Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER i• • i NAME 1. 2. 3• 4. 5. 6. 7- 8. 9- 10. DATE July 15, 1986 ADDRESS Zc39' ~~~-~.~.12 ,~~p--~' ~ ~ ~ ~, e 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the ________yard (Section 8.7) ________lot width (Table A) ________lot depth (Table A) ________sign regulations (Section 12) ___ __minimum setback (Table A) ___ ~_parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: - --,-~!9~~ -• - - - - ~`~Lous- _ ~A~~L/~!G_ ~!/~!~IA.Lv ~ ~ie~9NTcc0 _ ~~/ _/ `1 ?~ _/~LLOw[=_/~_ j-~~__T'w_v_ .~XrR~9 ~/~~?k1~_ %~i9Cl,T~~N4~ Dt~~ T~ -~----- • _ C~y~~NC~C' _ iiv_ ~~~~ _ ~av_~~~- ' _ _ `t _T~JS y_~~21.~i-i ~' w~GL _ ~v0> _ ~tic~2~~'__r_~' N~_v_GVNra~tt ~ ---------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result inic~~NlMu~essary hardship to this applicant being: .SPAGfC and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by _MG~U'~-~ `------------------- Date __~,~/S~~(. ___,,ll_ / ____ Voting Results y v Seconded by ~~ s~(J~,~QC~Q„~_ ~ ---------- - ~ --- f . Chair signature ~~j,~ __ __-_-'_________________ 4 ~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR 11BaAlIYR MOTIONS Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.?) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) _______sign regulations (Section 12) ______ minimum setback (Table A) ___~ parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion made by ___~~C.( t.~.._...p- -t..t ,• Seconded by --~~11~ __ ~L~/~~_°~------------------------- Voting results: __~ =!`~~1/~ _~_ ~}gQ~~sf' Chair signature ~~-LQ ___ ~~ ____________ Date __~~/S~~o O~~L • MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment July 15, 1986 7:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Meyer, Members McGuirk, Gilmore, Alternate Members Swoboda and Julien MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Ruesink & Evans STAFF PRBSENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney Elmore, Assistant Zoning Official Johnson & Planning Technician Volk A(iBNDA ITBM 1tO. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. A(3BKDA ITB!! N0. 2: Approval of Minutes - seating of June 17, 1986. Mr. McGuirk referred to page 5, lines 5&6, and requested deletion of the words the circumstances, he (Mr. McGuirk) would not want Mr. Parkman to go under due actions this Board takes". There were no other corrections made. Mr. McGuirk moved to approve the minutes with the noted deletion; Mr. Gilmore seconded the which carried unanimously (5-0). AaBNDA ITBM H0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. A(iBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to Ordinance 1638 Section 9.3 resardins the nn~ber of required off street parkins spaces at a dental office at 209 Doaiaik (Lot 4 Block 1F Culpepper Plaza Subdivision). Applicant is Russell "...and under to any then motion Bradley. Mrs. Kee gave the staff report, explaining that the purpose of this request is to increase the existing 1199 s.f. dental office by 820 s.f., making the building a total of 2019 s.f., and in order to do this, the applicant has requested a variance to the number of off-street parking spaces he will be required to furnish. She explained that he is proposing the addition of some parking spaces in the rear of this building, but the P.R.C. has required that he submit an access easement from the adjacent landowner which would guarantee access to those spaces prior to granting approval of the site plan. She listed possible alternatives to this variance as being that the applicant could construct a smaller addition or he could purchase additional property to the west to allow access along the west side of this building. She explained that ordinance intent is to provide adequate off-street parking to avoid congestion. She then reported that this property was granted a parking variance in 1977 which allowed the applicant to provide only 10 parking spaces when the ordinance in effect at that time would have required more spaces. She explained P&Z Minutes 7-15-86 page 1 that since that time the ordinance requirements have changed, and now required • parking would number 14 spaces and the applicant is proposing to include 12 off- street parking spaces on this site. Mr. Swoboda asked if the access easement across the front of this property was continuous, that is, if it is actually built for the length of the easement and Mrs. Kee explained that the easement itself is continuous, but it is not all built. Russell Bradley, 209 Dominik was sworn in, identified himself as the applicant/owner of this project, and stated that due to the use of this building for dental offices, a certain size is required for rooms to accommodate equipment used by two dentists, and this proposal represents the minimum size required. He explained that he has been assured verbally by Culpepper Properties, the owner of the adjacent land that he would receive an access easement which would guarantee access to the proposed parking spaces to the rear of his building, but to date he has not received this easement. He further explained that he has approached the owner of the adjacent tract