Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/2000 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 4, 2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Hill & Bond. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy, Ellis & Dr. Bailey. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Development Services Director Callaway. 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: Consider Absence Request from meeting. • There were no request turned in. AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of minutes from the October 20, 1999 meeting of the Board. Mr. Happ made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Approval of minutes from the December 7, 1999 meeting of the Board. Mr. Happ made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.S: Consideration of front setback variance 3109 Pleasant Forest. Applicant Oakwood Custom Homes. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the purpose of the variance is to correct a construction error. The setback required is 25 feet. The setback requested is 24.66 feet. Thus the applicant is requesting a variance of .33 feet (4 inches). • ZBA Minutes January 4, 2000 Page 1 of 8 The applicant offers a special condition of the stakes being mis-located during the placement of the slab. The error was not known until a survey was conducted for the purchase of the home. The construction of the home is complete. The applicant states it would be costly to remove the brick and • move the walls to correct the 4-inch error. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. & Mrs. Jonathan Stone, the homeowners, stepped before the Board and were sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Stone told the Boazd that they aze requesting the variance in order to sell the house as their family grows. Mr. Stone explained that without the variance a lender letter would be required each time the home was sold. With no one else stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made the motion to authorize a 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: a variance of 4 inches in this particular- case will not be detrimental to either the neighborhood nor the public interest as a whole; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hazdship to this applicant being: the wall would have to be demolished and reconstructed; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: a variance of no more than 4 inches to be allowed in this case. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration of a sign variance at 3535 Longmire Drive. Applicant • is Quality Signs. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board the request is to allow two additional freestanding/monument signs for a shopping center. The applicant is requesting to have two 10 feet 9 inches x 14 feet multi-tenant signs to be located at the Longmire Drive entries on Birmingham and Rock Prairie Road. These signs aze in addition to an already approved multi-tenant sign to be located on the Frontage Road of Highway 6. The applicant believes the additional signs would help improve traffic circulation azound the site. He also states that the signs would be monument in type by design and should fit in with the overall design theme of the shopping center. Under Section 12, Paragraph K -Freestanding Commercial Signs, the following is stated: (Staff comments are in italics.) "No more than one freestanding sign shall be allowed on any premises except when all of the following conditions are met": 1. The site must be zoned C-1, C-2, C-3, C-B, M-1 or M-2. The subject property meets this requirement. 2. The site must be twenty-five (25) acres or more in area. The subject property is 12. SS acres. • ZBA Minutes January 4, 2000 Page 2 of 8 3. The site must have 1,000 feet (or more) of continuous un-subdivided frontage on any major arterial street (as classified in the thoroughfaze plan) toward which one additional freestanding sign is displayed. The subject property is not bordered on any side by a major arterial street; in addition, • no side has 1, 000 feet or more of continuous frontage. The Longmire side, (classified as a major collector), is the closest to this requirement with 965 feet of frontage. Since the subject property does not meet all of the conditions and requirements for additional commercial signage listed above, the applicant is requesting a variance to the number of freestanding signs allowed for a commercial property in order to have two (2) additional signs on a building plot. The applicant states a special condition of the retail shopping center project being bounded on all four sides by major roadways, with signage on the buildings only facing Highway 6. The applicant feels that the additional signage should help traffic flow by directing the public to the proper drive. The sign regulations do allow attached signage to be placed on all sides of a commercial building; thus each individual tenant could have attached signage which would face other right-of--ways. The applicant offers a hazdship of lack of tenant identification on major traffic thoroughfaze (Longmire Drive). Mr. Happ asked how faz off the road would the proposed signs have to be. Ms. Anderson replied that she had not gotten that faz into the permitting process but she would estimate 20 feet off the road. Mr. Bond asked what options does the Boazd have beside amulti-tenant sign to help assist with traffic • flow. Ms. Anderson replied that the applicant might best answer that question. Ms. Anderson stated she understood the applicant was thinking that when the multi-tenant signs aze seen you know which drive to take. Mr. Bond asked if there are other ways to accomplish that beside amulti-tenant sign. Ms. Anderson replied that staff recommends that signs be attached on the back of the buildings. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Dan Maniza, Center America Property Trust, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Manua. told the Board that this project has a long history. One of the original concerns of the city staff was the traffic flow on Longmire Drive. Mr. Manua stated that it is his belief as the azea develops, Longmire Drive will grow from a collector to a major arterial street. Staff had great concern that the driveway nearest Rock Prairie would receive an undo amount of traffic causing greater congestion at the intersection. That is one reasoning the driveway in front of the proposed Kroger space is a much larger, a more finished driveway to signify the major entry into the center. Mr. Manua told the Boazd that if better tenant identification was obtained they could help separate some traffic. Mr. Manua. told the Boazd that 4 streets surround the property, and it is their opinion that the two main traffic-generating streets will be Langmire Drive and SH-6. Mr. Manua told the Boazd that per ordinance they do have the right to put signs along the back of the buildings, but as a responsible property owner they object to it because it has a tendency without strict control to add visual clutter to the area and property. Mr. Manua stated they feel by concentrating and controlling the signage on a smaller basis would be much more aesthetically appealing to the property on a whole. • ZBA Minutes January 4, 2000 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Manua. told the Board that Center America is building to hold and own the property so aesthetics and future appearance is considered greatly. Mr. Manua stated that in addressing the placement of the signs in relation to the right-of--way, the signs would be placed as code allowed, as well as what is the • best interest of traffic safety. Mr. Manua ended by telling the Boazd that the initial permitted sign has been sited in 10 to 12 leases and the spaces on the sign aze sold out. It is all referenced back to the lease and if the leases had to be redone, they would chose to withdraw the request. Mr. Bond asked how does multi-tenant signage help with traffic flow. Mr. Manua answered that the buildings will face SH-6. With time the signs would help develop the patterns for getting the customers to the tenant of their choice. Mr. Bond asked how long ago was the property purchased for this project. Mr. Manua replied that the sale of the property closed a year ago December. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Manua was the traffic on the surrounding streets considered before the property was purchased. Mr. Bond added that he would consider the traffic a benefit to the shopping center. Mr. Manua stated that during the planning process, city staff addressed the traffic flow concerns as the site plan approval was being sought. With no one stepping forwazd to speak in opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Ms. Anderson stepped back to the podium and reminded the Boazd that directional signs are allowed and one can be placed at each driveway. The signs can only be 4-sq. ft. in azea and 4-feet tall. There • can also be signage within the complex. Mr. Hill made the 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 subject property is bounded by streets on all sides; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hazdship to this applicant being: because of the access from multiple streets being limited to a single sign will make it more difficult for the public to identify the businesses present in the shopping center; 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: a second multi-tenant sign to be allowed on this property, situated such that the two signs aze placed adjacent to two separate streets or roads. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. Mr. Happ amended the motion to include: being limited to a single sign will make it more difficult to identify the businesses locations present in the shopping center. • ZBA Minutes January 4, 2000 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Bond asked Mr. Happ if he felt necessary to allow both signs. Mr. Happ stated that his original thought was to go with one for advertising purposes, but since it is to identify an entry into the shopping center then he would recommend both signs. Mr. Happ stated that he personally agreed that • signs on the back of the businesses are not attractive. Mr. Murphy seconded Mr. Happ's amendment. Mr. Hill made clarification to his motion and stated that his motion only approves a second sign. Therefore, Mr. Happ's amendment is not pertinent to his motion. Mr. Happ stated that he did not understand his motion. Mr. Hill stated that he is authorizing a second multi-tenant sign. This would allow two signs and not on the same street. Mr. Hill added that he felt that this property fell short of the requirements to have a second free standing sign, but the property being surrounding by major access streets, a second sign is warranted as long as they aze not on the same side of the street. The Board vote 2-3. The motion failed. Bond, Murphy &Happ voting against the motion to authorize the variance. Mr. Happ made the 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 shopping center is surrounded by four streets, two of which aze or will soon be major thoroughfazes and major entrances need to be properly identified; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hazdship to this applicant being: methods of identifying business locations would not be an additional benefit to the decor of the property; 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: only the two • additional freestanding signs next to the two entrances on Longmire will be authorized. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. Mr. Hill stated that he feels since the property falls short of the requirements for a second sign, allowing a second and a third sign is excessive. Mr. Bond stated that he agreed. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Hill if he saw a need for a second freestanding sign. Mr. Hill answered that he would agree for the need of a second sign, because there aze major access roads surrounding the property. Mr. Bond stated that he did not see the need for a second or a third. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Bond to explain why. Mr. Bond replied that if there are traffic concerns, there had to be traffic concerns when the property was purchased. If there aze traffic concerns that can be planned azound then the proper planning needs to take place. Mr. Happ stated that he agreed with Mr. Bond that it is not a traffic flow issue. Mr. Happ told the Board from his experience of chauffeuring a spouse to shopping centers he liked entrances that tell him what business the entrance feeds. Mr. Bond stated that personal convenience would not be enough to overcome a zoning ordinance. Chairman Alexander stated that he does see the need for additional signage on the other side of the property. Mr. Hill stated that he sees advantages to having a sign on the SH-6 and Longmire Drive entrances since they would be on the opposite sides of the property The Board vote 2-3. The motion failed. Bond, Hill & Chairman Alexander voting against the motion to authorize the variance ZBA Minutes January 4, 2000 Page S of 8 Mr. Hill asked if the first motion offered could be introduced again. Chairman Alexander replied that it would be appropriate to offer it again. Mr. Happ asked if the first motion is cast and the size is restricted to what has been proposed, then there would not be enough room to have all of the • businesses of the shopping center listed on the one sign. If a single sign is going to be authorized, it will have to be big enough to list each business in the shopping center. Chairman Alexander stated that as a practical matter shopping centers do not have space for every business on their signs. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Manua if space was being allocated for each tenant. Mr. Manua replied that they are not able to accommodate each tenant. Mr. Murphy made the 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 property is bounded by four major streets and the location of the tenant businesses is not well known enough without proper signage; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: the lack of any advertisement on at least one other boundary street; 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: a second multi-tenant freestanding sign be allowed on the property, placed in the boundary of the property adjacent to Longmire Drive. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Mr. Hill made the motion to amend the motion by striking the reference to Longmire Drive and specifying the second sign can not be adjacent to the same street as the first sign. Mr. Happ seconded the amendment. The motion passed (4-1). Mr. Bond voting against the motion. • Ms. Anderson asked the Board to specify a height requirement for clarification. There were discussions among the Board to determine a height requirement. Chairman Alexander called Mr. Manua back before the Board to help determine the height. Mr. Manua stated that if they were going to be limited to one sign, the signs requested were to be 10 feet x 9 inches and he would be comfortable with 16 feet. That would allow for 4 - 6 more tenants advertisements. Mr. Happ made an amendment to the motion to include under limitations: no higher than 16 feet and no wider than 14 feet. Mr. Hill seconded the amendment. The amendment passed (4-1). Mr. Bond voting against the motion to amend. Mr. Murphy re-read the motion with the amendment as follows: Mr. Murphy made the 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 property is bounded by four major streets and the location of the tenant businesses is not well known enough without proper signage; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: the lack of any advertisement on at least one other boundary street; 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: ZBA Minutes January 4, 2000 Page 6 of 8 a second multi-tenant freestanding sign no higher than 16 feet and no wider than 14 feet be allowed on the property such that the two signs are placed adjacent to two separate streets. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-1). Mr. Bond voting against the motion to authorize the variance. • AGENDA ITEM NO: 7: Discussion of Board Meeting dates and times. Mr. Callaway, Director of Development Services stepped before the Boazd. Mr. Callaway told the Board that he first wanted to apologize for the memo sent to the Board dated December 1, 1999. Mr. Callaway told the Board that he was responding to some work load changes that resulted from the Joint Workshop that the Board had attended. Mr. Callaway added that he failed to review the Boazd's Policies and the ordinance provisions for the time and dates of the meeting. The goal is to adjust the processing of variance applications to adapt to a 50% reduction in staff time available for such cases. Mr. Callaway explained to the Board that city staff has been reassigned with less time available and that does not mean there will be fewer applications.. It is anticipated that in the next few months an increase in the number of staff that will not be available due to conflicting night meetings. Mr. Callaway added that city staff does not want to bring the Board variance cases that have not been completely reviewed. Mr. Callaway explained that there aze similaz problems with the Planning & Zoning Commission but it is being dealt with in a different way. Staff evaluates all the applications that come in and determine how many and which ones can be placed on the up coming agenda, and which ones have to be placed on future agendas. Mr. Callaway stated that he does not feel that would work with variances. Mr. Callaway asked the Boazd for their ideas and suggestions. Mr. Hill stated that his only concern would be if someone were on a short time frame. Mr. Happ stated that the Chairman has the authority to call meetings as required and if there were an emergency • situation the Board Members would be available. Mr. Happ added that it would then be up to staff as to whether they could accommodate the request. Mr. Callaway added that there aze certain things that have to be accomplished in order to consider most of the items that come before the Board. Such things are notices to the Eagle and notification to the surrounding property owners. Chairman Alexander asked if there aze problems reconciling to the Open Meetings Act. Ms. Nemcik replied that a special meeting could be set outside of the Board's regulaz meeting. Ms. Nemcik told the Boazd if the meetings aze reduced, an amendment to the Boazd's Rules & Regulations needs to happen. Then if there is a .special meeting they will have to meet the notice requirements. Mr. Hill stated that he is favorable to the single regulaz schedule meeting. If something comes up that would be up to staff to decide if there is a need for a special meeting. Chairman Alexander asked if staff is sensitive to requests as they come up. Chairman Alexander gave the example of the variance request at 701 Hereford. Mr. Callaway stated that staffs general policy is to address the problem as quickly as possible. The practical matter is if you don't, whoever has the problem, will become your problem. Mr. Callaway stated that staff is sensitive and even if they aze not, you become sensitive because the person with the problem does not go away until the problem goes away. Chairman Alexander asked should the Chairman and the Board be in the loop of deciding whether or not a meeting needs to be called. Chairman Alexander stated that he wants citizens who seek relief from this Boazd to be able to plead their case as expediently as possible. ZBA Minutes January 4, 2000 Page 7 of 8 • Ms. Nemcik stated it is specifically referred to in the ordinance; the Chairman has the authority to call a meeting. As a Board, you can develop in the Rules and Procedures, how you want to conduct the • Boazd Meetings and what authority you have. The Chairman can call a meeting independently. The Boazd can put other provisions in its rules concerning calling a meeting. Ms. Nemcik stated that if the meeting dates are to be changed, it must be done by Boazd action. If it is decided to reduce to one meeting a month, on the next meeting agenda there will be an item for the Board to consider an amendment to section III-B of the Rules. Mr. Hill made the motion to add an agenda item to the next regular scheduled meeting to consider a change to the regular scheduled meeting dates. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Future Agenda Items. The Board unanimously approved placing "Future Agenda Items" back on the meeting agenda. The "Future Agenda Items" notice will be used to decide if an item needs to be place on a future agenda. Any discussion shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on the agenda for a subsequent meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Adjourn The Boazd was adjourned. • ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Deborah Grace • APPROVED: Chairman, David lexander ZBA Minutes January 4, 2000 Page 8 of 8 • i• i• Zoning Board of Adjustmeat Guest Register Date ~ - ~ r w • Name Address 1. m~~~~ (3A~~QNa(;,4~ S ~ c~N,s) l o a o s ~n.,4,c.K-z~" S~ b~o~ Z`f° 7 ~ o a ~ 2. 3. 4. 5. . 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.