HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLBGB STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 21, 1987
7:00 P.M.
MBMBBRS PRESBNT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Thompson, Gentry,
Bvans & Gilmore
MBMBBRS ABSENT: Alternate Members Julien & Henry
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney
Banks, Director of Planning Callaway for part
of meeting and Planning Technician Volk
AaBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and
liaitations of the Board.
Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained
the functions and limitations of the Board.
AaBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of minutes - meeting of July 7,
1987.
Mr. Bvans made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (5-0).
• A(iBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AaBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to
parking requireaents (nuaber of spaces, size of spaces and
landscaped islands) as regulated by Section 9 Ordinance No. 1638,
at 700 Harvey Hoad, which is along the south side of Harvey Soad
on both the east and west sides of the extension of Stallings
Drive. Applicant is John Merritt - LZT Associates, Inc.
Mrs. Kee identified the subject land, pointing out that it will be divided into 2
tracts when Stallings Street is extended to the south from Harvey Road, a condition
imposed on the applicant at the time the land was rezoned to commercial. She
explained the purpose of the request is to allow the developer to provide fewer
parking spaces than required by ordinance, to reduce the size of some of the parking
spaces provided to accommodate only compact cars and to reduce the area of some of
the islands. She then read applicable ordinance sections.
Mrs. Kee went on to describe physical characteristics of the land including how
access to the tracts will be provided. She stated that since it would be more
advantageous to the applicant in terms of signage in the future, the project will be
viewed as 2 separate building plots, with parking requirements calculated for each
plot based on the preliminary site plans presented by the developer. She stated that
the plan includes approximately 280 parking spaces on the western tract where
• approximately 274 spaces would be required, and approximately 550 spaces on the
eastern tract where approximately 650 spaces would be required. She indicated that
perhaps percentages rather than numbers should be considered, adding that the
applicant is requesting an approximate 15 percent reduction in the number of spaces
• on the east side which would represent parking for the theater at 1 space per 3 seats
rather than 1 per 2.5 as is required.
Mrs. Kee then explained that the ordinance requires all parking spaces to be 9'x 20'
or 9'x 18' with a 2' overhang, and the applicant is proposing to provide
approximately 19 percent of the total number of spaces included to be 7.5'x 17' and
7.5'x 15' to accommodate compact cars.
Mrs. Kee went on to explain the applicant is proposing to reduce both the length and
width of some of the islands; the width never being less than 5' with the length
being at least the length of the adjacent parking space in all cases. Staff has
reviewed this proposal and has determined that such action should not inhibit the
applicant in achieving the total landscaping points required, and would not create a
traffic circulation problem because the islands will still be in the required
locations, although smaller in area.
Mrs. Ree informed the Board the City has recently amended its land use plan to
include the Wolf Pen Creek Drainage and Park Project, which will address flood
control and provide a linear park along the creek from Texas Avenue to the East
Bypass and does run through this property. The conceptual plan which has been
adopted by the City for development along this creek includes several satellite
parking areas, so there can be some pedestrian flow and bike traffic from the park
into this project.
Mrs. Kee then explained the intent of the ordinance in addressing parking
regulations, stated there has been no previous action on this property and informed
• the Board that although 100 adjacent property owners had been notified of this
request, to date she had only received one inquiry from a condo owner who expressed
no problem with the request. She stated that the Fire Marshal will address adequate
access for emergency equipment to the buildings at site plan review which may or may
not necessitate removal of parking spaces, but should that be required, the number
lost would be minimal.
Discussion followed concerning the location of the extension of Stallings, parking
spaces to accommodate only compact cars, other cities which allow smaller spaces by
ordinance and who will be responsible for extending Stallings street.
John Merritt, LZT Associates, Inc. came forward and was sworn in. He identified
himself as the architect for the owner, and explained exactly what the developer is
planning to build on these two tracts. He pointed out that the land is encumbered in
2 ways: The installation of Stallings which divides the tract and Wolf Pen Creek
which runs along the property, the development of which as proposed by the City will
require some amount of property to be used for the park as well as to cause the
entire project to be oriented toward the creek. He cited these encumberances as
special conditions which constitute hardships to the developer.
