Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/1984 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS • Zoning Board of Adjustment April 17, 1984 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS ATTENDING: Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Wagner, Wendt, Upham, Alternate Member McGuirk and Alternate Member Meyer who was in the audience. MEMBERS ASSENT: Chairman Cook STAFF ATTENDING: Zoning Official Kee, Asst. Zoning Official Johnson and Planning Technician Volk Acting Chairman MacGilvray opened the meeting, then explained the functions and limitations of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. AGENDA ITEM NQ. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of March 21, 1984 Mr. Upham made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. McGuirk seconding. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Wagner abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0, 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Reconsideration of a variance to rear setback as required by Ordinance 850 on Lot i4 Btock 2 of the Dobrovolny Subdivision (1417 Holik). Application is in the • name of Benny W. Lane. This item.tabled at meeting on 3-21- . Mr. Upham made a motion to take this item off the table; Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Upham then made a motion to accept the applicant's request to withdraw the item from the agenda with t1r. Wagner seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Reconsideration of a variance to parking as required by Ordinance 850 fora restaurant at 326 Jerse A plication is in the name of DoubleDave's Pizzaworks, Inc. -This item was tabled at meeting on 3-21- Mr. Wagner made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position with Mr. McGuirk seconding. Motion carried 5-0. Mrs. Kee briefly explained the request before the Board,. then stated that the Legal Depart- ment has reviewed the deed documents. which had been provided and had ruled there is no legal review of them necessary, and further, that the determination made by the Zoning Official that a variance to parking requirements is necessary for this applicant to increase the seating capacity of this restaurant is correct. She went on to explain that a parking area was designated for this center with a specified number of spaces at the time it was developed, that under the current ordinance there are not a sufficient number of spaces to meet either the shopping center parking requirements or the individual retail space requirement in this parking area, the fact that the parking area itself appears to be a reserve for the use of all businesses makes no difference in enforcing the parking regulations, and there are not enough spaces in the total reserve area for all the busi- • nesses together based on current ordinance requirements. She explained that this shopping ZBA Minutes 4-17-84 page 2 center is a non-conforming shopping center, in that it was developed prior to the date of the current ordinance and does not-meet this ordinance's requirements, therefore ZBA • action will be required to allow the requested expansion. Mr. MacGiivray said that as he recalled the question which arose at the previous meeting was what the deeds actually spelled out regarding how the parking spaces are handled, and Mrs. Kee said that Ass"t, City Attorney Locke had been at the last meeting and was aware of the question of the Board, Mr. Upham speculated that this center will probably be there fora long time, and that he accepts the fact that the property and the parking are a fact, and this Board should consider the parking issue on its own merits. Mr. Wendt said he has driven by this center numerous times during the past month at various times during the evening, and he had never seen any type of parking which would cause a conflict and that during the daytime hours there seems to be a rapid turnover in traffic/parking on this lot. He then referred to a cross-parking agreement the Board recently approved regarding the Woodbine Financial Center and the Hilton Hotel. Mr. Upham asked how the revision of the zoning ordinance is coming and Mrs, Kee said that work is being done on it, however, it is not yet complete. Mr. Upham said that it has been t~is observation that during the daytime hours this shopping center lot has just about been saturated, and pointed out the main difference between this lot and the Hilton/Woodbine Center is the size, and the change of uses being proposed in this center worries him because he believes it is already diffi-cult to make safe ingress to and egress from the lot. The question of student parking on this lot was raised, and the owner of the land in question was sworn in, then stated that in the past the center owners have been fairly lenient toward students using the lot because there has been no problem, but that they can get more strict if a problem should arise, Employee parking, ordinance requirements and square footage of the part of the center in question was generally discussed, with an estimated number of employees arrived at,precipating Mr. Upham to state that whatever the • exact count is, there still seems to be a problem regarding employee parking. Dave