Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/1994 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments~~ MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 1, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Birdwell, Members Gaston, Sawtelle, DeOtte and Rife. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members McKean, Hollas and Poston. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Planning Technician Thomas, Staff Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Birdwell called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AC3ENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of December 21, 1993. Mr. Gaston moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 21, 1993 as written. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AC3ENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to the parking island and number of off- stc+eet parking spaces required for the Post Oalc Square Shopping Center located at 1200 Harvey Road. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report to allow the expansion of the Post Oak Square shopping center without providing additional parking. The parking required with the proposed expansion is 714 spaces and the applicant is only proposing 694 spaces for a total variance of 2.8%. The Zoning Ordinance requires a landscaped raised island at the end of every parking row which must be fully planted and be at least 180 square feet. The applicant is requesting to not install the raised islands in the proposed additional parking in the rear of T.J. Maxx. For purposes of the island variance request, the Board may wish to consider the fact that the rear parking area is intended for employee and truck parking. The applicant would like to leave this area as free of obstructions as possible. For the parking variance, the applicant argues that the site was originally intended to provide green space over and above landscaping as required by ordinance. He does not wish to convert any of the planted areas to parking. On the west side of the site, there is an open drainage ditch that could present problems in the location of the twenty spaces. As a hardship, the Board may wish to consider the future repairs that may be needed for the raised parking islands and the Board could weigh the need for the twenty spaces against aesthetic concerns. The applicant has submitted a plan that shows that it is possible to locate the twenty spaces along the western side of the property. Although there are erosion and drainage problems that would have to be worked out, there appears to be enough room to put all twenty spaces along the drainage ditch. The applicant could also render 4000 square feet of retail space useless to meet the parking requirement. The Board has heard requests for island variances in the past; however, none of these have been granted due to lack of special conditions. In one case, the board opted to grant a variance to the number of parking spaces required instead of the requested island variance. Nine surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant and owner of the Post Oak Square shopping center, Andrew Bernstein approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He explained that there are two main issues in the multiple variance requests. First, the ordinance requires raised parking islands to be placed in the rear loading area of the center. If parking islands are installed in the rear parking area, the delivery trucks of T.J. Maxx, Toys R Us and Hobby Lobby will continually run over the islands and create a safety problem. Since the rear parking area will be used primarily for a small amount employee parking, the raised islands are not necessary. • Secondly, Mr. Bernstein stated that if additional parking for the center was needed, he would install the necessary spaces; however, the subject shopping center is known as a "power" center in that large square footages are dedicated to single users. With larger anchor stores, there are fewer employees per square foot than smaller, specialty tenants. With the fewer number of employees, there are typically fewer employee parking spaces required. Mr. Bernstein concluded that since additional parking is not needed for the center and there has never been a parking problem in the center, the additional parking along the fire lane of a rear alley should not be installed only to meet a legal requirement. Engineering Representative Larry Wells of the Municipal Development Group approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He explained that Mr. Bernstein purchased the shopping center and completely rebuilt the area to make a more viable shopping district. With the purchase of the center, Mr. Bernstein also inherited a parking agreement with the owners of the Pier One site to allow eleven parking spaces to be on the shopping center property for the Pier One patrons. Mr. Gaston expressed concern of the location of the fire hydrant shown behind the T.J. Maxx expansion. It appears if a raised island is not installed, the hydrant will be located near the loading area and could possibly be run over by delivery trucks. Mr. Wells stated that there is a very limited location area to provide adequate fire coverage to the center and the location shown on the site plan was approved by the Project Review Committee. The fire hydrant will be surrounded by ballards and is on the driver's side of the delivery trucks. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. DeOtte stated that it does appear that delivery trucks will destroy the raised parking islands if located in the rear parking area which could cause a potential hazard. He moved to authorize a variance from section 9, ordinance number 1638 to the parking requirements (raised parking islands) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the intent of the ordinance will not be violated since the parking area is behind the shopping center and it appears that the structural islands would serve no purpose; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: potential safety hazards and unsightliness if curbs are damaged by heavy trucks; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the islands shall be painted and the fire hydrant protected by ballards. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion. Mr. Rife explained that he is still reluctant to grant the variance due to the lack of special and unique conditions. Chairman Birdwell explained that the parking island variance request is only for the islands to be located in the rear of the shopping center in the employee parking lot. The ordinance does not take the location of the parking island into account but the Board can consider that as part of the variance request. Mr. Sawtelle stated that the ordinance is intended to handle general situations; however, with the subject property, there is an unusual small, defined parking area which is not common to most shopping centers. Mr. DeOtte stated that the variance is to only permit the omission of the two raised parking islands in the rear, in the southeast corner of the property, adjacent to the fire hydrant and the twenty parking spaces. Mr. Gaston expressed concern of the fire hydrant location and suggested that the issue be referred back to the fire department to verify that the proposed location is acceptable and that they are aware that a raised parking island will not be installed in that location. The motion to grant the variance request to the parking island requirements passed unopposed (5 - 0). • Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny the variance request from section 9, ordinance number 1638 to the parking requirements (number of parking spaces) 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. Gaston seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes February 1, 1994 Page 2 Mr. DeOtte stated that the variance request is small considering the total amount of parking available and the ordinance does not take into account the concept of a "power" shopping center and the fewer employees required for the larger anchor stores. Mr. Gaston stated that if the "power" center is a viable issue, then the ordinance should be changed to accommodate these centers; however, at this time, the ordinance does not recognize the allowance of fewer parking spaces for larger stores. Mr. Rife informed the Board that he has been to the center several times and has never seen the parking lot more than 10% utilized. He stated that it seems unreasonable to penalize the applicant for making minor changes to the center for such a small percentage of parking that is not currently needed. The parking spaces along the drainage ditch are difficult to access and would never be used. Mr. Gaston stated that he agreed with some of the issues presented; however, the ordinance clearly states that a specific requirement be met unless there are special conditions about this site that makes it different than other centers. The motion to deny the variance request to the actual number of parking spaces passed (3 - 1 - 1); Mr. Rife voted in opposition to the motion and Mr. DeOtte abstained. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request to the required parking row end island requirements at Sweet Eugene's House of Java kxated at 1702 Kyle South suite 100 to allow for the addition of outdoor seating. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing to place a wooden deck on top of the existing parking island and place table and chairs on top of this area and use the adjacent parking space for the same purpose. The applicant must show that there are special conditions inherent in the property that result in hardship in meeting the ordinance. The Board may choose to consider visibility • problems or the fact that no other lease spaces other than this corner one tend to be occupied. Due to the fact that this site has been developed to its maximum capacity, there is no room for expansion. The ordinance intent is two fold. First, they act as traffic control devices and secondly, they provide space for the adequate dispersal of required landscaping. Nine surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Aaron Brown of 1204 Westover in College Station approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He explained that the entire addition will be surrounded by curbing for safety purposes and a portion of the deck will be covered with a mesh fabric. The proposed deck area will add character to the coffee house and provide a smoking area for patrons because smoking is not allowed in the actual building. Mr. Brown stated that the coffee house is aself-service facility and there are no waiters that will service the patrons on the deck. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle stated that the proposed addition meets the overall intent of the ordinance and the deck would only enlarge the existing island. Since the addition will be surrounded by curbing, it will serve the purpose of traffic control. Mr. Sawtelle moved to overrule the City's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and allow the applicant to do what he has proposed to do without the need for a variance. Mr. DeOtte seconded the motion. Mr. Gaston questioned staff if a deck is included in the landscaping requirements and if the ordinance excludes seating in a parking island. • Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the proposed addition does not meet the strict definition of the ordinance and no landscaping points are allowed for a deck. In looking at what is considered an end island, the ' ordinance addresses decorative pavers and landscaping but does not include a deck or seating area. Once public seating is installed, the function of the island changes. ZBA Minutes February 1, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Gaston moved to amend the motion to allow the expansion without a variance with the condition that customer or waiter services are not provided to the outdoor area and curbing must be placed around the • perimeter of the addition. Mr. DeOtte seconded the amendment which passed unopposed (5 - 0). The original motion as amended passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance request to the sign area restrictions of the Village Shopping Center iocsted at 700 University Drive to allow for additional signage along University Drive. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the City views the shopping center and Blockbuster Video as a single building plot, where access, parking and signage is shared. Only one freestanding sign is permitted for these two lots. The applicant believes that the Golden Corral and Blockbuster Video hide the shopping center. The original plat of the area showed a smaller corner tract where the restaurant is now, and more frontage on University Drive for the remaining center. The replat in 1983 split the University Drive frontage in half between two parcels, and left an access easement to the center behind these two lots. The applicant claims that a hardship in this case is that tenants of the center have complained that they have no visibility from University Drive and the center has had a low success rate. At the meeting of the Board that took place August 17, 1993, there was discussion regarding placement of an additional sign along Tarrow as an alternative to the variance request. Staff has suggested additional attached signage on the shopping center buildings. The applicant does not feel that this would meet his needs. In August of 1993, the Board expressed concern regarding its inability to assure that any additional sign area granted would be devoted to the use of the shopping center. In other words, if the Board had granted the additional signage, Blockbuster could have used the area for its own use. Since that time, the applicant has signed an agreement with the Blockbuster property owner and with the tenants to assure the applicant's sole usage of any additional sign area that the Board may grant. Thirty surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Mr. Gaston explained that the reason he voted for the motion to table the variance request in August was to see if there was a visibility problem because of the City's water tank located at this intersection. • Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant James Griffin of 2510 Fitch Drive in College Station approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He offered to answer questions pertaining to the variance request. Mr. Gaston stated that he found it difficult to establish a special condition in this case that does not apply to other properties in College Station. He added that when Mr. Griffin purchased the property, the Golden Corral, Blockbuster Video and the water tank were all in place. Mr. Griffin was aware of the visibility problem when he purchased the property. Mr. Griffin stated that when the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) sold the property, it retained a signage easement to give the shopping center more visibility along University Drive. The language in the easement is unclear and allowed Blockbuster Video to use 89 square feet of the allowable 125 square feet, leaving only 36 square feet for the remaining tenants. Mr. Griffin stated that visibility is a problem with the shopping center including the development along University Drive and the slope of the property. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Chairman Birdwell reminded the Board that there is a motion on the table made by Mr. Rife and seconded by Mr. Sawtelle to authorize a variance from Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638 to the sign regulations, from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: that the subject property is in a depression and has low visibility from University Drive in conjunction with the presence of a water tank which block visibility to the east bound traffic on University Drive; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: that the property cannot be developed and utilized to its fullest potential; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: the variance being limited to the existing height, but the area being increased by 65 square feet and that at least 1' of landscaping surround the base of the sign. ZBA Minutes February 1, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Gaston stated that he is having trouble justifying the variance. He stated that he has driven by this site several times and has been able to see the shopping center from University Drive. Mr. Gaston also expressed concern with meeting the intent of the ordinance and the plan for this entire corridor. There is an Overlay District in place along University Drive and a variance to the sign requirements would violate the spirit of that plan. Mr. Gaston suggested that the applicant direct traffic from University Drive to Tarrow where there is higher visibility. Mr. DeOtte stated that with the current street layout and traffic plan, it would not be a reasonable expectation to expect the applicant to redirect traffic along Tarrow. Chairman Birdwell stated that the City has been doing everything they can to get businesses to come into town, locate in established buildings and share signage; however, in this case, the other tenants of the shopping center need identification. The motion to grant the variance request passed (4 - 1); Mr. Gaston voted in opposition to the motion. AC}ENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business. Mr. Gaston asked staff to look into several possible violations of the sign ordinance. The oil and lube business along Harvey Road that recently was denied a sign variance request has oil flags that do not comply with the ordinance. Also, the Fuddrucker's shopping center that was granted a sign variance has a real estate sign located in the median that violates the conditions under which the variance was granted. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn Mr. DeOtte moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). A Pla ning Technician, Natalie Thomas APPROVED: Chairman, Dick Birdwell ZBA Minutes February 1, 1994 Page 6 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Special Exceptions -From Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638 p CGsT1 ~'~ 15 Y-~" e~~s~blC I move to deny the: S ~ ~ c e ~' ~- ~ 4 -F~ ~ g 5 ~~c c~ ( ~xceP¢~ ~ n . a. substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is not less detrimental to the emiironment than the first. b. enlargement of a building devoted to a non- conforming use where such enlargement is not necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does increase the area of the building devoted to anon-conforming use more than 25% and does prolong the life of the non-conforming use and prevents a return of such property to a conforming use. c. reconstruction of anon-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is more than 60% of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would prevent the return of such property to a conforming use and increase the non-conformity. ~. l I. 1 Motion made by `7 2 1 J-- Motion Seconded by '" Voting Results ~ J O Chair Signature Date SPCN1638.DOC :7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register Dat Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.