Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/29/2000 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 29, 2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bond, Lewis, Shelly, Richards & Alternate Members Coreey & Goss. MEMBERS ABSENT: Hill, Dr. Toni Hynds & Dick Birdwell. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Laauwe, City Attorney Cargill, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock, Building Official Simms. (Assistant City Manager Brown was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Bond called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. • AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider any absence request forms. Leslie Hill turned in a request to be absence from the meeting due to being out of the state for work related business. Mr, Lewis made the motion to approve the absence. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: .Approval of minutes from June 6, 2000 meeting of the Board. Mr. Richards made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Corley seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Approval of minutes from July 18, 2000 meeting of the Board. Mr. Shetyy made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Mr. Bond discussed the vote to deny on Agenda Item No. 4 (page 5 of 9). Mr. Bond called for the vote to approve the minutes as written. The vote failed (5-0). Mr. Lewis made the motion to amend the motion to read: Chairman Bond called for a vote, which resulted in the motion to decry passing. The vote was 3-I-1 with Mr. Hill, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Sheffy voting for the motion to decry and Chairman Bond abstaining. The request for the variance by the applicant was therefore officially denied. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion ~ amend, which passed (5-0). • AGEI~IDA ITEM NO. S: Approval of minutes from the Aagast 1, 2000 meeting of the Board. Mr. Corley made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Shelly seconded the motion, which • passed unopposed (5-0). The appticant for agenda items 6 & 7 asked to have the items switched to hear 214 Stuttgart,firs~ AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration of a side setback variance at 2i4 Stuttgart. Lot 8, block 23, Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W. R. Tubbs. Ms. Laauwe stepped before the Board and stated that this case was originally heard and denied a variance on July 18, 2000. The Board recommended denial based on a finding of no special conditions or hardships. On August l`` of this year, at the applicant's request, the Board granted a rehearing in order to reconsider the original side setback variance. The applicant has not provided Staff with any additional information regarding this item. Ms. Laauwe ended her report by showing the Board pictures the property. Mr. Richards asked if there are any fire codes problems due to the setback error. Ms. Laauwe replied that she believes that there are no problems with this property with fire codes. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. W.R. Tubbs, the applicarn, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Tubbs • approached the Board and handed them items of supporting material. Mr. Tubbs showed and spoke about the building permit. Under the special notes and commems on the building permit, the contractor was requested to place the string lines for the building setback lines. When the inspectors make that inspection, if the string lines are at the wrong pin, it would not be detected at that time. Mr. Tubbs showed the Board copies of the slab inspection where the result showed approved with no comments. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he has spoken to several Title Companies and they have talked to Underwriters across the state trying. to find one to give a title policy to this property so a loan institution would accept it. Mr. Tubbs stated that all efforts have been exhausted. Mr. Tubbs ended by telling the Board that he made a mistake and he has taken steps to rectify these mistakes in the future. Mr. Corley asked if the string that was pulled incorrectly was for the property line and if so was that where things went wrong. Mr. 'hrbbs replied that was correct. Mr. Corley asked if the house is out of square. Mr. Tubbs replied the house is not out of square. The wrong pin was found Mr. Tubbs ended by saying that a survey would have kept that from happening. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Tubbs if there is any hardship that is imposed on him other than solely financial that he would consider an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Tubbs replied that there is a family that warns to move into the home. No financing can be obtained without the variance being approved. Mr. Tubbs stated that he believes that is a hardship. Chairman Bond stated that is along the line of financial and could he site arty other hardship. Mr. Tubbs answered that the green tag that was given approving the slab is a hardship. He would have rather caught the mistakes at that stage and corrected the problem. Mr. Tubbs ended by saying that ~ is hardship that he was allowed to continue the process of construction not knowing that it was in errot. ZBA Minates Augxs~ 29, 2000 Page 2 of 11 Joshua Been, Legal Council for University Title Company, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Bann told the Board that he was asked to come and give a brief explanation of the situation as it relates to title insurance. Without the variance the underwriters for the Title Company is not going to give title insurance on this property. Basically the home can not be sold except for cash. Mr. Berm explained that when a title commitment is issued on a piece of property, there are certain things not accepted from the insurance. In this cam specifically that would be the encroachment. At some point a title company will consider granting "express insurance" which say's they will go a head and expressly ins~ue against this issue. This property being new construction as far as a title company is concerned would not have express coverage available to it. That is something that is granted in situations where 20 years down the line there has been a building that encroaches and no one has said anything about it. It has been waived over the years. Mr. Bean ended by telling the: Board that on this property a title company will not issue express coverage and the end result the home can not be sold. At least for anything other than cash. Clay Lee, realtor for the home, stepped before the board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Lee stated that the major hardship. is on the homeowners. They are in the process of buying the house with a 1% down program through their lender. Mr. Lee told the Board that a financial cost is a hardship to a first tune homebuyer when they put half their money into a survey and an appraisal. A second hardship is the homeowner's son just started a new school. The third hardship is for the neighborhood itself. If the home is not given the variance it will be looked at as being unsafe or unattractive in some way. Mr. Lee told the Board that if the home were sold for cash most likely it would become rental property. Mr. Lee ended by telling the Board that rental property decreases property value. Chairman Bond told Mr. Lee that the job of the Board requires that they follow strict guidelines in determining whether there could be a variance from the ordinance. Chairman Bond asked Mr, Lee what • is his basis on which to believe that this property will become rental property. Mr. Lee responded the maximum FHA loan amount in this town is 123,025.00 which is the medium price range far the homes on the street now. Most of the homes on this street have sold FHA. Mr. Lee told the Board that his speculation that the home will become a rental property is because no one is going to pay cash for that amount. It is a very rare occurrence if it did sell for cash it is usually a parent that has a student going to A.&M that has three roommates. Mr. Lee ended by telling the Board that in this price range of houses, 70% of parents and investors buy them for rentals. Mr. Jaffar, 3808 Goldfinch, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Jaffar told the Board the reason he was there is to talk about. hardships regarding this particular house. Mr. Jaffar told the Board that he has talked to different title companies in town. and. they told him they only have a number of underwriters they use. The guidelines that are use on new constructed homes they are not able to provide title in~rance until a variance is granted. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Jaffar what is his involvement with the property. Mr. Jaffar stated that Mr. Tubbs was building the home for him as an investment property. Linda Stribbling, Century 21, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Stribbling told the Board that this property could not become rental property due to deed restrictions. being rental property. The hardship then would be a vacant property bringing down the value of area properties. The Drily thing to do then is to Sell it to an owner who can pay cash for it. Ms. Stribbling ended by saying that it then becomes a hardship for the builder, owner and the neighborhood. • ZBA Minxtes Artgieat 29, 28119 Pege 3 of 11 Katherine Jackson, 120b Airline Drive, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Jackson told the Board that her and her husband are trying to purchase the home. Ms. Jackson told the Board that the hardship for her family is her younger son having to switch schools. She asked to • Board to consider the request. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request. Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Corley made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the finished house is aesthetically pleasing and presents no hazards to the public safety; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: difficulty in selling or buying the property and possibly lowering property values of the surrounding properties; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Corley stated it is one of the Zoning Ordinance purposes to protect property values. Mr. Corley added that in this case it does not protect property values. By not granting the variance the other properties might be adversely affecting property values. Mr. Corley ended by saying that some excellent hardships have been brought up. Mr. Lewis stated that this is very difficult because they are trying to keep the human elements in mind but also not set a precederrt for approving the mistakes that are made in the construction process. Mr. Lewis ended by saying that a good argumerrt has been made as far as the intent of the ordinance and • by not granting the variance it may actually damage the neighborhood. With the discussion of Mr. Corley's motion cgmpleted, Chairman Bond called for a vote on the motion. The Board vote was (4-i). Chairman Bond votiag against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM N0.7.: Consideration of a rear setback varianee ~t 216 Stuttgart, lot 9, block 25, Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W. R Tubbs. Ms. Laauwe approached the Board and stated that this case was originally heard and denied on July 18, 2000. The Board recommended denial based on a finding of no special conditions or hardships. On August 1~ of this year, at the applieanYs request, the Board granted a rehearing in order to reconsider the original side setback variance. The applicant has not provided Staff with any additional information regarding this item. Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Mr. Richards stated that he wanted to know how many times during the construction process someone could or should have known this problem was occurring. Ms. Laauwe replied that she would defer that question to Lance Simms the Building Official. Mr. Simms stepped before the Board and gave a brief overview of his position. Mr. Simms told the Board that he supervises 4 Building inspectors that go into the field to do aU the inspections, as well as • a Plans Examiner that reviews alt construction plans. Mr. Simms explained that when the Plans Examiner gets over loaded he would step in and help. ZBA Minutes August 29, 2004 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Simms stated that this case is one of those times that he helped out and it was he who checked this house plan out. Mr. Simms told the Board that he is personally responsible for any errors at the plan review level for this home. Mr. Simms continued to discuss the site plan and it clearly showed the 10- foot PUE. Typically on single-family lots the PUE is 25-feet. Mr. Simms stated that there were 433 homes permitted last year and you tend to get into a routine of seeing a line and in this case he just assumed it was 25 foot and it was clearly marked 10 foot. Mr. Simms stated that was the first mistake and if that had have been caught, the problem would not exist. The second time any problem could have been caught is at the foundation inspection. Mr. Richards asked would the builder have needed to do any additional checking. 1VIr. Simms replied nothing other than knowing what the property lines and setback are. Mr. Lewis referred to the site plan submitted for the building permit. Mr. Lewis asked if this is the typical amount of detail that is seen when site plans are turned in. Ivir. Simms replied .that it is not typical. Usually it is a modification of the plat, which clearly indicates the 25-foot front and rear setback. Mr. Lewis stated that he asked that because the one submitted did not show the setback and that is the beginning of the problem. Mr. Corley asked since the site plan is not typical, does it meet the city's requirement for a preliminary site plan. 1VIr. Simms responded yes. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Simms if 2I4 Stuttgart has the similar problems in terms of an oversight. Mr. Simms replied that in that case the plan was correct it was in the field that the wrong pin was used. Mr. Simms told the Board that the inspectors really don't have time to physically verify that the pins are correct. • Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Simms if there was anything that would revent this from happening again. Mr. P Simms replied that the plan examiner would have caught this. This is just something that happened. Mr. Lewis asked if there is any kind of a checklist showing what must be shown on plans. Mr. Simms replied yes there is a checklist. Mr. Lewis asked if the setback line is listed. Mr. Simms replied that he could not answer that. In this particular case, single-family is pretty straightforward and he is guilty in not even using the checklist. iVtr. Lewis asked if the list of what is looked for in plans is given to the builders. Mr. Simms replied that there is a brochure that outlines-what is needed. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance. W. R. Tubbs stepped before the Board. Having akeady been sworn in, Chairman Bond directed him to proceed. 1VIr. Tubbs handed to the Board supporting material. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that the basic hardships of the property are the same. The only difference is that he is the owner of the property. There is a buyer for the property and it needs a title policy in order to close. Again 1VIr. Tubbs tolQ the Board that he was given an approval on the site plan and foundation. Mr. Tubbs told the Board about one thing that was not caught at the previous meeting. He thought the setback line was 15-foot. He went back to the plat once the encroachment was found and looked at the comments on the plat and found that the zoning was R-1. Mr. Tubbs looker to see what R 1 was and that is when he found that it was a 25-foot rear setback. That is when he filed for the variance. • ZBA Minrdas Aagust 29, 20(19 Page S of Il Mr. Tubbs ended by telling the Board that he is making every effort in seeing that this never happens again. • Mr. Richards questioned the error of the I S-foot setback. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he has built some homes on Ceclia Court; which is adjacent to these lots that have a special setback of 15-feet. There are subdivisions that have different zoning for the setbacks. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that it was an oversight on his part. Mr. Lewis stated that he does not see how Mr. Tubbs could not have understood that the setback was a 25 foot knowing the zoning was R- l . Mr. Tubbs admitted that he was relying on the city to catch any mistakes and in previous properties relying on his designers as well. Clay Lee stepped before the Board. Having akeady been sworn in, Chairman Bond directed him to proceed. Mr. Lee spoke to Mr. Lewis and his concern about setting a precedent an the last case. Mr. Lee explained to the Board that College Station is growing very fast and builders can not keep up in this town. There are new builders building here. Mr. Lee stated that he feels these problems are going to increase in the future unless the Building Department Staff is increased to keep up with the demands, Mr. Lee stated that he does not think the Board should penalize one property here by not granting the variance when it was a valid city mistake. Mr. Jaffar stepped before the Board. Having already been sworn in, Chairman Bond directed him to proud. Mr. Jaffar again explained the hardships and asked the Board grant this variance. Linda Stribbling stepped before the Board. Having akeady been sworn in, Chairman Bond directed him • to proceed. Ms. Stribbling told the Board that the buyer is living in the home and the hardship is that the man is handicapped and it would be difficuh to move him. He would have no place to move to. Ms. Stribbling told the Board that he was allowed to move into the property prior to the closing originally. The reason is because he did not have a place to move into until the time of closing. With no one else stepping forward to speak, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Corley made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback variance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the finished house, constructed according to the site plan approved by the city, is aesthetically pleasing and presents no hazards to the public safety. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: continued difficulty in selling/buying the property now and in the future. The potential would then exist for surrounding property values to adversely affect; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. ZBA Minr~ Aagnst 29, 2(JA9 Page 6 of II C~ Mr. Lewis made an amendment to delete the last sentence of the special conditions. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. • The Board vote on Mr. Corley'a motion was (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Consideration of a parking variance at 501 University Oaks Blvd. Applicant is Mitchell & Morgan LLP for Asset Campus Housing. Chairman Bond told the Board that Mr. Lewis is stepping down from hearing this case and Mr. Goss would set in. Ms. Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the variance is to allow for a reduced parking space requirement for a new development. Dormitories are required to have one parking space for every person (bed). For this proposed project, a total of 59b parking spaces would be required. The applicant is proposing to provide parking that meets apartment requirements. Under apartment parking, 527 spaces would be required. Apartment Parking 3 spaces for every 2-bedroom unit = 429 1.5 spaces for every 1-bedroom unit = +98 . Total spaces required for apartment = 527 The applicant is seeking a variance to the off-street parking regulations of dormitories by the amount of 69 spaces (approximately 11.6%) The applicant describes the Asset Campus Housing Project as a hybrid between a dormitory and an apartment building and considers this a special condition. The Zoning Ordinance defines a dormitory as "any structure specifically designed for the exclusive purpose of housing students of a university, college or school, excepting resident staff'. An apartment building is "a building or portion thereof used or intended to be used as a home for three or more families or households living independently of each other and each equipped for preparation of food". The applicant states that the project is similar to a dormitory as it is marketed as student housing; yet, rental is open to non-students. Because there will not be full cooking facilities in the units, the staff considers the development a dormitory. Off-street parking requirements for dormitories are more stringent than those for apartments. The applicarn would like the Board to consider this as a unique housing project reflecting characteristics of apartments, that the requirements for off-street parking spaces be able to meet those of apartments. Off-street parking requirements for dormitories are more stringent than those for apartments. The applicant would like the Board to consider that since this is a unique housing project reflecting characteristics of apartments, that the requirements for off-street parking spaces be able to meet those of apartments. ZBA Minutes August 29, 2090 Page 7 ojll The applicant has idernified the timing of the project in relation to the timing of a new College Station Zoning Ordinance as a hardship. College Station will have the opportunity to change its current requirements when a new ordinance is adopted (estimated in the spring of 2001}, but it is not known if anck what changes will occur. The following alternatives to the variance have been identified: 1. With a CTJP for a parking lot from the Planning and Zoning Commission and a variance to the 200- foot off-premise parking lot distance from the ZBA, a 30-space satellite parking lot may be created 300 feet away from the project. This lot and the addition of 39 spaces to the original lot would meet ordinance requirements. 2. Reduce the size of the project so less parking would be required. 