The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About233 Zoning Board of Adjustment September 20, 1983AGENDA CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment September 20, 1983 7:00 P.M. l. Approval of Minutes -meeting of August 16, 1983 2. Consideration of a request for variance to the rear setback requirements (Table A, Zoning Ordinance No. 850) to allow construction of a garage at the residence at 8700 Greenleaf (Lot 24 Block 2 Emerald Forest Phase IV. Appl i cation is in the name of Mr. & Mrs. Frank H. Cinek. 3. Consideration of a request to substitute one nonconforming use for another as per Section 11-B3(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; specifically to remove a n existing barn and construct a new barn on Lot 14 of the Sandstone Subdivision . App l ication is in the name of Russell & Kim Hanna. 4. Ot her Business. 5. Adjourn. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSEtH: STAFF PRESENT: MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment August 16, 1983 7:00 P.M. Chairman Cook, Members Wendt, Wagner, Upham and Alternate Member Meyer; (Al te. ate Member McGu irk in audience) MacG i l vray Zoning Official Kee, Ass't Zoning Official Dupies & Planning Tech- nician Volk Chairman Cook opened the public hearing and stated the duties and ob li gations of this Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. l: Approval of Minutes -meeting of July 19 , 1983 Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. Wendt second ed . 4-0-l (Meyer abstained). Motion carried AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a variance request to the rear setback as required by District Use Schedule (Table A) of Ordinance 85 0 on all lots in the Ashford Square Subdivision located on the south side of Southwest Parkway immediatel y south of the intersection of Cornell & Southwest Parkway. Appl ication is in the name of M.H.B.J. Joint Venture (Ashford Square PUD). Mrs . Kee locat ed the subject project on an area map, identified the particular lots in question and explained that Ordinance allows zero lot line construction on the side, but does not add r ess rear zero lot line construction. Wic McKean, 2400 Frost was sworn in and explained that rear and side zero lot line construction would allow development of front parking throughout the subdivision. Mr. Wendt asked about firewalls and Mr. McKean explained that tilt-1 ine 4 hour firewalls would be used. Mrs. Cook asked for an explanation of the term 11 PUD ", and Mr. McKean explained that in this inst~nce it refers to a · Private Utility District, and that this entire subdivision would be developed on private property. Mrs. Meyer asked how this would affect rear setbacks in Block A which is adjacent to property which is not in this subdivision. Mr. McKean replied that he does not know, becau se he does not own that property, and is only asking for variances on land wh ich he does own. Mr. Upham asked if it is correct to assume that this Board is being asked ton ight to address an omission in the Ordinance and Mrs. Kee said that staff is currently working on an Ordi- nance which would address commercial PUD development and that she assumes that whatever type of Ordinance the City adopts will address lot line construction on various sides. Mrs. Meyer said that she is still worried about h~w granting a variance to rear setbacks in Bloc k A will affect the property owner of the adjacent properties when he is faced with buildings built on his property line. Mrs. Kee replied that she had been contacted by the owner of that property who asked if he would also be allowed zero lot line con- struction if this variance is granted, and that she had informed him that she could not answer that question because this is a request for a variance at a particular location, and until the Ordinance is changed each request must be addressed separately. Mr. Upham made a mot ion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) note 1 'E'' from the te rm s of this ordinance as it wi ll not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and specia l conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (!)This s i tuation is not addressed in the ordinance for commercial development as it is for res id entia l deve lopm ent, and is considered an omission rather ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 2 than a denial by ordinance, and because a strict e nf orcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance wo uld result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant be in g the inability to use this property to its max imum feasibility through no fault of his own; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and subs tanti al justice done. Mrs . Meyer seconded the motion, afte r which M. ~Wendt asked if the current requirements such as fir ew all, landscaping, etc . sho uld be included in the motion, and Mr. Upham agreed and ame nded his motio n to include the statement ''subject to all cu r ren t legal require- ments su ch as firewa lls, landscaping a nd parking to being met .1 1 Mr . We ndt seconded the motion as ame nded, which carri e d unanimously (5-0). Staff was then asked to keep th e Board ap~ised of a ny new ordinance which is approv ed . AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to s i gn he i ght as regulated by Ordinance No . 1409, an Ame nd ment to the Zoning Ordinanc e No . 850 at the site location of a r e tail lumber store just north of the intersecti on of Hi ghway 30 and t he East By - pass. Applica tion is in the name of Payless Cashways, lnc./Barr y Moo re. Mrs. Kee presented th e request and exp lain ed the int erim Sign Ordin ance which limits signs to 35 ft. in he i ght, and stated that this approved site p lan meets all setba c k requirements, et c., for a 50 ft. sign under the old sign o r di nance. Jac k Bur ke, 501 5 Lamar, Miss ion, Ka nsas was sw orn in as a representative of the appl i- cant and ex plained that this site is a pproximat e ly 20 feet below the major traff ic artery in this area (Hi g hway 6 East Bypass), and spoke of his und e rstandin g that the in te nt of the int e rim ordinance as allowing a 35 ft. si gn o n major f rontin g streets whic h are usually at grade level. He clarified to the Board t hat th e applicant had been aware of th e int er im sign ordinance at the time the propos ed developme n t of this land had begun, but ad ded that they had considered t hi s to be only one prob l em amo ng many, and they we r e fac ing on e p robl em at a time. Barry Moore, Kansas City, Missouri was sworn in and id ent ifi ed himself as the project manage r for this project. Mr . Wa gner asked about t h e market in g a nal ys i s wh ich had determined th at the Bypa ss i s t he major arte ry for this area rather than the Fro n tage Road and Mr. Burke explained that from the standpoint of a r et ail e r , Highway 6 is the major artery locally, but from outlyin g areas, it would definitely be Hi ghway 6 East Bypass. Mr. Upham stated that he does not know why this land is uniqu e as the re -is hi~h and low land e verywh e re and the company knew this land is low land when they agreed to purchase it. Mr. Wendt asked if the elevation of the acc e ss road is the elevation of the origi- nal property, and It was determined that no on e k new if the frontage road had been built up or not. Mr. Burke r esponded to the unique situation by po intin g out that anytime a retailer pu ts in a proj e ct, the re are some obstacles to face, b ut the City usually does not wa nt to stop development. He said they were aware of ma ny probl ems at the onset of this project, a nd off e r e d that the interpr e tation of Ordinanc e wo uld be unique in that its aim was to hav e signs a max i mum of 35 ft. above a major artery and in this case, th e major artery is h i g h abov e th i s l a nd and the ground i s f ar below grade level of the major a rt e r y . Mr. Upham said that this is not the in te nt of the ordinance as it r ead s. Th e o rdinance spe cifi es the he i g ht of signs farther than 20 ft . from the pav e ment e dge to be me asured from the base of the s i gn, and not to be meas ur ed above the gra de l eve l of the major artery . Ji m J ett, 206 Emberg l ow was swor n in and identified himse l f as the local rea l es tate ag e nt who had dea lt w i t h these peop l e a long time ago, and further stated that at the ti me the bus i ness tra n saction began, the old ordinance was in effect a nd the site had ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 3 had been analyzed prior to the current sign ordinance. Mr. We ndt :as ked about the Manor House sign and Mrs. Kee explained hrn )t had been approved a t 8 5 ft. in height under the old ordinance. Mrs. Meyer asked how the int e rim sign ordinance had come about a nd Mrs. Kee explained that it was arrived at as a r e sult of a surv e y of local signs and of other ordinances from other cities . Mrs. Co ok aske d if Council had discu s sed signs o n the Bypass or the Frontage Roads and Mrs. Kee e xplained that she d id not know if Council had addressed this, but