HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
April 20, 1993
7:00 P.M.
U
MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Gaston, Sawtelle, Birdwell and DeOtte and Alternate Member Rife.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Baker and Alternate Members DeLoach, Phinney and McKean.
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Assistant City Attorney Rayner
and Development Coordinator Volk.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board.
Mr. Gaston called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of Apri16, 1993.
Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 6, 1993 as presented. Mr. Birdwell
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0); Mr. DeOtte was not present during the approval of
minutes.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request by Ben Aguirre to the rear setback
requirements at 1204 Goode to allow for the addition of a garage.
Mr. Sawtelle moved to switch agenda item numbers three and four to allow the applicant of agenda item number
three time to arrive. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0); Mr. DeOtte was not present
during consideration of this motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request by Putt-Putt Golf and Games to the sign
requirements at 1705 Valley View to allow for the rekx:ation of the e~dsting sign.
Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow for the relocation of the existing sign of Putt Putt Golf
to be located closer to the right-of--way. The sign height permitted in this location is 4.5'; however, the applicant
is proposing a height of 24'. The applicant wishes to relocate the existing sign (which at this point conforms to
Table 1) as a result of the addition of the new batting cages. If the sign were oriented to Texas Avenue, he
could use the setback off of the right-of-way to determine the height for the sign; however, he does not believe
that the sign will be visible to Texas Avenue due to the trees located on adjacent properties. The sign will
therefore be located so that it is oriented to Valley View. In that case, the height must be calculated from the
Valley View curb. The Board must determine if the location of this property in relation to the Texas Avenue
right-of-way, in addition to the existence of trees on surrounding property, constitute a condition not found in
other parts of the City. Alternatives to the variance request are to orient the sign to Texas Avenue or move the
sign back 50' from Valley View. Six surrounding property owners were notified of the variance request with no
response.
• Applicant Bill Wetterman approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He stated that the existing
sign is being relocated in order to provide required parking for the proposed expansion. Once the batting cages
are installed, the proposed location of the sign would be hidden from Texas Avenue. Mr. Wetterman referred to
Table 1 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to sign regulations. Note five under the area requirements states,
"On corner lots, the frontage street shall be the greater street as classified on the thoroughfare plan. Where two
streets are the same, the applicant may choose the frontage street."
Mr. Wetterman explained that note four under the height requirements states, "On corner lots only, the frontage
street can be used to determine height and area." Mr. Wetterman stated that they would like to choose Texas
• Avenue as their frontage street. The table does not refer to the orientation of the sign nor does it clearly define
orientation of a sign to be perpendicular or parallel to a street. If the sign was installed parallel to Texas
Avenue, it would be visible from both Valley View and Texas Avenue; however, if installed perpendicular to
Texas Avenue, it would be hidden by the trees of the arboretum and the batting cages.
Mr. Birdwell explained that he does not understand why a sign cannot be put at an angle other than 90° or 180°.
It does not make sense to require a sign to be placed either parallel or perpendicular to a certain street. Mr.
Birdwell stated that it is not unusual for a corner sign to be located at an unusual angle.
Assistant City Attorney Rayner stated that when an ordinance does not clearly define a term, the Webster's
Dictionary definition is accepted.
Mr. Birdwell stated that he agreed with the applicant in that he does not need a variance. He asked to see the
definition of orientation as defined by Webster's Dictionary.
Owner of Ferreri's Italian Restaurant, Joe Ferreri approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. Mr.
Ferreri expressed his support of the sign variance request and stated that the Putt Putt site should be allowed a
variance due to the amount of money they are investing in the property.
Mr. Sawtelle stated that the ordinance may be flawed in that it does not define orientation. He recommended
that the City Council look at correcting that flaw.
Mr. DeOtte stated that the intent of the ordinance is the attractiveness of the community. He stated that it does
not make a difference which way the sign is oriented or at what degree it is angled as long as it is attractive.
Staff Planner Kuenzel explained that this section of the ordinance has been interpreted and enforced the same
• way since the ordinance was adopted. Staff has defined orientation as whatever street the sign is perpendicular to
in order to attract traffic from that street. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the Board can change the
interpretation; however, staff would need to look at the history of the interpretation and how changing it would
effect previous decisions. The interpretation could get difficult when looking at particular sites. The Board can
look at this particular case as a variance especially with respect to the large amount of unpaved right-of-way.
Mr. Birdwell read the definition of orientation from Webster's Dictionary, "location or position relative to the
points of the compass". He stated that if staff wanted to continue interpreting the ordinance the way it has been
interpreted in the past, they should present a definition to City Council to be included in the ordinance. Mr.
Birdwell stated that he is reluctant to authorize sign variances; however, in this particular case, the applicant's
interpretation is right and the staffs interpretation is wrong.
