Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication (i4VrAlt FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PCASE NO.. 0 I �� plba( oiteic" DATE SUBMITTED: 5( 1 ` I a cm(OF COLLEGE STATIONb(,. 4 ( mP4n�ui�rgt7 Utvrlopmenf Servr�er • f• �1 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION / MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: `/ $150 Filing Fee Application completed in full. Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required. Date of Preapplication Conference: APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name ,J rAVY1 P S L t r‘Ctrvt r Street Address Z y L7tn d s IOu r3 C. ( City (0 I 1i9G1 e State 17 Zip Code 7E-Mail Address S \�� �re/�r�Sucic���l n �;, nef Phone Number 9 7 - 7(o 14146-3 Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: tt�, Name SOu-0, \Neal. / M�. JIM WOCCIS Street Address '1t C?1 1'eX&S Ave- , 5 4c City 13 a r7 State -1-5( Zip Code T1BO2, E-Mail Address Phone Number l l I (o93-1(.4 h Fax Number 919 - C314 to~c-31133 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address 2.9OI FM 2l1 Lot Block 2. Subdivision Ede- WeIS 'Bus t In S C.cK�►�' Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Variance Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation j Parking Variance Special Exception Sign Variance Drainage Variance Other: Current Zoning of Subject Property: Applicable Ordinance Section: l,J-DO -7 ' I 46, -7 ,(-_)VLc)-)D 111116 Page 1 of 6 ane I6 \� � `� GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions: Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself, not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land. Example: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, specimen trees. Note: A cul-de-sac is a standard street layout in College Station. The shape of standard cul-de-sac lots are generally not special conditions. The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: Hardship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition. Example: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when compared to neighboring properties. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. IF APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER. ZVki144/1- J41-0A 1 ty /?fc2ee S" ature of owner(or agent) or applicant Date Page 2 of 6 Z � l is I requested a written interpretation of UDO 7.1.H on May 9, 2008 for the purpose of determining the effective building height used to establish minimum setback requirements when a commercial building abuts a residential property. Specifically as it related to Building E of the Southwest Business Center, but also for how it will affect development throughout the City. Based on the UDO 7.1.H.l.c. and 7.1.H.2.b., I request the Zoning Board of Adjustment overturn Mr. Cowell's written interpretation that is in direct conflict with the UDO and apply the standards specifically set out in the UDO. 7.1.H.l.c. "Building height refers to the vertical distance measured from the finish grade, or the base flood elevation where applicable, and ...The highest point of the coping of a flat roof." 7.1.H.2.b. "Calculation of the height limits shall be to the highest point of the structure. Equipment such as satellite dishes and heating and air conditioning units may be installed on top of buildings provided that they are screened from horizontal view and included in the height limitations." In Mr. Cowell's letter he wrote "this section provides a level of protection for single family properties by requiring a maximum building height that is not more than one-half of the distance between the non-residential structure and the common property line shared with the single- family property." He further wrote "the non-residential building is elevated in this case and it is important to note that staff included the elevation change between the grade at the common property line and the grade adjacent to the non-residential building in the calculation." The language of the interpretation is confusing. In this case, the building height should refer to the vertical distance measured from the base flood elevation and the highest point of the coping of a flat roof. The same logic used to extend the base flood elevation back to the building should be used to extend the highest point of a flat roof forward. Mr. Cowell determined that the roof on Building E of the Southwest Business Center was a flat roof for the purpose of building height determination. I agree. In my written interpretation request I wrote that "I would hope that the city would contend that the developer has a flat roof, as this would maximize the required setback." Mr. Cowell further found that the method for calculating the effective building height for Building E would be the same as that of a flat roof. 3f 1 . 7.1.H.1.c. "Building height refers ...The highest point of the coping of a flat roof." 7.1.H.2.b. "Calculation of the height limits shall be to the highest point of the structure. Equipment such as satellite dishes and heating and air conditioning units may be installed on top of buildings provided that they are screened from horizontal view and included in the height limitations." I believe Mr. Cowell erred in writing that"building height is measured at the roof point closest to the residential property." This finding is in direct contradiction with the City's UDO. The UDO is specific in stating the effective building height of a flat roof is the highest point of the structure; regardless of whether this is the coping or parapet wall. Further certain equipment such as heating and air conditioning units must be included in the height limitations. Using Mr. Cowell's interpretation, the preceding requirement that heating and air conditioning units must be included in the height limitations would be voided. Mr. Cowell's interpretation would also void building height requirements for gable, hip, gambrel, and mansard roofs by effectively taking height measurements only from the point closets to a residential property. I believe Mr. Cowell erred in interpreting the illustration in 7.1.H. 2. and writing"that the building height is measured at the roof point closest to the residential property." The illustration of a building outline does not speak in any manner to taking the point closest to the residential property; but rather illustrates how to apply the effective building height for setback purposed as specifically and clearly written in the UDO 7.1.H.1.c. &7.1.H.2.b. The figure in no manner speaks to how to establish effective building height. Note. The actual roofline and its pitch cannot be determined. The figure do not show any change in elevation, although Mr. Cowell wrote that should be taken into account. The same logic used to extend the base flood elevation back to the building should be used to extend the highest point of a flat roof forward. The flat roof illustrated reaches a maximum of 50 feet at all points. The arrows showing the effective building height of the commercial building are not at the roof point closest to the house. 