Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/2005 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment December 6, 2005 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Josh Benn, Donald Braune, Graham Sheffy & Alternate Derek Dictson. MEMBERS ABSENT: John Richards. Alternates Denise Whisenant & Charles Taylor (not needed) STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planners Jennifer Reeves, Crissy Hartl and Lindsay Boyer, Senior Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Lance Simms. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goss called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. Mr. Richards submitted an absence request stating that he had a prior commitment. Mr. Benn made the motion to approve the absence request. Mr. Braune seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action of a building setback variance for 1208 Walton, Lott, Block 15, Third Installment of College Hills Estates. Applicant is Tres Watson. (05-204 CH). Crissy Hartl presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a carport. The applicant would like to construct a 2-vehicle carport 27.5-feet in width on the side of his house, thus the applicant is requesting a 4.5-foot variance to the side setback. As a special condition the applicant states: "the request is made due to the location of mature live oak trees located along the inside and at the end of the existing driveway and parking area." As a hardship the applicant states: "Due to the location of the trees, the carport and driveway cannot be moved without removal or possible damage to the trees." Staff recommends denial for this variance request. The applicant states that the trees on his property are a hardship that restricts the construction of a 2-vehicle carport. While the trees along the driveway are a constraint, they are not perceived to be a hardship for the carport. In staff's opinion, it is more of a hardship for the applicant to relocate the driveway that is not necessary for the construction of the carport; therefore, it is staff's opinion that this would be a self -inflicted hardship. In addition, the City of College Station does not consider the ash tree to be a specimen tree and therefore does not award development projects landscaping points for those trees. Additionally, it is the opinion of the staff that the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, nor do extraordinary or special conditions affect the subject property such that a strict application of City codes and/or ordinances deprives an applicant reasonable use of his or her property. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing. Tres Watson, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Watson spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Benn asked Mr. Watson if his concern is if the carport has to be built within the ordinance, the construction of the driveway might kill the Ash tree. Mr. Watson replied that he would either have to remove the tree or the driveway would be close enough to the tree where it might cause damage. Mr. Benn asked Mr. Watson if the variance was not granted, what he would do. Mr. Watson replied that it would allow roughly a 23-foot carport overall. He believed the eve has to also be out of the setback. If you add in the posts on either side he would probably have to take out a couple of feet. He figured that would leave him right at 20-feet. He added that that would be enough to get a car in if you came in at an angle. He was not sure how that would work. Mr. Dictson asked if you could overhang in a setback. Mr. Hartl replied that the eve can extend 18- inches into the setback. Mr. Watson ended by saying that he would accept a lesser variance as staff indicated as an alternative in the staff report. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. There were discussions among the Board Members as to what the special conditions and hardships were. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to not authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Dictson seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, presentation, discussion and possible action of an Appeal to the Zoning Official's Interpretation concerning whether a specific use is appropriate in C-1 (General Commercial). Applicant is Clint Schroff, Clarke & Wyndham. (OS-198). The Administrator issued a Written Interpretation stating that the use proposed by the applicant is not permitted in the C-1 General Commercial zoning district. Please see the attached letter of Written Interpretation issued on November 3, 2005 for background information and for the Administrator's final determination. The Written Interpretation has been appealed by the applicant, Mr. Clint Schroff, CCIM, Senior Property Manager for Clarke & Wyndham, Inc. The proposed use includes primarily fabrication, storage of scientific instruments for maintenance and calibration, pallet storage, training. This use also requires the installation of an 8-foot roll up door and loading zone on the property. The Administrator does not believe that the use is consistent with the intent of the C-1 General Commercial zoning district. Section 5.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance states the following as the purpose of the C-1 General Commercial zoning district: "This District is designed to provide locations for general commercial purposes, that is, retail sales and service uses that function to serve the entire community and its visitors." It is the Administrator's opinion that the proposed use would be more compatible with the R&D Research and Development zoning district, the M-1 Light Industrial zoning district, or possibly the C-2 Commercial Industrial zoning district, all of which permit similar uses. It is important to note that the Administrator's interpretation does not apply to any particular property, but to the C-1 General Commercial zoning district in general. Any decision by the Zoning Board of Adjustments will apply to all C-1 General Commercial property within the City of College Station. Mr. Simms ended his staff report by showing the Board pictures of subject property. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing. The following persons stepped forward to speak in favor of the variance and were sworn in by Chairman Goss. Clint Schroff, the applicant Frank Wilford, Lease space tenant After lengthy discussions on what the actual use of the lease space would be, Mr. Schroff stated that he made a mistake. He filed the building permit in haste with the floor plan showing the fabrication area and wood working shop. He stated that these functions will not take place at this location. Mr. Benn stated that if the lease space is not going to be for these functions, could the application be withdrawn and a new building permit filed stating the correct use. Mr. Wilford stated that if that would be the best way to approach this and he could get some assurance that that is all he needed to do, he would do that. Mr. Simms stated that he would recommend that the Board vote to uphold the Zoning Official's Interpretation and the applicant could go through the process of amending the building permit application. Mr. Benn made the motion to uphold the decision or interpretation by the Administrator in the enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of the Ordinance and substantial justice done. The motion was seconded by Mr. Braune and passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action, to consider a parking variance for 1351 Earl Rudder Freeway, Lot 1-R, Block 1, in the High Ridge Subdivision. Applicant is Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group -Planning Solutions. (OS-205). Staff Planner Lindsay Boyer presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces for the Varsity Ford Auto Dealership by 77 spaces. This property was annexed in 1958 and subsequently zoned R-1. In 1989, the property was rezoned to C-2. The property was platted in 1993, and 10 acres was developed as the Varsity Ford Dealership in 1994. This development included 29,450 square feet of service area and body shop, which requires parking at a ratio of 1 space per 100 square feet of building area. The total parking required at this time was 348 spaces, and 396 spaces were provided at the time of development. The property was replatted in 2003 into its current configuration. In 1998, Varsity Ford sought to expand its service area body shop by 7,380 square feet. This expansion resulted in the loss of 98 required spaces on the lot, and an additional 74 that were accommodated in a satellite parking lot on the property to the north. Overall the required parking for the site became 422 spaces. With the development of the satellite parking, the total number of spaces provided was 496. The satellite parking lot contains a total of 151 spaces. The variance request is being sought by the owner in order to sell the adjacent property on which the satellite parking lot is located. The applicant maintains that the required parking ratio is excessive. The 1 space per 100 square feet ratio was set by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1984 for the development of Allen Honda. This ratio was included in the Unified Development Ordinance, adopted in 2003. (Those minutes were included in the Boards packet) Staff agrees that the parking is excessive. Of the 10 acres of the property located out of the floodplain, nearly 100% of the area is impervious cover. A retail or office building of the same size would result in only 118 required parking spaces, rather than 294. A survey was completed of 37 of cities by both the City and the applicant, finding that College Station requirements result in the highest number of spaces required for body shops and automobile service areas. Additionally, the only uses in the City with parking requirements equal or greater than an automobile service area are restaurants and nightclubs. In the coming months, as part of next year's annual UDO review, staff will be recommending a change to the required parking spaces for automobile service shops. The effective parking ratio, should the variance be granted, would be 1 space per 127 square feet of building area. For comparison purposes, the City of Grapevine and the City of Georgetown are the only cities with a parking ratio that this variance would not meet. During recent site visits, staff has noted that the parking lot has never been fully utilized. Approximately 30 to 50 percent of the parking remains vacant in the rear parking areas. Of the 10 acres of the property located out of the floodplain, nearly 100% of the area is impervious cover. 1.3 acres of the property remains undeveloped, but lies in the Carter Creek floodplain. Additional development on this site would further impact this floodplain. The City's requirement for the number of parking spaces creates difficulty for auto dealerships with service shops to develop. In this instance, the number of spaces required to be dedicated to the body shop is over 85 percent of the required parking, as well as new and used car sales. There have been several instances of variances requested from the minimum parking requirements, but none have been for auto dealerships. The majority of these requests were approved prior to 1990, and a majority was approved. For reference, only two other dealerships are located in the city. Douglass Nissan has 6,340 square feet of service area, and Allen Honda has 4,965 square feet. Ms. Boyer ended her staff report and stated that Staff recommends approval of this request. The ZBA has the authority to grant variances up to 77 spaces. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing. Natalie Ruiz, the applicant, stepped before the Board to speak in favor of the variance and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Sheffy made the motion 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: there will still be adequate parking for public use and put a more adequate use of the body shop parking and there is a creek that won't prohibit them from making additional parking; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: staff will ask for reduced parking in the Unified Development Ordinance; and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Braune seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Jay Goss, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZONING BOARD OFADfUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • MEETING DATE December 6 2005 NAME ADDRESS 1. ` ' '''~ ~`JC:..~~``6~~ ~ --~ `7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Sce ~~ C ~ ~ ~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning er' Development Services ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION of the Unified Development Ordinance. I move to not authorize a variance to the Yard (Article 5) Lot Width (Article 5) Lot Depth (Article 5) v'" Minimum Setback (Article 5) Section 5.2 & 5.4 Dimensional Standards Parking Requirements (Section 9) Article 7, Section 7.2 Off-Street Parking Standards from the terms of this Ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the • lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion made by~j,~~,r~.--7,= r~ t.,_ ~~f-~j' Seconded by ,r :~ J~ -~'~ l-~! 1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~. Voting Results ~ ~ ~, Chair Signature ~~'~' ~-- Date = ~ C ~ • • CITY OF COLLEGE S1'A'I'ION Planning e~'' Development Services FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION of the Unified Development Ordinance. I move to authorize a variance to the Yard (Article 5) from the terms of this Ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: ~y - /`%%"~; "- % /`~C:: ,2G= Lc.%'.,~' [.~ ._S ~ f t ~ e._ „U C._ - %~i~~ Gr%G-C . y2 i l-~" t= r~L.= j 1.~ i L => ,. LL ,' , ~ 1.~ ~--t-" L-y" i ~. i3. ~~ GC ~ (, r~ tict~ ~~'~ L~t,-l" ~~~-,, ' S ~L, i. V. ~i ~~ and because a strict en~rce~ent of the provisions of the Ordinance would resrtlt in unnecessary,har ip t th' ppli ant ~mg: and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Lot Width (Article 5) Lot Depth (Article 5) Minimum Setback (Article 5) Section 5.2 & 5.4 Dimensional Standards ' Parking Requirements (Section 9) Article 7, Section 7.2 Off-Street Parking Standards Seconded by Voting Results Chair Signature ,C-° Date ~ ~_ • .~ • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning tr Development Services ZONING BOARD OF AJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION FROM SECTION 3.17 -ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. I move to uphold the decision or interpretation by the Administrator in the enforcement of Section of Unified Development Ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of the Ordinance and substantial justice was done. Motion made by ~ S ~ u ~ ~¢ ~ Date-( -~ ~~ ~ , Seconded by or1 ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ Voting Results S ' ~ ;, ~~ ._-, • Chair Signature S -- WHEN RULING NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR INTERPRETATION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR I move to interpret Section of the Unified Development Ordinance in the following manner: Motion made Seconded by Date Voting Results, • Chair Signature Page 1 of 1 Deborah Grace - Re: December 6th ZEA Workshop • From: "John Richards" <johnr28@cox.net> To: "Deborah Grace" <DGRACE@cstx.gov> Date: 11/14/2005 10:01:27 PM Subject: Re: December 6th ZEA Workshop MAYDAY!! i will be unable to attend the dec.6th zba meeting due to forgotten prior committment.-you are on your own!! ----- Original Message ----- From: Deborah Grace __ - - To: Jay B,_Gos_s ;John Richards ; Joshua_Benn ;Derek Dictson ;Denise Whisenant ;Charles Teylor ; Graham Sheffy ;Donald Braune Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:10 PM Subject: December 6th ZEA Workshop • • It was decided that we WILL have a 5:30 workshop to discuss the 3 cases that will be before the Board at the next meeting. Please let me know if you can be in attendance for this. We do have to have a quorum in order to have the workshop meeting. Thanks much! College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. _-- __ Protect your Mailbox from Spam- Click here! I _ _ - -- ' file://C:\Documents and Settings\dgrace\Local Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 11/29/2005 WORKSHOP MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment December 6, 2005 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Josh Benn, Donald Braune, Graham Sheffy & Alternate Derek Dictson. MEMBERS ABSENT: John Richards. Alternates Denise Whisenant & Charles Taylor (not needed) STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planners Jennifer Reeves, Crissy Hartl, Jennifer Prochazka and Lindsay Boyer, Senior Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Lance Simms. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goss called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Discussion of regular agenda items. City Staff discussed the cases that were scheduled for the public hearings at the regular meeting of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Presentation and discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by the Administrator. .,, OS-194 - 200 Lee Avenue - 2-Feet to the rear setback OS-152 - 2704 Texas Avenue South - 10 Percent of the required parking Staff Planner Lindsay Boyer discussed the Administrative Adjustments given. There were no questions from the Board Members. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation and discussion of background information prepared by staff concerning contextual setback requirements. The Board discussed the memo supplied in their packet (included as part of minutes). AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items - A Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. Chairman Goss stated that he liked having Workshops and felt that they were beneficial. All Board Members in attendance agreed. AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Jay Goss, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant