Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/1989 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment October 17, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Gilmore, Baker, Cronan and newly appointed alternate member James Gaston; als o Council Liaison Birdwell and Mayor Ringer for the first portion of the meeting. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Henry and Alternate Member Webb STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planner Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Banks an d Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanati on of functions and lisitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, and deferred the explanation of functions and limitations of the Board until after the Mayor administered the Oath of Office to the new member. The meeting was turned over to the Mayor. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Adsinistration of Oath of Office to newly appointed Alternate Meabers of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. . Mayor Ringer administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Alternate Member James Gaston, and thanked Mr. Gaston for volunteering his time and talents to serve the City in this capacity. He then turned the meeting back to Chairman Ruesink, who explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Approval of ainutes - meeting of Septesber 25, 1989. Mrs. Baker made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Cronan seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Gaston abstained). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for a variance to the side setback requirements for a satellite dish antenna at 1805 Shado~nrood Drive. Applicant is Charles S. Lessard. Mrs. Johnson gave the staff report and a slide presentation of the subject lot, antenna and area residences. She identified the applicant, explained the request, and stated the purpose of the request is to allow an existing 10 foot dish antenna to remain approximately 6 feet from the side property line. She described the physical characteristics of the subject lot and identified area zoning and land uses. She stated that the residence adjacent and to the south of the subject lot is • approximately 10 feet from the property line, and the dish is located approximately 65 feet from the street. She explained the required side setback for a dish antenna is 15 feet and the setback being proposed is approximately 6 feet. She then explained that the antenna was • installed about 10 months ago by Beltrand, Enterprises, and referred to a letter from that company which had been submitted by the applicant with his application for a variance. Mrs. Johnson stated that the hardship as supplied by the applicant is that alternate locations in the rear yard would reduce reception capabilities of the dish, and the alternatives identified would be to remove trees as necessary for optimum reception or to accept reduced reception. She reported that of the 14 area property owners who had received notification of this request, 4 had responded with phone calls to her office during which they voiced opposition to the request. She then referred to a letter from a local realtor which was placed at the desks prior to this meeting which was neither for nor against the request, but a statement of concern. Mr. Cronan asked who had expressed opposition to the request and Mrs. Johnson replied the owner to the south, rear and to the west, and all were within 200 feet of the property and had received letters of notification. Mr. Gaston pointed out that the written staff report indicates the Building Official offered no comments about this request, and asked if this antenna had been issued a building permit. Mrs. Johnson stated it had not, but the Building Official had offered no comments regarding this request for variance, adding the lack of having a building permit is another matter. She went on to state that if an application for a building permit had been made, the encroachment should have been noted before it • became a fact. The applicant and owner of the property, Charles S. Lessard came forward, identified himself and was sworn in. He stated that he had purposely chosen a local contractor to install his dish because he thought a local businessman would know and follow all local laws and rules, but this contractor was not aware a permit was required. He then explained that the contractor had conducted a survey to determine the best location for the antenna, and the result of that survey was that the front yard was the best location for optimum reception, but he did not want the dish in his front yard, so it was decided that the next alternate location was on the side where it is now setting. He said that the survey showed that the back yard was not at all suitable for optimum reception. He then passed around photos of his property including some of the backyard, and spoke of approximate heights of trees in the yard. Mr. Gaston asked Mr. Lessard if he had checked on other dishes this contractor had installed and Mr. Lessard replied that he had not, but it turned out that this contractor did not know of ordinance requirements either for a building permit or for setbacks. He said that he did look at other dishes which had been installed in the area which were even placed in the front yards. Mr. Gilmore explained to Mr. Lessard that this Board tries to identify hardships or special conditions which would warrant granting a variance to ordinance requirements, but in his opinion, the hardship identified of not being able to receive optimum reception does not seem to be a hardship. • Mr. Lessard said that by denying this request, he would be forced to subscribe to cable TV. Mr. Gilmore said that not being able to watch certain TV channels