HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report_Page_1(*40rq"
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
1915 Dartmouth Street
REQUEST: An eight (8) foot variance to UDO Section 5.7, Design Distract
Dimensional Standards, to reduce the minimum front setback.
LOCATION: 1915 Dartmouth Street — proposed lot 1, specifically 150.38 feet
along Dartmouth Street originating at the southern corner of Lot 5,
Block 2 Woodstock Section I
APPLICANT: Travis Martinek, Clarke & Wyndham, et. al.
PROPERTY OWNER: Organized Capital Inc. and Real Alchemy 1 LP
PROJECT MANAGER: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner
trogers@cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a preliminary plan which shows an existing fifty
(50) foot gas easement crossing proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the future development. In addition,
the existing right-of-way for Dartmouth Street is eighty (80) feet. As part of the Preliminary Plan,
staff will be requesting an additional right-of-way dedication from the applicant based on the
proposed right-of-way in the Thoroughfare Plan. These factors create a limited buildable area
for the subject property. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 5.7, Design District Dimensional Standards to
allow for a reduction of eight (8) feet to the fifteen (15) foot front setback.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 5.7, Design District Dimensional Standards
ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the City's setback regulations is to 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
September4, 2012
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6
September,, 2012
Zoning Board ofAdjustment Page 3 of 6
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date:
Property owner notices mailed:
Contacts in support
Contacts in opposition:
Inquiry contacts:
ZONING AND LAND USES
September 4, 2012
None as of date of Staff Report.
None as of date of Staff Report.
None as of date of Staff Report.
Direction
Zoning
Land Use
Subject Property
WPC Wolf Pen Creek
Vacant
North
R-6 High Density Multi -Family
Apartment buildings (Huntington
Apartments)
South
WPC Wolf Pen Creek
Across Holleman Drive E is Wolf Pen
Creek Amphitheater
East
R-1 Single Family Residential
City of College Station Utilities
West
WPC Wolf Pen Creek
Across Dartmouth Street is Wolf Pen
Creek Parking Area
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: Approximately 150 feet of frontage on Dartmouth Street.
2. Access: Access to the subject property is proposed from Dartmouth Street.
3. Topography and vegetation: A large amount of natural vegetation currently exists on the
property.
4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within the FEMA designated floodplain.
REVIEW CRITERIA
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.
Staff feels a special condition exists with the subject property due to the fact that it
contains a fifty (50) foot gas easement through it, reducing the buildable area of the
property. The applicant has also expressed the right-of-way dedication will create a
hardship. Staff feels that this is not a special condition because this is a requirement for
platting properties within the City of College Station.
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.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6
September 4, 2012
Due to the fifty (50) foot gas easement lying across the property, applying the standard
setback requirements would result in a limited buildable area, depriving the property
owner of a reasonable use of the property.
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.
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 LIDO.
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 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: 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 because
this property is not located within FEMA recognized floodplain.
6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the
vicinity.
The gas easement runs through other properties in the vicinity, but is generally located
further back on those properties. This allows for more buildable area between the
easement and front setbacks of adjacent properties.
7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions.
A hardship does exist on the property. A fifty (50) foot gas easement which crosses the
property was dedicated prior to this development, thus creating a special condition of
undevelopable land on this 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
or the purposes of this LIDO.
9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the LIDO to the
particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
utilization of the property.
Strict application of the current residential dimensional standards would reduce the
buildable area and unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6
September 4, 2012
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant has not proposed any alternatives to the granting of the variance requests.
However, the applicant could still develop the property under the current required setbacks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance request. In staff's opinion, due to the location of the
gas line and associated fifty (50) foot easement, a special condition does exist such that the
strict application of the provisions for the UDO would deprive the applicant reasonable use of his
land. Additionally, based on the surrounding properties, staff feels that approval of the
variances to design district dimensional standards for the subject property would not be
detrimental to the neighborhood or future development of this area.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Concept Plan
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6
September 4, 2012