3. The Board may grant a variance less than the requested amount 0-69 spaces. Mr. Richards asked if Dominik was a collector street. Ms. Hitchcock answered yes. Mr. Goss stated that one of the alternatives is to provide satellite parking. Would that have to be a variance. Ms. Hitchcock replied that a conditional use permit would have to be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. ' A variance would .have to be granted by ZBA for the lesser amount because they need a variance to their on-site parking. Mr. Goss asked if the on-site parking were two blocks away on a satellite lot, would they need a variance for that as well. Ms. I-htchcock responded that a variance could be granted with a condition that the extra parking spaces be met on an off-site lot. • Also a variance will need to given for the distance for a satellite parking lot. The Zoning Ordinance requires no more than 200 feet away from the property it is serving. In this case it will be approximately 300 feet. Chairman Bond asked what is staff interpretation to the applicant's definition of hybrid facility. Ms. Hitchcock replied that staff takes the position that it is a dorm Chairman Bond opened the public for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan LI,P, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Morgan told the Board. that in the design of the project it became apparent whether or not this would be classified an apartment or a dorm. Ms. Morgan stated that she does not disagree with stafl's assessment that it is a dormitory. The only question was if it does fit that exact definition. Ms. Morgan referred to a letter supplied in the Boards packet that states that the non-students could reside in the complex as well. Ms. Morgan went on to explain the only concern is the discrepancy that is between an apartment parking .space requiremerns and the dormitory parking space requirements. Ms. Morgan explained that there is a large discrepancy depending on how the project is defined. Ms. Morgan told the Board that this project can not wait until the new unified Developmern Code to come into affect next year to decide what the parking requirement may be. Ms. Morgan told the Baod that the consultant that is reviewing the current Zoning Ordinance did point out the dormitory requirement seems to be off and unusually high. Ms. Morgan concluded by telling the Board that Asset Campus housing did contact the property owner concerning the satellite parking and there is a verbal commitment to sell the lot. ZBA Minutes August 29, 2400 Page 8 of ,l j Mr. Coreey asked if the site could hold 512 spaces and still be in compliance with the landscaping requirements. Ms. Morgan replied yes. Mr. Goss stated that it appears in this case there is excessive parking, would that not be the same case with any dormitory that carne before ZBA The same argument to say that the ordinance is wrong or excessive and therefore the ordinance should not be followed or a variance be granted. Mr. Goss asked if this matter is one for City Council. Ms. Morgan replied that the timing is the item that is being appealed to here. The hardship is waiting far the unified Development Code to be developed. Mr. Richards questioned the parking spaces at the site and the satellite lot. Ms. Morgan told the Board that the satellite lot would not be considered on-site .parking and would not meet the city ordinance with regard to on-site parking because it is further than 200 feet away. Mr. Corley stated that the maximum occupancy is 596 but it is not limited to students only. Is there a possibility that a family could move in and is it possible that more that than 596 people could live here. Ms. Morgan responded no. The number of beds would limit that. Michael Peter, Asset Campus Housing, .stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Peter told the Board that they are currently zoned for 208 units, which would allow 592 beds. Mr. Peter stated that he does not disagree that this could be classified as a dormitory, it is quite an exceptional dormitory. Mr. Pete explained that this dormitory is fully furnished and it also has private and semi-private baths, private living rooms and bedrooms. Each unit, at least the standard unit is 800 sq. ft. The typical dormitory room is closer to 200 - 250 sq. ft. To call this an apartment is a very fare and accurate. Mr. Peter told the Board thathis experience with housing goes back to 1985 and it has been primarily with off-campus residence halls. There is a great difference between the amount of cars that are brought to campus or to the off campus sites, and to apartments and residence halls. In the residence hall setting you usually have freshman and occcasionally sophomores and more often then not you do not have more than 50 % of residents that actually bring vehicles that seek parking. Mr. Peter added that it differs when you have juniors and seniors that have vehicles. Mr. Feter told the Board of two other off-campus facilities they are managing. One is Lubbock and it houses 1000 studenrts and it has 500 parking spaces. The other property is at Florida State University that has 525 students with 300 parking spaces. Mr. Peter added that the only hardship in this case is strictly the tuning. They want to break ground the first of October to get the project open by fall 2001. Mr. Peter told the Board that they are trying to avoid putting in a parking ramp. Not necessarily because of the financial reasons although they are there. Even though the financial impacts get pushed onto the students. But rather there is extensive parking throughout the area. The owner of the Polo Apartmerns has offered to lease him as many spaces and is needed. Across the street to the south are the Courtyard Apartments. Mr. Peter described it as a sea of asphalt and one thing that they are trying to avoid is creating another sea of asphalt or placing a one story parking ramp which is not aesthically