Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1998 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS December 15, 1998 6:00 P.M. • • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Warren, Hill &Happ. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy, Lanier, Hausenfluck and Dr. Bailey. STAFF PRESENT: StaffPlanner Battle, City Planner Kee, Development Coordinator Ruiz, StaffPlanner Timmerson, Assistant City Attorney Blackshear, Staff Assistant Grace. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the September 1,1998. Ms. Warren made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Happ seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of request for an Appeal of Zoning Officials Interpretation -Section 9, Ordinance 1638 -Off Street Parking Spaces Required. Applicant is John Kiltz, C C G Venture Partners, LLC. Lee Battle approached the Board and stated that the applicant is currently proposing to build an automobile tire and service center on Brentwood Drive, directly behind the Dairy Queen. The applicant has submitted a site plan for development review. The proposed project includes a service center with 6 service bays. The Zoning Ordinance requires 31 parking spaces for this use. The Ordinance allows the 6 service bays to count as parking spaces, reducing number of actual parking spaces required to 25. In addition to the building, the applicant is proposing to use an area in the parking lot to provide "check-up" services as tire diagnostics and wheel alignments. The area is approximately 450 square feet. The applicant wants the area to count as two parking spaces, but does not believe that the area should add to the parking requirement. ZBA MINUTES' DECEMBER I S, 1998 PAGE 1 oj6 Staff is defining the area as a motor vehicle service area since it will contain a lift and servicing equipment and be used for servicing vehicles. The parking requirement for this use is listed in the table • of Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements as 1 space per 100 square feet of area. Therefore, this service area of 450 square feet would require 4 additional parking spaces. The area can also count as two parking spaces, just like the service bays. Therefore, this service area creates the need for two more parking spaces on this site. The applicant has argued that since the service area is not within a building, it should not have a parking requirement. Section 9.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "In all districts, for all uses....at any time any other use is established, there shall be provided off-street parking spaces for motor vehicles..." This section clearly states that the parking requirements shall be applied to any use whether or not a building exists. In summary, the question being asked is whether the proposed service area in the parking lot should have the same parking requirements as service areas inside the building. Stars interpretations is that they are the same under the Zoning Ordinance, both defined as motor vehicles service. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Battle what was the required parking space with the building square footage. Mr. Battle replied that the requirement is 31 parking spaces, with the 6 bays counting as parking spaces so that would leave 25 off-street parking spaces required. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Battle if service areas are normally counted as parking spaces. Mr. Battle responded that anytime you have a quick Tube, tire center or any service center which has a drive in service bay, the bays are counted as a parking spaces as well. The bay area is also counted in the square • footage. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Battle what he understood the intent of the ordinance to be. Mr. Battle responded that the parking ordinance established different ratios and they are based on both standards across the nation as well as experiences here in the community. The ratios are adjusted to meet the demand of these type business from prior experiences. Mr. Battle added that the intent of the ordinance is to provide an adequate number ofoff-street parking spaces to serve a business. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Battle if he has discussed any other options with the applicant. Mr. Battle replied that they have been through a couple different scenarios. The difficulty being that the service the applicant is wanting to provide is being limited by the size of this particular piece of property. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Battle if the City has had any history of complaints about problems with parking on the streets with these type service areas. Mr. Battle replied under different situations but similar uses. Thine are some places in town such as Discount Tire that were developed under an older ordinance~situation. When they at their busiest, it is hard to pull in and find a parking place. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the request. • ZBA MINUTES DECEMBER 1 S, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 6 Randy VanStory from 309 E. Tanglewood, New Braunfels, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. VanStory introduced Mr. Kiltz & Mr. Boring as his partners in • this venture. Mr. VanStory told the Board that he currently owns and operates 3 of these automotive facilities. The service this shop would provide is an alignment and break specialty shop. Mr. VanStory continued with a brief history of how this case evolved because the plan came about during some conversations that were held later and not a part of the original plan. One of the conversations discussed establishing convenient service that was lost when the "traditional gas dealership" ended. Mr. VanStory added that they wanted to provide an area where customers could drive up and staff would be attentive. Mr. VanStory explained the purpose of the drive through area is 1) to drive over what is called an electronic scrub gauge. It is a little plate or speed bump that has electronic sensors that would give you a printout in about 45 seconds if your tire wearing angle is pass or fail. 2) additional services that could be provided in the drive through bay were cleaning of windshield, check oil, top off fluids under the hood and check tire pressure. It was also discussed of rotating tires in the parking lot. Mr. VanStory stated when you go to a service facility often times for a simple service it only takes 10 minutes, but it takes an hour to get the bay empty and this was viewed as an inconvenience. Mr. VanStory and his partners felt like they could do like other shops do, they could roll some jacks out and do this service in the parking lot. Mr. VanStory went on to describe some lifts that are available that are called mid rise lifts that are little pad lifts that are about 3' wide and 2' deep that you drive over and it will lift up your car. The intent is to have the customer remain in the car while the service takes place (under 10 minutes) and drive out. Mr. VanStory stated that they had no idea that it was going to trigger additional parking requirements. Mr. VanStory added that they had a complete different interpretation from city staff of intent of the ordinance. Mr. VanStory told the Board that he currently serves as a city councilmen for the City of New Braunfels • and has served also on the Planning and Zoning Commission for several years. Mr. VanStory stated that he understands exactly what the Board has to decide on. Mr. VanStory explained to the Board that they are not a Tube and tire service center. However, their services are related to tire wear. They have no intent to perform repairs. One item discussed in great length about offering this convenient type service is that they will be very limited and diagnosis and repairs can not be done. Mr. VanStory showed and discussed the end cap shown on the drawing supplied in the Boards packets. (this drawing will be part of the minutes). Mr. VanStory told the Board that they drew in a thinner barrier curb just so that there was some type bamer for protection if service was going to be performed there. Mr. VanStory stated that they are open to any suggestions from the Board on how it to make if feasible. Mr. VanStory continued by explaining one of the reasons they are limited to space. When Mr. VanStory and his partners first came to city staff for platting, the problems that Discount Tire is experiencing was discussed. The traffic has outgrown their parking needs under an old ordinance. There was concern about the traffic for this new service center. Mr. VanStory stated that Discount Tire had discussed in the past the possibility of acquiring additional land behind them and adding parking. City staffwas also concerned that when the median is put down in front of the Dairy Queen, that would create some problems for traffic from Discount Tire getting out on to Texas Avenue. A Discount Tire representative asked Mr. VanStory if they would be willing to grant an easement. It was discussed if that ever happened, a drive through could be created so that Discount Tire customers could come from • their parking lot, through the service center parking lot, out on to Brentwood and then have access to the light to get onto Texas Avenue. Mr. VanStory and his partners decided that giving up the easement would not hinder them at all. ZBA MINUTES DECEMBER 1 S, 1998 PAGE 3 OF 6 It was thought that they could give up the easement and move the building back and everything would • be fine. They had not even had the discussion about the drive through lanes at that time and had no idea that giving up the easement voluntarily was now going to have some repercussion. Mr. Van Story stated that they would probably have more flexibility