Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment April 19, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gilmore, Members Thompson, Gentry, and Renry; also Council Liaison Gardner MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ruesink, Alternate Members Julien & Baker STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA I?BM NO. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Acting Chairman Gilmore called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of sinntes - aeeting of April 5, 1988. Mr. Thompson made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). • AQBNDA IlBI~! NO. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AQBKDA I?BM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to the parking regnireaents and front setback regnireaents for a proposed building at 308 Jersey (Lots 9, 10 ~ parts of Lots 8 ~ 11 Block 8 Nestpark Addition subdivision). Applicant is J. B. Loupot. Mrs. Kee explained the request, located the site and stated the purpose of the applicant's request is to allow him to renovate an existing site by removing part of an existing structure and to construct a facility to house a bookstore with a drive- through. She stated that the proposal is to construct this building on the front property line which would put it in line with the existing, adjacent buildings, and the site plan which was reviewed by the Project Review Committee was for a 4,000 square foot building which would require 16 parking spaces. She explained that the applicant has, since the time of that review, indicated that the building may be larger by making it 2 stories, which would require even more parking spaces. She stated there are no parking spaces being proposed on the site, but there will be 4 spaces directly in front of the lot in s 60 foot parking and access reserve that is part of the Southgate Shopping Center. Mrs. Kee went on to identify other uses in the center which would require 108 parking spaces, or 63 more than now exist. She also informed the Board that the applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for s parking lot to be located on the R-6 property across the alley, and if granted, this lot will provide adequate parking for this business to meet ordinance requirements. She did point out that the applicant only has a short term lease on that adjacent lot, and if the lease cannot be renewed after it expires, he will then be faced with the need for a variance. • Mrs. Kee then explained other similar action taken on adjacent lots, reported that none of the property owners notified of this request had responded, and the Fire Marshal snd Building Official had no comments to make about it. The applicant was invited forward, and Marion 0. Lawrence, Jr., architect and representative of the applicant was sworn in. He explained the proposal would be both viable and suit the owner's needs, and if indeed, the building becomes a 6000 sq. ft. 2-story building, the second story would only be partially used for displays, retail sales, etc., and the use would be no more than 2/3 or 3/4 of the second floor. Mr. Lawrence also pointed out that although there are 4 parking spaces in front of this lot, they cannot be designated for use by any particular business in the center according to the agreement. Discussion followed regarding the change in plans for the size of the building since the application was submitted (which stated 4,000 sq. ft.), and the possibilities of getting the lease extended on the land which is proposed for use as a parking lot for this building. Mr. Henry asked how large the previous building on this site was snd was told it was approximately 25x30 plus a small section, and was not non-conforming as there were some parking spaces on the site. Mr. Lawrence explained the peak periods of operation of a bookstore are only about 3 days in the fall and 3 days in the spring, and that during those days, every bookstore in town has a parking problem. He pointed out the drive-through window should help alleviate some of those problems. • Mr. Gentry stated that what is being proposed is a 6000 sq. ft. building with no on- site parking; and although many of the Gity's older neighborhoods do not fit today's ordinance requirements, this shopping center being one of them, he is struggling to decide if the available parking in the shared access/parking area will be able to handle the additional traffic created by this business on days during the year other than the 3 days in the fall and 3 days in the spring which have been mentioned. Mr. Lawrence stated that although he has not done traffic counts, he has visited the site on at least 5 different occasions at various times of the day, and has never seen the lot full. Mr. Thompson said that employees required for a store of this size will use the 4 parking spaces in the front, and it is hard for him to justify a parking variance just in case the lease to the proposed lot is not approved. He added that he has no problem allowing the setback variance. Mr. Henry said that he hss no problem with the setback variance either, but he wondered if it would be feasible to grant a variance contingent upon conditions. Mr. Gentry asked if there is enough space on the site to add parking in the driveway and Mr. Lawrence replied that by removing approximately 7 feet from the huilding, 4 parallel spaces can be created, but that he believes the drive-through must be maintained. Mr. Gilmore stated that this is somewhat of a unique situation due to the location of the lot in this non-conforming shopping center, but he does believe the additional traffic will compound an existing problem on regular day-to-day activities. J.E.Loupot, applicant, was sworn in and gave the history