pleasing to the neighbor or residents either. Mr. Peter referred to the plan and explained how extensively the complex is going to be landscaped. Mr. Peter ended by saying that they do not need 600 parking spaces. Those are extra spots that will go unused and he thinks greenspace and landscaping is a pretty good alternative to unused parking spaces. Mr. Goss asked in regard to the parking to be supplied by the area apartment owners, would those be within 200 feet of facility. Mr. Peter stated that they would be about 20 yards away. • ZBA Minutes Aagusr 29, 2001! Page 9 of 11 Mr. Goss asked Mr. Peter what would be unique about this dorm that it would need less. Mr. Peter replied that the greatest special circwnstance here is the tinneline. Mr. Peter stated that the Callaway House to his knowledge is the only other dormitory in town that actually does meet the requirement of 1 parking space per bed. Chairman Alexander called for anyone warning to speak in opposition of the request. Bob Droleskey, College Hills Woodlands Neighborhood Association, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Droleskey told the Board that a major concern is the off-site parking possibility. The property backs up to housing and he did not think it would be appropriate to have the lights for the parking shine in someone's backyard. The concern. also is traffic congestion in the area. The off-site parking lot would be an undue hardship for the residence in the area. Mr. Droleskey asked where were visitors going to park. Mr. lholeskey ended by saying that he is in opposition of the request. Mr. Goss asked Mr. Droleskey if he would be in opposition if the Polo Club did allow them to park there. Mr. Droleskey replied that would be a very workabie solution. Mr. Goss asked city staffif the off-site parking was immediately adjacent and under contract would that require a variance. Ms. Kuenzel replied that the adjacent apartment complex would have to excced its own parking requirement. What ever is above and beyond their own parking requirement they can offer. Shelly Cain, Courtyard Apartments Representative, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Cain told the Board that the owner of Courtyard Apartment is not in favor of this because he does not want to share parking. Mr. Goss asked Ms. Cain if the owner would agree to sell unused parking spaces. Ms. Cain stag that he would not. Mr. Goss asked Mr. Peter if this variance is not approved what is his alternative. Mr. Peter replied that they would build a one story-parking ramp. Mr. Peter told the Board that the Polo Apartments are at 100 % occupancy and have been for the last two years. I~Spite being full they have a lot of unused parking available. Mr. Peter stated that they would probably need to seek a variance as well. Mr. Peter ended by telling the Board that Asset Campus has an outstanding reputation working with their neighbors and in particular with University's in the cities where they have property. They would work diligently with Courtyard Apartments to make sure the residerns would not parking there. Mr. Shetyy made the motion to deny a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not 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 be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Goss seconded the motion. Mr. Corley stated that the ordinance is designed so that there is not a lack of parking spaces. On one hand there has been evidence presented that suggest there will be plenty of parking but the ordinance • says that is not enou gh ZBA Minutes Aagxsr 2!, 200© Page 1©ojll Mr. Goss asked Mr. Corley if someone else came before the Board with a similar request with the canvassing being adequate would his analysis be the same. Mr. Corley replied that there is a point where it would not be. Mr. Corley added that they can build 566 spaces on the site without the ramp • and it would requve a change in the plan. They are planning S27 so that leaves 39 spaces needed. Mr. Corley ended by saying that the special condition would be the hybrid nature of the pro}ect. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Coreey if he was presenting this as a motion to amend Mr. Shelly's motion. Mr. Coreey replied that Mr. Shelly's motion was to deny and his would be for granting the variance with the special exception. The Board continued discussions about the motion presented. Ms. Kuenzel stepped before the Board and told the Board that even i£ they voted to deny this variance, another motion could be made afterwards. Chairman Bond called for a vote on Mr. Shelly' motion to deny. The Board vote was (41). The motion to deny was granted. Mr. Corky voting not to deny the variance. AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Future Agenda Items. There were no items discussed. AGENDA ITEM. NO. 10: Adjourn. • The meeting was adjourned. Bond, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, tat'f Assistant • SBA Mintdes Airg~est 29, 2000 Page 11 ojll ~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, 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 conditions: • ~sv~ri~rsws~ / s-v~s~~c.• and because a stnct a orcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Motion m~ • Seconded Chair Sigr Voting Results ~ .~ . f~ v~a~sse.floc and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done ZONING B OARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • MEETING DATE ~V S q ~0~~ NAME ADDRESS 1. ,,g~3 ~•e~~~s^~'~y ~f ~~ r' ..~s~d Q ~2~ 2. ~ c~ ~v~ 5 - ~~~ 5. / /~ p ~ ~t2 1 1~ ~ 1 ~v .G ~ I Q `~ 5 ~ ~ ~ rv' i~ fir IBS - 7. s. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.