HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT
Date: March 1, 2000 ZBA Meeting Date: March 7, 2000
APPLICANT: George and Hillary Jessup
REQUEST: Rear setback variance
LOCATION: 115 Lee Street
PURPOSE: To allow the construction of a new garage.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant: Property Owner
Property Owner: same
Applicable
Ordinance Section: Section 7, District Use Schedule - Table A
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land The subject property and all surrounding properties are
Use: zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Oakwood Middle
School is located to the east, whereas the rest of the area
is developed as single family residential.
Frontage: 100' of frontage on Lee Avenue and 100' along
Timber Street.
Access: The main structure is provided access via a driveway
on Lee Street, the existing rear garage is currently
provided access via two driveways, one on Lee
Avenue and one on Timber.
The proposed plan shows the existing driveway on
Lee Avenue to be removed and replaced with a
circular drive. The site plan also shows a proposed
widening of the driveway on Timber Street that serves
the existing garage. The proposed driveway on
Timber does not meet the Driveway Ordinance and
thus, the applicant will need to seek a variance from
the Project Review Committee (PRC).
Lot Dimensions: 1 00' x 153'
P:AFITLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ02778.DOC
Topography &
Vegetation: The property is relatively flat, with mostly landscaped
vegetation, however several trees scatter the lot.
Flood Plain: Not located within a flood plain.
VARIANCE INFORMATION
Setback Required: Garages have a required rear setback of 20 feet.
Setback Requested: 9 foot rear setback.
Case Overview: The applicant currently has a nonconforming garage
located in the far rear corner of the subject property.
The existing garage is nonconforming to both the rear
and side setback requirements. The applicant wishes
to demolish the existing garage in conjunction with a
home remodeling project and replace it with an
attached 975 square foot garage that is conforming to
the side setback, but would be located only 9 feet
from the rear property line. Thus, the applicant is
requesting a variance of 11 feet to the rear
setback.
ANALYSIS
Special Conditions: The applicant states a special condition of the home
being positioned toward the rear of the lot, with a 75
foot front setback. The applicant argues that the
location of the home severely limits the options for
expansion of the home toward the rear. In addition,
the subject property backs to Timber Street thus, no
residences would be affected by the encroachment
into the rear setback.
Hardships: The applicant offers a hardship of the need for
additional security that is obtained and the access
afforded by an attached enclosed garage. The
applicant states that the garage addition would only
be possible if the requested variance is granted.
The home is one of the oldest homes in College
Station. Attaching the garage to the front of the
structure may hinder the historic character of the
home.
P:AFITLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ02778.DOC
Alternatives: The applicant has offered the following alternatives:
Leave the existing garage in place. The existing
garage is 8 feet closer to the rear property line and
also fully encroaches into the side setback.
2. Instead of having an attached garage, construct
an unpaved parking pad in the same location.
As with all variances, the Board may also grant less
than the requested variance amount.
RUxdFill alN;101:7LriU1161011
Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements usually allow for some
degree of control over population density, access to
light and air, and fire protection. Rear setbacks also
provide for a usable backyard area. These standards
are typically justified on the basis of the protection of
property values.
Similar Requests: In the past, the Board has granted variance requests
to rear setbacks for the placement of garages and
other accessory structures when large alleys or utility
easements were present. Most of these cases have
dealt with older existing homes that create special
conditions to restrict their expansion, or restrict the
placement of the new garage.
Number of Property 12
Owners Notified:
Responses Received: I have received three responses pertaining to this
case. The callers expressed no particular opinions
for or against.
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Application
Site Plan
P:AFITLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ02778.DOC