Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/2001 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustmentsf MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment May 1, 2001 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Lewis, Richards, Sheffy & Alternate Member Birdwell, MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Corley & Goss. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Hitchcock, City Attorney Cargill. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. No applications turned in. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from March 6, 2001 meeting of the Board. Mr. Lewis made the motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed (4 -0 -1) Mr. Birdwell voting present. AGENDA ITEM NO, 4: Consideration of a parking variance for 1502 Athens. Applicant is Carolyn Hoyle for Epsilon Rho House Corp of Kappa Kappa Gamma. Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for a reduced parking space requirement for a building expansion. The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned R -6 Apartment Buildings/High Denisty. The subject property and properties to the north and west are developed as sorority houses. There is a daycare to the east and apartments to the south. Sorority houses are required to have one parking space for every person (bed) and one space for every 30 -sq. ft. of meeting room. Thirty-seven residents are in the house and a conditional use permit was granted May 2000 that allows for a 1440 -sq. ft. chapter room. The project requires a total of 85 parking spaces (37 for residents and 48 for the chapter room). The applicant is proposing to provide 79 parking spaces. The applicant is seeking a variance to the off - street parking regulations of Sorority Houses by the amount of 6 spaces (approximately 7 %). The applicant has stated that a large tree on the lot should be considered a special condition. The City of College Station has approved plans for the building and parking lot expansion for Kappa Kappa Gamma, but those plans include the removal of a 40 -inch caliper existing white oak tree for parking. The sorority wishes to preserve this tree and the surrounding area. During the public hearing for the conditional use permit last year, the applicant stated that the Forestry Service had indicated the tree had approximately 5 years live left. `, The sorority has negotiated with the nearby daycare facility to lease fourteen of the daycare's parking spaces on Monday evenings for the next 10 years. To meet the requirements for off - street parking, parking spaces in excess of what the daycare is required would have to be within 200 feet of the sorority house and be dedicated as a perpetual parking easement. The applicant has identified the loss of the tree as a hardship. Staff has identified the following alternatives to the variance: 1. Possibly provide the parking elsewhere on the site. The applicant is proposing that all proposed parking along University Oaks Blvd. be removed. Perhaps some (if not all) spaces could be reconfigured in only a portion of the area, allowing the tree to remain. According to the city's development standard, trees to be protected from construction are barricaded by a fence placed one foot away from the trunk for every caliper inch. In this case development could occur up to 40 feet from the tree truck. 2. Reduce the size of the project so less parking would be required. Mr. Birdwell asked if the parking arrangement made with the daycare satisfies the requirements for the chapter room. Ms. Hitchcock replied not according to the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for off site parking, but to do that the parking spaces for the daycare would have to be above and beyond what the daycare is required to have, and only the sorority could use those extra - parking spaces. Then there needs to be a permanent parking easement on the deed so the sorority would always have access to the parking if the daycare should close. Mr. Birdwell asked if there was a time of day consideration when you have off -site parking to satisfy. Ms. Hitchcock replied no. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing to anyone wanting to speak in favor the request. Tom Parker, BRW Architects, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Parker stated that they are not requesting to reduce the number of spaces, they are requesting to use the spaces across the street on Monday evening meeting nights. Mr.. Parker discussed the proposed site plan. He spoke about the oak tree and stated that the women of the sorority would like to keep it. Mr. Parker added that the variance is to park on land that they do not own, not on land that they own. Chairman Hill asked if the tree remains, are they not allowed to pave within 40 feet of it. Mr. Parker replied that was correct. Mr. Richards asked Mr. Parker to explain the difference in feeling they have about the tree from the Planning & Zoning Meeting last May. Mr. Parker replied that they feel it to be a tragedy to cut down a tree that is approximately 5 foot in diameter. There was no alternative to getting the parking required for the Chapter Room that is badly needed for the size of the Chapter. Mr. Parker said he visited with the City Planner, Jane Kee and she said they could always ask for a variance to park somewhere else. Mr. Parker stated that they did not want to cut down the tree at all and that is why they had