HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 Zoning Board of Adjustment January 17, 1984AGENDA
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
January 17, 1984
7:00 P.M.
1. Approval of Minutes -meeting of October 18, 1983.
2. Hear Visitors.
3. Consideration of a request for variance to the parking requirements
as set forth in Ordinance No. 850, Section 7-C. for the construction
of an office building on Lot 5 Block V University Park Section 2.
Application is in the name of Wood Associates.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjourn.
,,
/
~"h r Olt Coiiede ratio il ,J ·~
POST OFFICE BOX 9860 I I() 1 TI::XAS A \'ENCE
COLLEGE STATIU. '. TE.'l\S 77840
November 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
Recording Equipment
This is a reminder to be sure and speak directly into the microphones
whenever you are talking. This is extremely important as these are
recording microphones. It has been very difficult, if not impossible, for
Shirley to hear your comments when she is preparing minutes. This is
especially critical when the need arises for a transcript of the proceedings.
AGENDA
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
January 17, 1984
7:00 P.M.
1. Approval of Minutes -meeting of October 18, 1983.
2. Hear Visitors.
3. Consideration of a request for variance to the parking require ments
as set forth in Ordinance No. 850, Section 7-C. for the construction
of an office building on Lot 5 Block V University Park Section 2.
Application is in the name of Wood Associates.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjourn.
_,....
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Octob er 18, 1983
7:00 P.M.
Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Wendt, Wagner, Upham & Alternate
Member Meyer
Chairman Cook and Alternate Member McGuirk
Zoning Official Kee, Ass't Zoning Official Dupi es, Ass't. Director of
Planning Callaway and Planning Technician Volk
Mr. MacGilvray opened the public hearing and explained the duties and obligations of the
Board.
AGENDA ITEM NO. l: Approval of Minutes of September 20, 1983 meeting
Mr. Wagn er made a motion to approve the minutes as presented with Mr. Upham seconding.
Motion carried 4-0-l (Meyer abstained).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a request for variance to the side setback require-
ment for construction of a carport at 2809 Brothers in the name of Chalan Jones.
Mrs. Kee expla in ed the request, pointing out it is for a variance to the side setback to
allow construction of a 3 car carport. She furth er informed the Board that there i s a 10
foot easement between Lot s 5 & 6, so the limit of the variance could be for no closer than
to 5 ft. from the property line. She explained that an electric lin e for a street li ght r is in this easement, however, the appl leant could go to the City Council to request abandon-
~ ment of the easement. She further explained that a varianc e may be required concerning
the regulation of maintaining 15 feet between structures, should the easement be abandoned
as the adjacent struct ure is approximately 11 feet from the s id eline .
Chalan Jones came forward, was sworn in and asked to make a presentation to the Board.
He handed out photos to the Board members, stating that he does not know where the e lectric
lin e is but if it runs in a ~traight line from the pole, it appears to be on the neighbor's
property. Mr. MacGilvray asked about the storage building shown on the site plan and
Mr. J ones sa id that is a proposed buildihg. Mr. Upham pointed out that building has no
bearing on this request. Mrs. Meyer asked several questions and Mr. Jones approached her
seat and exp lained the answe~s privately. Mr . Upham asked Mr. Jones to address the require-
ment that in granting a variance, unique and special conditions of the land must be shown.
Mr. Jones said there are 33 ft. b~tween the house and the fence, and if this was completely
built up, it would look better than if a building was constructed on only a part of it.
Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Upham explained that unique might mean a gully or the shape of the
lot, if it was unlike others in the area, but that the explanation offered does not.
Mr. Jon es stated that there is no unique matter of geography that he know of, and he had
nothing further to offer. No one else spoke. Mr. Wagner made a mot ion to deny a variance
to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it wil l be contrary
to the publ le int erest du e to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not
normally found in 1 ike districts and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
Ordin ance wo uld not result In unnecessar y hardship to this appl leant, and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance sha l 1 be observed and substa ntial justice done. Mrs. Meyer
seconded the motion which carried unani mous ly (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration by the Board to rehear a request for variance to the
rear setback requir ement for the construction of a garage at 8700 Greenleaf in the name
of Frank Cinek.
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 2
Mr. MacGilvray reminded the Board that this request for variance had been denied at the
last meeting but also that the applicant had not been present at that time, and is present
at this meeting, Indicating further, that in order to rehear this request, the Board
will have to have a motion to that effect. Mr. Upham made a motion to rehear this request
for var lance with Mr. Wendt seco nding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mrs. Kee explained that this Is a r eq uest for variance to the rear setback require me nts
for construction of a garage addition to a Til so n home, and that this builder does not
ordinari l y build garages or driveways. Mr. MacGilvray cited a surveyor's error as being
part of the reason for this request as pointed out in the last hearing. Mrs. Kee explained
that the front lot width dimension was distorted on the Xeroxed copy, and then mentioned
the tree s in th e yard which wo uld have to be destroyed if the garage was located within the
guidelines of the ordinance.
Frank Cinek, applicant who resides currently in New Jersey came forward and was sworn in
and explained that he had requested a garage at the time his building was ordered, and had
been advised to bring that up at a later date. Now the prices have climbed too high, and
a local builder has offered to help out. He explained the request, the hardship on them
caus ed by the l oss of lot through the setback requirements and the loss of the trees.
Mr . Mac Gllvray ex plained again that in order to grant a variance it must be shown there
are unique and spec ial conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts. Mr.
Cinek asked if these rules we re enforced throughout the City and spoke of lot 1 ine construc t -
ion in some areas. It was pointed out that different zoning districts have different re-
quirements, and a l so how older, existing structures were 11 grandfathered 11 into the City at
the time the ordinance was accepted. Mr. Cinek said that he had 11 no pull" in th e Cit y,
and knows no one to help him, and Mr. Upham spoke up and said this entire Board works for
him and quoted from the minutes concerning this request at the last meeting. He went on
f" to speak of the op inion given that there was too much house on too 1 ittle a lot, and Mr.
\.._ Cinek sa id he had changed the p lans once already. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Cine k if he had
considered any alternatives, and point e d out it is possible to put a garage en this site,
althou gh it mi ght interfer wit h some windows; he also pointed out the 25 ft. setback wh ich
is required at the rear.
(
Lillian Cinek, 8700 Gre e nleaf Drive was sworn in and stated the one main reason for placing
the garage in the location indicated is because of the 6 trees which would have to be
destroy e d, and further that she i s on the Conservation Garden Committee of the Federati on
of Women's Clubs in New Jers by, and has a particular interest in saving any existing
trees. Mr. MacGilvray said ~hat several of the Board members have visited the site and
are aware of the trees, and they, too agonize over the loss, but repeated this Board is
governed by certain rules. Mr . Wendt asked Mrs. Kee if a 15 ft. setback would be o.k.,
and Mrs. Kee said if it is a s i de . setback, it is only required to be 7t ft. from the pro-
perty 1 ine, and the adjacent structure does meet its setback. Mr. Upham asked if a
front door designation can be changed, and Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the 25 ft. setbac k
have to be met on opposite sides of the structure. Mr. Wendt said it is an example of
unfortunate platting of a lot. Mr. Upham made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum
setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public
interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found
in 1 ike districts and because a stric~ enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
would not result in unnecessary hard s hip to thi s applicant, and such that the spirit of
this Ordinance shal 1 be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Wagner seconde~ the
motion which carried unanillbus ly (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consid erat ion of a request for variance to the sign regulations for
the Ashford Square Subdivision in the na me of MHBR-Joint Venture.
THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS NO T AN EXACT TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TAPE OF THE ZONING BOARD OF
ADJJSTMENT MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1983, AGENDA ITEM NO. 4, BUT RATHER A MINIMAL AMOU~T
OR PARAPHRASING HAS BEEN DONE.
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 3
TRANSCRIPTION WAS MADE JOINTLY BY JANE KEE AND SHIRLEY VOLK.
Jane Kee reminded the Board that this same subdivision had recently been granted a variance
~ to rear setback on certain lots and the. developers are now back to ask variances to cer-
tain sections of the sign ordinance. At the time the Ashford Square plat was approved
by P&Z and Council, there was a stipulation that essentially no detached sign permits
would be granted until an approved sign plan is presented by the applicant and developers
of the subdivision because at that time they were planning to propose some overall plan
for this entire subdivision. The P&Z will also see the same presentation that the appli-
cant will propose before the Board. In devising this plan it became necessary for this
appl leant to come before the Board for various reasons and she tried briefly to explain
what they are proposing. She stated the applicant is in the audience.
Kee: This green strip that you see out here is an area that's been reserved for land-
scaping and proposed signage. There is a zone 1 ine that runs through it to divide C-1
from A-P zones. You will recall In the ordinance A-P zones are not allowed detached signs.
What the appl leant is proposing is that for these interior lots they be allowed separate
detached signs in this area; they are proposing some low-type of sign in a berm and I
believe the appl leant is here to make a presentation concerning what those signs would
look 1 ike. There are 2 variance requests that are necessary in order to do this: (l)Be-
cause the staff and P&Z Commission view this as a building plot, by our ordinance they
would be allowed one detached sign for the whole subdivision. They need a variance to the
one detached sign 1 imitation. (2)They also need a variance to the requirement that in
commercial zones, detached signs must be 10 ft. behind the property 1 ine, and they will
be out in this area which would be the 8 ft. setback area. They are only requesting
detached signs in the green area, and not in the A-P zone. Another item the Board needs
to consider also is that part of the request (pointed to as-built plat, Brazos Savings
is on Lot 1 and Wendy's ls on Lots 1 & 4) is the applicant is asking that Brazos Savings
and Wendy's each be allowed their own detached sign on their piece of property.
Mr. Wendt askeci about A-P zones, and Kee said signs would be allowed on the buildings.
Kee: What essentially we are considering are 8 separate detached signs plus one each
on Brazos Savings and Wendy's lots.
