Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Graham Sheffy, Josh Benn, Donald Braune & John Richards. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternates Derek Dictson & Denise Whisenant were in the audience. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner Trey Fletcher, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Lance Simms. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goss called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. No requests were submitted. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action, to consider a variance for 1000 Spring Loop, Lots 4 -9, Block U, University Park Phase II. Applicant is Municipal Development Group for River Ridge Townhomes, LTD. (05 -240) Senior Planner Trey Fletcher presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a new multi - family residential development. River Ridge Townhomes LTD is in the process of developing "84 townhouse -style condos" on Spring Loop. The parcel was recently rezoned from A -P Administrative Professional to R -4 Multi - family with a condition that all access is to /from Spring Loop, and a second emergency access may be to /from the public alley near the northwest corner of the parcel. The applicant states that "these apartments would meet the parking requirements if they were platted as townhomes, i.e. no change to the drawing except lot calls ". The UDO defines townhomes as "one of a group of no less than three, nor more than twelve, attached dwelling units, each dwelling unit located on a separate lot and thereby distinguished from condominium units ". A multi - family dwelling (also referenced as an apartment building) is defined as, "A residential structure providing complete, independent living facilities for three or more families or households living independently of each other and including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation in each unit. Condominiums are included in the definition." The UDO requires townhomes to provide parking for two vehicles per dwelling unit. Parking for multi - family is based upon the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing 2- bedroom units exclusively; these require 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom, except when each bedroom has less than 130 square feet, 1.25 parking spaces per bedroom as required. With a proposal for 84 two- bedroom units, a complex would be required to provide 252 parking spaces. The applicant would like to provide 176 spaces, thus requesting a variance of 76 parking spaces. Under Special Conditions and Hardships on the application, the applicant does not address any attributes of the specific property in question but states that the only difference between the townhome and condominium parking requirements is the why the property is platted. The applicant states that, "the technically of drawing lot in no way changes the site plan physically. The proposed parking would actually be surplus." As referenced in the previous section, townhomes must have each dwelling unit located on a separate lot and are thereby distinguished from condominium units. That is, each lot must have frontage to a public street, or private street constructed to a public standard. This includes a minimum right -of -way of 50 -feet and the parking to be provided off - street. Required front setbacks may be reduced when rear access to the lot is provided. The applicant has stated that the project could be abandoned or the number of units reduced. Another alternative involves constructing the same density but reconfiguring the design to free additional land for surface parking. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Greg Taggert with Municipal Development Group was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Taggert handed the Board a modified site plan and stated that the plan has been reworked and he can now get 207 parking paces and only needs a variance for 45 parking spaces. Mr. Richards had concerns with it being a gated community and it having only one way in and out. Mr. Benn asked about the special conditions. Mr. Taggert stated that the gas line running through the property would be the special condition. Also the property is sloped and there are utility and access easements on one side that would be a special conditions as well for the lot. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Richards made the motion to deny the parking variance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Braune seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). ZBA Minutes September 6, 2005 Page 2 of 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, consideration and possible action, to consider a variance for 316 Pershing, Lots 19 & 20, Block 5, Oakwood Addition. Applicant is Darrell Barrington LLC. (05 -133) Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff and stated that the applicant is requesting the variances to allow the builder to continue the construction of a single family home. When the UDO was adopted in 2003, a provision for contextual front setbacks was made to aide the compatibility of infill development in older residential neighborhoods, it states: where an existing block was created by an approved plat prior to July 15, 1970, a new (infill) single - family dwelling unit shall use the adjacent lots to determine the appropriate front yard setback. The new dwelling until shall be set no closer to the street or farther back from the street than the nearest neighboring units. The site the applicant was using was approved in error by the City. The standard single family front setback of 25 feet was shown on the plan, but contextual setbacks apply in this area. The subject property was built with a front setback of 24.88 feet. The neighboring property has a front setback of 44.41 feet; thus the variance of 20 feet is requested to the front setback. The property's survey shows the required 7.5 foot side setback to be at 7.32 feet; thus a variance of 3 inches is requested to the side setback. The applicant states as a special condition that the setback information was not the deed, slab survey, or building permit. t The applicant states as a hardship that the location of the house has been established. The Board may grant lesser variances. Such an alternative will require the removal of the existing foundation. Mr. Simms told the Board that one individual does all the plan review for single- family building permits. He is relatively new and he was certainly aware of the setbacks. This plan was reviewed and approved prior to the other case the Board heard concerning the same type variance (210 Timber). It was the slab surveyor who told the builder that he complied with the standard 25 -foot setback but not the contextual setback. Mr. Simms told the Board that the Plans Examiner is aware of this now. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Darrell Barrington stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Barrington explained that the house will enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Richards stated that with a home this size the parking is a concern for him. ZBA Minutes September 6, 2005 Page 3 of 5 The following spoke in fav,,r of the request: Charles McCandless, 310 Suffolk Sandy Hoekstra, 210 Lee Bruce Hoekstra, 210 Lee Jeanette McCandless, 310 Suffolk Greg Normand, 315 Suffolk, Debbie Napoli, 300 Pershing Hugh Sterns, 316 Suffolk, stepped before the Board. Mr. Sterns was not speaking in opposition to this variance, but to others coming in and building on the entire lot. He questioned what president is the Board setting. Mr. Benn asked Mr. Barrington about him continuing to construct the home when he knew there was a problem. Mr. Barrington stated that he has already put in $350,000 in work and figured another $30,000 would not make that big of a difference. Patricia McDermott, 701 Dexter, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Ms. McDermott voiced concern how the city could have over looked something like this. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Benn made the motion to authorize the variance of 20 -feet to the front setback variance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: that the setback information was not described in the deed, slab survey or building permit issued by the city; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: that the location of the house has been established; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed (5 -0). Mr. Sheffy made the motion to authorize the variance of 3- inches to the side setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: due to the smallness of the variance; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: small variance and minor correction to the house; and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed (4 -1). Mr. Benn voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. — None to report. ZBA Minutes September 6, 2005 Page 4 of 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items — A Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There were no future items discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. Chairman ZBA Minutes September 6„ 2005 Page 5 of 5