HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/1991 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments•
M I N U T E S
Zoning Board of Adjustment
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
March 5, 1991
7:00 P.M.
i•
i•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairperson Baker, Members Lane and
Yarbrough, Alternate Members DeOtte and Gaston.
MEMBERS ABBENT: Chairman Henry, Member Cronan, and Alternate
Members Webb, and Phinney, Kennady.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney
Coates, Planning Assistant Kuenzel, and Planning
Technician Thomas. (Council Liasion Gardner was
in the audience.)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order - explanation of functions and
limitations of the Board.
Vice Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order and explained the
functions and limitations of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of Minutes - Meeting January 29, 1991.
Ms. Yarbrough moved to approve the minutes of the meeting January 29,
1991 as submitted. Mr. Lane seconded the motion which carried
unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to the rear
setback requirements at 900-8 Harvey Road in the Post Oak Village
shopping Center. Applicant is David Bormann.
Planning Assistant Kuenzel presented the staff report requesting a
variance to allow a boiler structure external to the building. The
proposed addition will not encroach into the ten foot utility easement
along the rear. Five of the surrounding lease spaces have slabs with
steps that lead into the rear area that extend five feet into the
alley. The proposed structure will not protrude more than the
existing landing. The only alternative is to locate the boiler inside
the building. The Board must decide whether the location of the
shopping center building in relation to the rear setback line (that
is, the location of the building is directly on the setback line)
constitutes a special condition. The applicant has stated that
working conditions inside the building would be poor due to the heat
caused by a boiler located inside. Twelve property owners within 200'
were notified of the request with three inquiries.
•
i•
r~
~J
Lane Leissner approached the Board and was sworn in by Vice
Chairperson Baker. He stated that he and his partner, David Bormann,
have leased a space in Post Oak Village Shopping Center and wish to
open a dry cleaners. Mr. Leissner proposed a cylinder block
construction located at the rear of the property to contain a boiler;
if contained inside, a two-hour fire wall would have to be placed
around the boiler. Delivery trucks as well as emergency vehicles
would have adequate access behind the shopping center with the
proposed addition. Mr. Leissner suggested a stipulation in the lease
stating that the addition would be removed upon termination of the
lease.
Mr. DeOtte informed the Board that if a special exception was
determined, a variance could be granted with the stipulation that the
exterior structure be used only for mechanical purposes. Because the
boiler is powered by gas, safety risks are higher if located inside.
Due to safety and energy standards and economic and environmental
factors, a variance should be granted to allow the boiler to be
located outside.
Mr. Gaston stated that there was no justification or hardship in this
case to determine a special exception. People inside the building may
be safe; however, people in the alley would be at risk. He added that
the Building Code should address energy and environmental factors and
not the Zoning Board of Adjustments.
Ms. Yarbrough moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback
(Table A) from the terms of Ordinance 1638 Section 15 as it will not
be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special
conditions; the boiler inside the building may become hazardous and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant and such that the
spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done subject to the following limitations: the use be for mechanical
purposes only. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which failed (2-3).
Vice Chairperson Baker, Mr. Gaston and Mr. Lane voted against the
motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Reconsideration of a variance request to the sign
regulations at 310 Oniversity. Applicant is the Brazos Valley Arts
Council.
Mr. DeOtte moved to untable the previously tabled item to reconsider a
variance request to the sign regulations at 310 University. Ms.
Yarbrough seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0).
Planning Assistant Kuenzel presented the staff report requesting a
variance to allow a second freestanding sign. According to the Arts
Council, the office for the Council and the Gallery itself are located
within the same lease space. Advertisement of the Gallery is
restricted because the existing freestanding sign does not have
adequate space. Staff did not find possible special conditions that
relate to the layout of the property. Alternatives are to attach the
proposed sign to the building face or expand the existing sign. The
• Arts Council has also proposed a less intense request to grant a
variance to the minimum separation of two low profile signs if the
original request was denied. Twenty-two property owners within 200'
feet were notified with three inquiries. The ZBA tabled the request
Tuesday, January 15, 1991 to allow the applicant more time to consider
alternatives and to address concerns of the Board.
