HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportCITY OF COLLEGE STATION
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
4201 Cedar Creek Court
11-00500057
REQUEST: Side street setback variance
LOCATION: 4201 Cedar Creek Court, Lot 1, Block 2, of the Creek Meadows
Subdivision, Section 4, Phase 1
APPLICANT: Dan Weir, Majestic Homes
PROPERTY OWNER: Dennis Johnson
PROJECT MANAGER: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner
mhilgemoier@cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
BACKGROUND: The subject property was platted in 2009, as part of the Creek Meadows
Subdivision and is zoned as a Planned Development District, which allows for single-family
residential uses. The applicant received a residential building permit on May 5, 2010 to construct
a 2,100 square foot structure on this lot. As a result of an error made by the builder when
establishing the setbacks for this property, there is currently a single -story home occupying the
lot with a portion of the structure encroaching into the 15-foot side street setback, as well as a
15-foot Public Utility Easement which runs along Lowery Meadow Lane. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a 1-foot, 8-inch variance to Section 5.2 "Residential Dimensional
Standards" of the Unified Development Ordinance to allow for 13-foot, 4-inch side street
setback.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 5.2 "Residential Dimensional Standards"
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.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 5
May 3, 2011
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 5
May 3, 2011
Zoning Board of Adjustment - Page 3 of 5
May 3, 2011
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: May 3, 2011
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:
Contacts in support:
Contacts in opposition:
Inquiry contacts:
ZONING AND LAND USES
28
None at time of writing this staff report.
None at time of writing this staff report.
Two general inquiries regarding the purpose of the
variance request.
Direction
Zoning
Land Use
Subject Property
PDD Planned Development District
Residential
North
PDD Planned Development District
Residential
South
PDD Planned Development District
Residential
East
PDD Planned Development District
Residential
West
PDD Planned Development District
Residential
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: Approximately 113 feet of frontage along Lowry Meadow Lane and
approximately 50 feet of frontage along Cedar Creek Court.
2. Access: The subject property has one residential driveway taking access to Cedar Creek
Court.
3. Topography and vegetation: This site is moderately vegetated with a 2-foot slope running
southeast across the property.
4. Floodplain: N/A
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Extraordinary conditions: The applicant did not provide evidence that a special condition
exists on the property such that the strict application of the provisions of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their
property. The encroachment into the side street setback is due to an error made by the
home builder and not a special condition of the property.
2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: This variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant because the current use of the
property as a single-family residence meets the purpose Planned Development District that
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 5
May 3, 2011
was approved for this property. If the proposed variance request is not granted, the City
cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy for this structure because it does not comply with
the standards of the UDO.
3. Substantial detriment: The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area or to the City
administering the UDO.
4. Subdivision: The granting of this variance would not have the effect of preventing the
orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the LIDO.
5. Flood hazard protection: The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing
flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements
because no portion of this property is located within the floodplain.
6. Other property: Fifteen -foot side street setbacks are required for all properties zoned for
residential uses in this Planned Development District and are not unique to this property.
7. Hardships: A hardship does not exist in this case. The encroachment of the building into
the side street setback is the result of the applicant's own actions and is not the result of
special condition of the property. The builder failed to locate the correct boundaries of the
side street setback before constructing the building's foundation.
8. Comprehensive Plan: The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of this UDO. .
9. Utilization: The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does
not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. If the
structure was demolished or structurally altered, it could be built within the required building
setbacks.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant did not provide any alternative to granting the requested variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a reduction of 1-foot, 8-inches to the 15-
foot side street setback requirement. The error is the result of the applicant's own actions and is
not the result of the existence of a special condition with the property that deprives the applicant
of the reasonable use of the property.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Survey
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 5
May 3, 2011