MacGilvray: I am under the impression that C-1 allows detached signs on the property.
Kee: The way the ordinance reads is that a building plot is composed of one lot or
multiple lots and this whole development is viewed as a building plot and would be allowed
one detached sign.
Upham: It is "viewed as a building plot", but in fact, it was presented as one building
plot.
Kee: It was presented as a commercial P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) which is some-
thing we don't have in our ordinance.
MacGilvray: Was it presented originally that way, and if so, would that preclude it being
viewed in any other way.
Kee: The development has private drives and not City streets, and this also makes the
staff even more convinced that this is a building plot, and not separate individual lots.
MacGilvray: So we're being asked to consider 2 things; approving 2 detached signs that
are on the property and 8 detached signs that are not on the property of the store they
advertise.
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 4
Meyer: I didn't understand the variance request for BrazosBanc and Wendy's.
Kee: Because we're viewing this as a building plot there could be one detached sign in
which case we would not allow detached signs on any individual lots. In discussions with
Planning staff because this is a new type of development we are not opposed to some kind
of treatment in this green area. We do have some concern with the two detached signs on
the Individual lots as that seems to be contradictory -either you have a building plot
with one detached sign or you have detached signs on individual lots. To try to accomplish
both in my mind seems contradictory.
Upham: The previous situation actually we had no precedent and we made precedent. The
precedent is now binding on the rear setback as far as that's concerned. Our statutes
do in fact cover specifically on the sign situation.
Wendt: No, not on a development that has interior lots where everything goes to the
center of the street. It's not 1 ike a face front store -it's a different situation.
Upham: We have that same situation at the Mal 1. Only thing is property is owned separately
but has many stores, each of which might expect to have a right by virtue of leasing the
property.
MacGilvray: Is there anything which would prevent a single sign that would have the
names of 8 or 10 1 ike over in Culpepper.
Kee: As long as it met setback and height requirements.
Wagner: If nothing passes tonight, then there could be one detached sign with BrazosBanc, -r etc., and then signs on the buildings also.
Kee: All buildings can have signs on them.
Wagner: Even the ones facing the street?
Kee: Yes, if nothing happens tonight I don't know what right now would be the opinion
of the P&Z Commission with respect to the overall plan for this development in terms of
signage. Anything more than one detached sign out there would require action by this Board .
MacGilvray: I'd 1 ike to hear from the developer or spokesman on behalf of this request.
Steve Hansen came forward and was sworn in, and stated: There are several items I'd 1 ike
to address tonight. First being that the outcome of our P&Z meeting concerning the final
plat of Ashford Square. The only direction we got from P&Z at that time concerning signage
was that it was to be 1 imited. As Jane said, we were to come up with some kind of a plan
for signage -detached signs and signs in the common area. We were not directed at any
meetings in any way that we wer e to have just one detached sign for the whole development.
As you know, Ashford Square i~ a unique development. It's more what you'd call a commercial
P.U.D. with each lot having its own ownership and each lot having its own parking, its
own 4 walls and it really does not resemble a Mal 1 situation in any form. I'm having
trouble seeing the analogy between a mall and this type of development. We have indivi-
dual buildings and sites on each lot. What we're trying to do is in fact 1 imit our signage
to prevent a detached sign on each lot. Let me address the signage that we're propo s ing
in the common area. We're proposing a maximum of 8 low key signs for Lots 2 & 3 Bloc k A,
Lots 2,3, 5 & 6 Block Band Lots 7 & 8 Block D. If you would pass this around. This is
a drawing o f the sign we'd like to use. This would also have indirect 1 ighting. That is
not drawn in here. The sign would be approximately 3 ft. high and 12 ft. long, and it
would go i n the common area tha t is outlined in green on the plat.
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 5
MacGilvray: There would be 8 of those essentially, is that right?
Hansen: That would be the maximum amount to cover each lot ownership. What it would be,
would be a series of signs which I've seen done very well in Houston on several commercial
lots. It would be a bermed area and it would all be landscaped and I think it would be
a much better situation as far as the neighborhood is concerned with this low type signage.
There would be very 1 ittle illumination on this type of sign versus one large detached
sign that would be a directory sign that would have a number of signs elevated in the air.
In first talking to City staff, they were in favor of some type of low profile sign and
this is what we were more or less directed, and this is what we aimed to do to cover the
detached signage on the interior lots. Let me add the other portion of our variance
request. That would be 2 detached signs for Brazos Savings and Wendy's Restaurant. There
is a representative from Wendy's who would like to speak a few words after I do. And if
there is someone from Brazos Savings, I think they'd like to, too. They feel Brazos
Savings' sign would be a detached sign that would be located on their property that would
be very similar to the sign on the corner property they own on Southwest Parkway & Texas.
It's not a -It's more or less a low profile sign. I'm not exactly sure what the height is.
But that Is the type of sign they are proposing. I would like Wendy's to explain their
type of detached sign. In summary, this is basically what we are trying to do -this is
a Planned Unit Development. We have more or less with our zero lot 1 ine request and
varianc e that we have had -this enables all the buildings to be centered in the center
of each lot. Let me explain on the plat. (He went to the plat to point). Most of the
buildings we're trying to do ls in this area with flow through parking here and here.
That is why we have zero lot 1 ine development. We feel it would be an attractive situation
to have detached signage all the way down each lot. That's why we're requesting low profile
signs for each lot.
Meyer: Does the Brazos Savings and Wendy's building match all the other buildings archi-
tecturally?
Hansen: Yes.
Meyer: So they'll look all the same?
Hansen: Yes. The develope~-does have deed restrictions that do reflect similar type
concrete tilt wall construction.
MacGilvray: Are any buildin~s there? I haven't been by there.
Hansen: Yes sir. The buildings shown on the plat are in place.
MacGilvray: I knew the Daycare Center was.
Hansen: Excuse me, Phil Blackburn's building is under construction.
MacGilvray: What's the little building behind the obvious drive-through?
Hansen: That's their 1 ittle office location.
MacGilvray: It's not just a moneystore -there'll be people there.
Hansen: No, it's predominately just a drive-in.
Upham: You addressed one thing here -you remarked this is a unique situation which we
recognized so far as the variance we granted last time.
Hansen: Yes sir.
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 6
Upham: However, I 1 d remark to you that so far as signs and things 1 ike this I would think
that your development is unique pretty much only in that it is a first development. So
you see the problem we have or are presented with. The first -inevitably not the last.
I further point out what we're actually talking about is a sign ordinance which is designed
against pro] iferation and bad placement of signs -what we're looking at is 18 signs on
one area as opposed to nine -provided for one large detached sign with everybody on it
and .one on each building and those 18 signs to be congregated in an area which perhaps is
l/lOth the size of the mall or the areas in here.
Hansen: What 18 are you talking about?
Upham: You see if you want 8 up front, 8 on each building and 2 detached plus your 1
development, you have in essence 18. You have one on each building which is provided for s o
that 1 s8, then 1 for each building down by the street, so that's 16 and then you're allowed
1 detached sign for the whole area anyway which would allow you to have those same business e ~
on one big pole. We have a situation when you want one for Brazos Savings and Wendy's
so you're asking for 18. If you should come back and say ~ou know,we forgot about it, but
we'd 1 ike to put this one up on the corner which we're allowed anyway and put 8 more up
here.
Hansen: No, you're not allowed detached signage on A-P.
Upham: As what I'm talking about is one large pole up here with 8 signs on it, which
you're al lowed -and then we're going to put 8 more on the street. You haven't applied
for the one pole, but you could. What we're asking for is 18 signs with the potential
possibll ity of 27.
f" Hans e n: That's not what we're asking for -it's clear that whatever would make that clear ... •
Upham: I brought out this unique situation being first. I 1 m trying to get the gravit y
of the multiplication factor Involved in the thing out thoroughly in the open so we can
be fair to you.
Hansen: To address that point -If we do -if you look at each one of these lots as a
separate building, which in fact they are in any other situation, each lot would have their
own detached sign with a sign on the building. There would be 26 signs in the commercial
area versus what we're askin~ now. Our intent is to limit the signage and do it in a
tasteful manner with our low : profile signs. That's our whole intent -to limit the signage
which we were directed to do : by the P&Z Commission.
Meyer: I'm trying to visualize the 8 low signs. They would be situated how?
Hansen: We would angle them slightly and they would just be spaced in a berm type situa-
tion with landscaping right in front of the commercial area with just the name and possibly
the street address.
MacGllvray: Will all this thing develop reasonably quickly -wondering if all these 8
signs will be built at the same time or will they come gradually?
Hansen: think it would be a gradual situation just depending upon the market sit1Jation.
I really can't answer that. There has been good progress to this date. We've been under
constru~tlon several months and we have 4 buildings under construction right now.
Meyer: I think this would be attractive, prettier than a sign on a pole.
Hansen: I n Houston, Cott ill ion (?) West has the same situation. It is done in the sa me
manner.
ZBA Minutes
. 10-18-83
page 7
MacGilvray: If this were approved would it prevent them from building one single detached
sign at some future date as Mr. Upham worried?
Kee: If that was their only sign, no. I think what the Board is being asked tonight is
to accept either their proposed plan in whole or in part, or reject it, in which case
they would be allowed their one detached sign. They would not be allowed more than what
the Board grants them tonight.
MacGilvray: Then Mr. Upham's fear was not founded. In other words, it would not be possibl e
for them to build these 8 signs and then at some later time come back and decide they
wanted to have one big one.
Kee: That was the only misunderstanding that he (Mr. Upham) had.
Upham: Which is what I was sitting here trying to get straightened out. In any event,
we do have a situation where this being a first such development. It is not in fact unique,
just f I rst.
MacGllvray: Yes.
Hansen: If I may make one more comment -in reference to the 2 detached signs (Brazos
Savings & Wendy's) we wanted to keep the 2 detached signs to a minimum and we felt that by
allowing 2 detached signs versus 12 others, we felt this would be 1 imited signage. We
felt the type of tenant or owner we have here it is a necessity to have detached signage
and that's why we've asked for the 2 detached signs based on their situation.
