HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1986 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GUEST REGISTER
i•
•
i
NAME
1.
2.
3•
4.
5.
6.
7-
8.
9-
10.
DATE July 15, 1986
ADDRESS
Zc39' ~~~-~.~.12
,~~p--~'
~ ~ ~ ~, e
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23•
24.
25.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
• FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the
________yard (Section 8.7)
________lot width (Table A)
________lot depth (Table A)
________sign regulations
(Section 12)
___ __minimum setback (Table A)
___ ~_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:
- --,-~!9~~ -• - - - - ~`~Lous- _ ~A~~L/~!G_ ~!/~!~IA.Lv ~ ~ie~9NTcc0 _ ~~/ _/ `1 ?~
_/~LLOw[=_/~_ j-~~__T'w_v_ .~XrR~9 ~/~~?k1~_ %~i9Cl,T~~N4~ Dt~~ T~ -~-----
• _ C~y~~NC~C' _ iiv_ ~~~~ _ ~av_~~~- ' _ _ `t _T~JS y_~~21.~i-i ~' w~GL _ ~v0>
_ ~tic~2~~'__r_~' N~_v_GVNra~tt ~ ----------------------------------
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
would result inic~~NlMu~essary hardship to this applicant being:
.SPAGfC
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done subject to the following limitations:
Motion made by _MG~U'~-~ `------------------- Date __~,~/S~~(. ___,,ll_
/ ____ Voting Results y v
Seconded by ~~ s~(J~,~QC~Q„~_ ~
----------
- ~ --- f
. Chair signature ~~j,~ __ __-_-'_________________
4
~~
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT
FORMAT FOR 11BaAlIYR MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to deny a variance to the
_______yard (Section 8.?)
_______lot width (Table A)
_______lot depth (Table A)
_______sign regulations
(Section 12)
______ minimum setback
(Table A)
___~ 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 ___~~C.( t.~.._...p- -t..t ,•
Seconded by --~~11~ __ ~L~/~~_°~-------------------------
Voting results: __~ =!`~~1/~ _~_ ~}gQ~~sf'
Chair signature ~~-LQ ___ ~~ ____________ Date __~~/S~~o
O~~L
•
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 15, 1986
7:00 P.M.
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Meyer, Members McGuirk, Gilmore,
Alternate Members Swoboda and Julien
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Ruesink & Evans
STAFF PRBSENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant City Attorney
Elmore, Assistant Zoning Official Johnson &
Planning Technician Volk
A(iBNDA ITBM 1tO. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and
liaitations of the Board.
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order and explained the functions and
limitations of the Board.
A(3BKDA ITB!! N0. 2: Approval of Minutes - seating of June 17,
1986.
Mr. McGuirk referred to page 5, lines 5&6, and requested deletion of the words
the circumstances, he (Mr. McGuirk) would not want Mr. Parkman to go under due
actions this Board takes". There were no other corrections made. Mr. McGuirk
moved to approve the minutes with the noted deletion; Mr. Gilmore seconded the
which carried unanimously (5-0).
AaBNDA ITBM H0. 3: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
A(iBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to
Ordinance 1638 Section 9.3 resardins the nn~ber of required off
street parkins spaces at a dental office at 209 Doaiaik (Lot 4
Block 1F Culpepper Plaza Subdivision). Applicant is Russell
"...and under
to any
then
motion
Bradley.
Mrs. Kee gave the staff report, explaining that the purpose of this request is to
increase the existing 1199 s.f. dental office by 820 s.f., making the building a
total of 2019 s.f., and in order to do this, the applicant has requested a variance
to the number of off-street parking spaces he will be required to furnish. She
explained that he is proposing the addition of some parking spaces in the rear of
this building, but the P.R.C. has required that he submit an access easement from the
adjacent landowner which would guarantee access to those spaces prior to granting
approval of the site plan. She listed possible alternatives to this variance as
being that the applicant could construct a smaller addition or he could purchase
additional property to the west to allow access along the west side of this building.
She explained that ordinance intent is to provide adequate off-street parking to
avoid congestion. She then reported that this property was granted a parking
variance in 1977 which allowed the applicant to provide only 10 parking spaces when
the ordinance in effect at that time would have required more spaces. She explained
P&Z Minutes 7-15-86 page 1
that since that time the ordinance requirements have changed, and now required
• parking would number 14 spaces and the applicant is proposing to include 12 off-
street parking spaces on this site.
Mr. Swoboda asked if the access easement across the front of this property was
continuous, that is, if it is actually built for the length of the easement and Mrs.
Kee explained that the easement itself is continuous, but it is not all built.
