HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Dan Sears statedthaf the . easement could be includedbutwasexcludedb cause it is not part of this
plat.
Mr. Colson. moved to approve the .final plats of. Pebble Creek Phase ..1A (90~ II) with the condition that
theplaL reflects the 20 foot off site easement On the east side, IB (90-212),. Ie. (90-213). The motion
was seconded.... by Mr.. Esmond; the. Commission .carriedthe .motionunanimou i'ly.
AGENDAITEMNO.6: 90-212: Final Plat-Pebble Creek Phase 1B..
See agenda.jtem number '5.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: 90-213: Final Plat-Pebble Creek. Phase>lC.
See agenda item number 5.
AGENDA ITEM NO.8: 90-412: Parking Lot Plan - Addition to the Taco Bell estaurant on Harvey Road.
This project is in the WolIPenCreek. Zoning District.
Ms. Kee presented the project to the Commission and stated that Taco en requested to partially
enclose the front patio. to . provide additional interior . seating < by adding a gla 's atrium to the' front of the
building, and to. replace a storage ... building. with an . addition to the rear of the . building . The. Design
Review Board .. met on July 5, 1990 and . recommended approval with reque ts to improve landscaping
once the atrium is built so shrubswill.bevisible from Harvey Road. .......Shead. edthat additional parking
would not be necessary' and the .. exterior design will match the.. rest .of .thebu.lding.
Lynn.Colson.madea motion'. to approve the Parking Lot Plan at .310 Harvey.
by Mr. Gentry and carri~d.unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration of renewal. of a pevelopmentAgre ment between the City of
CoUegeStation, Skipper Harris . and the owner of the property lmownas t e "Mudlot'" 'p.commercial
parking lot . located at Church and. Nagle Streets.
Mr.Keepresented the case to the Commission. On ApriL 20, 1989thePlanIi" g and Zoning Gommission
recommended. approval of the proposed development agreement buttoinludea waiver of items #5
and #9 (requiring the installation .of additional gravel and theremovalofa ..construction debris) until
after June 1,1989, but to require compliance toallotherconditionsimme iately.OnApril 27, 1989,
Council. authorized a development agreement.. for. one yeariIrom June ..1989, including the
recommendations mentioned above.. and also requiring the installation .ofrailroad..tie wheelstops, after
June 1, 1989. At present all conditions of the development agreement are be gmet.
ChairpersonSawtelle.favored the extension of the current agreement throug tthe.end.of 1990.
Mr...Hall expressed. concern as to the.continuance ofatemporary..parking lot. Other.parking lots in the
area are required to maintain their property according to> theCityStanda.rds nd these standards should
apply to the Mudlot. The initial temporary nature of the parking lothasbec me permanent.
Mr. Esmond agreed with Mr. Hall and suggested thalChairperson Sawten ~'s idea be considered and
only extend the agreement through.. the end of .1990. The main concern is that the lot not become
vacant and create a public nuisance.
Mr. Colson suggested that a hard surface be placed on the lot within a giVen amount of time. By
setting the deadline on January 1, 1991, Mr. Harris would have adequate time to comply and better
knowledge of his future plans. He then made a, motion to -renew thedev ~lopment agreement but to
make a-recommendation to.Councilstating.thatMr. Harris be required.. to Lpplya hard surface to the
parking-area and comply with all other City Standards by Januaryl, 1991.
Mr. Gentry asked to amend the motion to extend the deadline to June " 1991 because it may be
difficult to. resurface the parking lot. during the winter months due to weather .conditions.
Mr. . Hall said he would like to require the . applicant.. to work .towards a tlimproved surface in the
meantime.
P&Z
7 -19-90 page 3
Mr. Gentry. seconded the motion which passed . with a vote of 3 -.2. Mr. Es and and Mr. Hall voted in
opposition.
ChairpersonSawtellerequestedlhat the Commission . be allowed. to review the recommendation before
submitting. the..final. document. .to ..Council.
AGBNDA NO. .10: Other. business.
Chairperson Sawtelle requested .. that someone investigate the dead trees 10 atedin. the Kroger parking
lot. Ms.Kee agreed, stating that an investigation would be administered.
Mr. Colson asked if another. lumber company would be allowed to
according to the new Wolf Pen Creek requirements.
have ..to be" .consulted in
Mr. Colson questioned the ..enforcement of the Smoking
seemed unclearon.thespecificbusinesses targeted.