Upham: What situation -what was in your restrictions so far as the remainder of the
lots are considered. What do you have written in there which would prohibit the other 6
pieces from coming up here saying Brazos Savings has their detached sign, we want ours.
Wendy's has th~irs, we want ours. In essence, if we were to approve those 2, by precedent
we are automatically approving 6 more.
Hansen: Our deed restrictions are going to reflect the exact same thing we are requesting
if it Is granted in that interior lots would just be allowed to have a low profile sign
and the other 2 lots that have access to Southwest Parkway would have detached signs on
their property.
Upham: Run that by again.
Hansen: Repeated his previous statement.
Upham: You keep saying would be allowed referring to Brazos Savings & Wendy's. You do
not have your restrictions as yet completely developed.
Hansen: No sir. The restrictions are incooplete pending this outcome.
Upham: What you are saying here is in fact included in your restrictions on Lots 2-8 and
in fact there no w.
Hansen: Yes sir.
Upham: You have no expectation of taking it out.
Hansen: No sir.
Upham: So I presume the businessman who goes in here will be charged a 1 ittle less because
h~ ..
7
ZBA Minutes
l0-18-83
page 8
Hansen: Yes sir.
i MacGilvray: I was going to say -s ince we're talking about the other detached signs you
r
\._
mentioned there are other people here who might like to speak to that, so unless you have
some other comment we 'll ask you questions as we need to as this goes on.
Hansen: Thank you .
MacGilvray: Thank you, Mr. Hansen.
Bil Youngkin, representing We n dy's was sworn in and stated: Here as an observer to see
what the Board does with this situation because our us e of this property depends on the
actions of the Board tonight. We have no objectio ns to the Board allowing a varian ce to
be within so many feet of the street wh ich is not ordinarily allowed , but we want to make
sure we do hav e our separate detached sign and we do not want to put a sign in that other
area, but with our business it is necessar y we have our mar keting logo sign, as MacDonalds,
etc. have across the street. We have looked at our prop erty being a building plot because
we do own ou r proper ty, it's a free standing building with our own access, parking, etc.
I assume the purpose of the ordinance was to preven t (quoted parts of the sign ordinance)
and perso n s having multiple signs over their property, but it does not preclude us, if
you consider our property a plot, as we do. And that's the only thing we want to have
und erstood at this meeting is that we do have our right because we do have, or think we
hav e, one p l at and whet her or not we develop is contingent upon this Board's action tonight .
MacGilvray: wo nder if, in fact, the app l leant is MHBR, the developer, whether or not
Mr. Youngkin's concern ought to be~separate application, because in that he's viewing this
as an individually ow ne d lot , with it's own integrety and therefore, it's own s i g n require-
me nt, but it falls out of th~.d~finition g iv en us by Mr. Hansen and taken by the Ci ty
Planning a nd Zoning Commi ssio\'/i~v~ews this as one lot only.
Uph am: Which is correct, that is, his opinion a nd Mr . Hansen's opinion are between them.
Kee: My underst and ing is that when the plat was presented to th e P&Z and Council was that
their overall sign plan would in volve all the lots in the subdivision, and Mr. McKean
came in and made this appl !cat i on. Part of this application was to al low Lots 1 & Lot s 1&4
to have separate detached signs. I feel that this should be considered with this.
Wagn er : Contr adictory ! It see~exactly contradictory; we're asking Mr. Hansen to view
it as one building lot and Mr. Youngkin to view his as one building lot.
Kee: That is why I pointed out earlier the staff has concern with both of those requests
because they seem to contradict the intent to either view it as a building plot and allow
one detached sign in that fashion, or we don't.
Wendt: In most of t hose other interior lots don't have exposure and what I think ther e
ought to be i s that the 2 that have frontage naturally want to have something you can see
because they're probab ly go ing to be the hi ghest traffic generators. The ones in the
back also want to have something so that when you drive oy yo u can see they're th e r e. You
a l l are trying to separate it, and the only people who are asking for detached signs have
frontag e on Sout hwes t Par kway.
Youn gk in: We are not asking for a variance, because our sign would be under the 35 ft.
m1n1mum as opposed to MacDonalds seventy plus feet and Arbys. Our s i gn is going to be
within yo ur ordinance of 35 feet, but our s i gn is indigenous to our proje ct and our building .
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 9
MacGilvray: That's what I wondered, and that was the thrust of my question. I can see
that if the dark 1 ine on this plan outlines everything but this, and is only for this,
~ but it doesn't. The request includes all of the lots ...
Upham: We do only have a request from the individual concerned with the entire project.
MacGilvray: That's right.
Upham: We have a concerned citizen who is addressing the situation within the context of
the request itself.
MacGilvray: That's why I'm wondering how to view this because if we go by Jane's opening
remarks which were that this thing was not going to be viewed as individual parcels under
a C-1 zone, but as one parcel, then it seems that our actions would tend in another
direction.
Upham: Our actions would take into account the specific request as presented.
Kee: As I understand it, the BrazosBanc and the Wendy's requests are included in the
application.
Youngkin: The only thing I wanted to say is that the way the application is made is fine
with us. We have, in the deed restrictions will take care of the other property, and I
think what they're trying to do is good for the community and everyone else. I think
everyone recognized that it's better to have signs low profile and landscaped than to
having a Culpepper Plaza sign that you can see when you top the hill at the raceway.
think that's an improvement, but our particular business requires that, it's like the
r Arby's or MacDonalds that we have that sign, and therefore we just do not want to be
' included in the deed restrictions, and the deed restrictions depend on what the Board
does toni g ht, and that's why we wanted to voice our approval of their request with the
understanding that we do want to have our separate detached sign.
.{
MacGilvr a y: It would not be a low profile sign. It would be a 35 ft.
Youngkin: understand, but.their restrictions would 1 imit everybody else to a low pro-
file sign except Brazos Savings and ourselves.
MacGilvray: I make my point : again.
Wagner asked about their stores in Lubbock, Texas and Washington, D.C., saying the signs
are not as high as he is. He went on to say he didn't see why this had to be a package -
that is, the store and the tall sign.
Don Mills was sworn in, identified himself as the applicant for Wendy's and said: Where
you have 1 ike competition and everyone has the same level of sign elevation, it works all
right where the customer is accustomed to that. But in areas where all the competition
has higher signs, it doesn't help the business any, and as a matter of fact, it's very
detrimental.
Wagner: This Is true, but wouldn't you 1 ike to be the first on the block?
Mills: No, and I hate to be that mercenary, but money is what it's all about .
Wick McKean came forward and was sworn in and asked to clarify one point, stating: We are
asking for a variance concerning rear lots and I know Jane pointed out initially as one
building plot, however if you look at that plat, those are individual lots, and if we
read our zoning ordinance as it pertains to signs, we are really not asking for any
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 10
variance whatsoever on Lots 1 and Lots l & 4, the front lots. We are requesting a variance
to, as far as the detached signage on those rear lots in an attempt to give them some
exposure to Southwest Parkway and to also limit, we feel with respect to limiting signage
with the low profile and giving people exposure. Here again, I don't want to confuse the
Issue here, we have got individual lots and we are not asking for any variance whatsoever.
We do want to point out that we have that situation with those front lots and we want to
make you al l aware of that situation. Typically this thing would be if you were not
subdividing, it would be one C-1 piece of property with the one marquis type situation.
We don't have it here and you know we've had the problem wit h the setbacks, and we've got
a little problem here as we're deeding individual lots, and they would really fall under
the sign ordinance 11 per lot 11 • The way I under stand it and interpret the zoning ordinance,
each one of those interior lots would be allowed a detached sign on-premise, and we're
asking for a variance here that those on-premise signs be off-premise signs in this de-
signated a r ea. That's what we're really looking at here ton ight.
MacGilvray: Let's clarify, if Mrs. Kee would comment on that and give your understanding
of how this was approved by the P&Z.
Kee: My understanding is that this subdivision was presented as a package or a Planned
Unit Development whic h involved all of the lots, and there was to be some o v erall plan for
signage. Because it was presented as a package, we feel it is one development unit (one
building plot) which would be allowed one detached sign. Any variation from that would
require act ion from the Board, and I think the P&Z Com missio n in their motion on this plat
made that even more clear, in that they not only ... What they said was that signage would be
limited, and I think in saying that they realized that there might be some justification
for a variance from the one detached sign that we would allow for a building ploi, but
how muc h of a variance and how it wou ld be accomplished they were leaving to the ZBA if
~ need be, and then later on for their decision when that plan was presented to them.
MacGilvray: As I see it, Mr. McKean, if these were each C-1 lots, then those would be
City streets running in front of them, and I don't know if that raises other ... It may be
to the developer's advantage at one time as a one-package plan, and at another time as 8
or 10 pieces of land. I think we need to arrive at some consistent view of this thing.
Wendt: ~hat exactly did tha P&Z and Council state on this plat?
Kee: That slgnage wo uld be ~ imited and ~hat at some future date, the applicant was to
work out with the staff or whatever steps were necessary, if that involved the Board, for
some s ign plan.
MacGilvray: wonder if it might . be appropriate inst ead of guessing what the P&Z Commission
said for us to obtain copies o f the minutes of that meeting and defer action on this until
we have it.
Meyer: What approval given conditioned them presenting a sign plan?
Kee: Mr. Miller made the motion to approve the final plat with a note indicating that
signage may be limited, and it went on to instruct the developer that this should be wo rked
out with the staff. When Mr. McKean presented the sign plan to the staff, we felt that
it would require Board action because of the number of signs.
Wendt: .What do you think about that plan?
