Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, Zoning Board of Adjustment Tuesday, November 1, 1988 7:00 P.M. • Gentry, & Council the Board as a Alternate STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee & Planning Technician Volk MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gilmore, Members Thompson, Alternate Member Baker Liaison Birdwell (who served on voting member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ruesink, Member Henry & Member Garrett AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations o! the Board. Acting Chairman Gilmore called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. He then invited Council Liaison Birdwell to serve on the Board as a voting member if he wished. Councilman Birdwell accepted the invitation. AaBNDA ITBM N0. Z: Approval of aiantea - seating of Septeaber 6, 1988. Mr. Thompson made a motion to approve the draft minutes as submitted. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried unanimously {5-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variances to rear setback, ride setback and parking lot requireaents at the existing business at 501 Texas Avenue (Diaaond Shaarock). Applicant is Bob Faraer. Mrs. Kee explained the request, identified the applicant, the location of the site, area zoning and land uses, and explained the purpose of the request is to enable the applicant to remodel an existing Diamond Shamrock service station which is located on a very small lot in an area of the city which was developed many years ago before the zoning ordinance was adopted. She described the lot, including the 3 access points, and informed the Board that the applicant is proposing to construct s building in the southeast corner of the lot with no rear or side setbacks, i.e., using lot-line construction, and also to delete 8 of the islands which would be required to be located at the end of parking rows. Mrs. Kee identified a special condition to be considered as the long narrow lot configuration snd the location of the existing gas pumps and canopy. She referred the Board to the application for the hardship as identified by the applicant. Mrs. Kee stated that of the 8 area property owners who had been sent notification of this request, several had responded with comments and inquiries. She also stated that the P.R.C. had reviewed this project on 10-19-88 and recommended approval with the certain conditions, including favorable action on the requested variances by the ZBA. There were no questions of staff at this time, so the applicant was invited to • address the Board. Bob Farmer, 2901 Hwy. 79 West, Seguin, Texas came forward and was sworn in. He stated that he has bought 6 existing facilities from Diamond Shamrock recently, including this site which is unique in that it needs improvements and cleaning up to make it a viable business property as well as an asset to the City at this intersection which has been identified as the busiest intersection between here and Aouston. Mr. Farmer then explained that his plans include the addition of a building of approximately 1450 square feet to be used for a convenience, fast food-type store in which his employees would also work and have protection from the weather, to improve the existing canopy, to eliminate the existing kiosk and to add some parking spaces and landscaping. Mr. Thompson asked if there is a reason for not moving the pumps and Mr. Farmer replied that it would be difficult to move them and still provide access through all 3 existing curb cuts. Mr. Thompson then asked if the proposed building must be as large as planned and Mr. Farmer said although it is not very large, it could possibly be made slightly smaller, but this design has proven functional in other cities with lot line construction, thereby having only 1 entrance point. Mr. Thompson asked Mrs. Kee what would happen if the adjacent lot owner wanted to build his building toward the west side of his lot in the future and Mrs. Kee replied that this building will be required to include a certain rated fire wall on the rear and the aide, thus the adjacent property could be built to within 7 1/2 feet of the western property line, which is adjacent to the rear of this particular lot. In other words, the adjacent property owner can simply follow regular zoning • requirements, and would not be penalized because of the location of a building on this lot. Ray Patronella, 2206 Windsor, Bryan, Texas was sworn in to represent the applicant in additional discussion and explained that his original plans were to have a 1 foot setback from the property lines, but after meeting with the city staff, he was convinced that lot line construction, if permitted with a variance, would be best and would eliminate a small area to collect blowing trash. After additional discussion, Mr. Gentry asked Mrs. Kee if the applicant would require a variance if he set the building 15 feet off the rear property line and Mrs. Kee replied that he would not need a setback variance in that case, but he would need a parking variance then because he would have deleted some of the required parking by moving his building to the west. Frank Lampo, 3804 Valley Oak came forward and was sworn in. He stated that his business, Pizza Hut, which is adjacent to this business suffered negative impact by actions of the city in placing barriers in the middle of University Drive which prevented access to his business by vehicles traveling west on University Drive, and now he thinks the city should try to prevent this businessman from placing a building on his lot which would eliminate the only positive feature he has left at the Pizza Hut, which is visibility to east bound traffic on University and north bound traffic on Texas Avenue. He said all he would have left would be visibility to west bound traffic on University, and those people would not be able to get to the business. He went on to state that anything Mr. Farmer does on his property will adversely • affect his business, and one of the most serious possibilities is that patrons to Mr. Farmer's store will probably use parking spaces on the Pizza Hut lot, because those spaces will be more handy than those on Mr. Farmer's lot. ZBA Minutes 11-1-88 Page 2 Mr. Gentry explained the issue before the Board tonight is not whether or not Mr. • Farmer can build a building on his lot, but rather, whether Mr. Farmer can build a building using lot line construction on both the side and rear property lines of his lot. Mr. Lampo said that if anything is allowed to be done to Mr. Farmer's lot, then the proposal Mr. Farmer is making with his request tonight would be the best for Pizza Hut business. He explained that in the future his plans include moving his business further south and putting his current facility up for sale, and restriction of exposure to Texas Avenue and possible loss of parking spaces combined with the already reduced access to his property would severely limit the number of prospective buyers for the property. Mr. Gentry asked if the existing canopy affects Mr. Lampo's property, and he replied it is no problem, and he has real good visibility now, but with a building put on the lot with 14 foot walls, he would lose the good visibility; and that, combined with the restricted access caused by