Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1993 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 20, 1993 7:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Members DeOtte, Sawtelle, Rife and Alternate Members McKean and Hollas. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Birdwell and Member Gaston and Alternate Members Jones and Poston. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Assistant City Attorney Coates and Development Coordinator Volk. (Council Liaison David Hickson was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Mr. DeOtte called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Presentation of service plaques for previous Zoning Board of Adjustment Members. Mayor Larry Ringer presented a service plaque to Zoning Board of Adjustment Alternate Member John DeLoach. Glenda Baker and Chuck Phinney were not present to be recognized. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from the meeting of June 15, 1993. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 15, 1993 as written. Mr. Rife seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request by Walmart Stores Ina to the parking lot setback requirements to allow for the expansion of the existing store located at 1815 Brothers. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a parking lot setback of 5' instead of the required 8' to allow for the continuation of a previously installed curb. The existing parking area does not meet the minimum 8' setback as reflected on the approved site plan. Whether this error was intentional or not, the site has existed in its current configuration since 1988. The Board may consider the unusual expanse of right of way between the property line and the curb as a special condition. This distance is at least 100' at its closest point. At one time, there had been plans to extend the Texas Avenue frontage road from its current stubbed out location just north of the Texas Avenue access drive to the F.M. 2818 frontage in front of the Circle K site. Due to the Albertsons and Walmart development of an internal semi-circular drive, an external "ring road" will not longer be continued. The applicant argues that Walmart will not allow a smaller number of parking spaces, and that meeting the ordinance will take up parking. They also wish to tie into the existing curb, which currently encroaches at least 3'. In the case of commercial development, setback requirements serve to provide a sense of order, provide for traffic circulation and access and provide open spaces for light. Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Mr. DeOtte opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance request, he closed the public hearing. Mr. DeOtte stated that the Board should not have to consider or grant a variance request to someone who cannot attend the meeting and explain their argument. ~T_ ___ _______. Mr. Sawtelle stated that in this particular case, there are unique and special conditions of the subject property. There is an enormous amount of right-of-way along the frontage of the property that will • probably never be utilized since the "ring road" traffic has been routed through the site internally. Even if the variance request is granted, the intent of the ordinance is maintained. Mr. Rife expressed concern that once the parking configuration is changed, the internal circulation will change and possibly cause a demand for the "ring road". Mr. McKean stated that even if the "ring road" is installed, there is still an excessive amount of right- of-way to meet the ordinance intent. Mr. Sawtelle moved to authorize a variance from section 9, ordinance number 1638, 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: unusual expanse of right-of-way along State Highway 6, the external ring road which can relieve traffic and it meets the intent of the zoning ordinance of traffic circulation, access and open space; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to handle added parking requirements; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: not being a variance of more than 3' and consistent with the site plan approved by the Project Review Committee. Mr. McKean seconded the motion which passed, (4 - 1); Mr. DeOtte voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. DeOtte explained that the Board cannot receive the entire story unless the applicant or a representative is present to express their concerns. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance request by Lucille young to the rear setback requirements to allow a house to be moved onto a vacant lot at 605 Preston. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow for the relocation of a home onto the subject lot. The applicant is proposing a side setback of 4.8', a variance of 2.7', or a 12.3' side street setback, • for a variance of 2.7'. The neighboring property to the west has a home that is 0.61' from the side property line. The building department would prefer that the new building maintain the minimum 7.5' setback on this side. The subdivision is one of the oldest in College Station. Many homes in the area are old and predate current setback restrictions. Therefore, many of the buildings in this area are non- conforming. Subdivisions that have been platted in more recent years have larger corner lots to accommodate the increased setback requirement. If the subject lot were not located on a corner, but had the same dimensions, no variance would be needed. This variance would allow a home that is 30.3' x 50' or 1610 square feet. The Board may consider the size of the homes that are needed to accommodate the families. The City's Community Development department has been doing remodeling work in this neighborhood. All such programs contain special clauses that make exceptions for setback problems. This project however, does not come from that department and must go through the variance procedure. To date, the Community Development department has built five projects in the area. Thirty-one surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Mr. Sawtelle questioned if the City Council has considered the long term effects of numerous variances granted in a particular neighborhood. The property values in the area may decrease if the area becomes overly dense. Mr. McKean stated that smaller building separations work in many areas of town such as in a patio home development. A dense area is not always a negative element. Mr. DeOtte stated that as long as there is some consistency, there should not be a problem. Mr. DeOtte opened the public hearing. Applicant Lucille Young approached the Board and offered to answer questions pertaining to the • variance request. Mr. DeOtte closed the public hearing. Mr. DeOtte stated that the variance request, especially if granted to the side street setback, is minimal. ZBA Minutes .Iuly 20, 1993 Page 2 ~- Mr. Rife requested that staff provide the Board with more information pertaining to the community development program that allows the automatic granting of a variance. He expressed concern with the • fairness of allowing a variance for a property solely because the applicant qualified for the program. Mr. Sawtelle moved to authorize a variance to section 15, ordinance number 1638, to the minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: age of subdivision, size of lot and that the structure sits on a corner lot which has a greater setback requirement, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: a small size home; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: being a side street setback variance of 2.7'. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed, (S - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a variance request by Lloyd Brown to the parking, building setback and landscape island requirements to allow a portable building to be moved into the parking lot of 701 University Drive. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow for the addition of an espresso stand to the existing site. The applicant is proposing a 7' side street setback, a variance of 8' and to provide no parking on site, a variance of 1 parking space. The applicant contends that there is no alternative location on the subject site. Staff agrees that any other location would also need variances. The site does meet commercial lot size minimums as outlined in the city's development policies; however, due to the age of the lot and structure, a previous variance was granted in order to allow usage of the site. The Board must determine if it is reasonable that another structure be allowed on this site. The size of the lot does present a certain degree of hardship. If the Board had not granted the variances that were requested by Notes-N-Quotes, the site may have been rendered unusable without demolition of the building. The Board must weigh the hardship against the added impact of the proposed building. The Planning and Zoning Commission has established a list of standards to which small and portable • structure must adhere. These include the provision that such structures must not interfere with the host site's capacity to meet zoning ordinance requirements. There has been no other case where the structure has not met all of the requirements found on the list of criteria. Nine surrounding property owners were notified. One response was received in opposition to the request with a complaint of possible site distance problems. Mr. DeOtte opened the public hearing. Applicant Lloyd Brown approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. DeOtte. He informed the Board that the proposed stand will only have one employee that will park in the Mudlot. The business will target pedestrian traffic in the area. There is a one way exit only driveway nearest the proposed building, so site distance problems should not be a factor. The parking end island, where the building is to be located, will still effectively direct traffic. Mr. Brown concluded that the proposed building will enhance the overall appearance of the site. Mr. DeOtte questioned staff as to the removal of the building, changing the conditions under which the variance was granted to the point where the variance could be taken away. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that as long as a similar building such as a snow cone stand, etc. was to replace the building, they would be allowed to do so. Mr. Hollas expressed concern with the site clearance at the subject site. Just because there is a directional arrow, does not mean that traffic travelling along Nagle will go to University Drive to enter the site. The Board has granted variances to accommodate the original use of the property; however, the property is not large enough to accommodate the second use. • Mr. DeOtte stated that if the variance is granted, the Board has no assurance that the employees will park in the Mudlot. ZBA Minutes July 20, 1993 Page 3 Ann Grothews, manager of Notes-N-Quotes, approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. DeOtte. She stated that the employee parking in the Mudlot is part of their contract with Mr. Lloyd. • Mr. Sawtelle informed Ms. Grothews that the variance runs with the property. If the ownership changes, there is no assurance that the original agreements made between the two businesses will be enforced. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny a variance from sections 9 and 15, to the minimum parking and setback requirements 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. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion. Mr. DeOtte stated that he does not have a problem with the proposed espresso stand; however, he is concerned with the side being over developed. He suggested that the applicant look at alternatives such as locating somewhere else on the site where there are not as many variances involved. The original motion to deny the variance request passed unopposed, (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. Staff Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that the City Council is currently establishing user fees. During this process, the fee structure for variance requests will also be reexamined. Staff will keep the Board informed of any changes. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Sawtelle moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. McKean seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). • APPROVED: ~-~ ~~~G~~~yi,~~~ Chairman, Dick Birdwell A Planni g e ian, ata ie omas • ZBA Minutes July 20, 1993 Page 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNNIENNT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback 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 condifions: r Cam- h ///~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ c, ~ ~ /~~ s~+e e "T~z-<- ~ ~- ; ~7'~~- i and ecause a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in / ~~ unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: (~ II / / ~ I •-~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ i i ~ l~ ,1 c~ (2 _ -~ ~~r(e a~ ~. and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~(~ v~ e ~ ~. ~ ~t_. ~ Motion made by ~ << ~ j,~.,,~,-~,~ ~ P Date ~- ~ ~-~ Seconded by (/~ ~ ~ ~- _ ~~ ~ ~Pa ~ _ Voting Results `7 'ro Chair Signature O VARPI 638.DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNlEN'P • FORM~iT FOR POSITNE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) l~ minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following s~p~,ercial conditions-: ! J TC.~' mod/'` ~- ~ C~ -,~ /t-~e_~ ~D ~ GCS ~ ~ L !~! `L-~ s' q y'~,~- SST ~ ~c '^ ~ cf and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: I~_ ; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the folloowing limitations: Motion made by ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~-T -2 ~ ~ -~ Date __~ < ~ • ~ nn Seconded by T / ~ ~~ Voting Results y Chair Signature t. Y.SRP! 638.D~C ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMFNP FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.Z) 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. ` Date 7 ~2 O ~S~ Motion made by d Seconded by ~J `~ c 10 ~- ~ Voting Results S " D Chair Signature ~C!~-r ~ - YEIRN1638.DOC • Zoning Board of Adjustment t: Name 1. ~ ~ //Cars ~U 1, 3. ~((~C~ G~ ~a..Kc'n S 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. . 24. 25. Guest Register Date Address ~~~ ~ ~~ ~•~ Tx. 77&nl I~OS (' _ In~~od~nah Dr. CS .Tl' 775'