HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/1984 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments~ n:
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER
~ DATE (l
~lN~ L~, ~98~
NAME
~.
8.
9.
t . ~~'~'
T~
__w
/ ~
~j / n ~ ~~
r
~ ,~~ .:
ADDRESS
r ~ ~) r~ ~~ ~ ~ ~,._.
~~ \.e~r-ems. l'~ • (>~..l.I"J',~..~ r.
~` A `1 L,
~ f> ~,1.
-~l~ A-u. ra ~ `~ c. s
~ a ~ ~..~.
,~ ~_ ~
,<
lo. ~~ ~~1~L SAC ~ S~', - ~,
~/ ~_ E- L,_~, _ ~ ; ~,
18G 5 S~ h ~~.~~c~i. ~- C, C
1
C't" '~
1
~A ~
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
ls.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23•
24.
25.
. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances: From Section 11-6.5
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
sign regulations (Section 8)
~ ,~~-.z
,minimum setback (Table A)
-~
parking requirements (Section 7)
Peic~
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 1J,~stricts: _ _
• 1.
~l. T~l~ ~3rJ~tADIN~ Rf~2 y~/F wrcG ~f ~PddGtilJ' /~vTO
3 cvvl~oR r~l rT~ wir~,~ r~~F /c'F9~ L/NF.r' of dr~l-~2. ,Bvlt,Al~+~G l
/~ i Nf' /~
4.
5•
6.
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
TyF ,Bv~t-~/NG is ~.,ric`~9~?t y yryvsf~9~Z!' i~ ~rf c v~ivr ,s~i~
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, subject to the following limitations:
t . Nd,V F
2.
3•
4.
Th i s motion was ade by J' ~ /y~~~~~ 6 - / -~'
Seconded by Da
The variance was gr ted by the following vote: =Q '~' ~"'~~ ~~~._
h it Signa ure
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
• FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances: From Section 11-6.5
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
sign regulations (Section 8)
f4~~
minimumAsetback (Table A)
parking requirements (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 ,,d .~/
not normally found in like districts: LIV'~~
• 1. T~S/t~ Eu/J'TE~v~ O.F AN /9~ ~~ ~C /Za9 ~ /
2. TyF ~I~1Jr1' d~ 7~~'A~~~ 1jLv
3•
4.
5•
6.
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
~~MP u~c~r/acv rv~L~ ~~ .~ pv~~+~'J7A U ~/ ~a~~eoLs rt rv~~
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, subject to the following limitations:
1.
2.
3•
4.
Th i s motion was ma a by ~; f' /rj(~'f~~,VC ~, ~ ~
Seconded by ~ Date
The variance was granted by the following vote: ' U
hai ig ature
i•
i•
I•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances: From Section 11-6.5
I move to authori2e a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
.sign regulations (Section 8)
minimum setback (Table A)
1' parking requirements (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 no lly found in 1 ke district
--
1
~) ~ r /~ ~
,__.
~. 1 r
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 Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
~justi a done, s ject to t e°~follo i~"limitatlo s:
1.
2.
3•
~~ J~
~~U ~ A
I
~`
_~
4.
~~.-~ 19
This motion was made by
Seconded by Date
The variance was granted by the fol ing vote: ..p
air Sig ature
r~euryJ~St~,
ZOtI I tJG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 11-8.5
I move to deny a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
sign regulations (Section 8)
~ minimum setback (Table A)
parking requirements (Section 7)
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 like districts/r
2.
• 3•
4.
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.
Th i s mot ion was made by J; p /'~f.~V~R~`
Seconded by ,F/Eii/1~T'
The ariance was denied by the following vote: ~ •t~
~-ig- ~ ~
Chaff ignatur Date
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 11-8.5
move to deny a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
/ s i gn regu 1 at lops (Section 8) ~/'1A1f1~-~ ~F~~
minimum setback (Table A)
parking requirements (Section 7)
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 like districts:
l . ~2c~El~N~ w~}.T ~ ,~ „ P/Z~P~2T y o~ ~f N~ ~G~i/~t ~ F
i. - -~ -- - - .._ ~ Err QYP~~
• 3.
4.
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.