the barricades in University some time back, would certainly cause even more of a drop in business than he has already experienced. Additional discussion followed between the Board and Mr. Lampo covering the same subject and objections to anything being built on Mr. Farmer's property, with Mr. Farmer coming forward to explain that if the Board does not grant the requested variances to setbacks, he can still move a building to the west, and by making variations to the plans and the existing canopy, he can make plans work. He continued by explaining that the proposal being considered at this meeting is the beat practical use of the property, but other changes can be made which would both beautify and enhance the property without the variances. • More discussion followed with Mr. Lampo, with Mr. Gentry clarifying the Board's position as being to try to minimize negative impact on neighboring properties, and Mr. Lampo repeated the problems he has with any addition to the adjacent property, but finalized by asking the Board to consider everyone's best interest and to try to do what is beat for everyone concerned. No one else spoke. Mr. Thompson stated that at the beginning of this meeting he did not see a need for the setback variances, but after hearing Mr. Lampo's statement that the proposal submitted would have the least negative impact on his property, he is now uncertain as to what to do. Mr. Gentry stated that he has only been trying to get a feel for the least offensive affect on neighbors, since the current conditions are fairly easy to address, but he now recognizes that in the future, buildings could be placed only 7 1/2 feet apart, which seems awfully tight. Discussion followed regarding similar conditions in other older areas of the city, including the Northgate area, but Mrs. Kee explained that the Northgate area is somewhat different from other parts of the city because it is a fire district and has somewhat more stringent rules, with different setback requirements, but with building codes being very strictly enforced regarding separation of structures or specific fire walls. Mr. Birdwell reminded everyone again that this project is in a very old part of the city which was developed under a different set of rules. Mr. Gilmore then reminded the Board of a recent variance granted to setback requirements across the street from this property, which was an almost identical situation. Mr. Gilmore then asked if the Pizza Hut could have additional signage for exposure • and Mrs. Kee explained the requirements to be met. Mr. Lampo spoke again and said additional signage would coat him additional money, and the problem is being caused by someone else. Mr. Thompson again explained that the applicant could build a ZBA Minutes 11-1-88 Page 3 building without any variances at all, but from Mr. Lampo's earlier statements, he is • now under the impression that a building with the requested variances would cause the least negative impact on the neighboring property. He stated that this Boar~I n^r the city can keep Mr. Farmer from building a building on his property. Mr. Lampo then said for the Board to do whatever it thinks is best, but additional signage will cost him money, and he thinks he has already lost enough. Mr. Gentry asked Mrs. Kee if this variance is granted, can the Board require some kind of fence along the lot line to protect Mr. Lampo's parking spaces, and Mra. Kee replied that she thinks that could be a condition the Board can impose. She then reminded the Board that the request for variance to the island requirements moat also be addressed. Mr. Gentry then made a motion to authorize a variance to minimum setback requirements and parking requirements as they apply to the number, location and size of islands from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: The size and shape of the lot restricts development and traffic flow; the proposed layout, though burdensome on adjacent property, is a leas severe burden than the alternative, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the inability to reasonably develop the property, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: All 0 lot line construction; landscape islands as proposed; fence no higher than four feet (along the rear property line). Mr. Thompson seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell questioned the wisdom of requiring a fence, suggesting that a row of shrubs might be better. Mr. Gentry explained that Mr. Lampo has a legitimate • concern regarding patrons of the convenience store parking on the Pizza Hut lot, and he does not think shrubs would inhibit that kind of movement. Votes were cast on the original motion and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). AaBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Seconsideration of a request for Specfal Bxception to allots expansion of a non-conforaiag shopping center at the IIniversity Square {Skaggs) Shopping Center to allow the addition of a s=all restaurant. Applicant is John C. Culpepper III Trust. (Tabled at aeeting on 7-5-88.) Mrs. Kee explained that more than 90 days have passed since the request submitted by Mr. Culpepper was tabled at his request, and Mr. Culpepper has not contacted staff with any additional information or different proposal. She reminded the Board that they recently approved policy that any tabled item must be denied without prejudice if the applicant has not made contact to address any of the problem issues within 90 days. Mr. Gentry made a motion to take the item off its tabled position. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Gentry then made a motion to deny without prejudice the request for Special Exception at the Skaggs Shopping Center. Mr. Thompson seconded that motion which carried unanimously (5-0). ., ZBA Minutes 11-1-88 Page 4 i ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize 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 not be contrary to the public interest, due_Dto the following special con~~d,i~t~ions: _ ~-, ~- ~_ r~~ / ^, --- ---------- ~--------- - ~~ - ~- ~-- ? ~ ~ GL~? _ _~ _ .~ 5?~_-~._ _ ~~1~-`-c'~C' C~ ~t~C.-LC=D .-'-"~ - --- - ------------ --------c' .,•~rr and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant bei g: ~ /" ~_ ~~k~. ..... ..~~ .............. . . . ...................... . . and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: / E _ Q l~D-mot! ~ L ~ `~` ~ °'` ---- ~G=~~ ~ ~ r f- ~~=- ~^ ~ -_r~. -~------------- -- -----!-- ----- ~r- -/ _..- ~ Motion mf'de by ___ Date _~~__ I __________ Seconded by ____~ ~O ~~ _ ~'~,_________ Voting Results _ ~ r r Chair signature _~ AaBNDA ITBM N0. 6: Other buaineae. Mrs. Kee announced there will be no meeting on November 15th. AaBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Ad3ourn. Mrs. Baker made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-O). APPROVED: Chairman, David Ruesink ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones i~ 'i~ ZBA Minutes 11-1-88 Page 5 i• YONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE November 1, 1988 NAME ADDRESS 2 .~l'~i4 N IrC ~,A n- PD {~G~~''C~ 3~ ~~ eg.27Tr ~~C 5 • MCP ~20 (o Svc ~ ~lJ~l ~+•~. 6. 7. 8. 9• 10. il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. '7• 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.