Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/1985 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment November 5, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Upham, Members Wagner, McGuirk & Herzik MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Meyer & Alternate Member Swoboda STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee & Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITEM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of Board. Chairman Upham called the meeting to order, explained the functions and limitations of the Board, and explained that because any request for variance must receive a at least 4 positive votes to be granted and because there are only 4 Board members present at this meeting a unanimous vote would be required, and any applicant could postpone the consideration of his request until a later meeting at which all 5 Board members were present if he desired. Both applicants in the audience declined that option. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors. • No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Approval of Minutes - aeeting of October 15, 1985. Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a variance request to Section 7-B.3.1 Ordinance 850, the requireaent to nark parking spaces on the surface of Phase 2 of a proposed gravel, coaaercial parking lot at the northeast corner of Church 8~ Nagle. Applicant is Skipper Harris. Zoning Official Kee explained that this request is identical to a request considered and granted on 9-17-85 for the first phase of a parking lot, but that this request is for the second phase of the same lot. She informed the Board that although the P.R.C. has not held site plan review of this second phase, she has spoken to the City Engineer about this request, and he has implied that he will approve a gravel surface for this phase as he did for the first phase, therefore the applicant will require the same variance as was granted before in order to get a C.O. for this phase. Mr. McGuirk asked how the P&Z Commission has ruled on this and Mrs. Kee explained that it has not come before either the P.R.C. for site plan review, or the P&Z far a variance to the island and landscaping requirements, adding that the first phase • had been approved with the various variances requested by the applicant. Skipper Harris, 2324 Quail Run, College Station was sworn in and identified himself 1 ZBA Minutes 11-5-85 • as the applicant of this request, explaining that he has leased the land but that George Boyett owns the land. He further explained how the use of railroad ties to designate parking rows is working very satisfactorily on the first phase, and he plans to use this same means in the second phase. He went on to explain that the agreement reached between the City, Mr. Boyett and himself requires that he must have his project reviewed and approved annually. Jim Sink of 402 Nagle in College Station and also of Houston, Texas was sworn in and identified himself as an owner of the Newport Apartments and also as a representative of the Homeowner's Association of the units of that complex which have been sold. He stated that he is pleased with Mr. Harris' project, but is here to express a point of view which is that the requirement of a wood screen fence between Mr. Harris' project and the adjacent Newport apartment complex is most unattractive and he would request that some determination be made which would both accommodate the Zoning Ordinance and at the same time not require that fence. He explained that the Newport project has paid to install landscaping on the land where this parking lot is being developed, and it would be a shame to see that landscaping destroyed so an ugly fence can be erected. Mrs. Kee explained that the Legal Department has advised there is no variance process regarding the requirement of the screen fence, and that unless she gets a different interpretation from that department, the screen fence will be required. Discussion followed as to just what Mr. Sink might do either with the fence which is required by ordinance, or how to go about appealing that requirement. During • that discussion Mr. Sink referred to a "rezoning of the land", after which Mr. McGuirk pointed out that rezoning is not being discussed at this meeting, but rather a variance to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Herzik pointed out that Mr. McGuirk had brought up some legal questions at the previous meeting regarding Mr. Harris' first variance request, and asked Mr. McGuirk if those questions had been satisfactorily answered. Mr. McGuirk said that he has thought about them, and that Mr. Wagner had very clearly expressed a point of view at that meeting which he is since inclined to agree with. Mr. Herzik asked if the Legal staff is satisfied with the variance which had been granted, and Mrs. Kee replied that apparently they are, for they made no comments on the form which is routinely sent to them after each meeting. Mr. Wagner pointed out that Mr. Sink is the first resident of Northgate who has ever come before this Board as a citizen of that area since he has been on the Board, and he wanted to publically express to Mr. Sink that this Board appreciates his concern in the area. Mr. Wagner then offered a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements of Section 7.B.3.1 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 lot is presently detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of area residents, and that the lot will be constructed of gravel, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being that due to the nature of the area, the lot is unlikely to be changed in the near future, and such that the spirit of the ordiance shall be observed and substantial • justice done, subject to the following limitations: That the City require, through a temporary certificate of occupancy, that any substantial change be brought before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for reconsideration. Motion was seconded by Mr. 2 ZBA Minutes • McGuirk and carried unanimously (4-0). 