Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/1999 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 19, 1999 6:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Warren, Hill & Happ. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy, Lanier, Hausenfluck and Dr. Bailey. STAFF PRESENT: StaffPlanner Battle, Development Coordinator Ruiz, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant Development Coordinator George, Staff Assistant Grace, Assistant City Attorney Robinson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order - Ezplanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the December 15, 1998. Mr. Dill made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Ms. Warren seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a parking variance - eztension of deadline for conditions associated with previously approved variance at 589 Graham Road. The applicant is Bill Marden. Senior Planner McCully approached the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. McCully stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for an additional 2 year extension of the deadline for conditions associated with previously approved variance. The applicant is the tenant and future property owner and is proposing to continue the use as automobile repair service shop. Ms McCully continued with the following background information. The subject property was annexed into the City in 1992, at which time any exiting substandard conditions maintained their legal nonconforming status, and were therefore not required to be brought up to code. A gravel parking lot that served the existing office/warehouse use was included in this nonconforming (grandfathered) status. Some time after annexation, the gavel parking area was covered with asphalt. At that time, the new parking lot lost its nonconforming status, and should have met all current standards (curbing, landscaping, striping, subgrade, driveway compliance, subgrade minimums, drive aisle and parking space dimensions, detention, etc). The new parking lot does not meet required standards because it was installed without City approval, and therefore the Gity considers the site to supply zero outdoor parking spaces. ZBA ~ lanaary 19,1999 Page 1 of 7 In March of 1997, the applicant (potential tenant) requested and was granted a parking variance of 22 parking spaces, with the condition that 9 exterior spaces that meet all current standards be installed. The special condition stated in the motion was the fact that indoor parking would be adequate to meet • the applicant's use with the hardship being that the applicant would not have been able to continue his auto works business without first meeting all city conditions. Approval of the variance was conditioned on the applicant installing 9 outdoor parking spaces that would meet City standards. The applicant was given two years to complete the conditions because he did not yet own the property, and because the two years would give the applicant time to meet conditions and still continue his business. The two years will expire April 16 of this year. At the time the variance was granted, the applicant intended to purchase the subject property shortly after he moved his business to the site. However, since that time, the applicant has been involved in litigation concerning the property transfer, and has therefore been unable to close on the property to date. The closing date has been postponed pending the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment because the current property owner desires to make the sale of the property contingent on the provision of City required improvements, with a default provision if the applicant does not make these improvements within the time frame to be specified by the Board. Upon securing property ownership, the applicant will also inherit the additional nonconformity of the substandard parking for the remainder of the building that is not dedicated to his business, and he will therefore eventually need to supply parking for any new use of that lease space. Installation of all 22 parking spaces will not leave room to accommodate parking for the remainder of the building in the future. • The subject property was annexed into the City in 1992 and was rezoned to M-2 Heavy Industrial in 1993. In 1996, the property was rezoned to C-2 to allow commercial uses rather than exclusively mdustnal uses. The property was platted out of a larger tract in July of 1997 in preparation of the sale of the property to the applicant. In November 1998 the property was replatted to shift the southern lot line to the north by ten feet, thereby losing ten feet on depth. Staff recommends that any approval granted by the Board be conditioned on provision of the 9 parking spaces meeting all current standards within 2 years of the day the applicant takes possession of the subject property. Mr. Happ asked Ms. McCully what was the litigation over. Ms. McCully stated that it was her understanding that there was an agreement for Mr. Marden to purchase the property and the property was not closed on. Therefore, a suit was filed to force the current owners to actually close on the property and follow through with the agreement. Mr. Happ asked is that what hay delayed the process of acquiring the parking space. Ms. McCully replied yes probably for two reasons: 1) most people do like to own the property they are putting an investment in; and 2) the applicant has probably been busy with the litigation rather then meeting the conditions. Ms. Warren questioned that no action was taken after the ZBA Meeting in 1997. Ms Mc~ully replied that no improvements on the property have been made since that meeting. There have been a few • conceptual meetings to talk about driveway locations etc. but no site plan has been submitted yet. ZBA Mburtes January 19,1999 Page 1 oJ7 Mr. Happ asked Ms. McCully if the improvements are not done in the 2 1/2 years asked for, what will happen then. Ms. McCully replied that they would be in the same situation that we are in now except the applicant would no longer be owning the property and Code Enforcement would be involved if the changes are not made. Chairman Alexander asked is the Board then going to be considering extending the present time frame. Ms. McCully stated that it gets a little confusing because the actual action would be a pay king variance. The special conditions and hardships have been made two years ago. Basically if the Board wanted to repeat those, it would probably make it less confusing. Ms. McCully ended by saying it is the condition and the timing of that condition that is up for decision. Ms. Warren asked Ms. McCully is 6 months when the applicant feels compliance would occur. Ms. McCully stated that the applicant is requesting an additional 30 months from the time that he owns the property. Ms. McCully told the Board that the closing of the property has not yet occurred. Ms. McCully added that the staff report states two years but she had had discussions after the report was prepared and the applicant would feel more comfortable asking for additional 30 months from taking ownership. Mr. Murphy asked what is the time frame to get a site plan approved by the city before construction could begin. Ms. McCully replied that applying for a site plan through the city does not take that long anymore. In this type of a case it would only take a staff review. It would not be taken to a commission or board. So approval could be gained within a week just from the city. But revisions would have to be made and turned back in so a reasonable time would be 4-6 weeks. • Ms. Warren asked if there have been any other situations where this Board has placed a time extension on compliance. Ms. McCully replied that one comes to mind. The variance was requested by a small banking facility that had not completed the curbing along on of the boundaries. The argument was that they were going to expand anyway so they added wheel stops. The Board actually denied that variance but gave the applicant 2 years to put in the curbing. If the expansion did not happen within the two years the curbing would have to be put in. Ms. McCully added that this type case is pretty rare. Mr. Happ asked what would happen if the Board did not approve this variance. Ms. McCully replied that if the Board did not approve this, the applicant still has the original approval from 1997 to have it finished by April 1999. Mr. Happ asked what would then happen if he does not have it finished by April. Ms. McCully replied that the city could go into code enforcement to give the applicant a deadline to have the improvements put in place. If that deadline was not met a judge would determine a fine that would be charged for each day the applicant is in violation. Ms. McCully also stated that the current owners would have it written into the agreement that if that happened it would default on the loan. The applicant then would no longer he the owner of the property. Mr. Happ asked is it not true that a different variance is being written. The previous variance did not stipulate the applicant owning the property. Ms. McCully replied that it is a condition of the original variance, but if this variance was approved with the change in conditions as requested or the Board sees fit, then that would take the place of the variance granted two years ago. Mr. Happ asked Ms. McCully two years ago it was based on when the applicant actually took • possession of the property, he had two years to get the parking lot done. Ms. McCully replied it was when the applicant actually occupied the building. ZBA 1Nuiwes January 19,1999 Pagt 3 oj7 That was perhaps an oversight. City staff thought, and the Board at that time was probably presented with "shortly there after the applicant would own the property". Ms. McCully stated that is the major • difference today. Mr. Happ stated this is a different variance request and the 1997 variance was base on the applicant occupying the building and this one is base on his ownership. Mr. Happ added he feels a new vanance is being based on when the applicant owns it. Ms McCully replied that it is a different condition of the same variance. Mr. Happ stated since the applicant does not own the property yet and if it does not come out of litigation this could go on for years before the applicant owns the property. Ms. McG~lly stated that the city does not go into code enforcement against vacant property. Ms. McCully ended by stating if that were to happen the city would not gain compliance not until there was viable use of the property. Ms. Warren asked how often is code enforcement pursued in terms of fining. Is it something that occurs frequently in the city. Ms. McCully replied that something on tlus magnitude it is very rare that staff would even get to the point to write a code enforcement letter. Ms. Warren stated that usually gets people to the point of compliance pretty quickly. Ms. McCully replied yes because each day is a sepazate day of violation and the fine could add up very quickly. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Bill Marden, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Marden told the Board that he would try to clarify some of the questions. Mr. Mazden stated to the Board that the litigation has only been going on for 9 months and not 2 years. It has been two years since the ZBA variance was granted for the 2 year deadline line to have the improvements in place. Mr. Mazden explained there have been problems with the terms of closure which has brought this case into • litigation. Mr. Marden told the Board one stipulation of closing now is that if the property does not come into compliance, the loan would default and he would loose the building. Mr. Marden explained to the Board that 1) he has already spent quite a bit of money and is not about to loose that and 2) the city has given him a probational occupancy certificate based on complying. Mr. Marden assured the Board that he has every intention on complying but he does not want to put anymore money into the building or land at this point until he has ownership. Mr. Marden told the Board that hopefully it will close quickly but what he is requesting in the variance is that the time table be started based on the point of closure. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Marden when he expected to close at this point. Mr. Mazden replied he hoped at this point in a week. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Marden if one week was being realistic. Mr. Marden replied that that totally depends on the landowners. Mr. Marden stated that he was given a deadline of December 15, he was ready to comply and the landowners read through the material and had objections. Mr. Mazden explained the idea was to give him time to comply due to numerous hardships in moving in and keeping thc',usiness going on top of the move. Mr. Marden stated that in 1997 he A sand out that he had 30 days to move from his old location due to the fact that that building had sold. Mr. Marden stated that he was actually in negotiation of having that parking lot renovation done at that location when the landlord sold the building. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Marden why have no efforts been made to complying with the variance that was given by the Boazd in 1997. Mr. Marden replied that it was exhaustion of funds. It is also difficult to own a business and move it. It became devastating for the clientele to find his new location. Mr. • Marden explained that he expected 2 or 3 months after the variance was granted to own the building. ZBA 1lflnuta Jonuary 19,1999 Page t oj7 J Ms. Warren asked Mr. Marden if he could comply within the time limit from the previous decision given in 1997. Mr. Marden replied no that he could not and that is why he was before the Board. Mr. Marden stated that at this point it would be a risk to take. Mr. Marden told the Board that the firm • Municipal Development Group has been working on a site plan and it is on hold waiting on Mr. Marden to take ownership. Mr. Dill asked Mr. Marden if there was any practical end to how long the litigation can continue. Mr. Marden responded that litigation is very expensive and he is hoping to have quick resolution Mr. Hill stated that he is leery of granting what would effectively be an open ended variance. Mr. Marden stated that he is very anxious to have the parking lot situation straightened out for his own personal uses as well as for the property itself which has two tenants Mr. Bill Thorton, the applicants lawyer stepped before :he Board and was sworn in my Chairman Alexander. Mr. Thorton stated that he is involved in this case for the land transaction. Mr. Thorton told the Board that he has been involved since July of 1997 and has tried for about 8 months to resolve it. Mr. Thorton stated that he and the property owners a~torney have reached closure on every issue except the issue concerning the default provision in the deed of trust that calls for an April 1999 deadline. Mr. Thorton stated that it does not seem possible to accomplish the items needing to get done in that time frame. Mr. Thorton stated that he has recommended to Mr. Marden to accept the default provision the way the owners attorney has requested it with the stipulation that Mr. Marden have some additional time. Mr. Thorton told the Board about an access easement that would cross Mr. Marden's tract and an adjoining tract so additional time is needed to go back for another replat. Mr. Thorton told the Board that he understands that would not be anything that this Board would have to deal with but it is part of • the facts that go into consideration for additional time because of the lengthy process. Mr. Greg Taggart with Municipal Development Group stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Taggart stated that he was there to assist with any questions. Mr. Taggart talked briefly about the process they have been through with the site plan. Mr. Taggart told the Board that his company feels that they have come up with an acceptable site plan solution as soon as litigation is over and they have been released to go forward. Ms. Warren asked about the easement issue Mr. Thorton spoke about and if the current site plan now still be sufficient. Mr. Taggart responded that the actual easement issue Mr. Thorton is referring to is he believes, one that is brought up by the final conceptual layout that MDG came up with. It has actually caused at least the lawyers to ask the question about revising the easement. Mr. Taggart stated that they do have at least a conceptual plan that would meet all city ordinances and allow for proper use of+he site. It is not finalized yet but they do have a design approach and it can be put into operation. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Taggart if he was working with a client (putting litigation aside) what would be the projected time between where they are on the site plan and being able to implement a plan for platting. Mr. Taggart stated that there are other technical issues that are going to have to be solved. The current pavement does not meet the city ordinance requirements. Mr. Taggart stated that for his company to start the site planning process now and go through the normal process he expected it to be an 8-10 week process. • ZBA ~y~a lonrrary 19,1999 Page S oj7 Mr. Hill asked Mr. Taggart from the time litigation ends and MDG has the go a head with the site plan process, how long are we looking at. Mr. Taggart replied that he would expect at the vary most a 6 months design process. Mr. Taggart also added that MDG is not going to be in complete control of • that time frame because they are trying to fit pre-existing conditions and could even come back to this Board for another variance. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Taggart if he could remember when this case originally came before the Board and if he could remember what the rational was that they based it on occupancy verses closure. Mr. Taggart stated that he was a member of the ZBA at that time and the best recollection he had was 2 years was considered a good round number to close the deal, get the design done and allow for Mr. Marden to pay for construction and get landscape in place in a regulated "pay as you go" situation. Chairman Alexander asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor of the request. With no one stepping fon~vard Mr. Alexander asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition of the request. With no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Dill stated that he felt that it is necessary for him to state his intent to abstain from voting in the case to avoid the possibility of being bias due to the fact that Mr. Thorton is his attorney who has represented him in various matters in the past and probably in the future. Mr. Happ moved to authorize a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the original variance was based on occupancy and not based on date of purchase i.e. closing; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: forced to make improvements on property he was occupying yet not owning and because the • closing was delayed by litigation it is not possible to comply with the original variance and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the variance will not exceed 34 months from the present date. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Happ for a explanation on the months given. Mr. Happ explained that the original 2 year variance will expire in April and he his giving Mr. Marden the remaining months plus the 30 months beyond April. Ms. Warren stated that she felt that was a really long time. Mr. Happ stated that he felt a limit needed to be stated and Ms. Warren agreed. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Happ if he would consider a shorter time period Ms. Warren stated that she would like to amend the motion to read that the following limitation would be placed 12 months following the closing of the land. With no one seconding the motion the motion failed. The Board continued discussions concerning setting a time frame for improvements to be done after the closing of the contract. Ms. McCully stepped before the Board to remind them since Mr. Hill has abstained from voting there will have to be a unanimous vote of the remaining 4 voting members in order to approve not to deny the variance. • Ms. Warren made another amendment to the motion to set the deadline to 30 months from the present date. Mr. Murphy seconded the amended motion. The amended motion was approved 4-0. ZBA M,,,,~ Janaary 19,1999 Page 6 oj7 Mr. Happ read the approved amended motion for the record. Mr. Happ moved to authorize a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance • as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the original variance was based on occupancy and not based on date of purchase i.e. closing; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: forced to make improvements on property he was occupying yet not owning and because closing was delayed by litigation, it is not possible to comply with the original variance; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the variance will not exceed 30 months from the present date no matter what. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion which passed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4. Other Business r~ LJ Mr. Happ stated that he had concerns about the Epi Center which is opened on University Drive. The Epi Center applicant came before the Board asking for a variance to the parking in order to open up the sports baz (night club) based on a certain squaze footage. The applicant was denied because they could not meet the pazking requirements. Mr. Battle replied that the variance that came before the Boazd in May was a variance to the number of parking spaces required in order for the bar to open with the preferred squaze footage. Mr. Battle stated that since that was denied the applicant was still able open a night club but at a limited square footage because of the number of parking spaces existing. Mr. Happ asked out of curiosity has anyone compared the squaze footage that was presented and what it is now while they aze open. Mr. Battle responded that when the applicant obtained the building permit to do the renovations it was checked at that time to make sure that it was limited to the squaze footage allowed and inspections were made. Mr. Battle told the Board that he is still getting questions from the applicant as to how they can expand the club. Chairman Alexander discussed with the Board a copy of a memo he had received explaining Pazliamentary Procedure. The memo discussed in brief, terms from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (Henry M. Robert III et al. eds., 9th ed 1990. AGENDA ITEM NO. S Adjourn Mr. Hill made the motion to adjourn. Ms. Warren seconded the motion which passed unopposed 5-0. • APPRO 'A'TE T: Chairman, avid Alexa~=:~ier Staff Assistant, orah Grace ZBA Allw~a January 19,1999 Page ~ oj7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register • ~ Date - q Name Address ;~ 1. ~_. 2. ~ -%~ ~ 3. ~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. ZONING BOARD OF XDJUSTIVIEN`P [~ FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) • lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) ~~ ~ W ~~ 7 from the terms of this erdin~nce ~s it will net be contrary to the public interest, due to the following specizl conditions: ~~!-,c.f~G .~~(J~t~ ~~ wiz ~G~~ fl,~t.~ ~~~ - ~ ~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result. in unnecessary hardship to this applicant- being: - - ~ - - m b~~,~.re~( ~ yy~.e 6~ v.. d such that the spirit of this rdin ce shall be o served an sub tial justice don-e~nsubject to the following limitations:~® Motion made by ~ ~ Date -- Seconded by - ~t ~9 r~ Chair v~~sssmc