regarding the purchase of 20 feet of land on which to build a driveway, but the owner will sell no less than 75 feet of land, which would be far more than he (Dr. Bradley) needs. Re then explained that the proposed plans would accommodate 2 dentists (3 operatories each) and approximately 5 other employees, adding that the third chair would probably be occupied no more than once a month, therefore he thinks he would have more than enough parking for this project. General discussion followed concerning how many patients each dentist would book at a time as well as the minutes which were furnished from the meeting in 1977. Mr. McGuirk asked what hardship the applicant would be facing if this variance was not granted and Dr. Bradley replied that he is trying to provide better service to the community, including longer, better hours, and if his request is denied he would have no alternative, thus would • have to appeal, as he cannot buy any more land where his building is located. Architectural plans were discussed with Dr. Bradley explaining satisfactorily why a one floor building suits his needs better than a two story building. Location of the existing curb cut and easement across the front of this lot were discussed, with Mrs. Meyer summarizing the hardships listed by Dr. Bradley as being that he cannot buy more property, the existing curb cut cannot be moved due to the location of utilities and that he cannot reduce the size of the building because of the space required for offices for two dentists. Mr. McGuirk stated earlier concerns regarding a parking variance at this location now have been negated, and offered a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: That a previous parking variance, granted in 1977 allowed for two extra parking places, and, due to a change in the zoning code, this variance will not increase the non-conformity, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being minimum apace requirements for medical equipment precludes making offices slightly smaller and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. The motion was seconded by Allen Swoboda. Mr. Julien asked if Mr. McGuirk would like to include the condition that the easement from the adjacent landowner had to be provided and Mr. McGuirk said that he had considered that condition, but decided the P.R.C. would enforce that condition prior to granting an approved site plan. Votes were cast and the motion to grant the parking variance request carried unanimously (5-0). • P&Z Minutes 7-15-86 page 2 A(iBNDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to • nuaber of off-street parking spaces required by Ordinance 1638 Section 9.3 at a planned aedical office building phich pill be part of the caapus of Huaana Hospital of Brasos Valley. Mrs. Kee explained the application, located the property, existing area uses and zoning, adding the purpose of the request for a parking variance is to allow the applicant to construct a 45,100 s.f. medical office facility adjacent to, and on the same campus as the Humana Hospital; and, to share parking facilities with the hospital since (the contention is} peak hours of operation differ for each use. She listed the alternatives as being to reduce the medical office building by 5200 s.f. or to purchase additional property for parking. Mrs. Kee added that the hospital has 227 approved parking spaces on its site, and this medical office building would require 300 spaces, but the applicant is purposing only 226 spaces. Discussion followed regarding how the ordinance requirements had been set. Jim Alois, engineer for Page, Southerland, Page at 600 West Avenue in Austin, and representative of the applicant, Humana of Texas, was sworn in and while referring to a site plan of the entire campus, explained how parking would be located and who would be allowed to use various sections. He added that he believes the two facilities can share parking since each facility has different peak hours of operation and there would be no conflict. Mr. Swoboda asked him how shared parking would be guaranteed and he replied that the entire campus is owned by Humana, Inc., therefore it is actually one site, one complex with no barriers and the parking lots have continuous circulation throughout. Mr. Swoboda then asked how many offices the building would have and he replied that there would be approximately 25 doctors plus a staff of 50 people, for a total of 75 employees, all of which would seldom be on • duty at the same time. Mr. Gilmore pointed out that the site plan shows an area of "proposed additional parking" and asked why the applicant does not want to build that lot now. Mr. Alois replied that the building is being designed to accommodate an additional floor, and the available land will be developed for parking when that floor is added, plus the fact that past sites have indicated the parking required by this city's ordinance is not needed at this time. Mr. Gilmore asked what hardship the applicant would face if this variance is not granted and Mr. Alois stated that excessive paving would decrease the allowable green space, that it would increase