the committ e e wor k ing on th e propos e d new sign ordinance has discussed it. Mrs. Meyer asked what kind of hardship would be created and Mr. Burke explained that this is impossible to judge in terms of number of cl ientele lost. Mrs. Cook asked when the sign committee would be making a recommendation and Mrs. Kee said hopefully a new ordi- nance would be ready by this fal 1. Mrs. Cook asked Mr. Burke when this project would be completed and Mr. Moore answered that it should be completed 9 months after begin- ning of construction, and construction is scheduled to begin in one month . Mr. Burke asked what wo uld happen if this request is denied and the ordinance is changed in the meantime, and Mrs. Kee said that in her opinion, when the Building Permit for the sign is applied for, the current ordinance would apply, and if at that time, taller signs are allowed, the applicant would fol low the new, current ordinance. Mr. Wendt made a motion to ~uthorize a variance to the sign r eg ulations (Section 8) from the terms of this ordinance as it wil 1 not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (l)the individual purchased the property prior to the ordinance change and a penalty would now apply; (2)the elevation of the access road is not the natural grade but rather has been built up and the sign would conform if the elevation had not been changed; and (3)there would be no visibility of this sign to the Windwood Subdivision to the south and no protrusion above the Bypass; and because a strict enforcement of the prov isions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Normal drive-in traffic would be diminished from the Bypass in that this appl i- cant is a retailer and derives much of his business from signage which he would not have with at 35 ft. sign maximum; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be ob- served and substantial justice done, subject to the following 1 imitations: That the sign will not exceed 35 ft. above the center! ine of th e access road and the square footage will be with in the.maximum of the curr_ent City Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. ., After discussion concerning a set time 1 imit for the variance, Mr. Upham amended the motion to include 11 as per the suggestion of the applicant, this variance is author i.zed for 3 years, at wh ich time the detached sign will be brought into compliance of the current ordinance at that time.11 Mrs. Meyer seconded the amendment to the motion; however, Mr. Wendt objected to the amendment and asked to amend the amendment to include 11 as the Ordinance reads as of 8/16/83 11 • Mr. Wagner seconded this amendment to the amended motion . Votes were cast on the second amendment (which included the date 8-16-83) and carried 4-1 (Upham voting against). Votes were cast on the motion as amended and fail e d by a vote of 2-2 (chairman did not vote) . AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 : Consideration of a variance r e quest to si g n regulations prohibiting detached signs in A-P and C-N zones as r e quired by Ordinance 850 section 8 -D.5 at the site location at the southeast corner of State Highway 30 and Stallings Drive. Appl i- cation is in the name .of Texana National Bank "In Organization". ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 4 Mr. Upham was excused for a few minutes and Mrs . Kee explai ned that the zon i ng i s A-P at this location and detached signs are not allowed by ordinance. Mr. Upham returned . Mrs. Kee presented staff 1 s alternative which would allow sma ll, detached 11 entrance/exit 11 signs with no name on the sign and serve as directional signs only. Jim Jett again came forward (previously sworn in) and stated that although financial institutions are allowed in A-P zones, they must offer more parking, and really should be in a special zo ning district. He we nt forward to the site plan on the wall and pointed out exactly how the bank hopes traffic will flow and stated that this sign wil l help in sure how the traffic will flow. He stated that any other manuever wou ld create a hazardous traffic situation and this request wo uld be in t he pub] ic 1 s interest regarding safety . Mr. Wendt asked for explanatio n from staff concerning problems, and Mrs. Kee explained that detached signs are not allowed in A-P zones because this zone is primarily used as a buffer between residential and certain commercial projects. She stated aga in that staff has no problem with small (appx . 2 1 x 3 1 ) entrance/exit sign s bu t does haye a problem with detached signs with names of businesses. Mrs. Cook spoke abo u t traffic situations in late afternoon at this motor bank as being hazardous at the point of ingress and egress at the curb cut off Highway 30, and sug- tested perhaps an 11 exit only 11 sign to help. Mr. Jett pointed out that this curb cut will be serving both this project and one adjacent to this, so two-way traffic is imper- ative. Mr. J ett continued discuss ion with the Board concerning a small directional sign, and came to the conclusion that in the inter est of pub lic safety, the words 11 motor bank 11 and a directional arrow, as well as the address only wou ld be acceptable, and the words 11 Texana National Bank 11 could be eliminated, as direction of traffic is the purpose of the sign. Mr. Upham suggested that perhaps 11 Motor Bank 11 could be in larger letters than proposed, and Mr. J ett agreed that Mr . Upham might be right. Mr. Upham asked Mr . Jett if he and the applicant could come up with something less com- mercial than proposed originally, a nd Mr. Jett agreed that they could. Mrs. Kee offered to make the decisio n on the suitabjl ity of the sign if the Board would so direct, and also if they think that the words 11 Motor Bank 11 and a directional arrow are appropriate. Mr, Wagner said in his opinion a detached sign is a detached sign, and if entrance/exit signs are allowed, he has no problem with this new proposal, which deletes 11 Texana Nati ona 1 Bank 11 and adds an address. The app lican t then offered to withdraw his request for variance if the Board gives Mrs. Kee the authority to fo l low the direction of the Board regarding this detached directional sign. Mr. Wendt made a mot ion to give M~s. Kee this authority, and Mr. Upham seconded the motion wh i ch carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision concerning denial of issuance of a Building Permit for additions to the business opera - ting under the nam e of Alfredo 1 s Tacos Al Carbon l-0cated at 509 University Drive. Application i s in the name of Alfred Gutierrez, Jr. Mrs. Kee explained that the P&Z had denied a revision to the site plan primar ily because no revised site plan (which included the proposed parking in front of the business and the addition of the awning and seating) had been presented by the appl icant, and further because the applicant was not in attendance at the meeting. She furthe r explained that . the City Engin ee r has loo ked into the matter, and has set a time limit of December 15th for the applicant to bring i n a revised site plan which shows the park ing proposed in front of the business, and that tonight the Board i s being asked to consider the canopy ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 5 and seating only. Number of seats and availability of parking in i the approved lot to t he rear wa s discussed, and Mrs. Kee pointed out that there are 30 seats under the canopy, bringing the total seating to 110 and the ordinance would allow 99 seats for the ava il- able parking in the rear, therefo r e the app licant would be 4 parking spaces short, or ll seats ove r, wh ich e ver way the Board wishe s to look at the matter. She also po in ted out th at the purpose of the revised site pla n is due to conce rn over in gress and egress at the fron t of the buil ding directly to University Dri ve, which had never been app rov ed . Mr. Wagner asked if this Bo ard is in order in conside ri ng this Northgate project, and Mrs. Coo k s aid this Boa rd cannot consider parking variances in that area, but can con - sider this appeal of t he decisi0n involving a canopy with seating . Al Gut i errez, Jr. of 509 Univ e r s i ty was sworn in ~i nd spoke of the hardship which had previously been imposed on him by the requirement of estab lishment of a parking lot in the rear o f this business wh ich is now never us ed . Mrs . Cook interrupted by saying that this Board i s not, and ca nnot add re ss any parking problems in t he Northgate area due to the mo ra- to riu m the Council has handed down . After discussion, Mrs. Meye r made a motion to reverse the de ci sion made by t he Pla nnin g and Zoning Co mmiss ion in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance as it applies to the approval of th is canopy, contingent on the applicant submi tt in g a parking pla n to be reviewed by December 15 , 1983, as that canopy a nd park i ng request were both denied as a pac kag e due to the app4icant being unable to be present at the Commission mee ting. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Oth e r Business Mrs. Cook announced the public meeting con c ern i ng the Northgate Committee 1 s recom- me ndations on Wednesday, 10 a.m. at the Presby t erian Church. Mr. We ndt made a motion to adjourn with Mr . Wagner sec onding. Mot ion carried unan i mously (5 -0). APPROVED: Violetta Coo k , Chairman STAFF REPORT TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: September 13, 1983 FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Frank H. Cinek Status of Applicant : Owner Location: Lot 24, Block 2 Emerald Forest Phase IV (8700 Greenleaf) Existing Zoning: R-1 Single Family Requested Action: Variance to rear setback Purpose: To construct a garage up to 15 ft. from the rear property 1 ine. Applicable Ordinance Section: Table A -District Use Schedule SPECIAL INFORMATION: Variance Setbacks Required: Rear -25 ft. Adjacent Structures: Existing adjacent garage approximately 10 ft. from property 1 ine; adjacent house approximately 15 ft. from property 1 ine. Existing Parking: N/A Parking Required: N/A Uti l ities: 10 ft. u tility easement along rear. PHYSICAL CHARACTERIST I CS: Lot Dimensions: See site plan Access: From Bent Tree Drive Existing Vegetation: Few large trees In rear Flood Plain: N/A ANALYSIS: Alternatives: Lose some existing trees and take up a larger portion of the backyard or propose one car garage. Hardship: The approved site plan was for a Tilson home. Because Tilson does not involve themselves in constructing driveways the City permitted the house with the note that the driveway had to be in prior to the C.O. If the applicant wanted a garage a permit would have to be applied for and the driveway could be shown as a part of that permit. If there was to be STAFF REPORT page 2 9-13-83 no gara~__!_b.~~ a d riv eway_~e rmit would have to be appl i ed fo r. As the site plan was approved and as the house i s locat ed on the lot_t .here-isliO-f t. fro·m-the rear of the house to the r ear property 1 in e whlch wo uld al low a --single car· garage or a garage approximately 15 -ft :....___~ide unless som_~ __ treej'=-are _:emov ~d . If trees are re moved ----------· .~nd mar~ the backyard i s ta ken l:'.P__3I two-car gara_ge co ~robably fit within the setbac ks . Apparently the mistake ref e rred to in the application involves a meas ur ement that wa s dimensioned correct ly (40.18 -see building permit site planT but does not scale correctly. All oth e r dimensions are correct to scale. I always us e dimens ions to check plans because sealing on Xerox copies is not accurate. According to the dimensions the h~use fi ~~ on the lot and it does in reality. Apparently the lot is just not large e nough to accommodate this size house, a two .car~j'ara .ge ~bCi-the--size bac ky'"ard with existi ng trees that the appl i- cant desires to keep. Previous Action on this property: None ATTACHMENTS: App 1 i cation List of Prop erty Owners within 200 ft, 2 Site Plans Area Map zo~rnc BO:\RD OF ADJUST~!ENT FILE NO . I ·J Name of Applicant Mr. & Mrs . Frank H. Cinek ~~iling Address ~~~-8_7_0_0~G_r~e_e_n_l_e_a~f_,~C_o_l~l-e~g_e~S_t~a_t_i_o_n~,~T_X~_7_7~8_4_0~~~~~~ Phone ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Location : Lot 24 Block 2 Subdivision Phase IV Emerald Forest Descri?tion, If applicable ·', Action requested: Allow building garage beyond rear set-back . NANE ADDRESS (From current t ax roll s, College Station Tax Assessor) --~ FILS r:O . Section of ordi r.ance fro~ ~hi c h varia nce i s s ou~~t 6 G-2 The following sp e cific var i ation from the or d in a nc e i s request e d: Req u est ri g ht to build part of garage within back set-back requi rement of R-1 zone . This variance is necessary due to t he foll o win g uniCJl!e a ncl sp E!c i a l conditions of the land not found in l ike di s tricts: , Plot plan dr awn by surveyor was mistakenly draw n to wrong scale. Location of completed home does not a llow for garage to be built where initially intended without incrouchment int o buildin g set - back. The follm1ing a l terna ti ves to the requeste d variance ar e po s sibl e ; Garage co uld be built up a g ainst back deck but this would requir e the r emova l of 7 or 8 trees, 3 of whi c h are over 14 inches in diamet e r. This placement wo uld also take u p most of the back yard and destroy the view from the house. This variance will not be contra ry to the public int eres t by virtue of th e follo wing f~ct s : The proposed lo cation of the garage would st ill l eave a distance of about 25 feet to t h e n e ighbors garage . Allowing the propose d location of the garage would also save 7 or 8 tre es si n ce no trees would hav e to .b e removed . ~nd c o rr e ct . F-vy -R Date BK 2, LT 25 BK 2, LT 26 BK 2, LT 27 BK 2, LT 28 EMERALD FORE ST IV David Foster Construc tion 1512 Texas Avenue South Bryan, Texas 77801 BK 2, LT 9 EMERALD F OREST IV Charles A. Scull 1815 Rosebut Ct College Station, Texas 778 40 BK 2, LT 10 EMERALD FOREST IV Ke iser, David M. 1813 Rosebut Ct. College Station, Texas 77840 BK 2, LT 11 EMERALD F OREST IV Randal Wayne Stuart, ETUX 4207 Cheyenne Circle Bryan, Texas 77801 BK 2, LT 21 BK 2, LT 22 BK 3, LT 9 EMERAL D FOREST I V Anthony Horne Builders Inc. P.O. Box NN College Station, Texas 778 40 BK 2, LT 23 EMERALD FOREST IV BPC, INC. 2911 Villa Maria Rd. Bryan, Texas 77801 BK 3, LT 14 EMERALD FOREST IV Danny J. Earl 5210 Tower Drive Apt, 135 Wichita Falls, Texas 76310 BK 3, LT 16 EMERALD FOREST IV James R. Larue Jr. 8702 Bent Tree College Station, Texas 77 840 -.. BK 3, LT 13 BK 3, LT 11 BK 3·, LT 10 BK 1., LT 1, BK 1, LT 3 BK 1, LT 4 BK 2, LT 1 Haldec Inc. 1607 Emerald EMERALD FOREST IV EMERALD FOREST IV EMERALD FOREST I V EMERALD FOREST V EMERALD FOREST V EMERALD FOREST V EMERALD FOREST V PKWY College Station, Texas 77840 BK 3, LT 12 EMERALD FOREST IV Ponzio Hornes, Inc. P.O. Box 1163 Bryan, Texas 71806 BK 4, LT 1 BK 4, LT 2 BK 4, LT 3 BK 4, LT 4 EMERALD FOREST IV Tony Jones Construction Co. P.O. Box AT College Station, Texas 77840 BK 1, LT 2 BK 1, LT 6 Ranco Hornes EMERALD FOREST V EMERALD FOREST VI 1128 Villa Maria Bryan, Texas 77801 , , AGENDA CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment September 20, 1983 7:00 P.M. l. Approval of Minutes -meeting of August 16, 1983 2. Consideration of a request for variance to the rear setback requirements (Table A, Zoning Ordinance No. 850) to allow construction of a garage at the residence at 8700 Greenleaf (Lot 24 Block 2 Emerald Forest Phase IV. Application is in the name of Mr . & Mrs. Frank H. Cinek. 3. Consideration of a request to substitute one nonconforming use for another as per Section ll-B3(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; specifically to remove an existing barn and construct a new barn on Lot 14 of the Sandstone Subdivision. Application is in the name of Russell & Kim Hanna. 4. Other Business. 5 . Adjourn. ., I MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment August 16, 1983 7:00 P.M. Chairman Cook, Members Wendt, Wagner, Upham and Alternate Member Meyer; (Alte. ~te Member McGuirk in audience) MacGilvray Zoning Official Kee, Ass't Zoning Official Dupies & Planning Tech- nician Volk Chairman Cook opened the public hearing and stated the duties and obligations of this Boa rd. AGENDA ITEM NO. l: Approval of Minutes -meeting of July 19, 1983 Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. We nd t seconded. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Meyer abstained). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a variance re uest to the rear setback as required by District Use Schedule Table A of Ordinance 50 on all lots in the Ashford Square Subdivision located on the south side of Southwest Parkway immediately south of the intersection of Cornell & Southwest Parkway. Application is in the name of M.H.B.J . Joint Ventu re (Ashford Square PUD). Mrs. Kee located the subject project on an area map, identified the particular lots in question and explained that Ordinanc e allows zero lot line construction on the side, but does not address rear zero lot 1 ine construction. Wic McKean, 2400 Frost was sworn in and explained that rear and side zero lot 1 ine construction would allow development of front parking throughout the subdivision. Mr. Wendt asked about firewalls and Mr. McKean explained that tilt-1 ine 4 hour firewalls would be used. Mrs. Cook asked for an explanation of the term 11 PUD 11 , and Mr.