Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2001-500187CITY OF COLLEGE STATION R E P R I N T *** CUSTOMER RECEIPT *** OPER: GMESSARRA CT DRAWER: 1 DATE: 8/27/01 00 RECEIPT: 0296310 DESCRIPTION GTY AMOUNT TP 2001 500186 1 $75 . 00 fPl PLANNING & ZONIN 2001 500187 $75. 00 IPL PLANNING & ZONIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY CK -5054 & 5055 2 VA RI ANCE APPLICATIONS 6SM TENDER DETAIL CK 5054 CK 5055 DATE : 8/27/01 TOTAL AMOUNT TENDERED THANK YOU S75 .00 $75.00 TIME: 12:01: 16 $150.00 $150. 00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a rear ' setback var- iance for 320 Holleman Drive , lot 4 , block 2, McCull - och's Subdivision. Applicant is Habitat for Humanity. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the Col- lege Station City Hall , 1101 Texas Avenue at th e 6 :00 p.m . meeting of the Board on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1- 800-735-2989. For additional information, please contact me at (979) 764-3570 . Jessica Jimmerson Sta ff Planner 9-26-01 NOTIFICATION AREA NAYNE '<-_/ LINCOLN lirt.r City of College Station , Texas ~ PLANNING D IVISION '2 I 320 HOLLEMAN i NOT TO SCALE ZONING CASE: ZBA 10/10/01 SETBACK VARIANCE CHECK BY: __ _ DATE : MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment October 10, 2001 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill , Sheffy , Richards , Lewis & Alternate Member Allison MEMBERS ABSENT: Birdwell absent , Alternate Members Goss & Corley, not needed . STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace , Staff Planners Reeves & Hitchcock, Assistant Cit y Attorney Robinson . AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board . Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from meeting . Mr. Birdwell submitted an application that was moved to approve by Mr. Lewis , seconded by Mr. Richards, and approved by a Board vote of (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of meeting minutes from September 12 , 2001 . Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 316 Holleman Drive, lot 2, block 2, McCulloch's Subdivision. Applicant is Habitat for Humanity. (01-186). Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report . Ms . Jimmerson told the Board that the variance is to allow for construction of a new home . The subject property is undeveloped . A house is planned for this lot that will encroach into the required rear setback. The back of the house will extend approximately 8 feet over the rear building setback line . Thus , the applicant is requesting a variance of 9 feet (or a 36% variance) to the rear setback to allow for the construction of the house . The Board could consider the depth of the lot as a special condition . Although the lot does exceed the current width requirement of 50 feet, the lot does not meet the current depth requirements for an R-1 single-family residential lot. In this case, in addition to significantly restricting the building options on the site, having less lot depth reduces the remaining buildable area of the lot to less than that of surrounding properties . Page 1 The McCullough Subdivision , where the subject property is located , is one of the original neighborhoods in College Station and appears to have been platted prior to the City 's adoption of Subdivision Regulations . Subdivisions that have been platted in more recent years are planned to accommodate the City 's setback requirements . It also appears that a portion of the front of the property may have been taken by the City for the expansion of Holleman, resulting in the depth of only 84 feet. Once the front and rear setbacks are applied to properties with the standard 100-foot depth a length of 50 feet remains for the builder to work within . For this property, with a depth of 84 feet , only 34 feet remain after the front and rear setbacks are applied , significantly restricting the building options on the side and lessening the buildable area . The Board must decide if having a lot depth of 84 feet, instead of the now required 100 feet , is a special condition , or if the situation is a general condition . If the ZBA considers the reduced lot depth as a special condition, then the resulting hardships would be the significant reduction in buildable area and the significant restriction on the building options . The applicant would be unable to build a house of comparable size to the others in the area. The Board may not consider a financial hardship as the only hardship involved in a case , but it may considered in addition to other hardships . The subject property was donated to Habitat for Humanity by the City of College Station on September 13 , 2001 for the purpose of building a house and selling it to a resident that has been living in substandard housing . At Habitat for Humanity, volunteer-friendly construction plans are not created for each project, but are used repeatedly by the organization on different properties to reduce the costs of the homes . The additional cost of preparing a custom plan for this lot would increase the overall cost of the project, therefor negating the ability to provide low- income housing at a low cost on this lot. Staff has identified the following alternatives to granting the nine-foot rear setback variance : Grant a lesser variance -the applicant has stated that the plan for the house would encroach eight feet into the required setback. A variance of nine feet would still allow for the construction of the home . The additional foot would create room for a small margin of error . Do not grant the variance -the structure is in the planning phase so , at this time , no physical encroachments exist. A denial will require the applicant to design a house that meets the rear setback required for the lot. If no house is built on the lot within eighteen months , ownership of the property will revert back to the City of College Station . Ms . Jimmerson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property . The Board had no questions for city staff. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. James Davis, Construction Coordinator for Habitat for Humanity, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Davis told the Board that this particular lot is small . Mr. Davis explained to the Board that since the road is considered a minor arterial , they have chosen to put in a circular drive rather than backing out on to the street. ZBA Minutes October I 0, 200 I Page 2 of II That decision has somewhat complicated the construction of the home . Mr. David ended by saying ot her than these two items ; th ere are no other cons iderations . Mr. Lewis asked if the home plan is the smallest plan that Habitat uses . Mr. Davis answered that it is the shortest plan . Mr. Hill questioned the home plan not having a garage. Mr. Davis replied that none of Habitat for Humanity home plans has garages due to added costs . Art Roach , Housing Development Coordinator for the City of College Station College Station Community Development Office, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr . Roach told the Board that the CD office is lending their support to the variance request. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the request , Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Mr. Lewis made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions : part of the lot was taken for street widening, the lot was platted before the existing setback regulations and the lot is not square; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: impossible to build on the lot due to its shallow depth ; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following special conditions: variance of 9 feet. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion . Chairman Hill stated that he commends Habitat for Humanity for what they are doing m our community . Chairman Hill stated that he would like the motion to mention something about the shallow depth of the lot. Mr. Lewis amended his motion to add " due to its shallow depth". Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion to amend. The Board voted (5-0) to amend the motion. Chairman Hill called for a vote on Mr. Lewis's motion to authorize a variance and Mr. Sheffy's second. The Board voted (5-0) to grant the variance. AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration of a rear setback variance for 320 Holleman Drive, lot 4, block 2, McCulloch Subdivision. Applicant is Habitat for Humanity. (01-187) Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and stated that this case is similar to the last one and therefore did not go through the complete staff report . Basically the difference between the two cases is the amount of the variance being requested . The variance requested is 5 feet but only 4 feet is needed . The additional foot would create room for a small margin of error. Ms . Jimmerson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. ZBAMinutes October 10, 2001 Page3of11 The Board had several minor questions of concern . Chairman Hill opened the public hearing and asked for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. James Davis stepped before the Board . Chairman Hill reminded Mr. Davis that he is still under oath . Mr. Davis stated that on this home he was not able to extend the porch out into the front setback because of the circle drive like he was able to do on the other borne . The driveway for this home will be off of Phoeni x Street. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of this variance, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Mr. Richards made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest , due to the following special conditions : part of the lot previously taken for street widening, lot platted prior to current ordinances and it is a square lot ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being : impossible to build on the 85 foot lot depth; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations : a variance of 5 feet. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a front setback variance at 3325 Piccadilly, lot 14, block 4, Westminster Subdivision. Applicant is Southern Estate Homes. (01-199). Staff Planner Reeves stepped before the Board and gave the staff report. Ms. Reeves told the Board that a I 0-foot variance to the 50 front setback is requested . A front setback of 50 feet is required for A-OR Rural Residential Subdivision . The subject property has a 50-foot CITGO pipeline easement running all the way across the front portion of the property . During preparation to build the house the applicant discovered that he would not be able to meet the 50-foot front setback requirement. To be consistent with the neighboring homes the home at 3325 Piccadilly would have to be 40 feet from the front property line ; thus the applicant is requesting a front setback variance of I 0 feet. The applicant states as a special condition that the 50-foot pipe line easement runs through the property, reducing the buildable area of the front of the lot as compared to neighboring lots . The applicant states that the hardship if this case is threefold . First, locating the house behind the pipeline easement would result in the front of the house being behind the rear of the neighbor 's house . This is not desirable for either property . Second , by moving the house to the right would cause the removal of the only large oak tree on the street and also place the house so close to the neighbor on the right, it would be inconsistent with the other houses on the street which are all located in the center of their lot. Third , the location of the pipeline in the easement is 15 feet from the front line easement. If the house were to meet the front setback requirement , a comer of the house would be uncomfortably close to the pipeline (even though this is a liquid petroleum line and supposedly not a hazard). The staff has identified building towards the back of the property as an alternative . The house would be out of the line with the neighboring houses, but the subject home could meet all of its setbacks . Ms Reeves ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. ZBAMinutes October JO, 2001 Page4of11 The Board had no questions for staff Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Noble Handy, the applicant , stepped before the Boa.rd and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. Handy told the Board that he got a signed agreement from all property owners on the street agreeing to the variance request. Mr. Lewis asked for the size of the home . Mr. Handy replied that it was 2500 sq . ft. Mr . Lewis asked Mr. Handy if he considered any options of making the house wider and not so deep . Mr. Handy replied that a plan like that would be spread out and narrow . Mr. Hill stated that he had gone by to look at the property and noticed that the slab had been poured . Mr. Hill asked if the slab is placed based on a 40-foot setback. Mr. Handy replied that was correct. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Handy when he set the forms and poured the slab if he was aware of the 50-foot setback requirement. Mr. Handy replied no that he was not aware of the requirement. Mr. Handy added he was issued a permit and he felt that no one checked the zoning assuming that the subdivision was a regular residential development , which has a 25-foot setback. He stated that he knew it had a 50 foot architectural control requirement. He contacted the architectural control board and asked if there would be a problem . The control board told him there would not be a problem . He then applied for his building permit and started the slab . During a discussion with Carl Warren with the Building department it was discovered the zoning was R-01. Mr. Handy stated that he thought it was a 25-foot setback and the 50-foot setback was the architectural control requirement. Ms . Reeves told the Board that the city building department made an error in issuing the permit. The permit was issued during a time when the entire city was experiencing computer problems . Mr. Hill asked Ms . Reeves if the builder was operating in good faith . Ms. Reeves replied yes . Mr. Hill asked Mr. Handy if he lays out the slabs or if a surveyor does it. Mr. Handy replied that usually he does the lying out of the slabs but he does have surveyors who work on some . Mr. Hill stated that he is a little bothered that the forms would be set and the slab poured not checking the ordinances . Mr. Handy replied that he has been building in the City of College Station for 15 years and he was totally unaware of an R-01 subdivision and that requirement being larger. Mr . Hill asked Mr. Handy at what point was the error discovered and how was it discovered . Mr. Handy replied at the time the slab was poured . The city was in the process of getting their computers up and processing permits, his permit was already issued and he was in the process of building . Chairman Hill asked who discovered the error. Ms. Reeves replied that it was an inspector in the field . With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request , Chairman Hill closed ·the public hearing . Mr. Richards stated that the hardships stated are logical. The property with a pipeline going through it is not a piece of property that you could build under normal conditions. If the home were placed behind the easement the house would be out of line from the rest of the houses on the block. Chairman Hill stated that he would agree with that. ZBAMinutes October JO, 2001 Page5 ofll Mr. Lewis agreed that the pipeline is a special condition and also the fact that an error was made in iss uin g the permit. Mr. Lewis stated that he could also understand th e confusion fo r the setback. Chairman Hill agreed that there was confusion but he is less willing to grant that point because it is the builder 's responsibility to check the requirements for where he is building . Mr. Sheffy made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the city made a mistake in builder complying with ordinance and thus was issued a permit ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being : that the house slab has already been reported to city staff and had been approved ; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitation : allowing a 5 foot variance . Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Mr. Lewis made an amendment to Mr. Sheffy 's motion to add another special conditions: the 50 foot pipeline easement and change the limitation from a 5 foot variance to a 10 foot variance. Mr. Allison seconded the amendment , which was approved (5-0). Chairman Hill called for the vote on Mr. Sheffy's motion and Mr. Richards second. The Board voted (5-0) to grant the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO 7: Consideration of a front setback variance at 316 Pronghorn Loop, lot 2, block 4, Steeplechase Subdivision Phase VI. Applicant is Oakwood Homes. (01-208). Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report . Ms . Hitchcock told the Board that the request is to receive a variance for an error made during construction. During construction, the builder estimated that if he placed the house 27 feet back from the front of the property , he would be able to stay outside of the front setback area. Front setbacks on cul-de-sacs or curving streets curve with the arc of the property line . The house was not placed far enough back on the lot to keep the structure outside of the setback; thus the applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 0 .68 feet for the home and 1.11 feet for the garage (as measured diagonal). For a special condition, the applicant would like for the Board to consider the fact that the curving street made it difficult to measure the setback . For hardships, the applicants states that the home is complete and ready to close . Staff has identified that removal of the encroachment is the only alternative to a variance for the house to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance . Ms . Hitchcock ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property . The Board discussed items presented in the staff report for clarification . Chairman Hill opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the request to step forward . ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page6of 11 Alton Ofczarzak, President of Oakwood Homes , stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. Ofczarzak told the Board th at he bu ilt all the homes on that row and all the ho mes are all built 27 feet off of the property line . Mr. Ofczarzak stated that it is difficult to layout homes on a curve. Mr. Ofczarzak ended by saying that no one in that area is opposed to the variance due to the fact that all the houses are in alignment. Mr. Sheffy stated that if a builder knows what the minimum setbacks are , and should be, what is the reason for going over the setbacks . Mr. Ofczarzak replied that it is a human error. The curve makes it more difficult to check the points . Mr. Ofczarzak stated that the field supervisor wanted to align the houses on that street across the front so they all would be lined up down the street and he must not have checked the corner points . Chairman Hill asked if the field supervisor is a qualified surveyor . Mr. Ofczarzak replied no he is not but he has been in the construction business for about 30 years . Chairman Hill asked if there was a qualified surveyor with his company . Mr. Ofzcarzak replied that usually they do all their field platting and most builders do . Mr. Ofzcarzak stated that he has been strict on making sure all the point s are done on the property so when the inspector makes his inspection there is not a problem . Mr. Ofzcarzak stated that he did not feel the inspectors checked them . Mr. Richards asked Mr. Ofzcarzak how long he has been in business . Mr. Ofzcarzak replied he has been building for 24 years and this is the second variance he has requested . Mr. Richards stated that the site plan submitted to the city was within all regulations and the house turns out not to be . Mr. Richards asked where is the breakdown . Mr. Ofzcarzak replied that we are all human and we would not have this Board if there were not special conditions . Mr. Ofzcarzak stated he is asking for a hardship in this case . Mr. Richards asked based on what. Mr. Ofzcarzak replied based on the fact that the house is already built. The conforming of the subdivision is not taking away from the value of the property and it is not making the other homes look ugly by one house sticking out further than the other one . Mr. Richards stated that the hardship was created by not following the site plan . Mr. Ofzcarzak replied that was correct. Mr. Richards stated that the home is occupied now . Mr. Ofzcarzak replied that was correct. The buyers are waiting to close on the house, waiting on the decision of this Board . Mr. Lewis stated that he and the Board are very sympathetic to human errors but for them to g rant a variance there are two things the Board looks at and that is a special condition and hardship . Mr. L ewis stated that it is a challenge to build on a cul-de-sac but that is not a special condition . Mr. Ofzcarzak replied that the special condition would be, if they had to cut off the corner of the house the house would look ugly . Mr. Lewis stated that might be a hardship but it is not anything special or uni que to the lot. Mr. Ofzcarzak questioned the two cases on Holleman presented earlier that the Board approved variances for. The homes could have been redesigned . Mr. Lewis replied there were special conditions presented . The home at 3325 Piccadilly had a pipeline easement and that makes the lo t very different. There were continued discussions on the previous cases . ZBAMinutes October 10, 200 I Page 7 of II Chairman Hill stated that the previous cases have nothing to do with this case . Mr. Lewis stated the point he was making is there is no special condition for this case . Mr . Sheffy stated that he agreed with Mr. Lewis. Mr . Ofzcarzak asked if it was written somewhere that unusual cul-de-sacs have different setbacks . Chairman Hill asked staff if there was anything in the ordinances. Ms . Hitchcock replied no . Mr. Ofzcarzak asked if the comers of the home were cut off if that would look good to the neighborhood . Mr. Sheffy stated that should have been looked at before the house was built. The Board continued discussions with Mr. Ofzcarzak . Chairman Hill stated that each case has to stand on its own merits and you can not reference another case . Chairman Hill explained that the Board has very specific legal requirements that have to be met to grant a variance . One of the requirements is the hardship can not be solely financial. Mr. Ofzcarzak ended by stating that the home is in alignment with the other homes in the area . It is two small comers encroaching . Mr. Ofzcarzak stated he made a mistake and he is there to ask for a vanance. Mr . Richards stated that if he accepted the variance based on the report that a supervisor miss-guessed the placement of the home, he did not think that adds to the value of the industry in the city . Mr. Lewis stated that there appears to be plenty of room in the rear where the house could have been pushed back . The Board continued discussions concerning the lot. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the variance , Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Chairman Hill stated that he has trouble with this type of case. In this particular case there are two very small corners of the slab that are extending into the setback. It is so minimal. The affect of granting the variance would not be a large impact. Mr . Richards stated his concern is not with the size of the variance but how it happened . Mr. Richards stated that is the way it happened and he can not condone it. Mr. Allison made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest , due to the following special conditions : variance is deminimus ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being : causes encroachment; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations : variance be limited to the existing structure, and a front setback variance of 0 . 68 feet for the home and 1. 11 feet for the garage be granted . Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. ZBA Minut es Octob er JO , 2001 Page 8 of11 Chairman Hill asked since the variance runs with the land , can a restriction be place d that the variance is fo r the current exi st in g structu re . Ms. Robi nso n repl ied that because the variance runs with the lan d that restriction would not be enforceable . Chairman Hill stated that the variance would have to be granted like a single setback variance of 1. 11 feet for the entire setback line across the front of the property. Ms . Hitchcock replied that when this was discussed at staff level , it was understood that when a variance like this is granted it is tied to the site plan , and to the areas , and it would not legit imize a shorter setback for the whole property line . There would need to be two separate variances . Chairman Hill stated that the motion offers the two variances but the Board was told they could not necessarily enforce restriction to the existing structure . Chairman Hill stated to him the two issues are going head to head . Ms . Jimmerson stated that during the discussions with Senior Staff, it was said that the variance needs to be tied to the land and not to the structure. The variance request is being seen as a variance to the small specific area that the encroachment exists . Chairman Hill requested that the wording of the motion be modified so that the language does not tie the motion to the existing structure, but rather ties it to the existing lot and reflects the two areas of encroachment. Mr. Allison made an amendment to his motion to add under limitations : "a front setback variance of 0.68 feet for the home and 1.11 feet for the garage be granted . Chairman Hill suggested adding some wording to tie the motion to the particular area . Ms . Hitchcock stated that the 0 .68 was for the garage and the 1.11 was for the home . Mr . Allison added as an amendment "to the areas of the lot shown on the survey presented to the Board ." Mr. Richards asked what is the hardship listed on the motion . Mr. Allison replied causes encroachment. Mr. Lewis stated that the encroachments are so small but there is no hardship . Mr. Richards stated that it is a self-imposed hardship . If the site plan had been followed the case would not be before the Board . The Board continued discussions on the hardship . Chairman Hill allowed Mr. Ofzcarzak to approach the Board again . Mr. Ofzcarzak told the Board that a hardship could be that it would take away from the ordinary houses in the neighborhood . Mr. Lewis responded that at this time the city does not have a policy of enforcing encroachments . Mr. Ofzcarzak replied that he did not know that. Ms. Jimmerson stated that right now that is not being enforced but they also are not writing letters which is a problem with lenders . Mr. Sheffy asked Mr. Ofzcarzak if the encroachment is keeping the buyers from getting a loan for the home Mr. Ofzcarzak replied yes . Mr. Allison offered again as an amendment under limitations " the limitations shall be to the areas of the lot shown on the survey as presented the Board. Mr. Richards seconded the amended motion. The Board voted (5-0) to amend the motion. Mr. Richards asked if there was any change to the hardship. Chairman Hill had Mr. Allison re-read the motion with the amendment. Mr. Richards stated that he does not see how they can accept the hardship under the rules of the Board . ZBAMinutes October 10, 2001 Page 9of11 The Board continued discussions on the hardship . The Board discussed a previous case they approved that had a deminimus encroachment. Mr. Lewis stated that he did not remember what the Board accepted as a hardship . Chairman Hill replied that they accepted that it caused an encroachment. Chairman Hill asked if anyone could offer a better hardship. Mr . Sheffy made the motion to accept Mr. AJlison 's motion and call for a vote. Chairman Hill called for the vote on Mr. Allison's motion to grant the variance and Mr. Sheffy's second. The Board voted (3-2). Mr. Richards and Mr. Lewis voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO 8: Update on the Unified Development Code. Ms . Hitchcock handed to the Board Members a timeline leading up to the approval of the Ord in ance . Once the draft copy is made available for public review , copies will be made available to this Board . Ms. Hitchcock stated that she would get with Senior Staff and find out the sections that would in v olve this Board and the items they would have control over . Ms . Hitchcock encouraged the Board that if they would like to make a formal statement to the City Council or the Planning & Zoning Commission about any concerns to do so . Mr. Lewis asked if in the proposed ordinance does it give city staff the ability to approve such small variance cases like they heard earlier. Ms . Hitchcock replied that Senior Staff is working with the Consultant and the discussion is for staff to take those smaller cases and they would have separate requirements . That has not been drafted yet but it has been discussed to allow city staff the ability to handle 20% variances and that was agreeable . Ms . Hitchcock encouraged the Board to take a look at that area and then they could make their recommendations on specific issues . Mr. Lewis asked if it would be appropriate for this Board to put together a recommendation or a resolution of support to be included in the ordinance. Chairman Hill replied that he thought it would be appropriate after such time that they have had the opportunity to read the draft and discuss it. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Future agenda items. Discussion and possible action pertaining to the Unified Development Code . AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned . ZBA Minutes October 10, 200 I Page JO of II APPROVED: ,f-;2:d ~,,p) ZBAMinutes October 10, 2001 Page 11of11 ,o ~ ).,S\ )'9/fl <7/l '.).Cl ....__---------------1 }\o~a.~s.~ --1 ------. I I I I I I )_7-Q(\.~S" ~a~o<\\ y.;i.>lz ....... ---- I STAFF REPORT Prepared by : Jess ica J immerson Email : jj immers@ci.college-station .tx.us Date : 10 -01-01 ZBA Meeting Date: 10-10-01 APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: PURPOSE: Habitat for Humanity Setback Variance 320 Holleman (Case #01-187) To allow for construction of a new home. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Property Owner: Applicable Ordinance Section: Property Owner Habitat for Humanity Section 7 , District Use Schedule -Table A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: Subject Property: North: West: East: South: Frontage: Access: Topography & Vegetation: Flood Plain: Zoned R-1 Single Family Resident ial , currently vacant. The property is approximately 85 feet by 62 .5 feet. Please see the enclosed survey plat for more detail. Across Holleman is the Lincoln Center. Vacant property that is zoned R-1 . Across Phoenix is R-1 developed property. R-1 developed property. 