Staff Planner Kuenzel suggested that if the Board wanted to change the interpretation, that they table the item to
allow staff time to research the origin of the policy.
Mr. Birdwell moved to table the variance request until a special meeting on Tuesday, April 27, 1993 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
ACIENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request by Ben Aguirre to the rear setback
requirements at 1204 Goode to allow for the addition of a garage.
The Board decided to consider the variance request even though the applicant was not present.
Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the existing home is non-conforming due to the
drive entrance located on Glade (the current ordinance would require that access be taken from the lesser street)
and the house encroaches into the 15' required side street setback by 2.5'. The applicant is proposing a 17.5'
setback instead of the required 20' for a garage. The applicant argues that the need for additional living space
had led him to the decision to enclose the existing garage a few years ago.
ZBA Minutes Apri120, 1993 Page 2
Staff Planner Kueznel stated that from the aerial photograph, it does appear as if this house is a bit smaller than
others in the vicinity. The house also sits back an additional 16' from the 25' front setback line. Although this
• seems to have been the building pattern along this street, it is not typical of most homes in the city. Builders
today tend to build close to the front building line in order to give the property as much useable space in the
rear yard as possible. The Board must decide whether the need for a garage constitutes a hardship. The existing
garage was enclosed by the applicant and therefore could be viewed as aself-imposed hardship. However, the
Board may wish to consider the past need for expansion in its determination. Twenty-two surrounding property
owners were notified with no response.
There was no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance request.
•
Mr. DeOtte stated that the hardship in this case is aself-induced hardship. If the applicant had not enclosed the
garage, they would not be faced with the need for a variance now.
Mr. Sawtelle stated that all citizens have a certain size lot that they can build on and everyone makes choices on
how they can most effectively use that space. In this case, the Board is not denying the applicant the use of his
property. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638 to the minimum
setback requirements 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. DeOtte seconded the motion.
Mr. Birdwell stated that a variance of 2.5' is not that big of a deal and would maintain the spirit of the ordinance.
The original motion to deny the variance request passed (4 - 1); Mr. Birdwell voted in opposition to the motion.
AC3~ENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance request by Kolkhorst Petroleum to the front, rear and
side setback requirements at 425 South Texas Avenue to allow for the construction of a new service station.
Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and informed the Board that they are only considering variances
to the front, side and rear setbacks. There were several other variances listed on page two of the application that
are not being considered at this time. The applicant is proposing the following setbacks:
Setbacks Proposed
Front (Univ.): 14' for a variance of 11'
Side: 1' for a variance of 6.5'
Rear: 1' for an additional variance of 9'
Setbacks Required
Front: 25' by ordinance
Side: 7.5' by ordinance
Rear: 10' by variance
The site is currently nonconforming in terms of setbacks, parking, access, and landscaping. With the exception of
a past variance and the requested variances, all other ordinance requirements will be met. These include access
drives, curbing, island requirements and landscaping. Due to the age and nonconforming size of this site, several
cases have come to the Board. The following special conditions were suggested during the Board's discussion:
(1) current unsightly condition of the property;
(2) former requests reduced the nonconformities;
(3) former requests improved the traffic safety; and
(4) high traffic volume at intersection.
•
Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that past cases have included statements concerning the inability of the site to be
developed in a manner that would meet corporate needs and accommodate public access and safety.
ZBA Minutes Apri120, 1993 Page 3
On November 1, 1988, the Board granted a variance to allow for the reconstruction of the Diamond Shamrock
located across Texas Avenue from this site. The variance authorized the building to be set back 0' from the rear
• and 0' from the side property line. The motion included the following special condition, "size and shape of the
lot restricts development and traffic flow; the proposed layout, though burdensome on adjacent property is a less
severe burden than the alternative". The hardship is cited as "the inability to reasonably develop the property".
Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the variance approved in January of 1992 for the high rise sign to be 32' with
an area of 144 square feet and the second sign on the corner of University and Texas Avenue will still be allowed
since the conditions under which the variance was granted have not changed.
Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern with creating a similar situation with the building setbacks as there is now with
the sign variances.
Mr. Birdwell stated that he granted the sign variances because the Diamond Shamrock and Chevron stations have
the same type of nonconforming sign. However, the site is being completely rebuilt and now is the time to get
things fixed.
Representative of the applicant Roger Ruppel approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He
stated that the applicant is attempting to open up the corner and make the site more attractive. A number of
schemes were explored before deciding on the one shown. The current configuration is the most effective from a
traffic safety standpoint. Mr. Ruppel stated that the canopy extension will be 2' 8" deep with the F.,xxon logo
attached.
Mr. Gaston expressed concern with the canopy extending into the setback area. According to the current
ordinance, the owner could place a sign on the canopy that would be allowed in the setback area.
Owner James Kolkhorst approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He offered to answer any
questions pertaining to the requested variances.
