Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF REPORT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jane R. Kee, City Planner RE: Amendment to the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District DATE: May 7, 2003 This item is set for a Public Hearing, discussion and possible action on an amendment to the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district pertaining to dedication and development of the minimum reservation area. Staff recommends approval of this amendment. The Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan adopted in 1988 provides for hike and bike trails throughout the park along the creek. When the WPC zoning ordinance was adopted in 1989, the area planned for trails was called the minimum reservation area. It was defined as an area twenty feet wide running parallel to the floodway on either side of the creek. As property developed, developers had three options; (1) to dedicate this property for the City to ultimately improve, (2) to improve it themselves and maintain it, or (3) to dedicate to the City after making improvements. When the master plan was revised in 1998 an Oversight Committee was established to oversee implementation of the master plan. This committee consists of Council, P &Z, Parks Board and staff members. The Committee decided in 2000 to recommend that the city fund the design for the trail system for the downstream portion of the creek (from the Dartmouth /Holleman intersection east to Earl Rudder Freeway). This design would better establish where those areas would be that would ultimately contain the trails and other improvements. An amendment in 2001 implemented this by including more specific surveyed descriptions for the areas where the trails would be for the downstream portion of the creek. Design has now been done for the upstream portion (from the Dartmouth /Holleman intersection west to the George Bush bridge) and this amendment includes two specific descriptions for this area. The amendment makes it clear what property needs to be dedicated as part of any development that may occur. Slide 7 (Title Slide) Zoning Board of Adjustment 201 Pershing Avenue Gordon and Virginia Eaton are requesting a 23 -foot variance into the rear setback and a 6 -foot variance into the side setback of 201 Pershing Avenue. Additionally, the owner requests 2 -foot eave height variance and a 14 percent yard area variance. Slide 8 (SAM) The subject property is located in the Oakwood Subdivision. This is in an R -1 Single Family Residential zoning district. According to the City of College Station Zoning Ordinance, property in an R -1 zoning district is required to have a minimum rear setback of 25 feet and a side setback of 7.5 feet. A maximum eave height of 8 feet is permitted for all accessory buildings and structures, and no more than 30 percent of the rear yard area can be covered with accessory buildings, structures, or uses. Slide 9 (survey /site plan) Case Overview The applicant is proposing a transparent screen enclosure around the existing pool, deck, and patio. As a special condition, the applicant states that a wood panel fence currently exists along the two property lines in question and that the screen enclosure would be just inside that fence. Slide 10 (enlarged site) For a hardship the applicant states that the existing pool is located very close to the lot lines, both in the rear and along the side. Consequently, the edge of the concrete deck lies within 1 foot of both lot lines. The enclosure would be placed at the outer edge of the deck, as shown in the drawing. Additionally, the manufacturer of the enclosure recommends a minimum eave height of 10 feet. The applicant states that there are no alternatives because of the location of the existing pool. Slide 11 - along Shetland Street, northwest property line Slide 12 - looking at northeast corner of backyard Slide 13 - looking at southeast corner of backyard, can see corner of house Slide 14 - along southeast property line, shared with adjacent property Ordinance Intent Dimensional standards 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. I have had 1 person contact me, which was an inquiry. Slide 7 (Title Slide) `RL)(_ v ate I ' 5A Zoning Board of Adjustment 201 Pershing Avenue (corre f1 r) Gordon and Virginia Eaton are requesting a t3 -foot variance into the rear setback and a 6 -foot variance into the side setback of 201 Pershing Avenue. Additionally, the