-McKea n explained that in this instance it refer s to a Private Utility District, and that this entire subdivision would be developed on p rivat e property. Mrs. Meyer asked ho~ ~his would affect rear setbacks in Block A which is adjacent to property which is no~ in this subdivision. Mr. McKean replied that he does not know, because he does noi own that property, and is only asking for variances on land which he does own. Mr. Upham asked if it is correct to assume that this Board is oeing asked tonight to address an omission in the Ordinance and Mrs. Kee said that staff is currently working on an Ordi- nance which would address commercial PUD development and that she assu mes that whate ver type of Ordinance the City adopts will address lot line construction on various sides. Mrs. Meyer said that she is still wo rri ed about h~w granting a variance to rear setbacks in Block A will affect the property owner of the adjacent properties when he is faced with buildings built on his property 1 ine. Mrs. Kee replied that she had been contacted by the owner of that property who asked if he would also be allowed zero lot line con- struction if this variance is granted, and that she had informed him that she could not answer that question because this i s a request for a variance at a particular location, and until the Ordinance is changed each request must be addressed separately . Mr. Upharn mad e a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) note 11 E11 from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the foll owing unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (!)This situation is not addressed in the ordinance for commercial development as it is for residential development, and is considered an omission rather ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 2 than a denial by ordinance, and because a strict enforcement of the :prov i sio ns of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant be ing the inability to use this pro pe rty to its maximum feasibility through no fault of h i s own; and s uch that the spirit of this o rdinance shall be obs e rved and su b stantial justice done . Mrs . Meyer seconded the motion, after which M. -Wendt asked if t he current requireme n ts such as firewall, landscaping, et c. should be included in the mo ti on, and Mr. Upham agreed and amended his motion to includ e the statement 11 subj ect to all current lega l require- ments such as firewalls, landscaping and parking to be i ng met .1 1 Mr. Wendt seconded the motion as amended, which carried unanimously (5-0 ). Staff was then asked to keep the Board ap~ised of any new ordinance which is approved. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Cons ider at ion of a variance requ est to s i gn height a s regulated by Ordinance No. 1409 , an Amendment to the Zoning Or dinance No. 850 at the site location of a reta i l lumber store ju st north of the intersecti on of Hi ghway 30 and the East By- pass. Application is in the name of Payless Cashways, lnc ./Barr y Moore . Mrs. Kee presented the r eq uest and ex plained the int e ri m Sign Ordinance whi ch limits signs to 35 ft. in hei ght, and stated that this approved s it e plan mee ts all setback requirements, etc., for a 50 ft. sign under the old s ign o rdin ance . Jack Burke, 5015 Lamar, Mi~ion, Kansas was sworn in as a representative of the appl i- cant and explained that this site is approx i mate ly 20 feet below the major traffic artery in this area (High way 6 East Bypass), and spoke of his understanding that the int e nt of the int e rim ordinance as allowing a 35 ft. sign o n major fro nting street s which are usually at grade level . He clari fied t o the Board that the applica nt had been awar e of the interim sign ordinance a t the time the proposed development of thi s land had begu n , but added that they had consid ered this to be on l y one problem among many, and they we re facing one problem at a time. Barry Moore, Kansas City, Missouri was swo rn in and identified himself as the project manager for this project . Mr. Wagner asked about th e ma r keting analys i s wh ich had determined that the Bypass i s the major a rt ery for this area rat her than the Frontage Road and Mr. Burke explained that from the standpoint o f a retail er, High way 6 is the major artery locally, but from outlying areas, it would definitely be High way 6 East Bypass. Mr. Upham stated that he do b s not know why this 'land is un i q ue as there is high and low land everywhere and the company knew this land is l ow land when they agreed to purchase it . Mr. Wendt asked if the elevation of the access road is the elevation of the origi- na l property, and it was determined that no one knew if the frontage road had been · bui l t up or not. Mr. Burke responded to the unique s i tuation by pointing out t hat anytime a retailer puts i n a projec t, there are some obstacles to face, but the City usually does not wa nt to stop deve l opment. He said they were aware of ma ny problems at the onset of this project, and off e r e d that the interpretation of Ordinance wo uld be unique in that its aim was to have signs a maxim um of 35 ft. above a major arte ry and in this case, the ma jor artery is high abov e this land an d the ground is far below grade l e vel of the majo r artery. Mr . Upham sa id tha t this is not the int e nt of the ordinance as it reads. The ord i nan ce spe cifi es the he i ght of signs farther than 20 ft. from the pavement edge to be measured from the base of the s i gn , an d not to be meas ur ed above the grade l e v e l of the major arte ry. Jim J ett, 206 Emberglow was swo rn in and id entif i e d himself a s the local rea l estate agent who ha~ dea lt with t~ese pe ople a long time ago, and further stated that at the time the busin ess t ran sact ion began, the old ordinance was in effe ct a nd the site had ZBA Minu tes 8-16-83 page 3 had been analyzed prior to the current s i gn ordinance. Mr. We ndt asked abo ut the Ma nor House sign and Mrs. Kee explained hot it had bee n app roved at 85 ft . in height unde r the old ordinance. Mrs. Meyer asked ho w the int e rim s ign ordinance had com e ab out and Mrs . Kee explained that it was arrived at as a result of a s urv ey of local signs an d of other ordinances from other cities. Mrs. Cook asked if Council had d i scussed signs on the Bypass or the Frontag e Roads a nd Mrs. Kee exp l ained that she did not know if Coun cil had addressed this, but the committee wo rking on the proposed new sig n ord inance has discussed it. Mrs. Meyer asked what kind of hardship wo uld be cr ea t ed and Mr. Burke exp l a in ed tha t t his is impos sib l e to judge in t e rms of numb e r of cl i e nt e l e l ost . Mrs . Cook ask e d when the sign committee would be mak ing a r e comm e ndation and Mrs. Kee sa i d hopefully a new ord i- nance would be ready by this fall . Mrs. Cook asked Mr. Burke when t his project would be completed and Mr. Moore answered that it should be completed 9 months after beg in- ning of construction, and construction is sche duled to begin in one month . Mr. Burk e asked what would happen if this request is denied and the ordinance i s changed in the meantime, and Mrs. Kee said that in he r opinion, when the Buildin g Permit for the sign is applied for, the current ordinance would apply, and if at that t ime, taller signs are allowed, the appl leant would follow the new, current ordinanc e . Mr. Wendt made a motio n to authorize a vari a nce to the s ign regulations (Section 8 ) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to th e public in te r es t , due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 i ke districts: (l)the individual purchased the property prior to the ordinance chan ge and a penalty would now apply; (2)the elevation of the acce ss road is not the natural grade but rather has been built up and the sign would conform if the elevati on had not been chan ge d; and (3)there would be no visibility of this sign t o the Wind wo od Subdivision to the south and no protrusion above the Bypass; a nd because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary ha rd sh ip to th is app lic ant being: Normal drive-in traffic would be d iminish e d from the Bypass in that this appl i- cant is a retailer and derives much of his busin ess from signage which he would not ha ve with at 35 ft. sign maximum; and such that the sp irit of this ordinance shall be ob - served and substantial justice done, subject to the following li mitations: Tha t the sign will not exceed 35 ft. above the center] ine of th e access road and the square footage will be within the maximum of the current City Sign Ordinance. Mr. W~gner seconded the motion. After discussion concerning a set time limit for the variance, Mr. Upham amended the mot i on to include 11 as per the suggestion of the applicant, this variance is authorized for 3 years, at which time the detached sign will be brought into comp] iance of the current ordinance at that time.11 Mrs. Meyer seconded -the amendment to the motion; ho weve r, Mr. Wendt objected to the amendment and asked to amend the amendment to include 11 as the Ordinance reads as of 8/16/83 11 • Mr. Wagner seconded this amendment to the amended motion . Votes were cast on the second amendment (which includ ed the date 8-16-83) and carried 4-l (Upham voting against). Votes were cast on the motion as amended a nd fa il e d by a vote of 2-2 (chair ma n did not vote) . AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consid e r at i on of a variance r eq uest to s i g n regulat ion s prohib iti ng detached signs in A-P and C-N zo nes as r eq uir e d by Ordin a nc e 850 sectio n 8-D .5 at the site location at the southeast corn e r of State Hi g hway 30 a nd Stal lin gs Drive. Appl i- cation i s in the name of Texana National Bank 11 ln Or ganizat i o n". ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 4 Mr. Upham was excused for a few minutes and Mrs. Kee explained that the zoning is A-P at this location and detached signs are not allowed by ordinance. Mr. Upham returned. Mrs. Kee pr esented staff's alternative which wo uld allow small, detached 11 entrance/exit 11 signs with no name on the sign and serve as directional signs only. Jim Jett again came forward (previously sworn in) and stated that altho ugh financial institutions are allowed in A-P zones, they must offer more parking, and really should be in a special zoning district. He went forward to the site plan on the wall and pointed out exactly how the bank hopes traffic will flow and stated that this sign will help insure how the traffic will flow. He stated that any other manuever would create a hazardous traffic situation and this request wo uld be in the public's inter est regarding safety. Mr. Wendt asked for explanation from staff concerning problems, and Mrs. Kee explained that detached signs are not al lowed in A-P zones because this zone is primarily used as a buffer between residential and certain commercial projects. She stated again that staff has no problem with smal 1 (appx. 2 1 x 3') ent rance/exit signs but does have a problem with detached signs with names of businesses. Mrs. Cook spoke about traffj.c situations in late afternoon at this motor bank as being hazardous at the point of ingress and egress at the curb cut off Highway 30, and sug- tested perhaps an "exit only" sign to help. Mr. Jett pointed out that this curb cut will be serving both this project and one adjacent to this, so two-way traffic is imper- ative. Mr. Jett continued discussion with the Board concerning a small directional sign, and came to the conclusion that in the interest of public safety, the words "motor bank" and a directional arrow, as well as the address only would be acceptable, and the words 11 Texana National Bank" could be eliminated, as direction of traffic is the purpose of the sign. Mr. Upham suggested that perhaps "Motor Bank" could be in larger letters than proposed, and Mr. Jett agreed that Mr. Upham might be right. Mr . Upham asked Mr. J et t if he and the applicant could come up with something less com- mercial than proposed originally, and Mr. Jett agreed that they could. Mrs. Kee offered to make the decision on the suitabjl ity of the sign if the Board wo uld so direct, and also if they think that the words "Motor Bank" and a directional arrow are appropriate. Mr, Wagner said in his opi~ion a detached sign is a detached sign , and if entrance/exit signs are allowed, he has no problem with this· new proposal, which deletes 11 Texana National Bank" and adds an ·address, The applicant then offered to withdraw his request for variance if the Board gives Mrs. Kee the authority to follow the direction of the Board regarding this detached directional sign. Mr. Wendt made a motion to give Mrs. Kee this authority, and Mr. Upham seconded the motion which carried unanimously (S-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision concerning denial of issuance of a Building Permit for additions to the business opera- ting under the name of Alfredo's Tacos Al Carbon located at 509 University Drive. Application is in the name of Alfred Gutierrez, Jr. Mrs. Kee explained that the P&Z had denied a revision to the site plan primarily because no revised site plan (which included the proposed parking in front of the business and the addition of the awning and seating) had been presented by the applicant, and further because the applicant was not in attendance at the meeting. She further explained that the City Engin ee r has looked into the matter, and has set a time 1 imit of December 15th for the applicant to bring in a revised site plan which shows the park ing proposed in front of the business, and that tonight the Board is being asked to consider the canopy ZBA Minutes 8-16-83 page 5 and seating only. Number of seats and availability of parking in the approved lot to the rear was discussed, and Mrs. Kee pointed out that there are 30 seats under t he canopy, bringing the total seating to 110 and the ordinance would allow 99 seats for t he avail- ab l e parking in the rear, therefore the appl leant would be 4 parking spaces short, or 11 seats over, whichever way the Board wishes to look at the matter. She also pointed o ut th at the purpose of the revised site pla n is due to concern over ingress and egress at the front of the building directly to University Drive, which had never been approved . Mr . Wagner asked if this Board is in order in considering this Northgate project, and Mrs . Cook sa i d this Board cannot consider parking variances in that area, but can con- sider this appeal of the decisi0n involving a canopy with seating. Al Gutierrez, Jr. of 509 University was sworn in ~i nd spoke of the hardship which had previously been imposed on him by the requirement of establishment of a parking lot in the rear of this business wh ich is now never used. Mrs. Cook interrupted by saying that this Board is not, and cannot address any parking problems in the Northgate area due to the mora- to riu m the Council has handed down. After discussion, Mrs. Meyer made a motion to reverse the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance as it applies to the approval of this canopy, contingent on the applicant submitting a parking plan to be reviewed by December 15, 1983, as that canopy and parking request were both denied as a package due to the app licant being unable to be present at the Commission meeting. Mr . Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business Mrs. Cook announced the public meeting concerning the Northgate Committee's recom- mendations on Wednesday, 10 a.m. at the Presbyterian Church. Mr. Wendt made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVED: Violetta Cook, Chairman STAFF REPORT TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: September 13, 19 83 FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Frank H. Cinek Status of Applicant: Owner Location: Lot 24, Block 2 Emerald Forest Phase IV (8700 Greenleaf) Existing Zoning: R-l Single Family Requested Action: Variance to rear setback Purpose: To construct a garage up to 15 ft. from the rear property line. , Applicable Ordinance Section: Tabl e A -District Use Schedule SPECIAL INFORMATION: Variance Setbacks Required: Rear -25 ft. Adjacent Structures: Existing adjacent garage approximately 10 ft. from property line; adjacent house approximately 15 ft. from property line. Existing Parking: N/A Parking Required: N/A Utilities: 10 ft. utility ~asement along rear.· PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Dimensions: See site plan Access: From Bent Tree Drive Existing Vegetation: Few large trees in rear Flood Plain: N/A ANALYSIS: Alternatives: Lose some existing trees and take up a larger portion of the backyard or propose one car garage. Hardship: The approved site plan was for a Tilson home. Because Tilson does not involve themselves in constructing driveways the City permitted the house with the note that the driveway had to be in prior to the C.O. If the applicant wanted a garage a permit would have to be applied for and the driveway could be shown as a part of that permit. If there was to be STA FF REPORT pa g e 2 9-13-83 no gara9!:_ the!1 a driv eway -~!:_l'.1 it woul d hav e to be applied for . As the site plan was a p proved and as the house is locat e d o n the lot-tFie reTs liO-f~o-m-t h e rear of t he house to th e r ear property 1 ine which would allow-a· sin g le car garage or a garage appro x i mat e l y TS-ft-:Wide unless som e tre e s -ar e removed. If trees are r em oved ==-==------· ---·-==---~nd m o ~ the bac kyard 1 s ta ke n l:!.E._a two-car ~ara_g e could probably fit within the setbacks. App~entl y_J;h e mistake r e f e rr e d to in the application invol ves a measuremen ~b__~~ YJ aS di~~n s ioned correctl y (40. 18 - s e e buil d in g permit site plan) but do e s not scal e correctly. All other dimen s i o n s are correct to scale. I al way-SUse di mensions to check pl a ns bec a use sealing on Xerox copies is not accurat e . According to the d i mensi o n s the house _ _il!.?_On the lot andit-does in_ realit Y_:_ Apparently th e lot is just not large enou g h to accommodate this size hous e, a t wo car gara ~e -~nd_t _he_s ize backyard with existing tr e es that t he appl i- cant des i-~-~s_!.? _ _!