HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Ms. Trail stated that she would not want any more than the 2 units in the back added
to this lot. Mr. Gentry explained that the existing mixed use of the older areas
makes decisions in those areas difficult, and after.reviewing the application and
seeing slides of the area, he does not think 2 additional small units across the
rear of the property would change the nature of that property, and now
that Mr. Hunt is living here, perhaps the care of the property will improve. He
continued by saying that he does feel strongly that the proposed additional
building sites along Montclair significantly affect the density of development on
the lot, and he recommended as part of his motion that it not be approved in the
future, and if it comes back before him, he would not approve such a request. He
added that hopefully this motion addresses all of the concerns, and will also
allow Mr. Hunt to develop property that he owns, and ought to have the right
within reasonable constraints, to develop.
Ms. Waldeck came forward and stated that the zoning requirement is for lots with 50
foot frontage, therefore the motion would give Mr. Hunt 6 lots of substandard size.
She suggested to come nearer to meeting current standards, no more than I additional
building plot should be allowed for a total of 5 little structures. She pointed out
that since the newer house is larger than the existing houses, it would seem more
reasonable and suitable to put it on 2 of the proposed little lots for a total of 5
li t tle houses.
Mr. Gilmore called the question. Votes were cast on the motion made by Mr. Gentry
and seconded by Mr. Gilmore, with the results being 5-0 in favor of the motion to
allow Mr. Hunt to place 2 additional structures along the rear property line at the
southwesterly corner of his property only.
Mr. Huntthenked the Board and the neighbors for responding to his request. Mr.
Ruesink also .thenked all area residents who attended and participated in the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a request for a parking
variance at the existing vacaQt building at 1804 Valley View
Drive. Applicant is Ferreri Italian Restaurant. Owner of the
property is F. S. L.1. C .
Mrs. Kee presented a slide show of the area and the staff report covering the
request, including the physical characteristics of the lot, access, area land use and
zoning. She reported that the existing building is 10,000 square feet and would
require 133 parking spaces according to regulations in the zoning ordinance. She
pointed out'~hereare22 parking spaces on the site, and a previous variance was
granted to tl1e.parking requirements · for a retail establishment at this. location for
11 spaces wh~9h cfillnot be applied for this business because it represents a
complete chaBge of use. Therefore, this applicant is requesting a vari.ance for
approximately 111 parking spaces.
Mrs. Kee pointed.. out that the adjacent K-Mart center currently only requires 300
spaces of the 630 which are available, but the owner of the proposed restaurant has
been unable to secure a parking eas~ent from the owners of the K--Mart center,
although he has not given up and is still seeking that easement.
She identified the hardship the applicant faces as the limited use available for the
existing vacant building, or the restriction of floor space which could be used if
the use is changed to a restaurant, which would limit his use to only 25% of the
available total square footage.
Mrs. Kee explained the ordinance intent for on-site parking requirements as being to
ZBA Minutes
1-23-89
Page 6
provide adequate off-street parking to avoid traffic congestion, that 4 area owners
had been notified of the request, but she had received no comments from them. She
then pointed out that the applicant has furnished several letters for the Board's
information, and that the owner of the Putt Putt golf course across Valley View Drive
has submitted a letter at this meeting in favor of this request for the members.
Joe Ferreri, 902 North Rosemary Drive, Bryan, came forward, was sworn in and
identified himself as the applicant of this request. He explained the problems he
has encountered with the owners of the K-Mart center which are on-going, and have
taken place over the Past 7 months. He stated that he has been verbally informed
that the owners of K-Mart are in favor of granting the parking easement to him, but a
written agreement would be along time coming due to the corporate structure which
must agree to and sign the document.
Mr. Thompson said that it would seem to him that this situation would be similar to
other centers where uses are mixed end parking is shared.
