The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/03/1987 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment March 3, 1987 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All present except Alternates Swoboda and Julien STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to Order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of Minutes - meeting of January 6, 1987. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to accept the minutes as presented; Mr. Evans seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. • No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to Section 9.2.A.5.& 6 of Ordinance 1638 (the Zoning Ordinance) regarding the required eight foot setback separating public right-of-way from parking area and the location of an island at the end of a parking row at the proposed renovation of the service station located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Texas Avenue and IIniversity Drive. Applicant is The Southland Corporation (7-Bleven Stores). Mrs. Kee explained that this property had previous Board action in October, 1986 when the Board tabled a request for variances to setback(s) and sign regulations, and in December, 1986 when the Board denied the variance to sign regulations and granted the variance to rear setback requirements after the applicant withdrew the request for variance to side setback requirements. She explained this particular variance request is to allow the applicant to have less than the required 8 foot setback separating right-of-way (along Texas Avenue) from the parking lot and to construct an island at the end of a parking row which has less than the required 180 square feet. She added that since the Staff Report was completed, she had received 1 inquiry from the property owner to the north who offered no opinion of the request, and neither had the Building Official or Fire Marshal offered comments regarding the request after receiving notification from her office. In response to various questions from Board members concerning the required 8 foot setback, the island requirements and the steps involved in site plan review/approval • by the Project Review Committee, Mrs. Kee reported that if the applicant is required to construct the standard size island, that is one which is 9 ft. by 20 ft., he will lose one parking space, but he has more than enough parking spaces to meet the 1 t minimum requirements. • Mrs. Meyer read the Purpose section from Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance and explained that this section does not address safety inside the parking lot, which Mrs. Kee had indicated is one of the reasons for requiring a 180 square foot island at the end of each internal parking row. The applicant, Bill Wetterman of 5208 Lake Charles, Waco, Texas, was sworn in and identified himself as the real estate representative for The Southland Corporation, the company that is the applicant and will be leasing this property from the Broach Estate. He stated that when the latest site plan was submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval, he was under the impression that all requirements had been covered, but was surprised when he received notification that changes had been made to the site plan since it was reviewed by the P.R.C. He then explained that an 8 foot setback from the right-of-way of Texas Avenue into the property would interfer with the flow of traffic around the pumps which now exist, and for which there are no plans to relocate. He approached the site plan on the wall to clarify his explanation at the request of the Board and stated that the driveway and the setback now exist and the plans are to add approximately 2 feet to the existing setback, which will still make it approximately 6 feet short of the required 8 foot setback. Mr. McGuirk asked Mrs. Kee if this property has been functioning as a non-conforming use in the past due to the setback, and if so, asked why this applicant is here with his request. Mrs. Kee explained that there is major site work being planned, and when that is planned, attempts are made to bring the site into conformity. She further explained that an actual setback is not there now, but simply a curb. Mr. • Wetterman interjected that the company has plans to add approximately 2 feet to that setback and to landscape the island which will be created. Mr. Wetterman went on to explain that the island at the end of the parking row can only be 3 feet wide instead of the normal 9 feet because of the applicant's desire to provide an additional parking space in front of the door for customers. He pointed out that one of the parking spaces will be for handicapped persons, so providing an additional regulation sized parking space will help to keep people who are not handicapped from using the space reserved for those who need it. Mr. Ruesink stated that he does not understand why a 9 foot island is required and Mr. McGuirk stated that it is required by Code, and that is all this Board must be concerned with at this time. Mr. Evans stated that a 9 foot island will help protect opened car doors in addition to the safety factor of separating the end car from the driving surface and providing a spot for landscaping. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements requiring an island adjacent to the highway and parking (Section 9.2.A.5. & 6.) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: Regarding #5: (1) The request reduces the non- conforming use and (2) Improves the traffic safety of the lot, and (3) Better accommodates the existing structure to the zoning code. Regarding #6: (1) The tradeoff of an unrequired parking space for a reduced island size appears to enhance traffic safety, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Inability to improve the lot and reduce the non-conformity and enhance traffic safety, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Evans • seconded the motion. Mr. Ruesink made a motion to amend the motion to reflect under (1) regarding #5 "The request reduces the existing non-conforming use" (adding the word existing), and Mr. McGuirk immediately seconded the motion to amend. Votes were ZBA Minutes 3-3-87 Page 2 cast on the motion to amend and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. McGuirk stated for the record that in his opinion, if the variance to the 9 foot island at the end • of the parking row adjacent to the building were not granted, an unsafe condition would be created because customers would be forced~;to park in the row along University Drive and then have to walk across the drive to get into the store. Votes were cast on the amended motion and the motion as amended carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITBM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for a Special Exception to expand a non-conforaing use as set forth in Section 15.2.C.