Planning Director Jim Callaway . asked the . Commission . theirviewsonconv
located on the edge of theWolIPenCreek area, into a bowling center.
Mr. Callaway stated that he was unsure and the legal department
interpreting the. guidelines.
Mr. Colson added that ... hewasul favor. of the idea of . converting the build' 19 into a bowling center as
long as the exterior complies with the.Wolf Pen Creek area motif.
Mr. Hall expressed concern of the abandoned Go-Cart Track and theM rganSpas location in the
same area. The poor landscaping and dead trees are an eyesore compare to the landscaping at Post
Oak Mall.
Mr. Callaway said..thathewould.contact the property owners and follow-up on the complaint. He also
congratulated Ms. KeeonheI acceptance to the American Association of C rtified Planners.
AGBNDA NO. 11: Adjourn.
Mr. Colson moved. to. adjourn. the.. meeting. Mr. Gentry. seconded. ,the.mot'on and the motion carried
unanimously.(5-0).
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Connie Hooks
There was discussion concerning.. the parking requirement.
Mr. Michel made a . motion to "approve the permitted use. of a bowling a eyasproposed. The
parking requirement shall be 240 spaces for theprpposed use of 36,000 square feet. H
Ms. Kee clarified that the Commission is not going to object to the color.
Chairman Sawtelle said that she prefers tan butdid not feel she hadgrunds to enforce it.
Mr. Hall asked if theP&Z can make that determination. Hesuggestedt at a compromise of
less landscaping in exchange for tan. paint could be reached.
Mr. Winkler listed the following reasons for not wanting to repainttheb ilding a tan color:
1. White. is. a.clean..colOr.
2. Beige ..is unappealing.
3. Trees achieve the. same goal.
4. The metal siding is II factory whitell.
5. Paint might.. flake causing more. maintenance.
Assistant to City Engineer Morgan asked the estimated age of the.. trees as shown on the . site
plan.
Mr. Britton said they were the estimated size of 2-3 year old trees. He said that the Willow and
Bald Cypress were chosen in part because of their fast growth rate.
Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried in a vote of 4-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration ofa Development_tbe .... theCilyof
COllege Station, SldpperHanisand the owner of the property known as . the IMud Loti, a
commercial. parking . lot located at Church and Nagle . Streets.
Ms. Kee reviewed what had transpired at the laslmeeting. She said th
discussion the Commission decided to include a deadline for complian e with. City parking lot
standards. She stated that they. asked for the finish product to bebrou 'htbackfor review. She
pointed out that the changes were made on page 4.
Mr. Dresser noted that provisions. for landscaping maintenance were no included in the
document.
MS.Kee said that presently all landscaping is alive and being. maintained.
Mr. Harris assured the Commission that he has every . intention of contin ing. to maintain the
landscaping. He. also. informed . them . that. he ..was.. still. operating. on a. m nth .to month .lease. He
said he was in no better position to make improvements than the last r e his agreement was
up.for.renewal.
Mr. Dresser. said that the new agreement puts Mr. Harris out of the par' g lot business on June
1, 1991.
Mr. Hall said that it is not his intention to drive Mr. Harris out of business but rather to be fair to
everyone else who . was forced to. comply with..City . standards.
Mr. Dresser asked if his colleagues considered the consequences if it ils to. be brought up to
standards. He cited the lot's condition previous to Mr.. Harris' business. He also cited the
Commission's long running battle with parking on private lots.
Ms.Kee explained an . upcoming . ordinance which will empower the Citj in. terms of
enforcement. against parking on private property.
4
Ms. Sawtelle understood that the. ordinance. will aUowtheCity to tow ca S off of private
property.
Mr. Dresser asked the number of parking spaces in II Mud Lot".
Mr. Harris>said there was 640 spaces but the lot is not always full to capacity. (Summer =
approx. .250 cars).
Mr.. Michel asked about the owner's long term plans for the lot.
Mr... Harris said that they are trying to seUit.
Mr. .Dresser asked if staff has ..a feel for Council's intentions. He said th t. personally, he likes
what Mr. Harris has done. He remembered the previous eye sorelmo as "Mud Lot". Even
though is . has been in existence for...a long.. time without requiringimprov ments, Dresser. said
that some day It will go away when something else is built.