Th i s mot ion was made by f P• /yCrrV~~
Seconded by ~'
he variance was denied by the following vote:
~-~g-may
air Signature Date
C
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
• FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances: From Section 11-B.5
1 move to authorize a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
sign regulations (Section 8)
minimum setback (Table A)
parking requirements (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:
2.
4.`
5.
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 observed and substantial
justice dJone, subject tof the following limitations:
3.
4.
Th i s motion was mad by ~~/~%
Seconded by
The variance was granted by the following vote: ~ r
fo ~ sG
Date
~~_
ai Signature
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 (Table A)
sign regulations (Section 8)
minimum setback (Table A)
V parking requirements (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:
• 1 . ,&~~IN~'li Tyco ~ARI~/C~' T~,~' t,.AND ,~~~ srnvcrvQ~',e9r1F NAT ~rrlue~q L
2. T~f L~'dFLO/..~I~j /S /~/ L/~/~' ~/T~ ~//j'F^kR~~ ;4~,1J~it~ft~
3•
4.
5•
6.
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant J~,/~pti~
Ti,of ,B!/,/_Dlivl' cc/,LL ~~•r'fCY~sri~9~•/ d/~cA~/T, v.~l'/~1~1!!rf
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, subject to th fo~owing limitations:
A V,OQl4a/C~
l . To A!.[..owa 7 S'PA ~~
2.
3
4.
This motion was de by ~fp /!~l~1~~ ~~
Seconded by ~~~/~~ Date
The variance was granted by the following vote: s y
hair Signature
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances: From Section 11-6.5
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (6-G)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
sign regulations (Section 8)
minimum setback (Table A)
I/ parking requirements (Section 7)
•
.~
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this ap licant being:
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed an
just'ce done, subject to the following limitations: ~
~ ~~~~~~r , -~~°.,- ~,?
~ ~' ~O r, __J ' _
~ ~'
~' ~ ~'`~'
..~ ,,..,
.-r, .n
°''~ .~~
This motion was m~de by
Seconded by
The variance was grante
by the following vote:
,'.ti- ~ ~
~--~~ a, f,~.. ~
ib t~ntial ~ ~ y
6 ,~
v ~,
~;.
~_ Y~Q ~ ~.~/~/~k,
,,
.....~ ~. r° 1~. l
Date
r~ i gnatu
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: .~ ^ _
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
• Zoning Board of Adjustment
June 19, 1984
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Upham, Members Wagner, McGuirk, Meyer, and Wendt
(Member Fry in audience)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Acting City Attorney Locke, Planning Technician
Volk, Asst Zoning Official Johnson for a portion of the meeting
Acting Chairman Upham opened the meeting, explaining to the audience the functions and
limitations of the ZBA.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - May 15, 1984
Mr. 4Jagner questioned one section of the
then made a motion to approve the minutes
Potion carried unanimously (5-0).
Minutes and found that it was correct; he
as presented with Mr. McGuirk seconding.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of setting date/time for filing final ZBA decisions
• Mrs. Kee referred to the memo from the Legal Department suggesting that the official
date and time of a ruling be changed to noon on Thursday following a Tuesday evening
meeting. There was no discussion, and the Board voted unanimously to change the official
filing date as suggested.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Reconsideration of a front and rear setback variance request for the
remodellin of the Exxon Station at 815 Texas Avenue South. A lication is in the name
of Rudolph Prigge. This item was tabled Mav 15, 1984 .
Mr. McGuirk made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position; Mr. Wagner
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
Steve Upham (with Holster & Associates Architects and a representative of the applicant)
of 411 Aurora Court in College Station came forward and explained that the variance request
is twofold: (1) To remove the existing station building and rebuild it further back so
it is in line with the existing garage facility, and will be at least 6 feet from the
property line and no less than 23 feet from the existing Red Lobster restaurant; and (2)
To extend forward from the existing canopy to allow additional distance between 2 pump
islands to accommodate 2 vehicles. He then briefly outlined the history of the tract,
explaining the setback from the curb line of Texas Avenue to this property is 54 feet
and because of this, the property is unique as it does not extend to the curbline as
would normally be found in other districts.
Mr. McGuirk asked him if the plans were to tear out the old office and replace it, or
simply to modify it. Mr. Upham answered that plans are to raze and rebuild as the
available space would not accommodate the required number of employees. Mr. 4Jagner
• commended the applicant on the preparation and completeness of this application.