or programs does not seem like a hardship to him. ZBA Minutes 10-17-89 page 2 • Mel Lasell of 1807 Shadowwood came forward, was sworn in and identified himself as the owner of the house adjacent to the south of Mr. Lessard's house. He explained that his house sets further back from the street than Mr. Lessard's house, therefore the dish is even with the front entrance to his house while it is behind the front of Mr. Lessard's house. He pointed out that the distance from the dish which can be easily seen over the fence to his sidewalk leading to the front door is just short of 10 feet, and~the "leading edge" of the dish is no more than 3 1/2 feet from the fence. He said someone coming up his sidewalk cannot help but see the dish, and now that he is trying to sell his house, 2 prospective buyers have made comments to the realtor showing the house, and the letter handed out at the meeting was the result of having received those comments. Mr. Gaston pointed out that the dish has been at the current location for about 10 months, and asked why Mr. Lasell had not said something earlier. Mr. Lasell replied that he has always been concerned about the location of the dish, but he did not know there was an ordinance governing the location of dishes, and he did not know who to complain to. He said that in addition to that, there is a dish just down the street which is directly in front of the house, so he assumed there were no controls in place. Mr. Gronan asked Mr. Lasell if he could identify any other solution and he said that he would have no objection to some kind of screening which would keep the dish from being so visible from his front sidewalk, and pointed out that Mr. Lessard does have a swimming pool in his back yard, so he would probably have a hard time finding an alternate location. • Mr. Ruesink stated that the applicant stated on his application that he would be willing to extend the 6 foot wooden fence to enclose the satellite dish to make it less obvious from the road. Mr. Lasell said he would estimate that a fence would have to be about 10-12 feet high to screen the entire antenna, and he is not sure how that would look. Mr. Ruesink asked what kind of screening would be acceptable and Mr. Lasell said he would prefer trees or something natural. He added that if there were some way to block the view of the antenna, he would not be opposed to its location. John Martin, 1809 Shadowwood came forward and was sworn in. He stated that he lives 2 houses down from Mr. Lessard, and while he regrets this wasn't settled before now, he has come before the Board to ask that the variance request not be granted. He said that he, also, was not aware there is an ordinance about this, adding that he had questioned the location of the dish antenna down the street and was told there is nothing to be done about it. He said that now that there are regulations for the location of dish antenna, some line needs to be drawn regarding allowances. He said that he can see the antenna when he walks toward his front door even though he is several houses down the street, and he thinks that it probably does lower property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Cronan read section 8.18 E. from the Zoning Ordinance which states "...The Zoning Board of Adjustment may grant a variance in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of this ordinance to allow placement in the front yard when necessary to provide for suitable reception of a satellite signal.", and asked what the background of this ordinance is. • Mrs. Banks replied that she was not with the City when this ordinance was passed, so she does not know the intent or the background. ZBA Minutes 10-1?-89 Page 3 Mr. Ruesink said that he is only aware of 2 variances which have been granted for dishes and both were in commercial areas. Mr. Cronan asked if contractors are • typically notified when regulations become effective. Mr. Ruesink replied that he does not know the answer to that question, but he believes that should be part of a contractor s business, that is, finding out all the regulations which must be followed when installing or building something. Mr. Gilmore said that he is still trying to identify any real hardshig or special condition which would allow this Board to grant a variance for this antenna. Mr. Gaston said that he thinks it would be difficult to justify a hardship since no building permit had ever been issued for the antenna, and the alternative could be the removal of trees and the relocation of the dish to the back yard. Mr. Cronan stated again that the ordinance says a variance can be allowed for suitable reception. Mrs. Banks pointed out that "suitable reception" is not defined by ordinance, so it would be up to the Board to define that terminology. Mr. Cronan said "front yard" is not defined in the ordinance, but it can be interpreted to be in front of a house. Mr. Gilmore made a motion "to deny a variance to the minimum setback 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." Mrs. Baker seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0. Mr. Ruesink then explained to the applicant that as a result of this motion the antenna will have to be moved, that it will not be allowed to remain in the setback • as an encroachment. AGBNDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a request for a variance to the height lisitations for a satellite dish antenna at 8113 Butler Ridge. Applicants are Mr. ~ Mrs. Bobby Lee. Mrs. Johnson gave the staff report and slide presentation covering the subject lot and the area. She identified the applicant, explained the request, described the physical characteristics of the lot, adding that zoning on the lot and all the surrounding area is for single family residential development. She explained that while the