Atkinson, one of the owners of DoubleDave's was sworn in and stated that the busi- ness is open for lunch, and business is almost exclusively walk-in at that time, and the parking business begins at 5 p.m „ peaks at 9 p.m., and begins again at 11 p.m., ending at 1 a.m., and the only people in the lot during the late hours have been from this res- taurant.. He went on to say that he did not see how this one restaurant could possibly generate more traffic than the two businesses it is replacing. He also stated that he has the full support of other merchants in the shopping center, and that they, surely would not support this request if they thought their businesses would be adversely affected. Mr. MacGiivray stated he would like to make an "editorial comment", adding that he won- ders who the City would be protecting, if, in fact, all the other merchants in this small shopping center support the expansion of this business. He added that Mr. Upham had mentioned the safety factor which should be considered, but reiterated his real question is who would the Board be protecting. Mr. McGuirk asked Mrs. Kee fora total number of parking spaces which would be required by ordinance in this center. Mrs. Kee figured that approximately 72 spaces would be required. Mr. McGuirk then said that the letter the Board had received at the last meet- ing from the Sul Ross Lodge stated concern regarding what type of variance would have to be requested by future owners of their building should a sale of it be made. He went on to say that this Board cannot keep granting variances at a location when spaces are not available. Mr. MacGilvray said that whatever use replaces the lodge, it cannot get worse because the lodge parking requirement has been figured at the most intense usage (same as restaurants). • Mr. McGuirk asked why the variance request is for 19 spaces. Mrs. Kee explained that available spaces in this center were allocated for each use in the center, and after n-~--- ZBA Minutes 4-17-84 Page 3 fulfilling all the requirements for the existing uses, there are 6 spaces left for this restaurant, limiting it to 18 seats. The owners want to put in 76 seats, and figured • at 1 space per 3 seats, the total requirement would be 25 parking spaces. Discussion followed concerning requirements should they be based on square footage, or the past uses in these spaces, with Mr. Upham pointing out that history has no part in this discussion as the uses of these buildings are changing. Mr, Wagner then made a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements (Section from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: Parking requirements would be during off-peak business hours, and because of the location 45 spaces in the parking area are sufficient because mostly walk-in traffic would be expected, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limita- tions: that a cross-parking agreement be made a matter of record in the Planning Depart- ment. Mr. Upham seconded the motion after the cross-parking statement was added. Mrs. Kee asked the 2 tenants if they would have a problem with a cross-parking agreement, and Mr, Rothers stated that he thinks this agreement is in the deed documents, but if it is not, there probably would be no problem signing something like this. Mr. Atkinson agreed. Votes were cast with the motion carrying unanimously (5-0). AGCNDA ITEM NO, 5: Consideration of a variance to arkin as re wired b Section 7-C of Ordinance No. 50 as it specifically relates to employee parking requirements at a proposed shopping center at the corner of Texas Avenue and Southwest Parkway. Applica- tion is in the name of Jan-Wic, Inc. • Mrs, Kee explained the request and located the proposed shopping center. She stated that ordinance requires this center to have 498 parking spaces plus spaces for employees (1 for 2 employees) and it has 509 spaces which would only allow parking for 22 employees. She went on to explain that a center this large would undoubtedly require many more than 22 employees, but a reasonable estimate could not be made at this time. She informed the Board that the planning staff will recommend as part of the revisions to Ordinance 850 that employee parking requirements for shopping centers be eliminated and simply to require one space per 200 square feet of center, therefore staff has no problem with this particular variance request, Mr. Upham stated that the problem is that this Board is being asked to legalize for immediate action a situation which must be remedied in our ordinance, and went on to state that he does not believe this Board has the authority to do this. He remi-tided everyone that the functions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment is to hear requests for variances and use permits and to consider appeals from decisions of the Zoning Official, .and further must determine the existence of unique and special conditions of the land which create an undue hardship other than financial only for the applicant in order to grant variances. He said this request is based on the possibility that someday the City might have an ordinance which will legalize what the Board is being asked to do at this meeting. Mr. MacGilvray