Mr. Michel asked the IItimingllinvolved for the upcoming ordinance.
Ms. Kee said that it would probably take 5-6 months to be adopted.
Mr. Michel questioned item No. .10 of this agreement.
Ms.Kee said that it allows Harris to be charged for violations.
Mr. Harris elaborated that if the lothad to be mowed by the City, he wo Id be responsible for
payment.
There was more discussion of the consequences if "Mud. Lot" was close .
Mr...HaU..said that the.lltemporary.naturell for.abusiness.inexistence .for years, had bothered
him. While Northgate is better than it used to be, it needs improvement Hall said he would
like to move in the direction of a long term program towards improvement of the lot.
Mr. Hall also said that he objects to a double standard. <He cited the c ntrastbetween the Wolf
Pen Creek zoning district and the Northgatezoning district. Hesaidth t the overall movement
of College Station is toward improved appearances (ie: landscaping). all wondered if any
consideration had been given to regulating. handicapped parking space .
Mr... Harris. said he had received. no requests for handicapped parking.
conducted surveys. The surveys clearly indicated that his customers
parking . charge for a. paved. surface.
e stated that he had
not. pay a higher
Mr..Hall expressed frustration that the applicant had failed to maintain ontact with City staff to
resolve . potential problems.
Mr. Michel said that Mr. Harris had attended previous P&Z meetings ex ept for. the. last one.
He stated that Boyett Investments had not cooperated.
Mr. Harris said that he cannot afford to make improvements since hEp is n a month to month
lease. He believes that his business ifforthe good of the community in that it provides
necessary parking in Northgate. He said he would be glad to meet with P&Z again on June 1,
1991. He would even be willing to pavealittleata time.
Ms. Sawtelle suggested that. the deadline in this agreement may prod Investments to work with
the City.
Mr. . Dresser doubted it.
There was general discussion.
..
Sawtelle admitted that the Commission may have changed their minds s. cehaving heard from
Mr. Hams.
Mr. Dresser . said . that the. P&Z. has. the following options:
1. Keep the temporary parking arrangement as it is now.
2. ShufUMudLot"down becauseconditionsprobablywilLn tchange.
3. Shut it down one. year from now.
4. ' Keep the agreement until the... property is sold.
Mr. Dresser expressed and. interest in attendingP.R.C.'s, especiallythos pertaining.toWolf
Pen Creek. ...Hesaid. that the intent. of creating the Design Review Board as to gather
llexpertsll.He said that he does not believe it is the responsibility. of P&Zto determine site plan
aspects. such .. as "suitable colors".
Mr. Dresser made a motion to delete Item No. 9 and replace with wording to require
maintenance.. of landscaping. Mr. Michel seconded the motion.which ca .ed unanimously 4-0.
AGENDAITEMNO.B:. . Other Business.
Ms.Keesaid that as soon as Council appoints anew member to the Design Review Board, staff
will conduct a workshop. to establish guidelines.
Mr. Michel.askedthat.one of the. Commissioners.. a.ttend.. all Design Revie Board meetings and
one. Design Review Board members attend the appropriate P&Z . meeting.
City Secretary, Connie Hooks
-, l
t-rlrii(
Mr. Hall said he would like projects to receive equal scrutiny regarding
the side. visible. . from the. Creek.
Ms. Kee said that this point would be brought up at the workshop.
Mrs. Morgan said that she will be back in development. review inOctob I. She also introduced
Ilse Graham the Senior Assistant City Attorney who came . back to us after working with the
District Attorney's Office .
AGENDA. ITEM NO...6: . Adjourn.
Mr. Dresser. made amotion to adjourn. Mr. Hall seconded. the. motion. ad. the ..meeting was
adjourned.
ATTEST:
)
seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 85~215: FinalPlat
of Lot 16ALakeview Acres Subdivision.
Lot 16A-l out
Mr. Mayo explained this plat is identical to part of a previously approved
preliminary plat; that it represents ,one lot on that preliminary plat and easements
which.are actually on another lot according to the prelim. nary. He went on to
explain that staff has no problem with. platting in this maner, and staff would
recommend approval of this final platas.shown. Mr. .MacGilvray asked what the
access easement is' for and Mr. Mayo explained it will allow access within the
development from one lot to another without re-enteringe.ther of the major
streets, and therefore help to control curb cuts to this evelopment.
Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve this plat with Mr.Ma Gilvray seconding the
motion. Motion carried unanimously (6-0)~
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: 85-216:
Section 25A (revised).
Final Plat ~ South oodVal1ey
Mr. Mayo. explained the applicant has made a revision to a previously approved plat
byway of enlarging some of the lots. He added that stafhas'no problem with this
revision, but would recommend tha'ta 10 foot utility ease ent be included across
the property lines adjacent to rights-of-way to replace the small, box-type
easements shown. He added that this ten footeasementwo Id not affect driveway
locations or required setbacks, but would simplifykeepin track of easements.
Mr. MacGilvray made amotion .to approve the plat; Mr. Paulson seconded. This
motion was withdrawn by Mr. MacGilvray after he realized it did not include staff
recommendation. Mr. MacGilvray then made a second motion to approve this plat with
the condition that staff's recommendation of. alOfoot utility easement adjacent to
street rights-of-way is included. Mr. Paulson seconded this revised motion which
carried unanimously (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.6: 85-217:
Plaza PhI Blk 1.
Final Plat ~ Repla
University
Mr. Mayo explained that a final plat had previously been land, and
that this replat represents a slight change in the locati n of lot lines, as well
as a name change from University Square subdivision to University Plaza
subdivision. He added that staff recommends. approvalofthisplatas.shown.
Mr. Brochu moved to approve this plf;lt; Mrs. Stallings
carried unanimously <(6.....0) .
Mr. Mayo located the lot on which the applicant isproposi g to develop a
commercial parking lot and explained that this vacant lot is sometimes referred to
as the "mud lottfand ..on occasion has had up to 600 vehicles parking on it
illegally. He went on to explain that Mr. Harris is proposing to develop this
2
v~..
(
)
P&Z MINUTES
tract into a commercial parking lot with a gravel surface, no end islands and very
little . landscaping. .. ...He....stated .that.staffhas no. problemw6..th tllis.request, but
would liketohaveanagreementreached>between the City, he applicant and the
landownerallo~ingthe<applicanttobuild what. is shown on this plan, including sod
for the landscaping <for phase I;Phaselltoincludealllldscapingrequired by
ordinancepriorcontinll~ngoperation;fl.Ild,attheend of P aseIIstaffwould study
the project to seehowtohandleit.fromt~at pointforwar . He said that staff
believes. that alth()~ughthis it nota.>standard parking lot esign, it would help
solve many of the exIsting problems in that area, and staf would recommend
approval.
Chairman Kaiser asked if this Commission can approve a var6ance for one year and
have it comeback after that time and Mr. Mayo said it cou d. CityAttorneyLocke
clarified by stating it could be done with a TemporaryC.O in conjunction with a
contractor agreement authorized by CityCoWlcil. Mr. Mac ilvray as:kediftime
restrictions would be acceptable and Mrs. Locke replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Mayo explained that staff is asking for these timerestric ions to be included
because of the terms of this applicant's lease on the lcmd Mr. Dresser asked for
clarification regarding the fence referred to in the appli 'ant's letter of appelal.
Mr. Mayo stated that no variance can be given. to. the .screel fenceandth~t,..it will
be required. Discussion followed regarding the emergency xit,dusit :co~~~ol, .mtld
on the streets under eXistingconditions.,2specificparki gspaces;whi;qh,cancause
a conflict , and the possibility of other applicants asking for thes:e,sam~!types of
variances. Staff explained the emergency exit is being pr posed in c.sf;e,qf an
emergency situation, such as a car fire on the lot; that t eenvironnlentalsection
of the zoning ordinance could be interpreted as controllin pollution caus.ed by
excessive dust, and Mr. Mayo concluded by stating thatsta f is agreeabl~to this
type of variance in the Northgate area only ,as the existiIg condi tions a!re less
than desirable, but staff would not recommend this type va iance in any other
part of town.
Mr. MacGilvray asked if.. putting in a.. commercial parking 10 might nq!. cause even
more problems with on-street parking in Northgate and. Mr. ayosaid"thatmay well
be the case, but staff would have noway of knowing that i advance. Mr. Dresser said
that this Commission is being asked to grant a variance to a landscape ordinance,
and in his opinion, any type of improvement in that partie lar area would be very
desirable.