<e ep. Previous Action on this property: Non e ATTACHMENTS: App 1 i cation List of Propert y Owners within 200 ft. 2 Site Plans Area Map ., ' ZOi\D~G BOARD OF ADJUSniENT I J FILE NO . I Name of Applicant Mr . & Mrs. Frank H. Cinek Mailing Address 8700 Greenleaf, College Station, TX 77840 Ph one Location: Lot 24 Block 2 Subdivisio n Phase IV Emerald Forest ------- Description, If applicable Action re quested : Allow buildin g garage beyond rear set-back. NAHE ADDRESS (Fro m current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) -._; -. zmn~G BO ARD OF ,\D.r:.JS T :·:r~N T f'J LE ~!O . Pres e nt zoni ~g of l a n d in ques ti o n R-1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Section of or d ina nc e fr o~ ~h i ch va ria nc e is sougj t 6 G-2 The following sp e cific v a ri a ti o n fro m the o r dina nc e i s re q u es t e d: Re quest right to build part of g arage within back set-bac k requirement of R-1 zone. This variance is n e cessary due to the foll ow in g un i q u e a nd specia l conditi o ns of the land not found in like di s trict s : Plot plan drawn b y surveyor was mistakenl y drawn to wron g scale. Location of completed home does not allow for garag e to be built where initially intended without incrouchment into building s et- back. The follo~1ing alternatives to the r e qu e sted va ri 3 nc e a r e possi b l e : Garage could be built up a g ainst back deck but this would requir e the removal of 7 or 8 tre es, 3 of which are over 14 inches in diameter. This placement would also take up most of the back yard and destroy the view from the house. This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following f~cts: The proposed location of the garage would still leave a distance of about 25 feet to the neighbors garage. Allowing the proposed location of the garage would also save 7 or 8 trees since no trees would have to .be removed. a:td c o rr e ct. s::-v9-R Da tc BK 2, LT 25 BK 2, LT 26 BK 2, LT 27 BK 2, LT 28 EMERA LD F OREST IV David Foster Construction 1512 Te xa s Ave nue South Bryan, Tex as 7780 1 BK 2, LT 9 EMERALD FOREST IV Charles A. Scull 1815 Rosebut Ct College Station, Tex as 77840 BK 2, LT 10 EMERALD FOREST IV Kei ser, David M. 1813 Rosebut Ct. College Station, ~Texas 77 840 BK 2, LT 11 EMERA LD FOREST IV Randal Wayne Stuart, ETUX 4207 Cheyenne Circle Bryan, Texas 77801 BK 2, LT 21 BK 2, LT 22 BK 3, LT 9 EMERALD FOREST IV Anthony Horne Builders Inc. P.O. Box NN College Station, .Tex as 778 40 BK 2 I LT 23 ·~ EMERALD FOREST IV BPC, INC. 2911 Villa Maria Rd. Bryan, Texas 77801 BK 3, LT 14 EMERALD FOREST IV Danny J. Earl 5210 Tower Drive Apt, 135 Wichita Falls, Texas 76310 BK 3, LT 16 EMERALD FOREST IV James R. Larue Jr. 8702 Bent Tree College Station, Texa s 77 840 -.. BK 3, LT 13 BK 3, LT 11 BK 3-, LT 10 BK 1, LT 1, BK 1, LT 3 BK 1, LT 4 BK 2, LT 1 Haldec Inc. 1607 Emerald EMERALD FOREST EMERALD FOREST EMERALD FOREST EMERALD FOREST EMERALD FOREST EMERALD FOREST EMERALD FOREST PKWY College Station, Tex as 77840 BK 3, LT 12 EMERALD FOREST IV Ponzio Homes,-Inc. P.O. Box 1163 Bryan, Texas 71806 BK 4, LT 1 BK 4, LT 2 BK 4, LT 3 BK 4, LT 4 EMERALD FOREST IV~ Tony Jones Construction Co. P.O. Box AT College Station, Texas 77840 IV IV IV v v v v BK 1, LT 2 BK 1, LT 6 EMERALD FOREST V EMERALD FOREST VI Ranco Homes 1128 Villa Maria Bryan, Texas 77801 ... \ I , ~~t-i r I ~, --~i-~ I FR_AJ _K CINEK~ I \ J r-----; \' -. -0,. --~( ·1 J r-----'-----1::'__ \<({~ --_/ .~~=E_JJf J _~ I J I '' ! I. , 1 11 ~ I ' : I ( ITEM NO. )( CASE NO. ,_ _____ _,) (' SCALE,.1",600' l TYPE OF C ASE: Varience To Rear Setback ZONING BOARD OF ADJUST MENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to authorize a variance to the . yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking ·requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. :t 6 . and because a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: and such that the spirit of this Ordinance sha!l be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following 1 imitations: 3. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This motion was made by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Seconded by ~~~~~~~~~~--,-..~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The variance was granted by the fol lowing vote: (Date) Chair Signature ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to deny a variance to the yard (6 -G) ------ lot width (Table A) ------ loe depth (Table A) ------ s ign regulations (Section 8) ------ min i mum setback (Table A) ------ parking requirements (Sectio n 7) ------· from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public inter e st, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally f ound in 1 ike di stricts: 1. 2. 4. and because a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance would no t r esult i n unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit o f this Ordinance sha ll be observed and s ubstanti a l justice done. This motion was made by Seconded by 't Th e varianc e was deni ed by the following vot e : Chair Signature Dat e STAFF REPORT TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: September 13, 1983 FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Mr. & Mrs.-Russell Hanna Status of Applicant: Owner Location: Lo t 14 Sandstone Existing Zoning: R-1 Single Family (rezoned from A-0 in July 1979) Requested Action: Substitution of one nonconforming use for another Purpose: To remove existing barn and construct a new, larger barn Applicable Ordinance Section: 4-C. l and 11-B.3 (a) SPECIAL INFORMATION: Setbacks Required: N/A Adjacent Structures: N/A Existing Parking: N/A~~ Parking Required: ~ Variance Utilities: Electric along rear of property, waterline and Fir e Hydrant avai lable on Sandstone. Use Permit Existing Use: Barn Parking Required: N/A Proposed Use: Barn Parking Required: N/A Area of Non-Conforming Building: N/A Area of Expansion: N/A Greater than 25 %: N/A Appraised Valu e: N/A Cost of Reconstruction: N/A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Dimensions: l .92 acres -see plat Access: Dirt Drive from Sandstone Topography: Existing Vegetation: Heavy vegetation Staff Report (continued) page 2 Date: 9-13-83 Flood Plain: N/A ANALYSIS: Alternatives: Utilize existing barn which will not continue to really serve appl icants 1 purpose. Hardship: Property was annexed in September 1977 as A-0 which allows a barn. 13a"rn was constructed February 1979 while property still zoned A-0. Property rezoned R-1 July 1979. Now applicant wants to improve "facilities. Previous Action on this Property: None ATTACHMENTS: Application with letter from applicant List of Property Owners within 200 ft. Site plan, elevation,floor plan Other: Plat, deed restrictions, letter from property owners Area Map ZO:\ rnc TIO:\RD OF ADJUSnlENT ; FILE NO. --:------ Name of Applicant __ R_u_s_s_e_l_l_a_n_d_K_1_·m_H_a_n_n_a ___________________ ~ Mailing Address 1700 A~stin Ave., College Station, Texas 77840 Phone 693-0578 Home; 846-8788 (Office-wife) Loe a ti on: . Lot 14 Block Subdivision Sandstone ------- Description , If applicable ---------------------------- ,. Action requested: the substitution for a nonconforming use of another nonconforming use · NAHE ADDRESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) See attached list from tax rolls from College Station Tax Assessor and paid receipt 't -. ; zm:n:c BOARD O? ,'J).J'L!ST:·WN T J'J LE t :O. Pr esent zoni~g of land in ques tion R-1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----,,.--~~~~ The fo llowing sp e cific .v2riati o n fro~ the or d i n2 '1ce j_s 1:eguest e d: Ear the existin g bi3.rn (Hay,stall & tack room) to be removed and replaced wit h a more functional, a5thesti cally pleasing and more costly barn which 'A'ill enhance the property val11e and the overall plan for the construction of our primary residence. It will be relocated in c lose pro )<imity to the existing barn but plac@d strat€..g..ic.a11y better and has been approved by a l present homeowners who might have visual evidence of it ·so as not to obstruct their ri ght of enjoyment of their own prop@rty (SEE ATTACHED LETTER OE APPROVAi FROM PROPERTY OWNE R5 (SEE SIGNED APPROVAL FRO M THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE ON SITE PLAN) ACTION This ~~11:~~~~~ is necessary due to the following uniqt:e ancl spE!cial conditions of t he lcrn d not found in like districts: lJThe deed restrictions of Sandstone (attached) allow for horses "provided that none are kept, bred, or maintained i or commercial ·purposes and such are controllea· with respect to the rights .and privacy ot other owners. (Evidenced by teller of Approval) 2) The s i ze of the lo t (l .94 acres) lends itself adequatel y for a homesite and limited 1i ve · sto c k 3) There presently exists 3 families who own property in Sandstone who have horse s a~d ? of these famn 1es have barns acttv:ely used for l iveslock. Action The follm;ing altern.'.ltives to th e r e queste cl X~9<XX lOl~O~ a re po s sible: The present barn does not lend itself to remodeling or expansion in such a way that would be purposeful or attractive. We need a dry, warm enclosed structure with electricity to enable our daughte i to continue showing her horse during the winter month s . . I Action This ~d{~ -will not be contrary to the public i'!'lteres t by virtue of the following fc:icts: Al .1 the hom@GW.J'.l.e-r-s and the majority of property owners within 200 1 of lot 14 l} where know ledg eable of the lands past use; 2) have not found us a nuisance or objectionabl e 3) are knowledgeabl@ of the proposed plan and 4) have approved the plan as well as the Architectural Contrell Committee approving the same plan. Th e r;-,2 in th is .:lpplicntion .'.l r e :::.