The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/20/1983 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLRGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment September Z0, 1983 7:00 P,M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cook, Members Wendt, Wagner, MacGilvray ~ Upham (Alternate Member McGuirk in audience) MEMBERS ASSENT: Alternate Member Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Asst Zoning Official Dupies ~ Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO, 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of August 16, 1983 Mr, Upham made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried 4-0-1 (MacGilvray abstained). Chairman Cook then opened the public hearing and explained the duties and obligations of this Board, AGENDA STEM N0. 2: Consideration of a request far variance to the rear setback reauire- ments (Table A, Zonn Ordinance No. 850) to allow construction of a ara a at the resi- dence at 700 Greenleaf Eot 2 Block 2 Emerald Forest Phase IV. Application is in the name of Mr. Z; Mrs, Frank H. Cinek. • Mrs. Kee explained the background which led to this request, referring to the Staff Report which is included in the packets. Allen Swoboda came forward to represent the applicant and was sworn in. Mr, Upham pointed out that the Board normally does not take action unless the applicanfi is present in person, but the Board decided to make an exception in this case, as Mr. Swoboda is the developer of the subdivision in which this home is located. Mr. Swoboda explained that the proposed location of the garage has been chosen in order to save the trees on the lot and to maintain a backyard of acceptable size. Mr. Wendt asked Mrs. Kee's opinion regarding this request, and she explained that she has difficulty identifying any hardship or any special conditions which would allow for this variance, in that the applicant knew at the time he requested a building permit that there would be a problem in locating a two-car garage. She did, however, point out that separa- tions between the buildings would present no problem if this is granted, and identified front, side and rear setbacks. Mr. Upham stated that he believes the Board is being asked to do two things: (1)to overlook a surveyor's scaling error, and (2)to bail the owner and builder out of inadequate planning; and that he needs to be convinced that these problems warrant a variance. Mr. Swoboda said that the location chosen would help pre- serve the looks of the neighborhood, and locating the garage up against the house would not look as good. Mrs, Cook pointed out that alternatives are available: (1)to do without this garage, or (2)to take out the trees. Mr, Wagner said that in all fairness the trees in question are not very large, and could be replaced at other locations. He went on to say that he believes this house is too big for the lot, and that he agrees with Mr. Upham in that there are no unique or special conditions, drainage problems, etc. which would warrant a variance in this instance. Mr. MacGi1vray then made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of • the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was second- ed by Jack Upham and carried unanimously (5-0). ZBA Minutes 9-20-83 page 2 AGENDA ITEM N0, 3: Consideration of a re uest to substitute one nonconformin use for another as er Section 11-63 a of the Zonin Ordinance; s ecificall to remove an exist- . ing Barn and construct a new barn on Lot 1 of the Sandstone Subdivision. Application is in the name of Russell ~ Kim Hanna, Mrs. Kee explained the request and referred to an aerial photo. She gave the history of annexation, the building and subsequent rezoning to R-1 Single Family Residential, which resulted in the barn becoming a nonconforming building. Kim ~ Russell Hanna, 1700 Austin came forward and were sworn in. They added that their lot is a 2 acre lot, and stated that Mrs. Kee had given a complete background for the request. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the deed restrictions would allow horses, and wondered if granting this variance would cause problems In the future. Discussion followed concerning the question of whether or not the City took in this land while recognizing the deed restrictions. Mr. Upham stated that he thinks this property is unique in that the only justification for Single Family zoning would be for the purpose of taking in an entire area, and he believes that the pro- perty was given a zoning which is not compatible with the intent of the land use. Mrs. Kee stated that the purpose of R-i zoning is for single family homes and A-0 zoning would restrict lot size to a 5 acre minimum, She further stated that when the City annexes an area, it would not break existing contracts, nor cause nonconforming structures to be torn down. Mr. Upham said this land was platted, zoned and developed for a specific purpose, the deed restrictions would cover allowances for animals and the City should not change the character of this approximately g0 acres; therefore, this is a special and unique situation. After discussion, Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to authorize the sub- stttufilon of one nonconforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Other Business There was none. Mr. Wendt made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Upham seconding. Motion carried unanimously X5-0) . APP OVi=D `~ Vice Chairman, Dan MacGilvra APPROVED: City Secretary, plan Jones C 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) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section ~3) minimum setback (Table A) 3• . 4. parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: ~- 2. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. nn~ ,~ Th i s motion was made by ~ r ~'~C' Seconded by ~ ~~ ~---~~__(1~1rv~ `l The v lance was denied by th following vote: ~ - V -~-- ~ y ~ ~ Chair Signature Dat • ~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Non-Conforming Structures - From Section 11-B.3 I move to authorize the a• ~ substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use isrless detrimental to the environment than the first; b• enlargement of a building or use devoted to a non-conforrlino use where such extension or enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use 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; c. reconstruction of a non-conforming structure on the lot occupied by such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60 of the appraised value of the structure ana because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformit:~. T h i s motion wa s a d e b y ~X~iv~--~ i' /~ ~- Seconded by The request con ern ng r~on-conf rming use .vas granted by the following vote ~ ~V Chair Signature Da~-' •