Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1985 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Zoning Board of Adjustment April 16, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEETING HELD IN COLLEGE STATION CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Upham, Members Wagner, McGuirk, and Alternate Member Fry MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook, Member Wendt and Alternate Member Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk Acting Chairman Upham opened the meeting, explained the functions and limitations of this Board, then further explained that there are only 4 board members present at this meeting, that any variance granted requires a total of 4 votes in favor of the variance, therefore tonight any variance granted would require a unanimous vote. He then explained that any applicant who preferred a 5 member board to hear his request could postpone the hearing of his request until the next meeting. Phil Springer was the only applicant in the audience and he declined this option. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - special workshop meeting • on February 19, 1985; regular meeting on February 19, 1985. Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve both sets of minutes as shown. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Consideration of a variance request to parking requirements at McDonald's restaurant, 801 University Drive to allow expansion of existing restaurant, thereby increasing the seating capacity. Variance would be for a total of 3 parking spaces. Applicant is Phil Springer, McDonald's Restaurant. Zoning Official Kee referred to a site plan on the wall which had been reviewed and approved by the P.R.C., contingent upon a parking variance granted by the ZBA. Mrs. Kee explained that the applicant wants to include seating for 144 patrons in his restaurant which would require 48 parking spaces, and after the proposed expansion, the applicant would only have 45 parking spaces on-site; therefore, this variance request is for 3 parking spaces. Phil Springer, 1203B Munson, came forward, identified himself as the applicant and owner of McDonald's on University Drive and handed out information to the Board which included results of a survey taken of patrons • and some photos he had taken of conditions on the existing parking lot. He explained that the results of this 2 day survey taken between 12 (noon) and 1 P.M. indicate that approximately 59~ of the individual paying customers 1 ZBA Minutes 4-16-85 • surveyed were walk-in customers with approximately 41X of the individual paying customers representing those who had driven to the site. He went on to point out that approximately 40X of the total number of paying customers during the past 3 months have been served through the drive-thru facilities. He testified that his parking lot is rarely full, and the rare occasions when it is usually occur during football weekends or on Saturdays when families are out shopping. He referred to the photos taken of a partially empty lot and stated those pictures were taken on this day between 12 noon and 12:15 P.M. He stated that although removed by several blocks from the Northgate area, his business is comprised of the same type of traffic and as such, should not be required to provide the parking required by ordinance. Mr. Upham asked if the remodeling/expansion would eliminate any parking spaces and Mr. Springer replied that he would lose 1 space, as he now has 46 available spaces, but added that he hopes to add some seating arrangement which would gain efficiency. He then showed his seating plan to the Board adding that he knows this arrangement will have no bearing on the Board's action at this hearing. Mr. McGuirk said that he had driven across the back of the lot on Monday and it appeared to be completely full, but admitted he had not driven around to the front of the lot so he did not know the conditions there. Mr. Springer explained that at one location on the lot in the back of the building, he has his employees parked double-deep to allow more spaces for customer parking. • Mr. McGuirk asked if the seating in the patio area has been counted when figuring required parking and Mrs. Kee replied that it had been, but Mr. Springer corrected her and stated that the patio seating has not been counted in the required parking spaces, and that there are approximately 6 tables on this patio with approximately 24 additional seats. Mrs. Kee then stated that the site plan shows seating for 128 people with no note regarding additional seating in the patio area, and added that the P.R.C. had not been aware of this additional seating at the time it reviewed the plans, so now the variance request would be for 11 parking spaces rather than the 3 parking spaces she had indicated earlier in her explanation. Mr. McGuirk explained to Mr. Springer that the Board must be shown unique or special conditions of the land before it can grant a variance, and painted out that the applicant had not shown anything unique about his site, although he added that he does agree with everything which had been presented tonight. Mr. Wagner asked if any cross-parking agreements had been made with the shopping center which is adjacent to this lot and