agreed, stating that a developer is supposed to fit a project to the land rather than visa versa, and obviously this developer has not done that in this instance. He suggested that the total square footage of this shopping center be reduced, so that the space available for parking can accommodate the require- ments of the ordinance. Wick McKean, applicant, was sworn in and staed he cannot in all honestly state how many spaces will be needed for employee parking, but stated that the real problem lies with the fact that this growing community has to operate with an antiquated ordinance, and if • he has to wait for City action, this project will in all probability be killed. He stated 7 ) ~~ -__ ZBA Minutes 4-17-84 page 4 that the Mall had been approved at one space per 200 square feet, and wanted his project to be figured the same way. Mrs. Kee referred to Section 6 in Ordinance 850 which refers • to Council action on large projects, but Mr. Upham said that section refers to projects which will have a large impact on city services and this project, in reality, is relatively small compared to Post Oak Mall. Mr. Upham went on to say that State Laws do not give the Zoning Board of Adjustment the authority to legalize something which is "probably planned" in the future. Mr. McKean said that the parking in a development like this would handle itself, but Mr. P1acGilvray pointed-out that this Board believes that any action of this nature is against the law. He also said that good planning included the necessity of fitting a project to the land. Mr. McKean asked if the Board would be willing to table this request, and was informed that it would. Steve Hansen, a partner in the applicant firm, was sworn in and stated that the developers had met with the staff on numerous occasions concerning the development of this project, the PRC has approved the project based on ZBA positive action, staff had directed them to go before the Board with this request, and has recommended approval of the request, and the Board should .take all of this into consideration before ruling against it. Mr. MacGilvray asked him if the developers had ever considered changing their plans and Mr. McKean answered that they had worked with staff and had jointly come up with this, and neither they nor staff had considered this problem. Mr. Wagner made a motion to table this item at the request of the applicant. Mr. Mac- Gilvray seconded the motion to table at the applicant's request. Motion to table carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a variance to rear setback as re uired b Ordinance 850 at 111 Westover to allow location of a storage building. Application is in the name of Francis M. Pate , Jr, • Mrs. Kee explained this request has come about because the Pates want to locate a storage/ workshop in their backyard and there is a 20 foot utility easement which runs through the middle of the yard which would preclude the addition of the building if ordinance requirements are met. She went on to explain that she has talked with the Building Official who has indicated that the applicant can go before the Building Code Board of Adjustment which would probably rule that he can place the building within the required building separation, due to the hardship imposed on this applicant by the location of that utility easement. She went on to say that the Pate's prefer to have a variance granted by this Board, as they prefer to locate the building toward the rear of their property. The type of easement was discussed, with the conclusion that the easement has both a natural gas line and a City electrical line tunning through it. Mrs. Kee informed the Board that she has discussed the site plan with the Electrical Department, and has been advised that they have no problem with the proposed location of the building as it will not interfer with their overhead lines. Francis Pate, applicant, was sworn in and Mr. MacGilvray asked if this building will be wired for electricity and also asked what type of foundation it would have. Mr. Pate answered .that it will have electricity running to it, and also that it will sit on a slab. Mr. Upham said that this situation would be reasonably close to a land problem and this pre-existing easement which runs through the middle of this lot severely restricts the purchaser's use of his lot, therefore, he is inclined toward granting this variance. Mr. McGuirk asked if the slab could be moved 2.5 feet forward on the lot, thus creating a 5 foot setback from the rear property line, but Mrs. Kee and Mr. Pate said that would • cause the building to sit right on the utility easement line, and might interfer with the overhead utility wires. ZBA Minutes 4-17-84 page 5 Mr. Upham then made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due • to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: Pre-existence of an antra-state utility easement and a City of College Station electrical easement which is positioned in an abnormal place on the lot, cutting the lot in half, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to no limitations. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner. Mr. Wendt stated that he disagrees with this motion because placing the building this close to the rear property line will cause constraint of develop- ment to the rear in the form of this metal building being an eyesore to an adjacent neigh- bor. He then referred to a letter the Board had received from a Mr. Rhee which referred to a garage or carport being built extremely close to his property line and was an eyesore, stating this was the same type of situation, Mr. McGuirk said that none of the neighbors within 200 feet had been concerned enough to come to this public hearing after having received notification and Mr. Upham agreed with Mr. McGuirk, but disagreed with Mr. Wendt, stating that Mr. Rhee had opposed the project he is referring to in his letter from the very beginning. Mr. Upham said that in his opinion, as a resident of the nearby neighbor- hood, the potential for any development on the lots to the rear is virtually impossible. Mr. Wendt disagreed with him, stating the neighborhood will change in the future and a Planned Unit Development could be planned on those lots, as they can be developed with streets of any widths, and he believes the Board should look at all the facts and the possibilities of the Bevel©pment of the land as well. Votes were cast on the motion to grant this variance, and the motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Wendt voting against it. AGENDA ITEM N0, 7: Other Business • Mrs. Kee referred to the last page of the packet which is a memo from the Legal Department requesting the Board to set a standard deviation to account for surveyor's errors. She asked the Board to give this request some thought and feedback to staff, as staff has not had time to study the request to determine a recommendation to make. General discussion followed concerning what would be a fair amount to allow and Alternate Board Member Meyer asked to be ailpwed to speak from the floor. Permission was granted and she asked if this request was in essence asking the Board to make a "blanket" variance, and asked also of this Board had the authority to do this, speculating that it does not. Mrs. Kee said she understood that the Board would not be granting variances, but directing staff not to order a structure to be torn down. Mrs. Meyer repeated that she does not think this Board has the authority to give "tolerance errors". Mr. Wendt agreed, stating he does not think this Board should even be addressing this. Mrs. Kee said she would consult further with the Legal staff and report back to the Board regarding this request. Mrs. Kee referred to another memo from the Legal Department and specifically to the 4th paragraph suggesting that decisions of the ZBA made on Tuesday evening be final at 12:00 noon on the Thursday after the meeting if no request for reconsideration has been filed by an interested party, raising an issue of law (rather than fact) relating to the validity of the Board's decision. After some general discussion, Mr. Upham made a motion to leave the time for appeals at 10 days with Mr. Wagner seconding. More discussion followed with Mrs. Kee stating that she does not believe that 10 day time to appeal is what is to be reconsidered, but rather the 10 day time to request reconsideration of an issue of law. Mr. Upham then withdrew his motion and Mr. Wagner withdrew his second for further investi- gation of the request. Mrs. Kee then addressed the letter from Mr, Rhee protesting the garage which encroaches • the setback requirements adjacent to his lot, on a lot owned by Chalon Jones, and for ZBA Minutes 4-17-84 page 6 which a variance request had been denied in the past by this Board. Mrs. Kee stated City Council. has heard a request from the Legal Department to file an injunction against • Mr. Jones regarding this encroachment but she has not been informed of any action which Council might have taken. The Building Department has also filed a complaint in Muni- cipal Court concernPng violation of the Building Code. Mr. Wendt made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Upham seconding. Motion carried unanimously C5-O) . APPROVED: n U • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-6.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the follow u and special conditi ns of the land r~b~no~al ly fou i - ~ tries: ~ A n n ,,^ ,1 • r .~ i ~J 5. 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, ei i~~~ ~~~ and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial ~uctirc ~nnu c..4.:e.-~ ~.. }L. ,. L..t 7_._!__ ~ _.. _ . 1. 2. 3. Th Se Th 4. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-6.5 move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) ign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: ~i 5. ~ ~ ~ 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant .be-i-r~gr. and such that the spirit of this rdinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to ~~ limitations: 1. 2. 3. 4. This motion was mad by Seconded by The variance was gran d by the following vote: , _ ~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE April 17, 1984 NAME r, ~ ', I~~ j/ ~ ADDRESS 2. ~~ ~~~~ 0.p ~ .. 4. 5. 6 . ~y 7. 8. 9. lo. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ~ _ 17. 18. lg. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25.