someone from the Forestry Service come and look at it. ZBA Minutes May 1, 2001 Page 2 of 8 It is not a matter of money. The bid was to pave the lot, remove the tree and the contractor is ready. The issue is can they park across the street and save the tree. Mr. Richards asked for assurance that they can park there if the daycare closes or moves. Mr. Parker stated that he could not answer that 4 W question. Carolyn Hoyle, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Ms. Hoyle told the Board that this spring they have 190 members. The membership varies from semester to semester. Mr. Richards stated that there are 85 parking spaces now on the project, if they met on Mondays where do they park. Ms. Hoyle stated they park the best they can and by car - pooling. Ms. Hoyle told the Board that the traffic would not increase. Chairman Hill stated that even with the parking required by the ordinance it still puts a strain on the facility on meeting nights. Ms. Hoyle replied that is true for all the houses on the block. Chairman Hill asked if all the houses on the block have Monday night meetings. Ms. Hoyle replied that she was not sure but they probably do. Mr. Richards stated that the request is based on a square foot needed for the meeting room. Mr. Richards asked how many people does the meeting room hold. Ms. Hoyle replied that she did not know. Mr. Parker stated that what actually determined the size of the meeting room is the number of parking spaces on the site. They needed 37 spaces for the occupants of the house and then for each additional parking space they could have 30 feet of meeting room. They ended up with a 1400 sq. ft. of meeting room based on the number parking spaces they could facilitate on the existing site. Mr. Parker stated that the room does have a sign saying the maximum room capacity is 120. Mr. Richards stated that one option was decrease the size of the meeting room. Mr. Parker stated that they couldn't do that because the slab is already poured. Mr. Parker stated that some women have classes on Monday nights and it is highly unlikely that there would a 100% attendance. Mr. Lewis asked if the chapter room would be used for other things. Mr. Parker answered the only other time the chapter room would be highly used would be during Rush. Mr. Birdwell asked if the facility has a meeting room now. Mr. Parker replied that it does not. They have meetings but they are held in the dinning room. Nancy Howard, of Bryan, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Ms. Howard stated that she has been an advisor and a House Board Member ever since the Kappa Chapter was started here at TAMU. Ms. Howard stated that the facility is used for the entire membership once a week on Monday nights for approximately 2 hours. And then again before school starts every year for a couple of weeks while they are getting ready for their recruitment parties. Ms. Howard told the Board that she did some checking with the residents to see if everyone had a vehicle. Basically there are at least 4 to 5 residents that do not have vehicles while at school. Ms. Howard told the Board that the growths of the sororities have greatly increased in the 25 years with woman enrolling at TAMU. All of the chapters run about 190 -210 members and they all need additional meeting space. Ms. Howard ended by saying that the daycare has been in business for at least 15 years. Chairman Hill asked was it in business as Stepping -Stone Daycare or a different name during those years. Ms. Howard was unsure if it started out as Stepping -Stone School but she did not remember it being anything else. Mr. Richards made the statement that a variance goes with the property and not the establishments. Any variance granted by the Board is for the property and if the property changes hands the variance is still there. ZBA Minutes May 1, 2001 Page 3 of k With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. k , Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Hitchcock what the difference was between a parking lease and easement. Ms. Hitchcock responded that a parking lease is an agreement with the current owner and a parking easement would go with the title to the property. Ms. Hitchcock stated that easements are filed at the Courthouse. Mr. Lewis asked if a parking easement was negotiated as opposed to a parking lease would ZBA have to approve it. Ms. Hitchcock answered no. Mr. Birdwell asked Mr. Cargill if there was any way to approve a conditional variance. Mr. Cargill replied the problem is variances run with the land. What the Board should do if they want to grant the variance is to grant the variance from the total. If the applicant could acquire an easement on the other piece of property then the Board does not have to grant a variance. Mr. Cargill told the Board that they are recognizing correctly that the problem with a lease is it could be gone tomorrow. Mr. Birdwell stated that there is no way to approve the variance on a contingency. Mr. Cargill stated that the problem is variances run with the property. It is a change in the land. Chairman Hill allowed Mr. Parker to approach the Board after the public hearing had been closed. Mr. Parker told the Board that the sorority has a contract to build the addition. The sorority would be willing as a condition of the parking lease, state that the lease would be terminated as a result of sale or loss of the daycare property. If that would happen they