proposed antenna complies with all setback requirements, the applicant is proposing to attach the antenna to the rear of the residence just above the roof line which would make it approximately 26 feet above ground and the ordinance limits the height of satellite dish antenna to 12 feet in residential areas. She referred to the application for the special conditions and hardship identified by the applicant, and gointed out the alternatives identified would be to remove some trees for placement in the rear yard within 15 feet of the rear and side setback areas. She identified the ordinance intent as being to limit the visual impact of satellite dishes in residential areas. Mrs. Johnson then stated the only similar request identified by staff was the variance granted in April 1989 to allow a 20 foot tall dish antenna at the La Quints motel within 100 feet of a residential lot. She then stated that the only comments received from the Building Official was that a permit will have to be pulled for the antenna and anchoring for the structure will be reviewed at that • time. Mr. Gaston said he noticed from one of the slides that there is a slab in the ZBA Minutes 10-17-89 Page 4 backyard, and asked Mrs. Johnson what that slab is for. Mrs. Johnson replied that she does not know, but the applicant is in the audience and could answer that • question. Mr. Ruesink said that according to the drawings supplied, the dish will be almost invisible from outside the property. Mr. Gaston asked if the maximum height for any structure is 35 feet and Mrs. Johnson replied that Table A states the maximum height to be 2 1/2 stories or 35 feet. Mr. Gaston said that the antenna must remain below that limitation and Mrs. Johnson said that a variance might nullify that limit but she does not know if it can or not. Mrs. Banks said that she had not even considered that point, but will think about it now. Bobby R. Lee, 8113 Butler Ridge came forward and was sworn in. He said there are many trees toward the back of his house, and most of them belong to his neighbor, so he is not at liberty to cut them. He said he does not want the antenna in his front yard, but there would be excellent reception there. He said his proposal is to put it near the vaulted ceiling, and has estimated that it will be approximately 2 feet over the top ridge line. He said it would probably only be visible from the one house facing Wilderness. Mr. Cronan asked why it is necessary to have it 2 feet over the ridge line and Mr. Lee said he would have to be at least 1 foot over to keep it from rubbing. Mr. Cronan asked about the rotation of an antenna and Mr. Lee attempted to explain how a dish antenna works and the location of the satellites sending the signals. Mr. Gilmore said that according to that explanation, lowering the dish 2 feet may not interfere with reception. Mr. Lee said it may not interfere with reception, but it may interfere with the rotation of the dish. He then discussed different • sizes of dish antennas and how they work. Mr. Gilmore asked why the antenna can not be placed in the backyard, pointing out it is a very large yard and Mr. Lee said there probably would not be good reception there because of the trees and the house. Mr. Gilmore asked how the neighbor's trees would affect reception if the dish had to be pointed toward the front of the lot. Mr. Cronan asked if reception is from a full 360 degrees. Mr. Lee replied that reception is not from a full 360 degrees and then attempted to explain how dishes work. Mr. Cronan said it sounded like the antenna must always face south, and the center of the dish must always be over the house, and he suggested that if that is the case, the antenna could be moved to the south and be lowered. Mr. Lee said the house would still be in the way. Mr. Gilmore then explained the intent of the ordinance and the limitations under which this Board must grant variances, and said that identification of a hardship or special conditions must be identified, and his interpretation is that the lack of reception does not constitute a hardship. Mr. Lee disagreed with Mr. Gilmore and said that his choice of the way to watch TV is via reception via a satellite dish antenna, and the hardship would be that the neighbors have trees and his lot is not large enough to place the dish anywhere else and get adequate reception. He then asked how the motels were granted variances, and what hardships they identified. Mr. Gilmore explained that this Board tries to deal with each request for a variance on its own merits since different locations, different zoning and different • conditions surround each request. Mr. Lee said he could have applied for a variance to place the dish in his front ZBA Minutes 10-17-89 Page 5 yard, but he thinks this is better, and he does not think anyone can tell him that he can't get a satellite dish antenna. • Mr. Gaston asked Mr. Lee what the slab in the backyard is for and Mr. Lee said he began construction of a building, but the City notified him that he needed a building permit for a storage building, and in fact, that's when he found out building permits were needed for a lot of things and that certain setbacks must be maintained. Louis Johnson of Atlanta, Texas came forward and was sworn in. He was identified as the person who was going to install the antenna, and who had determined that the proposed location was the best location next to placing the dish in the front yard. He explained generally haw dishes work and showed the approximate location of the satellites in the sky by pointing his arm. , More discussion followed of a rather general nature, without exact specific technical information, and Mr. Gaston stated that one of the problems he is having is that he is being asked to grant a variance without being provided