• Mr. Birdwell moved to authorize a variance from section 15, ordinance number 1638 to the minimum setback
requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following
special conditions: an old property is being redeveloped and traffic flow will be improved; and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
inability to reasonably develop property; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: (1) give up the variance for the corner sign to be 22'
high and (2) there shall be no lettering on the canopy within the ordinance required setback area.
Assistant City Attorney Rayner informed the Board that she is not sure if the Board can make those conditions
since the previous variances that were granted run with the property and not the property owner.
Mr. Gaston stated that the Board can ask the owner if he is willing to not use the previously granted variances;
however, the Board cannot make someone give up a variance to a particular property.
Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that a fuel price sign would be allowed at the corner in place of the allowable 22'
second freestanding sign by variance; however, the fuel price sign cannot exceed 16 square feet and cannot be
located within the right-of-way. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that there are special conditions that can be placed
upon variances; however, the Board cannot place additional restrictions upon a variance that is currently allowed
by the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Sawtelle stated that it is not legal or ethical to ask someone to give up a legal right.
Mr. DeOtte stated that variance upon variance has been granted to this property. At some point, the Board
should be able to rectify the problems with the site. Mr. DeOtte stated that he agreed with Mr. Birdwell's idea;
however, he is not sure if legally it can be done. He questioned the applicant about the use of the 22' sign
variance on the corner of the property.
Mr. Kolkhorst stated that he will comply with the city requirements as long as the sign can be seen from
University Drive.
ZBA Minutes Apri120, 1993 Page 4
Mr. Birdwell stated that the Board is still allowing the property owner to have a significantly larger sign and he is
not being denied something that is allowed in the ordinance.
• Mr. DeOtte suggested that the legal department check into the options available and see if that it would be
possible for the applicant to apply for a variance to the existing variance to bring the request back into
compliance.
Mr. Birdwell asked staff to research exactly what can be done with the existing variances. He moved to table the
variance requests until Tuesday, April 27, 1993 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Gaston asked staff to see if the applicant constructed a sign that is in compliance with the current ordinance,
would that negate the variance that was originally granted.
Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion to table the variance requests. He stated that if the Board can improve the
conformity of the site, it is worth exploring all of the options. Mr. DeOtte asked staff to look into what would
have to be done to have some of the existing variances taken away and if an owner can voluntarily give up a
variance.
The motion to table the variance requests passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AC3ENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business.
There was no other business.
AC3~ENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
Mr. DeOtte moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the
motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
•
APPR
Chairperson, G end Baker
TTES
Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas
ZBA Minutes Apri120, 1993 Page S
• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMFIV'P
FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION
Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638.
I move to deny a variance to the
yard (Section 8.T)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
minimum setback
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.
Motion made by ~~ , t,~ ~~~~v T~ ~ I ~e _ Date ~-~ /~~
Seconded by -~~~ T ~ ,~ ,L, Voting Results ~ L~ --
Chair Signature
v.~ruvi sss.DOc
•
NAME
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST
DATE
ADDRESS
u~r r~~~s
2 . ~Ce't'1,
3 • ~-" ~. ~ U ~~1~L
7.
8.
9.
lo.
•
x(03 ~SP~N ~~~~~~X ~~°~
aCeoS ~ ~.5~
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
• 24.
25.
ZONIIJG BOARD OF 2iDJUSTMEN'I'
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 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:
~` ~
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
substantial hardship to this applicant being:
f- ` /~
I w _1 ~ . I ~ T-, -r-~ Y1 .~ ~/P _ 1/~~J 1~,n ita L-, /ice, f/~ CI S~ h ~ , ,~'
\ such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved an eneral
interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations:
f~ f~ i ~ c
~ r
,~ ~.~ -2 0 , c,C~
Motion made by
Motion Seconded by ~,U~ ~ ~ ~
Votin
Chao
Date
l~.p
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variance from Section "15, Ordinance Number 1638.
I move to authorize a variance to~ the
' , , ~,
...
yard (Section 8.7)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
minimum setback ~~
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: - , • `.
a~,r/l cam' ~ ~~~a'/°r%~'~,~tJ'~
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:
f/~I G-/ L C~-av ~" ~
~Xr~r
/Ci~I ~ ~/
Motion made by Date ~'b ~~
Seconded by (~ ~ Voting Results
Chair Sicmatur i22~%
v.~isssooc
l~~ ~~~
~/,~i
>f,~,,r' ~6~
~,z u i
~~~,~~~~r~`
~.~,~~i rs~5 ~. ~
~<~~~
~'~ ,~~~ ~jri~~ r•4~~
~~,~-~.
lax, .~~ ,/1rw ~ ~ ~~~
~~~-~r ~~ ~ ~~=L~y~ ~
~~N~ ~ .
•
~