11-5-85 AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a variance request to the front and side street setbacks (Table A, Ordinance 850) to enlarge an existing canopy at the Southside Gulf Station at 300 Jersey. Applicant is H. D. Ti~sons. Mrs. Kee explained this request is being made to allow the applicant to extend an existing pump island canopy into the setback area and provide only a 12 foot front setback (as opposed to the 25 foot setback required) and a side setback of 12 feet (as opposed to the 15 foot setback required). She pointed out that the existing canopy encroaches the front setback line by 8 feet, and would be extended to encroach the front setback by 13 feet and the side setback by 3 feet (along Highland Street). She listed the alternatives as being to leave the canopy as it is, or to allow only the extension toward the sides by granting a front setback of 17 feet rather than 12 feet (which would increase the size of the non-conforming canopy, but would not put it any closer to the street). She further pointed out that the Fire Marshal has indicated he has no problem with the request if the canopy height is at least 14 feet. Discussion followed with Board members asking questions about the site plan and pointing to the areas involved. Mrs. Kee answered the questions, pointing out that setbacks are measured from the property lines rather than from the pavement edge, adding that this proposed expansion would be completely contained on this tenant's lot. Discussion followed then regarding the rather wide area between the property • lines and the curb lines of the streets. K. D. Timmons, 2000 Quail Hollow, Bryan was sworn in, identified himself as the applicant and then explained the reason for the variance request is to furnish weather protection for his patrons. He further explained that the strip of land between the property line and the street curbing was set aside in 1939 by "H.E.Burgess & Partner", but that he does not know if they planned to retain ownership. He added that he does not intend to place other uprights further forward, the encroachment would be the canopy only, and that delivery trucks, etc. will be able to get under it. Mr. McGuirk asked Mr. Timmons to please address development on the Highland Street side, as it is very close to a residential area and he wonders if that part of the canopy is an essential feature. Mr. Timmons replied that his plans include putting a multi-hose dispenser on that side which will not be as close to the residence as the existing vacuum cleaners and former car wash is now. He added that the vacuums and car wash facilities will be removed. Mr. Upham stated that he believes the proposal will be awfully close to the street. Mr. Herzik said that cars under the canopy on the side will be approximately 23 feet from the street, even though they will be only 12 feet from the property line, since that large area of "no-man's" land is on the outside of the property lines. Mr. Timmons then brought forward construction documents for his proposal which the Board studied. Mr. Herzik then said that everything being proposed in the ground • will be conforming, and that only the overhang of the canopy will be non-conforming and require a variance. 3 ZBA Minutes 11-5-85 • Mr. McGuirk said that perhaps this proposal would be expanding and extending the life of anon-conforming use, but due to the circumstances of the arrangement of easements between the right-of-ways and property lines, and the fact that the streets are not likely to be widened in this location, he does not believe this expansion would be troublesome. Mr. Upham said the expansion toward the front does not bother him as there is no other "like" district in the City, but he is slightly bothered as how the extension to the side can be allowed, unless it is considered a logical extension of the front canopy section. Mr. McGuirk said the City normally does not have a C-1 district abutting a residential area, nor is it usual to have an 11+ foot area of right-of-way which will never be used as road way, and that he believes the residential area could be preserved better by allowing the extension to the side than to allow it to extend to the back. Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) (front & side setbacks) 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 presence of the parking easement between the front property line and the Jersey right-of-way (some 38 feet) make the application of the setback requirement unduly restrictive. Such easements do not exist in most commercial districts. (2)The front setback is in line with the gas station to the east. (3)The 11.8 foot off-street right-of-way on Highland, a residential street, is unlikely to ever be utilized as traffic lane, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in • unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: See 1, 2, & 3 above, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: That the minimum clearance of the canopy be approved by the Fire Marshal. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Closed session to discuss pending litigation [6252-17(2)B]. This agenda item was deleted. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Other business. Mr. Upham asked that Board members please return calls to the Planning Technician, particularly if they are not going to be in attendance at the meeting. Mrs. Kee announced there will be no meeting on November 19th. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Herzik seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). OVED: ATTEST: - -- -- --------- • air an, Jack Upham ------------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones 4 • 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. minimum setback (Table A) ~F201~1! ~SII~F S'E~~/~c.^s 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: FRoni ~ 1 •/1 T~ILC P~SFnJ~ OF T•yrE' /~Rh'1NG ~.4SF~"~~ ~T~~cc~/ y'hd~'¢~.RQft~Ylj/ G/~.t=' ~~vo ~~~' ~/tS~ t~w.~sv..,-rF 3S F~`r-~ ~•~/~E r~F .~~°.~r~~'I d~/ 2 • ~ -~v uV UL T !C7`1 SuC ~gs2sMFiyT.f DO /u~S ~.drj.ST ,tN ..vim ~t-1Q1`T ~.~IM 2CI L />IsrR~CT,S 3- 4. z) Th~tC F~Qp~vT ,SrT~/9C~' 1S /.v L/NF wl}-x./ ~C-N4l ,S`7i9~'leit/ .Ja Thll~ ~~,.r/ 5•- _rG 6. 3~ `T.c/F //. g~¢ ~ ..r7'J2F~ /y~.rrJ oN ,y/G,cl ~~J .4 REJ'IG~~1.~ 1/~ L sr2~`T ~s v~vLl "C 7'v FI/ 2 /3F CiT/~./~c~-D ~9s /G L,g and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: sFL= /„ ~AS~v~ and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: 1 . -~.4T ~~it»NIyl9 ~ CcF.~/ZAn~~F y.FC~yPy ~' z. • 3. 4. Th i s motion was made by /~ C(r J I~. t Seconded by ~~ The variance was granted by the following vote: ~ f /ri t hair Signature ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION ~~ Variances: From Section 11-6.5 move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations minimum setback (Table A) C___,- parking requirements (Section 7) ~~ ~, / I 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 rmaily fo n in like distri s: ~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance wou~ldAr~esult in unnecessary ardship to this applicant bei '~C~'° ~0 , ~1'~' an c t e rit of thesis Orden juste e~d~one, subjec to the following . ~`~~' Hn/' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ `{ 1 This motion was ade Seconded by ~ The variance w s gra 'sH'all--~ observed and substantial itatton _ . ., 1 I 1 ~~ Da owing vote: hair Signa ure ~' it • NAI 1. 2. 6. 7• 8. 9. 10. 3• 4. 5. ©o o cr~i,[~4~G G ~ ~ X02 NFU 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER GATE November 5, 1985 ADDRESS