of his bookstore in the Northgate area and the parking problems which he overcame, and stated that he plans • to operate this proposed store with only 2 employees and plans to go to the expense of leasing a lot across the alley for parking to help alleviate a problem, but he is asking for relief from the rules to make the project viable. ZBA Minutes 4-19-88 Page 2 Virgil Shaw Wolfson, 301 Highland, was sworn in and said that he is speaking neither in favor nor against this proposal, but he would like to ask if traffic counts have • been done for this area, adding that he can speak from experience that during rush hour traffic is greatly increased in the residential part of this area. He added that the alley is rough and cannot accommodate 2 vehicles meeting each other, and he would question how many vehicles would even use it if it is not resurfaced. He also asked if the proposed parking lot would be for anyone other than Mr. Loupot's patrons, and pointed out that the space is already used by some of the tenants of the center for employee parking. He said that he thinks the proposed drive-through facility will create commercial traffic on the residential streets in the area, and Highland is already overcrowded. Mr. Gentry invited anyone with information regarding the Southgate area forward to share information which could help the Board to make a decision. Ben Lyles, 201 Redmond was sworn in and stated that traffic is a problem at various times of the day, but he is not aware of any of the center's tenants parking on the lot to the rear as was mentioned. He said that on-street parking is prohibited by the State along Jersey, but if it was allowed, it would certainly help the tenants of this center. He said that he thinks the parking lot to the rear is a good idea, but the alley is in such bad shape and so full of holes, he is wondering how that will be handled. He added that up until now, the City has graded it upon request, but he does not know who will be responsible for it if it is used for a driveway for anything other than City vehicles. Mr. Gilmore asked Mr. Lyles if he is for or against this request, and Mr. Lyles replied he is not opposed, but he is not particularly enthused about it because he • thinks it will cause a problem. Mr. Lyles then asked Mr. Lawrence if the alley will be paved and Mr. Lawrence replied that he has not formulated those plans yet, and if the Conditional Use Permit is approved, the lot will have to meet City standards. Mr. Loupot spoke up and added that some kind of improvement will be made to the alley, but he is not sure what it will be now. Mr. Gentry explained to the applicant that there are several directions which can be taken at this time, and he would prefer to make a proposal which will not tie the parking lot to the mercies of owners of other lots, but would address the parking and traffic problem. He explained that if the variance is granted he would want it subject to certain conditions; those being that the building would be limited in size to 4000 square feet and that there be no less than 4 on-site parking spaces developed, which, if added to the 4 which are already in front of the building, would bring the project up to providing approximately 509K of the required parking, which would match what is provided for the businesses in that center now. Mr. Lawrence said he would have no problem with a variance of that nature, but he would prefer to be allowed to make the building something over 4,000 sq. ft. Mr. Henry pointed out that much of the second story would not be fully used. Acting Chairman Gilmore then explained to the applicant that there are only 4 of the 5 Board members present at this meeting, and if a variance is granted the favorable vote would have to be unanimous. He asked if the applicant would prefer the Board to table this item for consideration at the next meeting when perhaps there will be 5 members present, or if he would prefer that action is taken at this meeting. Mr. Gentry explained that after the hearing is closed, normally all issues are discussed, and perhaps the applicant will get a better feel for the direction the request is • likely to take after hearing that discussion, adding that he could then make his decision. ZBA Minutes 4-19-88 Page 3 Mr. Gentry then made the following motion: "I move to authorize a variance to the minimum setback and parking requirements from terms of this ordinance as it will not • be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: The existing retail construction on the site of the area known as Southgate is all built up to the property line, and the construction of this facility up to the property line will simply be in keeping with existing construction along that site, and the existing parking provided for in this area was built before the existing ordinance and runs at a rate of about 40X of what is required by the existing ordinance, end a variance to the parking requirements could bring this up to meet that standard, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: The fact that construction on this site would be impractical without applying the same standards applicable to the adjoining property owners, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Minimum setback would allow construction up to the front property line, and parking requirements would be met by a minimum of 4 parking spaces on site and 4 parking spaces in the jointly owned parking facility adjacent to Jersey Street, those 2 requirements being a condition of the continuation of the variance, and in addition to those conditions, the construction on site would not exceed 4,000 square feet." Mr. Henry seconded the motion. Mr. Gentry explained that the intention of the motion is to make the proposed project viable while maintaining the standards others in the shopping center already have, even though it does not cover all the applicant has requested. If the applicant must vary some from the 4000 square foot maximum, he could come back with a variance request at a later date. Mr. Gilmore said he agrees with the concept, but believes there is a parking problem here and he does not know if this Board can help solve it. • Mr. Thompson said that he thinks this is a good motion and he is comfortable with it. He said he would not like to hurt other business's parking in this center. Mr. Lawrence requested that the maximum size of 4000 sq. ft. be made to be plus or minus. Mr. Gentry agreed, and amended the motion to reflect "the construction on site would not exceed 4,000 square feet plus or minus 5X". Mr. Henry seconded the amendment which passed unanimously {4-0). Amended motion carried unanimously (4-0). AaBNDA ITBIr! KO. 5: Consideration of a request for a variance to sign regulations to allo~r replaceaent of an existing sign at 210 IIniversity Drive Sast (Lots 8, 9, 10 A 11 Yisosl~i subdivision). Applicant is Lonnie Stabler for owner Hilo Anto Supply. Chairman Gilmore explained that there is a person in the audience who needs to speak with a staff member, so he declared a 5 minute break to allow Mrs. Kee some time with the person. After the meeting was reopened, Mrs. Kee explained the request is for a variance to sigh regulations governing both height and area of a new sign to replace an existing non-conforming billhoard type sign. She described the lot, the existing sign, adjacent structures, the proposed sign and then stated that at the proposed location, a conforming sign could be 11 ft. tall and be 75 square feet in area. She reported that 7 area property owners had been notified of this request, and to date, she had received 1 response which expressed support of the request because of the size and • condition of the existing sign. Applicant Lonnie Stabler was sworn in and explained the purpose of this proposed sign ZBA Minutes 4-19-88 Page 4 is to create better signage with less clutter and in his opinion, improve traffic flow between businesses in the area and keep some of the local traffic to the 2 businesses off of University Drive. Mr. Thompson said he is in favor of the proposed height of the sign since the topography of the land in that location is such that at a height of 30 feet, it will appear to be only 8-10 feet tall. Mr. Stabler added that sight distance will be improved with the proposed sign. Mr. Henry asked Mr. Stabler if the existing sign will remain if this variance is denied, to which Mr. Stabler replied that he does not know since he is not the owner of the sign but only s representative for him, but he would guess that the owner would repair and retain the existing sign if he is not allowed to replace it with this proposed sign. Mr. Gentry asked what the life of the new sign will be and Mr. Stabler replied that it will be approximately 30-35 years without any structural maintenance, but within 5-10 years some painting and wiring repair will probably be required. Council Liaison Gardner explained the difference between an actual "billboard" and the existing sign on this premise which is not technically a billboard, but rather of the size of a billboard. Mr. Stabler agreed, and added that his goal is to make a sign look as good as possible and to actually enhance advertising the owner's business. He explained that the proposed sign will make a better visual impact and will be easier to see due to both the height and size being proposed. • Mr. Gilmore asked if a sign lower than 30 feet had been considered and Mr. Stabler replied that his company had conducted sight distance testing from both directions, and the result was that a sign even 5 feet lower eliminates some of the sign, so the proposed size is the optimum height and size for the customer at this location. Mr. Gentry asked if the area of the sign itself has to be 30 feet and Mr. Stabler explained how this size was determined by location and height of letters. Mr. Gilmore said he is concerned with having an 8x30 foot sign, the bottom of which is 22 feet off the ground since that seems to be a very large sign. He asked if the customer would be as well served with a sign 8x24 in area. Mr. Stabler explained that 8x30 foot signs are what the company is leaning toward at this time as a standard sign for all locations, and that in itself represents a compromise. Mr. Gentry explained that although the proposal would be an improvement, his problem is that the existing sign will probably soon have to be replaced, and at that time the owner would have to meet ordinance requirements or seek a variance; and now the proposal is to remove the existing sign before it is absolutely necessary, but to replace it with a smaller, but still non-conforming sign which is more than twice the size which would be allowed, and which will have a life of 20-30 years. Mr. Gilmore said the existing sign is not serving any purpose because it is too tall to see, and by dropping the height, optically the sign will look larger, so if the area could be reduced from that being proposed it would be more acceptable and would fit in better at that location. Mr. Stabler stated the proposal represents the best compromise he has been able to reach with the owner. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Stabler if he could convince the owner that a sign 8'x24' would be better, if that is • the size the Board designates for the variance. Mr. Stabler replied it would satisfy him, but he does not know of the owner will accept that, or simply keep the existing sign. ZBA Minutes 4-19-88 Page 5 Mr. Henry thanked Mr. Stabler for his input, but explained that the Board must deal with this specific sign at this specific location, and the question is whether the • can be an acceptable compromise reached for a sign somewhat smaller than the proposed 240 square feet in area. Mr. Stabler stated the decision is entirely up to the Board, and whatever is decided, he will take back to the owner and try to sell. Mr. Henry suggested that perhaps action on this item should be tabled to allow Mr. Stabler time to meet with the owner before a decision is reached. Mr. Gilmore then explained that because there are only 4 members at this meeting, any variance will require a unanimous decision, so he would leave the option open to the applicant of having the item tabled until there is a full Board to consider it if Mr. Stabler desires. Mr. Stabler stated he would rather the Board take action on the request at this meeting, and if the owner does not like the results, he can always come back with another variance request. Mr. Gentry then made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: That being the fact that at this location there is a pre-existing sign far in excess of the requirements of the ordinance, and that the proposal will dramatically improve upon those existing conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: The inability to improve upon the property as intended by the ordinance, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: The height of the sign may not exceed 30 feet, and the square footage of the sign may not exceed 192 square feet, with the physical dimensions of the sign not exceeding 8 feet in • height and 24 feet in length, with a setback of 20 feet. Motion seconded by Brett Henry. Voting results: 4-0 {Unanimous). AGBNDA ITBM K0. 6: Other business. Mrs. Kee reported that Mr. Fink in Raintree subdivision had not appealed the decision of the Board to deny his variance request, so she had sent him a letter requesting compliance with ordinance requirements which resulted in a phone call from him during which she explained exactly what he should eliminate. She also informed the Board there will be no meeting on May 3rd. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Thompson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously {4-0). APPRO~,V~E,,DQ : ~ Acting Chairman obert Gilmore ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA Minutes 4-19-88 Page 6 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the minimum setback and parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: The existing retail construction on the site of the area known as Southgate is all built up to the property line, and the construction of this facility up to the property line will simply be in keeping with existing construction along that site, and the existing parking provided for in this area was built before the existing ordinance and runs at a rate of about 40~ of what is required by the existing ordinance, and a variance to the parking requirements could bring this up to meet that standard, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: The fact that construction on this site would be impractical without applying the same standards applicable to the adjoining property owners, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Minimum setback would allow construction up to the front property line, and parking requirements would be met by a minimum of 4 parking spaces on site and 4 parking spaces in the jointly owned • parking facility adjacent to Jersey Street, those 2 requirements being a condition of the continuation of the variance, and in addition to those conditions, the construction on site would not exceed 4,000 square feet. Mr. Gentry made the motion Mr. Henry seconded the motion. Mr. Gentry explained that the intention of the motion is to make the proposed project viable while maintaining the standards others have in the shopping center already have, even though it does not cover all the applicant has requested. If the applicant must vary some from the 4000 square foot maximum, he could come back with a variance request at a later date. Mr. Lawrence requested that the maximum size of 4000 sq. ft. be made to be plus or minus. Mr. Gentry agreed, and amended the motion to reflect "the construction on site would not exceed 4,000 square feet plus or minus 5~". Mr. Henry seconded the amendment which passed unanimously (4-0). Amended motion carried unanimously (4-0). __ __________ - ------April_191_1988------- A ting Chairm~ obert Gilmore • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: That being the fact that at this location there is a pre-existing sign far in excess of the requirements of the ordinance, and that the proposal will dramatically improve upon those existing conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: The inability to improve upon the property as intended by the ordinance, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following limitations: The height of the sign may not exceed 30 feet, and the square footage of the sign may not exceed 192 square feet, with the physical dimensions of the sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height and 24 feet in length, with a setback of 20 feet. Motion made by Michael Gentry. • Motion seconded by Brett Henry. Vot' results,' - (unanimous) --- -------1- ---------- ==-`_'~- -~--April_19,_1988------------- cting Chair n Robert Gilmore date ZONING BARD OF ADJUSTMENT • DATE April 1g, 1g88 GUEST REGISTER NAME 2. ~t~Ytt`c~~ v 3 . ~ ~,T. c~uC~C-/L~ 4 . T~i 5 • ~ A Iw ~ir' !,~ ~~ 7. s. 9. 10. ADDRESS l Z tb 2. - c~3 E. Uu~ a ~,_ d~. ~i ~- ,~~ ~~~ ~~~ .~.~ f 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23- 24. 25.