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 2
• Mr. Upham announced that the Chair would ask for this request to be covered in 2 motions:
one to address the front setback, and one to address the rear setback. Mr. McGuirk asked
Mrs. Kee where the front measurements had been taken, and Mrs. Kee replied that they are
taken from the front property line and that measurement to the edge of the proposed
canopy would be 3'6", and further that there is a distance of 54 feet from that same front
property line to the curb line of Texas Avenue. Through research she has been unable to
determine what had been planned for that amount of land; even the Highway Department is
not clear as to what the right-of-way actually is, but speculated that perhaps this is a
part of the old Sulphur Springs Road. Mr. McGuirk asked if Mrs. Kee knows of any plans to
widen Texas Avenue at this point, and she states that she is not aware of any. Mrs. Kee
then asked the Board to look at the actual site plan which the staff has already reviewed
and approved, pointing out that this plan seems to represent the best alternative for re-
development of this land.
Mr. McGuirk than made a motion to authorize a variance to the rear minimum setback
(Table A) 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: (1) The building rear line will be brought into conformity with the rear lines
of other buildings in the area, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: The building is
nearly unuseable in its current state, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall
be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: None.
This motion was seconded by Mrs. Meyer who then mentioned that the Red Lobster had re-
quested that a fence be included if this variance is approved and wondered if this would
still be necessary. Mr. Upham asked t~1r. Steve Upham (no relation) who indicated that the
applicant would agree to a fence, pointed out that the area would be landscaped and a fence
• will be added. Mr. Wagner pointed out the back of the buildings would serve as a wall
and only the parking area would show. Mr. Wendt said that he would think the area should
be left open for use by emergency vehicles. Mrs. Kee said that she had been contacted by
a representative from the Red Lobster company prior to the last meeting, but that she had
heard no further from him after notifying him that the request had been tabled and would
be reconsidered at this meeting. Votes were cast and the motion to approve carried
unanimously (5-0).
Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum front setback (Table A)
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: (1) The existence of an abandoned road in front of the applicant'~.s property
and (2) The ambiguity of the Texas Avenue Right-of-4Jay; and because a strict enforcement
of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being: Pump location would be a potentially dangerous situation, and such that the spirit
of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. This motion was seconded
by Mr. Wagner. Votes were cast and the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mr. Wagner again thanked the applicant for the thoroughness of the application.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Reconsideration of a front setback and parkin4 variance reouest for
the expansion of Tacos Al Carbon at 509 University Drive. Application is in the name of
Alfred Gutierrez, Jr. (.This item was tabled February 21, 1984 .
Mr. Magner made a motion to remove this item from the table: Mr, Wendt seconded the motion
• which carried unanimously (5-O).
Al Gutierrez, Jr. was sworn in stating the Board had earlier requested a compromise of
site plan design and stated that he has since removed the 2nd floor from the plans, taken
away some of the parking spaces and one setback variance from this request, then asked
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 3
• Mrs. Kee to explain the specifics of his proposal. Mrs. Kee. stated the applicant had
deleted the necessity fora variance off Stasney; that he would still need a front set-
back variance as his proposal is to bring the building to within 3 feet from the front
property line; that 57 spaces are required for this proposed plan and he has provided
39 spaces, leaving a variance request for 18 parking spaces. She stated that the applicant
has significantly reduced his variance request since the evening it was tabled. Mr. Wagner
asked if all parking had been deleted from the front of the property and Mr. Gutierrez
stated that it had, and that the building will be a little behind Wyatt's project but his
will have a sidewalk and landscaping. Mrs. Meyer said she still has a problem with a
parking variance in the Northgate area and suggested that perhaps a different design of
the parking lot could be made to accommodate more carp. Mr. Gutierrez pointed out that
his business provides 3 times more parking spaces than all other Northgate businesses put
together and there is no way to increase the number of spaces on this property. He went
on to explain that landscaping is planned and will be put in and maintained.
