Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1981 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment October 20, 1981 7:00 P.M. • ~~ L_J MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Members, W. Harper, J. Upham, D. MacGilvray, V. Burke. MEMBERS ABSENT: Board Member G. Wagner; Council Liaison, Pat Boughton. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning, Jim Callaway; Zoning Off icial, Jane Kee; Zoning Inspector, Joan Keigley; Planning Technician, Fran Collier. Chairman Harper called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. AGENDA ITEM N0. l: Annroval of Minutes of September 15, 1981 meetin D. MacGilvray moved for approval of the minutes of September 15, 1981. J. Upham seconded, V. Burke abstained from voting. W. Harper, J. Upham and D. MacGilvray approved the minutes. AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Consideration of the expansion of a non-conforming structure at 1117 Merry Oaks in the name of Anthony Kwan. Jane Kee explained the applicant is requesting a variance to the side setback and to expand a non-conforming structure. The existing garage is 5' from the side property line, but this structure was built in 1970 prior to ordinance 850 and was in compliance with all City codes at that time. Mr. Paul Garza, representing the owner, stated there are no options to the carport. The addition to the house could be turned around, but wouldn't serve the purpose intended. The owner wants a cover from the new room addition to the garage and the carport. Chairman Harper asked if the existing garage was to remain in use as a garage. Mr. Garza stated it would become a one car garage, and that both garage doors would remain usable. The room addition and the carport will basically have flat roofs. Ms. Burke asked if the carport is what the problem was. Chairman Harper stated there were two problems he could see. One is technical. The ordinance says you cannot add to a non-conforming use, and cannot increase floor area by more than 25%. Upham asked if the cover was going to be a`walkway, not an enclosure, in tying these two buildings together. Jane Kee stated the attachment is required in order not to violate the 15' separation, Section 6.10 of the Building code. Chairman Harper asked if it was because of fire separation. Jane Kee stated it is to eliminate crowding. It was never intended for access of emergency vehicles. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment -2- October 20, 1981 • D. MacGilvray asked if the garage was parallel to the property line. Mr. Garza said the property line was straight. Chairman Harper said the garage was turned because they couldn't get enough room for a two car garage. Under the old ordinance and codes there only had to be a 5' setback. Chairman Harper said he had no problem with the addition to a non-conforming use in the sense that it is not gross or obtrusive. The question is adding to it; would it make it signif icantly worse, to the point it's not in public interest. Ms. Burke asked if the purpose for the carport is because the garage was being used for storage. D:. MacGilvray asked where the law said you have to have a building permit vs. when you don't. Fof. example, a patio cover. If you put a roof over a patio, do you need a building permit? How about a fence? Staff replied that it is necessary to obtain a permit for a roof constructed over a patio but not for a fence. Jane Kee stated she, the City Attorney and Building Official discussed the building code and the 15' separation which refers to buildings. A carport is not def fined as a building, but as an open shed. If it's open on all sides, it's a structure and has to meet setbacks; but not necessarily the 15' separation because that refers to the buildings. • Chairman Harper said it seemed from the standpoint of a nuisance to the neighbors, if you had a carport on a concrete slab that you are not creating a noise problem, etc. It isn't like a great intrusion such as building a house or room. J. Upham said he was more concerned about setting a precedent. The basic subterfuge of the cover is to connect the non-conforming building to an addition in order to allow for the addition to occur. Jim Callaway pointed out that when someone comes in with a proposal like this, the Building Department tells him 15' or to be connected. Usually the applicant does not have a cover in mind when he walks in for the permit. J. Upham stated an alternative is to narrow the room down and come back out the other side. Chairman Harper stated he is inclined to support the principle that this is connected so that it will become one structure. .That is the building code requirement. Jane Kee stated that if this was a building permit for new construction, and it did not have a setback problem, everything would be fine with that attachment. Jim Callaway stated that when two structures are on the same lot the Building Code calls for a 15' separation. The real issue for this Board is the setback. • Chairman Harper stated one of the requirements for approval of the variance to the sideyard setback is the existence of a unique condition. This condition is probably very typical in most detached single family homes. In this case there is no difference. Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment -3- October 20, 1981 • Chairman Harper proposed a motion that they grant a variance of sideyard setback from 7 1/2' down to 5' as this would not be contrary to public interest. Ms. Burke seconded the variance motion which failed by the following vote: In favor: None. Opposed: Chairman Harper, Members MacGilvray, Burke and Upham. Jane Kee stated the room addition with the attachment becomes an addition, in a sense, to a non-conforming structure. Chairman Harper moved to grant an expansion to this non-conforming structure to add any or as much building as they want to, that is otherwise conforming to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Burke seconded the motion. D. MacGilvray asked if the 7 1/2' compliance counted to where the building touches the ground and could it overhang? Jane Kee said roofs are allowed to overhand the setback line up to 18". The motion carried by the following vote: In favor: Chairman Harper, Members MacGilvray, Burke and Upham. Opposed: None. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: Consideration of adopting Board Rules and Procedures. Jane Kee asked if the Board members had a chance to go over these procedures or if they had any questions about the items. The City Attorney has stated, a motion to deny a request which fails does not imply the variance was granted. It makes more sense if you cannot justify unique and special conditions, that you make a negative motion . Harper stated he felt that each of the Board members needed time to go over these. Jane Kee pointed out the fee is a departure from the past procedure. J. Upham suggested a mailing fee of $2.00 per property owner. J. Upham moved that the Board approve Section II a. b. and c. entitled "Fee Schedule" of the Zoning Board of Adjustment procedures with the change to $2.00 per letter in the interest of giving the City a fair fee schedule to be effective immediately. Ms. Burke seconded this motion, and the motion was approved by the following vote: In favor: Chairman Harper, Members MacGilvray, Burke and Upham. Opposed: None. Chairman Harper wanted to hold the other procedures until the next meeting. Discussion followed on various parts of the Board Rules and Procedures. He asked • the Board to think about these for the next meeting; and also asked Jane Kee to run off copies of the forms and have a dry run on the Board members filling them out for the next meeting to see how it would work. Minutes -4- October 20, 1981 Zoning Board of Adjustment • AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Consideration of Amortization Plan for non-conforming signs. Dropped from the agenda. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Other business. No other business. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Adjourn. Chairman Harper moved for adjournment with V. Burke second. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: Chairman • ATTEST: Secretary •