Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout79 Regular Meeting 3.21.78I ' AGEND A ZO NI NG BOARD OF ADJUSTME NT March 21, 1978 7:30 p. m. 1. Approval of t he minutes of the me e t ing· of Febr u ary 2lj 197 8 ., 2. Consideration of a request for variance from John C. Culpepper. 3. Other Business 4. Adjourn ( I I I I I I ' MEMBERS PRE SENT : MEMBERS AB SENT : MINUTES ZO NING BOARD OF ADJUS ™ENT F ebr uary 21 , 1 97 8 Chairman Sandra Runnels; Members John Hugh ey , Henry Hawley , Wes Harper , Janet Storts; Council Liaison Larry Ringer ; Buil ding Official Bill Koehler; Ci ty Attorney Neeley Lewis None Agenda Item No . 1 --Approval of the minutes of the meeting of January i 7 2 1978 : Hughey moved that the minute s be approved as read. The motion was seconded by Storts and unanimou s ly approved. Agenda Item No . 2 --Briefing by the City Attorney : Lewis discussed the functi ons of a Board of Adjustment , the scope of authori ty of the Board , the nature of the proceedings , the l i ght in wh i ch courts might view their actions under appeal and the degree of di scretion allowed Boards of Adj u st.~ent in various matters . Agenda Item No . 3 --Consideration of a reguest for variance from Abe Cyrus at 1303 Augustine: Koehler explained that the applicant had reque s ted separate consideration of the patio cover and the residential structure as both had been found to be too near the rear line . He pointed out that the house had been built in 1973 , that Mr . Cyrus had bought from the first owner , and that inspection practices at the time of construction were not such as to detect such problems . He said that +he patio cover had been built by the present owner and that no permit had been obtained. Mr . Abe Cyrus said t hat he was no t aware of the probl em with the principal s t ructure and that i t would not be possible to remedy it without demolition and t otal re-construction to a different plan . He said t hat he was unaware of the need for permit f or the patio cover and unaware that there was any difference in regulat ion of a slab at grade and superstructure . Cpt. Joe McNabb said that he recognized the hardshi p involved in correcting t he princi pal structure and would not adv ocate its r emoval. He said that the patio cover was built in June of 1977 . He quest ioned its quality and compliance with restrictions and said that its proximity to his property was an infringement upon his property and ob j ectionable to him . Mr . David Morris said that the cover did not appear to him to be objectionable and that he had no doubt as to its safety. Koehler sai d that , with one minor correction , the structure would be adequate for its purpose . Minutes/ .l:'age ~ Hu ghey move d to grant a varianc e for the continued exist ence of the ma in structure, not to include the patio cover, for the rea son of the extreme hardship involved in removing it after it had been in existence and changed hands . The mot ion was seconded by Hawley and unanimous ly approved . Hugh ey remarked that the objection of the adjoiner to the patio cover was pertinent to the public intere s t in the c ase , and that while the Board had granted variance to s:iJnilar structures in the pas t , it had not been to t he expr essed detriment of adjoining propertie s . Koehler said that , in his opinion, allegations of other non-permitted con- struction on the property had no bearing on the variance reque s ted and should be taken up in separate actions or proceedings . Runnels moved that a variance be granted to allow the continued existence of the patio cover. The motion wa s sec onded by Hughey and failed by the following note : For : None Against: Runnels , Hughey , Storts , Hawley , Harper . Agenda Item No . 4 --Con s ideration of a request for variance from Timothy Keneipp at 203 Suffolk: Koehler explained that the reque s t was to allow the extension of a carport which existed 15 feet from the ed ge of an alley and that the extension would result in a clearanc e of 11 feet . He said that Mr . Badgett and Mr . Gay , adjoining n e i ghb ors h ad examined the plans and said they had no objection . He said there would be no interference with utilitie s . Mr . Ke neipp pointed out that, without the variance, the original structure would be lost and that he would have to remove several large trees . · He said that most of the structures in the neighborhood had been built when garages were allowed much nearer the line than the proposed structure . Runnels moved that a variance be granted to allow the structure to be built as proposed in that the existing structure and irreplaceable trees would otherwise be lost and in that the proposal was not out of charact:er with the existing neighb orhood . The motion was seconded by Hughey and tinanimous ly approved . Agen da Item No . 5 --Other Business : The Board remarked that agenda information should be delivered by at least the Friday preceeding a Tuesday meeting. Agen da Item No . 6 --Adjourn: There b eing no other busines s , the mee ting was declared adjourned . I _I CITY OF COLLEGE STA '"TION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 March 16, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO : FROM : Zoning Board of Adjus;;.