Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1985 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment February 19, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cook, Members Upham, McGuirk; Alternate Members Fry audience MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Ufficial Kee, Building Building Inspector Castolenia, Locke, and Planning Technician Wendt, Wagner, and Meyer in Official Perry, City Attorney Volk AGBNDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of January 22, 1985. After Chairman Cook opened the meeting and explained the functions and limitations of this Board, Mr. Upham made a motion to approve the minutes as shown with Mr. McGuirk seconding the motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Cook). AGBNDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors. No one spoke. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Reconsideration of a request for variance to front and side setback requirements as set forth in Table A Ordinance 850 at the residence at 207 Ember Glow Circle. Application is in the name of Brooks Catlin. (Item tabled at meeting of January 22, 1985). Mr. Wagner made a motion to take this item from its tabled position. Mr. Wendt seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mrs. Kee briefly explained the reasons for the variance request, adding that the item had been tabled at the last meeting for two reasons: To get a response and explanation from the Building Official regarding what structures are required to get Building Permits and to clarify the interpretation of the definition of "roof"; and to receive legal guidance regarding what survey should be used for determining front setbacks. Mrs. Kee introduced Building Inspector Wes Castolenia who was sworn in and explained the circumstances surrounding checking the setbacks of this structure at the time it was built. He explained that setbacks had been measured from strings and stakes supplied by the builder, and at the time this inspection was made, all setback requirements were met. After brief discussion, Mr. Upham stated that he was inclined to think that the encroachment into the front setback should not be included in this variance request, as at the time City inspections were made, all setbacks were met using the means available at the time. Mr. Upham then made a motion to delete the front setback variance from this request, with the applicant's consent with City staff directed to accept the first survey made of this • tract as evidence provided by the Building Inspector indicates that there is, in fact, no error. Mr. Wagner seconded this motion which carried unanimously. (5-Oj. 1 • Brooks Catlin, 413 Chimney Hills was sworn in and stated that he had requested this variance due to a cloudy survey regarding where exactly the property lines are, and whether or not there is a setback encroachment. City Attorney Locke stated that the City of College Station has determined that there was compliance at the time the inspection was made and a letter regarding this compliance can be furnished to the applicant upon request. Mr. Upham suggested that perhaps a copy of the minutes would serve instead of a letter. Mrs. Kee then explained that Building Official Coy Perry is in attendance to clarify upon what structures Building Permits are required. Coy Perry was sworn in and explained that the building code requires building permits on any structures which have a roof, and that past interpretation has been made that any portable building smaller than 4'x8' on skids and without wiring will not require a permit. Also, permits are not required on patios and parking pads. Mr. Wendt said he was not concerned with what does or does not require a permit, but would like to have a definition of the word "roof". Mr. Perry explained that the building code defines a structure without a roof as one from which you have an "unobstructed view of the sky", therefore, the lattice roof over the subject gazebo would be enough to cause that structure to fall into the category of one requiring a permit. Mr. Wendt expressed his opinion that the interpretations given represent on the one hand a loose interpretation, and on the other hand a very tight, rigid interpretation, and speculated that they might represent inconsistencies. Mr. Upham pointed out that this gazebo, which was built without a permit, also encroaches the side setback, and a variance is being requested for that • reason. Brooks Catlin (who was still under oath) came forward again and reminded the Board that the question tonight is whether or not this building encroaches the setback, and he maintains that because the wood deck upon which this gazebo sets is not in violation, neither is the gazebo, as the gazebo is nothing more than an ornamental structure around and over a bench on the deck. He went on to say that he does not think the City has a clear definition of what can or cannot encroach this setback. r Mr. Upham reminded Mr. Catlin that this gazebo was not shown on the site plan which was approved and was never permitted, and now encroaches the setback, so the problems with it have been compounded. He went on to say that this is not a typical situation, as the problem only addresses aesthetics rather than need, necessity, history, etc. Mrs. Kee explained that the purpose of a setback requirement is to provide light, air and emergency access when needed. She then referred to section 6 of Ordinance 850 and to Ordinance 1426 which is an amendment to Ordinance 850 in which setbacks, accessory uses and structures are defined. She went on to state that the gazebo fits into the category of an accessory structure and must be located outside a required setback area, and the Building Department has stated that a Building Permit is required for this type structure, therefore constituting consistency in interpretation. After further discussion regarding whether or not the gazebo is a part of • the deck, if emergency access can be gained through this particular setback area, the definition of "on grade", Mr. Perry spoke from the audience and stated that the 15 foot separation between buildings is required to control 2 the spread of fires; that is, to keep fire from jumping from the roof of one • structure to another. Mr. Wagner stated that this Board is bound by City ordinances, and these ordinances are to be enforced by both City employees and this Board. He went on to state that except in the case of unique and special circumstances, this Board must uphold the ordinances. Mr. Upham then made a motion to deny this request for 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 the applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. This motion was seconded by Mr. McGuirk and carried by a vote of 4-1 (Wendt against). AGENDA N0. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to rear setback requirements to allow a carport to be built 13 feet from property line at the residence at 110 Pershing. Application is in the name of Gary Nelson. Mrs. Kee explained the request, clarifying a misunderstanding regarding the actual distance the proposed carport would be from the rear lot line as being actually 8 feet rather than the indicated 13 feet as the applicant had believed. She stated that Mr. Nelson believes there is an easement across his property and staff believes, according to the newest plat it can find • that there is actually an alley in back of his tract. She went on to explain that because he owns both this lot and the one immediately behind this lot, he could replat his land into one lot, request to change the alley to an easement, and remove the property lines, but the applicant preferred to request a variance to rear setback requirements. Debra Nelson, 110 Pershing came forward and was sworn in. She stated that she is the wife of the applicant and would be representing him at this meeting as he was unable to attend. She referred to letters from the church which is adjacent to their lot and from neighbors regarding this carport. She went on to give the history of their lots, one of which has been landlocked since approximately 1957, and is only accessible from their lot at 110 Pershing. Mr. Wendt stated that if the applicant has no interest in selling property, replatting would represent the best solution to the problems. Mrs. Nelson went on to explain that originally a 10 foot alley was platted between these lots, but according to a neighbor, this alley has since been changed to an easement. Mrs. Kee interjected that she had only been informed of this possibility late today and had not had time to research easements filed at the Courthouse. Mr. Upham stated that although in the past he has looked favorably upon requests for variances in older sections of the City, in this particular instance he has a problem. Mr. McGuirk asked how replatting could turn an alley into an easement. Mrs. Kee explained that both tracts could be replatted, and an area through the middle could be dedicated as an easement • on the plat. Mr. Upham said that if this land truly is an alley, that would be giving City property away, and understands that by ]aw, this cannot be done. City Attorney Locke explained that according to Article 5421.C-12, 3 the alley can be abandoned and conveyed "with appropriate consideration" and • the lots could then be divided down the middle if desired. Mr. McGuirk stated that if this is an alley, replatting is not then available. Mrs. Kee pointed out that the City Council must approve any plats, and abandonment of the alley could be handled at the same time. A man from the audience, whose name was undistinguishable, came forward and asked to speak for the applicant's wife, who was not feeling well. He stated he resides at 316 Broad Brook, and would be the person to build the carport if the variance is granted. He said the existing building to which the carport would be attached is 8 feet off this alley, and the alley is 10 feet wide. He explained that this is an old, old neighborhood and was developed prior to the adoption of current ordinances. He said a hardship would occur if this proposed building is "re-sited" because a big oak tree would have to be removed. He then went on to state that the width of the alley (10 ft.) is enough to get utility and emergency vehicles down the lines if necessary. He again urged the Board to consider this variance due to the age of the neighborhood which was developed prior to existing ordinances. Mr. Wagner stated that perhaps this applicant has inherited a hardship, therefore comprising a unique and special condition. City Attorney Locke stated she cannot comment on precedent in this neighborhood as she has not done research required on it. Mrs. Kee pointed out that there is an acceptable alternative in this case, and she does not recall there being any such alternatives in other old neighborhoods where variances were granted. • Mr. McGuirk then made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) 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 like districts: We have never seen this type of legal land/ownership configuration before with land locked property and abutted by an utility easement/alley, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: Destruction of vegetation in one of College Station's oldest neighborhoods, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner, and carried unanimously (5-0). AGBNDA ITEM N0. 5: Other business. There was none. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. Upham made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by Mr. Wagner. Meeting was adjourned after a unanimous vote in favor of the motion. • A VED: -~- _ ~i 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS Variances: From Section ii-6.5 I move to deny 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 be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: 1. 2. . 3. 4. 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. This motion was Seconded by The varrance wa gnature LJ ZONING BOARD OF. ADJUSTMENT . FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.5 1 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 like districts: 1. u~ s~za-•-, ~ ~~~ `~ _ arc .~~ 3. ~ .~ 4 S. 6. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: fi~~ ~- ,/- and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice doper subject to the following limitations: 2. 3. • 4• This motion was ma~e'/ y ~ Seconded by w Da ,~ ,( The variance was grant by the following vote: ~"` -'~-~ Chair Signature -J