complete information, and Mr. Gilmore agreed stating that "probably" certain things would or would not happen is not enough for him to agree to granting a variance, and said if the applicant would like to provide additional technical and specific information to help justify a variance other than "eyeball" measurements, he would be happy to table consideration of this request until a later date, but he does not think he has adequate information to grant a variance at this meeting. All members agreed with Mr. Gaston and Mr. Gilmore, and Mr. Gaston explained to the applicant that exact measurements including the geometry of the site is what the Board is requesting. • Mr. Lee said another local company had given him the same information this out-of- town person had provided, so he should have no problem gathering the specific information the Board is requesting. Mrs. Baker made a motion to table consideration of this request until the next meeting (November 7th}. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion. Mr. Gilmore then said he would like to know if there are other alternatives adding the intent of the regulations is to keep these dish antenna from appearing everywhere in any area. Mrs. Banks then mentioned that in her opinion, Note F of Table A of the Zoning Ordinance does not apply in the regulation of dish antenna, and she assumes that antenna if placed on a house will not be limited to the 35 foot height maximum regulation for the actual height of the house. Mr. Gaston said that if this antenna is considered an appurtenance of the house, a variance might not be needed. Mrs. Banks said she would check on this possibility. Votes were cast on the motion to table consideration of the item, and the motion carried unanimously (5-0}. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Consideration of a request for a variance to sign height regulations at The Grapevine Restaurant at 201 Live Oak. Applicant is owner of the restaurant, Patsy F. Perry. • Mrs. Johnson gave a slide presentation of the subject property and the area while making her staff report during which she identified the applicant, explained the request and the purpose of the request. She described the physical characteristics ZBA Minutes 10-17-89 Page 6 of the lot and the area, and gointed out the dumpsters for the restaurant are in a fence-enclosed area to the south of the sign location. She also pointed out the • location of existing electrical lines, easements and guy wires as they relate to the location of the existing sign pole. She stated the required setback for a sign 28 feet in height as is being proposed would be 55 feet from the curb, and the applicant is proposing to use the same pole for the new sign as is used for the existing sign, which is and would remain 41 feet from the curb. Mrs. Johnson also related the information that a new 15 foot diameter satellite dish antenna was installed on the LaQuinta property approximately 15.5 feet from the existing sign, and this antenna is approximately 18.75 feet in height. She pointed out that the existing sign conforms to the height and area requirements, and is 19 feet 10 inches in height, and the groposed sign comglies with the square footage limits, but would be taller than is allowed at that location. Mrs. Johnson referred the Board to the application for the special conditions identified by the applicant, and pointed out that one hardship identified is the fact that the satellite dish on the adjacent property blocks visibility of the existing sign except for the top 12 inches. She pointed out alternatives are extremely limited because the building and electrical service locations block alternative locations along Live Oak Street, and placement along Eisenhower would move the sign closer to residential development and away from commercial development. She then explained that the ordinance intent was to reduce visual impact of excess signage in the city. Mrs. Johnson then listed similar requests as one for the University Mitsubishi dealership on Texas & Holleman, one for the University Inn at Texas & University, . both were granted; and one at University 8 Texas Avenue which was denied. Mrs. Johnson also reported that 9 area property owners were notified of this request, and to date she had received one response which indicated no objection. Mr. Gilmore asked why the Board was not aware that by granting a variance to the satellite dish antenna height regulations for the LaQuinta, they would be allowing blockage of the sign at the Grapevine Restaurant and Mrs. Johnson explained that due to a clerical error in notification, the Grapevine owner did not receive notification, and therefore was not able to make that information available. Mr. Birdwell pointed out from the audience that the hardship identified by the motel at the time of its request was the loss of parking places if they located the antenna within all regulations, and the setback variance was a viable alternative which received no objections at the hearing. Mrs. Baker pointed out the Board was not aware that the antenna would almost completely block the sign at the restaurant when it granted the request for the variance. Dean Goffer, 3704 Stillmeadow, Bryan, a sign contractor and representative for the owner/applicant came forward and was sworn in. He explained that Mrs. Perry, the owner of the restaurant had ordered a new sign from him before the dish antenna was installed, and the plan was to replace the sign only on the existing sign poles, because that location is the only one on the lot facing other commercial uses. He explained that the requested 28 foot height of the sign represents the minimum that will be needed to clear line-of-sight over the now existing satellite dish. • Mr. Gaston asked the proposed square footage of the new sign