Mr. McGuirk asked what is happening with the recommendations made in the Northgate area
and Mrs. Kee explained that the proposals have been presented and have been given a
tentative approval by the City Council and that the Director of Planning is putting
together an ordinance which calls for a change to required on-site parking of 1 space
for 4 seats in restaurants rather than the 1 per 3 which is now required. Mr. McGuirk
asked if there is a chance that a business which is granted a variance will have to pay
a certain amount of money to help finance an off-site parking lot, and Mrs. Kee answered
that the Director of Planning is checking this possibility with the rest of the City staff
and also with other cities, and the current problem seems to be that there would be no
money available to build a parking structure to begin with. Mr. McGuirk then asked
staff's opinion concerning setbacks in the Northgate area, and Mrs. Kee explained that the
• plan is to delete setback requirements in that area only. Mrs. Meyer asked if parking
requirements must be figured cumulatively to which Mrs. Kee replied that staff's feeling
is that there might be some traffic generated for the pool tables in this project only
from patrons who are not eating in the restaurant portion, but that of course some patrons
who are eating there will be playing pool, so this would be the best way staff can deter-
mine the probable needs.
Mr. Upham stated he has very little problem with this request as it is relatively lower
than the original request, and this property will certainly have a lot of walk-in traffic.
Mr. McGuirk asked the applicant if he could remove some seats to which he replied that
he cannot give up any more and further, that due to these many months of delays, he has
already lost 2 financial investors. Mr. Wendt said that if the new Northgate ordinance
was already in effect, the variance requested would only be for 4 spaces.
Mr. Wagner then made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A)
and the parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not
be contrary to the public interest, dine to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not normally found in like districts: (1) With regard to parking, the applicant
has sufficient on-site parking to accommodate anticipated parking requirements based on
recent survey results; and (2) That a change from a service station and configuration to
a more traditional restaurant configuration is not incompatible with other buildings in
the area; and (3) That there is sufficient area on the property to accommodate the en-
largement, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant; and such that the spirit of this Ordin-
ance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations:
• (1) That the site plan conforms to that submitted to the P&Z. This motion was seconded
by Mrs. Meyer. Motion carried unanimously (5-O).
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 4
• AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a rear setback variance re uest for an addition to
the residence at 1503 Gunsmit Application is in the name of Dave & Gwen Erlandson.
Mrs. Kee explained the request, pointing out the dimensions on the site plan are somewhat'
incorrect. Dave Erlandson, 1503 Gunsmith, was sworn in, stating that he wants to put an
addition on the house and the lot is odd shaped, and the only way to expand the house is
to the back, and he cannot expand the other way because the neighbor has built right up
to the edge of the property. Mr. Wendt asked if he simply cannot live without the addi-
tional 2 feet on the new room. The applicant said that, of course, they can, but they
would prefer a larger addition. Mr. Upham then explained that this Board would have a
problem granting a variance for convenience only. Mrs. Meyer explained that he (the
applicant) would have to point out something which is unique or what hardship he would
face without this large an addition.
Monty Trenckman of 205 Fidelity was sworn in and stated that he has heard that on a corner
lot the owner can designate which is the front and which is the side. Mrs. Kee explained
that sometimes that is possible due to the width of the lot, and then explained why that
would not be the case on this lot.
Mr. McGuirk made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the
terms of this Ordinance as it would be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of
unique and special .conditions of the land not normally found in like districts. Mr. Wendt
seconded this motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a sign (height and area) variance request for the
hotel at 801 University Drive. Application is in t e name of College Station Hilton
• and Conference Center/Federal Sign Company.
Mrs. Kee located the land and then referred to a site plan, explaining that there is a
50-foot utility easement along the front property line, that there is a 50-feot utility
easement which starts at the property line and goes into the lot for 50 feet. She ex-
plained that the City does not allow structures in these easements; but that a sign could
be located 10 feet behind this easement and the allowable area would exceed the dimensions
which the applicant has requested, therefore the request for a variance to the area of
the sign is nullified.Sh~ then explained the other request is to the 35-foot maximum
height regulations, explaining that the applicant wants to put up a 382 foot sign. She
pointed out that this is a 300-unit hotel; an eleven-unit tower .and that a sign on the
top such as the Ramada has would achieve the same purpose.
James C. Culpepper of 4939 Yarwell, Houston, Texas,. was sworn in stating the establish-
ment will have multiple uses and conference, and these will be advertised on the marquee
portion of the sign and the Hilton-logo will be above that marquee, and the additional
32-foot height request in to create sufficient clearance to the marquee to avoid vandalism.