maintenance required since too much parking surface and lack of use of pavement tends to promote early deterioration, that excess paving creates excess surface water to be managed, and he believes it would be an improvement to a project to not pave when it is not necessary. Discussion followed regarding the number of beds in the hospital and the total number of staff employed by the hospital, as well as the number of employees on each shift. Mr. McGuirk stated that he cannot conceive of the scale of parking for a facility of this size, but that he also cannot see any hardship involved since the applicant already owns the land and will eventually develop it. He also sees no necessity of shared parking now, and does not believe the applicant's proposal is a feasible alternative to meeting ordinance requirements. Charles B. Gater, Louisville, Kentucky, was sworn in, identified himself as a representative of Humana, Inc., and stated that it has been this company's experience that when a campus is developed with these two different type facilities which have peak loads at different times of the day, one parking space per 200 s.f. is sufficient, rather than College Station's ordinance requirement of one parking space • per 150 s.f., adding that from a purely business standpoint, they do not want to build more parking lots than necessary. He stated that at other facilities built to 1 parking space for 200 s.f., there have been no complaints from physicians, and P&Z Minutes 7-15-86 page 3 in addition, rarely are the 25 doctors in the building at one time, therefore, • patients would not be scheduled for appointments for the doctors who are absent. Discussion followed regarding parking spaces at other Humana sites, how the surveys which resulted in establishing 1 space per 150 s.f. were conducted, with Mr. Gater adding that this office is restricted to doctors only seeing patients and that no clinical work would be conducted in the building. Pat Cornelison of Bryan/College Station Humana was sworn in and stated in answer to a question that the new hospital would be slightly larger than 100,000 s.f. She added that the shared parking would be for visitors, adding that peak hospital visitor hours are generally before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m., with peak hours at the office building being from 9-12 a.m., and 2:30-5 p.m. Mr. McGuirk said to Mr. Gater that if the hospital is wrong and the city would grant this variance based on the request, the city would have a variance on the books forever. Mr. Gfter asked if the city could grant a conditional variance. Assistant City Attorney Carol 8lmore was sworn in and stated that in her opinion the city cannot grant a conditional variance, but it can grant a variance based on certain conditions, adding that if those conditions change or disappear, the city then is not necessarily stuck with a variance. Mr. Swoboda stated that in his opinion if a parking lot becomes overcrowded and business is good and the business owns vacant land, it will add parking as needed. Mrs. Meyer disagreed, stating that this applicant already has the land and no condition exists which this board can consider a hardship, and if a variance is • granted under these circumstances, a precedent might be established. Mr. Swoboda Mr. Alvis stated finally that perhaps when this zoning requirement was set, it was meant to be for a stand-alone medical office building rather than for a joint facility. said he is only concerned in having too large an area paved. Mr. Gilmore said he cannot see there is a hardship in this case. Mr. McGuirk agreed. Mr. Julien said the applicant could decrease the building size by 5200 s.f. Mrs. Meyer stated she can find neither a special condition nor a hardship. Mr. Gilmore then made a motion to deny a variance to the parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion seconded by Archie Julien, and approved by a vote of 4-1 (Swoboda against). AGBNDA I?BM N0. 6: Other bnsinesa. None. • P&Z Minutes 7-15-86 page 4 A(iBNDA ITEM N0. 7: Ad3ourn. i• U • Mr. McGuirk made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Julien seconded; motion carried unanimously (5-0). ATTEST: ----------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones P&Z Minutes APPROVBD: ting Chaj~^man, James McGuirk 7-15-86 page 5 LJ r'~~ `Yrin, C~-- zgA ~ .~ 8~ SS ~i • • • v ci J ci s /~ . , I' i ~sEr I/2" \ ` ~. ~•~/ LOT 3 I ~ ' ~ ~~ '• •. - a' ~ ~ r./~ -., -.. Q~ :: .: a v -: '•. IRON R00 .\~ ~'. ~• ::~,~ • \ .. d~ ~ .-~~ ` --~ ~ ` ~ T fC.• ~ \ •~. a \ \ \ S~ ~ i Gi `~ ~ ~. ~'r ~it4b. .- ~..::. ~.'.•_u 4 • r~ . . it i i ~,,. . I I i ~-'~C SET I N C ONC . v.2 ' ~~ -- ~WZ .~.•" I J ~ I '~ t I 2 b ~ ~ 4 I ~ LOT 14 W I 4I ~ o . 2' .~~ I O I W Z I ~i7 ~~' I t~ '~ ti I ~ M I '~, ~, ~,, h''~t off: ~ .~ \~ ` /~ ~ ~V LOT 34 ~~, °,~ ,1,' ~ e;~ -_ ~^ J _..- --- ..._= E .. _ ----.v --"~ S"MtON It00 AT FENCE CORNEfI r FUTILITY EA~~ ~- ---- ._.- ~~ ~~ ..~ _~ E E S»-4'1T"w-TO.ts~ ~~F W. D. F I T~-I lo' SET V2 "IRON ROO I W 0~ ~ I W C I ~ ~~ i~ ,i I 2 W I W Vf W ~ ~ J ~ 5 W ~ N 1 w LAT 13 _..1- ~- R ~N-LINK R~ C0111~ • i f 0 C F Q i