Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1985 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsyINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment September 17, 1985 7:00 P.M. '• • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Upham, Members McGuirk, Wagner, Swoboda and Meyer who came in at 7:15 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, City Attorney Locke, Planning Technician Volk, and Director of Planning Mayo who came in at 7:15 p.m. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations of Board. Chairman Upham called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Approval of Minutes - meeting of August 20, 1985 and meeting of September 3, 1985. Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 20, 1985. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Wagner then made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 3, 1985. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0}. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Reconsideration of a request for variance to Section 7-B.3.1 Ordinance 850, the requirement to mark parking spaces on the surface, on a proposed gravel, commercial parking lot at the northeast corner of Church and Nagle Streets. Applicant is Skipper Rarris. (This item was tabled at meeting of August 20, 1985). Chairman Upham explained that Mrs. Meyer is expected within a few minutes, then explained to the audience that ordinance requires 4 favorable votes in order to grant a variance, and since Mrs. Meyer is not yet in attendance, it would mean that a unanimous vote would have to be cast in favor of a request in order to grant it; therefore, it would not be out of order for an applicant to request a recess until the arrival of the 5th member of the Board if he so desired. Mr. Harris asked for that recess and it was granted. Recess ended at ?:15 p.m. with the arrival of Mrs. Meyer. When the meeting reconvened, Mr. Wagner made a motion to take this item from its tabled position. Mr. McGuirk seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0), after which the applicant, Skipper Harris was sworn in and explained his request is 1 ZBA Minutes 9-17-85 for a variance to the requirement to mark the parking spaces on a commercial parking lot. He further explained that this would be impossible in the normal manner (painting on the surface} as his lot has been approved by the City Engineer with a gravel surface. He went on to explain that he would have attendants on duty during peak hours to control parking, and would have wheel stops at the front of each parking space to designate the space, but the sides would not be marked. Mr. McGuirk reminded Mr. Harris that this Board must find unique and special conditions in order to grant a variance, and Mr. Harris explained that there are no other commercial lots in town, which would make his project unique. He went on to explain that his project would cleanup an area which has become an eyesore to the community, as well as being somewhat hazardous in that ingress and egress to the street is now uncontrolled. He then mentioned the hardship would be financial, in that he is not the landowner, but only the lessee with a one year lease on the property, and to pave the lot with a surface which can be striped would, indeed, constitute a financial hardship. Mr. Upham asked if the small lot run by Mr. Loupot charges for parking. No one answered. Mr. Upham then stated that although this lot is not in the actual "Northgate" area, it might help alleviate some of the on-street parking which has caused problems in that area. Mr. McGuirk stated he thinks it might cause even more pressure, as possibly more people are parking on this "mud lot" now than will be able to park after it is put into some kind of order, and thus, cause more on- street parking. Mrs. Meyer asked if variances are usually granted only to landowners, and Mr. Wagner replied that is rarely done in the Northgate area, and most of the variances go to the user of the land. • Mr. Harris continued by stating that his parking lot will help control traffic since now some vehicles jump the curb, and he is planning to fence the entire "mud lot" which will preclude this. Mr. McGuirk stated there is one problem, in that if a variance is granted, it is forever for a particular use and Mrs. Kee stated that this project has thus far been approved with the stipulation that only a temporary certificate of occupancy will be issued for one year, at the end of which time, the project will be reviewed, and if continued, certain upgrading will be required. She further explained that this will be controlled through some type of agreement between the City, the landowner and Mr. Harris, the lessee. Al Mayo, Director of Planning was sworn in and pointed out that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have worked with Mr. Harris to make this a viable project, and explained that the project will be approved on a year-to-year basis, and after a certain number of years, a paved surface may be required. Mr. McGuirk painted out that if Mr. Harris so chooses, he would not have to stripe the paved lot because he would have a variance. Mr. Mayo pointed out the variance being considered at this meeting is to the striping requirements, and the staff and Planning and Zoning Commission can agree that if this applicant does not stripe the spaces when required, he will have no project. Mr. Mayo went on to explain that it is doubtful that this will be a permanent project, and in the interim, it would help alleviate some rather serious safety and fire hazards, and would certainly be much better than the present situation at that location. • Mrs. Kee pointed out that although a variance is tied to the land, specific unique and special conditions of that land can change, and then the variance would have to be reconsidered by the Board. 2 ZBA Minutes 9-17--85 • Mr. McGuirk made a motion to deny this variance. There was no second to this motion, so it died. Mr. Wagner then made a motion to authorize a variance to Section 7-B.3.1 of the Zoning 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: The lot is presently detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the area residents, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being due to the nature of the area, the lot is unlikely to be changed in the near future, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: That the City require, through a temporary certificate of occupancy, that any substantial change be brought before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for reconsideration. Mrs. Meyer seconded this motion. City Attorney Cathy Locke asked to be sworn in, and was; then she stated that a unique and special condition is the approved surface, which is gravel and unlike others in the City. Mr. Wagner asked to amend his motion to include this special and unique condition; Mrs. Meyer agreed to the amendment. Mr. Wagner moved to amend his motion to include this unique and special condition; Mr. McGuirk seconded the amendment. Motion to amend was approved unanimously. (5-0). Mr. McGuirk stated that he still could not see any hardship other than financial. Mr. Wagner stated that is a moot point in that the individual is trying to upgrade a hazardous condition where egress onto streets is bad, and this type of organization would certainly not be detrimental and furthermore, if this variance • is not granted we would deny him financial gain. Mr. Upham agreed and pointed out that this is the only large piece of undeveloped property in that area and the ultimate use is not attainable at this time, and for the Board to do nothing would be afar greater evil than allowing this applicant to try to upgrade the area. Mrs. Meyer stated there are no other- vacant lots in the area which are this large, and asked if that would constitute uniqueness. Mr. Wagner repeated the amended motion. (Motion to authorize a variance to Section 7-B.3.1 of the Zoning 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: That the lot is presently detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of area residents, and that the lot will be constructed of gravel, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being that due to the nature of the area, the lot is unlikely to be changed in the near future, and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: That the City require, through a temporary certificate of occupancy, that any substantial change be brought before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for reconsideration. Votes wex-e cast on this amended motion; amended motion carried 4-0-1 (McGuirk abstained}. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of request for variance for 1 parking space for the operation of a medical clinic with adjoining rental space at the southeast corner of Texas Avenue and Manuel. Applicant is Frank Hahan. • Mrs. Kee explained that the site plan for this project had been approved with the stipulation that one parking space and a dumpster for the project be located on the adjacent lot which is under the same ownership, as there was not room on this 3 ZBA Minutes 9-17-85 • individual lot for the required number of parking spaces or the dumpster. She went on to explain that the applicant for this variance had not chosen to appeal the decision of the Project Review Committee, but had preferred to be granted a variance to the required number of parking spaces, and specifically had requested a variance for one parking space. She went on to explain that until this issue can be resolved, the City will hold the certificate of occupancy for this project as it is short one parking space. Frank Kahan, the applicant, was sworn in and explained that the new landscape rules had used up space for parking, and although he is the owner of the adjacent lot he does not want to locate one parking space on it. He went on to explain that the previous business, which in his opinion would generate more traffic than this project, was never short on parking space, therefore he does not think he needs this one additional space. He then stated there is room for 2 more parking spaces behind this building which can be used for employee parking. Mr. Upham asked Mr. Kahan to point out these spaces, but he could not as they were not shown on the plan which had been reviewed. .Discussion followed regarding just where these spaces might be and whether or not they could be used and for what purposes, with Mr. Upham concluding the discussion by stating he is concerned because this site plan approval was not appealed, and he is really not sure why this request is before the Board. Mr. Kahan said he preferred to get a variance rather than to appeal the approval conditions. Mr. Upham advised Mr. Kahan that he could withdraw this request and appeal the conditions of approval, or if this Board finds against the variance, he could still appeal. Further discussion followed regarding tabling of this request to allow the applicant time to redevelop his plan to show • the parking spaces he refers to. Mr. Kahan agreed that tabling might be the best thing to do tonight. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to table this request. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideration of a request for variance for 27 parking spaces to allow 81 additional seats at the Flying Tomato restaurant at 303 University Drive. Applicant may also request a variance from the requirement that off-premise parking must be provided on property under the same ownership and within 200 feet of the premise. Applicant is Flying Tomato, Inc., A.Ralph Senn, Representative. Mrs. Kee explained that this request actually has two parts, the first being a x•equest for variance for 27 parking spaces to allow an increase in the number of allowed seats from 230 to 311; and the second being a request for variance to the requirement that any off-premise parking be provided on property under the same ownership which is within 200 feet of the premise. She advised that the applicant would be better able to explain the first part of the request, and she would explain the second part of the request, which is to locate off-street parking at a distance greater than Z00 feet from the premise on a lot which is held under ownership other than the owner of this premise. She stated the property mentioned to her by the applicant on which he was pursuing pax•king availability is the old City Hall site which is located some 800 feet from his premise, and added that she did not know at this time if the City has actually been approached by the applicant. She concluded by stating that the intent of the ordinance in this instance is to lessen congestion by providing adequate off-street parking within a • reasonable distance from the premise in a location where the customers are likely to use it. 4 ZBA Minutes 9-17-85 • The applicant, Ralph Senn was sworn in and explained the differences between this request for variance to parking requirements and the previous request as being that this request represents a compromise, i.e., is for approximately one-half the number of spaces of the last request, and is for exterior only seasonal seating tataling 81 seats, or 27 parking spaces. He explained that the unique and special conditions of his land is that there is a lack of available additional parking facilities in a contiguous 200 foot area, and that the unnecessary hardship he faces include the fact that historical and current attempts to obtain adjacent potential additional parking sites have proven relatively impossible, and the ability to maintain and control integrity of any additional parking sites is unrealistic. He explained that the variance would be in the best interest of the public because limited parking would reduce additional access to the extremely congested area within 200 feet of the premise, thereby making most of the business come from walk-in and bicycle traffic, which would, in turn, increase the safety of the area residents. Mr. Senn went on to say that he would advise a possible change in the ardinance addressing specifically the Northgate area to recognize the unique density of the area and the accessibility to students who can walk or ride bikes. He added that the current ordinance is weak in that it does not recognize part-time, seasonal outdoor seating which should have part-time, seasonal. parking requirements which are not as stringent as those requirements for indoor, full-time seating. Mr. Senn then explained that according to photos his company studied prior to leasing this facility there were in excess of the allowed 230 seats located in the • restaurant, and his company based its seating plans on those photos. Mr. Upham interrupted Mr. Senn and stated that much of this testimony had been heard at the previous meeting when that request for variance to parking requirements had been denied. Mr. McGuirk stated that this restaurant is already open with the allowed 230 seats, and wondered if the applicant could get by with fewer seats than now being requested. Mr. Senn said he cauld not. Mrs. W. 0. Reed, Richardson, Texas was sworn in and stated that she owns a vacant lot in this area which she is planning to barricade to control illegal parking, thus she is against this request, far with the closing of her property to vehicles there will be even fewer available parking spaces in the area than there are now. Al Mayo came forward again to explain that this parking variance would not be in line with the new ordinance for the Northgate area which is currently being written, because the particular tract is overbuilt at this time. He then addressed the current allowed seating number of 230 seats and explained that number was reached by a Building Official. some time in the past, adding that this applicant has always been made aware of that allowable number since he has been talking to the planning staff. Mr. Mayo added that the City is trying to maintain the status quo in an already troubled area, and does not recommend additional variances which would aggravate the problem. Mr. McGuirk stated that this Board is in a dilemma as on the one hand variances must be granted or businesses will not be able to operate, but on the other hand, the parking problem exists with no relief in sight. Mr. Wagner spoke of the • moratorium which had been placed on all variances in that area while studies were made, and the lack of implementation of any of the recommendations, adding that perhaps additional available seating inside some of these businesses will help keep 5 ZBA Minutes 9-17-85 • students off the highway. Mr. McGuirk said he would like to make a motion on the first variance request, then offered the 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: The Northgate area is devoid of dependable and usable parking alternatives, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: An inability to successfully utilize this property; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Wagner seconded this motion for the purpose of discussion and asked if exterior seating should be specified. Mr. McGuirk stated he would rather not specify anything. Mrs. Meyer said that. all the other parking variances in the Northgate area were granted to businesses which were landlocked, pointing out that because this business is not landlocked, she opposes this variance. Votes were cast and the motion to authorize the variance failed by a vote of 3-2 (Meyer and Upham against the motion}. Mr. Senn then came forward to address the second part of his variance request which is far relief for the requirement of same ownership and maximum 200 foot distance limit on off-premise parking to allow 49 additional parking spaces for exterior seasonal seating totaling 148 to be located on Lots 2 & 3 Block 11, which are 2 1/2 blocks from the site, and are specifically behind the old City Hall building. He stated this request is a creative attempt to deal with an impossible situation, adding that the lack of available additional parking facilities in a contiguous 200 • foot area represent the unique and special conditions. He went on to explain the unnecessary hardship other than financial is exemplified by historical and current attempts to obtain adjacent potential parking sites which have proven relatively impossible, and the ability to maintain and control the integrity of additional parking sites is unrealistic. He added that a significant increase in available general parking in the Northgate area would greatly reduce the pressure on existing spaces, as well as reducing the hazards connected with them. He stated that at highly dense business centers in the City during seasonal shopping rushes (Christmas), an equal distance can be walked, as the 2 1/2 blocks he is requesting is no farther than the far reaches in large shopping centers. He added that the off-premise parking he is asking to be considered would also be seasonal, for the exterior seating he wants at his restaurant. Mr. Upham interrupted Mr. Senn and asked him if he has an ironclad agreement which would guarantee that something would be done should this variance be granted, and Mr. Senn replied that he does not. Mr. Upham stated that in his opinion a plan must be presented for consideration, and in this case, that is not happening, therefore, he does not believe this Board can consider this request. Mr. Wagner asked Mr. Senn if he would agree to having his request tabled to allow time for discussion with the City or other landowners and Mr. Senn stated that the plight of the businessmen in the area must be considered, adding that if his low-cost restaurant had to be abandoned, it would most likely be replaced by a more expensive restaurant and the public interest would not be served if that would happen. After explaining the reason this Board would consider tabling a request as being to • give the applicant time to approach the landowner of his proposed parking lot to see if something could be worked out, Mr. Wagner made a motion to table this request. Mr. Swoboda seconded the motion to table which carried unanimously (5-0). 6 ZBA Minutes g-17-g5 • AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Consideration of a change in policy regarding the deadline date for filing applications to be heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Kee explained this request is being made by staff so that deadline dates of the two monthly Board meetings will coincide with deadlines for the two monthly Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, adding that if the dates are the same, it would be a great help to staff. Mr. Upham made a motion to change the policy regarding deadline dates for filing applications as requested by staff. Mr. Swoboda seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Deadline dates are as indicated on the attached list, and would actually fall 18 days prior to the meeting date. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Closed session ,to Discuss Pending Litigation [6252-17(2)E]. City Attorney Locke announced she has nothing to discuss in closed session at this time. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Other business. Mr. Upham directed staff to indicate to the appropriate body the absolute necessity of appointing additional Board members as this Board, due to resignations received from Mr. Fry and Mr. Wendt, is now down to only 4 regular members and 1 alternate • member. Mrs. Locke informed the Board the City Council is actively looking for replacement members. Mrs. Kee reminded the Board that the next meeting will be held on October 1, 1985, and asked members to please let staff know if they are unable to attend. Mr. Swoboda announced he would be absent from that meeting. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: Adjourn. Mr. McGuirk made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • /~.~._ --- -------- ------------------- Ch man, Jac Upham 7 • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section it-B.5 i move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations. minimum setback (Table A) arking 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: q~~D~F f~draBtF 1 . THE .Va2fNC~Tt~ ~2F~} ~: FYOi~ of P~9R/l~>~t' ~}L~Tcc~Pri/~TJU~,I 2. 3• 4. 5• 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: A~ ~N~4,BIL/Ty TU .rv~cFrsF~/LL y tI; Iti,~- _ T~IIS PRo~c~'~P7'~/ ; and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice donee . 1. 2. • 3• 4. Th i s motion was made by ~ ~ (/~ 2~' _ Seconded by in/A~/1~(-~, Date The variance was r d by the following vote: olPh;a,/ air igna ure • ZONING BOARD OF ADJl1STMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-6.5 -~ 1 1 move to authorize a variance to the and (6 ) `~, 1 ~J 1 t wi th (Table A) lot epth (Table A) . sy(n regulations. inimum s~back (Table A) arking 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 th land not no al ~u d in i district+'s~:~ ~,,,. ' w ~~ ' ,../ ~,~rrl/ I ~. .. ~ ' li .. 3 4 2. 3• 4. ~^uld~ esult in unnecess hardship t this p licant being -~ ~V ~ ~ .. ~ n such that the i it of Dais Or ina ce s 1 be ob~ed and subs anYZ~ justi erne, ubje to the follow~i`n limitations: ~ 5. 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordin e Th i s motion w de by ~ YN~~yy~y ~ ~ T Seconded by The variance was gra d y the following vote: ~ ~. .~ '~' ('~ :.:~ I r Sigfiature ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER / '- ~,~'' ,. ~ ~, . ~, / ~ , DATE - ~ . NAME 1 ADDRESS . 2. 3• 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9• 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. i8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.