62.5 feet on Holleman and 85 feet on Phoen ix. Holleman is classified as a minor arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan . Phoenix is a resident ial street. Access must be taken from the lesser-classified street , in th is case Phoenix. Relatively flat topography with few trees. Not located in the floodplain. VARIANCE INFORMATION Setback Required: A rear setback of 25 feet is required for R-1 Single Family homes . Setback Requested: A rear setback of 20 feet. J :\PZTEXT\PZ05459 .DOC Page I of3 Case Overview: ANALYSIS The subject property is undeveloped . A house is planned for this lot that will encroach into the required rear setback . The back of the house will extend approximately four feet over the rear building setback line . Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance of five feet (or a 20% variance) to the rear setback to allow for the construction of the house. Special Conditions: The ZBA could consider the depth of the lot as a special condition. The overall area of the lot is similar to that of surrounding propert ies however, the lot does not meet the current depth requirements for an R-1 single-family residentia l lot. Hardships: J:\PZTEX1\PZ05459 .DOC The McCullough Subdivision , where the subject property is located, is one of the original neighborhoods in College Station and appears to have been platted prior to the City's adoption of Subdivision Regulations. Subdivisions that have been platted in more recent years are planned to accommodate the City's setback requirements . It also appears that a port ion of the front of the property may have been taken by the City for the expansion of Holleman, resulting in the depth of only 85 feet. Once the front and rear setbacks are applied to properties with the standard 100-foot depth a length of 50 feet remains for the builder to work with i n. For this property, with a depth of 85 feet , only 35 feet remain after the front and rear setbacks are applied , significantly restricting the bu ilding options on the site. The Board must decide if having a lot depth of 85 feet , instead of the now required 100 feet, is a special condition , or if the situation is a general condition . If the ZBA considers the fact of the reduced lot depth as a special condition, then a hardship would be the inability to build a house of comparable size to others in the area because of the significant restrictions to the building options. The Board may not consider a financial hardship as the only hardship involved in a case , but it may be considered in addition to other hardships . The subject property was donated to Habit~t for Humanity by the City of College Station on September 131 , 2001 for the purpose of building a house and selling it to a resident that has been living in substandard housing . At Habitat for Humanity, volunteer-friendly const ruction plans are not created for each project, but are used repeated ly by the organization on different properties to reduce the costs of the homes . The addit ional cost of preparing a custom plan for th is lot would increase the overall cost of the project , therefor negating the ability to provide low-income housing at a low cost on this lot. Page 2 of3 Alternatives: Staff has identified the follow ing alternatives to granting the five- foot rear setback variance request: 1. Grant a lesser variance. The applicant has stated that the plan for the house would encroach four feet into the required setback. A variance of four feet would still allow for the construction of the home. The additional foot would create room for a small margin of error. 2 . Do not grant the variance . The structure is in the planning phase so , at this time, no physical encroachments exist. A denial will require the appl icant to des ign a house that meets the rear setback requirement for the lot. If no house is built on the lot within eighteen months, ownership of the property will revert back to the City of College Station . 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 . Other information: There are several of Community Development Department's Optional Relocation Program (ORP) houses in this area. To meet the City's Consolidated Plan's goals of facilitating the development of affordable housing and providing housing that promotes self-sufficiency, the City of College Station has made the development of this lot as low-income housing possible. · Number of Property Owners Notified: 16 Responses Received: One call of inqu iry was received. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Site Plan Property Survey J:\PZTEXT\PZ0 5459 .DOC Page 3 of3 SCALE : 1" = 20' ) ) LEGEND : -o-UTIUTY . P0t£ ----3 GUY WlRE ANCHOR AERIAL El.£CTRIC UNES ----K.->E.--1£.-1£.- 'CONCRETE LOT 3 BLOCK 2 5/tr RON ROO SET LOT 25 BLOCK 2 BEARING SYSTEM SHOWN HEREON lS BASED ON GRID HORTH AS ESTABUSHEO FROM Cl1Y OF COUECE STATION GP.S. MONU U FNT"' \-\-o \ \e 010-V"\ FOR MORE DETAll£D INFORMAilON, SEE METES &: BOUNDS PREPARED l.IAY, 1997. NOTE: BUILDING SETBACK LINES PER CITY Of COLLEGE STATION ORDINANCE NO. 1638. \ R£VIS£0: 05--05-97; PLAT CN.l. &: !ffi.E BLOCK LAND TITLE SURVEY PLAT OF A D.120 ACRE TRACT PORTION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2 McCULLOCH'S SUBDMSION VOLUME 122, PAGE 91 -. CRAWFORD BURN ITT LEAGUE, A-7 COU£GE STATION; BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS sc>l£: I IHCll -?O ftEJ ~ DA1£: ~.20-<J] PUT OAffi c»-21-97 JOB IMll!ffi: 97-JM CAii fWIE: 97-JOO ms AL ll<XIJl (cocQ; t7-.l00 (Job) PR£PARal ll'r': KERR SURV~YUJt'! N-> t ; ... ' ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: __ Filing Fee of $75 .00. __ Application completed in full. __ Request fonn completed in full. __ Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, s ign details and floor plans . The Zoning Official shall infonn the applicant of any extra materials required. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name J a rn e s Dav i s ," Con s t r u c t i on Coo r d . B IC S Ha b i t at f or Hurn an i t y MailingAddress 119 Lake Street City Habitat@ State TX Zip Code 7 7 8 0 1 E-Mail Address t x c y b er . c o rn Phone Number 97 9-82 3-7 2 90 Fax Number ( 97 9) 77 5-7 412. ---------- PROPER1Y OWNER'S INF021WON: Name City of CS f~ don ate th i s property on 0 9 I 1 3 I 01 Mailing Address ------~--------~ State ____ Zip Code ______ E-Mail Address ------------- Phone Number Fax Number ----------· -----------------~ LOCATION OF PROPER1Y: Address .3x20 Holleman Lot Block 2 Subdivision Mc Cu 11 o ch ' s Description ifthere is no Lot, Block and Subdivision ---------------------- Action Requested: (Circle One) c Setback Varian~ Parlcing Variance Sign Variance Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation Special Exception Other ----------- Current Zoning of Subject Property Residential single f ami 1 y Applicable Ordinance Section The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and complete. ZBA APPUCA TION ZBAAPP .DOC 3flSm ' I . Date 1 of2 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: ____ _ DATE SUBMITI'ED: VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested : , S H b · f H . . . 4i~ (o//\ f a itat or umanity is requesting a ~; oot variance on the rear setback line. This would result in a 2 D foot setback rather than the usual 25 foot setback . nus variance is necessary due to the following special conditions : The lot is only 85.03 feet deep, and the setback totals 50 feet. The shortest house plan available to us is 37 feet 10.5 inches, which exceeds the building setback by nearly 4 feet. The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are : The CS Community Development Office plans to donate this lot ta B/CS Hab i tat for the construction of a single family dwelling fot !a single parent family that has been living in a substandard dwellin g . We have a sponsor ready to fund the construction but no other lots are availab l e. We plaN to begin building 11/03. 1b8 following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: Turn the house to face Phoenix Street but as the porch on the house extends four (4) feet from the front of the house, it would project approximately two feet into the 15 foot setback on the side street by about 2 feet, which is more undesirAble. nus variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts : A rear variance will be less intrusiv than a n y other alternatives and should not reflect negatively on the adjacent properties. The facts stated in this application are true and correct. VARIANCE REQUEST VARIANCE.DOC 3n.s/99 ; 7 Date 2of2 •. ·. ">. ·' •., . :.r ~l ~ . ( .,• .-·· }· i r I b 11 • ·o "' PATIO MASTER BEDROOM \ I '·· KITCl-lEN I -I / I / I I I I I / CJ ¢· l~~I .. / -, . . ... ·--·-· ... !~'..:"': ····-····-· ·Floor Plan 3 1 10· I / J 3 in . 3 · 4' 10· s· DUAL FLOOD LAMP _., \ / \ ' ' BEDROOM I BEDROOM 2 LIVING - / ·--» , / I I 16' IZ)' ····-_________ J ac.!llls 1/.4' • l'·CZ>' Address of Sender CITY OF COLLEGe STATION P.0 Bo x 9960 College Station , TX 77842 LineJ Article Number 01-187 St Matthis Baptist Church 409 Holleman Drive College Station, Texas 77840-4240 01-187 JoeL. Turner 407 Holleman Drive College Station, Texas 77840-4240 01-187 Kathleen A Zigler C/O Clint Reynard 15510 Bonnie Park Houston, Texas 77068 01-187 Eunice E . Willimans Revocable Living Trust I 011 Eleanor Street College Station, Texas 77840-6174 01-187 Billie Jean Lee ET AL 1109 Arizona Street College Station, Texas 77840-420 I 1s 1 To~cof Pieces Total N umber of Pieces Listed by d er Received at Post Office s:' -...... J PS ~877, August 2000 Check type of mail or service : Affix Stamp Here a.= (If issued as a D Certified D Recorded Delivery (International ) certificate of mailing, t"' Gi'"'i 1'-~-z.tt.c-I " .. .,,. ~ "~ =.I • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 COD D Registered or for additional - D Delivery Confirmation D Return Receipt for Merchandise copies of this bill) l"m26·01~~ =t.l.5 D Express Mail D Signature Confirmation Postmark and -D Insured Date of Receint --Addressee Name , Street , and PO Address Postage Fee Handling Actual V< PB,..!TIA Charge if Registe "It -. ,, 1436-7 U.t. P08TAGI >-.. .... .. --.:--> kGE. s~ -Cl> "'!' u 'YT c ~~ 01 Q (II ~ ._ c c a: r.I ·-'" l'"' \ ·-= 6' J:' ·-"O Cl> .... .. <o" "' c .... ::s • c >----;:: -(,) .... ~'p{ r7 o-::c .. Cl> ·-.. .. a: ... ·-Cl) ft! ~ -E 0 ,;: cc .. (.) ~ ·-c G> a. 0 .. en c->-::s .. >-C'll .. c J..._1-----... .... > ·-·-fl) -.., p-~·1;w: The full declaration of value is requ ired on a I domestic and internatio na l re gistered ma il. The ma xi mum in dem ni ty payabl e for t he reconstruction of nonnegotiab le do cuments under Express Mail document reconstruction insurance is $500 pe r piece subj ec t to add itional limitations for multiple pieces lost or damages in a single catas troph ic occ urren ce. The max imum ind emn ity payab le on Express Mail merchandise insurance is $500 , but opt ional Express Ma il Service merchandise insuran ce is available for up to $5 ,000 to some , but not all countries . The max imum indemn ity payable is $25,000 for register ed ma il. See Domestic Mail Manual R900 , S913 , and S921 for limitations of coverage on insured and COD mai l. See Intern ational Mail Manu al for li mitations of coveraae on internationa l ma il. Spec ial handlina charaes apply onlv to Standard Ma il (Al and Standard Ma il (Bl parcel•. Gtfmplete by Typewriter, Ink, or Ball Point Pen / ea Lfi TATI N Check type of mail or service : Affix Stamp Here '== -~-.Z4itn*-' * P.0 Box 9960 (If issued as a • O Certified 0 Recorded D e livery (International) certificate of mailing, • 0 es,.,.~ _ -· 0 COD 0 Registered or for additional • College Station , TX 77842 ,~ • 0 Delivery Confirmation 0 Return Rec eipt for Merchandise copies of this bill) • I~. SlP 2 6'0 1 ~) l ~ :1 = 1 2 5 -• 0 Express Mail 0 Signature Confirmation Postmark and --• 0 Insured Date of Receiot * GES 0 I Handling Act 1 PBMntA * ' Nam e, St re et , and PO Address Postage Fee .. Charge if R• '"' 7114367 U.S. POSTAOI! .. Ol-I87 ,; -• W.L. Sisson 1005 University Drive E STE 105 College Station, Texas 77840-2I45 OI -I87 Jose G & Maria T Benavides I I 02 Phoenix Street College Station, Texas 77840-42I8 01-187 >-~ ~ Malvonee Merchant -~ > ·-I l 04 Phoenix Street ,,kGES ~" -cu -(,) .. College Station, Texas 77840-4218 ~ Vs& r\'-'\ CJ) -Gt ~ c Q a: ~. ·-.... 