He explained that the Hilton logo will be on the tower in 2 places, and they additionally
request this 382-foot sign. Mr. Wagner speculated the sign could be redesigned and the
logo moved to the side which would eliminate the need for a variance, but Mr. Culpepper
stated that a smaller logo would be out of proportion with the marquee and the whole
thing would lose its aesthetic value. Mr. Wendt asked how much of a topographic change
would be involved between the street and the base of the sign but the answer could not be
supplied.. Mrs. Kee said the lot generally slopes toward the c~.eek from the street. Mr.
McGuirk stated that a precedent had been set on this type of variance request at the inter-
. section of SH 30 and the East By-pass when this Board turned down the request and at that
location the project was about 50-60 feet below the major arterial.
Ron Zernik of 3215 Ashford Park, Houston, Texas, was sworn in stating he is a representative
of the developer and from the grade level of the street to the base of the sign is an
approximate 3 to 5-foot drop. Mr. Upham stated the sign could be relocated. He (Zernik)
stated they have already had to build a retaining wall because the whole property sits lower
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 5
• than street level. He went on to say this facility will be providing 4 to 5 separate
functions and all are to be represented on this one sign.
Mr. McGuirk made a motion to deny a
height from the terms of this Ordina
due to the lack of unique and specia
districts: (1) Precedent was set
By-pass, and because a strict enforc
result in unnecessary hardship to th
ance shall be observed and substanti
and carried by a vote of 4-1 (Wendt
•
•
variance to the sign regulations
nce as it will be contrary to the
1 conditions of the land not norm
at the property on the NE corner
ement of the provisions of the Or
is applicant, and such that the s
al justice done. Motion was seco
against).
Acting Chairman Upham called fora 5-minute recess.
(Section 8) maximum
public interest,
ally found in like
of SH 30 and the East
dinance would not
pirit of this Ordin-
nded by Mrs. Meyers
AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Consideration of a sign variance request for the condominium project
at 904 University Oaks Drive. Application is in the name of Cripple Creek Condominiums.
Mrs. Kee explained the request, reading part of Section 8-B from Ordinance 850 which
pertains to temporary signs explaining that she interprets this as allowing only one
temporary sign, but further explained the problem lies with the fact that our ordinance
makes no distinction between condominium projects and apartment projects, and the fact
that condominium projects may have multiple owners. Staff sees no problem with the
request for temporary signs close to the front of an individual unit indicating that
project is for sale, but does have a~problem with the request for multiple (4) signs
along each Munson Drive and University Drive. She explained that staff would not have
a problem with allowing 1 sign along each right-of-way. She then referred to a letter
from Burt Herman who owns a condo in Woodstock which had been handed out to the members.
Wagner said that there are now 6 or 7 signs along this project, and asked what the status
is. Mrs. Kee explained that permits are not necessary for temporary signs, but these
particular temporary signs are being left alone pending the Board's action tonight.
Pete Burkett with Metro Properties Management, 8601 Jade Court, was sworn in and stated
that this variance is being requested because of a unique situation in that our ordinances
do not address condominiums, and through the interpretation by the Zoning Official, this
condominium project is allowed only one temporary sign. We feel this is unreasonable
as the project has 156 units, and potentially could have 156 owners. We have placed 8
temporary signs around this project, and we do not feel they are obtrusive, but want to
ask the Board to take this unique situation under consideration, and make a ruling which
would allow a condominium project to have more than one temporary sign.
Mrs. Meyer asked if these tempor
they are essentially real estate
but rather for 4 signs on each s
future ordinance regulations. M
this project as "condominiums" a
Mr. Burkett explained that this i
came forward to explain that the
condo situation, ownership is a
ship of all the land underneath
owner has an individual lot. Mr.
signage in a condo project, as e
rules against him.. He went on t
considered unfair if less than 1
suggested allowing only the one
ary signs are "For Sale" signs. Mr. Burkett answered that
signs, and went on to say he is not asking for 156 signs,
treet. He then offered to help set up guidelines for
r, Upham stated he has a problem with the designation of
nd said it appears to be more of a "lease/purchase" project.
s actually a "condo-conversion" project. Mrs. Locke
difference between townhouse and condos is that in a
certain portion of a building plus a share in the owner-
the entire project, and in a townhouse situation, each
Wagner said that the association could control the
ach individual owner has no rights if the association
o say that any limit could be arbitrary, and perhaps
56 signs were allowed for this project. Mrs. Meyer
sign which would then designate exactly which units are
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 6
• for sale. Mr. McGuirk pointed out that although this request covers only one project,
there will surely be more requests in the future as more apartment projects turn condo.