-c~ <1 :1 d c orre ct. .~ ---September z. 1983 Applicant Date TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: It is our request that we be granted a building permit to construct a new barn on our property in the Sandstone Subdivision inorder to replace the barn that presently exists on the lot. We have been actively using the existing structure for the past 4 year s. It is our ultimate goal to build our primary residence there. We presently own a home in Southwood Valley and have lived there for the past 8 years. HISTORY OF PROPERTY: l) September 1977 -property was annexed into the city limits of College Statation and was zoned Agri tultura l Open (A O) at that time. 2) June 1978 -property .was purchased and closed on by us, Russell and Kim Hanna. 3) February 1979 -the existing barn was erected under Ordanice 5-A.2 Permitted Uses 11 A barn, stable for keeping private animal stock 11 • 4) July 1979 the property was re-zoned to R-1. We have submitted the various documents: I. a. Site plans of lot showing location of existing barn, proposed barn, proposed primary residence and present easements b. Architectural renderings showing floor plans and exterior elevations for the proposed barn with its: l. location of all plumbing and electrical fixtures and outlets 2. estimated cost of construction ($3 ,200) 3. materials intended to be used in construction II. Signed Approval from the Architectural Control Committee on Site plan (Having reviewed the same information described ab ove} III. Signed Letter of Approval from all homeowners and the majority of property owners within 200' of lot 14. IV. Copy of the platt and deed restrictions permitting horses to be allowed. Our 11 year old daughter isa member of the local Brazos County Equestrian Club and we have found this to be a most rewarding family experience. We are ready to up-date our facilities in cost and planning for the future for the construction of our residence. We have spent several thousand dollars last year with Mr. Don Hill, AIA,. College Station, in the development of plans, blueprints and specifications whic h .are available fo~ your review if requested. We have been forced to post ,po ne the construction of our new home due to the present high interest rates. We appreciate your consideration and approval of our request. Sincerely, .\'\;~.'-'\'\l'-...J'-'8. '-'\~\..)~ ~ Q,\"V~ Russell and Kim Hanna 1700 Austin Ave. College Station, Texas 77840 ORDINANCE NO. 850 Zoning Ordinance SECTION 4. NONCONFORMING USES: 4-C.l When authorized by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 11, the substitution for a nonconforming use of another nonconforming use, or an extension of a nonconforming use, may be made; 11-B.3 To hear and decide requests for Use Permits for: (a) The substitution of one nonconforming use for another nonconforming use when the substituted use is found to be less detr imental to the eviron- ment than the first. LT 15 Sandstone Hubbell, Lawrence H. 8619 Rosewood College Station, Te xas 77 840 LT lOR Sandstone Tony Jones Construction P.O. Drawer AT College Station, Te xas 77 840 LT 11 Sandstone Brewster, Joseph 9000 Sandstone College Sta tion, Te xas 77 840 LT 12 Sandstone Albanese, Robert 9004 Sandstone College Station, Te xas 77 840 LT 13 Sandstone Calahan, Arthur P. 2914 Normand Drive College Station, Te xas 77 840 18.45 Acres Sandy Ridge Fl etcher, Leroy 9007 Sandstone College Station, Texas 77 840 .. ./,/ / .· ... " / y . -_, l 114/c t '/tC-------- t / !,: f: / Wick McKean . 6 198 3 ep tember • THE ARCH ITE CTUR AL COMM ITT EE OF APPRO V EDEB~UBO IV IS ION SANDS TON ·' '..) Q_ ' t· :.:: I\\\ Q.: I Cl ! : ' ..... ·~ ,, LOT \3 .,_. ---· ' : . . 1·:..!.;. .:, '------=-I ~-!I .\ / ,' ' . ~&ft . (7') 20 /I //)1/11( <2) ::::,01r re ' :::io MATERIALS: r:: --- I, .1y i Walls = rough cedar s hea thing · .; . '2x4x8 wood s tud s Roof = 90G co r gated All walls are anchored in concrete '··· ,- , .. , 3 ' ,,,, .I· :~•J ----·---~ -·-··-___ -·----1:!::::==8=' =L='S=~=I ==::::i J: .Q , Ji )1:: ::-~ ""' ' I: 12 ' x I?, /()' x ,,, i ;'(5-f'J ~ I / -..... .c.'1 l -·-=-==-::-···-=====-·--I ~~--=~ -- I ,~ z • llF'!'r •Jl 1ol ,,1 \ \ Ii , . . .LO! I ·q 0 "' ~· '-"' n n r. "' r. £' :-; r: .... 0 ;:J .. 1 LO T 19 /! . I l!> 69 "~·· • I I \L -..... ~u .,·s .;.i...,111 ••~·'"'-'·•"•"lK•~ ··~·-··· ., "' ....... .'.D."...T .:..~:':. ... ( ...... ':"O'<'(• 4fD1 l lO • l~-J ~~p,., SANDSTONE ADD IT _. ........ ' ····: "= -~ ·--···· . IJ 1 • _)_:j-0 TONY JONES CONSTRUCTI01 CO,'!PANY, INC. and\'/. A. McKEAN RESTRICTIONS TO THE PUBLIC THE _STATE or: COU NTY or: FIL'EO At.L..~o·c1xL2__111 F : : ~ :~ _) Ir rrr r·' oo~·sy·- 80 .3 8 ACRES , MORGAN HECTOR LEAGUE, BRAZOS COUNTY , TEXA S .':·ajJJ;JJ.1~'/i~·::_,:;:~ TEX/\S I 1 ')I/ 7 (/ n.rrE RECORDED ""'--,,;--i\ BRAZOS l That , TONY JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC. and W. A. ~!cKE:\N , being the owners of that certain 80 .38 acre tract of land in the· 1·1organ Re ctor League, said tract consisting of a 30 .46 acre tract described on Exhibit A attached hereto and a ~9 .92 acre tract described on Exhibit B attached hereto, both of s uch being incorporated herein for all purposes . That tract con tainin g 49 .92 acres sha ll be designated and platted as the SANDSTONE SUBDIV ISION . The owners hereby el ec t to carry out a uniform plan for the development of the herein described 80 .38 acre tract and do adopt and establish the following reservations , restrictions, covenants and easements which shall apply unifor mly to a ll of such property. The use of the term "lot" herein shall also apply to an be indicative of any tract remaining unplatted into lots. LAND USE AND BUILDI~:G TYPE No lot sha ll be used for any purpose except for residen- tial purposes unless prior specific written approval from the Architectural Control Corrunittee is first obtained . No build in g shal l be erected , altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single family clwe llin g not to exceed t1 ;0 s tories in hei ght and a private ga ra ge or carport or other s t ruct ure which supplements the residence , and the use o f which is compatible to the residence, such as fences, wall s, pools, ·terraces , and similar l andscaping features. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL to bui lding or other improvements shal l be erected , placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showin g the location of the structure or improve1nents have been approved by the Archit ec tural Control Committee as to use , quality of workmanship and materials, color of brick , har mo ny of external design with existing structures , and as t o location with respect to t opography and finish grade elevation . The Architectu ral Control Committe e is composed of three members whose names arc: TONY JONES SANDY JONES W. A . McKEAN A ma;ority of the Committee may de signa te a representative to act for 1t . In the event of death or resignation of any membe r of the Comm itt ee , the r emaining members shall have full authority to designate a successor . Neither the members of the Committ ee nor its representative shall be entitled to any compensation fo r serv ice s performed pursuant o this covenant . The herein g r an ted po1vers and duties of t he Architec tural Control Commit te e shall cease and terminate twenty-five (25) years after '' J~JSJ IUCT J(J!iS cu:·J r nu::!J: the date of tl11s instrumen t, and approva l r equired by t his pa r ag raph shall not be required unless, prior to sa id dace and effective thereon, the then record 01-me r s of a majority of the l ots subJcct hereto shall execute and f ile fo r record a n instru111en t appoin ing a rep re sen t a t iv e o r r ep r c s en tat iv es , 1·1 ho s h a 11 the re aft e r ex e r c i s e the same po 1·1ers and duties granted her ei n to the Architect ural Control Co1111 •1.ittee . The Com111i ttee's approval or disap pr oval as required he rein , sha ll be ii'. writing, I f he Com mittee, o r i t s dcsi~'.!l~tted rep resentative fail s t o eivc 1Hit ten approval o r d i s J pp r ova 1 iv i thin thir ty ( 3 0) day s a f t er p 1 ans a nd specif i ca t ion s J1ave been subm itted to it , or in any event , i f no su it t o enjoin i111provements has been brough t, approval Hill not be requi red and the r c Lt t e d co ven an t s sh a 11 be dee 111 e d to ha ve been f u 11 y sa tisfied, The devi:itio ns in bui ldin g area and loc ation in insta 11 ce s 1v he r e , its judgment , such deviation 1v ill result in a mo re: co111 111on ly be neficial u se , Suc h approval mus t be g ront ed i n h'ritin g and when given will beco me a part of these rest rictions , DWE LLING SIZE AND CONST RUCT ION The hea t ed area of each main residenti a l s truct ure , e xclu s ive of ope n or screened por che s , open terr aces , and garages , s halt not be less tha n l,600 ·square feet, and a minimu111 of 1,5 00 square feet of heated a rea on t he ground floor for a one and 'o ne -ha lf or th'O s tory residential structure . Il UILDING LOCAT I ON No bui lding or fence shall be located on any lot nearer to the f ro n t lo l ine than SO fee t nor nearer