Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1999 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • C7 • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Hill & Alternate Member Searcy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis & Bailey. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson & Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consideration to rehear previously approved sign for Allen Honda. Mr. Happ made to motion to rehear the case. Mr. Hill seconded, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a sign variance for the height requirement to allow for a new 50' sign. Applicant is Allen Honda. Ms. McCtilly sununarized the case from the Apri120~ meeting of the Board. At that meeting the Board authorized a variance to the sign regulations by a vote of 4-1 with-the limitation that the sign does not exceed the overall height of 3 5 feet. Ms. McC~lly~old the Board that the existing sign height was incorrectly presented at that meeting and stated the corrected existing sign height to be 33 '/s feet. Ms. McCully stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires the height of the sign to be measured relative to the pavement edge of the road that the sign is to be oriented to. In this case the existing sign is permitted to be a maximum of 35 feet, but the 35 feet must be measured above the pavement elevation on the first~nain lane of SH-6 rather than an overall height. Because the ground under the sign is 10 feet higher than the pavement on the main lane on SH-6, the overall height can only be 25 feo;. of the existing sign. Ms. McCully stated that when the existing sign was installed her guess would be no one took the elevation differences into consideration. Ms McCully presented to Board pictures of the site. June 15, 1999 6:00 P.M. Ms. McCully presented and explained cross sections to clarify the elevation differences. ZBA Minr~tes June 15, 1999 Page 1 oj8 Mr. Happ asked if SH-6 was lowered any or if Southwest Parkway was just raised. Ms. McCully replied that her understanding is the work that was done had to do with the frontage road and Southwest Parkway. • Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Todd Kojis, applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Kojis referred back to the pictures presented by staff to the Board. Mr. Kojis explained the visual obstruction to the existing sign. Mr. Kojis stated that if it was his professional opinion, he would tell Mr. Allen not to waste his money on a new sign if it could not be the minimum of 50 feet above grade in order to be effective. Mr. Kojis stated that the 50-foot sign would not cause an eye sore or nuisance but would rather be a sign that would fit in line with the other signs on SH-6. Mr. Searcy asked about the size of the sign. Mr. Kojis answered that it is a 14' x 14' logo of the Honda emblem. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Kojis if he had looked at the other signs on the By-pass. Mr. Kojis replied that a surveyor considered the elevation, and the other signs in the area, and it was then that he suggested the 50-foot sign. Mr. Searcy spoke about the Furrows sign and asked Mr. Kojis if he could give a comparison between that sign with the Honda sign. Mr. Kojis replied in his opinion the bottom of the Furrow sign head itself, to the ground, there is a great enough distance and there are no other obstructions. Mr. Kojis • stated that traveling both directions it is obvious what is advertises. There are no power lines, trees or overpass obstructing any view. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Kojis if moving the sign back next to the building was considered. Mr. Kojis answered yes it had been discussed. Mr. Kojis described what would happen because of the overpass, the more you move it back the higher the sign would have to be because the more it is moved back the shorter it becomes. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Kojis how much higher would the proposed sign be relative to the trees. Mr: Kojis replied that it would be an additional 15 feet. Mr. Alexander asked if it would put the sign even to the tops of the trees. Mr. Kojis stated that the sign would not protrude the tree line. Mr. Kojis added that the advantage would be that the sign would appear to have been lifted off the ground and the void or air space below the sign would make the sign stand out and be more easily seen. Mr. Alexander asked if.the sign was higher would it not be in the power lines even more. Mr. Kojis stated that the power lines would only obstruct the sign, but the advantage would be-that it would be off the ground and away from the trees. John Allen, the owner's son, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Allen presented the Board pictures of Allen Honda before the overpass was built. Mr. Allen described the sign then as being perfect. ZBA Minutes June IS, 1999 Pa e 2 0 8 S f Chairman Alexander asked for any one wanting to speak in opposition of the variance to step forward. With no one stepping forwazd Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. • Mr. Happ moved 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 applicant placed the original sign in a position that was easily viewed from the highway and the Highway Department altered terrain levels in front and side of the property. The actual square footage of the sign does not change significantly; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: applicant can not raise property level to the same level the access road was raised by the Highway Department and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served: Mr. Hill seconded the motion and made amendment to the motion. Mr. Hill amended the motion to add under limitations the maximum height of the sign will not exceed 324 feet elevation. Mr. Searcy seconded the amended motion. Mr. Happ read the approved amended motion. Mr. Happ moved 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 applicant placed the original sign in a position that was easily viewed from the highway and the Highway Department altered terrain levels in front and side of the property. The actual square footage of the sign does not change significantly; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: applicant can not raise property level to the same level the access road was raised by the Highway Department 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 maximum height of the sign will not exceed 324' elevation. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of an appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation and a parking setback variance for University Drive E. and SH-6. Applicant is Ray Hansen for Gateway fuel Inc. Senior Planner McCully stepped before the Boazd and told the Boazd that the Zoning Official's Interpretation and the parking setback variance will need to be considered separately. Ms. McCully presented the staff report of the interpretation appeal and told the Boazd the applicant wants to allow a water and air machine to be placed outside the gas station building. The property is located at the northwest corner of University and SH-6 East Bypass. The property is within the University Drive Corridor Overlay District, which extends from SH-6 to Tarnow Drive. This district contains special regulations in addition to the underlying use and site restrictions: As stated in Section 8.19, paragraph B the ordinance intent is "to enhance the image of key entry points, major corridors, and other azeas of concern, as determined by the City Council, by maintaining a sense of openness and continuity..." Gasoline Service Stations in the Overlay District are required to have "all activities except those associated with fuel pumping must be conducted within an enclosed building." ZBA Minutes June IS, 1999 Page 3 oj8 Zoning official interpreted air and water as not associated with fuel pumping because these activities are indirectly and not directly related to fuel pumping. Staff chose to make a relatively strict interpretation of this provision due to the purpose and intent of the Overlay District, which is to present an aesthetically pleasing entrance into the City with as little outside activities as possible. While it could be argued that air and water are typically provided on a gas station site, the activity is not directly related to the process of fuel pumping. The Overlay District restricts other types of outdoor activities that may be seen on service station sites outside of the comdor, such as auto repair, car washes, and icelvending machines. Therefore, Staff has interpreted "activities associated with fuel pumping" to include those activities that are directly associated with the process of pumping gasoline. Mr. Happ stated that he understood the intent but where would the water and air machine be placed if not outside. Ms. McCully replied that in this case there could be two options: 1) to create an interior place or area where it would not be seen, or 2) not provide the air and water service at all. Mr. Searcy asked if the Board chooses to disagree with staff interpretation, would this set precedence in future cases. Ms. McCully answered yes. Ms. McCully told the Board to realize that this restriction of activities associated with fuel pumping is only found now in the Overlay District. Ms. McCully told the Board of the applicants other store on 2818 across from the high school. Due to the different zoning at that location which would allow storage warehouses, etc., City Council applied the Overlay District to ensure a more aesthetically pleasing development there as well. Mr. Happ asked where was the water and air machine placed at that location. Ms. McCully answered that she did not know and the applicant would have to answer that. • Mr. Searcy stated that an alternative for the applicant would be to place the water and air machine behind the building and then a variance would not be needed. Ms. McCully answered that the intent of the ordinance was not to restrict to the Bypass or side street. So if the air and water machine were visible from the Bypass the applicant would be in compliance. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Ray Hansen, applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Hansen stated that the air and water machine at his store on 2818 is placed at almost the same location on an extreme corner. Mr. Hansen stated that Exxon, as an industry coast to coast has become a provider of air and water. Mr. Hansen continued by telling the Board what he proposed for the new stations air and water machine was to berm the area or place an enclosure around it that would be identical to the building. Mr. Hansen explained that it would be unsafe fo place the air and water in the back of the building. Mr. Hansen stated that he has no reason to argue this interpretation, but the interpretation should be reversed. Mr. Hansen stated that air and water have historically been associated with the selling of gasoline. Mr. Hansen stated that it is his guess that 60-75% of people who use the air and water machines do not use the gas pumps. Mr. Hansen stated that he personally would not want the air and water because it is a great cost and he finds for some reason, people find delight in cutting the hoses. ZBA Minutes June l S, 1999 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Hill made to motion to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 8.19 of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion, which failed (2-3). Chairman Alexander, Mr. Happ and Mr. Murphy voting not to uphold the decision. Mr. Happ made the motion to interpret Section 8.19 of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: Air and water should be considered directly related to the selling of gasoline. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion to interpret and suggested rewording it to read: Air and water should be considered directly related to fuel pumping. The Boazd continued discussions concerning the motion. The Board voted and the motion to uphold the decision or interpretation failed (3-2). Mr. Hill and Mr. Searcy voting against. Variance to the Parking Setback Requirement Senior Planner McCully presented the staff and report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow 11 parking spaces to encroach into the 20' setback area long the University Drive frontage. The Overlay District requires, where parking is located in the front of the building, a front setback of 20' from the University Drive right-of--way to the parking area. The applicant proposes a setback of 6 feet from the right-of--way to the parking area to allow 11 spaces along the frontage without reducing the size of the building. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a variance of 14 feet from the right-of--way. •~ The applicant offers that the property has been in the current configuration for many years and was carved out of a larger tract of land to build an old style gas station. He states the "new style" gas station has many improvements and is more aesthetically pleasing to meet the demands of today's travelers. Applicant also states these improvements require much more parking and he believes the eleven more spaces are needed to create a less congested and more safe site. The pr. oposed site plan provides 55 pazking spaces compazed to the 45-space requirement determined by the Zoning Ordinance for this size shopping center (1 space per every 150 square feet). At the time the Overlay District was created, staff realized that there were some existing sites that may be-too small to accommodate the increased setbacks of the new District regulations. Rather than identifying these and making special provisions in the ordinances, the ordinance was adopted with the understanding that some of these sites may be candidates for setback variances within reasonable limits. The applicant offers a hardship of the inability to provide adequate pazking for the site, which in his experience has~shown to be necessary for a development of this nature- Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for anyone wanting to speak-in favor of the request. Mr. Hansen, already sworn in, stepped back before the Board. Mr. Hansen told the Board that the building was moved back after conversations with the developer of the area, to eliminate confusion that might have occurred if there was more than one lane of traffic and parking behind the building. And that did eliminate the parking space behind the building. Mr. Hansen stated that the lack of parking • would be highly detrimental to the development of the site. ZBA Minutes June 1S, I999 Page S of 8 Mr. Hansen told the Boazd that he would be maintaining approximately 50 additional feet of Highway property beyond the curb line toward University Drive and the Bypass. This area would be fully landscaped and this would add to the aesthetics of the property. • Chairman Alexander called for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request. With no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny the variance. The motioned failed with a lack of a second. There were continued discussions among the Board concerning the special conditions of the Overlay District. Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize the variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: this particulaz piece of property is both in and out of the comdor and the nature of the proposed use of this property makes parking a necessity; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: complying with the ordinance would not provide adequate parking to meet the required number of spaces and make parking a safety issue; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shalt be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO: 5 Consideration for a parking variance for 502 Harvey Road. Applicant is Blake Brown for Rudy's Tezas Bar-Be-Que LLC. Senior Planner McCully stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. McCully stated • the applicant is requesting the parking variance to allow for redevelopment of a site in compliance with the Wolf Pen Creek Plan. Restaurants without adrive-through are required to have one parking space for every 65 square feet. The proposed restaurant has a total of 6743 sq. ft., for a requirement of 104 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a total of 87 parking spaces, one parking space for every 77.5 square feet. Thus this applicant is seeking a variance of 17 parking spaces (16%). This is the fourth restaurant to locate in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor along Hazvey Road. The three others, which will open soon are, Sonic, Konas Steakhouse and Johnny Carino's. Unlike the other three, which were developed on vacant land, Rudy's plans to redevelop the existing Sneakers site. The DRB has met several times regarding the Rudy's plans. The DRB has given strong opinions that the building should be-0riented to the creek. The P&Z will be approving the body of the final site plan. The applicant has gained P&Z approval of a conceptual pian with the understanding that his parking variance would be required. The conceptual plan approved by P&Z shows the