7.1.H.2.a. refers to the line between A & C as an imaginary line. The highest points of the coping of the flat roof on Building E are atop the parapet wall on the West to South Wall. The lowest points of the coping are at the North corner and East corner. Background The July 2005 approved building plan for Southwest Business Center had sufficient building setbacks to meet the effective building height requirements. A problem arose when the developer began constructing a building that was different in size and location from the one that was on the approved site plan. There have been a number of missteps in the process of building the disputed project. However, the solution is not to devalue adjacent homeowners' property, rather it is to develop a solution that does not impact the values of the adjacent homes and complies with the intent of the UDO. I believe there are solutions to resolving the concerns about Building E of the Southwest Business Center and that such solutions should include the developer, the residents, and City personnel talking together . . . something that has not occurred. Example For example purposes only (I do not have actual drawings) I have prepared an illustration showing what I would believe is the correct interpretation of the UDO. In the example provided and based on using the highest point of the structure as called for in the UDO, the effective building height is 22 feet and the minimum setback should be 44 feet. In accordance with Mr. Coswell's written interpretation (which I believe is in error) and based on the height of the closest point of the structure (in direct contrast to the UDO) the effective building height would be 16 feet and the minimum setback would be 32 feet. Mr. Coswell's interpretation would allow the building in the example to be 12 feet closer to the residential property than called for in the UDO. Further, if there were an air conditioner on the building, the written interpretation would not take it into account when determining building height (in direct contrast to the UDO). sdi) �c Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.1. General Provisions Article 7. General Development Standards The following general development standards shall apply to all zoning districts, except where expressly stated to apply to, or exclude, specific districts. 7.1 General Provisions A. Health and Environmental Safeguards No machine, process, or procedure shall be employed on any property in the City, in which: 1. Emission of smoke, dust, or noxious, toxic or lethal gases are detectable beyond the perimeter of the property; 2. Materials are stored or accumulated in such a way that they may be carried by rainwater in natural drainage channels beyond the limits of the property, which are noxious, toxic, radioactive, contain oil or grease, wood, cellulose fibers, hair, feathers, or plastic, or have a pH factor greater than ten or less than five; 3. Vibration is discernible beyond the property line; or 4. Noise above the ambient noise level is discernible beyond the property line. B. Minimum Requirements 1. No building plot shall have lower or less stringent standards or dimensions than those prescribed for respective zones in this UDO. 2. No building permit or development approval may be issued for a lot that does not meet the minimum lot area requirements of this UDO except as provided for in Article 9, Nonconformities. 3. In the absence of public water or public sewer, no building permit shall be issued until the lot meets all applicable requirements of this UDO and the Texas Department of Health and Environmental Control. A septic system that has been approved by the Brazos County Health Department may be permitted if an exception to sewer service has been granted under Chapter 11, Section 2 of the College Station Code of Ordinances, as amended. 4. Utilities using land or an unoccupied building covering less than 1,000 square feet of site area shall be exempt from minimum lot area standards. C. Visibility at Intersections in all Districts Within a triangle defined by the property lines and a line joining two points located 20 feet back from the intersection of the property lines, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow in such a manner as materially to impair vehicle drivers' vision at intersections. In addition, for commercial and multifamily driveways, a visibility triangle defined by the curb lines and a line joining two points located 20 feet back from the intersection of the curb lines shall apply. Fences, walls, and/or hedges may be permitted in visibility triangles provided that such fences, walls, and/or hedges do not impair vision from three feet to six feet above the curb. Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.1. General Provisions 3. The Administrator shall determine the building plot using the following criteria: a. Contiguous properties that consist of less than two acres and have one or fewer frontages on a street classified as a collector or higher on the current Thoroughfare Plan will be consolidated and defined as one building plot for the purposes of signage; b. Contiguous properties that develop according to a common plan or design for similar or compatible uses, which singularly or in phases, is treated as such for site plan review purposes including signage; or c. Contiguous properties that as determined by the Administrator need to be consolidated for ease of access, reduction of the proliferation of signage along the public right-of-way, or other public health, safety, or general welfare reasons. H. Height 1. Building height refers to the vertical distance measured from the finished grade, or the base flood elevation where applicable, and the following points: a. The average height level between the eaves and ridge line of a gable, hip, or gambrel roof; b. The highest point of a mansard roof; or c. The highest point of the coping of a flat roof. 2. With the exception of NG, RDD, and P-MUD districts, no multi-family or non-residential structure shall be located nearer to any property line adjacent to a single-family use or townhouse development than a horizontal distance (B to C) of twice the vertical distance (height, A to B) of the structure as illustrated in the graphic below. A 1:2 slope Building vBuilding Helgla 6'fence 03 03 B�. 100' s--- 25' - House a. No additional multi-family or non-residential structures shall penetrate an imaginary line, illustrated by inclined plane in the graphic above, connecting points A and C. b. Calculation of the height limits shall be to the highest point of the structure. Equipment such as satellite dishes and heating and air conditioning units may be installed on top of buildings provided that they are screened from horizontal view and included in the height limitations. 3. Unless otherwise stated in this UDO, the height limitations herein shall not apply to any of the following: