The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVariance Request GFS+"5"v*/ • c of SDN `411t(111114 nJ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION s VARIANCE REQUEST tiES‘t FOR 114 Park Place 14-00900190 REQUEST: A variance to Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-5.2 `Residential Dimensional Standards', to allow for an 8-foot variance to the required rear setback of 20-feet. LOCATION: 114 Park Place West Park Addition, Block 1, Lot 13 APPLICANT: Tim & Amber Krivdo, Property0) vners PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Cuaron, Staff Planner gcuaron@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in the West Park Addition Subdivision and is zoned GS General Suburban, which allows for single-family residential uses. The property was originally platted in 1946 and is d Voted Urban and Redevelopment on the Comprehensivuture Land Use and Character Map. The applicant's oncrete foundation currently encroaches into the 20- foot rear setback eight (8.5feet and this location is grandfathered. The applicant is proposing to construct a garage on the existing foundation. The variance was denied by the Zoning Board of Adjustments on September 2, 2014. The applicant resubmitted a building setback variance along:with a rtcw survey and rvt '. photographs of the4u property. A rehearing.request of th ,building W .' setback variancelwas') d at the October 7, 2014Alhiee ing. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 12-5.2, `Residential Dimensional Standards' to allow for a reduction of 8 feet to the 20-foot rear setback. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 12-5.2 `Residential Dimensional Standards' ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 12-5.2, `Residential Dimensional Standards' sets design standard requirements that usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 November 4,2014 RECOMMENDATION: commends condition does denialnot renqthis case.uest as a hardship or specialStaffretof appearthevariance to exisi Q m r.N } , i ..a ( C)) 1 d 0 0fw ' jAb . ..„ . LU <C Nt, . ir 0. > .64. -,,, ..,,,,,i.�3 � tea• € 3 xY" �' r f, .. :�� .?£.':v 'moi Y ,.. ,• ,. ,, ,,.. -1--. 1 ... . , „ ,,,100 W } W e. } x ;�, i` �. C �€ll' n _ W ;i.'' �1 pctk ., , - , ..a` * ` z . `5 w,„ ,,, 4 ,,fie , ,,, ,,-. . } ..,49*” ,,‘ -- "7,,- , , , - ''', ;.,,,,,,,d0i110' ' :-'44: - , d Adjustment Page 2 of 6 Zoning NovemberBoar4,2014of ,•,-, 411111111111111111111111111111 w .,\\ \ ,/ / V 6 N / c Q / oU �r CO o.,cm mi 1..J / tVc24o- �/ / // j - ma.2«a$®m m o o m`m r \x% / / axc��t�m� At • > \ \ / (0 / F2220R91 y �` '� "T L�r • \\c 0 9) , �^ `,,, ./"' /\., ` elii � Y m• C.� M p f \.\y/ <I- \ M., 0. v ,�x jjMrHmon U til......."e.,cAC\I '-, \-.., Vit V '1\ 444‘" fkl‘ '08 Ct" '..-;,,,, P:ao, 1.... ../'---,,, ''' %lom2Qcc la. /"F/ \-,--. Lo f ,T""` ' v\ / � pp ` ' A _✓ / \,, ( ,\8 ` \ t Ni c1I / u o� 58_ U"g I:j • r Cr / c) .„...-4..„-.1! 18:-':1 i• l -,c3g.tEESI l �0) \ _ o.0Um — d ; 9:', te,... "\\ e?)4# COI— T-- CV / .1., V f ! z CO. �. \\ �V-6_.'r' -'°�� /� \.- \<,,<„, aci J ,, it) V ..N c c W / a'a lU '`.^!. �\ rte! 2 to re M �` � yy b q _V V q_m \. If,y ` 0 N C 9. m Pi,C �� b c m Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 November 4,2014 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: November 4, 2014 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station's Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: None Property owner notices mailed: Twenty-two (22) ., , Contacts in support: None at the time of this report. Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report. Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence North ross > GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence ark Place tit" g�if / South GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence East cross aryem Street) GS General Suburban Single f=amily Residence West GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject property has approximately 70.5 feet of frontage on Park Place. 2. Access: The subject property is accessed from Park Place. 3. Topography and vegetation: The subject property is relatively flat with some mature vegetation. 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain. tc..1pcc,on.x/v(. 7-otAvz-c De,1,e,6Pr«A,t-efn... '-ti-a ,c-� .SLsctdn�t /j... 3.lei.E ICA F(111-- PPpaLo✓' L t A,/ vottit' C ,s1(11.-1, 12e & b vn&j 7-,4 -BoR An,oNtz / Fr-ti2MATr+ ic- ve 4-, EVIEW CRITERIA 16..W".129 `W '� 7 ,4L. �� of T/4c f>� `A c/t�t2,ca: 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. 0ccwA.) The applicant states that due to the subject property being located on a corner lot, they will not be able to comply with the current rear building setback of 20 feet for the construction of '• their new garage. Staff does not believe that an extraordinary or special condition exists in this case as the surrounding properties are subject to the same rear setback. A strict application of the UDO would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. SP � � Pa e4of6 Z , Zoning Board of Adjustment 9 November 4,2014 This property is located in the West Park Neighborhood and as designated on the Comprehensive Plan as Urban and Redevelopment. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the applicant. If the proposed variance is not granted, the garage will have to be built to meet the 20-foot rear setback in compliance with the UDO. The current use of the property as a single-family residence in an older subdivision is grandfathered to its current setback encroachment. If the proposed variance request is not granted, the applicant will still be allowed to use the property as a non-conforming structure; therefore, they are not being denied a substantial property right. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. Granting the variance would not be as detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or�tQ,th City in administering this UDO as the rear of this property is adjacent to,ert-affey whicep ratates it from the adjacent property. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO because the subject and surrounding properties cannot be further subdivided unless they comply with the subdivision regulations. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements due to no portion of this property being located within floodplain. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. For new construction, the same setback requirements apply to all properties zoned GS General Suburban and are not unique to this property. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions. A hardship does not exist on the subject property. The applicant has proposed locating the new garage on an existing foundation. The request to encroach eight feet into the 20-foot Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 November 4,2014 rear setback is a result of the applicant's own actions and is not the result of a special condition of the property. 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan but does conflict with the provisions of this UDO in that it does not comply with current building setback requirements that are applicable to all new structures on single-family properties. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular property does not prohibit the applicant in the utilization of their property. The setback does not restrict the applicant from utilizing a large portion of the property. New structures can be built within required building setbacks. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not provided any alternative solutions to the location of their garage outside of the rear building setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request as aaJ1ip..oLspe€iaf tiondoesttot- exist in this case. /ol.,�.z P " c C�2z� Fo�_ �o V /V D g '^/ 67 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 November 4,2014