and Mr. Coffer stated the new sign which has already been built, is 96 square feet {8' tall x 2' wide). Mr. Gaston asked how large the old, existing sign is and Mr. Coffer replied that he ZBA Minutes 10-17-89 page 7 does not know. • Mr. Gilmore asked if moving the sign toward Eisenhower would help and Mr. Coffer replied that it would not, and additionally, that he believes this is a reasonable solution to an existing problem and is the only alternative anyone has been able to identify. He added that the sign would be indirectly lighted. Mr. Gilmore 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: The restaurant is located behind the large motel structure off the main thoroughfare of Texas Avenue, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: Inability to provide adequate signage for their business, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served." Mr. Cronan seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0). AGBNDA ITBM NO. 8: Other business. Mrs. Johnson asked for clarification as to whether staff should notify Mr. Lessard of a time frame for compliance with ordinance requirements. Mrs. Banks pointed out that usually is included in the motion, but is not necessary and can be handled. Mr. Gaston said that should be the case, especially since no building permit has ever been issued for the structure. Mr. Gilmore suggested that 30 days would be fair, and Mr. Gaston said there should be a standard for someone in violation of the building (permit} code, and pointed out that Mr. Lessard would still be in a situation of having no building permit even if the variance were granted. Mrs. Johnson said she • would keep a check on this antenna, and if it's still there in the middle of November, she will follow through. She then suggested that when denying something which exists, or in the case of the weed ordinance, it might be a good idea to set a time limit for compliance in the motion. The Board agreed, but several members pointed out that in the case of the one weed ordinance appeal, the lot had been mowed. Mr. Cronan said he would like to know more about the ordinance intent when addressing inadequate reception of satellite dish antenna, and would also like to have a definition of that or an example of a hardship prior to the next meeting. He requested staff to please have someone explain the Board's options other than the options listed by the company representing the applicant. Mr. Birdwell stated from the audience that he agrees that this is information the Board needs to make a reasonable decision, and further, that the information is available and should be supplied at the time of the request. Mr. Cronan said he would like to know why the section regarding "suitable reception of a satellite signal" is included in the ordinance. Mrs. Banks said she would check the minutes to see if she can determine the intent at the time the ordinance section was approved. Discussion followed regarding what might constitute a hardship and Mrs. Banks replied that the necessity of destroying trees {as opposed to saving trees) can be identified as a hardship. Mr. Ruesink pointed out that Mr. Gilmore had expressed the thought • that existing trees were an existing "special condition" rather than a hardship. Mr. Ruesink added that he thinks neighbor's opinions and affect on property value should be a consideration. ZBA Minutes 10-17-89 page 8 Mr. Gaston asked what kind of screening could be considered, since it would seem that a wooden, screen fence would cause the same kind of interference that a tree would. Mr. Cronan said that perhaps someone should check at TAMU to find out someone who knows about satellite dishes and how reception is affected by obstacles. Mr. Ruesink asked if anyone thinks a workshop is needed on this subject and Mr. Cronan replied that if adequate technical information is provided, perhaps that will not be necessary. Mr. Gilmore said that he is still of the opinion that not being able to watch TV without a satellite dish should not be considered a hardship, and he would also like to have more information than an applicant's representative will provide. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Adjourn. Mrs. Baker made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Gilmore seconded. The motion to adjourn carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ------- --~ -~~-~~~u!G---- Chairman, David Ruesink ATTEST: • ----------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes 10-17-89 Page 9 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR NB(iATIVB MOTIONS Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) _______minimum setback (gable A) _______parking requirements (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. ~_ e C ~/f Motion made by __--~``~5~'~~_t.~ ./~*[....~.k`.-c.~-~t ~ Seconded by -----`~!G c-t" ~c*-~ ~~~ /~j -~C_,U - Voting results: ____~\ -- , Chair si nature - /~ / g -- --- C -------- Date 1C/ C 7 g .] ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVB 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 generca~ll,,y found./w-ithin the Cit/y: f A - - - ~7_ (~-L~ _ ~'* '~L Y0.. *~iln"'l.u~ f ` / ~ / n" UGC ~ ~ ,`.L_,_ !'~ t f -- °~ ~~~'~~ ~ -- '~2--------------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: , ~~ ,~ -/ and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served,~rb'~ct to the following limitations: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Motion made by: /~J`I ~ t-t..7~'~ Motion seconded by: _ ~` ! ~, _-~'~'V~~tL~____ Voti results: Chair si nature date ZONING-BOARD OF ADJUSl'MENT • r U GUEST REGISTER DATE / ~/ NAME ADDRESS ,:, ~, 3 ;~ , ~ 4 1~~.:~, ~-G~,.. ~ ~ 11 s :~ ~y u 5• ~~St3`i' SC"/ ec _~~7 3 ~T~rit 7C/AGfc C. S Ty J l~f/~ 6. 7. 8. 9• to. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25.