Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Chairman Goss asked for Ms,,,reeves to give the Board and citizens . .overview of what the Overlay District purpose is. Ms. Reeves stated that the is district was established to enhance the image of gateways and key entry points into the city and to provide openness and continuity, as well as more green space between the developments. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing. Rabon Metcalf, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Metcalf spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Metcalf stated the area that they are requesting the variance for is not along the University Drive Overlay District. The Overlay District extends to the area along Lincoln Avenue which is not a gateway into the city. Mr. Metcalf added that all they are asking for is a variance to the position that the cars are parked. He further added that the site plan for the property has not been submitted to the city and it could change from what is being shown now. The use will not change unless they ask for a zoning change. Mr. Richards stated that he has a hard time approving something without an approved site plan. The Board had several questions concerning the site plan. Mr. Metcalf dedicated time explaining what the applicant hoped to accomplish. Mr. Metcalf stated that from the back of the curb on Lincoln to the back of the curb for parking they will have 20-feet of green space. Ron Cowe, 1919 Whitney, Houston, Texas, spoke in favor of the request. Those speaking in opposition were: Cyril Hosley, 911 Grand Oaks Pete Normand, 918 Grand Oaks Chairman Goss asked for clarification if the variance was for both University and Lincoln Drives. Ms. Reeves state that variance request if only for along Lincoln Drive. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: various drainage ways and various easements cross the property which limit the ability to develop the area: and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance relates to the southern border of the overlay district to green space on Lincoln Avenue. The variance is only for Lincoln Avenue. Motion was seconded by Donald Braune. The Board voted(4-1). Mr. Richards voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a parking variance for 1351 Earl Rudder Freeway South. Lot 2, Block 1, in the High Ridge Subdivision. Applicant is Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group—Planning Solutions. (05-215) Staff Planner Lindsay Boyer presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the parking variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a proposed furniture store development located north of the Varsity Ford development. ZBA Minutes January 10,2006 Page 4 of 8 The applicant is currently pueaing the development of a 50,000 sqfurniture store made up of 35,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 15,000 storage space. The UDO allows storage space in C-1 zoning \districts if it is less than 50% of the total square footage of the development, as provided by the Sales !Matrix located in Article 6.3.N. Based on the amount of storage, this type of development is located in a C-1 quadrant, and the associated parking ratio for C-1 retail is 1 space per 250 sq. ft, per Article 7.2.H. Number of Off Street Parking Spaces Required. The applicant is requesting a variance to the retail parking requirement. Their proposal is to increase the ratio for furniture sales to 1 space per 450 square feet. This proposal would result in an effective parking variance of 88 spaces. The total spaces provided would be 112. The entire site, based on a proposed greenway dedication area is approximately 6.5 acres. Subtracting out the space for the building, there is approximately 240,000 remaining to incorporate a 200 sq. ft. parking space, maneuvering room, drive aisles, parking islands, landscaping and parking setbacks. Staff believes that there is enough land to accommodate all ordinance requirements. This variance would apply to any C-1 use that might development on this property. Given the variety of uses that might develop or redevelop instead of a furniture store or that the proposed furniture store might one day use the storage space for retail area, Staff does not support a variance. This parking ratio is being considered by staff for an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard a presentation by the applicant on this parking ratio on Jan. 5. They have indicated the need to address this issue, and we have tentatively scheduled this amendment to be heard on February 2. Staff has also been working with the applicant since the staff report was written on an alternative parking plan which would allow a reduction in parking based on a study of the parking for that use, but requires land be set aside as open space that would accommodate the required parking. The applicant has indicated that they cannot accommodate the area for the 100 additional spaces that would be required. Staff conducted a survey of 22 cities and found only 6 cities have parking requirements that support such a request. There is a large range of parking requirements with the average ratio around 1 space per 350. The ITE Parking Generation Handbook also indicates a ratio of approximately 1 per 820 sq. ft.; however this study was done in 1960 and only includes 2 studies. The ZBA does not have the authority to set parking ratios, and this ratio should be reviewed for an amendment change by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Special Conditions: The application indicates that the nature of furniture sales necessitates a specific parking ratio separate from conventional retail sales. Due to the nature of large displays, the real occupancy of the building is diminished. The International Building Code does not distinguish between types of retail uses for a building, but does give a concession on warehouse space. However, the sales matrix allows for the reduction of this warehouse space at will, and the parking ratio is set so that should this site ever have 100% retail, parking would be accommodated without amending a site plan ZBA Minutes January 10,2006 Page 5 of 8 Chairman Goss opened the plc .c hearing. Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Ms. Ruiz spoke in favor of the request. Ms. Ruiz gave a lengthy presentation. Others speaking in favor of the request were: Tom James, 2638 Lombardi, Dallas, Texas, Developer of the property. Brett McCully, 1722 Broadmore, Bryan, Texas, Engineer for the developer. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. The Board had discussions and decided that they would table the request and let the applicant go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for a text amendment to the UDO. Mr. Braune made the motion to table. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). The applicant gained approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission on February 2 and the City Council on February 9. No further action is required by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a setback variance for 211 Lee Avenue. Lot 20, Block 3, in the Oakwood Addition Subdivision. Applicant is Jefferson Christian Custom Homes, Inc. for Micajah & Nancy Newman. (05-221) ✓ Staff Planner Trey Fletcher presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a carport as an accessory use. The property owner is proposing to construct a 2-car carport and storage building within the required rear setback of 20 feet in addition to a substantial one-story kitchen/master bedroom addition to the primary structure, which is a two-story residence. The applicant is requesting to encroach 15 feet, resulting in a 5-foot rear setback. The enlarged primary structure and the proposed carport / storage building would be connected by a covered breezeway. For special conditions the the applicant states: "The long, narrow shape of the lot creates a smaller building area than is seen on surrounding lot and the rear setback restriction eliminates the ability to provide covered off-street parking." There were no hardships offered by the applicant; however, the applicant may reconfigure the home addition or construct a smaller addition that would allow the new carport/storage structure to be moved out of the setback. The carport/storage structure could also be moved closer to the home. As always, the Board may grant a lesser variance. ZBA Minutes January 10,2006 Page 6 of 8 MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 18, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Rife, Members Poston and Hollas and Alternate Members Ochoa and Blackwelder. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Birdwell, Member Sawtelle and Alternate Member Alexander. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas, Development Coordinator Volk and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order- explanation of functions of the Board. Mr. Rife called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of June 20, 1995. Mr. Hollas moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 20, 1995 as written. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to the parking requirements for the proposed multi-family project to be located along the east side of Wellborn Road just north of the Graham Road intersection. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report for a variance request to the parking requirement per apartment bedroom for the development of a retirement or senior citizen project. This project is planned for the construction of a retirement community. As required by Section 43 of the Internal Revenue Code, the project is restricted for a minimum of thirty years to house elderly citizens only. An ordinance amendment approved by the City Council on July 20, 1995 changed the parking requirement to 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom except for bedrooms less than 132 square feet which are required only 1 parking space. The project will consist of 36 one bedroom units and 96 two bedroom units for a total of 228 bedrooms. Thus, under current standards, the number of parking spaces required would be 318 spaces. The applicant states that most senior citizens own and operate one car per apartment unit no matter how many bedrooms are used. Under this unit of measure (apartments as the unit instead of bedrooms), the current ordinance requirement would be 2.59 spaces per apartment unit. The applicant proposes to have 1.83 parking spaces per unit for a total of 242 spaces. This would require a variance of 76 spaces. The applicant contends that the extra required parking spaces will not be used, and will increase unnecessary hard surfaces and construction costs which will affect affordable housing costs. No alternatives without a variance have been identified. However, the Board may grant any variance amount less than what is requested. On July 15, 1980, the Board granted a parking variance to the LULAC elderly apartment complex located on 1105 Anderson. Over the past 15 years, this requirement has adequately met the parking needs of the complex. Six surrounding property owners were notified with one response received in favor of the request. Mr. Rife opened the public hearing. Representative of Hearthside Development Foundation, Randy Brown of 506 West Fifth Street in Yorktown, Texas, approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Rife. He informed the Board that the property has been approved for federal housing tax credits to be operated under the affordable housing guidelines. These guidelines include an income restriction and the amount of rent that can be charged based on the median income. Approximately 70% of the units are restricted income level and 30% are based on the current market rate. Mr. Brown stated that