Mr. Springer replied that none had been made. Mr. Wagner asked if this site is bounded by streets on 2 sides and Mr. Springer replied that it is bounded by 1 street and something which seems to be some type of public right-of-way, but is not, to his knowledge a dedicated street. Mr. Wagner said that the borders of this site are 2 streets and 2 extremely high intensity uses (shopping center and the University) and there are no cross-parking agreements in either case, therefore these conditions might constitute unique conditions. Mr. Upham • asked if he could lease additional land for parking and Mr. Springer said he had never pursued this because he does not feel there is a need for any additional parking to handle his customers. He went on to state that he is 2 ZBA Minutes 4-16-85 • unable to address any unique and special conditions of the land, because he really does not know what is expected. Mr. Upham explained that in many instances, drainage, creeks, easements and things of that nature have been listed as unique or special conditions of the land not normally found. Mr. Wagner made a motion to authorize a variance to the 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: (1)The nature of the business relies more on walk-in traffic than parking, due to its proximity to TAMU, 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. Mr. Fry seconded this motion. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to amend the above motion to include the statement that this variance is for not more than 11 parking spaces. Mr. Fry seconded this amendment. Votes were cast on the amendment; amendment carried 4-0. Votes were then cast on the amended motion and the amended motion failed by a vote of 3-1 (Upham against), as a positive vote of 4 is required to grant any variance. AGENDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a variance to sign regulations to allow a sign to remain on a tract of land • advertising the future use of the property (off-premise sign). Applicant is James Alphonse Divin. Mr. Wagner made a motion to table this item because neither the applicant nor a representative are present. Mr. Fry seconded the motion to table the item. Mr. McGuirk stated that although that has been the custom of this Board in the past, he would like to ask some questions about this sign. Mrs. Kee explained the staff report adding that there is no final site plan to show this Board, as staff has not heard from the applicant in several weeks and although a P.R.C. review of a site plan had been scheduled on at least 2 separate occasions, the applicant failed to bring in an acceptable site plan. She then explained the intent of the ordinance is to eliminate or preclude a proliferation of signs which create confusion and further to promote an attractive community, foster traffic safety and enhance effective communication. Mr. McGuirk said that because this is clearly a prohibited sign he feels perhaps action by this Board rather than tabling of the request might be more appropriate. Mr. Upham disagreed stating that whatever the case, the applicant should have a chance to present his case. Mrs. Kee stated that Section 11 of Zoning Ordinance addresses the problem of jurisdiction after Mr. McGuirk then questioned whether or not this Board should even consider a variance to something which is clearly prohibited. Mrs. Kee continued to explain that there is no lettering on this sign, that it had been noticed and reported before the applicant had a chance to place lettering on the sign, but that he had reported that plans include advertising an irrigation business and a produce business, neither of which are yet on this premises. Mr. Upham stated that on the basis of the information received he could not cast an affirmative vote on this request, and there is some remote chance the 3 ZBA Minutes 4-16-85 • applicant could come up with some germain fact, so if this request were ruled on tonight the Board might be doing a disservice to the applicant. All agreed so votes were cast on the original motion to table, and the motion carried unanimously (4-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Other business. There was none. AGENDA ITBM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn with Mr. McGuirk seconding the motion. ' Motion to adjourn carried unanimously (4-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: City Secretary • r ,` Ch irman 4 ', j 1 f ~ i ~ ~l r- ~ ~ (^ j ~ ` r F~1 ~+~ ~( ~ -,- ~1~ / ~i~/ ~? ~1 j ~~ Ct-rC.`'. STS - -: _ -- r ; _ ~ I ' ~ ~ ~~ .~~~ ~ ~~ ;i ~~. ~ . `~., ~~~ ~. ~ `f _> 1. `~ ~% ~. ~~ -_~, ~, / ~ 1' s ,,-=~ ::, ~- ~s ,~. - -- __ i ~, ~- s ~~S c s ~~. ~,,., ~. S _ _ _ ~ y, ~ ~ co ` ~..~ ~ ~ f, /c~ C `-~ L y/ ! C-~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION ~~Y~IN~ Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) -rn ~~ ~ sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) • ~. ~„~c ~ , y ~ 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: 1. ~ ~~ ~.!'`''l7 / ~ V\ 3• `YI 4 . ' ( '~ 5• '6. _ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant be.i.~c~ and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, a i 2. 3• 4. Th i s motion wa de by ~""~. ,/ V I )~) V(~"`~-~..,.,_ _ Seconded by The variance was gra by the following vote: D it Signature