Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1982 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment May 18, 1982 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Chairman Cook, Members Wagner, Upham, Donahue and Alternate Member Lindsay MEMBERS ABSENT: D. MacGilvray and Council Liaison P. Boughton STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Halter (for administering Oath of Office),Zoning Official Kee, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, and. Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Swearing in of new members. Mayor Halter administered the oath of office to new members Mary Kaye Donahue and Hugh Lindsay, and to re-appointed members Jack Upham and Gale Wagner. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Approval of Minutes from April 20, 1982. • Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes, Mrs. Cook seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of a Variance Re uest to Section 8 - Ordi- nance 850 - Parking Requirements for a sandwich shop at 11 University Drive in the name of Centex Subway, Inc. Mrs. Cook recommended that this item and item #6 be tabled until staff, City Council and ZBA members have a chance to do a thorough study of the Northgate area. Discussion followed with Jack Boyett, who spoke from the floor, indica- ting that he had made the trip to gain information concerning what had been proposed in the Northgate area. Mrs. Cook indicated that she was aware of this, and that the City appreciated his concern, but that the ZBA with the new mem- bers was not in a position to discuss the matter at hand until further study could be made. Mr. Wagner made a motion to table both Items 3 and 6 on the Agenda. Mrs. Donahue seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A - Ordinance 850 - Minimum Setback Requirements fora residence at 305 Pershing in the name of Michael Murphy. • Mrs. Cook pointed out that this item had been tabled during the meeting on April 20, 1982. Jack Upham then moved to remove this item from its tabled state; Mr. Lindsay seconded the motion. Motion to remove item from tabled stated carried unanimously. ..-- _ _ page 2 ZBA Minutes - May 18, 1982 Mrs. Kee then .explained the item, and Mr. Murphy asked to be heard from the floor. • Michael Murphy was sworn in and stated that he was amending his original request from consideration of a variance, to requesting that the setback to his proposed addition to his house be established by measurement from the centerline of the alley rather than from the property line. Mr. Upham stated that the ZBA could not establish policy, and that alleys do exist even though they might be practically abandoned, and that they can always be reactivated. Mr. Murphy indicated that in the course of the informal conversation concerning his request during the last meeting, it was suggested that a precedent for this type of measuring for setbacks had been established at an earlier date, but he did not know where this had been done. He further indicated that if measure- ment was made from the centerline of the alley, his addition would be no further back than any of his neighbors because deed restrictions had indicated that setbacks would be 10 feet from the alley,-and his garage had been removed at an earlier date, but his neighbors still had the original garages or utility sheds on their properties. Mr. Lindsay asked about utilities being located in the alley, and Mr. Murphy indicated that some are on the right-of-way, with water and sewer probably being in the alley. Mr. Upham indicated that the sewer line was probably in the alley and the water line was probably located on the property line. Mr. Callaway explained that on September 10, 1979 the Board did justify a variance requested by C.E.Olsen by using the centerline of the alley to measure a rear • setback, the result still being a 50 foot separation between property owners. Mr. Wagner and Mr. Upham agreed that a measurement of 25 feet from the centerline of the alley would be agreeable to them. A motion was made by Mrs. Cook to the effect that she moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirement indicated in Table A, Ordinance 850 as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: location of the 10 foot alley. And because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, with the following special condition: The 25 foot setback should be measured from the centerline of the alley. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. Motion carriedlunanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a. Variance Request to Table A - Ordinance 850 - Minimum Seeback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 University Drive in-the name of Mac. Randolph. Mrs. Cook called for someone in the audience to present this request, but there was no one present. Mr. Callaway indicated that a similar request in a similar situation, but at a different location and with different people involved, had been approved. Mrs. Donahue made a motion to table this request due to the fact that there was no one present at the meeting to represent the owner. Mr. Wagner seconded the • motion to table the request. Motion carried unanimously, and this request was tabled until the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a Variance Re uest to Table A - Ordinance 50 - M i n i mum Setback Requirements for a Conven i F?nca "`~+nro ~t ~n, ~~..:..___ ~ ~_. Page 3 ZBA Minutes - May 18, 1982 • in the name of Southland Corporation. This agenda item was tabled at the same time Agenda Item No. 3 was tabled due to the need for further study of conditions in the Northgate area by staff, City Council and ZBA. Motion was made by Mr. Wagner and seconded by Mrs. Donahue, and carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Consideration of an Appeal Atle ing an error in interpre- tation of Section 8-D.10 - Ordinance 850 - Fuel Price Signs fora commercial project at 2200 Longmire in the name of Automotive Service World. Steve Parker, owner of the property in question was sworn in and presented a site plan covering the location in question. He stated that he had received a letter from Jane Kee on 5-4-82 which was delivered by Joan Keigley at 2:25 p.m. and it stated that he had a deadline of 3:45 p.m. to comply with Ordinance 1183 concerning his fuel sign which is portable. He addressed Section 8 D.10 of Ordi- nance 850 which states filling stations will be allowed one sign per site ad- vertising the current price of fuel only, the area of which will not be included in the allowable area of their detached sign. He gave the background of his business and said that at the time of opening this business in 1980 he vowed to comply with the City Ordinances, and presented pictures of his site which showed signs which had complied at the time he opened for business. He indicated that he had talked with Mr. Ash and Mrs. Kee and had proposed to make his portable fuel sign permanent by putting it, at the same location, in concrete footings. Mrs. Kee had interpreted that this would not bring the fuel sign in compliance • because the fuel price sign must meet the regulation of Section 8 and therefore could not be a separate detached sign. Mr. Parker stated that there are now other businesses in College Station which are out of compliance on this date, and presented 3 photos of businesses which were displaying fuel price signs that he had taken today, and furnished the names and addresses of these businesses. Mr. Wagner asked why Mr. Parker did not want to affix-his fuel price sign to his detached sign, to which Mr. Parker replied that because his detached sign was so far back from the curb because of the layout of his site, it would not serve the purpose of the fuel price sign, which is information to the consumer, and also because it would be an inconvenience and possible hazardous condition because of the height involved for an employee to change the sign so often. Mrs. Kee presented the staff's view and indicated that since creation of the position of Zoning Inspector, the department had concentrated on bringing businesses in compliance with sign regulations, and that putting the fuel price sign in concrete footings would create two detached signs on the site. She also referenced the memo from the Traffic Engineer concerning portable signs in which Mr. Black stated "Portable signs do not convey information to drivers as well as permanent lighted signs placed at heights above eight feet. These signs (portable signs) also create sight distance hazards for drivers exiting driveways and adjacent city streets. For these reasons, portable signs should be discouraged." • Mr. Parker rebutted with the statement that portable type fuel signs had been used for many years. Mrs. Cook reaffirmed that there had been a great deal of difficulty in managing all situations prior to the establishment of the position of Zoning Inspector due to the lack of staff, and now that we have the personnel ZBA Minutes - May 18, 1982 page 4 to handle inspections, the aim is to get a consistent interpretation of the Ordinance. • Mr. Upham indicated that a law without effect is in effect no law. Mr. Parker then brought up the photos of the businesses he had furnished that appeared to be out of compliance, and Mr. Upham assured him that these would be taken care of immediately. Mrs. Cook pointed out that there were old businesses which may not conform be- cause they had been established prior to enactment of the Ordinance, but that in the event they ever wanted to change the sign, they would have to comply with current Ordinances. Mrs. Donahue asked why fuel price signs came under the same regulations of other signs when they were addressed separately in the Ordinance. Mr. Lindsay asked why the section 8-D.10 entitled Special Proviso - Fuel Price Signs had been established if it had not been intended that these particular signs be handled differently from other detached signs. Mrs. Kee indicated that as she interpreted the Ordinance, fuel price signs must comply with all sections of the ordinance dealing with signs, in addition to section 8-D.10. Mr. Lindsay said that in his interpretation, section 8-D.10 would indicate that there could be two detached signs - one regular and one detached but that Section 8-D.11 pertaining to Portable/Trailer Signs would not apply, except to define portable/trailer signs. Mrs. Cook indicated that she believes that the Special Proviso would allow a permanent fuel price sign on the property in addition to the allowed detached sign. Mr. Upham said that he believed that fuel price signs would not have been mentioned separately at all unless the mention was made with Mrs. Cook's inter- pretation in mind. He further indicated that fuel price signs are essential to this business, but that they must not be a hazard. He also indicated that what • the Ordinance says and what was meant for it to say might be two different things. Mrs. Cook proposed that the ZBA interpret the Ordinance as it reads, and then go back to City Council for clarification or an Amendment. She further reiterated that there could be no portable/trailer signs used as fuel price signs. Mr. Lindsay indicated that he interpreted the Special Proviso to cover the accepta- bility of portable signs for fuel price signs as well. Mrs. Cook recalled that there would be no portable signs except for those permitted on a temporary basis. Mr. Upham concurred. Mr. Upham made a motion. as follows: "I move to interpret Sections 8-D.6, 8-D.9, 8-D.10, 8-D.11 and such other paragraphs as are applicable of Ordinance 850 as pertains to fuel price signs only, that the intent is that a fuel price sign separate from the one allowed detached sign is permissible and that since there is a prohibition against portable signs, such intent would have been that it be permanent, so long as it meets all other requirements of Section 8-D.6, 8-D.9 and 8-D.10. Therefore I move that Mr. Parker be allowed to make this sign permanent and that all other similar businesses be apprised of this, and further recommend that all other fuel price signs be investigated and even further recommend that the Council review this opinion and determine whether in fact it is acceptable to them, and if not, to remedy it through an Amendment." Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Other business. There was none. page 5 AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Adjourn. • Mr. Lindsay moved to adjourn, Mr. Upham seconded. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: Vi Burke Cook, Chairman • •