most of these developments have been built in the northern midwest area in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin. The only other two developments in Texas are in Waco and Beaumont. The typical parking ratios in other cities including Beaumont and Waco are 1.85 per unit. Mr. Brown informed the Board that the Zoning Ordinance would allow 22 to 24 units per acre in this particular zoning district; however, the proposed development is only 10 units per acre. He stated that the parking required is not needed for the elderly tenants and will only take away green space. The majority of the tenants will have only one car per unit. Mr. Brown stated that as part of the tax credit program, the requirements are outlined in the deed restrictions of the property for a minimum of thirty years. At the end of thirty years, the owner is required to either continue under the guidelines of the program or first sell the individual units to the current residents. The remaining units can be sold in the free market. Mr. Rife closed the public hearing. Mr. Ochoa stated that he understands the deed restrictions and that the required parking will not be used with the proposed development; however, in the long run, the additional parking might be needed if the development changes. In order to meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance, additional limitations could be placed on the variance. Mr. Ochoa suggested that the additional parking be shown on the site plan and not constructed so that if the use changes, the additional parking is installed. Mr. Hollas stated that the City Council recently considered an ordinance amendment for multi- family parking and did not see fit to make special exceptions for this type of development. He stated that after the thirty year time limit, the property could be used for something else where the parking would be necessary. Assistant City Attorney Shively explained that the Board can condition the variance on the specific use of the property. The best way to handle that condition is to file something for record that states the conditions under which the variance was granted and if these conditions ever change, the variance evaporates and comes back to the Board. As long as the conditions are filed for record, they will show up in a title search for any transfer of ownership of the property. Mr. Brown stated that the condition on the variance would not be a problem. Because of the low density of the property, the owner will always have the ability to add parking spaces at a later date. Mr. Ochoa moved to authorize a variance from Section 9, Zoning Ordinance #1638 to the minimum parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the project has special deed restrictions for a minimum of thirty years to house elderly citizens only as required by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the extra parking spaces will not be used under the present project usage; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: additional parking will be set aside undeveloped, and sufficient to meet present code requirements. Also, if the property usage by elderly citizens under the Federal Tax Credit program ceases, the present variance expires. In addition, staff is directed to record this document with the Official Records of Brazos County. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). ZBA Mirlules July 18, 1995 Page 2 of 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request to the rear setback requirements to allow the construction of a new home at 1308 Bayou Woods, lot 10, block 4 of the Timber Ridge Phase II Subdivision. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and informed the Board that the applicant has laid out a preliminary floor plan which proposes to place the garage 10' from the rear property line, just outside the existing utility easement. Therefore, the request is a variance of 10' to the rear setback requirement. The applicant offers the shape of the lot as the primary special condition or hardship. The pie-shaped lot is unusual and does not easily accommodate specified setback distances as well as rectilinear lots. The lot shape requires a custom home design instead of a "builder's tract" home. The applicant also states that the lot shape does not allow adequate buildable area, which is the available lot area minus the area required for building setbacks. Staff has determined that the buildable area is approximately 4,309 square feet, which is significantly larger than the minimum standards of 1,750 square feet and larger than the average buildable area of the other lots in the same block along Bayou Woods of 4,226 square feet. However, it is agreed that the shape of that buildable area is a special condition not found within the neighborhood. The following alternatives have been identified: (1) Alter the proposed floor plan to fit within the existing setbacks. The applicant is not in favor of this alternative, due to the fact that a reduction in the plan would be an unworkable layout for room sizes. (2) Construct a two story residence. It is felt that this alternative is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. (3) Grant a smaller variance amount. The Board may grant any variance amount less than what is requested (0 to 10'). Staff Planner Dunn stated that the building setback requirements usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. Rear setbacks also provide for usable back yard area. In the past, the Board has granted several variance requests to rear setbacks for the placement of garages. Most of these cases, however, have dealt with older existing homes which create special conditions to restrict the placement of new garage structures. Twenty-two surrounding property owners were notified with five responses and one letter received in opposition to the proposed driveway placement. The resident suggested