Russell Bradley, 209 Dominik was sworn in, identified himself as the applicant/owner
of this project, and stated that due to the use of this building for dental offices,
a certain size is required for rooms to accommodate equipment used by two dentists,
and this proposal represents the minimum size required. He explained that he has
been assured verbally by Culpepper Properties, the owner of the adjacent land that
he would receive an access easement which would guarantee access to the proposed
parking spaces to the rear of his building, but to date he has not received this
easement. He further explained that he has approached the owner of the adjacent
tract regarding the purchase of 20 feet of land on which to build a driveway, but the
owner will sell no less than 75 feet of land, which would be far more than he (Dr.
Bradley) needs. Re then explained that the proposed plans would accommodate 2
dentists (3 operatories each) and approximately 5 other employees, adding that the
third chair would probably be occupied no more than once a month, therefore he thinks
he would have more than enough parking for this project. General discussion followed
concerning how many patients each dentist would book at a time as well as the minutes
which were furnished from the meeting in 1977. Mr. McGuirk asked what hardship the
applicant would be facing if this variance was not granted and Dr. Bradley replied
that he is trying to provide better service to the community, including longer,
better hours, and if his request is denied he would have no alternative, thus would
• have to appeal, as he cannot buy any more land where his building is located.
Architectural plans were discussed with Dr. Bradley explaining satisfactorily why a
one floor building suits his needs better than a two story building. Location of the
existing curb cut and easement across the front of this lot were discussed, with Mrs.
Meyer summarizing the hardships listed by Dr. Bradley as being that he cannot buy
more property, the existing curb cut cannot be moved due to the location of utilities
and that he cannot reduce the size of the building because of the space required for
offices for two dentists.
Mr. McGuirk stated earlier concerns regarding a parking variance at this location now
have been negated, and offered a motion to authorize a variance to the 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: That a previous
parking variance, granted in 1977 allowed for two extra parking places, and, due to a
change in the zoning code, this variance will not increase the non-conformity, and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being minimum apace requirements for medical
equipment precludes making offices slightly smaller and such that the spirit of this
ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. The motion was seconded by
Allen Swoboda. Mr. Julien asked if Mr. McGuirk would like to include the condition
that the easement from the adjacent landowner had to be provided and Mr. McGuirk said
that he had considered that condition, but decided the P.R.C. would enforce that
condition prior to granting an approved site plan. Votes were cast and the motion to
grant the parking variance request carried unanimously (5-0).
•
P&Z Minutes 7-15-86 page 2
A(iBNDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to
• nuaber of off-street parking spaces required by Ordinance 1638
Section 9.3 at a planned aedical office building phich pill be
part of the caapus of Huaana Hospital of Brasos Valley.
Mrs. Kee explained the application, located the property, existing area uses and
zoning, adding the purpose of the request for a parking variance is to allow the
applicant to construct a 45,100 s.f. medical office facility adjacent to, and on the
same campus as the Humana Hospital; and, to share parking facilities with the
hospital since (the contention is} peak hours of operation differ for each use. She
listed the alternatives as being to reduce the medical office building by 5200 s.f.
or to purchase additional property for parking. Mrs. Kee added that the hospital has
227 approved parking spaces on its site, and this medical office building would
require 300 spaces, but the applicant is purposing only 226 spaces. Discussion
followed regarding how the ordinance requirements had been set.
Jim Alois, engineer for Page, Southerland, Page at 600 West Avenue in Austin, and
representative of the applicant, Humana of Texas, was sworn in and while referring to
a site plan of the entire campus, explained how parking would be located and who
would be allowed to use various sections. He added that he believes the two
facilities can share parking since each facility has different peak hours of
operation and there would be no conflict. Mr. Swoboda asked him how shared parking
would be guaranteed and he replied that the entire campus is owned by Humana, Inc.,
therefore it is actually one site, one complex with no barriers and the parking lots
have continuous circulation throughout. Mr. Swoboda then asked how many offices the
building would have and he replied that there would be approximately 25 doctors plus
a staff of 50 people, for a total of 75 employees, all of which would seldom be on
• duty at the same time. Mr. Gilmore pointed out that the site plan shows an area of
"proposed additional parking" and asked why the applicant does not want to build that
lot now. Mr. Alois replied that the building is being designed to accommodate an
additional floor, and the available land will be developed for parking when that
floor is added, plus the fact that past sites have indicated the parking required by
this city's ordinance is not needed at this time. Mr. Gilmore asked what hardship
the applicant would face if this variance is not granted and Mr. Alois stated that
excessive paving would decrease the allowable green space, that it would increase
maintenance required since too much parking surface and lack of use of pavement tends
to promote early deterioration, that excess paving creates excess surface water to be
managed, and he believes it would be an improvement to a project to not pave when it
is not necessary.
Discussion followed regarding the number of beds in the hospital and the total number
of staff employed by the hospital, as well as the number of employees on each shift.
Mr. McGuirk stated that he cannot conceive of the scale of parking for a facility of
this size, but that he also cannot see any hardship involved since the applicant
already owns the land and will eventually develop it. He also sees no necessity of
shared parking now, and does not believe the applicant's proposal is a feasible
alternative to meeting ordinance requirements.