area between the creek and the building as combinations of a landscaped area with a driveway of gals Crete. The DRB is requesting significant site changes to bring the Rudy's restaurant inline with other new structures coming into the corridor. The owner has the option to use the existing site and building as is due to the fact that the site predates the WPC district regulations. However, any changes to the building or site would come under WPC review. ZBA Minutes June 1 S, 1999 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Searcy described the area of being dense brush and heavily wooded. Mr. Searcy asked in that area is the City going to develop the jogging path and other improvements that would reduce the vegetation. Ms. McCully replied that is still being coordinated between the applicant and the City Engineering Staff. Ms. McCully spoke about an existing retaining wall located within that area, and that a pathway will be added into that area. Ms. McCully stated that all the improvements to this tract would be done in accordance with the Design Review Board. Mr. Happ spoke about the pathway issue coming before this Board that concerned the area where Kona's and Carino's is built. The main concern was getting maintenance equipment in the area. Ms. McCully stated that that would also be looked at in this development as well. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Blake Brown, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Brown told the Board that he actually wanted the Board not to grant the variance. Mr. Brown told the Board that there have been changes with the development that have him concerned about having enough parking spaces. Mr. Brown told the Board that the scheme that was presented is not his most desirable choice. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Brown what his desires for the tract were. Mr. Brown stated it is to have the building moved back. The creek view would be a benefit. Mr. Brown stated that it was his understanding that now the creek is going to be filled in and moved even further back from the tract of land. Mr. Brown stated that his architect at the request of the DRB, in fact drew the site plan that was being presented. At the same time another scheme was turned in that he preferred and it was voted down. Mr. Hill asked for clarification that Mr. Brown did not want to Board to grant the variance. Mr. Brown stated that things have changed to the development since he applied for the variance. Mr. Brown stated that he wanted to go back and start over with the DRB and look at the other scheme. There were discussions between Mr. Brown and the Board concerning the correct action for the Board to take. Should the item be tabled, withdrawn, or denied. Mr. Brown stated that he had a meeting with the DRB in the morning to go over the plan that was presented. At this time he wanted to talk to the Board for reconsideration on the other schemes that Mr. Brown had drawn. Paul Clarke, the developer, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Clarke questioned the notification process and time line if this was to be tabled. Ms. McCully explained the process. Mr. Clarke told the Board if Mr. Brown withdrew his request, it would be like Mr. Brown did not do what the DRB asked him to do. • ZBA Minutes June lS, 1999 Page 7 oj8 • t: i• Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register Date 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. ZONING BOARD OF~ADJUSTMEN'P , ~ ~ ~ ~~ FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Rectulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. Motion mac l~~~tion Sec Ze sp`~it and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: - - Voting Rest Chair Signa Date [Q - ~ ~.- y y sxP~sss.~oc 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: ~J • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS APPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S IIvTERPRETATION -From Section 1S.S, Ordinance Number 1638 I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section ~~ of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Motion made by ~ e51~ a y,~~ Date ~ S ~kne ~~99 Seconded by ,,S~~P h e I~~ S~ Cc ~'~`''~-- Votes Results ~ `~ Chair Signature WHEN RULII~TG NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR INTERPRETATION MADE SY THE ZONING OFFICIAL. USE THE FOLLOWIl~iG FORM: I move to interpret Section of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: Motion made by Seconded by Chair Signature Date Voting Results fIPINTERP.DOC • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS APPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION -From Section 15.5, Ordinance Number 1638 I move to uphold the deci~sio/n~ or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 6 / ~ of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Motion made by Seconded by Chair Signature Date Voting Results wF~T RULING NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR INTERPRETATION MADE BY THE ZONING OFFICIAL, USE TIC FOLLOQPII~TG FORM: Motion made by . Seconded by S Chair Signature S. Date (~ `~ J S~-_ / / Vo~g Results 3 - °~, .+;PINTERP.DOC • I move to interpret Section ~~19 of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT C~ FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize 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 not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: w ~ ~~/~ • ~ Aw / .~Lf./~C,, i'f/~~ /;~ ~~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~ ~ ~~_ • _ i would result in r ~~ti%,~ ,~~;~ ~ G - - ~ .. ~~ and such that die spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by Date ~ ~~ L '- 'Sem.KC~ b~ ~- ~-T h~l C~~ D cr, voting 12esults 5 c7 ',hair Signature vatzP~sss.DOc