Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1981 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman W. W. Harper; Board Members, G. Wagner, D. MacGilvray, Vi Burke and City Council Liaison Pat Boughton. MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Upham STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official, Jane Kee; Asst. Director of Planning, Jim Callaway; Planning Assistant, Chris Long ley; Planning Technician, Joan Keigley. Chairman Harper awaited the arrival of member Burke until 7:10 p.m. and then called the meeting to order without her presence. AGENDA ITEM N0. 1, Approval of minutes of meting of June 16, 1981. Upon motion by D. MacGilvray; second by G. [Wagner and a unanimous vote of those present the minutes of June 16, 1981 were approved. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 2, Consideration of a request for a variance to rear set-back and parking requirements to allow for the operation of a medical clinic in an existing residential property located at 201 Grove Street, College Station, Texas. Application is in the name of Jackson W. Wagner. Chairman Harper informed the board of the withdrawal of this request for variance and stated the Conditional Use Permit had not been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and after petition to the City Council to overturn that ruling, the applicant might again apply for this variance. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3, Consideration of a reouest for a variance to the 15' side set-back requirement for an existing structure located at Lot 25, Block One, a resubdivision of Reserve tract "A" Block One, Parkway Plaza, Phase Eight; 1301 Barthelow, College Station, Texas. Application is in the name of Spearman, Sears & Murphy. Chairman Harper reminded the applicant that since there were only four members of the board present it would require a unanimous vote in order to carry a motion. Mr. Bob Spearman expressed his appreciation for the information and stated they must have a ruling one way or the other in order to proceed with their construction. Chairman Harper suggested the board might be able to have a discussion of the case and sense how the vote might go and then consider what the action might • be. Mr. Spearman presented the problem as being a structure which is already framed but has a corner which encroaches the set-back requirement for the lot. He stated the city staff was correct in the plans they approved, however, the Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment July"21, 1981 Page 2. structure which was built is not the one which was approved. • G. Wagner asked whit the cost would be to completely alter the structure and bring it-into conformance. W. Harper asked if the structure is single or two story. Mr. Sears reported the structure is two stories and they have not calculated any costs involved with completely altering the building. They would just have to begin to knock down the walls and get the crews in and see what the cost would be. He stated the only thing they could offer in favor of the request for variance is that structures across the street are under their ownership. D. MacGilvray asked if this type question had come before the board for con- sideration in the past. W. Harper stated variances have been granted on non-residential lots on one or two occasions in the past. Jim Callaway stated a variance had been granted in Emerald Forest for construction on a corner and cul-de-sac. At 401 University, the highway department had allowed the use of the right-of-way which had been shown on the plan as being part of the land owned by the developer and the plan had been approved on that basis; a variance was granted at a later date when the discrepancy was discovered. In Southwood Valley a house was built on a corner lot and encroached the set-back requirements. The encroachment was slight, about 2 1/2 to 3 inches and a variance • was granted. P. Boughton stated a difference of opinion between the city surveyor and an indepen- dent surbeyor brought the Southwood Valley problem to the surface. The city took the position that the city surveyor was correct and that basically, there was not an encroachment, G. Wagner asked Mr. Spearman if the structure in question conformed to the requirements in other respects and was answered aff irmatively. D. MacGilvray stated he wondered how much variance in these matters is considered acceptable; 2 or 3 inches; 10 feet, more or less? Mr. Spearman stated the way the structures are positioned, there is no obstruction of view from the side and there have been city people out to check and conf irm that. G. Wagner stated his agreement that it does not cause a visual hazard. He further stated his feeling that the unique and special conditions because of the shape of the lot and the set-back encroachment simply happendd because of the shape of this lot. Chairman Harper then formed the following motion which received second by P. Boughton. Move for approval of the variance in the side yard set-back from 15' to 12.85' because there is a unique form to the lot and further because the curvature of the street makes causes his unique f.orm,:~•and granting of this variance will • not be detrimental to the public interest. The motion was approved by the following vote: In Favor: Harper, Wagner, MacGilvray and Boughton. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 3. • Mr. Spearman expressed his appreciation for the granting of the variance and stated they had completed many buildings in the College Station area and this was the first time they had needed to request a variance. G. Wagner stated the design of the whole project is a credit to the area; if it had the appearance of some other projects, he would not have been in favor of the variance. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4, Consideration of a request for a variance to the off-street parking requirements to allow the operation of an arcade at 315 University Drive, College Station, Texas. Application is in the name of Edward J Walsh Ed Walsh, applicant, reminded the board he had been before them at the May meeting requesting a variance to parking requirements at 315 University Drive for the purpose of operating an arcade at that location which would not sell food or beverages, and this request had been denied. He stated he has a variance to y parking spaces which applied to his retail business, Budget Tapes and Records, which had been closed~~.in March of this year and has been informed by the Zoning Official that the change of use and the type of business requires 7 spaces. He stated he has one parking space in the front of the business and his landlady has designated six parking spaces on the rear parking lot for his specif is use. He further pointed out he had been in business in that location for ten years and has a remaining eight years on the existing lease at a sum of $800+ per • month. Costs, due to interest rates, are such that opening a retail business in the location is impossible, and the retail business would generate greater traffic than the proposed arcade. He outlined Charlie's Grocers, University Bookstore and the Bactstage Restaurant as being the. businesses which share the parking area with him. He stated he had observed Charlie's grocery and it does not have drive-in traff ic; the bookstore closes at 5:00 p.m. which releases their parking spaces after that time. He also stated that part of the parking problems in the Northgate area ar.e caused by university personnel and students parking in the available spaces. D. MacGilvray asked if any of the stores could be entered from the rear. Mr. Walsh stated they all have rear access but it is not used, the doors are kept locked probably for security reasons. Mr. Don Ganter, owner of Dixie Chicken, stated the ones who violate the parking are the students. Board member Vi Burke entered the meeting at 7:45 p.m. i , Chairman Harper offered to bring her up to date and she stated she was familiar ~ with the case. Mr. Walsh stated the ordinance requires 7 spaces and he has 7 spaces. • Zoning Official Kee called the attention of the board to Sec. 7 and Section 3.A.2 of the zoning ordinance. Sec. 7 of the ordinance outlines minimum parking requirements, dimensions and access, off-premises locations, development and maintenance, surfacing and other requirements for parking. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 4. • She explained Sec. 3-A.2. as not allowing for designation of parking spaces to one business when the same spaces are necessary to the support of adjacent busi- nesses. D. MacGilvray stated he could not visualize anyone parking at the rear of the building and walking around to the front. Mr. Walsh stated they cut through Dixie Chicken or Dudley's. D. MacGilvray stated it appeared the square footage of each of these businesses is needed in order to determine exactly what the total parking requirements are in this !.ar.ea. Chairman Harper stated the ordinance is not intended to provide parking on the basis of present use in the area. Any of the businesses involved can change the use of their operation, so long as it is allowed by the ordinance within their zoning classification, and develop a greater need for parking which is already at variance and shared. Mr. Walsh stated what this comes down to is that the landlord has the right to designate her own parking as she sees fit, and she has made this designation of 6 spaces for his benef it . Chairman Harper stated the landlord does have that right, however, petitioners • make a presentation with as many factors in their favor as possible, just as this board must review the case based on the negative side and what is the intent of the ordinance. D. MacGilvray asked the parking requirements for the Backstage Restaurant. Zoning Official Kee stated it is 14 spaces; Charlie's Grocery is 8 plus em- ployee parking and the bookstore is 8 plus employee parking. Mr. Walsh inserted that Charlie's is open until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. and does not have drive-in traffic and the bookstore closes at 5:00 p.m. He further pointed out the designation has only been made to him; the others have not been to the board for a change in operation. Chairman Harper replied that whether the others use the parking or not, the requirements of the ordinance are not changed. Mr. Walsh stated the point is the parking is not used by others, and he has 8 years to go on his lease and he is stuck with that. Mr. Ganter stated that he and two other business operators in the northgate area have leased a parking lot. They plan sometime this year to have a person on duty to make certain that no one other than customers of the businesses is allowed to park there. Mr. Walsh stated he would be willing to do the same thing for the 6 spaces • designated for his use. He stated he would be happy to have the cars towed away. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 5. • Vi Burke stated this problem in Northgate is a~~coriti.xiu~ng one. The board has heard the same justifications over and over. Each time a variance is granted, the problem is compounded that much more. P. Boughton informed the board that City Council had knocked off a large bond issue because the City was unable to get the cooperation of businesses in that area. G. Wagner suggested one solution might be for the business operators in that area to petition the City Council to develop and approve an Ordinance which speci- fically addresses the. problems in Northgate and provides a different set of requirements for that area. V. Burk stated perhaps it was time for the board to deny variance requests until such time the business operators forced the property owners and landlords to meet with the City and begin to seek solutions to the problem Mr. Walsh stated if that was going to be the position the board assumed, it should begin with new business operators in the area, not with those who have had their business there for many years. V. Burk stated there are disasters which occur throughout the nation; fires, floods and collapsed buildings. No one ever reacts until there is a disaster and then everyone is in error. She stated there is definitely a safety hazard because of the automobile traffic and pedestrian traffic in that area. It appears the problem will never be addressed until a disaster occurs. • She asked Mr. Walsh, "where for instance is your landlord?" She stated that the operators of the businesses are always here, and there is no solution or relief for their problems, but the owners of the property never appear nor offer any assistance in developing a solution to the problem. She remarked that the ZBA has the right of subpoena and suggested perhaps this is the time for that process to begin. Mr. Walsh replied the board could take that action, but in any event he, the operator, would be the looser. If his variance is not granted,. he will be forced into bankruptcy and he still is stuck with a lease in excess of $800+ per month. V. Burke stated he would not have to pay the lease if he filed bankruptcy and she also stated she strongly felt if the parking to support a business operation can- not be provided by the property owners.~.to the tenants.as required by;.the.zoping~. ordinance, without variance,. the lease surely can be broken. Chairman Harper formed the following motion which was given second by D. MacGilvray. Move to authorize a variance based on the off-street parking provided by the owner of the building in the adjacent parking lot (6 spaces) and including one on-site space; the 6 designated parking spaces will be for the sole use of the business at 315 University and the operator of the business will control the parking to make certain it is for his use; this variance is authorized specifically for the use of an arcade business, not selling food or beverages; said parking • lot to be brought up to the standards and requirements of Ordinance 850 for parking lots. Vote - motion failed. For: MacGilvray Against: Harper, Wagner, Burke and Boughton. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 6. Chairman Harper then formed the following motion which was given second by G. Wagner. Move to authorize a variance based on the off-street parking provided by the owner of the building in the adjacent parking lot (6 spaces) and including one on-site space; the 6 designated parking spaces will be for the sole use of an arcade operation at 315 University Drive, not selling food and beverages; said parking lot to be brought up to the standards and requirements of Ordinance 850 for parking lots; the owner of the property to submit to the Zoning Board of Adjustment a plan for the parking lot which is in compliance with Ordinance 850 and showing how many businesses can be served by the lot and further, the variance is authorized for a period of one (1) year from this date and becomes open for review by this board for parking requirement compliance. Jane Kee pointed out this could place Mr. Walsh into the position of having made a monetary investment which could become a considerable loss if the variance is no.t extiend~d after the one year period. After a brief discussion, Chairman Harper called for the question and the motion was approved by the un~riimous vote,of the board. • ATTEST: Secretary APPROVED: Chairman •