if they had not granted the easement per the city's request. Mr. VanStory read the ordinance as it reads. One of his questions was the intent of the ordinance. Mr. VanStory spoke about Mr. Battle's memo quoting that "you do not want to create too much burden upon a facility". The intent of parking is to have adequate parking to not only house the customers, but the employees of the business as well. Mr. VanStory stated that they would probably employee about 5 people. Mr. VanStory stated that he feels where he differs with the interpretation is where it says "any other use is established". Mr. VanStory continued by saying that they are not doing any of the things that would trigger additional parking requirements i.e. not increasing the building size, not building additional buildings, not increasing capacity and not offering any other uses. Mr. VanStory added that they want to give their service in a convenient capacity and that can be accomplished in the parking lot. Whether it is right or wrong, you could probably drive around town and look at any automotive garage and see something going on in the parking lot. Mr. VanStory stated that the verbiage and intent of the ordinance was there to protect the city. The verbiage is appropriate but they are not trying to change the use. Mr. VanStory handed the Board Members a traffic count summary that he took over the last 6 months from other automotive services centers he owns. Mr. VanStory told the Board that he keeps record of traffic coming through the stores and on an average they have 14.5 cars per day. Mr. VanStory added • that he has not experienced any problems with parking in the other 3 stores he owns and this proposed store is the highest level of parking requirements he has been exposed to. Ms. Warren asked Mr. VanStory what alternatives has he considered if this Board did not rule in his favor of the appeal. Mr. Van Story stated one alternative would be just to abandon the idea and perform those services inside the facility. Mr. Happ asked Mr. VanStory where would the employees work. Mr. VanStory replied they would perform work in the main building but would perform other duties in the parking lot. Mr. Hill asked Mr. VanStory what the projected level of business would be once this facility has built a clientele. Mr. VanStory replied that they anticipate to mature to 20 cars a day on average. Mr. Hill asked VanStory if he felt like the proposed check up area with the barrier curb should not be defined asva service area. Mr. VanStory replied that he would not say that because they are not arguing that it is a service area or not. Mr. VanStory stated what he is trying to say is based on the letter of the ordinance. No additional service will be performed then had originally been intended. They are not erecting any new buildings & the nature of the business is not being changed. Mr. VanStory ended by stating that they are doing everything exactly as they had intended and they are not changing the nature of the ordinance in this case. • ZBA MINUTES DECEMBER I S, 1998 PAGE 4 OF 6 Mr. VanStory stated that he felt his hands were tied due to the fact that they gave up the easement to the city's request and now they can not move anything and have lost some flexibility. • Chairman Alexander asked for anyone else to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. Alexander asked is there was anyone to speak against the appeal. With no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Battle if there was another way for the applicant to approach a desired outcome. Mr. Battle stated that the applicant has the choice of asking for a variance to the number of parking spaces required. The applicant would then need to provide hardships and special conditions. Ms. Warren asked Mr. Battle if the easement had not been granted would the parking requirement been met. Mr. Battle replied that it would be hard to say but the applicant would probably have had more flexibility in designing their site. Chairman Alexander stated that he does not see it that way. What the Board should be looking at is the parking spaces for the limited time they are going to be stored there. Ms. Warren made the motion to uphold the decision or intrepretation made by the Zoning Off cial in the enforcement of Section 9.2 of this ordinance, as the decision or intrepretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Votes were cast, with the motion to uphold falling by a tie vote of (2-2-1); Warren & Hill for the motion; Chairman Alexander and Happ voting against the motion; Murphy abstaining. • There were continued discussions among the Board Members about the interpretation. Mr. Hill stated that he would rather this particular case be handled with a variance because he does not feel willing to overturn the stars interpretation of the city ordinance at this time. Mr. Hill continued by saying that the two