~ Building Official h Meeting of March 21 , 1978 SUBJECT: 1 . Request for variance from John C. Culpepper at 1700 Puryear Drive. The applicant requests relief from the requirement of the maximum length of 240 feet for un-sprinklered buildings in order to con struct an office building JOO feet in the longest · dimension . The building is to have full access at front and rear, and it is within working range of fire hydrants at both front and rear . This is not the usual case for such buildings and overcome s what appears to me to be the purpose of the length requirement. The building meets Building Code requirements for unsprinklered buildings. The ovmers have incurred considerable expense in design and finan- c ing arrangements . We apparently overlooked this requirement in our review of preliminary plans last year . The designer could have met this requirement had we notified him of it at the right time . The Fire Marshal has conunent ed to the effect that this variance will not be detrimental to their operation • • Page 2 of 2 File No. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Present zoning of land in question C-1 ~~~~~~~~~- Section of ordiance from which variance is sought Table ·A, Note "A" The followin g specific variation from th e ordinance ·i,s re que ste d :~ construct an unsprinklered building in excess of 240 feet length (side setback) This variance is necessary due to the following unique a nd spec ial conditions of the land not found in like <listricts: The building was designed for the building ordinance and has ccmplete rear and side access with fire hydrant availability in excess of the ordinary. The following alternatives to the reques te d variance are possible: Redesign building This variance will not be contrary to th e public _int~rest by virtue of the following facts: ~The building ha s a 30' side line set back, a 81' front set back and a 109' rear set back also,· fire protection is available at both front and rear of building. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 0 1 TEXAS AV ENU E COL L EGE S TATION , TEX A S 7 78 4 0 March 16 , 1978 MEMORANDUM TO : FROM : Zoning Bo ard of Adjus;;..~ Building Official U Meeting of March 21 , 1978 SUBJECT : 1 . Request for var i ance from John C. Culpepper at 1700 Puryear Drive . The applicant requests relief from the requirement of the maximum length of 240 feet for un -sprinklered buildings in order to construct an office building JOO feet in the longest dimension . The building i s to have full access at front and rear , and it i s within wo rking range of fire hydrants at both front and rear . This is not the usual cas e for s uch buildings and overcomes what appears to me to be the purpo se of the length requirement . The building meets Buildi ng Code requirements for unsprinklered bui ldings . The owners have incurred considerable expense in design and finan - cing arrangements . We apparently overl ooked this requirement in our review of preliminary plans last year . The designer could have met this requirement had we notified him of it at the right time . The F ire Marshal has commented to the effect that thi s variance will not be detrimenta l to thei r operation . AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUS'IMENT March 21, 1978 7 :30 p . m. 1 . Approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 21 , 1978 . 2 . Consideration of a request for variance from John C. Culpepper . J . Other Business 4. Adjourn AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUS'IMENT March 21 , 1978 7:30 p . m. 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of February 21, 1978. 2 . Consideration of a request for variance from J ohn C. Culpepper . J . Other Business 4 ~ Adjourn ( MEMBERS PRES EN T: MEMBERS ABSE.l\fT : MI NUTES ZONING BO ARD OF ADJU S'IMEN T F ebruary 21, 1978 Chairman Sandra Runnels; Memb er s John Hughey , Henry Hawley, Wes Harper, Jan e t Storts; Council Liai s on Larry Ringer; Building Official Bill Koehler; City Attorn ey Ne eley Lewi s None Agenda Item No . 1 --Appr oval of the minute s of the mee ting of January 17, 197 8 : Hughey moved t hat the min utes be a pproved as rea d. The motion was s econded by Storts and unanimou s l y app r ov ed. Agend a Item No . 2 --Briefing by the City Attorn ey: Lewis discussed the functions of a Board of Adjustment, the scope of authority of the Board, the nature of the proceedings , the light in which court s migh t view t h eir actions under appeal and the degr e e of di scretion allowed Boards of Adjus tm ent in various ma tter s . Agend a Item No . 3 --Con s i deration of a regue s t for v ariance from Abe Cyru s at 13 03 Au gustine: Koehler explained that the a pplicant h ad requested s eparate consider a tion of the patio cover and the re s idential structure a s both had b een found to b e too near the r e ar line . He pointed out that th e house had be en built in 1973, that Mr. Cyru s had bought from the fir s t owner, and that in spec tion pra ctic es at the t ime of con s tructi on were not such a s to d ete ct such problems . He s aid that. +he patio cover had be en built by the pre sent owner and t hat no permit had been obtained. Mr. Abe Cyru s said that he was n ot aware of the problem with the principal stracture and that it would not be pos s ible to remedy it without d emolition and total re-con s truction to a differ ent plan. He s aid t hat he was unaware of the need for permit for the p a