Kee: Wha t he's proposing? I don 't have a problem with the low profile signs in that
area out front which wou ld require a variance to the 10 ft . setback, and to the number
of detached signs. I have some concern with the number of low profile signs if they're
12 ft. long and spaced in an area that is a littl e und er 30G ft., they're going to be
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 11
rather close together. I have some concern with the separate detached signs for Brazos
Savings and Wendy's because we have to be consistant with how we view this. Either we
~ view it as one overall development unit or as individual lots. It bothers me to jump
back and forth between the two.
Wendt: Why can't we just say we're going to do it a particular way?
MacGilvray: That would be fine if there were no detached sign requests, but they're want-
ing us to do it two ways.
Upham: We can make a motion to allow so much of this request as it's presented or leave
some of It out.
Meyer: Were permits given on buildings on the basis that they furnish a plan for signs?
Kee: There were sign permits pending for BrazosBanc that have not been issued simply
because there was not a sign plan at the time.
McKean: There was a note on the plat at the time it was approved that signage would be
1 imited because of the number of small lots, and that's what we're trying to determine -
what, in fact, we can or cannot do, and I think we ought to come to a decision one way or
another on that because we have people who are buying property and need to know. The
fact that we look at it as one building plot one time and as multiple lots another is
new, and it's why it requires that this Board take action. We are selling lots, and the
concept here ls to promote individual proprietors to have their own shops, so naturally I
share the opinion that it is individual lots and signage in a commercial-retail area is
of importance. Our reasoning behind those front lots, they share Southwest Parkway
frontage, and we do have a limited amount of area to put the rear signs, so the on-premise
sign would be a way to solve that problem, as far as how many signs we did have and where
we could put th e m.
Deed restrictions and maintenance in the common areas was discussed by al 1, after which
Mr. MacGilvray said this is not the consideration of this Board. No one else spoke from
the audience.
MacGilvray: suggest separating this into 3 separate requests - a variance to the
requirement for the location of a sign off the lot that a particular business occupies;
the setback 10 ft. from the street for that sign if it's located on the lot; and to approve
2 individual detached signs for lots which are sub-parcels of a larger parcel that could
have one sign under the conditions of the ordinance.
Upham: I see it as 2 variances -that off-premise detached signs be allowed in the designa-
ted area for the interior C-1 lots which would not al low Brazos Savings and Wendy's to have
their signs in that bermed, designated area.
McKean: The request is for 8 interior lots to be allowed signs in the common signage
area, and al low signage for the front lots also; also whether it be pole signs or low
profile signs, one way or another, addressing signage for everybody.
MacGilvray: If we al low the placement of 8 signs off the property, that the other 2 signs
fronting on Southwest Parkway to fit into the pattern someway, defining the area as one
development.
Meyer: Can we vote on 3 separate motions?
MacGilvray: Yes
Upham: I make an affirmative motion in so far as it relates ... ! move to authorize a
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 12
variance to so much of the request as refers to detached signage to be allowed in desig-
nated frontage of Ashford Square, signs to be of low profile design and re s tricted to
lots within the subdivision; t hat covers all lots including the front lots, too, -the
C-l portion of the subdivision. And further that they be allowed within the 10 ft. set-
back requirements as required by Section 8-D.6 from the terms of this ordinance as they
will not be contrary to the publ le interest due to the fol lowing unique and special condi-
tions, they being that this is a pilot project and that the establishment of this sign
allowance establishes precedence for it and all others to follow. Wendt seconded.
Upham: By way of clarification, it wi ll be noted that this refers to C-l lots wit hin
the subdivision. Also for clarification, there would be al lowed one sign per lot, for a
maximum of ll signs.
Wendt: I want to make sure that th ere is not any substitution factor available for the
interior lots.
Kee: In this case, if a sign is allowed off-premise in that ar ea , it would preclude a
detached sign on the lot.
Wendt: I amend the motion to say no substitution on Lots 2, 3 of A, 2, 3, 5, 6 of B,
and 7 & 8 of D.
MacGilvray: I'll clarify it to say that no detached s ign s will be al lowed on those lots.
Upham: second the amendment to the motion.
Amendment to the motion carri ed unani mo usly (5-0).
Me yer : want the motion 1 imited to uniform signs as presented by the developer at this
meeting.
Upham: The developer brought in a p icture of what he int ends to do with the s igns.
amend the motion again to say that signs should be of a general character in s tyl e as
presented in the picture by the de veloper to the Board. I amend the motio n to indicate
the type and style of signs which will be that as presented by the developer in his
testimony before the Board as indicated on the drawing as presented.
Wendt: second this amendment.
Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Motion, as amended twice carried unani mous ly (5-0).
Signage on Lot l and Lots 1 & 4 was discussed and then Upham: I make a motion to deny
a variance to sign regulations for Wend y 's and Brazos Savings, to Lots l and Lot l & 4
as are applicabl e to Lots 1 Block A and Lots l & 4 Block B, that they not be allowed
detached signs on-premise within this designated area, as it will be contrary to the public
interest, due to lack of unique and special conditions of the land.
M~cGilvray: second the motion, and as a point of cl arif ication, Wendy's and Brazos
Savings will be allowed their one detach e d s ign in the bermed, co mmo n s ignag e area.
This motion to deny carried (3-2) with Wendt and Meyer against.
/
ZBA Minutes
• 10-18-83
page 13
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a request to extend a conditional variance to the
parking requirement at 315 University in the name of Edward Walsh.
Mr. MacGilvray spoke of the history of the conditional variance which had been granted
for this location in the past (1981 & 1982) and quoted the current pol icy regarding the
moratorium as adopted by the Council this September 22, 1983, explaining that he is now
under the assumption that no parking variances can be granted to any business which would
create a more intense use of a building than is already existing.
Mrs. Kee then stated that the applicant may want to address the Board concerning whether
he is asking for a variance for as long as he has a lease on this business, or for a
continuation of the variance as has been given in the past. General discussion followed
concerning the development or repair this applicant had made to the parking lot as re-
quired by this Board.
Edward Walsh, applicant, was sworn in and reiterated that he has a lease until 1989 and
gave the background of all the past par k ing variances granted, stating that he had paved
18 parking spaces on the lot and designated that 6 of those spaces are for his business,
then stated that he would 1 ike to receive a variance for this business for the life of
his l ease . Mr. Upham pointed out that the variance goes to the land, and not to the appl i-
cant or the individual after which Mr. Walsh asked the Board to amend his request to a
perman e nt variance. Mr. Upham then made a motion to authorize a permanent variance to the
parking requirements at 315 University (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as
it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special
condition s of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts: There are no 1 ike districts
in the City; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordi-
nance shall be observed and substantial justice done. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Wagner, and passed unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a request to extend a conditional variance to the .
parking requirement at 411 University in the name of Lone Star Yogurt.
Mrs. Kee explained that in J~ty 1982 a conditional one year variance was granted to the
property, but to a different applicant, and when this business developed at that location,
staff determined if the use ~as the same ', the same variance would apply. Mr. Upham stated
that this is essentially the; same case as was last considered, but Mr. MacGilvray pointed
out that Mr. Walsh had a des :ignated parking area with his lease and wondered if the same
situation wo uld apply in this case. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to remove this
item from its tabled position. Mr. Wendt seconded. Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Cosmos Guido, applicant came forward, was sworn in and gave the background of the business
stating that in August of this year, he had run a survey of patrons for 19 days to deter-
mine just how many people drove/walked to the business. He gave figures indicating a
total of 536 people were surveyed, 308 indicated they had walked, 34 % drove, and 8% had
driven to the area to another store, and had dropped in to this business. He stated that
in his opinion, this business does not create a parking problem in the area, and the re-
sults of his survey back this up. Mr. Upham reminded the Board that the variance goes with
the land, and Mr. MacGilvray pointed out this is a part of a building whi ch has som e park-
ing and wo ndered how many were designated for this business. Mrs. Camp was sworn in,
identifying her se lf as the owner of the building and stated there is a total of 28 spaces
in the rear of this building, but that none had been designated specifically to this
business, as none had been requested. Mr. MacGilvray stated that the study committee had
sugge sted that employee parking be provided elsewhere, and referred to the last case which
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 14
had been heard which had provided some of the required parking. He went on to suggest
~ that if this variance is granted, it be for a certain period of time with the stipulation
\ that off-street parking be provided somewhere else for employees.
Mr. URham pointed out that this is a unique district; that each block is uniquely differ-
ent with some having available parking and some which do not, and the Board should place
conditions and make them consistent on a block-by-block basis, with the applicant attempt-
ing to assure that employees will not park permanently on-street. Mr. Wagner asked if
the Board can require that the applicant negotiate with the owner of the property to have
some spaces designated for this business. Mr. Guido answered that most employees walk to
work with perhaps 1 or 2 driving and only one or two working at a time. Mr. MacGilvray
invited Mrs. Camp forward again and she stated the patrons of this business do use some
parking in her lot, and Mr. MacGilvray asked if she would designate 11 X11 number of spaces
(number to be negotiated between Mr. Guido & owner) for this business, and she said she
would be agreeable to that. Mr. MacGilvray said that since there is some parking for
this building, it may be 1 ike the last case, and a stipulation could be made concerning
improvements as had been done in the earlier case -that the surface be brought up to City
standards and spaces striped. Mrs. Camp said many much needed spaces would be lost if
this was done.
Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to grant an extension of the parking variance for a
period of one year from this dat e for this business. Mr. Wendt seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Loupot asked to be heard, came forward and was sworn in. He asked to be allowed to
charge a fee to park on his lot, and Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that this is not to be
r considered tonight, but rather should be considered part of the solution to the problem
·--of the Northgate area, and be included in the committee report, and suggested that Mr.
/
Loupot should contact the City staff, and perhaps his suggestion could be includ e d in
the Implementation Plan which is to be presented to Council on November 22nd.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a request for variances to the setback, parking, and
lot dimension requirements for the reconstruction of the burned structure at 108-112 Colleg e
Main in the name of Fred Nabors
Mrs. Kee f~rnished background, stating this structure had previously been used as a
laundry, but had burned and never been reconstructed due to the variances which would be
required and the moratorium on variances in the Northgate area set down by Council.
Fred Nabors, applicant was sworn in stating he now has a bicycle shop around the corner
from this building and wished to move It to this location, so he would not be adding any
Intensity to traffic or parking problems in the area. He said the dimensions of the lot
do not meet ordinance requirements, and he would like to renovate and reconstruct this
building, and believes by doing so, would contribute to the business climate in this area.
His present business takes up approximately 2200 sq. ft., and this location would be about
the same size. Mr. MacGilvray asked how many employees he would have, and Mr. Nabors
answered there would nor mally be 2 employees, but in rush times, there would be perhap s
4. Mrs. Meyer asked how close this building is to others, and Mr. Wagner pointed out
that it is built on the property line with a firewall. Mr. MacGilvray said he had le s s
problem with granting a variance to a setback than to a parking requirement, and if this
variance is granted, it should be with the stipulation that this businessman should help
develop some type of off-stree t parking at a remote location. Mr. Wendt asked why the
Board doesn't earmark all these requests that way. Mr. Upham said this use is not more
intense than the building he would be vacating, and that overal 1 the best interest of the
City probably would not be improved by razing this building, even if it was developed as
a park:ng lot, because there could be no more than 8 spaces on the lot.
r
'
ZBA Minutes
• 10-18-83
page 15
Mr. Nabors said that renovating this business would not be a sound economic venture if
he was granted only a one-year conditional variance, but Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that
economics cannot influence this Board's decision. Mr. Upham said the motion from the
Council is general, and essentially the report had been accepted without instruction.
Mr. MacGllvray explained that staff is to present an Implementation Plan by ll-22-83.
Mrs. Meyer made a motion to authorize a variance to the lot width, lot depth, minimum
setback and parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be con-
trary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the
land not normally found in l Ike districts: This business is in the Northgate area which
is unique and there are no like districts, and because a strict enforcement of the pro-
visions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
Prevention of any use of the property, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall
be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by Wagner, and carried
u n a n i mo u s l y ( 5 -0) .
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a reques t for variance to the parking requirement
for the expansion of the business at 509 University fn the name of Al Gutierrez.
Mrs. Kee explained the request which is for 30 additional tables (120 seats). She in-
formed the Board the Fire Marshal has reported to her that the structure is limit ed to
an occupancy of 85, and there are 99 seats existing which are covered by the required
number of parking spaces (33).
Al Gutierr ez, 509 University Drive, appl leant, was swo rn in and repeated his requ est,
stating he wants to add 120 more seats, 30 tabl es, which wo uld necessitate a variance
for 40 parking spaces (l per 3 seats). He said this would not adversely affect this
area, because he has, in the past, rop e d off this available parking in the rear of this
store and bu:.iness had not been affected, which proves that most of his business is
walk-in trade.
Mr. Wagner asked if he would be willing to curb the area along University Drive to pre-
clude parking in front of his restaurant, and he (Mr. Gutierrez) said that it may all
be enclosed, allowing only ~arallel parking in front. Mr. Gutierrez further stated that
he is not bothered by the head-in parking along University Drive, but reported that the
City planners are against it1• Parking oh University Drive was discussed, and Mr. Gutierrez
expressed a preference for h~ad-in parking. Mr. Wagner pointed out that this is the only
head-in parking along University Drive and that abolishing this may help alleviate park-
ing and traffic problems on University. Mrs. Meyer disagreed because of the state of
disrepair of the parking lot which is provided at this location.
Mr. MacGilvray asked the applicant to point out to the Board the unique situation, and
Mr. Gutierrez offered financial hardship and making the site look better as unique.
Discussion of any possible hardship was discussed, including 11 Northgate 11 , curb cuts,
parallel parking. Mr. Wagner stated that the City has been given a mandate for this appl icar
to come up with an acceptable plan by De cember 15th. Mrs. Kee explained that this Board
had reversed the decision of the P&Z which then allowed the existing canopy at this busi-
ness . Mr. MacGilvray sa id if the applicant could provide a plan with additional parking,
then perhaps additional seating could be allowed, if an addition to the building is made,
as suggested by the applicant as being a possibility. Mr, Upham pointed out the appl l-
eant is asking to more than double his seating with no incr ease in available parking.
Mr. MacGilvray said he believes walk-in traffic is a fact which should be considered in
this area, but it is not the law now and this Board has to decide what it will allow
this appl leant to do. Mr. Wagner asked if tabling this it e m would be in order at this
time until a more exa ct instructions are received. Mr. Wendt pointed out that business
in that area could be dicta~ed by seating capacit~.
/
l
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 16
Mr. Wendt then made a motion to table this item until an acceptable site plan is
received from the applicant. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion which carried unanimously
(5-0). Mr. Wendt then suggested that a survey of walk-in traffic on this site might be
taken and presented at a later date. The applicant agreed to present a site plan to the
Planning Department for review.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consid eration of a request for varianc e to the front setback require-
ment for the reconstruction of the burned structure at 313 University in the name of
Herbert Affron.
Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the address shown (313 University) is a mistake, and
should be 313 College Main. Mrs. Kee gave the background of this building, leading up to
the necess ity of requesting this variance wh ich is for the front setback. She explained
that this applicant had an approved site plan but then the building burned and destruction
was more than 60 % of the building. Now, in order to rebuild this building, the applicant
must request a variance, as ordinance requires that any non-conformities must be brought
into compliance when rebuilding. She pointed out that in order for the applicant to use
the portion which was not destroyed, this Board must legitimatize the front setback, which
appears to be approximately 11 ft. from the property line. She further informed the Board
that the original building had been larger, but available parking would 1 imit the amount
which can be us ed, and the applicant wi 11 reconstruct only that portion which would
comply with the available parking.
Lisa Affron was sworn in and gave the history of the approved site plan, and spoke of the
fire which destroyed the building. She stated that available parking wou ld only allow a
building of 2250 sq. ft., which i s what they are planning. Discussion followed concerning
what is planned with suggestions offered by the Board. Mrs. Kee assured the Board that
the available parking in the rea r wo uld comp ly, but repeated the front setback is approxi-
mately 14 ft. short of compliance. Other setbacks were discussed, with the decision made
that thi~ building sets back further than most other buildings in the area. Mr. Upham
said he could 1 I ve with a setback variance wh ich would not contribute to the parking prob-
lem. Mr. MacGi l vray said this building is not inconsistent with others in the area.
~r. Wagner made a mot ion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (front) in the
amount of 14 feet from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
publ le Interest , due to the following unJque and special conditions of the land not nor-
mally found In l Ike districts: Fire caused the need for this variance and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to
this applicant. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion which carried unanimou sly (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Other Business
Mr. Upham announced that the City Attorney has gotte n a summary judgement against the
Shelton case, but it will probably be appealed to a higher court. Motion was made by Mr.
MacGllvray to adjourn, and seconded by Mr. Wagner. Mot ion carried unani mo usly (5-0).
APPROVED:
Dan MacGilvray, Acting Chairman
ATTEST:
Di an Jon es, City Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FROM: Jan e R. Kee, Zoning Official
GE NERAL IN FO RMAT ION:
Ap plicant: Wood Associates
Status of Applicant: Architect
Location: (Ad dress, Lot, Bloc k , Subdivision)
(see location map)
Existing Zoning: C-1 General Commercial
DATE: January 10, 1984
Lot 5, Block V, University Par k I I
Requested Action: Varianc e to parking requir eme nt s for an office building.
Purpose: To construct an 108,000 square foot office tower
Applicable Ordinance Se ction: ~S~e~c~t~i~o~n_7~--C=-=a~n~d:.._::::3~-~A~·~2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:-
Lot Dimensions:
Utilities: Adequate -water along FedMart; sewe r along rear.
Access: FedMart Drive, University Drive
To pography: --'-'-n~/a"-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Existing Vegetation: n/a -'-..:.._;_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Flood Plain: Adjacent tract -Creekside Retail Cent er
Other:
Staff Report to ZBA (Wood Associates)
page 2
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Setbacks Required: N/A
Variance
Adjacent Structures: 300 room hotel proposed with 437 spaces,which allows 274 employees.
Existing parking: 384 spaces proposed for the office building,which only allows for 24
employees
Parking Required: l space/300 sq. ft. (360 spaces) plus 1 space/2 employees.
ANALYSIS:
This project is an attempt to develop a site for multiple commercial uses. This type
of development often results in a more efficient utilization of land because the uses
typically have different peak periods. This al lows the number of parking spaces to be
reduced slightly and shared among the different uses.
Currently the City's Zoning Ordinance does not provide for this type of development.
Due to the peak hours of operation for the uses proposed in this project (hotels typi-
cally have peak periods on weekday and we e kend evenings while office buildings typically
require the most parking during the day on weekdays) there would appear to be no prob-
lem in granting a parking variance for the proposed office building and allowing for
shared parking between the office and the hotel.
The parking proposed for the overall development appears to be adequate and the staff
recommends approval of this request.
Ordinarice Intent: Provide adequate parking thus avoiding congestion and public safety
hazards.
Previous action on this property: None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appl !cation
List of Property Owners within 200 ft.
Site Plan
Location Map
..
ZONING BOAR D OF ADJUSTMENT
Name of Appl i cant J WWX>'J __ =----c_;__ __ ~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
M ailing Address POST OFFIC~ BOX AR
Phone (409) 846-1753
Location: Lot 5 --=----Subdivision University Park Block v
Description, If applicable Lot 5, Block v, University Park, Section 2, Volume 532
Page 827, Richard Carter League, College Station, Texas Brazos County, Texas.
Action Req ues ted: Parking Variance
Present Zon in g of Land in question C -1
--=--~--------------------~
Applicable ordinance sect ion Ordinance 850 Page 38 ~~~-'-=-'-=-'o._::=-='-----::..-==---------------~
7-C
NAM E ADDRESS
(F rom current tax roll s, Coll ege Station Ta x Assessor)
-1-
ZONING BOA RD OF ADJUSTMENT
CO MPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOR A VARIA NCE REQUEST.
Th e following spec ific varia tion from the ordinance is requested: The ordinance states f ·
an office bui I ding, 1 space per every 300 s. f. of f I oor area, pl us 1 space per every 2
crrployses and 1 loading space per 10,000 sf of floor space be provided. The prcposed
office bui I ding has 1 space per 281 s.f. of floor area. The specific variation requested
is 1 space per 281 s.f. be used as a parking requirement in I ieu of the current ordinance.
This varianc e is nec essary due to the following uniqu e and spe ci al c onditions of the
land not found in like dis t ricts:
Based on the Hi I ton's park i ng lot adjoining the
Financial centers lot, a cross over parking agreement can be irrplemented. Since the Hi I ten
requirement would be largely night parking, and the financial center would be day parking,
the additional spaces could be used to satisfy any parr<ing needs that might exist. This
scheme could be equally beneficial to both parties.
State the unnecessary hardship involved by meet in g the prov i s i ons of the ord i nan ce
(other than financial).
The si2'e of the structure in terms of square feet wi 11 be reduced and in tum reduce
the height of the structure.
The following alternatives to the request ed variance are possible:
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
facts:
Additional parking wi 11 be accessabl e with a cross over parr<ing agreement. If any
additional spaces are required the Hi I ton I ot can accanodate them.
by me in th is application are
Date I
-2-
-P&Z CASE NO :
., CI TY OF COLLEGE STAT I ON
_, .,, PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION FORM .
-~1~l::~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~~~:,:0~~~~#'~-;:,;·:r~:-<·,'"· .. ; ,,._ -·, ·-'.' -·
->~~~~TO;,,;,..BE~OBTAINto'""'F"R.~oM;,,..THE ~C'i"rY''oF '·c '(n_"LEGE STATION TAX OFFICE ONLY AND CERTIFIED BY TAX . ,~.;1 _ .. :
, .. .,..~~ASSESSOR 1 S OFF I CE. ·~~~'ALLOW 48 HOURS FOR THE TAX OFF I CE TO C'OMPI LE TH IS LI ST •
. ;~#~~~·~t_;it;:".:,•~:,J ~'";-r ,._ .. ·; ·~· ' . ', . • ' . ; •
.. : · . -r .~: . . -· .·-: li~i:~~it~~~!~.i~~:~~:~~~;;.~~~·:"t,.ti_t;:;.~~~~1~/:-~1
:. \,:,.' :~::·;~~:;: .. :.~· •• • ~~:. _ ~:,_.•;/ .. ··; ·:,'r: .· · ·. . ,. . ~ • r · ·
=~ ~JR:s:Qi ~~Kqf.X~±x::-wlT~-'~;:: ... ?,OO _,.fEET ,.,qF,ALL .PROPERTY .,_LINES OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
:. ·"\·
. , . :,·~1):;2~~~:·~•!~;~r:·~t;~f ... \.~Y '.":"f~~-. .,.....):?.,.~,,...•'·' • ,, •.. _-..._ .. 0 "' ..... 1 • r•····•:· ~:·-"LO_},",··-:.-.·• '-, . .-v .'~.i ,~ .. { ~.' .. , ,; ·~.· ·· :_, .
. .• r . ' .. ~ •· ,;'!<-~ ..... ~;.: .
. ... -'.: .... -:~ ~ ·.-.
B11i]ding Crafts, Inc
JAC Developers, Inc.
Trinity Development
Catlin, Brooks, Taylor
Caporina, Anthony Trustee
Creekside Venture
Sunbelt Hotels, Inc.
J.W. and Anna Wood
Burl McAlister
505 University Drive E .. College Station, Tx
1701 Southwest Pkwy, College Station, Tx 77840
4406 Carter Creek Pkwy 102, Bryan, TX 77801
4340 Carter Crk Pkwy 102, Bryan, Tx 77801
505 University Dr. St 40~, College Station, TX
Rt 5, Bo x 931, College Station, Tx 77 8 40
2600 Citadel Plaza Dr., Ste. 507, Houston, 7700 £
P.O. Bo x AR, College Station, Te xas 77840
P.O. Box 2996, Abilene, Te xas 79604
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY. 1 , ~1-~
CERTIFICATION OF TAX ASSESSOR OR CLERK ri fLil l 1 :/JcJ.}-1JJG ( ,. ii I -----
APPLICATION FE~ ~ (
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
··• ,<Ir' ~-··-
. ' ' . ~ . . .·······'-...... , ... ., . -. ,;. ..
I
I
I
[l __ ~IT __ E __ NJ _____ ~J_()----:.:=::=:::::::·=) ~-----Na_·~_e;_=_:_:_~_· [~_s_·~-A_L_e_=·_1_"_=_a_o_o __ ··1
TYPE OF CASE: PARKING PLAN
,
'
c)
' I
()
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances: From Section 11-B.5
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Tab 1 e A)
sign regulations (Section 8)
minimum setback (Table A)
~~~~~ ~] -
)(. parking requirements (Section 7)
3. ~.-...------~~---'--~~~-'-~~-=-~~-J-_,;:;;~~--,r-'-'f---=-.;.......,:,=-;;._-'-~~~--.
4. (..,,
5. hv {41) +~f-cl
6.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-;..,._.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be
justice done, subject to the following 1 imitatl ns:
3.
substantial
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4.
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 2
for the BrazosBanc sign, She further explained that the Legal Department felt that the
actfon of this Board concerning that agenda item was above and beyond the legal authority
of this Board. Mr. MacGilvray said he would enjoy hearing that explanation. Mr. Upham
suggested that perhaps this Board should be disbanded and then Mr. Denton can sit here
alone and make decisions. Mr. Wendt said that if there Is a problem, the Legal Department
should be represented at the meetings and also, the attorneys should Interview the Board
members before overruling a decision given. Mr. MacGllvray agreed that if this Board is
going astray, lt should be made aware of it. Mr. Upham said that part of the City Attorney'~
job descrlptlon Is to aid and assist various Boards and Commissions. Mrs. Kee said that
prior to the meeting, staff did not perceive a legal question and from that point forward,
staff has been keeping In better contact before meetings. Motion carried 5-0 (unanimously).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors
No one spoke, but Mr. MacGllvray thanked staff for Including this item on the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a request for variance to the parking requirements
as set forth in Ordinance No. 850, Section 7-C. for the construction of an office building
on Lot 5 Block V University Park Section 2. Appl icatlon ls in the name of Wood Associates.
Mrs. Kee explained the request ls f~r a parking variance as required by Section 7 in the
Zonfng Ordinance, but that It also applies to Section 3-A.2. of the Zoning Ordinance, and
then read Section 3-A.2 . aloud as follows: ''~o part of a yard, or other open space, or
off-street parking or loadihg space required about or In connection with any building or
use for the purpose of complying with this ordinance, shall be Included as part of a yard,
open space, or off-street parking or loading space similarly required for any other build-
ing or use." She further explained that this office building project provides 384 parking
spaces, 360 of which are needed to meet the parking requirements based on square footage
figured at 1 space per 300 sq. ft., and would allow ·parking for only 24 employees. She
stated that the parking lot at the hotel site provides 47 spaces over and above that re-
quired for a hotel and the owners of both projects are proposing a cross-over parking
agreement between the two projects. She informed the Board that staff believes that due
to the different hours of peak operation of the two projects, It can recommend approval
of a variance to 'the parking requirements of the office project with the provision that a
cross-over patking agreement Is pr6~Jded. She said that the Legal Department is research-
ing this proposal now, but that there ls a strong possibll ity that this might be acceptable
since the two projects are under th~ same ownership and are being developed together.
:1
Mr. Upham pointed out that the proposed hotel is being advertised as a hotel for conven-
tions, and would have an extremely large dining room. He stated that conventions are held
during the day ~nd during -the week, and contends that many of the attendees of the con-
ventions will be staying at other locations and not necessarily housed at this hotel,
therefore they will be driving In and will require a parking space._ He s~id that he can-
not see how this cross-parking agreement will work because this hotel may be full (with
conventions) 5 days per week, which would be the peak hours of operation of the adjacent
office building. Mrs. Kee said that according to her Information, there will be some meet-
ing rooms available ln this hotel, plus rest~urants fo~ seating approximately 500 people,
and she ls unable to project just how many people at meetings will be driving to the hotel
and how many will be staying there. Mr. Upham stated that he ls only pointing out that
this project is advertising Itself as a cenvention center rather than just a hotel, and
this must be taken into consideration.
Mr. MacGllvray asked just how many parking spaces short the office building will be and
Mrs. Kee said it would be approximately 95 spaces short, as near as she can figure the
\,It
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 3
number of employees who will be in the building, and 47 of these spaces can be provided
at the hotel site, which would leave the office 48 si:eces short. Mr. McGuirk asked if
our Zoning Ordinance has been drawn from other models and Mrs. Kee said that in all probabi-
1 lty, lt was. Mr, McGuirk asked If she was aware of any probiems in cities with similar
ordinances, and Mrs. Kee said that in reading publ I shed material recently pertaining to
this type of project, the trend seems to be leaning toward shared parking, as that better
utll lzes both land and facilities. She further pointed out that our Zoning Ordinance
should take Into account the ·posslbll ity of mixtures of uses with different peak hours
of operation in the future.
Mr. McGulrk said that he simply had no feel for an adequate number of parking spaces for
a project of this nature, and the zoning ordinance In effect does not address ' the issue.
Mr. Mac Gllvray agreed that there are many grey areas in the ordinance, and these areas
primarily are the ones this Board ls required to address, and the Board's charge is to
either uphold the ordinance or to grant a variance; and the po ·int here is that this project
ls 95 spaces short, half of which can be provided next door, leaving a total shortage of
approxlmately 48 spaces. Mr. Upham said that in his opinion this is another example of
too much bul 'lding on too little land. Mr. MacGilvray said the Board must consider any
unique or special conditions of the land, to which Mr. Wendt speculated that there is a
creek which runs between the two projects and would exemplify a unique condition of this
land as neither project can ·get any more land because of It.
J. W. Wood .was sworn in and explained that the ordinance requires 1 parking space per
300 sq. ft. plus 1 for every 2 employees, and herein 1 ies the problem. In an office build-
ing approximately 80 % of the people In the building are employees, so he questioned just
what the 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. is for. He stated that he believes this ordinance
requires double parking for office buildings. He then asked if he could provide informa-
tion concerning parking requirements in other cities, stating that Dallas requires 1 space
per 333 sq. ft, with a crossover parking agreement for 50 % of the required spaces, if
one of the projects Is closed, Mr. Upham pointed out that he said "closed" and not "during
a slow period". Mr. Wood continued saying that Ft. Worth requires 1 space per 400 sq. ft.,
Houston has no ·parking requirements and leaves the number up to the people who own the
building. He also ·pointed out that this is the extreme end of the spectrum, and that he
would not advocate this pol Icy. Corpus . requires 1 space per 250 sq. ft. up to 20,000
sq, ft,, the~ 1 per 400 sq. ft. with shared parking allowed for up to 50 % of the required
parking If It Is located within 300 feet of the property. He said the Hilton project has
431 spaces and this project has 360 spaces, givtng a total of 791 spaces on this block.
He also said that Mr. Upham's point ~bout attendees is well taken, and that the Hilton
plans some type of shuttle 'to and from other points. Mr. MacGilvray asked if capacity of
2000 people· for the convention center is an accurate figure and Mr. Wood said he really
did not know now, but that he had done some of the initial work on the hotel and. seemed
to remember that there would be approximately 500 restaurant seats. Mrs. Kee offered the
Information that there would be 500 seats available in restaurants and clubs, with 5000
sq, ft, in meetlhg rooms. ·Mr. MacGllvray asked if there would be an additional banquet
room and Mrs. Kee said she did not know, but perhaps It would be lumped with the meeting
rooms. Mr. Upham speculated that there could be upwards to 1000 salesmen in a big room
for a meeting at one time. Mr. Wendt 1 ikened that possibility to the 100 Year Flood Plain,
stating that this type of convention would be one In 100, and would not be happening 5
days a week.
Mr. Wood stated that the shopping center he is involved with across the street has lots
of extra parking which might be used for overflow. Mr. Upham agreed that in that area,
there ls probably more parking available than would be needed for a long time in the
future, but that he Is not sure this ls a solution. Mr. Wendt said he thinks that staff
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 4
has a good point concerning the different peak time uses but the Zoning Ordinance does
not address this. Mr. MacGilvray said that the current ordinance was written for smaller
projects and does not address this type of project, and this Board would have to make a
motion to approve on unique and special conditions of the land, and Is forging new ground
and once again the City Attorney is not here to help. Mr. Upham said the Attorney had
given the Board general guldel Ines, but now it has to forge ahead without any legal help.
Mr. Wendt asked the exact location of the creek and Mr. Wood pointed it out. Mr. Mac-
Gl lvray asked If the creek prevents more parking spaces and Mr. Wood said yes, but for
the hotel lot more than this project, and then speculated that the unique characteristic
of this property is ·the proposed plan, crossover parking (also unique) and it can work.
Mr. Wendt said that In his opinion ~ with the increase in land value, the City will be
faced with more of this. Mr. MacGilvray ,agreed, but added that ·1 the ordinance should be
revised to allow this. Mr. Wood said lenders will govern requirements, and said that
Aurora, Colorado requires 1 space per 500 sq. ft., but lenders are trying to get 1 per
300 sq. ft. nationwide. Mrs. Kee said that in her opinion, l per 300 sq. ft. would be
ample. She then referred to Section 11.B.1 of the ordinance, and read, 11 ••• To hear and
decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision,
interpretation, or determination made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of this
ordinance ." as being part of this Bqard 1 s powers, further saying that Mr. Wood may be
approaching this project under this section, adding that an ordinance cannot be all en-
compassing and must allow room for interpretation.
Mr. Wendt stated that the Board ls making an Interpretation of 1 per 300 sq. ft., plus
employee parking, and that Mr. Wood ls contending that this ls a double parking requirement
because 80 % of the people in the office building will be employees. Mr. Wood answered
various general questions about the .uses of the building, offering the information that
the building will be 10 stories in height.
Mr. Wagner stated that th :s ls the third time this Board has been faced with brand new
problems, therefore the case ls a unique and special condition, but if the Board votes
on this, it must carry forward the Importance of getting the ordinance changed. He went
on to say that he attends a lot of conventions in his work and that most people fly in
and further that he rarely has seen 2000 cars at a 2000 person convention. Mr. MacGil-
vray said he would love to do a st~dy; that he thinks there are more parki~g spaces in
this town than there .are cars, and he thinks the current ordinance has led the City to
this position,
:t
Mr. Wagner said he would 1 Ike to make a motion ·to authorize a variance to the parking
requirement (Section 7) from the terms 'of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to
the public Interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not
normally found In like districts: That the development In itself represents a unique
and special condition, ·there being none other . 1 ike It In the City and ·therefore (2) no
ordinance covering· parking req~lrements for this type of development exists, and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hard-
ship to this applicant, and such .that the spirit of .. this Ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done, subject to the following 1 imitations: There be an enforceable,
shared parking agreement acceptable to the City. Motion was seconded by Mr. MacGilvray.
Votes were cast and the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other Business
.Mr. Upham made a motion that staff must address this issue and make the necessary provisions
to cover the Issue In the ordinance, and until that time no other similar variances will
r
r
t
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustm ents
January 17, 1984
7:00 P.M.
Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Wendt, Wagner, Upham and Alternate
Member McGuirk
Chairman Cook and Alternate Member Mey er
Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk
Approval of Minutes -meeting of October 18, 1983
Mr . Upham made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Wagner seconding. Mr. Wendt
asked if the signage had bee n worked out for the Ashford Square Subdivision, and Mrs.
Kee explained that the Legal Department has gotten involved in the decision, and has
determined that the Wendy's lot and the BrazosBanc lot are separate building plots,
and ther e fore, are ent itl ed to each have its own detached sign. She further explained
that the BrazosBanc already has its sign .
Mr. Upham asked if the Legal Department had provided this Board with an explanation,
and Mrs. Kee indicated that to date, it had not. Mr. Upham then stated emphatically
that he is very upset with the lack of either a written explanation or an explanation
in person by the City Attorney after the Legal Department has made a complete reversal
of a decisio n made by this Board. He went on to say this has happened more than once and
he is tired of having this Board's rulings reversed without any kind of explanation for
the decision, or any additional guide] Ines being given to the Board for consideration in
the future.
Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Wagner each agreed that guide] tnes are needed, and if explanations
are not provided, this Board feels it is being ignored and has become completely useless.
Mr. Wendt indicated that even with the type of transcript provided, it would be hard to
make a decision without even a telephone cal 1 to the Board members for their thoughts
concerning the action the Board has taken.
Mr. Upham said he would 1 ike to pass a Resolution to condemn the City Attorney for incon-
sideration. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he believed this should be handled under other
business, and then called for votes on the motion to approve the minutes. Motion carried
4-0-1 (McGuirk abstained).
Mr. Upham then made a motion to pass a resolution to condemn the City Attorney for lack
of consideration of Board's action regarding Agenda Item' #4 on the October 18, 1983
agenda. Mr. Wagner suggested that perhaps this type of action would put the Board on the
same level as the City Attorney. Mr. Upham agreed this might be so, and then withdrew
his motion.
Mr. MacGJlvray asked If the Board would accept an amended resolution, and the Board
agreed, He offered the motion to request that the City Attorney provide this Board
a full explanation of his unilateral action concerning Agenda Item #4 of the October 18,
1983 meeting, and that he meet with this Board at the earl lest possible time, so that
reoccurrance of this "undoing" can be prevented, and he further requests that this meeting
{ be held prior to the next regular meeting of this Board .. Mr. Wendt seconded this motion.
M1·. McGuir k asked Mrs. Kee if staff can make de::isions which ar.e opposite from the de-
ci s ions of this Board and Mrs. Kee explained th~t in this ca~e, after lengthy conversa-
tions with the Legal De ~art ment, she had fe lt comfortable issuin~ the ~uilding Permit
r
(
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 2
for the BrazosBanc sign, She further explained that the Legal Department felt that the
action of this Board concerning that agenda item was above and beyond the legal authority
of this Board. Mr. MacGilvray said he would enjoy hearing that explanation. Mr. Upham
suggested that perhaps this Board should be disbanded and then Mr. Denton can sit here
alone and make decisions. Mr. Wendt said that if there is a problem, the Legal Department
should b~ represented at the meetings and also, the attorneys should interview the Board
members before overruling a decision given. Mr. MacGilvray agreed that if this Board is
going astray, it should be made aware of it. Mr. Upham said that part of the City Attorney''.
job description is to aid and assist various Boards and Commissions. Mrs. Kee said that
prior to the meeting, staff did not perceive a legal question and from that point forward,
staff has been keeping in better contact before meetings. Motion carried 5-0 (unanimously).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors
No one spoke, but Mr. MacGilvray thanked staff for including this item on the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a request for variance to the parking requirements
as set forth in Ordinance No. 850, Section 7-C. for the construction of an office building
on Lot 5 Bl ock V University Park Section 2. Application is in the name of Wood Associates.
Mrs. Kee explained the request Is for a parking variance as required by Section 7 in the
Zoning Ordinance, but that it also applies to Section 3-A.2. of the Zoning Ordinance, and
then read Section 3-A.2. aloud as follows: 11 No part of a yard, or other open space, or
off-street parking or loading space required about or ln connection with any building or
use for the purpose of complying with this ordinance, shall be included as part of a yard,
open space, or off-street parking or loading space similarly required for any other build-
ing or use.11 She further explained that this office building project provides 384 parking
spaces, 360 of which are needed to meet the parking requirements based on square footage
figured at l space per 300 sq. ft., and would al low parking for only 24 employees. She
stated that the parking lot at the hotel site provides 47 spaces over and above that re-
quired for a hotel and the ow ne rs of both projects are proposing a cross-over parking
agreement between the two projects. She informed the Board that staff believes that due
to the different hours of peak operation of the two projects, it can recommend approval
of a variance to the parking requirements of the office project with the provision that a
cross-over parking agreement ls provided. She said that the Legal Department is research-
ing this proposal now, but th a t there is a strong possibility that this might be acceptable
since the two projects are under the same ownership and are being developed together.
Mr. Upham pointed out that the proposed hotel is being advertised as a hotel for conven-
tions, and would have an extremely large dining room. He stated that conventions are held
during the day and during the week, and contends that many of the attendees of the con-
vent Jons will be staying at other locations and not necessarily housed at this hotel,
therefore they will be drivin g In and will require a parking space. He said that he can-
not see how this cross-parking agreement will work because this hotel may be full (with
conventions) 5 days per week, which would be the peak hours of operation of the adjacent
office bui ld ing. Mrs. Kee said that according to her information, there will be some meet-
i ng rooms available in this hotel, plus restaurants for seating approximately 500 people,
and she i s unable to project just how many people at meetings will be driving to the hotel
and how many will be staying there. Mr. Upham stated that he ls only pointing out that
this pro ject is advertising Itself as a cenvention center rather than just a hotel, and
this must be taken into consi de ration.
I Mr. MacGilvray asked just how many parking spaces short the office building will be and
Mrs. Kee said it would be approximately 95 spaces short, as near as she can figure the
r
,/
ZBA Minutes
l-17-84
page 3
number of emp lo yees who wi ll be in the building, and 47 of these spaces can be provided
at the hotel site, which would leave the office 48 sp:ices short. Mr. McGuirk asked if
our Zoning Ordi nance has been dra wn from other models and Mrs. Kee said that in all probabi-
J ity, It was . Mr. McGuirk asked if she was aware of any problems in cities with similar
ordinances, and Mrs. Kee said that in reading publ !shed material recently pertaining to
this type of project, the trend seems to be leaning toward shared parking, as that better
util lzes both land and facilities. She further pointed out that our Zoning Ordinance
should take into account the posslbil ity of mixtures of uses with different peak hours
of operation in the future.
Mr. McGuirk said that he simply had no feel for an adequate number of parking spaces for
a project of this nature, and the zoning ordinance in effect does not address the issue.
Mr. Mac Gilvray agreed that there are many grey areas in the ordinance, and these areas
primarily are the ones this Board Is required to address, and the Board's charge is to
either uphold the ord inance or to grant a variance; and the point here is that this project
is 95 spaces short, half of which can be provided next door, leaving a total shortage of
approximat e l y 48 spaces . Mr. Upham said that in his opinion this is another example of
too much bui ldi ng on too little land. Mr. MacGilvray said the Board must consider any
unique or special conditions of the land, to which Mr. Wendt speculated that there is a
creek which runs between the two projects a nd would exemplify a unique condition of this
land as neit her project can get any more land because of it.
J. W. Wood was sworn in and explained that the ordinance requires 1 parking space per
300 sq. ft. plus 1 for every 2 employees, and herein I ies the problem. ln an office build-
ing approximately 80 % of the people in the buildin g are employees, so he questioned just
what the 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. is for. He stated that he believes this ordinance
requires double parking for office buildings. He then asked if he could provide informa-
tion concerning parking requirements in other cities, stating that Dallas requires I space
per 333 sq. ft. with a crossover parking agreement for 50 % of the required spaces, if
one of the projects is clo sed. Mr. Upham pointed out that he said "closed" and not "during
a slow period". Mr. Wood continued saying that Ft. Worth requires l space per 400 sq. ft.,
Houston has no parking requ ir ements and leaves the number up to the people who own the
building. He also pointed out that this is the extreme end of the spectrum, and that he
wou ld not advocate this pol icy. Corpus requires l space per 250 sq. ft. up to 20,000
sq. ft., then I per 400 sq. ft. with shared parking al lowed for up to 50 % of the requ ir ed
parking if lt is located within 300 i feet of the property. He said the Hilton project has
431 spaces and this project has 360 .spaces, giving a total of 791 spaces on this block.
He also said that Mr. Upham's point ·'about attendees is well taken, and that the Hilton
plans some type of shuttle to and from other points. Mr. MacGilvray asked if capacity of
2000 people for the convention center is an accurate figure and Mr. Wood said he really
did not know no w, but that he had done some of the initial work on the hotel and seemed
. to remember that there would be approximately 500 restaurant seats. Mrs. Kee offered the
information that there would be 500 seats available in restaurants and clubs, with 5000
sq, ft. in meeting rooms. Mr. MacGllvray asked if there would be an additional banquet
room and Mrs . Kee said she did not know, but perhaps It would be lumped with the meeting
rooms. Mr. Upham speculated that there could be upwards to 1000 salesmen in a big room
for a meeting at one time. Mr. Wendt likened that possibility to the 100 Year Flood Plain,
stating that this type of convention would be one in 100, and would not be happening 5
days a week.
Mr. Wood .stated that the shopping center he is involved with across the street has Jots
of extra parki ng which might be used for ove rflow. Mr. Upham agreed that in that area,
there ls probably more parking available than would be needed for a Jong time in the
future, but that he is not sure this is a so lution. Mr. Wendt said he thinks that staff
r
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 4
has a good point concerning the different peak time uses but the Zoning Ordinance does
not address this. Mr. MacGilvray said that the current ordinance was written for smaller
projects and does not address this type of project, and this Board would have to make a
motion to approve on unique and special conditions of the land, and is forging new ground
and once again the City Attorney is not here to help. Mr. Upham said the Attorney had
given the Board general guidel i nes, but now it has to forge ahead without any legal help.
Mr. Wendt asked the exact location of the creek and Mr. Wood pointed it out. Mr. Mac-
Gi lvray asked if the creek prevents more parking spaces and Mr. Wood said yes, but for
the hotel lot more than this project, and then speculated that the unique characteristic
of this property is the proposed plan, crossover parking (also unique) and it can work.
Mr. Wendt said that in his opinion; with the increase in land value, the City will be
faced wit h more of this. Mr. MacGilvray agreed, but added that the ordinance should be
revised to allow this. Mr, Wood said lenders will govern requirements, and said that
Aurora, Colorado requires l space per 500 sq. ft., but lenders are trying to get 1 per
300 sq. ft. nationwide. Mrs. Kee said that in her opinion, l per 300 sq. ft. would be
ample. She then referred to Section 11 .B. l of the ordinance, and read, 11 ., .To hear and
decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision,
interpretation, or determination made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of this
ordinance 11 as being part of this Bqard's powers, further saying that Mr. Wood may be
approaching this project under this section, adding that an ordinance cannot be all en-
compassing and must allow room for interpretation.
Mr. Wendt stated that the Board Is making an interpretation of 1 per 300 sq. ft., plus
employee parking, and that Mr. Wood Is contending that this ls a double parking requirement
because 80 % of the people in the office building will be employees. Mr. Wood answered
various general questions about the uses of the building, offering the information that
the building will be 10 stories in height,
Mr. Wagner stated that this is the third time this Board has been faced with brand new
problems, therefore the case ls a unique and special condition, but if the Board votes
on this, it must carry forward the importance of getting the ordinance changed. He went
on to say that he attends a lo t of conventions in his work and that most people fly in
and further that he rarely has seen 2000 cars at a 2000 person convention. Mr. MacGil-
vray said he would love to do a stuay; that he thinks there are more parking spaces in
this town than there are cars, and he thinks the current ordinance has led the City to
this position.
Mr. Wagner said he would like t o make a motion to authorize a variance to the parking
requirement (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to
the publ le Interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not
normally found in like districts: That the development in itself represents a unique
and special condition, there being none other like it in · the City and therefore (2) no
ordinance covering parking req~irements for this type of development exists, and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hard-
ship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: There be an enforceable,
shared parking agreement acceptable to the City. Motion was seconded by Mr. MacGilvray.
Votes were cast and the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other Business
/ Mr. Upham made a motion that staff must address this issue and make the necessary prov1s1on s
to cover the Issue in the ordinance, and until that time no other similar variances will
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 5
be heard before this Board. Mr. MacGilvray seconded this motion and after general dis-
cussion concerning how this could be addressed in the ordinance, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). Mr, Wood then offered from the floor, that a good source of informa-
tion concerning this is the hotel industry istelf, because they have their own standards.
No further business was discussed. Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn with Mr. McGuirk
seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
Acting Chairman, Dan MacGilvray
STAFF REPORT
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: February 10, 1984
FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
GENERAL INFOR MA TIO N:
Applicant: Al Gutierrez
Status of Applicant: owner of Tacos Al Carbon
Location: (Address, Lot, Block, Subdivision) 509 University
Existing Zoning: C-l General Commercial
Requested Action: Variance to parking (variance for 70 spaces)
, .
Variance to front and side setbacks; 21 ft. & 11 ft. resp ec tively.
Purpose: To enlarge the existing structure to two stories of retail (10,636 sq. ft.)
and restaurant space (3,000 sq. ft.)
Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7-C Table A
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
. i. ..
Lot Dimensions: See site plan
Utilit i es: n/a
Access: will be from Stasney and an alley to the east
Topography: n/a
-'-'-<.-=.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Existing Vegetation: n a
~--'-'-<.-=.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Flood Plain: n a
Other: