Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/1989 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES GITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment September 5, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Gilmore, Henry, Cronan and Council Liaison Birdwell MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Baker & Alternate Member Webb (Alternate Member Garrett resigned apx.last week in August) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Assistant Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AaBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. He also announced that because 1 regular member and 1 alternate member were unable to attend, and because it has recently been ruled that liaisons to the board cannot vote as members, it will be necessary for any positive action taken at this meeting to receive a unanimous vote. • A(3BNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of ainutes - seeting of June 27, 1989. Mr. Henry made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. Mr. Cronan seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). AaBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AtiBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of a request for a Special Bxception to sake an addition of a car wash facility to an existing non-conforaing filling station {Diamond Shaarock) located at 3129 Texas Avenue South. Applicant is Mark W. Whiteley & Associates, Inc. for owner, Diaaond Shaarock Corporation. Mrs. Johnson identified the applicant, explained the request, the purpose of the request, and the exact location of the subject request. She described the physical characteristics of the subject property, the area zoning and land uses. She explained that the nearest residence would be approximately 200 feet from the proposed car wash, and of the area property owners who had received notification of this meeting, only a few had responded, and none had expressed opposition. Mrs. Johnson then explained that under the previous zoning ordinance, filling stations were allowed in C-3 zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit. She continued by pointing out that under the current zoning ordinances, filling stations • are not allowed in C-3 districts, either as a permitted use or with s Conditional Use Permit, therefore, the existing filling station is now a non-conforming use. She then explained that while car washes are listed as a permitted use in the C-3 district in the new ordinance, since the proposed car wash will be placed on the same • property as the non-conforming filling station/convenience store, it must be considered an expansion to a non-conforming use. She showed slides of the subject property and the surrounding area, and explained the area of expansion is proposed to be 790 square feet, which represents a 17.429K increase in size over the store and gas station facility. Mr. Ruesink asked about the 15 foot greenspace and Mrs. Johnson explained that the entire subdivision has been platted with a 30 foot "greenbelt" which separates this subdivision from the adjacent subdivision, Bernadine Estates, and that the 30 foot greenbelt is actually inside the property boundaries of the lot to the north of the subject lot. Ernest Clement of China, Texas came forward, was sworn in, identified himself as a representative of the applicant, Whiteley & Associates, and offered to answer any questions. He added that the City staff had thoroughly explained the request, so he would not add to that explanation. Mrs. Gail Griffin, 108 Mile Drive, Gollege Station came forward and was sworn in. She identified herself as a neighbor of this facility, and thanked the Planning staff for sending notification of the request and for helping her by furnishing information and answering questions prior to this meeting. She said that the residents of Bernadine Estates subdivision had met, discussed this proposal, and concluded that while they had no real objections to the proposal, they did still have some questions, those being what size vehicle the structure would be able to accommodate and how drainage would be handled. • Mrs. Johnson explained that the groposed size of the facility would limit its use to only passenger cars and small pickups, and the drainage from this car wash would be handled through the City sewer system, with the runoff from the developed area being required to conform with City drainage standards enforced by the Engineering staff. Mr. Gilmore made a motion to "authorize the enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25A- and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henry, who then asked if a limit should be placed on the size of the vehicle to be accommodated and Mr. Gilmore said that would be unnecessary according to the proposal made by the applicant. Votes were cast and the motion carried unanimously (4-0). AaBNDA ITBM NO. 5: Other business. There was no other business. AOBNDA ITBM NO. 6: Ad3ourn. Mr. Henry made a motion to adjourn which Mr. Gilmore seconded. unanimously. APPROVED: . ATTEST:-------------------------- Gity Secretary, Dian Jones The motion carried --~~~__~ ZBA Minutes 9-5-89 Page 2 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS Special Exceptions - From Section 15 Ordinance 1638 I move to authorize the a. ____ substitution of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. b. _____enlargement of a building devoted to a non-conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non- conforming use more than 25~ and does not prolong the life of the non-conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. 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 acid because the reconstruction would not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase the non-conformity. i Motion made by - --- ~ L' ~~'!~~-'~"t-------------------- Seconded by __~!~~ _~`t'E'-w d' Vot'ng results: Chair signat re - Date ~~t4 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~r~~ .~-~- ~~~~-~ v~iJ„ul~- s ~. !~> ~a ~,Q:, tu~~ _~. ~ .~ ., 20NING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - GUEST REGISTER - • GATE September 5, 1989 NAME ~ / ADDRESS 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. to. il. • 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. • 25.