Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/1995 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS February 7, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Birdwell, Members Sawtelle, Poston, Hollas and Rife. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Alexander, Ochoa and Blackwelder. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Planning Technician Thomas, 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. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of January 17, 1995. Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of January 17, 1995 as written. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of an interpretation appeal of the Zoning Official's decision regarding development area for a proposed driving range to be located on the southeast corner of F.M. 2818 and F.M. 2154, approximately 11.9 acres in the Crawford Burnett League. Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and stated that the applicant in this case disagrees with stars interpretation that the area of a golf driving range where the public may be found constitutes "development". The designation is important to the City and to the developer because landscaping requirements are based on the square footage of the development and because streetscape requirements are based on the linear feet of frontage of the development. The more "development" exists, the more landscape and streetscape requirements are imposed. The driving range will consist of a chipping area, tee-off area, putting green, concession/cashier building, parking lot and "the green". Staff considers all of the areas except "the green" to be part of the "developed area" and thus subject to landscaping calculations. These areas add up to approximately 2.8 acres, or 23% of the total site. The reasoning is based on the following definitions that are used as standards in the zoning field: Development -The division of a parcel of land into two or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure, any mining, excavation, landitll, or land disturbance, and any use or extension of the land. Use -The purpose or activity for which land or buildings are arranged, or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that the golfing activities will be concentrated along the western • front of the property adjacent to F.M. 2818. Staffs interpretation is that according to the standardized definitions of "development" and "use", the entire 11.9 acres could be considered "development" and therefore require that the entire tract be landscaped. However, it seems that little activity will occur on "the green" and we would therefore support the request to not landscape this area, which is roughly 76% of the site. The applicant would like to be allowed to consider only the parking area as "developed", thus being required to landscape only 0.9 acres of the total 11.9 acre driving range. He would therefore be landscaping only about 7.5% of the site and leave the rest grassed. The applicant argues that most other developments are more costly, and that the percentage of cost devoted to landscaping is thus relatively low. He also argues that there will be substantially more grass on his site than on other commercial developments. While these arguments are valid, staff has concerns regarding equitable application of the ordinance. Any other development that occurs is required to meet all points, regardless of the type. No variance procedure is available for landscaping or streetscaping, thus a very small minority of the population could seek relief from landscaping requirements. In the interest of equability and in service to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, staff recommended that all areas other than "the green" be considered "development" and thus be subject to landscaping requirements. Chairman Birdwell expressed concern that the interpretation of development and application of the landscape ordinance has not been consistent. Sites such as the junior high school, the driving range on the Bypass and the mudlot in Northgate are a few examples. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that she did not know of any special circumstances with the Junior High School; however, the Mudlot was exempt because of a legal non-conforming status and a special contract with the City. Staff can check into those particular cases and report back to the Board. • Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Donny Glanton of 4504 Kensington in Bryan approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that the subject property was chosen primarily because there were no trees on the property that would have to be removed for the driving range. Not only are the streetscape requirements costly; but, additional trees are not desired on the site because the grass required for the tee boxes and green areas requires a definite amount of sunlight. Trees planted near these areas would kill the proposed Bermuda grass. Mr. Glanton stated that he plans to install the necessary landscape around the parking lot and building as required; however, the tee boxes and greens are merely berms and grass and not true development. If the property is developed as a driving range, the City will benefit from a five year roll back tax which is approximately $21,000 including the additional tax revenues each year. Mr. Glanton explained that the additional streetscape requirements would total approximately $20,000 which is 20% of the total development cost. The driving range is a temporary use for the property and the lease agreement is for ten years. Because of the location of the property, there will be more intense, higher demands in the future and at that time, the streetscape requirements can be addressed. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Rife explained that the Board cannot grant a variance to the landscape requirements. All that the Board can consider is if staff interpreted the definitions of "development" and "use" correctly. Staff has already given the applicant relief from approximately 75% of the project. Ms. Poston moved to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 15.5 of the ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of • this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Chairman Birdwell voted in opposition to the motion. ZBA Minutes February 7, 1995 Page 2 of 3 AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Other business. i There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn. Mr. Rife moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Boazd of Adjustment. Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). APPRO Chauman, is i well TTE ri ~ P g Tec clan, at ie omas • • ZBA Minutes February 7, 1995 Page 3 of 3 ZONII~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS APPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S IIV'I~iPRETATION -From Section 15.6, Ordinance Number 1638 I move to uphold the dec~.sion or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section a of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this or ' ance and substantial justice was done. Motion made by ~ Date ~ <~ Seconded by ~ ( ~ Voting Results ~-f ~~r Chair Signature Wf~i RULII1iG NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR IIvTERPRETATION MADE BY THE ZONII~iG OFFICIAL, USE THE FOLL09PII~TG FORM: I move to interpret Section of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: • Motion made by Date Seconded by Voting Results Chair Signature .4PlNTERP.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register ~J • Date ` __ _l ~ ~~ Name Address 1. _ / -,~~ 2. ~~ r G . ,Gl~~,~o~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.