Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments' MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 27, 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Sawtelle, DeOtte, Gaston, Birdwell 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 City Planner Kee. 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 Apri120, 1993. • Mr. Birdwell moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 20, 1993 as written. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a previously tabled variance request by Putt-Putt Golf and Games to the sign requirements at 1705 Valley View to allow for the relocation of the existing sign Mr. Birdwell moved to remove this agenda item from the table for consideration. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Staff Planner Kuenzel explained that there are two issues that need to be addressed in clarifying staff's interpretation. One is the interpretation of sign orientation itself and the other is the purpose behind height restrictions. The drawings in the current version of the zoning ordinance include signs that are oriented to a road and are perpendicular to that road. All of these drawings, as well as those found in zoning definition handbooks, show freestanding signs that are perpendicular, not parallel to, the street of orientation. Over the past twenty years, staff has been consistent in making this interpretation. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that she spoke with two local sign contractors and asked them which way they would orient a freestanding sign if they wish to give it the most visibility. Both contractors stated that they would turn the sign so that it is perpendicular to the road. Signage such as stop signs, highway exit signs and billboards are all located perpendicular to the road. The driver can see them from a greater distance as she travels down the roadway and will have enough time to respond appropriately. It is the purpose of freestanding commercial signs to get the information to potential customers sooner in order to give them enough time to make a safe traffic maneuver. Signs that are parallel to the road tend to be solely informational in nature. These would be signs such as real estate signs and special promotional signs. The second issue in this case is one of height restrictions. Table one of the zoning ordinance shows how height is controlled by relating the maximum allowable height • to the setback from the curb. This means that the higher the sign, the greater the setback from the road. The city is trying to prevent extremely tall signs close to the roadway. Mr. Birdwell stated that staff did not address what the ordinance actually says. There is nothing in the ordinance that states a sign must be turned in a particular direction. Staff did not address signs at a • 45° angle on a corner lot or triangle signs. If staff wants to continue interpreting the ordinance as it has been in the past, they should present an amendment to City Council. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not state verbatim the direction or degree at which a sign should be located; however, this allows for some interpretation by the Zoning Official. Height limitations for a sign located on a corner lot at a 45° angle would be determined by the setbacks from both streets. Triangle signs have to meet area requirements with respect to the amount of frontage of the lot and orientation is still a factor. Mr. Birdwell questioned staff if the Board has the authority to tell the staff that they are interpreting the ordinance wrong. He stated that there is currently some ambiguity in the ordinance that should be corrected. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the Board does have the authority to change an interpretation; however, staff's interpretation has been based on standard planning practices and the drawings found in the sign regulations of the ordinance. Mr. Birdwell explained that the applicant should be issued a permit and allowed to build the proposed sign. He stated that he is unwilling to grant a variance because it will stay with the property forever and could be abused at some other time. The current ordinance does not adequately define orientation and the definition of orientation in Webster's Dictionary does not mean perpendicular to the street. Mr. Gaston stated that he believed that staff's interpretation is based on sound planning practices and in this particular case, orientation would mean perpendicular to the street. • Mr. Rife agreed and stated that the Board should look at how the term is applied in this particular context. A hardship in this case could be the adjacent arboretum. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern that a change in staff's interpretation could negatively e~€€ee~~-the city as a whole. City Planner Kee stated that the Board does have the authority to change an interpretation; however, staff has a couple of options. First, staff could come before the Board and explain the basis of the interpretation as was done tonight; or second, if staff feels that the impact of the interpretation change is too great, the city can go through the court system. City Planner Kee stated that in this particular case, the graphics included in the ordinance are as important as the verbiage. The city will never have an ordinance in place that is exact enough to not need interpretation; and, that is why there is a Zoning Official and a Board to interpret the ordinance. wwaow Applicant Bill Wetterman approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He stated that if it were not for the limited ~ai~er+~r~-of visibility created by the expanse of unpaved right-of-way and the vegetation in the arboretum, the sign could be oriented to Texas Avenue. Mr. Wetterman explained that he does not care how the interpretation issue is resolved as long as it will not change the status of the proposed sign to non-conforming. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the variance request with the following special condition, "the City's arboretum presents a major obstruction to reasonable visibility from Texas Avenue" and the following the hardship, "inability to have reasonable visibility from Texas Avenue". Mr. Rife seconded the motion. • Mr. DeOtte expressed concern that the unpaved right-of-way along Texas Avenue could be eventually paved and the city would have a tall sign next to the roadway. He suggested placing a condition upon the approval of the variance request that upon widening of Texas Avenue, the orientation of the sign will have to change. ZBA Minutes Apri127, 1993 Page 2 Assistant City Attorney Rayner suggested that if such a condition is placed on the variance, the Board should include the condition of the unpaved right-of-way as a special condition. • City Planner Kee stated that once special conditions change that were present during the granting of the variance, staff will bring the case before the Board for reconsideration. Mr. Sawtelle moved to amend the original motion to include the "extreme size of the Texas Avenue right-of-way" as a unique and special condition in this particular case. Mr. DeOtte seconded the amendment which passed unopposed (S - 0). Mr. DeOtte stated that if the special conditions outlined in the motion change and the pavement section of Texas Avenue is expanded, the sign must be reoriented to Texas Avenue instead of Valley View. Senior Planner Kee stated that she does not feel like staff can automatically change the variance once Texas Avenue is widened; however, staff can bring the variance back to the Board if the conditions under which the variance was granted have changed. Mr. Sawtelle moved to amend the original motion to place the following limitation to the variance approval, "at such time that these conditions substantially change, the Zoning Board of Adjustment will review the status of this variance". Mr. Birdwell seconded the amendment which passed unopposed (5 - 0). The original motion of approval, twice amended, is as follows: 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: (1) the city's arboretum presents a major obstruction to reasonable visibility from Texas • Avenue; and (2) the extreme size of the Texas Avenue right-of--way; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: inability to have reasonable visibility from Texas Avenue; 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: at such time that these conditions substantially change, the Zoning Board of Adjustment will review the status of the variance". The original motion of approval, twice amended, passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a previously tabled 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. Mr. DeOtte moved to remove agenda item number four from the table for consideration. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Assistant City Attorney Rayner explained that the Board can review existing variances to property when the conditions under which the variance was approved have substantially changed. Mr. Sawtelle questioned staff as to the demolition of the previous Shell sign being a substantial enough change to constitute reconsideration of the variance. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that there were approximately six special conditions discussed during the meeting when the sign variance was approved besides the fact that the sign was existing. Such special conditions included the busiest intersection in the county, turns into the site, above ground power poles, • sign clutter due to lower signage and the sign clutter located further down Texas Avenue in Bryan. None of these conditions have changed to constitute reconsideration of the sign variance. The Board did condition the variance upon the original sign being lowered by a few feet and located on the pole furthest from Texas Avenue; in order to meet these conditions, the sign would have to be demolished. ZBA Minutes Apri127, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Sawtelle asked staff if a setback variance is granted, could the Board prohibit wall signage. • Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the Board could place a condition on the variance in which wall signage would be prohibited. Even though you are granting the right for a building to enter into the setback area, the owner is not automatically guaranteed all of the rights associated with that portion of the building. Staff Planner Kuenzel explained that the proposed canopy is considered a structure and an awning is considered as a building extension. The applicant submitted a plan that conceptually shows where they could locate the building on the front setback line along University and the side street setback line along Texas Avenue. Under the current ordinance, the applicant could also have a 6' extension such as a balcony or an awning. The applicant is showing this conceptual plan to demonstrate that the variance request has a much less impact than what is currently allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Gaston stated that after reviewing the case further and looking at the existing conditions of the site, he does not have an objection to the proposed variance requests. The proposal will not be any more obtrusive than what is currently on other corners of the intersection. The proposed driveway locations are significantly improved over the existing situation. Applicant James Kolkhorst approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Gaston. He stated that he talked to Exxon about the proposed attached signage to the canopy into the setback area. Exxon did not like the idea of being prohibited from placing a sign on this corner of the canopy. Mr. Birdwell stated that the driveways were mentioned as a special condition in the original discussions and the driveway locations have changed to improve traffic safety. Mr. Birdwell moved to authorize the variance requests to the front, rear and side setback requirements with the following special condition, "the site is too small for modern service station development'; and hardship to the applicant being the "inability to reasonably develop the property' ; and with the condition that the variance granted to the second freestanding 22' sign to be located on the corner of University and Texas is void • as the original special conditions pertaining to the driveways have changed. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion. Mr. Gaston read the minutes of November 19, 1991 pertaining to the previously granted sign variance request. "Ms. Baker moved to authorize a variance to section 12, ordinance number 1638, sign regulations pertaining to the freestanding pylon sign, 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, that the total square footage will be less than the current square footage; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to the applicant being accessibility and visibility; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served." Mr. DeOtte stated that the Board looks at all possible alternatives at the time a variance is considered; however, this does not mean that the Board has explored all of the possible outcomes. When both sign variances were granted, the signs were existing. The accessibility and the visibility conditions listed in the original motion have changed. Mr. Birdwell stated that all variances are based on proposals. When you completely redevelop a property, there are definitely changing conditions. The problem in this situation is that when the other two stations were redeveloped, the Shell pylon sign was existing. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern of possible extra attachments to the canopy. He moved to amend the original motion to include the following statement as a condition of approval, "there will be no roof, projecting or awning signs allowed on the canopy; however, facade signs will be allowed". Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion. • City Planner Kee stated roof and projecting signs are precluded by the ordinance; however, awning signs are allowed by ordinance. The amendment to the original motion passed unopposed (5 - 0). ZBA Minutes Apri127, 1993 Page 4 Assistant City Attorney Rayner recommended a second amendment to clarify the fact that the hardship created, as discussed in the previously approved variance request, is no longer existing. This • amendment would clarify why the original variance is being taken away. Mr. DeOtte moved to amend the original motion of approval to include the phrase, "since the hardship no longer exists" with respect to accessibility to the property. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Mr. Rife suggested that the motion also reference the changing conditions with respect to visibility as mentioned as a hardship in the previously granted variance request. Mr. DeOtte moved to amend the second amendment to the original motion to include "visibility" as an original hardship that has changed. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the change to the second amendment. Mr. Gaston suggested that the Board either vote against the original motion or withdraw the motion in order to present a final, clear motion of approval. Mr. Birdwell and Mr. Sawtelle agreed to withdraw the original motion including both amendments. 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: the site is too small for modern service station development; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the inability to reasonably develop the property; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the variance for the 22' front sign is void as the special conditions, such as accessibility and visibility, are being removed and since the hardships no longer exist; and no roof, projecting or awning signs will be allowed on the canopy. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). • AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a variance request to the side street setback requirements for a garage to allow for the construction of a new home at 8412 Wildewood Circle; lot 7, block 12 of Emerald Forest Phase 8 Subdivision. This agenda item was postponed until the meeting of Tuesday, May 4, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. due to a notification error. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA 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). ,~ APP ~';' TTES . • Planning echnician, Nata ie Thomas Chairperson, Glenda baker ZBA Minutes April 27, 1993 Page S Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register '' "~ Date ' ' ( ~ c~1 ~ 1 Name Address 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.