Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment January 5, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Thompson, Gilmore, Henry, Alternate Member Julien and Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Gentry and Alternate Member Baker STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Zoning Official Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Director of Planning Callaway and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITBM NO. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and li~itationa of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of ~inutea - aeeting of Dece'ber 1, 1987. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0}. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for a special exception to allow the substitution of one non-conforaing use for another non-conforaing use (conversion of one 1600 square foot apartment unit into 2 apartment units) at the existing building at 4000 Harvey 8oad. Applicants are John F. ~ Betty &. aobinaon. Mrs. Johnson identified the subject tract on an aerial photo on the wall and explained that it is west of and adjacent to Jose's Restaurant, that the current zoning which is A-0 Agricultural Open was given to the land upon annexation in 1980, and that the requested action is for a special exception to be granted which will allow conversion of one large upstairs apartment into 2 living units - one rather large unit and 1 smaller efficiency unit. She referred to applicable sections of the ordinance as being 6.B and 15.2.C., and read each of them to the Board. She described the physical characteristics of the lot and the layout and floor plan of the subject structure. She pointed out that the only exterior change of the structure will be a separate outside entrance to serve the newly created small efficiency apartment. She informed the Board that both the apartment uses and the office use are non-conforming in the A-0 zoning district, that the ordinance requirements for parking would number 13 spaces, and there seems to be room on the site for at least 10-12 parking spaces, and perhaps even more than that. She stated that a sign variance request was denied for this property in 1981, but in r I• May, 1987, a special exception was granted for this structure to allow conversion of part of a first floor office into apartment space. She finalized by stating that 4 adjacent property owners had been notified of this request, but to date, she had received no contact from any of them. Mr. Henry asked if the structure was on the property at the time of annexation and Mrs. Johnson replied that it was. The applicant, Betty R. Robinson was sworn in and explained that the large upstairs apartment is very hard to rent, and she wants to convert the one large unit into a large and a smaller unit, to make both easier to rent. She also stated that the building housed apartments and a business at the time of annexation, but the amount of office space was recently reduced and converted into an apartment earlier in 1987. She also stated that the outside of the structure will remain as it is now, with the exception of the addition of a segarate outside entrance to serve the newly created apartment which must be added to meet code requirements. There were no more questions and Mr. Gilmore stated that he has no problem with the request, but he is having a problem with the wording of the motion form which he is attempting to use to formulate a motion. He then made a motion to authorize the substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is not sore detrimental to the environment than the first. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-0. AQBNDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for parking variance or special exception to allow the substitution of one non-conforsing use for another non-conforaing use (restaurant for • portion of bookstore) at 330 Jersey Street. Applicant is Beef 'n Brew. Oxner of property is Dennis Mother. Mrs. Johnson explained the request is made by Kenneth Young for a proposed restaurant at 330 Jersey Street, more commonly known as the "Southgate Shopping Center", and the actual site is owned by Dennis Rother. She pointed out that the requested action is for one of 2 things; either a variance to the parking requirement, or a special exception to allow the substitution of one non-conforming use (a restaurant} for another ( portion of a bookstore), and that the non-conformity of the shopping center is that is ordinance requirements for parking are not now, and have not been met in the past. She then read section 9 of the zoning ordinance which pertains to parking requirements, and section 15 which addresses special exceptions. Mrs. Johnson continued by describing the physical characteristics of the lot and the shopping center, adding the information that part of the parking in this shopping center is apparently considered a reserve to be forever available as long as any business is there, that the businesses are all responsible for the maintenance of the parking reserve, and that no one business has control of any specific number of spaces. She informed the Board that the intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate on- site parking for patrons and employees of a multi-use shopping center, but the applicant believes that 25~ of his business will be from foot or bicycle traffic due to its close proximity to the university, and additionally he believes that counting the kitchen and restroom space in the total square footage to determine the parking requirement creates an unnecessarily high parking requirement. She stated that the only alternatives staff have developed would be to either limit use in the lease spaces to warehouse use which only requires 1 space per 1000 square feet, or to reduce the building square footage in the shopping center by removing buildings. ZBA Minutes 1-5-88 Page #2 • She concluded her explanation by pointing out that neither the Fire Marshal nor the Building Official have any problem with this request as long as code requirements are met, and that of the 15 adjacent property owners who were notified, only 1 responded expressing concern that a restaurant might cause parking problems at the property he owns. Discussion followed concerning how best to address this request; whether as a special exception or s variance, with Mr. Thompson stating that he is troubled by the idea of granting a variance for a particular use when it will affect the entire property, whereas the entire shopping center is non-conforming, so a special exception in this particular instance would not add much to the already non-conformity. Mrs. Johnson pointed out that the parking requirements for restaurants used to be based on the number of seats to be included in the facility, as was the case when the variance was granted for DoubleDave's restaurant in this center, but now the requirement is based on the total square footage of the subject facility. She additionally gointed out that the zoning ordinance restricts the amount of restaurant space in a shopping center to no more than 25~ of the center, so the existing restaurant plus this proposed restaurant would almost completely use 25~, so there could never be any additional restaurants created here. Dennis Rother, part owner of the shopping center was sworn in and stated that all owners want adequate parking spaces for sll businesses, and the aim is to locate businesses which require parking at times other than when parking is needed for the bookstore, the laundry and the fabric store. He stated that this type of restaurant would fill that requirement, as the type of business would be s rapid turnover type, • with many of the patrons either walking or riding bicycles, and with peak hours of operation occurring after the anchor businesses are closed for the day. Mr. Thompson asked if the alley behind the center could ever be used for parking and Mr. Rother replied that it helongs to the City, and is used for garbage trucks, etc. He added that he would like to provide additional parking at some time in the future, but is unable to do that at this time, so is looking for a business which will be compatible with the owners' businesses. In reply to a question by Mr. Gilmore concerning parking conditions now, Mr. Rother replied that there really is not a problem now, but there will be in about 2 weeks for a limited period of time when the bookstore is in full swing. He explained that at other times during the year, the lot is pretty full around lunch time, and then empties out again until the supper hour, when the other businesses are closed. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Rother if he prefers a variance or a special exception and Mr. Rother replied that he does not know the difference, but he would prefer some kind of action which would not adversely affect the property in the future, that is, something that would be reviewed in the future if a different use wanted to go into the lease space. Mrs. Johnson explained that with a special exception, like uses could continue in this space, but any changes in use of businesses which were more or less intense would have to come back before the Board for reconsideration. Mr. Henry asked Mr. Callaway if the entire shopping center could be addressed rather than each individual use. Mr. Callaway stated that is a possibility, but to date, each request has come in on an individual basis. Mr. Rother said that because there • are 3 owners of this center, he would prefer that it be dealt with on a lease space by lease space basis, since that treatment would give each individual owner more control. ZBA Minutes 1-5-88 Page #3 Someone from the audience (later identified as Mr. Lyles) asked what the hours of operation of the restaurant would be. The applicant, Kenneth Young was sworn in and said the hours of operation will probably be 11 to 9 P.M., with peak hours at lunch and at supper time. He went on to say that there seems to be plenty of parking available in the center except early in the day when the bookstore, cleaners and fabric store are busy. Ben Lyles, part owner of the center was sworn in and stated that he has no real opposition to a restaurant going in that lease space, but he wanted clarification of the hours of operation, which were furnished again. He continued by saying that DoubleDave's noon business does not seem to cause a parking problem in the center, but this additional restaurant may cause a problem to his business at noon, and also between about 5 and 5:45 p.m., when his business is the busiest. Mr. Henry asked Mr. Lyles if the earlier restaurant, Texas Burger, caused him or his business any problems and Mr. Lyles replied that from the additional parking, he would never have known it was there, and additionally, that DoubleDave's does not cause a problem. Mr. Gilmore said that he is having difficulty understanding exactly what Mr. Lyles' preference is and Mr. Lyles said he is willing to work with the new tenant, but he also fears there will be a parking problem at noon. Mr. Gilmore said then that the letter of the ordinance cannot be applied to this property, just as it could not be applied to the Northgate area, due to the configuration and location of existing structures. Ae went on to explain that he does believe in this case, granting a variance would be the way to go because he can easily see special conditions which would apply. Discussion followed concerning the difference between granting a variance for an individual lease space and the entire shopping center, and also between a variance and a special exception to allow expansion of a non-conforming use. Mr. Gilmore asked what would follow if a variance is given for this particular business and Mr. Callaway replied that DoubleDave's was given a variance several years ago, and what would happen is that any use in that particular lease space would be considered on a case by case basis, and if the specific proposed use were no more intense, the variance would remain in effect. Mr. Thompson then made 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 the proposed restaurant would operate primarily during the adjoining tenants' off-hours and that a • significant amount of the business will be foot traffic, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being the fact the current requirements are unnecessarily high for the proposed use, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. The motion, after discussion as to whether or not limitations should be attached, was seconded by Mr. Henry, and carried by a unanimous vote (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Other buainesa. The only other business was that Mrs. Volk announced there will be a meeting on January 19th because a request for a variance has been received. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Adjourn. ZBA Minutes 1-5-88 Page #4 • Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Henry seconded. Motion carried unanimously (5-O) and the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones • U APPROVED: r Chairman, David Ruesink ZBA Minutes 1-5-88 Page #5 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~ FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Special Exceptions - From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize the a. _____substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is ~~sa/1/a~ I~'Jo r~ detrimental to the environment than the first. b. _____enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use-where such enlargeme'~t is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25X and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. c. _____reconstruction of a non-conforming s.tructu_re on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60~ of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformity. `~ ~ Motion made by ___ ~'~~ __1 ------ -~J-~~ ---------------------- ~~ ~ " Seconded by ___ Q-Q ~.__ ~l!v~ ,,.~Q ~~r-t,~., --------------------------- Voting results: ~_"~0 _______________ Chair i at s gn ure )ate L~ ZONING IIOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~rORMAT FOR POSITIVE 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) ________minimum setback (Table A) ___ parking requirements (Section 9) f, from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: ~ lai ~~~~ ltlc.~-~i GAG and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance w~ou`ld result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: _ ~~L` _~~/-c_ r~~i-t,~,..-sir! Q-'~---------------------------- and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice donedsubject to the following limitations: ------------ -------- --- -----------d - ------------------ Motion made by ___ ~.~ - ~~~"_ Date ____ ~~~~ -------- ---- Seconded by ___ l~<~'~__~~~--y Votin S~ l7 ------- - ----- g Results ---------- ~uhair signature ~ ~ C ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER '~ NAME ~. 2. 3• 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9• 10. DATE January 5. 1988 ADDRESS 7y ~ S. x "3t ~ Serer ~ 5 12. 13. 1.4 . 15. 16. ~7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.