Gib Sawtelle approached the Board and was sworn in by Vice Chairperson
Baker. He explained that the initial sign was less expensive and
easier to relocate. Because the Arts Council is a charitable
organization, financial hardships are a major factor. Mr. Sawtelle
stated that the hardships are the educational and social impact that
could be put into the community due to poor advertisement as well as
the organization itself being non-profitable.
Cass Prince approached the Board and was sworn in by Vice Chairperson
Baker. She informed the Board that the owner is not willing to work
with new lessees to redesign the existing sign for adequate
identification. If a car is parked in front of the existing sign, the
sign is not visible from University. She added that the Arts Council
has received complaints from the public not being able to locate the
gallery.
Mr. Lane stated that the existing sign is located in a bizarre area
and prefers an additional low profile sign along Nimitz near the
driveway access. The applicant could try to preserve as much of the
required 150' distance as possible. He is concerned that the owner
or future lessees will take advantage of the variance.
Mr. Sawtelle stated that only 5~ of traffic flow into the gallery is
from Nimitz. The Arts Council needs high visibility to attract the
attention of new as well as regular patrons. The purpose of an
additional sign is to locate as well as advertise.
Mr. DeOtte stated that neither sign would create an adverse condition
or clutter. If a variance was granted, constraints as to size and
distance could be placed on the sign so as not to abuse the variance.
Mr. DeOtte moved to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from
the terms of Ordinance 1638 Section 12 as it will not be contrary to
the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not
generally found within the City: the existing sign is at its
furthermost possible location with respect to one boundary and
construction of a second free standing will not detrimentally affect
the appearance of this or adjacent property; and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
substantial hardship to this applicant being inadequate advertisement
of the property function 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: the second
sign shall be place as far as possible from the existing sign while
fronting University Drive, the supporting structure shall not exceed
ten (10) feet in height, the width shall not exceed five (5) feet, and
• the total space for copy shall not exceed fifteen (15) square feet.
Ms. Yarbrough seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0).
~„
•
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn.
Mr. Gaston moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of
Adjustments. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed
(5-0) .
APPROVED:
r
Chairman, Bret enry
i•
ATTEST: ~
~.
Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas
i•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
~ORMAT FOR POSI?IVB MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I Hove to authorize a variance to the
________yard (Section 8.?)
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 follawip~_~vPcial conditions:
~( r `~~ C,' 1.~ ~i...~-? _ b4~F~A~ leti,,- ~..: t (1_.~ =-= ° 4_~..1i _ _ .,~-~ ~_~._~c'3.~ -, ~/ _~~ ~ ~ _ ~~~-~C,>- F 7eJC._1
------ . ----- ------- -- -- ------'~-- C. - -
---.
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done subject to the following limitations:
Motion made by ___ _ __ _ _ ___ Date ___~ ~1 _~~_ _
~~
Seconded by _~) _~t~. _> ___________ Voting Results
---- ----
hair signature ---_-~-_ 1s:-_~~~3:~.~~
/~ ...
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
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:
_~'ie__~X!,~'L`-,~--~~~~'--~j__4! __/~~__ZhL"~~!"~oS~~v_fs'~~~ ~GS/iD~Y
_A _~C~oh!~ __~L!~__~L~n~!n_~°--L.t/1~/_dl~_J~~!_!"%~'!1E2~~llf.L .~~~~~
~~~y =---------
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant
• being: ~~ _/ 1 r ,~
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:
~i_•ri-t _~~C _G..X_Lg~L~i _31 .1z ~.~ _S v7L+~
~.~~.~~~Yr,~,`~`''~__Le~~~__ L -Tye-~~?__.1~!e~ 1y,e.1/_Js.-~
~ S1~' tiA~ 6 ~v~~~!~~~I~G or lc°L~4
~y sG~// H.~ e
Mot ~on made by: ' _~ ~~ ~ ~1`~____~ /ss a~~~ ~ r/-
Motion eco•nded by: ~_~~~~~~_________ ~ '
Voting ults: t- _ ~-p-
- - -------------
Chair signature date
•
•
NAN
1.
2.
3•
4.
DATE
ADDRESS
/.,~~s = c c~csra~o~~ /~~prA~
S.
6.
7•
8.
9.
lo.
!l.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23•
~4.
25.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GUEST REGISTER