Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1982 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment June 15, 1982 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Chairman Cook, Members Wagner, Upham, Donahue and Alternate Member Lindsay; also Council Liaison Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: D. MacGilvray STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Approval of Minutes from May 18, 1882. Mr. Upham moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 - Ord- inance 850 - Parking Requirements for a sandwich shop at 411 University Drive in the name of Centex Subway, Inc. Mr. Mayo was asked to give a brief background of the problems encountered and studies made of the Northgate area. Mayo was sworn in, then told of the various • studies the staff had ,made over the past 5 or 6 years of the Northgate area, and reported that staff does not think that variances to parking should be granted in that area at all, for any reason. Parking in that area has become such a criti- cal problem that staff believes that all new sites should provide on-site parking, and all plans to change existing sites should also be planned to include on-site parking, with no exceptions. It is staff's contention that as long as variances are granted, nothing will 6e done to alleviate the parking problems. He pointed out that the various uses made of the sites in the area have created high density traffic, and because the area is small and crowded, such uses should not be made of the area until some kind of solution to the parking problem is reached. The current study of the area has led staff to work with the City Council and the Northgate merchants to put together a plan to create a small park area, which would take away some available existing parking immediately, but to extend the plan to include a city parking lot at another location which would in reality create more parking spaces than currently exist. If this plan were put into effect, it would help to alleviate some of the problem, but certainly would not solve it. Mr. Upham stated that most of the most recent parking variance requests have not come from the bar or restaurant operators, but rather from the businesses closer to the church area which is in another block altogether. Mr. Mayo indicated that the intense use of the land where the bars and restaurants are located have helped create some of the parking problems in the other blocks. Mr. Wagner asked what had become of the special study concerning some kind of special zoning which would apply only to the Northgate area. Mr. Mayo reported that this kind of special zoning would help the problems concerning setbacks, etc., but would • not solve the parking problem, which seems to be intensified by students and uni- versity employees parking in this area rather than getting parking stickers and using university parking facilities. He cited near riotious conditions on several occasions which had occurred when police had appeared on the scene to try to control crowds which had gathered. He indicated that the City was becoming worried about Minutes - ZBA June 15, 1982 page 2 what could happen there. • Mr. Upham summarized by indicating that it seemed that inadequate setbacks and inadequate parking have led to problems with crowd control and parking control. Ms. Donahue asked what density impact the new condo projects have had, and also asked if it was the Board's intention to control people or control establishment of bars in the area. Mr. Upham stated definitely that bars had not been singled out, but rather that the problem was with any business which attracts large numbers of people or cars. Phil Callihan was sworn in and identified himself as the applicant of the request for variance to the parking requirements. He reported that the business he was trying to establish in the area was a speciality sandwich shop and not a restaurant. No cooking would be done on the premises and for those patrons requesting carry- out service the length of time they would be in the shop from start to finish was between 4 ~ 6 minutes, and for those patrons who wished to eat their sandwiches on the premises, a time lapse would be from 10 to 14 minutes between entering and leaving. He was requesting a seating capacity of 30, and indicated that most of the business would come from people who were already in that area, and would attract very little vehicle traffic; that patrons creating vehicle traffic would go to the store opening in the Parkway Square Shopping Center. He said his intentions were to provide a nice store front with an open and bright decor, and passed around pic- tures. In addition to this, his hopes are that his business will help to upgrade the Northgate area. • Mr. Upham then went over the history of various parking variances which had been both granted or denied (these cases are covered in memo from Mrs. Kee). Mr. Lindsay said the Board is faced with problems it cannot handle; it either grants variances and has the City Council control the problems or does not grant variances and this would put pressure on the owners to get after the City Council for guidelines. Mr. Wagner said that at this point he was almost ready to approve all requests for variances; Mrs. Cook said that she was almost ready to deny all requests, but what she really wanted to happen was for the Board to walk around the Northgate area, find out who the owners were, who tenants were, then request a meeting including the City Council, the PAZ Commission, the ZBA, owners, tenants, staff and perhaps together they could arrive at some kind of policy to help solve some of the problems. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the way the Ordinance is written that when businesses change, non-conformity should decrease, but that is not hap- pening in this area. Mr. Upham made a motion to deny the variance to the parking requirements (Section 7) as requested by Centex Subway, lnc. Mrs. Donahue seconded the motion. When votes were called for, no one voted. Then Mrs. Donahue made a motion to table this request and Mr. Upham seconded the motion. Mr. Wagner asked what alternatives there were. Mr. Lindsay indicated that this request had been put off once and questioned the fairness of tabling the item again. Votes were cast and the motion to table the request carried with Cook, Donahue, Upham and Wagner voting in favor of tabling; Lindsay voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Reconsideration of a Variance Re uest to Table A - Ordinance • 50 - Minimum Setback Requirements .fora convenience store at 301 University in the name of Southland Corporation. James Ort was sworn in and identified himself as the representative of the company which was requesting the variance. He stated that his company would not be creating Minutes - ZBA June 15, 1982 page 3 • additional problems in the Northgate area, but rather would be meeting all park- ing requirements and more than meeting the landscaping requirements. The only variance they were requesting was to the minimum rear setback. Mr. Upham asked if there were any plans formulated for controlling ingress and egress (whether consideration had been given to making one curb cut an entrance only and one an exit only with a right hand turn). Mr. Ort indicated this problem had not been anticipated so it had not been addressed. Mr. Mayo indicated that staff recommends approval of this variance because staff believes he has worked out the site as best as can be done. Mr. Mayo indicated that a NO LEFT TURN sign would not be enforceable and that 3 out of 4 people probably would comply, but the rest would ignore it. Mrs. Cook asked how the company planned to patrol parking on site, and Mr. Ort said the company would patrol and control it, and would even put up towing signs and contract with a towing company to handle unauthorized cars. Mr. Lindsay asked if the company would have an "Off Premises" license to which Mr. Ort replied in the affirmative, and that in the future the company might be ford to get an "On Premises" license if the "Off Premises" license were violated too often. Mrs. Donahue then made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum rear set- back (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest and with the provisions that it have a 4 hour fire wall and that a contract with a towing company be made. Mr. Upham seconded the motion. Motion carried with Wagner, Cook, Donahue and Upham voting in favor and Lindsay voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Reconsideration of a Variance Re uest to Table A - Ordinance 50 - Minimum setback requirements for a commercial project at 700 University Drive in the name of Mack .Randolph. • J. W. Wood was sworn in and identified himself as a representative of the applicant, Mack Randolph. He gave the history of the site, and indicated that 2 surveys had been made on this site; one showing an encroachment which is noted on the Board's copies of the site plan, and one which did not indicate an encroachment existed. He further indicated that the site plan had already been approved by the PAZ Commission if the variance is approved. Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Lindsay seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. There was no one present to represent the applicant. Mrs. Kee gave the background of the request fora variance, and indicated that the applicant had also applied for an abandonment of a utility easement on which his existing carport is located. Mr. Upham made a motion to table this agenda item because there was no one present to represent the applicant and also because the variance would not be necessary if the abandonment of the utility easement were not approved. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion to table the item. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Reconsideration of Conditional Variance Approved 7-21-81 for an Arcade at 315 University in the name of Mike Walsh. • Mike Walsh was sworn in and identified himself as the applicant for the variance, then gave a brief history covering the past year. He said that he had complied with the restrictions on the variance requested in July of 1981 except that he had not brought his parking lot up to standards during that time. He reminded the Board that he had appeared before them a few months ago and asked if he could wait ,~ Minutes - ZBA June 15, 1882 page 4 until the end of his conditional variance period to upgrade the parking lot. The Board had allowed him to wait. He indicated that he had made arrangements with a • contractor to do that during the month of August 1882 but that he could not provide additional parking and stay within the city codes for parking space sizes. He did a survey which indicated that the majority of the patrons of his business are walk- ins, (60%), and that he allows no drinking or smoking in the building, as well as no loitering in front or back of the business. He further stated that the loiter- ing situation in the neighborhood had changed since a fence that people had been sitting on had been removed. He stated that his request fora variance was for the duration of his lease which is 7 more years. Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a conditional variance to the parking require- ments (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest with the conditions that all capital improvements be completed by 9-15-82; and the variance will cover the time period from-July 1882 to July 1g83. If the capital improvements are not completed upon inspection on g-15-82, this variance request will be null and void. Mr. Lindsay seconded the motion. Motion carried with Lindsay, Cook, Upham and Donahue voting in favor and Wagner voting against. A progress report was requested from Mr. Walsh on or at the meeting nearest to g-15-82. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7_& 8: Other Business and Adjourn. Mrs. Cook indicated that she would be meeting with Al Mayo at 10:30 a.m. this Thursday (6-17-82) to help determine what should be done and ,who should be • included in a formal meeting to give guidelines concerning steps.toward solving the problems in the Northgate area. She indicated to Mr. Wagner that if property owners did not show up when invited to participate at these meetings that she would not hesitate to use the Board's power to subpoena them. Mrs. Donahue requested from Mr. Mayo a copy of the plan which the staff had completed which would offer the most reasonable solution to the problem. Mr. Lindsay made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: <-./~ ~{/ Vi Cook, Chairman ATTEST: L_J