owner requests 2 -foot eave height variance and a 14 percent yard area variance. Slide 8 (SAM) The subject property is located in the Oakwood Subdivision. This is in an R -1 Single Family Residential zoning district. According to the City of College Station Zoning Ordinance, proptyin an A zoning district is required to have a minimum rear setback ofd eet n a i e setback of 7.5 feet. A maximum eave height of 8 feet is permitted for all accessory buildings and structures, and no more than 30 percent of the rear yard area can be covered with accessory buildings, structures, or uses. Slide 9 (survey /site plan) Case Overview The applicant is proposing a transparent screen enclosure around the existing pool, deck, and patio. As a special condition, the applicant states that a wood panel fence currently exists along the two property lines in question and that the screen enclosure would be just inside that fence. Slide 10 (enlarged site) For a hardship the applicant states that the existing pool is located very close to the lot lines, both in the rear and along the side. Consequently, the edge of the concrete deck lies within 1 foot of both lot lines. The enclosure would be placed at the outer edge of the deck, as shown in the drawing. Additionally, the manufacturer of the enclosure recommends a minimum eave height of 10 feet. The applicant states that there are no alternatives because of the location of the existing pool. Slide 11 - along Shetland Street, northwest property line Slide 12 - looking at northeast corner of backyard Slide 13 - looking at southeast corner of backyard, can see corner of house Slide 14 - along southeast property line, shared with adjacent property Ordinance ntent Dimensional standards u ally -a low for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air�and rotection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of pro rt_y i J s. I have had4 person contact me, which vas an inquiry. STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Date: 03 -25 -03 Email: jreeves @ci.college - station.tx.us ZBA Meeting Date: April 1, 2003 APPLICANT: William Botts REQUEST: Rear and Side Setback Variance LOCATION: 100 Lee Avenue PURPOSE: To allow new construction within 10 feet of the rear property line. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Property Owner Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7: District Use Schedule - Table A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned and developed as R -1 Single Family. The subject property, consist of four lots: Lots 1,2,3 & 25 -ft. of lot 4 of Block 2 of the South Oakwood Subdivision. Frontage: The following lot dimensions are approximate, please refer to enclosed site plan for more detail: Approximately 152 -ft. of frontage along Lee Avenue 150 -ft. (along the side street property line) 150 -ft. (along the side property line) 152 -ft. (along the rear property line) Access: Access is given via a driveway onto Lee Avenue. Topography & Vegetation: Relatively flat. Flood Plain: Not located within a flood plain. VARIANCE INFORMATION ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The applicant has stated as a special condition: That their home is on the corner of George Bush and Lee Avenue and is exposed to significant noise. The planned construction will act as a noise barrier. No other pleasing design will provide the needed space and reduce the noise. O: \group\deve ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc Hardships: As a hardship the applicant has stated: That a two story structure will not work for aging parents (88years old) and no other design will provide the noise barrier as effectively as the proposed design. Alternatives: The applicant say's that locating the structure in another place will not allow ease of access from the garage for aging parents, nor will it provide a noise barrier. The applicant states that the proposed structure will enhance the neighborhood appearance, and improve the quality of life of residents, and allow full use of the property. There is no use of the alley therefore 10 feet from the property line will not present any issues. SPECIAL INFORMATION 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. Number of Property Owners Notified: 13 Responses Received: There have been four phone calls about this case at the time of staff report. All four were inquiries. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Site Plan O:\ group\ deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda. doc 0 IK >ON OH -102 m7 0rD 4 li j :i) 0 , a S MC BL ,, S ° .7` 11 I O Q RI F y� O , a Sl Z � 9L S ����� O 1 NIL N . 'n n �F�i D S S, Ir q6 ` °� Z O FAO ti �o e o -0 'CI o _ ' ,, o a yG w a oa U C � o-, — 1 a `�. 0 .. 4446,. O A e 111 „. kV N. b ti ti m Pr -- : -- �. . BG�l ``��'� �, , Q . � , �� �1O . ` -k. 52 s'> - 4 9 ' y m \' , , ,-,; "40 " . rr ' _,:_.' ;)*A.! , ,s, 6, . , . _ , -- q< _b b � _ b � 444* O �� q � F ` o o U _ ti ,. O O G1 a c,,, w P. 0 co ij ti _ 9 �,� ST ll , _ i 4 , _ , .. O Z b ali D' 14 ,P41P 2° ti 1I eeO o O 1444 NI r A O e I ,,, ,,, 4#40,■ O 4 [,° ' c , ., !'4 . AM6.74,421 N,A1.4.4;24* 4, . STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Lauren Harrell Date: 05 -19 -03 Email: Iharrell @ci.college - station.tx.us ZBA Meeting Date: 06 -03 -03 APPLICANT: Gordon & Virginia Eaton, Property Owners REQUEST: Rear setback variance Side setback variance Height variance Yard area variance LOCATION: 201 Pershing Avenue, Oakwood Subdivision PURPOSE: To allow the erection of a screened pool & patio enclosure GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Property Owner Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7: District Use Schedule - Table A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned R -1 Single Family Residential. 201 Pershing is located within the South Oakwood Subdivision. Frontage: The following lot dimensions are approximate. Please refer to the enclosed site plan for more detail. 119' of frontage along Pershing Avenue 127' of frontage along Shetland Street Access: Access is given via a driveway onto Shetland Street. Topography & Vegetation: Relatively flat topography and mature trees. Flood Plain: Not located within a flood plain. VARIANCE INFORMATION Setbacks Required: A rear setback of 25 feet. A side setback of 7.5 feet. Setback Requested: A rear setback of 2 feet. A side setback of 1.5 feet. Eave Height Required: A maximum eave height of 8 feet is permitted for all accessory buildings, structures, or uses other than O:\ group\ deve _ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc garages, carports, and living quarters for family or servants. Eave Height Requested: 10 feet. Yard Area Required: No more than 30% of the rear yard area can be covered with accessory buildings, structures, or uses. Yard Area Requested: A rear yard coverage of 44 %. Case Overview: The subject property has an existing swimming pool constructed within the required setbacks of the property. The applicant wishes to erect a transparent screen enclosure around the existing pool, pool, deck and patio, thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 23 feet, a side setback variance of 6 feet, an eave height variance of 2 feet, and a rear yard coverage area variance of 14 percent. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The applicant states that a wood panel fence currently exists along the two property lines in question and that the screen enclosure would be just inside that fence. Hardships: The applicant states that the existing pool is located very close to the lot lines, both in the rear and along the side. Consequently, the edge of the concrete deck lies within one foot of both lot lines. The enclosure would be placed at the outer edge of the deck, as shown in the drawing. Additionally, the manufacturer of the enclosure recommends a minimum eave height of 10 feet. Alternatives: The applicant states that there are no alternatives because of the location of the existing pool. SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Dimensional standards 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. Number of Property Owners Notified: 20 Responses Received: None at the time of this report. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Survey O:\ group\ deve _ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc O h ,..n. 0.4 -.oz a g �� O n -\ 17 .„,..,,,,,,,„ c-,,,, n C E l' ,.') 43G, ril f ,■� 4 (90,s, 1 W O Z ti O _X .11.-) 5 ' F ■ ill 0 4, \d 0 S �7 d i � T w ti S `X rn ' ~� �J toti ?d ° °® X n � w ` td "9 4,,,, roti o\Y,' 1--.. a � # \d ' tam C 4 , � FR� ,d ° � F - s ° �ti sl s � „ s� i ._� 4° , a 9 BF ti o� ") � 4 O F F �O' .s LI: 400 / TJ N •` _ y g 5d 0 --/' li iii,i , oo /C a j. �. , Or \ .- ot oir, c, , , „:: 0 .\_„.:.., , , \ 0 . 4 ------ .// ", rai' aie - ill P t G o ti U � ® � �� � 0 � R v ti, ti ' ° te a,' ' � . * D ♦ ,t �C a s e?; i W � ST � / . la / � � Y � lJ�j �� + d b �` o ,� '.± • a ® O � \ � ° 4 1 ' t C� 4 do CV 0 ® 4Lo c R cF� 4 ,c d v . 4 NE; �' °�`\ Ca d — r. , 7O 1n1 O °� <.3'2'"-9,! yet : d a �� R n ° � a d fib " w °`� / , w o ti ° - ` o � 49, , \C.. ,.>,', SS' o , Sy'' �® 1.4' d ` y o ' Urn ° k':-. / ��' ` ti 0 U 4,1' ccl ti % O 0 CI 1 .--. , 4i, --;1': ti \4 \\S ',0'j ` ' C W ml . o y d / //rr n : Z . V v> o hi ale , o 0 \, 00 ., • ' c. 4,- -,Z",' -.. ,, ,, , 7" p 0 & o �a' �a a � A r O.. ' _ ° it* ��� 4 . 2 CO ta C17 0 c ,, .46) 5 0= Alc 4. ' o 4 00, 1 -i, * *4, 1 s 1 °V;49":411114 'O� y :�'�� Ille' I � __� ® ' /� N `ice d �. ,s. Q Y "/ CASE NO.: W — D ? DATE SUBMITTED: ffk COLLEGE STATION 40 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION t`r'y `�``" to J� MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ✓,,Filing Fee of $150.00. L Application completed in full. Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name � o.P ? / ( 1 J /,e&ht Yd Mailing Address City /a7,C.,A i /l/' State A1'9 Zip Code 91:2 E -Mail Address riTOh Phone Number -36 O - 7, -732D Fax Number 360 - 6 T — 3.324 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name .� . � / d Mailing Address City State Zip Code E -Mail Address Phone Number Fax Number L,OCATION OF PROPERTY: t/ Address 20/;' :(/i 4 p 9ve. (/ ?e c % .. mo/� Lotj / /�i' Block 4 Subdivision /�1a / e�© © a l Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Action Requested: (Circle One) - Setback Variance > Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation Parking Variance Special Exception Sign Variance Other Current Zoning of Subject Property iePJ /dc°H 1/4 Applicable Ordinance Section /Up# . sure .07‘ A9Aa7 7 t . GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST 1 of 2 Genvacdoc 12/102001 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variation from the ordinance is requ ted: �rc / ���' C4e-,/e.c S �i �• , 4 / 41 ,P ,Oo (71. T A n 1 c�IPr �� /7 e _ zz .f�S vrr GJ /j/ -g e /�� ( /O/ j/? e A'cider, /(J. P0,0,z) e h ep ve- o o,I 'ec lc •-' a0 4 4 7z e- . 1i e L 1j ./c9 /te This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions: Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself, not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land. Example: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, specimen trees. Note: A cul -de -sac is a standard street layout in College Station. The shape of standard cul -de -sac lots are generally not special conditions. ew4 a �oo� tip/ � /ti e 7 _ I` ve - (745 /4. c /GLtt)rc=' / jQcJ./el jeA fl. The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is /are: Hardship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition. Example: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when compared to neighboring properties. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and omplete. A �. v ' - - t e , / -?� 200,3 Signature and Title / Date GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST Genva.doc 12/10/2001 2 of 2 (409) 775 -8609 • % .\ i n1 #1638 / D.K. 82/520, ', D.R. 93/186 / / / / 1.-0.1. Title Co. , Lor I 1 - 7_==' 0 H e eyT O e oi E . I ' ' • • M.H. (G • ' ' • f ,I 1/4. K(',.- ......• TELE - 1 - — POLE .P M . . I• ims•o• - • !R PIPE � ��� -tr- 7 1"1 PND. I 1/4' , ___ '� •eARO 60'52'50'M Il IRON PIPE • �. STORAGE ••ARD 1 ''i • f o 4� DLOG. , .. L • • J 0 1 I GRAPHIC c • ♦ , I 0 10 2c • • / .. • ..,„,, . . ,,,,,„ , . .. .,. -:,,,-.'''IMPII(.°"'" :. .1 • .. L Ea 1 it 1 NO T 1 1 • • I eOU�IPOA{NT� I BOARD R • RL if �,- _ _ 1, PENCE M • Mt (U i n • 2 1 5• ; O • PATIO I i ouR l eD /` Q • I _ ,� 2 1 I AM/Ye GROUND PA d ` h • 9. 1• LOCATCO ON TMI'. ,O ; TO MAVC OURICO Pi Li OC 1 71-e OROuN, AN) D[ W • ^ice I STAR The 2 0' 4 • CONC. 0 • �`+ ��� ' L One STAR NOTIPICA • 'I DRIVE N - - 1/ �, v , CON7ACTeD ICOO17�5 > , l \ I b �• I N ., _fl�i i I Cr • LO1 17 x I o s uooD 1� j •«� � • ♦ I ti i. DECK I- - ' V DLO r 7, r -Q -. J • •� . a � O L � . • Q 1 rAVE to. 7 «. ./ - _.,I � j ,, ' r }$ r + + -� ( 1 24.6' Q 1- 1 DEE7 v` BOARD ` r / • 30' FROM ALL I FENCE 10' FROM 910E • 1... WD� /N ONE IIZ K STRIP OR ALLE • Jr / I DECK ; ',TORY HOU5 !TY E • CITY OWL -f1-( 20.6' N J ,L itp -�• I DEED RE5 O R j l , • m 0. 6� • '4.6` •• UNIVER',I' I GF #9930' - 1' n y 20.6' P. 20.5' `i COV' O PORCH lY I V• • "..... •••••.. i . ...- 14.2' ""111.." ■■• --LF — - 91 ' OD''SO'M • &tAt`OcWrtG D • • • M .: IM M O - ,.. MET I • REBAR •• eiviiii,h N Oa a ,�h y 2 • r o, • 9 • o i 'M ''- `'t't N 15 W R • �, 1 R ON PIPE 201 ( ',H I NG AVENUE