would then come back and build the parking lot required to facilitate the additional 6 space by removing the tree. Mr. Birdwell stated that Mr. Cargill said that there is no way that could be enforced. Mr. Parker stated that if the variance is granted, basically the variance is to allow them to decrease the number of spaces by 6. And then they would agree to put the spaces back in if they can no longer park somewhere else through a contract. Chairman Hill stated that he understands that there is no legal way to add a binding clause. Mr. Cargill replied that what you would be entering in is what is called contract zoning. You cannot enforce contracts via zoning, whether it is a variance or regular zone changes. Chairman Hill stated that it would be a good faith agreement but there is nothing that could be enforced if property changed hands in the future. Mr. Birdwell asked if it could be resolved with a contract for development that is approved by the City Council. Mr. Cargill replied not really. Development Agreements allow the laying of improvements to occur. Mr. Birdwell asked why wouldn't a development agreement cover this type thing. Mr. Cargill replied that he does not think the subdivision ordinance is designed to cover this type item. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Parker if the daycare has been approached about a parking easement. Mr. Parker replied they have not talked to them about it at all. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to deny a variance to the parking requirement from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to 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 this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Birdwell added that he would encourage the applicant to pursue either obtaining a parking easement from the daycare or a development agreement to be approved by the City Council. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes May 1, 2001 Page 4 of 8 Chairman Hill stated that he would hate for the large oak tree to be removed but that the tree will sooner or later die and have to be removed any way. The concerns he has in granting a variance is once the variance is granted it is there forever. The concern of a contract with the daycare, the daycare could V*w be sold and the contract at that point would not be of any use. Chairman Hill stated that granting the variance could potentially yield long term issues. Chairman Hill ended by saying he did not feel the variance is a good idea at this time. Mr. Sheffy added that the parking easement would be the best route for the applicant to take. Chairman Hill called for a vote with the motion given by Mr. Birdwell. The Board voted to deny the variance (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration of a rear setback variance for 2112 Walnut Grove, lot 8, block 18, Emerald Forest. Applicant is Rafeik & Elizabeth Abouelkheir. Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the construction of an accessory structure. The applicants wish to add an approximately 1100 -sq. ft. addition to the back of the garage to be used as living quarters for their parents. The structure will be located 10 feet from the rear property line at its closest point. Thus, the applicants are requesting a variance of 10 feet to the rear setback to allow for the addition of the living quarters. Accessory structures may not be more than 25% of the size of the principal structure. At this present time, the size of this proposed building combined with the size of the detached garage exceeds the 25% allowed. There are plans to build an office area on the house, which would increase the size of the principal structure, therefor allowing for more square footage of the accessory structure. The subject property is a five -sided lot. In this situation, property lines that are shared with abutting rear property lines are interpreted as being rear property lines themselves. The addition is proposed for the portion of the lot this is flanked by two -rear lot lines. Mr. Abouelkheir has stated that a former planning staff member had told him that the line in question would be a side property line with a reduced setback requirement. The addition is proposed for this area of the rear yard so a stand of trees to the north can be preserved. Because of the shape of the lot, building a structure in the middle of the back yard would destroy the effective usage of the yard. If the structure was to be moved to the northern portion of the back yard, existing trees would have to be removed. An architect was hired to design the structure for its current proposed location with a small setback. The following alternatives to the variance has been identified: 1. Redesign the structure to fit within the required setbacks. 2. Build the house on a different lot. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. ZBA Minutes May 21, 2001 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Abouelkheir, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman frill. Mr. Abouelkheir explained to the Board his process to date. He stated that he does understand that mistakes happen and he would appreciate some consideration that a city staff member misinformed him. Mr. Albouelkheir stated that in reference to the ordinance intent to light, the house is positioned in the east /west direction and the only light that would be blocked would be from their own home. Mr. Albouelkheir told the Board that he would be glad to place an 8 -foot fence along the property line abutting the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Albouelkheir ended by telling the Board that they have reasons other than financial. They would like to be as close as possible distance wise to his parents. Mr. Lewis asked if the garage is one or two -story. Mr. Albouelkheir replied that it is one -story building. Mr. Lewis stated that it appeared that there were stairs along the side of the garage. Mr. Albouelkheir stated that would be for the office addition. Mr. Albouelkheir stated as an alternative option for the office, instead of doing it as an accessory building, they want to try and put it to the north side of the house and have it attached. Then look at the total square footage to see if that satisfies the 25% rule. Mr. Albouelkheir told the Board that they wanted to place the office on top of the garage. Mr. Lewis stated that it appears that the garage and apartment are connected as one building. Mr. Albouelkheir stated that was correct and there would be a door from the garage to the apartment. Mr. Lewis stated what it would appear then as an 1880 sq. ft building because they are connected. So basically it is half the size of the house. Chairman Hill asked Ms. Hitchcock is the garage considered an accessory building for the purpose of calculating the 25 %. Ms. Hitchcock replied that was correct. Mr. Albouelkheir asked if the office was built on the north side of the house, with a square footage of 779, would that then allow them to build a 1000 sq. ft. apartment. Chairman Hill replied that it seemed that would get the proposed accessory building within the 25% rule but the question is beyond the scope of what the Board addresses. �. Mrs. Albouelkheir, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mrs. Albouelkheir asked when the Board talks about visually how the proposed addition would look, do they mean aesthetics or how dose it look on a blueprint. Mr. Lewis replied that if the neighbors stood in the street and looked in that direction they would see what appeared to be two buildings. Mrs. Albouelkheir told the Board that aesthetically you probably would not even see it from the street. You would see the garage and the apartment would be directly behind that. Mrs. Albouelkheir asked what determines the back property line. She said she would call the 156.76 -foot property line the back of the lot and not the side. Chairman Dill replied that it is considered a back lot line if it is the back lot line of the adjacent lot, which it is for the vacant lot behind them. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the garage is considered an accessory structure when you determine the 25% rule. If the office was built on the second story of the garage, that footage would be considered. ZBA Minutes May 1, 2001 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the lot is five sided; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in o,, unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to use plans already developed; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: other requirements i.e. 25% shall be observed. Graham Sheffy seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that the five -sided lot to him is a special condition. When the fifth side is at right angles to the rear line it seems clear to him that it is not unreasonable to grant a variance. He also noted the fifth side is the short side of the lot. Chairman Hill stated as he looks at the site plan he has some concerns about the issue. There are some factors that would go in favor of the variance and others against. Chairman Hill stated that he can understand the desire to have your parents live close by. But the idea of allowing an encroachment into the rear lot line causes him concerns. Chairman Hill added that his overall concern is exceeding the 25% rule. He understands that the applicant can address that by adding the office onto the house, but at this moment that is not present. To allow this building to go ahead according to the site plan would exceed the 25% rule. Chairman Hill stated that he is not comfortable passing a variance that will facilitate that situation and at this time the variance is not a good idea. Mr. Richards asked if the motion presented was protecting the 25% rule. Mr. Birdwell replied that was his intent. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Cargill for his opinion. Mr. Cargill said that they could do that if the motion is giving variances from the setback requirements and saying the coverage can not exceed the 25% rule. Chairman Hill asked if it is legally binding to state it that way. Mr. Cargill replied yes you can do that. The Board had continued discussions to the motion presented. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Birdwell to read the motion again. The Board vote was (4 -1). Chairman Hill voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Future Agenda Items. Mr. Richards stated that he heard about a May 18 meeting concerning ordinance changes and asked for information. Ms. Hitchcock replied that this meeting is to go over the draft of the Unified Development Code. ZBA Minutes May 1, 2001 Page 7 of 8 AGENDA ITEM, NO. 7: Adjourn. %., The meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: eborah Grace, Staff Xssistant APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ZBA Minutes May 1, 2001 Page 8 of 8