Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1992 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOIw, TEXAS City Hall Council Room June 16, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Baker, Members Gaston, Sawtelle, De Otte and Birdwell. (Alternate members Whittlesey and Davis were in the audience.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Phinney, De Loach and Mc Kean. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Kuenzel, Planning Technician Thomas and Assistant City Attorney Coates. (Council Liaison Kennady was in the audience.) • AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Swearing in of newly appointed Zoning Board of Adjustment members and alternate members. Mayor Larry Ringer swore in new Zoning Board of Adjustment Members Jim Gaston, Robert De Otte Jr., Dick Birdwell, and Chairperson Glenda Baker; as well as alternate members Randel Whittlesey, Robert Davis Jr. and Wick Mc Kean. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from the meeting of May 19, 1992 Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of May 19, 1992 as corrected. Mr. De Otte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Mr. Sawtelle moved to consider item number S next in order to give the representative of Urban Architecture time to arrive. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a parking variance request by Urban Architecture to Ordinance #1638, arkizgguirements, for the property located adjacent to the north of Sam's Wholesale on Sptate Hi 6. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report requesting a parking variance to allow for • the construction of a twenty theater cinema. The current parking requirement for a theater is one space for every four seats which calculates into 916 spaces for this particular site. The applicant is proposing one space for every four and one half seats for a variance of 100 spaces or eleven percent. The application does not address special conditions of the property that would result in hardship for the applicants in meeting the strict letter of the • ordinance. Engineering staff has indicated that there are no special floodplain or topographical restrictions that would place unreasonable restrictions on this property. This property remains unplatted. To obtain site plan approval, it must first go through the subdivision process. If the variance is not granted, additional land will have to become a part of this site to provide parking. The cinema could lessen its number of seats available from 3664 to 3264 and meet code. The Board has heard a number of parking variance requests in the past. Generally, if excess parking is available on an adjacent or abutting site, the variances have been granted. Where there was uncertainty concerning the adequacy of the proposed parking, the variances were denied. There are two methods through which the parking requirement can be lowered -- via a change in the zoning ordinance or via a variance. The theater requirement was changed in 1989 to its current one space per four seats after a study conducted by staff that showed that such a requirement would be more reasonable than one per two and one half seats. Staff would not recommend a further reduction of the current parking requirements. Therefore, the applicant must prove that the ordinance requirements are too high as they relate to this site. The Board must be convinced that hardship and special conditions exist in this instance. Five property owners within 200' of the subject property were notified with no response. Representative of the applicant Don Hartan approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He explained the proposal to build a quality theater with twenty screens, the largest in the nation. Ten screens would be dedicated to first run moves and the other ten screens would be dedicated to subsequent run movies. The timing of these movies would be staggered depending on the different marketing periods. Mr. Hartan stated that he did not fully understand the details of the proposed site with regard to the ability to purchase more land to provide the required parking. He did know that there is a large amount of floodplain in this area that may contribute to the small amount of buildable land. • If the variance is not granted, the developer would most likely build the theater with only sixteen screens and add four additional screens in the future. Mr. Birdwell questioned the applicant as to the availability of parking in the adjacent Sam's Wholesale parking lot. He would be willing to grant a variance if a parking agreement, based on the varying peak hours of the two businesses, could be reached. The site plan presented uses every inch of the site and does not provide for any run-off that will be created. Staff Planner Kuenzel explained that Sam's Wholesale only has one additional parking space in addition to the required number of parking spaces by ordinance. Mr. Birdwell moved to deny the parking variance. Mr. De Otte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). Mr. De Otte suggested that the applicant check into the possibility of adding an acre to the site in order to provide the additional parking. Mr. Gaston also suggested that the applicant look at providing fewer seats. He expressed concern of doing something for this land owner that was not done for other theater owners in town. Mr. Birdwell stated that the parking lot will be mostly empty except during the peak hours on Friday and Saturday nights. These peak hours are not in direct conflict with Sam's Wholesale operations; however, the proposed site plan is not reasonable. There is no room provided for landscaping or even a berm. • Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern of the small access road not being able to handle the increased traffic of the theaters exiting all at once. ZBA Minutes June 16, 1992 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a parking variance request by Mike Streetman • to Ordinance #1638, parking requirements, for the property located at 1704 Kyle South Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow for the expansion to the existing patio at 1704 Kyle South, previously Rita's Eaterie and Cantina. The parking required for this location is 148 spaces; the applicant is proposing 128 spaces for a variance of twenty spaces or thirteen percent. The applicant argues that the site layout makes the 10,000 square foot lease spaces unattractive to business because of the low amount of exposure to Harvey Road. Parking has therefore never been a problem in this area. The applicant's plans for improvement of the building will be restricted without the expansion. The Board has heard a number of parking variance requests in the past. Generally, if excess parking is available on an adjacent or abutting site, the variances have been granted. Where there was uncertainty concerning the adequacy of the proposed parking, the variances were denied. Ten property owners within 200' of the subject property were notified with one favorable response in the form of a letter from Taco Bell located across Harvey Road. Applicant Mike Streetman approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairperson Baker. He proposed an addition to match the existing patio that will be enclosed by railing and covered. The only access to the patio will be through the main restaurant. There appears to be adequate parking available considering the vacant lease spaces in the shopping center and the rear parking area behind Apple Tree that is immediately adjacent to this site. The occupant has dust signed a twelve year lease with a condition depending on the decision of the Board. Mr. Gaston stated that the overall plan of the restaurant is interesting; however, there is no hardship in this case that would constitute a variance. . Mr. Streetman stated that the existing patio is not adequate to serve the restaurant. The proposed improvements to the patio will enhance the restaurant as well as the entire center. Mr. De Otte stated that there is no clear hardship in this particular case; however, the request is in line with the intent of the ordinance. This center is vacant most of the time and empty strip shopping centers are not attractive. A crowded parking lot is more aesthetically pleasing than a vacant strip shopping center. In this particular location, possible tenants of the remaining lease spaces will most likely be low traffic generators because of the location. Mr. Birdwell stated that the Board should consider the peak hours of the different businesses in this shopping center. Because of the diversity in Culpepper Plaza, there is not a parking problem. It is unlikely that another restaurant will locate in this area. Mr. Birdwell moved to approve the variance request. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny the parking variance request. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which failed (2 - 3); Mr. Gaston and Mr. Sawtelle voting in favor of the motion to deny. Mr. De Otte moved to approve the variance request with conditions. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion. Before conditions of the variance were outlined, Mr. Gaston suggested that the Board look at the aesthetics of the entire site and not just the patio. Mr. Streetman stated that landscaping will exceed the requirements and the overall site will be enhanced by proposed improvements including the patio expansion. • Mr. Sawtelle stated that a variance should be granted only for a unique condition to this particular property. By granting a variance for this restaurant, the future development of the area is negatively affected. ZBA Minutes June 16, 1992 Page 3 • Mr. Birdwell stated that a variance will be granted for only a few spaces and there is additional parking provided behind Apple Tree. The ordinance intent is to keep parked vehicles off of the street; and, this is accomplished by the applicant's proposal. The motion to approve the variance request failed (3 - 2); Mr. Gaston and Mr. Sawtelle voting in opposition to the motion to approve. Mr. De Otte moved to table the item until the next available meeting. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion. The Board suggested that the applicant provide a more detailed site plan showing all proposed improvements, include information concerning the vacant lease spaces and possible reasons why they have never been occupied and obtain information on the adjacent Culpepper Plaza shopping center to see if the parking behind Apple Tree could be utilized. Mr. Birdwell requested that staff prepare a handout explaining the calculations used for determining the parking requirements for this shopping center and the percentage of the variance request. The motion to table the item passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern of planting trees directly under power lines. The Planning and Zoning Commission has expressed the same concern in the past and staff is still approving landscaping plans that allow this to happen. The recently developed Target and H.E.B. developments both have trees located directly under power lines. Mr. Gaston expressed concern of the section in the staff reports that refers to similar cases. He personally does not want to know what decisions were made in similar cases because it may effect his decision on the case in question. The Board must look at the hardship or • special conditions in the case at hand and not previous cases. City Councilman Kennady stated that decisions on previous cases may help with providing consistency for the Board and the applicant. The Board is not bound by the previous cases; however, precedence may be helpful at times. Mr. Gaston agreed that precedence is important with City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission decisions; however, the Zoning Board of Adjustment does not set precedence. The Board is looking at one specific requirement. Mr. De Otte stated that he would like to receive all of the information and discard what he does not want to consider. The Board members just have to remember that they are not bound by precedence; however, precedence may help in gaining some reasoning to consider on an additional point. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. Mr. De Otte moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APP D: hairperson, lenda Baker ATTE • a in ec m ian, ata ie omas g ZBA Minutes June 16, 1992 Page 4 ZONIl~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT i FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) 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 this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion made by Seconded by Chair Signature Voting Results ~~ v~tuvrsss.DOc • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. NAME ADDRESS t . rJuw lr~-a~,~-any.. ~-~t~( f r~~-ins. ~~ o ~o..~lo~~, '~I9 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. .,.t`l'~