HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportREQUEST:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:.
PROJECT MANAGER:
RECOMMENDATION
CITY OF COLLEGE STf7 [ ION
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
1501 Lynx.Cove
(11-00500083)
Reduce the rear setback by 12.5 feet
1501 Lynx Cove, Cat Hollow Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 28
Mark Golden, Golden Homes, Inc.
Steve Colson
Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner
mhilgemeier@cstx.gov
Approval.
BACKGROUND: In 1995, the subject property was platted as part of the Cat Hollow.
Subdivision with a single-family structure being built on the lot the following year. The subject
property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac street and due to its shape in relation to adjacent
properties, it has been determined that the subject property has two rear property lines (the
northwest and southwest property lines). Due to the existence of a tributary of Carters Creek
that bisects the lot from east to west, a large portion of the subject property is located in areas
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as 100-year floodplain.
The owner of the property is proposing to construct a new garage located on the northwest side
of the property that would encroach into the 20-foot rear setback by 12.5 feet. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a variance to the requirements of Section 5.2 and Section 6A.B.4
of the Unified Development Ordinance to reduce the 20-foot rear setback by 12 feet, 6
inches.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTIONS: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Section 5.2
Residential Dimensional Standards and Section 6.4.8.4 Accessory Uses Standards for
Garages and Carports.
Zoning Board of Adjustment - Page 1 of 8
July 5, 2011
ORDINANCE INTENT: Building setback requirements 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.
Accessory use standards related to garages and carports allow for adequate sight distance for
motor vehicles entering and exiting a driveway and allow for some degree of traffic safety
protection. They also provide adequate space for parking'dn the driveway while remaining out
of the right-of-way.
'� Jr 's`h-`7 '�f€u kf'r .� v"`{. +'�`'\. n'" 'w�i`�*i '' `-i s: •4k, i^ —_
Q
$ i`": s'€'`."i '+r'✓ 3;• s -1, f'` yr � az.�' }- �5+..;�svxi' '2'.� '�}r�-cT �k 3`Tn � � �/1C i -Sc
ctu�3"F-z-it Y a s r '�`' `i � "f`�.F''>`'ry .�i3. � 'i Y 3 �� t-�ti `�•vfq�
O
j 4 Vass- F '; s e y.� .3t '� x �"i� `+y+x.�' sr-�`��✓ � � �" 3^ S�sa-+ �3y. -v r-
�.�
, � � 4� _. Yf i F t iJ \ F � rP '-fir , "^d„5��' > B-Txr` v. �`�5 F• � J'r.
W
s•'J� -� p )y a 4 �� c 7 '�;•>tY'., t °-`J 2Y-£,ra- .e„ .� y` Or O ,r 4 � �--� � � � -y � s s � � v"3 ` Otr ✓ � Y `� � � .� % - � ra 1fL � F�-
W
CL'
4 �� rr�. �� , `� h� � _ y sv .�ti ��s�f� � y5 � .�c�r-a,��3 �"L���S•Y"�^ 3s 3�.. O
W
W
s-. Le't�-ax of ,`r,Ei Try-r t'� ��Fa-. �c ',-3•! `?ie 1`� c.a [1{w p
�.SL'�y'°"
Zoning Board of Adjustment _ Page 3 of B
July 5, 2011
11
U w
1�1rA �i It t c
t� l J Cal
���' r f r_II-
.�9 i ! �'•,._� M
w �t.vO, , P� m r
to
to
l 4��i �V +� N W
100u'! O
r i t i i o V
N Lof o^' O ch
5 '
ll o xe'E
� U
� to
t �' .1 Iexa7J i ykC'J-; b? m vbw Lit
cq
to
ca
uoh m e to 1 t u o
. to }� \ m OG ^ H y N
to
to m j5 co ty / v \� h _tJ cscIj
t W
E 2 o
to v �C+` w 'pG "' p
to
LO I 0.9 N r N N i
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of S
July 5. 2011 -
12
NOTIFICATIONS -
Advertised Board Hearing Date:
July 5, 2011
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Statioh's
Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing:
Cat Hollow Homeowners Association
Property owner notices mailed:
Contacts in support:
Contacts inopposition:
Inquiry contacts:
-rr�nn n�c nhim I Akin I IcCc
25
One contact in support, as of 6/27111
None at the time of writing this report
Staff has received three general inquiries at the time of
writing this report. Neighboring property owners had
questions regarding the purpose of the requested
variance.
