Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES C J CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment July 5, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gilmore, Members Gentry & Henry, Alternate Members Baker & Garrett; also Mayor Ringer for part of the meeting and Council Liaison Birdwell. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ruesink & Member Thompson STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM NO. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and limitations 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 ainutes - aeeting of May 17, 1988. Mr. Gentry made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Presentation of Service Plaques for outgoing aesbers of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mayor Ringer presented plaques to Bob Gilmore and Brett Henry, thanked them for their service to the City and announced that Archie Julien and David Ruesink would also be receiving plaques recognizing serving one term of office on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Adsinistration of Oath of Office for newly appointed and reappointed aesbers of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mayor Ringer then administered the Oath of Office to Robert T. Gilmore, reappointed member of the Board, Brett Henry, reappointed member of the Board, and Jeff Garrett, newly appointed alternate member of the Board. He announced that David Ruesink has also been reappointed to the Board to serve as Chairman, and would take his Oath of Office at a later date. Mayor Ringer then thanked each member of the Board for serving on this body which is charged with making decisions in most difficult cases, and offered the help of the City Council if it is ever needed. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Hear visitors. Phil Springer, 1203B Munson Street came forward to speak about Item #7 on the agenda, and Mr. Gilmore advised him that he would have a chance to address that item later in the meeting when it is under consideration by the Board. AGBI~IDA ITEM N0. 6: Consideratia® of a request for a variance to • the rear setback as required by Table A of Ordinance No. 16:18 at the residence at 2818 Pierre Place. Applicemt is Victor L. Willson. Mrs. Kee explained the request is to enlarge the living space of the home by constructing a 2-story addition at the rear of the house, which is currently located on the rear setback line. She added the expansion would reduce the rear setback to 10 feet, that 10 feet being a utility easement which runs along the rear property line. She stated the lot is surrounded by developed single family residences, with the residence to the rear being approximately 100 feet away. Mrs. Kee continued her report by informing the Board that of the 19 area property owners who were notified, she had received no responses. She went on to state that the ownership of some residences had changed from those listed on the last approved tax roll, and after letters of notification were returned unclaimed from the post office, staff made contact with the Appraisal District to determine current ownership and then sent out letters to those people, although those letters were sent less than a week ago. There were no questions from the Board, so the audience was invited to address this issue. The applicant, Victor Willson came forward and was sworn in. He stated his family purchased this house several years ago when his children were fewer in number and smaller, and now that they are growing up, the family has outgrown the usable space. He explained they would like to stay in this neighborhood and make this expansion if possible. He pointed out that the proposed addition would be a little over 6" away • from the existing easement along the rear. He passed around photos of the property for the Board to use, and explained that it would be difficult to put a complete second story on the house since the original house was not designed for a 2nd story, as well as the fact that part of the house has cathedral ceilings. He also pointed out that there is no room to expand to the side, and there is a large, mature tree to the front which he would prefer to save. Mr. Willson stated he had contacted all adjacent neighbors about this proposal, and none had voiced any opposition. Mr. Henry asked for a description of the addition and Mr. Willson explained his architectural plans. Mr. Gentry asked what public interest would be affected, or what special condition exists. Mr. Gentry went on to state that he has been unable to find any special conditions on the application except that the house now fills most of the buildable space, and asked Mr. Willson to address what special conditions exist which would make this in the best public interest. Mr. Willson replied that the only thing that would make this addition in the best public interest would be that it would help maintain stability in the neighborhood, because the alternative would be to put the house on the market. He explained that his primary concern is not financial, but rather that he would like to help keep this nice neighborhood intact. Mr. Gentry suggested that perhaps an alternative would be to make the addition in the front of the house, but Mr. Willson replied that there are now small bedrooms in the front, and would make a question as to how to use the existing and the proposed • space. He said also that he does not think an addition on the front of the house would blend very well. ZBA Minutes 7-5-88 Page 2 Mr. Gentry then asked about putting the addition in the space between the house and • the garage. Mr. Willson explained that there is a large tree in that area which he would loath destroying. Mr. Henry asked if he had ever considered a conversion of the garage for additional space and Mr. Willson replied he had considered it only briefly because his family uses the garage for a~workshop and a garage for one vehicle. Additionally, Mr. Willson explained there are no water lines in that area. Mr. Henry asked Mrs. Kee if there have been any previous cases which are similar to this one and Mrs. Kee replied she could recall only one case in s