Mr. Gilmore pointed out that K-Mart owns the lease for all the parking, and if K-Mart
doesn'twantenyone else to park there, they should not. He continued by saying that
this. Board, if it grants the variance, would be allowing a business to open there,
and he would have no problem with granting a variance contingent upon the condition
that K-Mart does' grant the parking easement, but if it does not, then he does not
think the Board should grant a variance which could cause parking on that lot.
Mr. Gentry stated that .if this. Board grants this variance, it is allowing Mr. Ferreri
to run a business, and if K-Martdecides to fence off the area and enforce No
Parking, it is. not this Board's problem. Mr. Gilmore disagreed.
Mr. Henry said. that he knows theitotal square footage of the building is 10,000
square feet, buthe.would like to know what the actual seating capacity would be,
since he knows the building cannot be 100% occupied by patrons.
Mr. Ferreri replied that he thinks he could put about 40 tables in the usable area of
the building, which would requir~approximately 40-60 parking spaces. He reminded
the Board there are. 22 spaces OIl! site and a varience was granted to a previous
business for 11 spaces, so that\Vould give him a total of 33 spaces toward the 40-60
he estimates he. would actuallYi n~ed... He stated again that he is continuing to pursue
the parking easement, and thenippiIlted out an area on the K-Mart lot. which has not
been renovated, as has all the. 9th~rarea, and explained that is the area which he
would be requi,red to pave if the:et:1.s~ment is granted by K-Mart. He further explained
that approval of his loan applic;ati,on is contingent upon that parking easement.
Additional discussion follm'led about. the proposed number of employees, the hours of
operation, removing.tables if th~reis enough parking available, and the letters from
the owners of the K-Mart center which Mr. Ruesink directed staff to include as a part
of the record for this meeting. (See attachments following minutes).
Mr. Gilmore said again that the K;-Mart lot belongs only to K-Mart, and if they decide
to enforce No Parking, the Board would be driving cars to someone else's property.
Mr. Gentry said that he believes the existing 22 spaces will be enough for this type
business at this location, and he is in favor of this request.
Mr. Thompson pointed out that the Putt Putt people have additional unused land Mr.
Ferreri might negotiate to obtain,. and Mr. Ferreri said. that he has already talked to
the Owner about it, but he still beHeves K-Mart will grant the easement, especially
ZBA Minutes
1-23-89
Page 7
since the area he is negotiating for has been excluded from the new paving project.
Mr. Ferreri then stated that some of the Putt Putt patrons park at the K-Mart lot,
and the manager of K-Mart does not mind, but says he welcomes the possible additional
traffic.
Tom Turbiville, owner of the Putt Putt Golf Course came forward, was sworn in and
read a letter he had prepared for the ZBA which endorses Mr. Ferreri's plans for the
restaurant and the variance he is requesting. He said that K-Mart has always
cooperated with him and his needs for his business, and his employees help police
part of the K-Mart parking lot for trash. He went on to say that the old Ira's
building is very unique, and has become an eyesore since it is vacant, and the
proposal by Mr. Ferreri could only enhance this area of the City.
Mr. Gentry then made a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest,
due to the following special conditions: An unusually large amount of parking is
generally available in the area, a variance will not detract from the area
development, existing parking will hendle a moderate crowd for this facility, and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to use an existing facility,
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done subject to the following limitations: allow restaurant serving alcohol usage
with 22 on-site parking spaces. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Consideration of a request for a variance to
setback requirements for construction of a garage with living
quarters on the second floor at III Lee. Applicant is Clair :1. Nixon.
Mrs..Kee explained the request, which is for a variance to both the side and rear
setbacks for the purpose of constructing a 3-car garage with living quarters on the
second floor to replace a 2-car garage which has been removed.. She showed slides of
the area which is zoned R~l Single Family Residential, and is primarily developed
with sIngle family homes.
She explained that the required setbacks are 25 feet for the rear due to the proposed
living quarters being proposed, and 7.5 feet for the side; however, the applicants
are proposing a 10 foot rear setback and a 1 foot side setback to accommodate the
proposed structure at a specific location on the lot.
Mrs. Kee explained that the only alternatives identified by staff included building a
smaller garage structure, or eliminating the living quarter which would reduce the
rear setback. requirement to 20 feet. She said that staff had located no previous
action on this property , that 9 ar,eaproperty owners had been notified of this
request, and she had received no responses to the notification.
Clair Nixon, III Lee was sworn in and identified himself as the applicant and owner
of the property. He stated his f~ily had bought this 44 year old house about 2 1/2
years ago aIld have enlarged and to'tally refurbished it. He pointed out that street
parking is not allowed in the area!, so he must be able to contain his 3 personal
vehicles completely on the property. He explained that he and his wife have 7
children and have come to the conclusion that they may have to employ live-in
domestic help, . and the proposed liiving quarters would be for that purpose for a
number of years, to be converted tp perhaps a home for in-laws at some time in the
distant future.
ZBA Minutes
1-23-89
Page 8
L1.)f'"\ ,'llltU L.C-.:J
5:17-83
page 3
in pol icy-making decisions. This motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Upham then made a motion to uphold the decision made by the Planning S Zoning Com-
mission in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance, as the decision meets
the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Wagner seconded.
Mr. Wendt asked if this Board could make a compromise and Mr. MacGilvray advised that
compromises were not within the jurisdiction of this Board, although he, too, leans
in that direction. He further pointed out that the owner and developer had to come up
with any compromises. Votes were cast, and the motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Wendt voting
against it.
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Consideration of a variance request to Section 8-D.9 of Ordinance 850
1 imiting commercial businesses to one detached sign. A pI kat ion is in the name of
Plantation Oaks Apartments/Tower Properties LTD. This item was tabled at the April 19th
meeti ng) .
Mrs. Kee gave background to the ZBA variance given in 1976 and the Conditional Use Permit
for a Daycare center issued by the PsZ in 1982, then explained this request. No one was
in the audience to represent the appl icant, and Mrs. Kee explained that after the request
was tabled at the last meeting, she had contacted the appl icant and informed them of the
time and date of this meeting when the request would be heard. The Chair then made a
motion to deny this request because there was no one there to represent the applicant
on two separate occasions. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Consideration of a variance request to Section 7-C of Ordinance 850
regarding the number of required on-site parking spaces provided at a project located on
Valley View Drive and the Texas Avenue frontage road. Application is .in the name of
Auto Horse, Inc., a Texas corporation.
Mrs. Kee gave the background leading up to this request for a variance, stating that the
City may have contributed to the creation of a hardship for the appl icant which would not
be a totally self-imposed hardship. She explained that several projects in shopping
centers have written cross-parking agreements, and the City had mistakenly assumed that
a written agreement could be furnished for this project, and had apprav~ the site plan
and then issued the building permit for the project to begin prior to receiving the
written cross-parking agreement. She further explained that after exhausting all avenues,
the architect, the developer and his lawyers have been unable to get this written agree-
ment, and the building has already begun.
Larry Catlin, attorney for the developer came forward and was sworn in. He gave a more
complete background to the developers' efforts to acquire the written agreement, stating
names of management companies and lease holders which had been contacted by a different
attorney and subsequently by him, to no avail. He further indicated that until as late
as thecbeginning of April of 1983, the developer and he were under the impression that the
agreement would be forthcoming, and that there would be no problems, but on April 20th,
a letter was received from the K-Mart corporation denying the request citing a decision
which had been reached in December of 1982 (but about which the developer had never been
informed) .
Mr. MacGilvray asked about the possibility of leasing spaces or of buying additional
and Mr. Catlin advised that all possible remedies to this problem had been pursued.
further said thatK-Mart is not will ingto furnish a written agreement, but also has
indicated that the spaces could not be used, should the need arise.
land,
He
not
Mr. Wagner asked about the type of business and Ms. Meyer asked about lot dimensions.
Mr. M~cGilvray and Mr. Upham agreed that a buil.ding which is too big for the lot has
been designed. Further discussion followed concerning other cross-parking agreements in
the City and Mr. Mayo cited several cases, indicating Grandy's restaurant as the most
ZBA Minutes
5:"17-83
page 4
recent case.
Ira Held came forward and was sworn in and asked the Board to consider that a great
deal of the square footage of this building will be warehousing. Parking for warehouses
was discussed, and a figure of less than the 8 parking spaces variance was reached, and
the number was revised to perhaps 3 spaces short.
Walt Harden was sworn in and stated that he was contacted as a property owner within
200 feet of this project, and stated further that this variance is acceptable to him.
Ms. Meyer made the motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements (Section 7)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the publ ic interest,
due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like
districts: (l)the appl icantwas working under the assumption of approval of owners of
adjacent property,(2)the applicant was working under staff approval of a building permit
and, (3)adequate parking is available on adjacent property. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Wagner and carried 4-1 with Mr. Upham voting against.
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a variance request to Table A of Ordinance 850
regarding side setback requirements for the erection of a carport at 303 Walton. Appl i-
cation is in the name of Dorothy & J. G. Mackin.
Mrs. Kee explained the request and non-conforming uses vs. variances were discussed.
Mr. Upham gave the history of this particular area and cited his inclination to treat
this area as unique.
Dorothy Mackin was sworn In as a proponent (and appl icant) of this variance and stated
that Mrs. Kee had explained the request adequately. She further stated that this carport
would not obstruct anyone's vision, was not contrary to the public interest, and she
was simply requesting a variance.
Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum side setback (Table A)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the publ ic interest, due
to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike
districts: (l)this is the originally platted area on the east side of the City of College
Station, therefore there are no like districts and such that the spirit of this ordinance
shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Wendt seconded. Mr. Wagner asked
if the Board is comfortable with this reason as the sole condition and suggested an
amendment to li~iting the non-conformity. Mr. Upham moved to amend the motion to include
the 1 imitation, and repeated the motion: I move to authorize a variance to the minimum
side setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to
the pub1 ic interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not
normally found in 1 ike districts: (1) this is the originally platted area on the east
side of the City of College Station, therefore there are no other 1 ike districts and such
that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, sub-
ject to the following 1 imitations: (l)the proposed addition will not exceed the existing
non-conformity. Amended motion was seconded by Mr. Wendt and carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Consideration of a variance request to Table A of Ordinance 850
regarding side setback re uirements for the erection of a patio cover at 303 West Uni-
versity Bogies Restaurant. Appl ication is in the name of A. P. Boegner 303 Inc.
Mrs. Kee explained the background of the property and the current request, then passed
around photos of the project which had been taken on this date. She stated staff has
concerns over the stack of windows in the photos, as the building permit which has been
issued covers a patio cover which meets setbacks and the request is for a patio cover
from property line to property 1 ine, but if windows are proposed, it would indicate
that a room is being created rather than a walled-in area with a cover over it.
MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
April 4, 1996
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Gribou, Smith, Hall, and
Garner.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Lightfoot and Lane.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, City Engineer Laza, Assistant City Engineer
Morgan, Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Dunn,
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer, Transportation Planner Hard,
Senior Planner Kuenzel, Transportation Technician Hester and
Assistant City Attorney Reynolds. (Councilman McIlhaney was in
the audience.)
AGENDA ITEM NO.1:
Approval of minutes from the meeting of March 21, 1996.
Commissioner Hall moved to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from the meeting
of March 21,1996. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit for the Burton
Creek Pub, a proposed night club to be located at 2702 Texas Avenue South currently Ferreri's
Italian restaurant. (96-703)V
Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and explained that the request involves the conversion of
the existing Ferreri's restaurant into a brew pub featuring some evening entertainment, which for zoning
purposes classifies this use as a night club. The existing twenty-three parking spaces meet the current
parking requirements for the existing restaurant, which were determined in 1989 by a Zoning Board of
Adjustment parking variance. However, the change of use from a restaurant to a night club increases
the required parking. The current parking requirement for a night club is one space per fifty square feet
of building area. Approximately 1,065 square feet of the existing 10,800 square foot building will be
used for storage tanks and other brewing equipment, and is excluded from the parking requirement.
Therefore, the additional required parking for the 9,735 square foot area, minus the existing spaces and
the previously granted variance, is sixty-one parking spaces. The applicant has purchased the adjacent
parking area of lot 2 of the Brandywine Subdivision. According to the conceptual parking layout, the
adjacent lot will provide sixty-seven parking spaces, which exceeds the additional required parking by
five spaces. The access to the frontage road and Valley View is also in compliance with the
requirements placed on the Brandywine final plat. Staff therefore recommended approval of the
request.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
'"
Brian Perry of 3600 Rock Prairie Road approached the Commission and explained that he is the
principal financier and organizer of the pub. He stated that he plans to blacktop, stripe and install
necessary curbing for traffic control in the parking lot. There will be an opening between the subject
property and lot three as part of the cross access agreement with Brandywine. Mr. Perry stated that
there will be a brewing system installed as wdl as a substantial kitchen and office area. With the
additional parking on lot 2, there should be adequate parking available to the customers.
Commissioner Hall informed the applicant that this is an excellent opportunity to bring the property up
to current standards. The property is "grandfathered"; however, the parking lot and landscaping could
be brought into compliance with current ordinance requirements.
Mr. Perry stated that he will probably do some landscaping as part of their image. Because they cater to
an older crowd, the appearance of the property is important. Mr. Perry informed the Commission that
the parking lot will be well lit.
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gribou expressed the same concern as Commissioner Hall with respect to landscaping
and taking this opportunity to improve the property. He moved to approve the conditional use permit
as presented. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a final plat of part oflot 3 of the College
Hills Estates Subdivision totaling 2.38 acres along the north side of Walton Drive approximately
200' northeast ofthe Nunn intersection. (96-210)
Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer presented the staff report and stated that the purpose of the final plat
is to subdivide lot 3 into two lots zoned R-I Single Family Residential. In addition to access on Walton,
this propeIity also has access to Lincoln Avenue from the back of the lot. Once this plat is approved Lot
3R-l will takeac:cess from Walton Drive with Lot 3R-2 will have access to Lincoln. As a result of this
subdivision, parkland dedication will be required in the amount of $225. Since this property is located
within an es~abli~~ed neighborhood, water and sewer services are currently available to both lots. There
have been!d~s9u~sions in the past to connect Lincoln to Walton in this general area. At the present,
Barton-Aspl}ma~Inc., the traffic consultant hired as part of the HOK study, is evaluating the connection
ofLincolntoWfI.lton in the area around Foster Avenue. This connection would reduce the impacts to
the surroul1diI1,gpeighborhoods by positioning the connection closer ~o Texas Avenue. Since this study
is not.complet~,the recommendation has not been made and this connection mayor may not affect this
property. If tpeCouncil desires to make this connection through the subject property, the necessary
right-of-waY\ySuld need to be purchased due to this modification not being addressed on the current
Thoroughfare al)d Transportation Improvement Plan. Since this connection is not shown on the current
Thoroughfa1erl~n, staff dip not require the dedication of right-of-way for the connection on this plat.
Since this platicsnforms to the Subdivision Regulations, the applicant is not requesting a variance. Staff
recommended approval of the final plat with the comments identified in the Presubmission Conference
Report.
Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing.
Representative of the applicant, Gregory Taggart with the Municipal Development Group, informed the
Commission that he feels the final plat is a reasonable solution to an individual's need. The applicant
has a substantial piece of property and once it is divided into two lots, they will both be much larger
than the minimum required lot size. '
Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
P & Z Minutes
April 4, 1996
Page 2 of5