Mr. MacGilvraymade a motion to grant a variance requirements
regarding islands and specific plantingsfor the Ramparts arking Lot to be located
at the northeast corner of Church & Nagle Streets for ape iod of 2 years with the
following conditions: (1) That sod is included prior too cupancyin the first
phase, and (2}Attheendofthefirstyear, the landf;capi gtotalliIlg the required
3900 landscape. points must . be instalTedbeforethe. second . ear of'. operation begins,
absent the island"requirements. Mrs. Stallings secondedt ismotioDwhichcarried
unanimously (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: 85-804: A public hearing to consider an
Ordinance amending and superceding Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning
'Ordinance,and alla.end.ents thereto, as well as all other
ordinances in conflict with this ordinance; providing a revision
and updating of the zonIng regulations, i.ncludingb,utnotlimited
to site p'lan review , parking requirements, landscaping, sign
regulations, amendment procedures, the Zoning. Board of
3
(
has all the Northgate problems and perhaps should be cons.dered to be in Northgate,
but unlike most Northgate businesses, this business hasp rkingavaiIable which is
not fully utilized. Mr. Wagner said that if this has gOD on since 1982, there
appears to be no problem. Mr. Elmorepoi..nted.out that in fact, most of the
surrounding people (St. Mary's in particular} have urged r. Lui to request the
variance.
Mr. McGuirk referred to this as .being a request for vari ce' to parking
requirements at a restaurant, and then made amotion to a thorize a variance to the
parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this 0 dinance as it will not be
contrary to the public interest, due to the followinguni ueand special conditions
of the land not normally 'found in like 'districts: (l)Tha thislocation,while not
within the Northgated~strict possesses'mostof the North ate problems which are not
found in other commercial districts; and, (2}Thattheava41ableparking is not
presently utilized, a situation competely unique even to orthgate, and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance.wou d result in unnecessary
hardship to this applicant being that the applicantcanno supply the customary
amenities of his business and that increased pedestrian c ngestion in the available
parking area is likely without this variance, and such th tthe spirit of this
ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by
Mrs. Meyer and carried 4-0-1 {Upham abstained).
(
Mr. Upham then announced that he would ,HEAR VISITORS, specifically Mr. Senn, who
requested postponing this Agenda Item No. 2 until later in the meeting.
Ralph Senn was sworn in and explained that he had been mad aware of a problem this
afternoon at approximately 3 p.m. regarding the allowed se ting in his restaurant
(formerly Bogie's), The Flying Tomato. He pointed out that the problem seems to be
the understanding of the number of seats which will be all wed, and asked that the
Board hold a special meeting in order ,that he can finalize the decision and get on
with this new business in the Northgate district when the tudents are arriving on
campus.
The~B'ofird- -agreed-to hold a special meeting to hear this' case at 7: 30 8.m.on
September 3, 1985.
9
J' "\1
MI NIJTES
September 17, 1985
7:00P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Upham, Members McGuirk, Wagner,
Swoboda and Meyer who came in at 7:15 porn.
None
Zoning Official Kee, City Attorney Locke,
Planning Technician Volk, and Director of
Planning Mayo who came in at 7:15 p.m.
MEMBERS ABSENT:'
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO.1: Call to order -explanation of functions and
limitations of Board.
Chairman Upham called the meeting to OrderaIld explained he functions and
limitations of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
2:
Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Approval of Minutes
1985 and meeting of September 3, 1985.
of August 20,
Mr. Wagner made amotion to approve the minutes of theme ting of August 20,1985.
Mr. McC.1uirkseconded tIle nlotion which carriedunal1imously (4-0).
Mr. Wagner then made amotion to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 3,
1985. f\1r. McGuirk seconded the motion whicll carried unan.mously (4-0).
Chairman Upham explained that Mrs. ..Meyer is expected within a few minutes, then
explained to the audience that ordinance requires 4 favorable votes in order to
grant a variance,andsince Mrs. Meyer is not yet in attendance, it.wouldmean that
a unanimous vote would have to be cast in.favorof a request in order to grant it;
therefore, it would not be out of 'order f.or an applicant to request a recess until
the arrival of the 5th lnemberofthe Board if he so desired. Mr. Harris .askedfor
that recess and it was granted. Recess ended at 7:15 p.m. with the arrival of Mrs.
Meyer.
When tIle meeting reconvened, Mr. Wagner made a motion to t"}{e this item from its
tabled position. Mr. McGuirksecondedthemotionwhichca riedunanimously (5-0),
after whicll the applicant, Skipper Harris was sworn in and explained his request is
1
ZEA fvlinutes
9-c-17 --85
(
for a varlance to. t.llere(l'.lirement to mark the parking spaces on a cOllunercial
parking lot. He furtIler explained that tllis would be ilnp<: ssible in tIle nornlal
manner (painting. on.. the. surface) as :hislot has been appr )ved. by tIle City Engineer
witll a gravel surface. He went on to. explain that he wotl_d have attend.ants on duty
during peakllours to control parking, and would llave. \.\lheeJ stops at the front of
each parking spacet.o(iesignate the space ,but the s ides\'ould not be Inarked. Mr.
McGuirk reJuinded Mr. llarris that this<Boardnlust find uni< ue and speci.alc~onditions
in order to grant a variance, and- Mr . Harris explained tll t there are no other
cOJumercial lots in town, whicll \.\lould luakehis project uni. ue.. He went on to
explain tllat his project \vouldcleanupan area Wllichllas ecome an eyesore to tIle
connuuni ty, as well as being somewhat hazardous. in that in ress and egress to tIle
street is now uncontrolled. He then nlentioned the llardshj p would be financial, in
that lle is not the landowner, but only the lessee wit.h a ne year lease on the
property, and to pave the. lot with a surface which can be striped. would, indeed,
constitute a financial hardship.
~1r.Uphanl asked>if the sInall Tot run by Mr..Loupot charge"" for parking. Noone
ans~~ered~ [\11".. Lipham tIlen s.tated that a1 though tllis lot io-; not in the actual
HNorthg-ateH area, it migllt help alleviatesollleof tll(:~ on--street parking whicll has
caused problems in that area. Mr.. McGuirk stated lle thins it migllt cause even
more pressure, as . possibly more people are parking on this Hmud lot" no\'-l tl1811 will
be able to r)ark after it is put. into some kind of order, ndthus, cause more on-
street parking. Mrs. Me)ler asked if variances are usually granted only to
landowners, and Mr. Wagner replied tllat is rarely done in tlle Northgate area, and
Illostof the variances go to tIle user of the land.
f\1r. Harris continued by stating that his parking lot \vill help control traffic
since nO~\l SOllIe. vel.1icles junlpthe curb, and lle is planni.ng to fence the entire "nlud
lotftwhichwill preclucle tIllS..
~1r. McGuirk stated there is. one problem, in that.. if a variance 18 granted, it is
forever for a particular use and Mrs .Kee stated that this project p.,as tlluS far
been approved with the stipulation tllat only a temporary certificate of occupancy
will be issued for one year, at the end of Wllich time, the project. will be reviewed,
and if continued,certainupg'radingwillbe required. Slle furtller explained tllat
this will be controlled through some type of agreenlent bet veen tIle City, the
lando\vner and Mr. Harris ,the lessee.
Al Mayo, Director of Planning was sworn in aIld pointed out that, staff and the
Planning and Zoning Conunission llaveworked with ~1r.. Harris to lnake this a viable
project, and explained that theproject~villbeapproved 0 a year-to-year basis,
and.. after a certain number.. of years, apavedsurfacemayb required. Mr. McGuirk
pointed out that if Mr...Harris so chooses, llewould not ha e to stripe the paved
lot because he would have a variance. Mr. Mayopointedou the variance being
considered at this meeting is to the striping requirelnents,and the staff and
Planning ..andZoning. Connnission can agree that ... if. thisappl' cant does not stripe the
spaceswllen. required, 'he will have no pt'oject. Mr . MajTo \';..-nt on to explain tllat it
is doubtful that. tIlls will bea pernlanent. project., and in '/he interinl, it \~ould
llelp alleviate. some rather serious safety and fire hazards, and would certainly" be
Inllch better than the present si tuation at. that location.
land, specific u.nique
variance would have to
Mrs. Kee pointed out tllat althou.gh a variance ist ied t.o
and special conditions of that land can change, and then
be reconsidered by tIle Board.
2
"
ZBA Minutes
9--17--85
('
Mr. McGuirk made amotion to deny this variance.
motion, so it died.
s no second to this
Mr. Wagner then made a motion to authorize a variance to ~'ection 7-B.3.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance as it \"il1 not be contrary to tlle public interest, due to tIle
following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like
districts: The lot is presently detrimental to the healtl, safety and welfare of
the area residents, and because a strict enforcement of tIle provisions of the
Ordinance would resul t in unnecessary" hardship to this ap licant being due to tile
nature of the area, the lot is unlikely" to be c}langed in .rhe near future, and such
that the spirit of this ordinance sllal1 be observed and s bstantial justice done,
subject to the following limitations: That the City requ're, tllrough a tenlporary
certificate of occupancy, tllat any substantial change be rought before the Zoning
Board of Adjustment for reconsideration. Mrs. Meyer secorded this motion. City
Attorney Cathy Locke asked to be sworn in, and was; then he stated that a unique
and special condition is the approved surface, which is gavel and unlike others in
the City. Mr. Wagner asked to amend Ills motion to inelud- tIlis special and unique
condi tion; Mrs. Me:yer agreed to the amenCllJlent" rvfr. Wagner moved to amend his
motion to include tillS unique and special condition; [\1r.l'v cGuirk seconded the
aJllendment. Motion to amend was approved unaniulousl:,.T. (5- ).
(
Mr. McGuirk stated that he still could not see any llardsll'l-) otller tllan financial.
Mr. Wagner stated that is a moot point in that the ual is trying to upgrade
a hazardous condition where egress onto streets is bad, d this type of
organization would certainly not be detrimental and furth rUlore, if this 'variance
is not g-ranted \ve would deny' llim financial gain. i\'1r. Uph 1 agreed and pointed out
that this is the only large piece of undeveloped property in that area and the
ultilnate use is not attainable at tIllS tinIe, and for tIle Board to do nothing \\lould
be a far greater evil than allowing this applicant to try to upgrade tIle area.
Mrs. Meyer stated there are no other vacant lots in the area which are this large,
and asked if that would constitute uniqueness.
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of request fa variance for 1
parking space for the operation of a medical cli ic with
adjoining rental space at the southeast Texas Avenue
and Manuel. Applicant is Frank Kahan.
Mrs. Kee explained that the site plan for this project had been approved with the
stipulat ion tllat one parking space and a dumpster for tIle I roject be located on the
adjacent lot ~vhich is llnder tIle same ownersllip, as there y~f s not room on this
3
" I
City Council. Regular Meeting Page 4
Thursday, August 23, 1990
Department .andobtained their opinion relative to th state's policy and
permit procedure for banners. A memorandum was rovided . in tIle.
packet. Ms. Kee pointed out that the Highway Depa mentdoes not
approve these banners . over stateright-of-ways.
Upon further consideration by the staff, the. committee has recommended
to the council that th~ city no longer allow banners cross stateri~ht-of-
ways. She.. noted thatu tnecouncil. decides to allow banners on CIty
proJ?.ertY,. t.h....e... .comm.i.ttee.....has re.c.o.m. ,..m. ...... en.d....ed that. ....a ..fe . in. s. ta.llatiO.. n cha.rge
of $170.00 be applied and not allowed to be waived, plus a $5.00 permit
fee. '
Ms. Jane Kee pointed out thatMr. Skipper Harris ha a development
agreement with the. city which. calls for ..the agreeme t .to . be reviewed
annually. She noted tli.atthe agreementpI'esentlyal ows for a gravel
surface. Mr. Harris has complied with theagreeme t to date and no
complaints have been flied.
Ms.Kee presented . slides.
S, he. st...a. ..t.e. d th.. .a.....t th... e...p...l.....a.n......n.. .ing.......a. n. ...d..........Z.O.. ..n. ...in......g........ c.om...mis..s.lor.e.vie...w.e.d.. th. is It. em at
two meetings. Originally, the P&Zwasinclinedto · pose a.deadline for
paving the . lot in the development agreement.. Howe er, after considering
the need for parking areas m . Northgate. and Mr. Ha · s' limitedfmancial
position of having a month to month lease on the lot, the P&Z decided to
recommend to the council renewal of the agreemenf for another year
without the compliance deadline but with theadditio' alprovision for
landsca~ing maintenance.
Councilman Birdwell moved to continue the develop ent agreement with
Mr. Skipper Harris with the deletion of the requirem ntthatthe grass be
removed. .
The motion was seconded by Councilman Crouch
unanimously, 5-0. .
00795