flipping the plan to lessen the traffic concerns; however, a greater variance would be required if the plan was flipped. According to the Engineering staff, due to the drainage of the area and recent improvements to Bayou Woods, the proposed driveway location is preferable. The proposed driveway location is also in compliance with the current driveway ordinance. The proposed guest parking on the site plan is not allowed by the current ordinance. A second curb opening is not allowed unless a circular driveway is installed. Mr. Rife opened the public hearing. Applicant Charles Holcomb of 4615 F.M. 3126 in Livingston, Texas approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Rife. He informed the Board that the proposed home site is for his son who will be moving to College Station to teach at Texas A&M. He stated that there is a large amount of buildable area; however, the buildable area may not be livable. Mr. Holcomb stated that the ordinance was written for normal rectangular lots and not pie shaped lots. He informed the Board that there was no problem eliminating the second curb cut and that he will consider staffs suggestion to install a turnaround so that vehicles can pull out into the street head first. Mr. Holcomb stated that the main sight problem in this area is the high grass on the lot and that once the lot is developed, there should not be a problem. ZBA Minutes July 18, 1995 Page 3 of 4 Jim Schutt of 1309 Hardwood approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Rife. He stated that he lives behind the subject property and he was originally opposed to the variance request. However, after looking at the property more carefully and the intent of the ordinance, the proposal seems reasonable. Mr. Schutt stated that the sight distance problem in that area has always been the high grass on the subject property. He informed the Board that the proposed development would enhance the neighborhood and allow construction on a difficult lot. David Hart of 1306 Bayou Woods Drive approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Rife. He stated that he lives adjacent to the subject property along Bayou Woods. Mr. Hart expressed concern with the precedent that the variance request will set for the remaining vacant lots in the neighborhood. He concluded that he does not have a problem with the proposed home and the setback variance does not impact him directly. Lane Stephenson of 1202 Dominik approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Rife. He stated that he is building a home across the street from the subject property at 1309 Bayou Woods. Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that he is in favor of the variance request and that the development of the subject lot will benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Ochoa expressed concern that the problem is with the design of the home and there are other alternatives available to the applicant with over 4000 square feet of buildable area. Mr. Rife stated that the shape of the lot makes it difficult to develop the allowable buildable area in an efficient way. The proposed floor plan seems reasonable and the applicant has made effective use of the lot area. There is sufficient distance between the subject garage and the adjacent garage so the intent of the ordinance is met. Mr. Hollas agreed with Mr. Rife in that the applicant did a good job in designing the home to fit the lot. He stated that the Board will probably end up struggling with this lot either now or at a later date because of the shape. Ms. Poston moved to authorize a variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: unusual lot shape and size; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being: a change would compromise the plan of the house, not being able to develop the property and also accommodation of the line of sight; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Ochoa voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Hollas moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPROVED: Chairman, Dick Birdwell ATTEST: Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas ZBA Minutes July 18, 1995 Page 4 of 4 Minutes City of College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment July 15, 1980 Members Present: Chairman Harper, Wagner, Mathewson, Alternate Daughtey, Alternate Boughton Members Absent: Burke, Upham Staff Present: Zoning Official Callaway Agenda Item No. 1 - Approval of Minutes, Meeting of May 20, 1980 Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 20, 1980. The motion was seconded by Harper and passed unanimously with both alternates voting at the request of Chairman Harper. Mathewson suggested that future minutes reflect Members Absent as well as Members Present so as to avoid confusion in reflecting the voting record of the Board. Agenda Item No. 2 - Consideration of a Request for a Variance in the name of Lulac, Oakhill Inc. , Anderson at Holleman Mr. J.W. Wood presented background information with regards to HUD established parking requirements for elderly apartment projects, the amount of parking proposed for the planned elderly housing development, and the design of this project and its units with regards to parking and circulation. Callaway discussed Planning and Zoning Commission action and recommendations concerning this proposal and the long-term relationship between the project and HUD under the 202 Housing Program. Following further discussion of the request before the Board, Mathewson moved to grant the variance as requested as this was a special residential use, a hardship would result if the parking requirements were met and that the granting of the variance was not contrary to the public interest. The motion was seconded by Boughton and approved unanimously. Agenda Item No. 3 - Adjourn Wagner moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mathewson and approved unanimously.