Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes ZBA MINUTES October 19, 1999 AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration of a special exception request — replacement of one non-conforming use for another at 4304 Harvey Road. Applicant is Floyd H. Manning. Senior Planner McCully stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. McCully told the Board that the applicant is requesting the special exception to allow a new restaurant at the site of a convenience store. The site includes a legal nonconforming commercial building with an associated parking lot that provides 12 spaces in front. A gravel lot was installed recently but is not recognized by the city to be counted as parking because it is in violation of city standards. SPECIAL EXCEPTION The subject property was annexed into the City in 1980, at which time a preexisting convenience store and service station were permitted to continue as a legal nonconforming use. In Texas, existing uses are permitted to continue upon annexation; however, such protection does not extend to expansions or use changes. The City of College Station prohibits changes unless a site is brought up to code or the Zoning Board of Adjustments grants a special exception. The current owner purchased the site in 1989 and added barbecue sales as an accessory to the c-store. The barbecue addition would not have triggered code compliance at that time if the sales were primarily for off-premise consumption. A few months ago, the owner began to change the use from retail to a restaurant with on-premise consumption. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the change increased his parking requirement from 1 space per 250sf to 1 space per 65sf. This change increased his parking requirement from 10 spaces, which currently exist in front of the building with 2 additional spaces, to 37 spaces. In order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, the owner would have been required to rezone the property to a commercial classification, and he would have been required to add 25 additional parking spaces that meet all current standards listed in Section 9 Parking Requirements and Section 11 Landscaping. However, the changes were made without meeting the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the site is therefore currently in violation. In order to grant the special exception to allow the substitution, the Board must find that the proposed use will be less detrimental to the surrounding area than the first. Should the Board allow the substitution, the use will continue as a legal nonconforming use without additional site changes. Granting the special exception, however, will not legitimize the gravel parking lot that was installed From a zoning perspective, restaurants are considered more intense than retail establishments. This assumption is evidenced by the fact that less intense commercial to city staff City staff told her that it would be spot zoning and they would be very hard pressed to support a rezoning at this time. Mrs. Volk was told by city staff that a study is going to be done for this area to come up with a better land use plan for the entire area. Mrs. Volk ended by telling the Board that Mr. Manning plans on up grading the property. With no one stepping forward to speak in opposition of the request Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize the substitute of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. Dr. Bailey asked after the land use study is done, will this property be rezoned or will it stay as it is now. Ms. McCully replied that several things could happen. One would be if the City Council adopts the new land use plan for this area, certain key tracts or all tracts can be up for city initiated rezoning. In the past it has not be done to render a use on a property non-conforming. Ms. McCully stated that once the study is adopted and there is a new land use plan, that does not constitute zoning. So any rezoning requests that are not city initiated would have to be initiated by the property owner. Dr. Bailey asked if Mr. Manning later decides to sell the property and the new owner decides to upgrade and apply for a building permit, would they be required to up grade the parking. Ms. McCully replied that the building permit would not trigger compliance with site development requirements nor review by ZBA. If the Board granted the request at this meeting and there is not an expansion or a substitution regardless of who owns the property, the property will retain its legal nonconforming status and any future additions or substitutions would have to come back to the Board. Ms. McCully ended by saying that the site development requirements would be triggered if there is a use that goes into the building that meets the zoning requirements. Then if it is more intense than the previous use and additional parking is required, the new parking would have to meet the requirements that are in place at that time. Mr. Lewis asked if the Board approved the substitution, does the parking lot stay as it is now. Ms. McCully stated that there are portions of the site that are legally non- conforming and have retained that status. There are other areas that are not necessarily in compliance and one would be the gravel parking lot. Once the applicant made the full change to the restaurant the non-conforming status will be lost. Ms. McCully stated that it is her understanding that the gravel parking lot was added recently. Whether or not the Board granted or denied the exception, city staff will discuss the gravel parking lot and whether or not it needs to be brought up to code. There were discussions among the Board concerning impact to the property due to traffic and about the gravel parking lot. The Board voted(5-0)for authorizing the special exception request. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Floyd H. Manning stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Manning stated that he bought the property in 1981. Mr. Manning handed the Board members additional photos of the store itself Mr. Manning told the Board that the convenience store changing to a restaurant would have less of an impact. The typical convenience store with in and out traffic, trash, leaving vehicles running while someone runs in to get something, etc., would be eliminated. Mr. Manning stated that he intended to remove the pay phone that would eliminate the neighbors concerns. The gas pumps will also be removed. Mr. Manning read the letter to the Board that was included with his application. Mr. Manning stated that he had spoken to area landowners and has found no one against what he is proposing. Mr. Manning spoke about the letter the Board received from an adjacent property owner and the original storeowner. Their concern began when it was discovered that Mr. Manning had applied for the food and beverage permit. Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Manning how he would respond to the letter, which states there are two restrooms that are kept locked from the outside and one is non-functional. Mr. Manning replied that the location of the store, citizens leaving College Station or coming into College Station come in at all hours of the day looking for a place to use the restroom. The restrooms are functional but he chooses to lock them due to being left dirty and trashed. Mr. Manning stating that he would be more than happy to build a fence around the area. Mr. Manning referred to a photograph showing the restroom and how a sidewalk leads around the restrooms and he would build a privacy fence so there would be no visual contact. Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Manning if he could make the restrooms accessible from inside the restaurant. Mr. Manning stated that he has looked into the situation. The problem is that on that side of the building is where the electrical supply is. Mr. Manning stated that he would much rather have the restrooms on the inside if he could find a way to do it. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Manning how did he get the shared driveway. Mr. Manning replied that when he bought the property from the Hall's, the property consisted if about three acres. When the Hall's decided to sell the store and had it surveyed, it was divided and he got the smaller portion. In the contract Mr. Manning stated that he was given usage of the driveway. Mr. Manning stated that the entire driveway is on the Hall's property. Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Manning what are the proposed hours for the restaurant. Mr. Manning replied that right now he opens at 10:30 a.m. and closes at 8:00 p.m. In the future if he extends the hours the very latest he would stay open is 9:00 p.m. and after the first of the year closing one day a week. Shirley Volk, representative for Mr. Manning stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mrs. Volk told the Board that Mr. Manning did talk about requesting a rezoning of his property but she discouraged him from doing so after talking zoning classification list retail but not restaurant uses as permitted uses by right. Restaurant parking requirements are almost four times higher for restaurants than for retail uses. There is also evidence that the applicant's electrical usage has increased since the use change was made. If the Board finds that the use will not be less detrimental than the prior use, then the special exception should be denied. Denial will not necessarily prevent the owner from pursuing the change because he will still have the option of bringing the property up to code. Ms. McCully presented the Board with pictures of the property and described each picture. Ms. McCully told the Board that some property across the street from the subject property has been rezoned and approved for a convenience store. Ms. McCully stated that it was her understanding after talking to the applicant that the pending sale of the property for a convenience store may have prompted the changes to the property. Mr. Lewis asked if the Board did not approve the special exception what will happen. Ms. McCully replied that there are other options available and this option is less expensive for the applicant because he would not have to bring the property up to code. Ms. McCully told the Board if the special exception was granted, the property would still be labeled non-conforming use. Nothing would be legitimized. The restaurant would be allowed to occupy what was once a gas station/convenience store. The other option for the applicant if not granted the special exception, is gain approval of a rezoning which at this time is questionable. The new portions of the property would have to be brought up to code. What is existing, and was at one time legal, could remain. Dr. Bailey asked if the request was granted would the applicant be required to put up fencing and lighting. Ms. McCully responded that if the special exception was granted they are not required to do anything. They are just replacing one use for another. Dr. Bailey stated that there is nothing else the Board could do except grant or deny. Ms. McCully responded that she did not find anything in the Statute or the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the Board to place a condition on the a special exception like the Board can on place limitations on a variance. Mr. Murphy referenced the section in the staff report, which addressed if the special exception was granted that would not legitimize the gravel parking lot. Ms. McCully responded that when she wrote the staff report she was going on information that she understood from the applicant. She understood that the gravel lot was installed after he purchased the property. The city had paving requirements since 1986 and the property was purchased 3 years later. So any gravel lot that was installed after the property was purchased should have come before site plan approval and then brought into compliance with the site plan. Ms. McCully stated that it was not until after her staff report she had talked to a representative for the applicant and there is a possibility that there might have been some gravel parking prior to the rules changing as they applied to the site. Ms. McCully stated that is something that still needs to be looked into. Chris Galindo, 3107 Rolling Glen, Bryan,Texas. Kevin Sweetland, 1725 Harvey Mitchell Parkway, College Station, Texas Jody Sweetland, 1725 Harvey Mitchell Parkway, College Station, Texas Those speaking in opposition of the variance request: Charles Conrad, 1505 Frost, College Station, Texas All speaking before the Board were sworn in my Chairman Goss. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Braune motioned to deny 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 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 the Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Richards second the motion,which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.2 I regarding the number of off-street parking spaces required at 4304 Harvey Road, for a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Harvey Hillsides Subdivision. Case#07-00500270 The applicant arrived at the meeting and was ready to have their case heard. Staff Planner Lindsay Boyer presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces by six in order to enclose the outdoor pit area, add a hallway to enclose the existing outdoor restrooms, and to add a walk-in cooler. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing: Those speaking in favor of the parking variance: Rabon Metcalf, 1391 Seamist, College Station,Texas Floyd Manning, 3965 Pate Road, College Station,Texas Jo Manning, 3695 Pate Road, College Station, Texas Floyd and Jo Manning stated that they would love to totally remodel the building and add on to the store, but TXDOT said if they did anything that requires them to bring it up to code they would have to redo their entrance up front and then they would lose their parking up front. All speaking before the Board were sworn in by Chairman Goss. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Josh Benn made the motion to authorize a variance from this Ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: previous special exception to operate as a 10 restaurant issued by ZBA in 1999 and the narrow and linear configuration of the property; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: loss of front driveway and required easement; and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50. APP' Oi � • b? Jaass, re airman ATTEST: , Deborah . ace-Rosier, Staff Assistant 11