01-187 I 1 ~<0.~~ l~ ·-"C Q) -.. .. ~E = .. ::J Minnie Ruth McNeal ' c () -1106 Phoenix Street ~ ~~ ~ o-:c .. QI ·-.. .. a: -= ·-Ill College Station, Texas 77840-4218 .... -E .. .. ... 0 -a: .. (.) ~ OI-187 ·- Guillennina & Ofelia Banuelos c G> a. i .. U'I 400 Holleman Drive ,__::s .. College Station, Texas 77840-4297 >-n: .. c '"" .~· > t 't ·-U'I - 15 Q - ~ er of Pieces Total Number of Pieces Postmaster, Per (Name of receiving employee) The full declaration of value is requ ired on a I domestic and internat iona l reg is tered ma il. The ma xi mum ind emn ity pa yab le for the ida.Sender Rece ived at Post Office Bl+ reconstru ction of nonn egotiab le docum ents und er Expre ss Mai l docum ent rec on stru ctio n insur ance is $5 00 per piece su bject to J 5 add ition al limitat io ns for multipl e pieces lo st or damag es in a singl e catas tro ph ic occ urre nce . The maxim um in demnity payable __.. on Express Mail merchandise Insurance Is $500 , but optional Expres s Ma ll Serv ice merch and ise insu ran ce is availa ble fo r up to $5 ,000 to some , but not all countries . The ma ximum ind emn ity payable is $25 ,000 for registe red mail. See Domestic Mail Manual R900 , S913 , and S921 fo r limi tation s of cove rage on insured and COD ma il. Se e Internatio nal Mail Manual for limitations of coverage on international ma il. Soec ial handlina charaes aoolv on lv to Standard Ma il IA \ and Standard Mail 18 \ oa rce ls. I ,..,L __ ,_,,_ ...... T .. ·--••••:+..,.., In&, nr Aa.11 Dnl nt Pon I . '. ~ ~~reotl~ STATION P.O Box 9960 Coll g Station , TX 77842 01-187 Clara M oore 1100 Carolina Street College Station, Texas 77840-4204 01 -187 Lucille Granville CIO Alfred McGowan 753 28th Street Ogden, UT 84403-0257 01-187 Kimmie & Latonia Chambers Daily 1213 Arizona Street College Station, Texas 77840-4257 01-187 Jackie L Wiggins 1102 Carolina Street College Station, Texas 77840-4204 01-187 Lula Brown 1106 Carolina Street College Station, Texas 77840-4204 01 -187 Charlie A & Jocelyn V Hall 1108 Carolina Street College Station, Texas 77840-4204 15 To Number of Pieces Total Number of Pieces Li d byS~ Received at P.o st Office . t) JfJ Check type of mail or service : D Certified D Recorded Delive ry (International) 0 COD D Registered D Delivery Confir mation D Return Receipt for Merchandise r-i ,... ____ • -.. " D S ignature Confirmation Affix Stamp Here (If issued as a certificate of mailing, or for addi tional copi es of th is bill) Postmark and Date of Receio t Handling '-== ~-1.~ 1 -e ~ *a.-~ 0 .,.,. ~ "= ,,, ~ ~~ ~ · 'tim~ -1.so-.. "" SEP 2. 6'0 1 2 .,. •J_! : . : Actual Vall • * * * • • • • • • • ~am e, St reet, and PO Addre ss Postage Fee Charge ii Register< PBMfTIA ... T 11: 7114167 U.S. POlTAGE * ~· ~ ~ .. .... . • ~ ~ -> G> ·--u .. ai Q v c c a: ~ ·-~ - ~ "'GE Sr ·-"C Cl> .. .... .. 1A l'O c .... :s ~--c f-;.: -(,) -t_V( ~¢',,o ~' o-:c .. ~ jCJ ·-.. .... a: -~ .... .. ·-Ill ftl .... -' ~: ~~:;/'A E .. ,;.:; ... I 0 ~ a: \I' ... .... ... .. (,) ' ~ ·-~ .!_·'O ../" c G> a. -0 .. en ... :s -.... ~ " .. c ·~f-... ... , > ·-·-~ -.., -aiiIZ--The full de cl aratio n of va lue is requ ire d on a I dom es tic and international re gistere d mail. The maximu m in demnity payable for the reconstru ctio n of nonn egotiabl e docum ent s und er Express Mail doc ume nt reco nst ruction insurance is $500 per piece subject to add itional limitati on s fo r mu lti pl e piec es los t or damag es in a si ngle ca tas troph ic occ urre nce . Th e maxim um in dem nity pa yab le ,211-Expre ss Mail merchand ise insurance is $500 , but opti onal Expr ess Ma il Service mercha nd ise insurance is availa ble for up to $5 ,000 to some , but not all co un t ries. The max imum indemn ity pa yab le is $2 5,000 for registere d mail. See Domestic Mail Manual A900 , S913 , and S921 for li mitations of coverag e on insured and COO ma il. See Inte rn ational Mail Manual fo r li mitatio ns of coveraQ e on international ma il. Soe ci al handl ina charae s apply only to Sta ndard Ma il (A) and Standar d Mail (B) parcels . ____ ._ .... v ._ __ .. ________ .: .... __ •-• ... --et-•• n-=-• o ....... -. LEGAL NOTICE DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 ONLY BILL TO: Deborah Grace The City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 MasterCard # 5478-9900-0018-2794 Expires March 2004 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a rear setback variance for 320 Holleman Drive, lot 4, block 2 , McCulloch 's Subdivi sion . Applicant is Habitat for Humanity . The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall , 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6 :00 p .m . meeting of the Board on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 Any request for sign interpretive services fo r the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting . To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989 . For additional information, please contact me at (979) 764-3570 . Jessica Jimmerson Staff Planner September 26 , 2001 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Variance request for 320 Holleman Drive NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a variance request for the following property: Applicant: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Subject Property: 320 HOLLEMAN DR (See attached location map.) Proposed Variance: Rear Setback The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas . All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting . To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989 . For additional information, contact the City Planning Office , (979) 764-3570 . Jessica Jimmerson Staff Planner Deborah Grace -ZBA Applications , 316 & 320 Holleman From: To: Date: Subject: Trish , Art Roach Trish Burk 9/18/01 2 :02PM ZBA Applications, 316 & 320 Holleman The ZBA applications that Jim turned in had incorrect addresses on them (416 & 420 Holleman instead of 316 & 320 Holleman). I advised Development Services to go ahead and change the 4's to 3's . Please make the changes on your copy as well . Thanks , Art Roach Housing Development Coordinator City of College Station (979) 764-3811 CC: Deborah Grace