, and then drive to the business, park and go in to pick it up to take home to eat. He said that he believes the City should do sll it can to help businesses in • these hard economic times, and they certainly do not need any more financial problems. The Board agreed no real hardship had been identified other than financial, and Mr. Gilmore stated that he believed granting a variance of this nature in this district • would definitely set a precedent, and surely lead to more requests of the same type. Mr. Henry said he could see no alternative than to use the existing sign, and pointed out that even if this were a C-1 district, which it is not, the proposed new sign would not comply with regulations without being moved. He concluded by saying that the zoning is special here, the sign is now non-conforming and he would not like to add to a non-conformity nor to set a precedent. Mr. Gentry said that as a general rule, he opposes denying a variance request only for fear of setting a precedent because most cases can be judged individually on their own merits, but in this case he cannot find any factors normally present when approving a sign variance. He added that there might be justification for requesting rezoning of the property, but that granting a variance of this nature in this area would be similar to rezoning the property. Mr. Gilmore then 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 unique special conditions not generally found within the City, 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 Mr. Thompson and carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Gentry told the applicant that the Board appreciates the position he finds himself in, and that in some respects it agrees with his frustration, but explained • that the Board must act under certain set parameters, and perhaps he could pursue other paths to accomplish his goals. AaBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Other business. Mrs. Kee announced there will be no meeting on March 15th. A(i$NDA ITBM N0. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Gentry made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: (~ --------- DEJ~D _~d,~,t~w~---------- Chairman, David C. Ruesink ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT r: • FORMAT FOR N~OA?IVB 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 unique special conditions not generally found within the City: 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 made by ~,~ _ %'~c.-~c~! t-~.. Motion seconded by: - ---- -- -~~- --------------- Voting results: ~ U Chair signature Date U ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • DATE March 1, 1988 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.