(b) of Ordinance No. 1638 (the Zoning Ordinance) at the existing church at 103 Nagle. Applicant is St. Mary's Parish. Mrs. Kee explained the applicant for this request is St. Mary's Parish, but her contact has been with Group 4 Architects who are preparing the plans and have represented the applicant. She informed the Board that this church is allowed by a Conditional Use Permit, that it is a non-conforming use because it has never provided enough parking spaces on-site to meet zoning ordinance requirements, and that the area is zoned R-2 Duplex. She referred to the application and explained that although the applicant refers to a request for a Conditional Use Permit on several items, what is actually being requested is a Special Exception to allow the enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where the enlargement is necessary and incidental and does not increase the area of the building more than 25X and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use. She additionally described the entire enlargement as being to the interior of the building which would not affect the exterior,of the project at all. She went on to convey the information that the request is to expand the balcony by 980 square feet which is an 11~ expansion to the existing structure, and would allow an additional 100 seats which • would represent a 15X expansion in seating. She summed up by stating that the addition requested would require an additional 33 parking spaces, but the existing seating would require 220 spaces and only 98 spaces now exist. She mentioned that she had received 3 inquiries about this request, with one person indicating he was in favor of the request, one expressing no problem with the request, and one with no comment at all. Tom Parker of Group 4 Architects was sworn in and explained the requested expansion to allow more seats would not be to accommodate more people, but in fact, from 60-80 parishioners are now having to stand through the services and the additional seats would simply allow them to have a place to sit. He explained that the majority of the people attending the crowded services are students who walk from the campus, so no more cars would be entering the area. Mr. McGuirk stated that as far as he can ascertain, any action taken on this request tonight would in no way affect attendance at this church. Mr. Parker agreed, adding that they would rather not add to the existing parking again, as recently some parking was added. He went on to advise that there is a commercial parking lot across Nagle Street from this church, and the owner of that lot has offered the use of it to St. Mary's over the weekend, but as near as can be determined, no more than 25 cars have ever used that lot. Mr. Evans made a motion to authorize the enlargement of a building devoted to a non- conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not incrase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25X and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use • or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to amend the motion by adding the phrase "and modification will in no way affect the intent of the applicable parking ordinance ZBA Minutes 3-3-87 Page 3 since there is no correlation between seating. within St. Mary's and needed parking." • Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion to amend, afterwhich votes were cast, and the motion to amend carried unanimously. Votes were then cast on the motion as amended, and that amended motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6: Other business. There was no other business. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Ruesink seconded. Motion to adjourn carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones i• • Chairman~~/Dorothy ~yer ZBA Minutes 3-3-87 Page 4 • :' ~~:. ~~NINQ BQA,R;U-' OF ADJUSTMB'NT FORMAT FOR P4BYlI;* i~p3'IpN Vari ! f -a ~~! ~I ti ~ `~~ ~ :~~ ~~ I. ~ i,~ ~' ~ ~~. ~ ~ y s .:. ^~~''' ^ t ~ ,~, I move toy. ~ ''' ~ ~ ,, `' la~C' , v ________yard (Section 8.7) . >r ______~,_lot width (Table A) --- -._.Iot dept. (Tsb~le A) ~. ------»- i.ih ~~~ {`Table. A) _ _,-,= - ~ , ^t~ rom the tet~~lt= ,~ ` . public ~.,,~~-:crrdia ~~ _#,t teili~ k b~ _ ~lt~. t 1N~~~s~t' ~1it~1 e~, the t ~ :gee,i~a ~ ,~ondi 3• ,.,~ ''. j ll+~~,.. ~~ ~~~= and because a atric~ et~~orae~e~t of tote provision o~~Q,~daance would result in uriAec.~ssnry hardshig• to `the applicant being: and such that the a,pirit of this ordinance shall be observ~rd`end substantial justice done to t ---------------------------------------------- Mot ion made by M~~I~_ Date 3'3''~ • Seconded by _,,~~/ ,,,s ____ Voting Results Chair signature 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Special Exceptions - From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize the a. ____ substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. b. _ ~_enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25X and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use, n U c. _____reconstruction of a non-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60~ of the appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformity. Voting results: Jam" b ~ ~ ----- ------------------- ~~ ----------------- --~~3,~~~ --- --------- - --- Chair signature Date ~._.. -~, ~ .. Motion made by ----------------~-1.---------------------------- ---- -` ~[ / / Seconded by --- ~ ~- T _~~,L~!`rJ/~_ ~__~i._n_~R,./(o/'~ - ~~--~~-'M -G~(~CY~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Special Exceptions - From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize the a. ____ substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. b. _____enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25X and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. ~_..-- c. _____reco truction of a non-conforming structure on the lot occupi by such structure as the cost of reconstru 'on is less than 60X of the appraised value of the struct and because the reconstruction would not prevent the re f such property to a conform ~ g use or increase //the non-con ' a~ ~~~f%co.~.ar., w,1 • ,~ r!o p..a.~ AP~Pc't trllr' ~%17~'~~f"' +.~f~P '~~~/iCh~IP ~~~''.I~,/f ~, ~e,/i ~,,,ACp~ li /'C/~ ~hrf'n , ~ X70 ~cw-re4~f,'~,~, ~P1i...~RO~ SP~i' -°~w/I`r. ~n Motion made by ______ -------------------------------------------- Seconded by ____________________ --------------------------------- Voting results: ------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Chair signature Date • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER • DATE March 3, 19$7 NAME ADDRESS 3 • ~ ~• c1'~/ ~~aer~vwc,lty A r ~ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. j i 24. ~5 ,