Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1996 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjushnent CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 17, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rife and Members Sawtelle, Blackwelder, Hollas and Alternate Member Ochoa. (Member Alexander and Alternate Members Taggart and Anderson were in the audience.) MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Planning Technician Thomas, Senior Planner McCully, Development Coordinator Volk and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. • Chairman Rife called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of September 3, 1996. Mr. Blackwelder moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of September 3, 1996 as written. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a variance request to the Drainage Ordinance concerning the minimum finished floor elevation for a proposed commercial building to be located on the southeast corner of the F.M. 2818 and Welsh intersection, lot Al of the Southwood Valley Section 30 Subdivision. The applicant is Tim Hansen of Silverado Management, Inc. Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting to construct the building finished floor at elevation 280.2 feet instead of 282 feet. This would place the structure 1.2 feet lower than the minimum finished floor required in the ordinance. The variance is being requested to allow the developer to lower the finished floor of the proposed building. As in most ordinances, the City may be more restrictive than the federal or state model but cannot be less restrictive. In this case, the City has chosen to be more restrictive, as FEMA only requires structures to be located 1 foot above the base flood. According to the City of College Station Drainage Ordinance, there are minimum finished floor elevations established within each drainage basin. In this particular basin, the minimum finished floor elevation is set at the base flood elevation (100 year flood) plus four (4) feet. • These minimum finished floor elevations are set differeir each basin in order to account for different basin characteristics. In this basin, there is a control structure (the culvert under FM 2818 just downstream) that affects the flooding potential. Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated that in this case, the minimum finished floor elevation was set significantly higher than the 100 year flood to account for the backwater effects that this culvert has on the surrounding properties when the basin is fully developed. In essence, the hydraulic model was run with future fully developed basins and the elevation of the water under those conditions was used to set the minimum finished floor elevations. From field observation during flooding events, this magnitude of the minimum finished floor requirement seems reasonable. Welsh has been under water at this location during events that are smaller in magnitude than a 100 year event and to compound matters, the upstream basin is not fully developed. There has been significant development within this basin in the last few years. There have been 4multi-family developments constructed just south, on the other side of the creek from this site. All four buildings were constructed to meet this minimum finished floor requirement and elevation certificates signed by a licensed surveyor state that they have met or exceeded this requirement. In addition, the City of College Station is currently designing a library facility to be located just to the east of this site. Conversations with the project manager of this project indicate that the library will meet or exceed this requirement as well. Staff does not recommend approval of this variance, as it does not appear to be the minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief and it may indeed cause the structure to flood. As stated under the alternatives section, there are other alternatives that are available to accomplish meeting both goals. According to the Drainage Ordinance, the applicant must show that the variance being requested is: (1) the minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief; (2) it will not be detrimental to public health and safety; (3) the variance will not increase the water surface elevations, velocities, etc., to the extent that there will not be any threat to public safety; (4) the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of land upstream or downstream; and, (5) no variance shall be allowed within a floodway if any increase in water surface elevation occurs during the base flood discharge. Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated that the applicant has described the hardship as related to traffic safety. They are concerned with the elevation difference between the gutter on Welsh and the required finished floor and the difficulty that traffic may have maneuvering this grade change through the parking lot. Currently these differences range from 4 feet to 6 feet as you progress from the front to the rear of the site. These translate into slopes of 4% and 6%. Possible alternatives might include reworking the site plan to pull the building farther away from Welsh to allow the developer to decrease the slope in the parking lot. The applicant also has the available option to floodproof the structure to afford the same flooding protection, while at the same time reducing the elevations of the adjacent parking lot grades. The intent of the Drainage Ordinance is to assure protection to the subject property and all adjacent property owners from potential flooding risk. It is also the intent of the ordinance to protect the availability of Federal Flood Insurance to our citizens. The City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program is regularly reviewed and variance actions to the ordinance examined to assure that their effect did not increase claims posted against the program. Approximately six surrounding property owners were notified of the request with one inquiry. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. ZBA Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 2 of 8 • • • Roy Hammons, engineering representative of the applicant, approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. He stated that the main reason for the variance request is for the safety of the driveway at the lowest end of Welsh Street. The common access for the library and proposed development has a rise of approximately 6' from the curb to the building that varies in percentage. There is a 12% slope from the back of the building to the rear property line. The substantial elevation difference will create safety problems along the access drive including the proposed drive-thru in that general area. Mr. Hammons stated that they have not considered floodproofing the building because they do not think the water will ever get that high. The slab elevation will be 6' above the existing grade. If the water level reaches the 282' level of the slab, the water level of F.M. 2818 will be 2 1/2' deep which would be 10' at the Welsh Avenue crossing. Owner Ray Hansen of 730 North Rosemary approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. He stated that the building cannot be moved substantially on the site because of the required overlay district. He stated that he met with the library representatives and they said that they would like to have a different elevation because of their budget. If the variance request is granted, the slab elevation of the proposed convenience store will be the same as the library. Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated that the protection level of the ordinance is for the structures that are insured and not for roadway facilities. Roadways are expected to go under water. It is correct that at the 100 year flood, there will be a significant amount of water over the roadways. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern for the enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for the underground gasoline tanks. The Board may not want to consider this request without information concerning the prevention of gasoline entering the creeks during flooding. Mr. Hammons stated that the applicant will comply with all EPA guidelines and that the variance request will not change the installation criteria of the gasoline tanks. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle stated that if the variance is granted, it will go with the land forever and there is a possibility that future land owners could change the elevations of the site. He stated that he is still concerned about the gasoline tanks and what are the EPA requirements? Mr. Sawtelle stated that he would personally like to see some further information with respect to the gasoline tanks to determine if there are additional requirements that should be placed on the variance request. He concluded that the EPA requirements must be enforced so that the development is not a detriment to public interest. Assistant City Engineer Morgan informed the Board that if there are ordinances that the applicant is not meeting, he will have to seek variances through the property authorities, which is not a part of the request before the Board. Mr. Hollas moved to authorize a variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, the Drainage Ordinance, to construct the proposed building at not less than 280.2', from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: the required elevation would create traffic safety problems; and because special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, to wit: the elevation of Welsh Avenue would cause the slope of the Welsh Avenue curb cut and driveway to be too steep and cause traffic ingress and egress problems. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Ochoa expressed concern that the applicant has not even checked into the possibility of floodproofing the building. Floodproofing the building is a viable alternative to the variance request. • However, if the property owner is not concerned with possible flood damage to the building, then maybe the variance should be granted. Mr. Hollas stated that if the building was just a few feet on the other side of the road, it would be in compliance. Mr. Rife stated that the intent of the ordinance is to assure protection of the subject property. Imagining the floodwaters at 2 1/2 ft. along F.M. 2818 seems drastic; however, the issue is the 100 year flood which is over a much longer period of time. At some point, the elevation may not be unreasonable. The motion to approve the variance request failed (2 - 3); Mr. Hollas and Mr. Ochoa voted in favor of the motion. AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of an appeal to the Zoning Official's interpretation concerning the classification of gymnastics training facilities. The applicant is Lynn B. White. Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is located on the southwest corner of Victoria and Graham. It was annexed into the city several years ago and was zoned from interim A-O to M-2 Heavy Industrial shortly thereafter by city initiation. Even though this case is before the Board for a specific request, the Board's decision will affect the C-2, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. On June 19th of this year, the owner of the property requested a building permit to create a • second lease space and rent it out as a warehouse. Since that time, the owner has requested that the use be changed to allow a gymnastics school. Staff has determined that the use is not in compliance with the zoning for the property. The applicant vv~shes to have staff's interpretation that a gymnastics school is a music, dance and commercial school reversed. She is also requesting that the use be reclassified under a C-2 use so that the owner may proceed with his plans. In response to the applicant's request that the interpretation be changed, staff ordered outside research to be conducted through the American Planning Association (APA). They sent staff ordinances from two other cities that deal specifically with gymnastics schools. The APA also sent a zoning report entitled "How to Interpret and Classify New and Unlisted Uses". The matter was also considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission under the provision that "other uses will be considered by the Commission". With respect to the appeal, staff has interpreted the use as a music, dance or commercial school. It is therefore permitted in the A-P Administrative Professional district. Specifically, staff believes the use to have similar, if not the same, impacts from a land use perspective as a dance school. Both types of schools tend to locate in the same types of areas and often times even within the same building. Both uses are recreational in nature, and draw from the same clientele base. Both dance and gymnastics studios have large floor and height clearance requirements. The City of Plano's ordinance defines both uses under the same definition. Both uses are listed as permitted uses in all business and light commercial districts. They are all allowed as conditional uses in the City's light industrial district. The City of Raleigh's ordinance is cumulative in all of its districts except for residential uses. Therefore, any use listed in a low intensity commercial district is permitted in the next more intense district, and so on, so that their most intense heavy industrial district allows all uses except residential. That city treats dance and gymnastics schools the same in terms of parking and land use classification. Due to the fact that the ordinance is entirely cumulative, within its . nonresidential classifications, gymnastics studios are permitted in industrial areas in that city. ZBA Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 4 of 8 • • Senior Planner McCully stated that if the Board finds that gymnastics schools should not be categorized with dance schools, the next step is to find a more proper use classification for them. The applicant is concentrating on the C-2 district even though the zoning of the property is M-2. The main reason that the gymnastics school would not be permitted on the subject property is because the M-2 district does not permit any C-1 uses. The commercial districts aze cumulative and the industrial districts aze cumulative, but there aze no C-1, C-3 or A-P uses permitted in industrial. In other words, there is no mixing of commercial and industrial uses except within the C-2 district itself, which has a sepazate list of permitted uses but allows all C-1 uses as well. The uses listed specifically under the C-2 district aze permitted in M-2. The less intense commercial uses aze excluded. That exclusion was made in 1984, when the City Council removed the less intense commercial uses from the M-2 district. The interpretation the Board is being asked to make is that the gymnastics use is a C-2 use rather than an A-P use. In order to make that determination, the Boazd needs to have findings that the use meets the purpose statement of the C-2 use and that it would be compatible with the other listed uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission did heaz a very similaz request on August 15th. In its decision, the Commission focused on the nature of the M-2 district and determined that a gymnastics school would not be appropriate. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. David White, co-owner of the subject property, approached the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. He stated that he owns a wazehouse that was annexed three years ago and zoned heavy industrial with no input from the property owners. The azea surcounding the warehouse is a pazk, two retirement facilities and single family neighborhoods. The surcounding property owners are not opposed to allowing a gymnastics training facility in the existing building and the only opposition to the request has been from staff Representative of the owner, Ed Elmore of 3501 Regal Row approached the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. He explained that the ordinance does not address gymnastics facilities. Mr. White can use his building for a concrete products manufacturing plant, food processing plant, junk yazd, storage facilities with petroleum and explosives and a tire shop that processes tires; however, he cannot use the property for a gymnastics facility. The neighborhood is in transition with the industrial being encroached upon by the residential neighborhood. Mr. White wants to use his building as a residential friendly use and is not being allowed to do so. This Boazd can classify the gymnastics facility as a C-2 use. The Boazd can also determine that the gymnastics facility is not the same as a music or dance school. Or the Board can determine that a gym facility will fall under the other uses as considered by the Commission under the C-2 classification. Chairman Rife and Mr. Blackwelder questioned Mr. Elmore as to why the applicant has not requested a rezoning for the property instead of coming before the Board. Mr. Elmore stated that Mr. White was told by staff to go before the Commission and then told by several sources to come before the Board. Mary Lind Bryan of 1813 Shadowood Drive approached the Commission and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. She