different area which involved a setback variance for an addition to an existing house due to an addition in the family. Mr. Gilmore explained to Mr. Willson that the Board is trying to find a special condition which would make this property unique, or to find some hardship other than solely financial in nature. Mr. Gentry agreed, and explained that in the absence of some other compelling factor of which he is unaware, he is unable to find anything special which would be a contributing factor which would fall into the statutory guidelines which this Board must follow. He added that there seem to be alternatives available, although they may not be as acceptable to this family as their proposal. Mr. Gilmore and Mrs. Baker agreed. After the Board had a brief discussion about building a 2-story house so close to an electrical easement, Mr. Gentry made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance • as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mrs. Baker seconded the motion. Mr. Gentry explained to Mr. Willson that the hardest decisions this Board has to make are the negative ones, but he invited Mr. Willson to reconsider his plans, and if necessary, he invited Mr. Willson to come to the Board for help. He continued by saying the Board is not opposed to his proposed use of his property. Votes were cast with the result being 5-0 in favor of the motion to deny the variance. AGBNDA ITBM N0. ?: Consideration of a request for a special exception to allow enlargeaent of a non-conforming shopping center, specifically the University Square (Skaggs) shopping center at University and South College. Applicant is John C. Culpepper III Trust. Mrs. Kee explained the request is to allow the addition of a 1240 square foot building to a non-conforming shopping center. She stated that although the shopping center is now non-conforming for both the number of parking spaces and the landscaping points, it has been determined that with re-stripping of the entire parking lot, the required number of parking spaces can be met for the existing center, but would be 3 parking spaces short if this addition is allowed. She also • stated that the Project Review Committee has reviewed and approved this site plan, pending ZBA action, and also that a parking variance was granted in February 1988 for the existing drive-through facility located at the corner of University and College. ZBA Minutes 7-5-88 Page 3 ~° • She stated that 33 area property owners had been notified of this request, and to date she had received only 2 responses; one from Mr. Springer who is in the audience, and one from the owner of Music Express who expressed concern for visibility for his business, traffic flow/congestion and the loss of parking spaces in that particular area. Mr. Gilmore opened the meeting to the audience to address this issue and John Cecil Culpepper, Jr. was sworn in. He asked Mrs. Kee for clarification of some of her comments which he could not hear in the audience. Mrs. Kee explained that if this request is approved, the expansion would allow the shopping center to be 3 parking spaces short of that which would be required by ordinance. Mr. Culpepper stated the reason for this request is that the proposed building is for primarily drive-through traffic and seating and normal parking requirements would not be necessary. He said the area which might otherwise be devoted to the 3 spaces would be devoted to a drive through around the new building. Mr. Gilmore asked Mr. Culpepper if he has any plans to reduce the non-conformity of the lack of landscaping and Mrs. Kee explained that additional landscaping is being planned in the area of the new building and along College Avenue if permits can be acquired from the Highway Department, but the amount of landscaping planned would not be enough to cover the requirements for the entire shopping center. Mr. Gentry asked if Mr. Culpepper couldn't find room for only 3 more parking spaces and Mr. Culpepper replied that so far they have not been able to, but because the new building will be primarily drive-thru, additional parking would not be needed. He • added the business would have only very limited seating, if any at all. Several Board members approached the site plan and aerial on the wall and Mr. Culpepper joined them. Speculations were made as to whether or not there would be room for some additional parallel parking spaces on the northern side of the building, with Mr. Gentry explaining if those parking spaces can be created on this paved lot, there would be no need for a special exception for the project. Mrs. Kee read from Section 15 of Ordinance No. 1638 and explained that Mr. Culpepper would still need a special exception to make any additions to this shopping center because of the lack of landscaping points. She went on to explain that the Board should consider whether granting a special exception would prolong the life of this non-conforming shopping center. Phil Springer, 1203B Munson was sworn in and stated that he would ask that the Board deny this request for 3 reasons: (1)The addition would introduce a lot of congestion in an already congested area which is also used as a thoroughfare, and {2)That notices were sent to property owners within 200 hundred feet, but the managers or owners of the businesses in the area received no notification since they were not the property owners, and these are the people who have an interest in what is going on in close proximity to their businesses. Mr. Springer went on to state that he has talked with several of the tenants in the area and also with the Assistant Manager of Community Savings who told him that she is concerned about this proposal as to its affect on their customers leaving the property, and that she would try to get some direction from her superiors as to what • action to take. He mentioned several other business operators in the area who had voiced opposition ZBA Minutes 7-5-88 Page 4 and who had not received notification of the request, and suggested that at the very • least, a decision should be delayed until all business operators could receive notice and respond to it. The manager of "Fatburgers", Mohammad _____, was sworn in and stated that he is opposed to this request because of his concern with the congestion in the area, and also because of the lack of available parking in the area for the existing businesses. Mr. Culpepper came forward and asked that his request be withdrawn to give him time to visit some of the tenants of the shopping center. He explained that his plan was to try to remove some of the "thoroughfare-type traffic", and that he was not aware of any objections of people and tenants there. Mr. Gilmore asked if he wanted to withdraw his request, or to have the Board table it until a later date. Mr. Culpepper said that tabling would be preferred. Mr. Gentry made a motion to table consideration of this request. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGgNDA ITBM NO. 8: Consideration of a request frog the Zoning Official for interpretation of Section 9.2.B. of Ordinance No. 1638, Off-Presises Locations, relative to what constitutes appropriate ownership interest for parking purposes. Mrs. Kee explained that a question of what constitutes appropriate ownership interest for parking purposes has recently arisen, and a specific policy defining "a lesser • ownership interest" has never been established. She said because this is a matter of interpretation of Section 9.Z.B of Ordinance No. 1638, she is coming to the Board for action on the question. Mrs. Kee then read Section 9.2.B directly from the Zoning Ordinance, which reads as follows: "For any new use, building or structure where the required off-street parking cannot be provided on the premises because of the size or location of the lot or building plot, such parking may be provided on other property under the same ownership whether in fee simple or a lesser ownership interest, not more than two hundred (200) feet distant from the building site provided the proposed parking area is located in a district where parking lots are permitted for that use." Mr. Gentry asked Assistant City Attorney Banks to clarify if she is looking for a definition of something other than a "fee simple" interest. Mrs. Banks replied that staff is thinking that a lease of a certain period of time, perhaps 10 years, would constitute a lesser ownership interest as opposed to absolute ownership. Mr. Gentry said that when he reads that section of the ordinance, he has the feeling that the drafters of the ordinance were thinking of some type of ownership, and not just a lease arrangement because a lease is going to end, whereas a lesser ownership estate might be something less than a fee simple, that is a life estate or some other type of estate. Mrs. Banks replied that staff thinks a lease holder might be sufficient depending upon the length of the lease. Mr. Henry asked if problems might occur if the ownership of the property under lease was conveyed to another, i.e., how might that affect the lease holder's lease? Mr. Gentry explained that when he talks about "lesser interest" he is referring to • something less than fee simple or absolute ownership. He went on to say there are lesser fee estates which could be that if anyone ever transfers this property, or perhaps lets a minority group live on the property, that person would lose this ZBA Minutes 7-8-88 Page 5 property. He said many of those type fee estates are lost now, but there have been • in the past, many restrictions like that which were lesser fee estates. He said a leasehold estate is an interest which is contractual for the use of the property, and not real property ownership. Mrs. Banks stated again that staff is of the opinion that a long term lease may be enough, but has been unable to locate enough background or established cases to make a complete study. She repeated that perhaps a 10 year lease would suffice. Mr. Gentry said that if a person has a 10 year lease on property to provide off- premise parking for a business might very well be enough for that person to come before the Board for a variance, but to say that falls within the intent of the ordinance without any administrative review of the situation, I don't think I agree to that. The ordinance is intending the same ownership of the lot, and if he could get some type of leasehold interest, a lot would depend upon what percentage of the parking the leasehold estate would cover. For certain uses, a 10 year lease might be enough, but in others, it might not be adequate. My opinion is that if a leasehold estate is obtained, let the applicant come before this Board to request a variance. A leasehold can be one of the factors of a variance request to be considered. Leases can be broken and all leases end. Mr. Gilmore paraphrased that the lesser ownership interest must be some type of ownership, and not simply a lease, and anything less than ownership must come before the Board for consideration of a variance. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Other business. • Mr. Gilmore welcomed Mr. Garrett to the Board. Mrs. Kee announced there will be a Board meeting scheduled on July 19th. AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: Adjourn. Mr. Henry made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Gentry seconded. All voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: ATTEST: -- ----- C --- --------------- Chairman, David Ruesink ----------------------------- City Secretary, Dian Jones :7 ZBA Minutes 7-8-88 Page 6 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - FORMAT FOR NBGATIVB MOTIONS Variances: From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to deny a variance to the _______yard (Section 8.7) _______lot width (Table A) _______lot depth (Table A) _______minimum setback (Table A) _______parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. . Motion made by _-~~-C~~~-/ ------------------------------ Seconded by ____~ ffi~~/~ --------------------------------- Voting results: ~ ~ 'ct_ !~t Chair signature __________~ ~ ~.. -` `~ 0 7 ~~'~ - - -- - ~_= _ =----- Date _ • i• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER NAME 1. 2. 3. 4. DATE July 5, 1988 ADDRESS ~ ( ~~ , e ~ ,~ - D C ca ~ ate. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ~! 25.