Mrs. Meyer suggested that perhaps allowing one sign on each major street plus a sign
in the window of individual units would be suitable. Mrs. Kee indicated that staff
would consider that a workable compromise. Mr. Burkett indicated that would be
agreeable to him.
Mr. Wendt then made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations (Section 8)
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: (1) The definition of signage on condo conversions (projects) is not
clearly stated or defined in the current Ordinance, and because a strict enforcement of
the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being: Inability to adequately market his property, and such that the spirit of this
Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following
limitations: (1) One detached sign per arterial plus one attached (window) sign per
unit. This motion was seconded by Mr, Wagner. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to amend the
motion to include a 6-month time limit on this variance. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion
to amend, which failed by a vote of 1-4 (McGuirk for). Votes were cast on the original
motion and carried unanimously (5-0) without amendment.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Consideration of a parkin variance request fora restaurant at
317-319 Patricia Street. Application is in the name of Patsy Graham d/b/a Palomino
Enterprises.
• Mrs. Kee explained the request and located the structure which is currently closed.
She said the applicant is asking for 30 seats in this restaurant, which would require
10 parking spaces; there are 3 spaces in front which are actually on this property,
therefore the variance request is for 7 spaces. An adjacent vacant lot was discussed,
with Mrs. Kee pointing out that unless this vacant lot was under the same ownership,
it could not apply as off-street parking within 200 feet.
Patsy Graham, 833 Tanglewood, Bryan, was sworn in and stated she is the applicant,
but would not be the one opening a restaurant; that she owns the structure and would
be leasing it to a tenant. She referred to plans the City has presented for this area,
stating that Patricia Street may become a walking mall, and that most traffic now is
walk-on in the area. Mr. Wagner asked if she would be willing to pursue a cross-
parking agreement, and she indicated she would. After further discussion regarding the
unique developments in Northgate, Mr. McGuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to
the parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this Ordinance as it will not
be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions
of the land not normally found in like districts: (1) Without the variance, the land
and structure are not utilizeable; and the development is in line with like Northgate
businesses, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would
result in unnnecessary hardship to this applicant being: The bdilding will likely
remain vacant, unsightly and unsafe, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall
be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations:
(1) To allow a variance of 7 spaces. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner and
carried unanimously (5-0).
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 7
AGENDA ITEM N0. 10:
a restaurant at 403
Consideration of a request for renewal of a parking variance for
niversity Drive. Application is in the name of Rafael Roberto Saca.
Mrs. Meyer asked to be excused from the Board for this item, as she is familiar with it,
and there may be some conflict. Alternate Member Fry came from the audience to serve as
her replacement.
Mrs. Kee located the property and gave the history, stating that in the past (1981) a
variance was granted which would allow 40 seats in this structure. She further pointed
out that only a portion of this structure is being covered on this request, that for
12 seats which would require 4 parking spaces. She explained this request is necessary
because the variance has expired. She said the Board might consider looking at the
entire building and granting a variance for the entire structure,. letting the owner
allocate the spaces to his tenants.
Mr. Upham stated this is a new. variance request, .and the expired one had been for 403
& 405 University, adding that this .variance could be granted and the owner could put
something in the rest of the building which would require no parking spaces. Mr. Wendt
said that he did not see anything wrong with granting this variance as it had been
granted in the past. General discussion followed with Mr. Upham stating that this
request is for 4 spaces only and if more were needed for 405 University, it should stand
on its own merits.
Hugh Lindsay, 707 Texas Avenue Suite 216D, was sworn in and stated that he is the
attorney for the owner and that there are 3 people here to speak in favor of this request
before questions from the Board begin.
Rafael Saca, 1606 Treehouse, was sworn in and talked of plans for the structure, stating
that he plans to cater to students in the area, that the area is unique and the current
ordinance requirements would prohibit any type of restaurant. He added that deliveries
from his business would be done on bicycles.