to the side l o line t han 25 fee t no r near'er to the rear lot line thC'.n 25 feet, LOT AREA AND WI DTH No l o t nor lots within the add ition may be resu bdivided o r i n any way reduced in size without wri tten perm ission of the Ar chi t ectura l Co ntrol Committee. NU I SANCES No n ox iou s or offe n sive ac t ivity shall be perm itt ed upon any l ot , no r sha ll anythin g be done there o n wh ich may be o r become any an no y ance or nuisance to the nei ghbo rhood . TEMPORARY STRUCTU RES No s tructure of a te mporary character , trailer, base ment , mo bile ho me , tent, shack , garage , barn or other outbuildings sh all be used on any lot a,t any time as a resid ence ei t her te mpora rily o r permanently . SIGNS No si g ns of any kind shal l be displayed to th e .public view on any lot exce pt one sign of not more than five square fee t advertising the property for sa l e or rent , or signs used b y a bui l der t o adve rtise the p r operty d uring ~he construction a nd sa les peri od . OIL AND MINING OPERAT IONS No oil drilling , oi l develop men t operations , oil refinin g , q uarryin g o r mi ning operations of any kind shall be ,penni tte d up on o r in any lo t. °' -_::: J7L_, '·-:J _:-~O TONY JONES CONSTRUCT ION COMPANY, IN C . and W. A . NcKEAN RESTRICTIONS CONTINUED: LIVESTOCK AND POUL TRY No animals , livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised , bre<l or kept on any lot, except that horses , cow s or sheep may be kept provided that no ~ore than one an imal may be kept for each one acre of land owned. Further, a maximum · of two dogs and two c ats (or simi lar household pets) may be ke p t by eac h 01v11er , prov-ided that n one are kept , bred or main t ained fo r commercial purµoses and such are controlled with respect t o the rights and µr ivac y of other owners. GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL No lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground fo:" rubb ish. Trash , garbage a nd other waste shall not be kept ex c ept in sanitary containers. 'All equipment for storage or di s?osal of such ma terial sha ll be kept in a clean and sanitary co:1d i t ion. \'.'ATER SUPPLY ~ SE\\'AGE DISPOSAL No water well shal l be constructed or used on any 1 0:, but each lot oHner must use the water provided by State, Co •..:nty , i·iuni..:.:.p .. d or ot he:, government authorities. Ea ch 01mer 1:1\tS : construct and use a septic system which co mp lie s ""ith all ;t1;:,l icablc governmenta l regulations as to construe ion and hc:;l th-safety s tan<l arJs . TERJ>!S These covenan ts and restrictions arc to run with the land and shall be b inding on all owners, and all persons claiming Uic c cr them for twc1 ty-five (25) years , after Hhich time said cove nants and restrictions sha ll be auto matically extended for success ive periods of ten (10) years unless an instrument si gne d by a majority of the then owner s of the lots if filed for record in Brazos County, Texas , altering, rescinding or modifying said covenan ts and restr ictions in whole or in part . RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEES Any violation of any 'of these casements , agreeme nt s , rc st rictio11s, reservations , or covenants contained herein shall no: have the effect of impairing or affecting the right of any mortgagee , guaranto r, or trustee under any mo rt gage or deed of trust outstanding against the lot, a t the time that the easements , agreements, re~tr ic tions , reservations or covenants are violated. ENFORCEMENT The covenants , reservations , easements and restrictions set out herein arc for the benef it of th e undersi gned , their he i rs , successor s , anJ assigns , and equally for the ben~fit of any subsequ ent owne r of any lot o r lots and his heirs , executors , adminis trato rs and assig ns . SEVERJ\Il I LI TY Th e invalidity , abandonment or waiv er of any one of tlH.:se covenant ~, reserva tions, easements and restriction shal l in no wi se aff c.;c t or impair the other cov enants , re s ervations , cas ements and restrictio ns Hhich shall remain in full force an,~ effect . . r I ONY JON ES CONSTl\U CllON ·:0 1.JP 1\N Y, IN C . an d \~. A. McKEAN M!END ~!EN T TO RESTRICTION S FOR SANOSTOHE ADD ITI ON rn S O. 3 8 ACR ES , ~!ORGAN RECTOR rt-IE PUBLIC LEAGUE, BRAZOS COUNTY , TEXAS TH E STATE OF TEX AS : APR 1 '~ 1978 CO UNTY BR.AZO~rilA R~corded (/ r 1 1 ::,;~·:, -:.. .. : . -/ ? -,? ll° Cq~~'l;:/t{ . . .. -• l·.'flERE.-\S , on February 24, 1978,~::-o , J 0 1 ;~,-~~STRU~TION OF CJ\!P :\NY , I NC. <?r,d \V . ,\. ~!cKEAN filed in Volume 391 , Page 586, Deed R~cor d s c f Dr a :os Co unty , Texas , restrictions as to that certain .>tl .4 6 acre trac t J e s cribed o n Exhibit "A " attach ed hereto anJ that u~ rt a in •t 9 . ~ 2 :i c r e trac t cl es crib e d on Ex hi bi t "n" at tac he d hereto ; \\'H ERE AS , TONY JO ES CONSTRUCTION COMPA NY , INC . and IV. A . McK EA N , the sole owners , are now desir o us of am e nding such 1·cs trictions; t h e same a re hereby amend e d in the following p '' rt i cul <1 r : Tic words "or fence" are hereby deleted from the para- gra ph ca p tione d BU IL~ING LOCATION and the same shall now read " No l)::[Jdin g ~l wJ.l b'" :!.'Jc:ited on :.ny lot nearer to the f ro11t lot line t'1a n 50 fee t no r n earer to the side lot line than 25 feet nor nearer t <) the re a r .lot line than 25 feet ." This amendment sha ll in no wise J f fect any oth e r provision in such restrictions , the same to remain in full f o rc e a nd effect . WIT NES S OUR HANDS this 13th day of April , 1978 : Vol :2.2JL. Page __ GD l INC., LETTER OF APPROVAL I, a property owner of a lot in Sandstone Subdivision with in 200 feet of lot 14, am aware thRt there is not at this time a primary residence on that lot. I have: 1. reviewed the site plan of the lot showing location of existing barn, pr oposed barn, proposed primary residence and present easements. 2 . reviewed the architectural renderings showing floor plans and exterior elevations for the proposed barn along with its 3. location of all plumbing and electrical fixtures and outlets and 4. materials intended to be used in construction. I have found the past use of the pr operty to have not been of any nusiance and give my approval for this plan. Date: Lot #: Z/I '? ;fl/ 3 . r .:J VL/lcr J ()-.- 9/4/83 IS- ~~ vs-/f 3 I I I I --1/ ?>Ip 3 /CK. I I I i . .. I / ' (~_l_T_E_M_N_O_. _ ____.,,)( CA s E N 0. I i ______ ] -· I I ) ( SC A L E '· 1 " ' 6 0 0 ' ) TYPE OF CASE: Subst.Non-Conf .Use ZONI NG BOAR D OF AD J USTMENT FORMA T FOR POS ITIVE MO TI ONS Non -Confor ming Struct u res - From Sect i o n l 1-B .3 I mo ve to authorize the a . s u bst i t u t i o n of one non -co n form i ng use for a nother be cau se ~~~~~- the ex t en t o f the subst i t ut ed use i s less detrime n tal to the e nv i ro nme nt than t he f i rst ; b . en l a r geme nt of a b u il d i n g o r use devoted to a no n -conforming u se whe r e s u ch exte n s i o n o r e nl argeme nt is ne c essa r y and i n ci de n ta l to t he ex i s t ing u se a nd does not i nc r ease the area of t he b uil d i ng devo t ed to a non -conform i ng u se more than 25 2 an d ~oes not pro l o ng t he li fe of the non -co n fo r min g use or pre v e nt a retur n o f su c h prope r ty to a conform in g use; c . re c o n st ru ct i on of a non -confo r ming str u cture on the lot o c c u p i ed by suc h s tru ct u re as t he cos t of reco n st ru ct i on is l e s s th a n 60 % of the appra i sed va l ue of the stru ctu re and be c a u se t he r e c on s t ru ct i on wou l d not prevent the ret ur n of su c h pr ope r ty to a co n form i ng use or i n c rease t h e non -conformit y . Th i s mot i on wa s ma d e b y Seco nd e d by The r e q ues t conc e rning non -c o n f o rm i n g u se wa s g r a n t e d by t he fo l lowin g vot e Ch a ir Si gnature Da t e ~~~~~ J ZON I NG BOARD OF ADJUS TMENT FORMA T FOR NEGA TI VE MO TI ONS Non -Co n forminq Structures -From Sect i on l 1 -B .3 move to deny the a . subs ti t u t i on of one no n -confo r ming use for another because ~~~~~ the extent of the subst i tuted use is not less detrimental to th e e n v i ronment t ha n the f i rst; b . e nl a r geme n t of a b uil d i ng or use devoted to a no n-conforming u se whe r e s uch ex t ens i o n or e nl argement is not necessa r y and in c i de nt a l t o the ex i st i ng use and does i nc r ease the a r ea of t h e buil d in g devoted to a non -conform i ng use mo r e than 25 ~ a nd does p r o l ong the l ife of th e no n-co n fo r min g u se and pre - ve nt s a r e turn of such prope r ty to a conformi n g u se ; , c . r eco n s tru ct i on of a non -conform i ng structu r e on the lot occupied by s uc h structu r e as the cost of reconstruction i s more tha n 60 % of t he app r a i sed value of the structu r e a nd because the r e c o n s tru ct i o n wou l d prevent t he return of such p r operty to a confo r min g use and i nc r ease t he non -conformity . Th i s mo ti on was made by Seconde d by Th e r eq u est co nce rnin g no n-co n fo r mi ng u se was g r anted by the fo l l ow in g vo t e Ch air Sign at ur e Date