Direction
Zoning
- Land Use
Subject Property
R-1 Single Family
Residential
North
R-1 Single Family
Residential
South
R-1 Single Family
Residential
East
R-1 Single Family
Residential
West
R-1 Single Family
Residential
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: The subject property has 73 feet of frontage along Lynx Cove.
2. Access: The subject property is accessed via a residential driveway on Lynx Cove.
3. Topography and vegetation: The property has a 6-foot slope running north to south and
the rear of the lot is heavily vegetated.
4. Floodplain: The rear portion of this property is located within the floodplain. The Carters
Creek Tributary 17 bisects the rear of the lot.
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Extraordinary conditions: A special condition exists on the property such that the strict
application of the previsions of this UDO deprives the applicant the reasonable use of his
proptrty. The buildable area to the rear of the property (southwest portion) is encumbered .
by areas designated by FEMA as floodplain and is bisected by the Carters Creek Tributary
17 (see graphic below). Due to these two physical characteristics of the property, the area
available to construct a structure is reduced without filling floodplain which is discouraged by
the City.
- Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 5, 2011 -
. . Page 5 of 8
13
y
2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: This variance is necessary forthe
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because the amount of buildable
area remaining on the property is limited due to the existence of FEMAfloodplain covering
the southwest portion (if the property.
3. Substantial detriment: Granting of the requested variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or the City in
administering this UDO because it would allow the property owner the option to build the
new garage outside of the designated floodplain area. The drainage patterns along the
small creek would be altered if the applicant chooses to construct the structure in the area
designated as floodplain, which he is allowed to do at this time.
4. Subdivision: The granting of this variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of other
land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO.
5. Flood hazard protection: The granting of this variance would not have the effect of
preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8 of the UDO. The granting of
this variance would allow the property the ability to build the proposed structure in locations
that are outside of the floodplain area.
6. Other property: The special conditions provide by the property applicant are not unique to
the subject property as some of the neighboring properties are also encumbered by areas
designated as floodplain.
7. Hardships: The hardship created by the special condition is not the result of the applicant's
own actions. The existing residential. structure located on the property occupies all of the
buildable area of this lot. The southwest side of the residential structure abuts the
boundaries of the designated floodplain leaving only the northwest portion of the property
available for possible improvements without filling the floodplain area. Due to the orientation
of the lot this portion of the property is considered a rear property line and is restricted by
the 20-foot setback requirements.
8. Comprehensive Plan: The granting of this variance would not substantially conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of the UDO because the Future Land Use and
Character Map designate the portion of the property located in the floodplain as Natural
Areas - Reserved. This designation is generally for areas that represent a constraint to
development and that should be preserved for their natural functions or open space
qualities. Granting of this variance would allow the property owner to construct the .
proposed structure outside of the area that the Comprehensive Plan designates as an area
that should be preserved due to its natural functions.
9. Utilization: While the application of the UDO to this particular piece of property does not
effectively prohibit the utilization of the property since a residential structure already exists
on the property; the existence of floodplain on the property restrict the owners ability to
utilize a majority of their property in a reasonable manner.
..ALTERNATIVES
The applicant proposed to relocate the creek as an alternative to granting the requested
variance. It is staff's opinion that due to the effects that this option would have on the natural
environment, this is not a viable alternative to granting the requested variance.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 5, 2011
Page 7 of 8
15
Staff has identified the following alternative to granting the variance:
1. The applicant could redesign the structure so that it is located where the existing
driveway is located.'
2. The applicant could place fill in the floodplain and develop the additions behind the
house.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval 'of the applicants request to reduce the 20-foot rear setback along
the northwest property line by 12 feet, 6 inches. It is staff's opinion that the applicant has shown
that a special condition exists with the property thereby creating a hardship, which limits the
applicant the reasonable use of their property. Due to the existence of a creek which bisects the
rear of the property from east to west and the large portion of the property which lies within the
designated floodplain, the amount of unencumbered buildable area existing on the lot is limited.
While construction is not prohibited in areas that are designated as floodplain, it is preferred
that this be avoided when possible. The granting of this variance would allow the structure to be
located outside of the designated floodplain.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Survey
- ' Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 5, 2011.