Fred Shelton, 3501 Gillet, Dallas, and owner of the property was sworn in and stated he
is in support of the applicant's request and spoke of the uniqueness of the Northgate
area; also the age of the area and the structures. He added that the current Ordinance
came after-the-fact of the Northgate area and requirements cannot be met because of the
development there, but also added that it is important to provide what the Ordinance
requires in the newly developing areas of the city. He then urged renewal of the
original request which would allow 40 seats in this structure which would eliminate the
need for a new tenant in the rest of the building to have to appear before this Board
fora variance in the very near future.
Mr. Upham statedat this point that he is a party to a pending litigation on this property
and stated that there may be a possible conflict, and if so, he is prepared to vacate
his seat on this Board if so advised. Mrs. Locke came forward to say the conflict of
interest statement would not affect his taking part in making a decision on this, and
neither would the City charter. Fred Shelton spoke up indicating that he is not a party
to that suit, but that his son is.
Hugh Lindsay came forward again to request the Board to grant a variance to the owner
for the entire property. Hd pointed out again that the Northgate area is an area which
• was there before the rules were developed, and further that the Ordinance itself is
confusing in that variances and use permits are grouped together, yet are not synonymous.
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 8
• He went on to say that when the variance was granted in the past, it was one building
with 2 addresses and 2 entrances which was not a result of rebuilding. He said that he
believes the variance is still valid, but that the use .permit had expired as there had
been no certificate of occupancy issued. He pointed out that there is zero parking
on-premises; that next door has zero parking spaces, and the logical action to take would
be to leave the variance with the owner who then could allocate spaces to the tenants.
He stated that he believes the owner shoulld have applied for the variance rather than
the tenant.
Mr. Upham said that a variance is granted to a property rather than a use; then asked
if this is one piece of property to be rented or two. Mrs. Kee said that in studying the
old minutes, it appears the address was considered almost me~'+ingless. Mr. McGuirk asked
how staff would feel if the Board grants only 1 variance for 2 tenants. Mrs. Kee said
staff has no problem with that. Mr. Upham asked if that would be legal, but Mr. Lindsay
stated that this is one building and is described as "part of Lots 1, 2 & 3", even though
there will be a partition eventually. Mrs. Locke stated there would be no legal problem
with that action.
Ernest Camp, 1809 Sabine Court. and owner of the property to~the east of this property,
was sworn in and urged that any consideration possible be given to this property, because
it might help eliminate at least one vacant building in this area.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements (Section 7)
from the terms of this Ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due
to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like
• districts: (1) Without the variance, the land and structure are not utilizeable; (2) The
development is in line with like Northgate businesses, and because a strict enforcement
of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being: The building will likely remain vacant, unsightly and unsafe, and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the
following limitations: (1) To allow a restaurant with no more than 40 seats; (2) To
serve alcohol only with food; and (3) Variance to be granted only in the name of the
owner for use at his discretion. Mr. Fry seconded the motion which carried unanimously
(5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: Consideration of a parking variance request for a hotel proposed
at the southwest corner of Wellborn and Jersey Streets. Application is in the name of
Chang/Lott Investments.
Mrs. Meyer returned to the Board, and Mr. Fry retired to the audience. Mrs. Kee located
the land on an aerial photo, referred to a site plan which had been reviewed and briefly
explained plans to be included in this complex, stating that the parking requirements
had been figured cumulatively based on requirements for the individual uses as stated
by the applicant. She stated that staff has determined that 523 parking spaces are
required, and the site plan proposed by the applicant shows only 359 spaces, which would
make the variance request for 164 spaces. She referred to the P.R.C. report included
in the packets and to a memo from the Director of Planning regarding the lack of room
in the area for probable overflow parking from this complex.
Wayne Gregory with Goleman/Rolfe Architects in Houston was sworn in and stated he would
like to address 3 items with regard to this request, the first being that Sheraton Hotel
• standards are less than the applicant has proposed for this facility. He said that the
standard for hotel parking is 1.3 to 1.5 spaces per room and this proposed plan reflects
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 9
• 1.59 spaces per room and any additional parking would necessitate that land is bought
which is not needed for this project. He went on to say that this is a multi-purpose
facility and experience has shown that many of the functions. would be used by the guests
and the cumulative parking requirements would create excess parking, that many people
staying in the hotel would be using .the facilities and there would be no additional
vehicles created. He said that additional spaces on this site would reduce the amount
of landscaping being planned. He added. that there are thoughts now concerning the
possibility of eliminating the health club and a high energy lounge which would reduce
the parking requirement by 63 plus spaces.
Mrs. Meyer asked Mr. Gregory. what he had meant by the phrase he used "given site to design"
and he explained the site his firm had been given to design has always been the same,
and the other land referred to had to do with an ordinance exclusion of M-2 land. Mrs. Kee
asked if she could explain, and permission was granted. She stated that the City Council
had granted a request to exclude this site for the project from an amendment to the
Ordinance which would eliminate cumulative zoning regarding uses in an M-2 zoning district.
She explained that when a legal description was received from the parties involved re-
garding the land for this project, it included more acres than this project represents.
Mr. Gregory explained further that there are 3 pieces of property available for this
project, and all three were to be excluded for the additional zoning restrictions.
Mrs. Kee then asked if the purchaser was trying to see what kind of variance he could
get before he purchased the land. Mr, Gregory said this is not the case, that other
factors resulted in this size site.
Mr. McGuirk asked Mr. Gregory just how overflow parking would be handled. Mr. Gregory
• indicated that they believe they have adequate parking, but added that they have not been
in town during a "football weekend". Mr. Upham stated that the figures presented by the
developer may well represent Sheratons at various sites, but none of them were next to
a football stadium. He added that this Board is not hostile to the Sheraton's calcu-
lations but it is just nofpositive they can be superimposed on this project. Mr.
Gregory said that even if they had provided 600 spaces, on a football weekend that would
probably not be enough. Mr. Wagner stated. that the site location makes this project
unique and invites additional non-user parking.
Jim Gwin, 2827 Jerard, Houston, also with Goleman/Rolfe, was sworn in and stated that
they are now working on site plans which have been altered and the health club is elim-
inated in this redesign. He said that everything can be resolved except the location of
the railroad; that the building .can be shifted, more parking created closer to the building,
access to the Drew Woods project with a purchase in 2 years, which will create additional
parking in two years. He stated that valet parking in being planned for ballroom functions.
He added that 418 parking spaces can be created with this redesign, but added that sta-
tistics show that no more than 1.8 spaces per room are required for a multi-use facility
and that he believes that 418 spaces are unnecessary.
Mrs. Meyer asked just what is unique about this situation which would create hardship
other than financial. Mr. Gwin answered that a multi-use facility should be looked at
under a different light, and that this Board could table the request if it preferred
more facts. Mr. Wendt said that if the health spa is eliminated and the building is
adjusted in location and could accommodate the Ordinance requirements, that should be
done. Mr.-Upham added that there seems to be some question now as to what exactly is
• being planned, and should revisions become a part of the planning, compliance is
requested by this Board.
ZBA
6-19-84
Page 10
• Mr. Wendt explained that in the case of another hotel which was granted a parking
variance, if it was the Hilton Hotel parking variance which was being referred to, in that
case there was parking available at an adjacent project which made a cross-over parking
agreement possible. He went on to explain that there is nothing to "vary to" in this
case, so it has to be considered in this light.
Mr. Gwin asked if 59 spaces could be provided at a remote end of the land, adding that
the owner plans to develop that later into a different commercial project.. Mr. Upham
said that this Board cannot plan where parking can be provided but rather considers
facts as they are presented. Mr. Wendt reiterated that this is a unique location and
all other hotels referred to have adjacent parking available for any. possible overflow
parking requirements. Mr. Gwin stated that the answer to the question "Is it in the best
interests of the owner of a Sheraton Hotel to not provide adequate parking?" is
quite obvious.
Mr. Upham stated that the applicant has stated that this can be tabled to give the
applicant a chance to redesign the project, and that hopefully he will be able to comply
in the redesign to all ordinance requirements.
Mr. Wagner then made a motion to table this request. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion to
table which passed unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: Other Business
Mrs. Kee informed this Board that they also act as the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustments
• and explained a variance to the height regulations which has been received in the office,
then referred to an agenda which was handed out, asking the Board to determine if the
time announced was agreeable to meet. The Board decided that Monday, June 25th at 1:30 P.M.
was a better time.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn with Mr. blendt seconding. Motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
ing Chairman Jack Upham
ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
•