Mr. Merritt went on to explain that compact parking areas are being proposed to
enable development of parking space numbers to get more in line with the City's
ordinance requirements, as well as to accommodate a certain percentage of smaller
vehicles. He stated that some cities address compact parking spaces in ordinances
which require a certain percentage of the total number of spaces to be built
specifically for those smaller vehicles, adding that in Austin the requirement has
• recently been changed so at least 25~ of the total number of spaces will be smaller.
He went on to describe how the areas for compact vehicles will be identified since
they will be separate from areas to accommodate larger vehicles.
ZBA Minutes 7-21-87 Page 2
• Discussion followed concerning how enforcement will be handled, the location of
certain areas away from the nearest entrances, how much land will be dedicated to the
development of the park proposed by the City, cooperation between the private
developer and the City, maintenance of the area along the creek, and how the
conceptual site plan might be changed to reflect all 9'x 20' parking spaces and the
probable number of parking spaces which would be lost as a result.
Director of Planning Callaway was sworn in and stated it is undetermined as yet who
will maintain the area adjacent to the creek, and exactly what that area is called
will affect the outcome. He went on to explain that the City is only in the initial
stages of developing some kind of plan, and it is impossible to establish a time
frame for the project at this time.
Additional discussion followed between the Board and Mr. Merritt regarding timing of
the proposed development, possible tenants, and again touched on the subject of how
many parking spaces would be lost if all were of a size to meet ordinance
requirements.
Location of the flood plain was discussed with Mr. Merritt explaining that the
topography will require some fill, and an effort will be made at that time to save as
many large, hardwood trees as is possible.
~ Jim Jett, 206 Bmberglow, College Station came forward, was sworn in and spoke of the
owner and potential developer, Robbie Mayfield, and described other projects he has
developed in other cities. He explained that he owns the land on the other side of
the creek from this land, and will also lose approximately 50 feet from his tract and
• explained several possible ways the park can be developed, financed and maintained,
adding that nothing has been finalized to date.
He then explained that the extension of Stallings is committed on this tract, and
will extend through his tract when construction begins, adding that there will be
some benefits to this extension, and some hardships which will include the cost of
the street and required bridge he and Mayfield will incur, with only possible minimal
rebate through flood control.
Mr. Jett then stated that he and Mr. Mayfield have received outstanding cooperation
from the City staff.
Throughout the discussion of the size of parking spaces, Mr. Gilmore stated that he
was opposed to having any smaller spaces, explaining that in his opinion, the smaller
vehicles would use the larger spaces because they are closer to the entrances of
various facilities, and then the people with larger vehicles would not have room to
park because the areas set aside for compact cars have not only smaller spaces, but
smaller areas in which to maneuver the vehicles.
Mr. Merritt then explained that although part of his request is to reduce the size of
the islands, the total square footage of landscaped islands will be more than
required by ordinance since ordinance requires approximately 17,280 sf of landscaped
islands for the conceptual site plan and his plan includes in excess of 19,500 sf of
landscaped islands.
He then stated that he believes granting this variance will not be contrary to the
• public interest since most cars today are smaller than in years past and reducing the
size will allow accommodation for more vehicles, the reduction in the size of the
landscaped islands will not reduce the total square footage of landscaping since
ZBA Minutes ?-21-87 Page 3
landscaped islands will be used to help control traffic flow in the lot. He offered
to answer any questions.
Mr. Evans then made a motion "to authorize a variance to the parking requirements
(Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public
interest, due to the following special conditions: The applicant has agreed to work
with the City to allow an extension of Stallings Drive and to design the project
respecting the City's desire to relate to the Wolf Pen Creek Park, and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary
hardship to this applicant being reduced parking in the street extension, the
required frontage along the street and the landscaped area of the Wolf Pen Creek
Park, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done subject to the following limitations: The reduced number of parking
spaces, the compact spaces and the reduced areas of the islands as provided by the
application." Motion was seconded by Mr. Gentry.
Mr. Thompson asked if that covers everything requested in the application and Mr.
Evans replied that it does. Mr. Gilmore stated that he would still prefer that the
compact spaces be made into regular sized spaces. Additional discussion followed
concerning what would happen with fewer but larger spaces, with most members agreeing
they are glad to see a developer so willing to cooperate on a special project with
the City, and they really had no problem with either size parking spaces.
Mr. Gilmore made a motion to amend the motion to eliminate the compact parking and to
require that all spaces be 9'x 20'. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion to amend.
The applicant was invited forward to address the amendment and Mr. Merritt stated
• that there will be a certain percentage of people who do not park in spaces
designated specifically for their size vehicles, but even if a certain percentage
~~ does, the City will benefit from having more spaces available; in other words,
numbers are more important than size. He finalized by stating that if all large
spaces are required, he will have to redesign the plan to try to accommodate as many
spaces as possible since larger spaces will not fit into the type of traffic pattern
designed.
Mr. Evans stated he would have to vote against the amendment because he believes the
plan as proposed is better than it would be if it were changed to accommodate larger
spaces, and he also agrees that the City will be benefitted by more available spaces.
Discussion followed regarding the number and percentages of shortages as well as how
many seats per space are being allowed for the theater. Mr. Thompson stated that he
liked the original motion and the addition of the amendment would leave the Board
guessing as to what would happen in the final plan, and that bothers him.
Mr. Gentry said that he is impressed with the conceptual plan presented in the
proposal and is in favor of the ideal of encouraging that type of space utilization.
Additionally, he said he would rather the developer continue with his plan as
proposed and believes there will be more than adequate parking with the design of the
lot and the incentive of separate, shaded spaces in the compact lots, therefore he is
in opposition to the amendment.
Votes were cast on the amendment and the motion to amend the original motion failed
by a vote of 1-4 (Gilmore in favor}. Votes were then cast on the original motion and
• it carried unanimously (5-0).
Chairman Ruesink declared a brief recess to the meeting, afterwhich he again called
ZBA Minutes 7-21-87 Page 4
the meeting to order and continued with Agenda Item #5.
• AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for interpretation
of Section 12.3.Q. FUBL PRICB SIGN regarding allopable area and
location. Request is subaitted by the Zoning Official of the
City of College Station.
Mrs. Kee referred to her memo which was included in the packet which outlined a brief
history of events which led up to the inclusion of the fuel price sign regulations
included in the current zoning ordinance.
She stated that for the past 6 years since she has been Zoning Official she has '
interpreted that part of the ordinance to mean that each filling station in the City
has the option of having a separate freestanding fuel price sign which does not
exceed 16 square feet in area (or 15 feet in area under the previous ordinance), but
at a recent meeting the question came up as to why more than 16 square feet cannot be
included in the maximum allowable area of the allowed freestanding sign instead of
being a separate, additional freestanding sign.
Mrs. Kee explained that she has no problem changing the way she interprets this
section of the ordinance, but that she would be uncomfortable simply making the
change of interpretation on her own without receiving direction from the Board.
Discussion followed concerning whether or not one large sign with a small company
name and a large fuel price sign would be acceptable, with Mr. Bvans stating that he
has a real problem with that since the fuel price sign is constantly changing and the
fuel price part of the sign would soon deteriorate, and proper maintenance would be
• questionable due to the cost involved.
Mr. Gentry stated that if a station has no company affiliation it could have only a
price sign since the City does not regulate sign content. In other words he believes
a station could have an allowable area with anything on it plus a separate fuel price
sign, and in actuality, could have 2 fuel price signs - one freestanding sign for
anything plus a 16 sf fuel price sign.
Mr. Bvans disagreed and read from the ordinance, then interpreted the Fuel Price
Sign section to mean that a station could have only 1 fuel price sign which is no
larger than 16 square feet to advertise the current price. He went on to say that he
believes the reason for only allowing the one smaller sign is to accommodate the
quick price changes on a sign which is easier and less expensive to maintain.
Mr. Gentry disagreed explaining that he thinks that the ordinance means there can be
one sign on the site to advertise the price in addition to the freestanding sign
which all commercial sites are allowed, thus giving filling stations something extra.
He went on to state that what the Bxxon station proposed, that is to include the fuel
price sign in the allowed freestanding sign would be acceptable, and that actually he
thinks it would be acceptable to have the large freestanding sign include a price
sign, and then to have the additional smaller 16 square foot fuel price sign.
Mr. Bvans and Mr. Gilmore both disagreed, adding they both think the interpretation
given to this section by Mrs. Kee for the past 6 years is the correct interpretation.
Mr. Gentry said that although he disagrees, he will be able to accept an
interpretation to the effect that only one fuel price sign will be allowed per site,
• and if that sign is separate, it will be limited to 16 square feet in area.
Mr. Ruesink said that he believes the intent of the ordinance is to preclude
ZBA Minutes 7-21-87 Page 5
cluttering sites with large, portable or numerous signs, and additionally, that the
• allowed fuel price sign is to be 16 square feet or less in area. He went on to say
that if the fuel price sign is incorporated into the larger allowed freestanding
sign, then the area must be limited to 16 square feet or less.
Mr. Evans and Mr. Gilmore agreed, and restated that they believe Mrs. Kee has had the
correct interpretation all along, and they would prefer continuing with that
interpretation.
Mrs. Kee said that if the Board believes her interpretation, or the ordinance itself
to be too restrictive, the Board can direct staff to re-write that part of the
ordinance. Mr. Ruesink asked if the intent should be changed, or if the section
simply re-written for clarification. Mr. Evans said he prefers keeping the
interpretation the same as it has been. Mr. Gentry said that the section could be
re-written for clarification, but with the intent of keeping the same interpretation
Mrs. Kee has used for the past 6 years, and then offered to prepare a re-write of
that section and directed staff to include the item on the agenda again at the next
meeting. All Board members agreed staff should act according to Mr. Gentry's last
direction.
AQBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Other business.
Assistant City Attorney Banks referred to a copy of the case provided to each member
which covers the recent taking of land in a flood plain, and asked the Board to
direct any questions to the Legal Department after reading through the case.
Mrs. Kee referred to another memo from the Legal Department which refers to the
• recent questions the Board had about whether or not there is some way available to
the City to allow the Baylisses to build a carport at their duplex for their tenant
who has health problems. Mr. Ruesink sta~ed that after reading the information
provided, there seems to be no action the C~ can take to allow that carport.
Mrs. Kee then stated there will be a meeting on August 4th to consider 3 requests
plus the Fuel Price Sign statement Mr. Gentry will present.
There was no other business mentioned.
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Ad3ourn.
Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Evans seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
Chairman, David Ruesink
ATTEST:
Cl~ -----------------
• City S re ary, Dian Jones
a v
# c ~ 1' ~ ~ C~Aq/laEd Ta Sa,4rrb
ZBA Minutes 7-21-87 Page 6
~~iC~iE'/ 7'~
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (Sect ion 8.7)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
_minimum setback (Table A)
__~~___parking requirements
(Section 9)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
public interest, due to/ the following special conditions:
t~v~ VC~L- c
•
Gc
~1 7Gt G-
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
~ /~
_re!' ~C.~{ _ _ f~ ~~.c _ I n_ ~~__S~t?-~ee`7 -~-~c?~H..S%e.-~ -.~-~ 7`" _~? -~ (JI,/..~,_I
~ - t j --- ~---- -
~ `~ ~~
and su"bh th~ the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done 'fib ~ect o the1followin~jlimitations•
~ ~ d~ ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ -f~~. ~
Motion made by __ ~~_S___~____ Date 70?/~!!~
7
Seconded b ________ Voting Results ~~`
y -- -- ----------- ----- ----
Chair signature ___~d.~P_ ~ __ _____________________
~rl r~c~ ~~e•v~.~v-~
ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GUEST REGISTER
DATE July 21, 1987
NAME ADDRESS
1 • `,1 I~1t0 C...~-~T`~l1r~D s . ' y,~k.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
• 11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
• 24.
,
25-
i