Charles B. Gater, Louisville, Kentucky, was sworn in, identified himself as a
representative of Humana, Inc., and stated that it has been this company's experience
that when a campus is developed with these two different type facilities which have
peak loads at different times of the day, one parking space per 200 s.f. is
sufficient, rather than College Station's ordinance requirement of one parking space
• per 150 s.f., adding that from a purely business standpoint, they do not want to
build more parking lots than necessary. He stated that at other facilities built
to 1 parking space for 200 s.f., there have been no complaints from physicians, and
P&Z Minutes 7-15-86 page 3
in addition, rarely are the 25 doctors in the building at one time, therefore,
• patients would not be scheduled for appointments for the doctors who are absent.
Discussion followed regarding parking spaces at other Humana sites, how the surveys
which resulted in establishing 1 space per 150 s.f. were conducted, with Mr. Gater
adding that this office is restricted to doctors only seeing patients and that no
clinical work would be conducted in the building.
Pat Cornelison of Bryan/College Station Humana was sworn in and stated in answer to a
question that the new hospital would be slightly larger than 100,000 s.f. She added
that the shared parking would be for visitors, adding that peak hospital visitor
hours are generally before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m., with peak hours at the office
building being from 9-12 a.m., and 2:30-5 p.m.
Mr. McGuirk said to Mr. Gater that if the hospital is wrong and the city would grant
this variance based on the request, the city would have a variance on the books
forever. Mr. Gfter asked if the city could grant a conditional variance.
Assistant City Attorney Carol 8lmore was sworn in and stated that in her opinion the
city cannot grant a conditional variance, but it can grant a variance based on
certain conditions, adding that if those conditions change or disappear, the city
then is not necessarily stuck with a variance.
Mr. Swoboda stated that in his opinion if a parking lot becomes overcrowded and
business is good and the business owns vacant land, it will add parking as needed.
Mrs. Meyer disagreed, stating that this applicant already has the land and no
condition exists which this board can consider a hardship, and if a variance is
• granted under these circumstances, a precedent might be established. Mr. Swoboda
Mr. Alvis stated finally that perhaps when this zoning requirement was set, it was
meant to be for a stand-alone medical office building rather than for a joint
facility.
said he is only concerned in having too large an area paved. Mr. Gilmore said he
cannot see there is a hardship in this case. Mr. McGuirk agreed. Mr. Julien said
the applicant could decrease the building size by 5200 s.f. Mrs. Meyer stated she
can find neither a special condition nor a hardship.
Mr. Gilmore then made a motion to deny a variance to the 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 seconded by Archie Julien, and approved by a vote
of 4-1 (Swoboda against).
AGBNDA I?BM N0. 6: Other bnsinesa.
None.
•
P&Z Minutes 7-15-86 page 4
A(iBNDA ITEM N0. 7: Ad3ourn.
i•
U
•
Mr. McGuirk made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Julien seconded; motion carried
unanimously (5-0).
ATTEST:
-----------------------------
City Secretary, Dian Jones
P&Z Minutes
APPROVBD:
ting Chaj~^man, James McGuirk
7-15-86 page 5
LJ
r'~~
`Yrin, C~--
zgA ~ .~ 8~
SS ~i
• • •
v
ci
J
ci
s
/~
. ,
I'
i ~sEr I/2"
\ `
~. ~•~/
LOT 3 I
~ ' ~ ~~ '•
•. - a'
~ ~ r./~ -., -..
Q~ :: .: a
v -: '•.
IRON R00 .\~ ~'. ~• ::~,~ •
\ .. d~ ~ .-~~ `
--~ ~ ` ~ T fC.•
~ \ •~. a
\ \ \
S~ ~ i
Gi `~ ~ ~.
~'r
~it4b.
.-
~..::.
~.'.•_u
4
• r~ . .
it
i
i
~,,. .
I
I
i
~-'~C SET I N C ONC .
v.2
' ~~ --
~WZ
.~.•" I
J
~ I
'~ t I
2
b ~ ~
4 I
~ LOT 14
W I
4I ~ o . 2'
.~~
I
O I
W
Z
I ~i7
~~'
I
t~ '~ ti
I
~ M
I
'~, ~, ~,, h''~t off:
~ .~
\~ ` /~ ~ ~V
LOT 34 ~~, °,~ ,1,' ~ e;~
-_ ~^ J
_..- ---
..._= E ..
_ ----.v --"~
S"MtON It00 AT FENCE
CORNEfI
r FUTILITY EA~~
~- ----
._.-
~~ ~~ ..~
_~ E E
S»-4'1T"w-TO.ts~
~~F
W. D. F I T~-I
lo'
SET V2 "IRON ROO
I
W
0~
~ I
W C I
~ ~~
i~ ,i
I
2
W
I W
Vf
W
~ ~
J
~ 5
W ~
N
1 w
LAT 13
_..1- ~- R
~N-LINK R~ C0111~
•
i
f
0
C
F
Q
i