spaces have a definition of a service bay rather than parking spaces due to the projected use. Mr. VanStory approached the podium and told the Board that he was advised not to ask for a variance but rather ask for an appeal of the interpretation. Discussions continued among the Board concerning setting policy. Ms. Kee stepped before the Board and stated that there was a case about 15 years ago where an applicant appealed an interpretation of what constituted a screen fence. When the Board made their decision,';staff from that point forward used that guidance and interpretation to deal with other circumstances that came up similar to that. Ms. Kee continued to offer additional information to help the Board come to a decision. Ms. Kee stated that when staff is approached by an applicant concerning appeals, staff tells the applicant that the variance route is possible too. Staff does tell the applicant that the variance route is harder in many instances. Ms. Kee stated that is what she understood Mr. Battle's conversations to be with the applicant. • ZBA MINUTES DECEMBER 1 S, 1998 PAGE S OF 6 Ms. Kee gave clarification concerning the easement. Ms. Kee told the Board that it is not necessarily relevant to the interpretation of the ordinance and the appeal, but it is relevant to the property. Ms. Kee continued by stating that the easement was a condition of a driveway variance that was asked for. The driveway location shown on the site plan (attached) was not approved by staff. The applicant appealed that location and asked for a variance which went before the Plans Review Committee and that variance was granted with the condition that an access be left in the back between the properties. It was thought that it would mitigate some of the negative impact of having the curb cut closer to Texas Avenue then the city's policy and ordinance would allow. Ms. Kee ended by saying that the city could not demand an easement nor was this a situation where the city could. But when the driveway variance was asked for, staff felt that it was important to have the easement. Mr. Murphy stated that he would like to change his abstention. Mr. Hill made the motion to move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 9.2 of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Ms. Warren seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (3-2). Chairman Alexander and Mr. Murphy voting against the motion.. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other Business. No other business was discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn. • Chairman Alexander made the motion to adjourn. It was seconded by Ms. Warren which passed unopposed (5-0). ATTEST: Staff Assistant, De orah Grace CJ APPROVE Chairman, Davi Alea nder ZBA MINUTES DECEMBER 1 S, 1998 PAGE 6 OF 6 I ~ ~ A OCs yLy I ~~ ; ~,N Z NA NQ Q I ~ ~ ~~ O p7A aZ ~~ t~l I ~ ~~' 1~ ~ m " r~+rn yi ~ -C ~n ~ y o I N~~ ~ I{ I ~ Y ~ / ~; / ~ Y Y ~PrD ~ ~ N 43'11'30'W - 150.00 - e~ t 5 _ c ' ~ / ~_~ ~ i I 20' Droinc9e Easemsnt 4~f~ _ 1 ?T- -- ~ ~ ~ b"-T'~tP Cto[m S~t~irl~9~ = ~ - _ I N. ~ 1 0' I(tOP. S~OCW~IX 35.. 4.00 ~ ~ I ~ o-E N 1 ~\ '~. I ' 'L b N '14 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~u ~ ul N I r ~ N p ~m ~.2 ~ .~~` I '~ ~ I S oce Wi th orie~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ N ~ - ~ ~ I g0 i. -~ 2 .G e• t• S' S.1 i• OZ ~ -~ 0 fM ~ / ~° ~u ~~ o I ~ m \ A •w ~ c ~ ~I t l /y n +, ~t ., O ° ~ f~l mg 1 ~ / ~ I ~ Ir1~ A" ~` ~ ~ ... I t.+ ;` I N Q ~ i I g 20~ 9 (~ - v~ I° I ~ I.On .7, M x ,R rC i~ J' +, -p ~ S 9,r, ~ i cn~v 0-D rL G ~ m p ,- . .- - ° n f~ 0'x9 ~ ~ ~ ,a z fI n ~ n A. n I] T S• ~ o ~ I ~~ a In / I ~ ° ` ~d I S ` ~ ~ ~ m ~~~ ~~ ~ I ~ / +~ !~ L ~ .1 ~ N , ` c N 1 I (,; ~ ~ V ~ ,~, ~ I u / t01> In ~ T J ~6~~ r `~~ ~ c m ~+ f a . 20~ 9' `,~°~~ za• cams-rtc[zs w+E ~ ~ y ~ +• t ~ ~-~ / ~ ' .I. o c~ _ _ ~ '~ ~ - 'Property L S 4G'11'30"C 150 00' ~O~ 1~ I N o I 'o + ro a m Z ~ -+ ~ i ( 6 u I i. ~' m ~ e ~ A O I ~ p'° I ~~ u ~ 4 ~1 O • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS APPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION -From Section 15.8, Ordinance Number 1638 I move to uphold the de ision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section ~ .c~. of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Motion made by M c . ~-~ \~ Date ~ ~~ ~ ~ ^ `~ Seconded by 'M ~~ . ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~- Voting Results ~~ c Chair WI~i RULII~iG NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR IIv'I'ERPRETATION MADE BY • THE ZONII~TG OFFICIAL, USE THE FOLLOWII~iG FORM: I move to interpret Section of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: Motion made by Date Seconded by Chair Signature Voting Results • APINTERP.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register ~ ~~ • ~ Date - ~ E?~~'R-~ ~` ~~, 1 GI~ Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.