tio cover and unaware that t here was any differen c e in regulation of a slab at grad e and superstructure. Cpt. Joe Mc Na bb said that he recognized the hardship involved in correcting the principal structure and would not advocate its removal •. He said that the patio cover was built in June of 1977 . He question ed its quality and compliance with restrictions and said that its prox:iJni ty to hi s property wa s an infringement upon hi s property and objectionable to him . Mr. David Morri s said t hat the cover did not appear to h im to be ob jectionable and t h at he h a d no doubt a s to its safety. Koehler s aid that, with one minor correction , t h e structure would b e ad e quate for its purpo s e. Minutes/Page 2 Hughey moved to grant a variance for the continued existence of the main structure , not to include the patio cover , for the reason of the extreme hard s hip involved in removing it after it had been in existenc e and changed hands . The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved. Hughey remarked that the objection of the adjoiner to the patio cover was pertinent to the public intere s t in the case , and that while the Board had granted varianc e to similar structure s in the past, it had not been to the expres sed detriment of adjoining propertie s . Koehler said that , in his opinion , allegations of other non-permitted con- struction on the property had no bearing on the variance reque sted and should be taken up in separate actions or proceedings . Runnels moved that a varianc e be granted to allow the continued existence of the patio cover. The motion was seconded by Hughey and failed by the follovrl.ng note: For : None Against: Runnels , Hughey , Storts, Hawley, Harper. Agenda Item No . 4 --Consideration of a request for variance from Timothy Keneipp at 203 Suffolk: Koehler explained that the reque st was to allow the extension of a carport which existed 15 feet from the edge of an alley and that the extension would result in a clearanc e of 11 feet . He said that Mr. Badgett and Mr . Gay, adjoining neighbors had examined the plans and said they had no objection . He said there would be no interference with utilities . Mr. Keneipp pointed out that, without the variance, the original structure ~~uld be lost and that he would have to remove several large trees . He said that mos t of the s tructures in the neighborhood had been built when garages were allowed mu ch nearer the line than the proposed structure . Runnels moved that a variance be granted to allow the structure to be built as proposed in that t he existing structure and irreplaceable trees would otherwise be lost and in that the proposal was not out of character with the existing neighborhood . The motion was seconded by Hughey and Unanimously approved . Agenda Item No . 5 --Other Business : The Board remarked that agenda information should be delivered by at least the Friday preceeding a Tuesday meeting. Agenda Item No . 6 --Adjourn: There being no other business , the meeting was declared adjourned . CI TY OF C O LLEGE S T AT IO N POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 March 16, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO : FROM: Zoning Board of Adjus;;,.~ Building Official h Meeting of March 21 , 1978 SUB J ECT: 1 . Request for variance f r om John C. Culpepper at 1700 Purye ar Drive . The applicant requests relief from the requirement of the maximum length of 240 feet for un-s prinklered buildings in order to construct an office building 300 feet in the longest dimension . The building i s to have full access at front and rear, and it i s wi thi n wo rking range of fire hydrants at both front and rear. This i s not the usual case for such buildings and overcome s wha t a ppears to me to be the purpose of the length requirement. The building meets Building Code requirements for unsprinklered buildings . The owners have incurred considerable expense in design and finan - cing arrangements. We apparently overlooked this requirement in our revie w of preliminary plans last year . The designer could have met this requirement had we notified him of it at the right time . The Fire Marshal has commented to the effect that this variance will not be detrimental to their operation . .• Page 2 of 2 File No. REQUEST FOR VA RIANCE Present zoning of land in question C-1 ~~~~~~~~~- Section of ordiance from which variance is sought Table ·A, Note "A" The follo wing specific v a riation from the ordin an c e :ts requeste d:~ construct an unsprinklered building in excess of 240 feet length (side setback) This variance is necessary due to the following unique ·an d special conditions of the land not found in like <listricts: The building was designed for the building ordinance and has cornplet~ rear and side access with fire hydrant availability in excess of the ordinary. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: Redesign building This variance will no t be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts : ·The building has a 30' side line set back, a 81' front set back and a 109' .rear set back. also; fire protection is available at both front and rear of building. (s ~ae~·d by me (~this I j :· ~ v I ·1 !. {\ . [• . I ·\_, ' ·; . I {\/\_,-.....__,. . application are true and correct. 3/6/78 hu 1' I J CO MM ENT: Bldlfciing Date official: