Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/1999 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS March 16, 1999 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Warren & Alternate Member Lewis (Board Member Hill was in the audience) MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Searcy, Lanier, Hausenfluck & Bailey. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, StaffAssistant Grace, Assistant City Attorney Robinson & A & M Consolidated Sophomore Galan. 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 March 2, 1999 Meeting. Mr. Happ made motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a special exception request to a A-O zoned property that is currently grandfathered as office; the request is to use the property for a portrait studio. Applicant is Mark Sykes d.b.a. Mark Sykes Photography. Senior Planner McCully stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. McCully stated that the applicant and potential property owner is requesting to use the property as a photography studio. The front area of the Nantucket Subdivision was annexed into the City in 1996. Nantucket is developed as a large lot, rural residential subdivision with two light commercial uses near the Highway 6 frontage. These uses were annexed in as legal nonconforming ("grandfathered') uses, they continue as legal nonconforming uses because the zoning on the property does not permit commercial uses. The City's Land Use Plan and the Master Development Plan for Nantucket show low density residential with commercial uses adjacent to Highway 6. The Board must determine whether the photography studio will have less impact to the surrounding uses than the offices. The current use of the property would be considered an A-P Administrative/Professional use; the district also permits personal service uses, which include hair and nail salons, dry cleaners, and photography studios. The existing and proposed uses would both fall under the A P classification. Parking requirements for personal service shops and office uses are the same under the City's Zoning Ordinance.. ZBA ~mttes March 16, 1999 Page 1 oj4 In the case of a special exception where a different use is proposed on a location where the existing use does not meet current land use restrictions, the Board -may allow the substitution "when the extent of • the substituted use is found to be less detrimental to the environment than the first." Mr. Happ asked Ms. McCully what is the difference between office and a retail business. Ms. McCully replied that under the land use classification there are distinctions between them both. Ms. McCully stated that retail uses are not permitted uses in the A P Administrative District and an office use is. Mr. Happ asked as it is stated in the staff report, the existing use is a real estate office. Is that considered to be an office. Ms. McCully answered yes. Mr. Lewis stated that looking at the photographs that Ms. McCully presented to the Board, there does not seem to be any homes near the subject property. Ms. McCully stated that there is a vacant tract immediately to the west of the subject property. Mr. Lewis asked is it just one of the two buildings on the subject property that is being discussed Ms. McCully answered yes and it is the western building. Mr. Happ asked Ms. McCully what use is the other building. Ms. McCully replied that it is also used as an office and she believes that there is a small retail store there too. Ms. Warren asked Ms. McCully to talk about what criteria the staff has seen used in the past to look at the issue of detriment to the environment. What issues or factors have come up that could be described to the Board. Ms. McCully replied that the first and most obvious things that are looked at are the similarities in the zoning district. One would be if zoning boundaries are being crossed. Another would be to look at the parking requirement. Ms. McCully concluding by saying that the Zoning Board has used several criteria in the past including traffic impact. • Mr. Murphy asked Ms. McCully what is the traffic impact like now in this subdivision. Ms. McCully replied that she is not familiar with the current situation to answer that question, but it would be a question to ask the applicant. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those speaking in favor of the request. Mark Sykes, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Sykes stated that in response to Mr. Murphy's question on the traffic, the amount of traffic on an average basis is between 7-8 vehicles a day and a busy day it would be between 12-15. Mr. Sykes told the Board that the majority of their work is not a high volume situation. Mr. Sykes stated that they do not have contracts with the high schools where they would be doing 500 seniors during a three or four month period. Mr. Sykes added that it is not to say that they would not have a higher volume on certain days, but their overall volume is very low. Mr. Sykes continued by saying that he wanted to explain to the Board what the plans are for this property if the variance was approved. Mr. Sykes told the Board that he has been looking for some time now for a piece of property that would allow him to step outside and be able to do out door photography right on site. Mr. Sykes handed the Board computer aided drawings that he put together after having the area surveyed. ~ Mr. Sykes explained to the Board that the drawing is what he envisioned the property to look like in the future. Two main concerns would be to make it aesthetically pleasing not only for portraits but also for the normal passer by. Mr. Sykes added that outside of the landscaping, nothing at this time needs to be changed. • ZBA Minutes March 16, 1999 Page 2 oj4 Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Sykes if the parking spaces mentioned in his application are actually on the subject property. Mr. Sykes answered yes they are in existence. • Mr. Happ asked Mr. Sykes if this will also be his residence. Mr. Sykes answered no. Chairman Alexander called for anyone else wanting to speak in favor. With no one stepping forward Chairman Alexander called for anyone in opposition of the request to step before the Board. Phyllis Hobson, the developer of the subdivision stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Hobson stated that she was not really before the Board in favor or opposition of the request but rather to give some explanation, clarification, and background information. Ms. Hobson brought before the Board a larger plat of the whole subdivision. Ms. Hobson explained to the Board the layout of the subdivision and what is in existence now. Ms. Hobson told the Board that the two office buildings on the subject property were designed as residential homes originally and can be adjusted accordingly. The concept for long term was that the subdivision would eventually be residential homes. The two offices that are in existence were built by Ms. Hobson. Ms. Hobson stated that she held an office in the two story building that Mr. Sykes is interested in buying. That building was then rented to other tenants that had the need to expand. It was then that Ms. Hobson built the second building. After the expansion and renting for a while, the tenant bought the building. At the time of buying the building, it was the understanding that if and when the property went into residential zoning, the two office buildings would eventually converted into residential. However, an office could still be there as long as they were the original owner of the building. Ms. Hobson concluded by saying that she has since then sold the opposite building from the one Mr. Sykes wants to purchase and the buyer is in agreement with that stipulation. • Leslie Hill, a land owner in Nantucket stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Hill stated that he has owned his lot for some time with the intention of building. Mr. Hill stated that whether he builds or sells the land, the idea of Nantucket is a residential subdivision not commercial. Mr. Hill stated that when he and others bought lots, it was the understanding the existing office space there then would eventually become residential. Mr. Hill stated that he feels it is inappropriate to extend the usage of the property. Ms. Warren asked Ms. Robinson for some direction in situations like this where the next user would have to convert back to residential. Ms. Robinson responded that the city has no control over any kind of deed restrictions or any restrictions that the individual property owners would enter into, so this Board should be looking at the standard that is set in the ordinance rather than any agreements that the property owners have entered into. Mr. Sykes stepped back before the Board and addressed additional issues. Mr. Sykes stated that the house that he is wanting to purchase was built as an office space not a residential home. Mr. Sykes told the board that the building has no kitchen and one would have to be added when it the becomes a living unit. Mr. Sykes stated that he does understand Mr. Hills concerns and he himself would not want to purchase a home in a subdivision such as Nantucket and pull into the subdivision and have a commercial business there either. Mr. Sykes stated that the traffic that would be generated by his business would not be recognizable. Mr. Sykes told the Board that he also understand Ms. Hobson's concerns that this property may eventually turn residential zoning and he is not opposed to that. Mr. Sykes ended by saying that his position as it stands is not changing anything around the building, adding signs or anything to cause attention to the location. The majority of his business is by word of mouth and referrals. ZBA Minutes March 16, 1999 Page 3 oj4 Mr. Happ asked Mr. Sykes how does he plan to advertise. Mr. Sykes replied that he will continue to advertise through the newspaper and there are currently 2 displays at the University Pediatrics office which is where he gets the bulk of his clientele. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Sykes how was the property going • to be identified. Mr. Sykes replied that there is a sign located on the property between the walkways that indicates the businesses. Mr. Alexander asked Ms. McCully if there are any signage restrictions. Ms. McCully replied that the property being zoned A-O does not allow any commercial signage other than a real estate type sign. Ms. McCully stated that the description of the signage that Mr. Sykes described both existing and proposed, they would be exempt from meeting any sign restrictions. Ms. Warren asked Ms. McCully when this property changes ownership would it have to come back before the Board. Ms. McCully replied that the grandfathering is tied to the use and not the user. Therefore, if this use is permitted and Mr. Sykes decided to sell the property to someone else who wanted to use it as a photography studio it would be allowed without having to come back before the board. If a restaurant wanted to open that would have to come before the board because the use is being changed. Ms. Warren asked Ms. McCully if any evaluation or observation has been done concerning the parking while the building is being used as an office. Ms. McCully replied that a parking study has not been done. With no one else stepping forward to speak in opposition Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize the substitute of one non-conforming use for another because • the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Voting results (4-0-1). Mr. Murphy abstaining. Special Exception Granted. AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Adjourn. Mr. Murphy made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Happ seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). APPROVED: Chairman, avid r TTEST: Staff Assistant, • ZBA Minutes March 16, 1999 Page 4 oj4 • FORMAT FOR POSITIV E MOTIONS Special Exceptions -From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to autho ize the a. substitute of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. b. enlargement of a building devoted to anon-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25% and does not prolong the life of the non- conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. • r c. Motion made Seconded by Voting results: ~ ~~~~ ~1~~~~-[. reconstruction of anon-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60% of the ~~ Chair Signa re Date ~.rq..roma..pnzn ~lV7Y 2c~li C~ -~Bia~r~/~uce .~i£~~t~i..~o ~~~ .''`~~ ~(7ta-L` G~~k'~ .CGS-~~.tq~,~~/J~lldL ~~~~ ~ U appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase Zoning Board of Adjustment Guest Register • ~ Date ~ ~~ 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.