stated that she sold the property to Mr. White in 1991 when the property was outside the city limits. The property was then forcibly annexed by the City and the zoning was attached azbitrarily. Ms. • Aryan explained that the rezoning process will take another two months that the proposed tenant is not awihing to wait. ZBA Minutes September 17, 1996 Page S of 8 n U • Ms. Bryan explained that there are no similarities between dance schools and gymnastics training facilities. Gyms are used by children who do not drive and very few people are there at one time based on space, which is not comparable to Jazzercise or a dance studio. Every gym in College Station has been operated in a warehouse because they cannot afford the space in an A-P zoned building. Because of the size requirements, there are a small number of users at any one time. The City should not take parkland and allow heavy industrial uses next door. The Graham Road area is not developing in an M-2 fashion and the size of the lots do not lend themselves to heavy industrial development. Applicant Lynn White approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. She stated that if the area remains heavy industrial, the adjacent homeowners and retirement residents would be put at a greater risk. The subject property can be a buffer zone between this area and any more industrial development. Ms. White stated that she developed two brochures and circulated them over the last five days. She submitted a large stack of the brochures signed by the residents of the adjacent neighborhood and some parents of the children currently enrolled in Acrofit. Julian McMurray of 3400 Mustang and representative of the Devonshire Subdivision, approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. Out of the 40 total lots in the subdivision, 35 residents signed the petitions. The homeowners of Devonshire feel strongly that the proposal is a common sense issue in that they would prefer a gymnastics facility rather than having heavy trucks up and down Victoria Avenue. Judy Cook of 3501 Nottingham approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. She stated that she is a resident of the adjacent neighborhood and a parent of a child that currently attends Acrofit. When she travels out of town to competitions in Dallas, Austin, etc., the gyms have always been in warehouses. There is no other facility able to accommodate the sport of gymnastics. Alan Wood of 1107 Foster and a commercial real estate agent approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. He stated that the business use meets the facility; however, there is a more fundamental problem. The subject property and the surrounding property is zoned heavy industri~.l. If this request is granted, then this facility could be surrounded by heavy industrial uses not appropriate to gymnastics facilities. Mr. Wood expressed concern that just by eliminating the zoning or granting the variance, there will still be heavy industrial uses allowed in the area and there could be a concrete factory or more intense use next door to the gym. The property should be considered for rezoning and handled by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Chairman Rife stated that there were many issues discussed concerning the zoning of the property; however, that is not the request before the Board. Many of the arguments presented are compelling, but the Board is being asked to consider those points associated with a zoning change. Mr. Blackwelder moved to interpret Section 7.14B of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: (1) a gymnasium is not the same as a music or dance studio or school; and, (2) a gymnasium may be permitted under C-2 zoning. Mr. Ochoa seconded the motion. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he is concerned with the future ramifications and implications for other businesses. The concerns expressed by the residents could be handled as part of the zoning process and not the interpretation process. ZBA Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Hollas stated that he would have preferred if the property was rezoned. He moved to vote on sections one and two of the motion sepazately. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed • unopposed (5 - 0). Item one, concerning the interpretation appeal failed (3 - 2); Chairman Rife and Mr. Sawtelle voted in opposition to the motion. The Board determined that item two could not be considered since item one was denied. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a variance request to the minimum parking space size requirement to allow for compact car parking for a proposed commercial development to be located on the southeast corner of the future Kyle Avenue and Harvey Road intersection, lot 1 of the Lacour Subdivision. The applicant is Greg Taggart of the Municipal Development Group. City Planner Kee presented the staff report and stated that parking required for the proposed development is 180 spaces of which 6 are for the handicapped. The applicant is proposing 187 spaces, forty of these meet the compact car size provided for in the WPC district (7.5 feet wide by 16 feet deep) under certain conditions. These 40 spaces constitute 22 percent of the parking required and 21 percent of the parking provided. The proposal has only 7 spaces over the required amount as designed. The applicant will lose these 7 spaces if required to use all full size spaces. City Planner Kee stated that the WPC district requirements (Section 7.21.F) states: Incentives For Creek Orientation • The following incentives may be awarded for developments adjacent to the creek which orient a facade (comparable in design and materials to the front facade) to the floodplain and have pedestrian access to the trail system. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall determine appropriate use of incentives. a. Pazking Standards. All standazds and requirements relative to the required number of parking spaces and the dimensions and location of pazking spaces and islands shall be as required by the City's Zoning Ordinance except as herein provided upon approval of the Planning & Zoning Commission. (7) A developer may provide up to 25% of the total parking requirement using compact caz spaces. These spaces shall be a minimum of 7.5 feet wide by 16 feet deep. The location of such spaces shall be noted on the site plan. City Planner Kee stated that the Boazd is not being asked whether the project meets the criteria for creek orientation but is being asked to consider a variance to the parking space size requirements for this particular development. This is the first project to ask for any incentives for creek orientation. The Design Review Board (DRB) felt it more appropriate for the ZBA to consider a variance in this case. The DRB supports the use of compact car spaces in this instance but feels uncomfortable determining that this project is oriented sufficiently toward the creek to be allowed the incentive. ZBA Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 7 of 8 City Planner Kee stated that the DRB is concerned about setting precedent for future projects by accepting this particular site plan as meeting the criteria for creek orientation. Ultimately the Planning & Zoning Commission has the authority to grant the use of any incentives in the WPC district upon recommendation of the Design Review Board. In 1987 the ZBA granted a variance to parking space size to allow a shopping center development just east of this property to have some compact car spaces. That development never occurred and the property is still vacant. Approximately eight surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry. Chairman Rife opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant, Greg Taggart of 1008 Madera Circle, approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Rife. He stated that the 180 parking spaces required by ordinance are the bare minimum for the prospective tenants. The compact car parking spaces are successfully used in other cities and will add an additional seven parking spaces to the site. Due to the nature of the floodplain, the orientation of the buildings and the required dedications, the size of the site has been reduced considerably. Chairman Rife closed the public hearing. Mr. Blackwelder stated that he is not against the proposal; however, it appears to be a band-aid for a larger issue. Maybe the parking requirements should be changed city wide. Mr. Blackwelder moved to authorize a variance from Section 9, Ordinance Number 1638 to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following conditions: compact parking spaces are permitted in Wolf Pen Creek; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: limited parking hampers tenant's . use of the building and the use of the land due to the floodplain; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Mr. Hollas moved to amend the motion to say that compact parking spaces are permitted in Wolf Pen Creek "under certain circumstances up to 25% of the total parking". Mr. Sawtelle seconded the amendment which passed unopposed (5 - 0). The motion as amended passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn. Mr. Blackwelder moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adju rr~nt. Mr. ~~ seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). / ~ APPROVED: A • Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas ZBA Minutes September 17, 1996 Page 8 of 8 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS RPPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION -From Section 15.5, Ordinance Number 1638 I move to uphold the decision or interpretation-made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Motion made by Date Seconded by Chair Signature Voting Results WI~IErT RULII~lG NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR II~ITERPRETATION MADE BY • THE ZONII~TG OFFICIAL, USE THE FOLLOwII~TG FORM: I move to interpret Section ~~ ~ `~ ~ of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: ~) ~ I ~~/'~ N d,S i u r- /.S /I ~ ~ ~ S2 fue a- S~ ~ /LI~r,.. ~ , ., J r d ~'~-c~ ~ J O ~(' Sc.~u ,~ Motion made by CJ /~~~'~ Date Seconded by Voting Results Chair Signature .+IPINTERP.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION .Q~ -~~ Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance. /-~ ~rL I move to authorize a variance,.~from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: and because either of the following criteria are met: 1) Special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, to wit: • tAo goo„ ~ 1e1r~o~ l~nmm~e-- w~.~d~ ca.u~e tie ~HE-~ l~(~,¢, A, ~ c~..~ ~u;t ~ -tom a.,~t o or 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: Motion made by ire- ~~ Date Seconded by 7'(3 Voting Results Z~ 3 Chair Signature DOP1728.DOC -, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) ~un~' um setback ~i~/ e ' ements Section 9 parking r quir ( ) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special co/n~ditions:L wt ~/~ ~ r t and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~. • J and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: l ~~~ ~ Motion made by ~J "" Date Seconded by Chair Signature Voting Results VARPI638.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment C7 Name 1. L ~C~L~~ 2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. s. 9. 10. 11. 12. Guest Register Dat ~p Address 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. ~0 5 ~~v r~ eC <S~ 0 5 r ~v ~~ ~( 3~-v r I~J~-~i ~r,~-~• ~~ ~f ~~d 1 ~~~, ~,w1 ~w ~.s ~,~ q~ ~ ~ l S 3~fo~ ~1~s ,: ~r v 25.