Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA MINUTES February 1, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a rear setback at 1114 Carolina Street, lot 23, block 3, McCulloch Subdivision. Applicant is The City of College Station Community Development Office. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that on September 1, 1998 the Board granted this property variances to the side and rear setbacks. The Board granted a 3 foot 1 inch variance to the rear setback and a 1.5 foot variance to the side setbacks. The variances allow for a rear setback of 21 feet 11 inches and side setbacks of 6.0 feet. The variances were granted base on a special condition of the property being at minimal size and irregular shape, thus causing a hardship of not being able to construct a dwelling that would be a viable and functional structure. The variances were granted before construction began on the home. The construction is now complete and the final survey for title has revealed that the side setback to the east is only 5.19 feet from the property line. The rear setback and side setback to the west meets the variance previously given. Since the home did not meet the side setback variance previously given, city staff has requested that the Community Development Office come back to the Board. Thus, the applicant is requesting a .81 inches additional variance to meet the east side setback for a total variance of 2.31 feet. The applicant is again asking for a special condition relating to the irregular lot shape. While the minutes of the meeting held on September 1, 1998 show that the irregular shape caused concern for meeting the rear setbacks, it was not realized that the lot shape would also affect the side setback requirements. The house is built at 38 feet in width as was planned and submitted before you previously; however, when the rectangular shaped house was constructed the parallelogram shaped lot, an additional encroachment resulted. It is not unusual for some Community Development houses to encroach into the setback. Some federal funding programs waive setback requirements. This particular funding however does not fall into that category. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Randy Brumley, Housing Program Coordinator with the Community Development Office, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Brumley handed the Board Members an as built survey showing an additional dimension to help the Board understand the violation. Mr. Brumley reminded the Board that in September of 98 when the variance was granted the desire was too encourage redevelopment in the area The homes are built using Federal Funds and sold to first time homebuyers. The city staff's desire was to build the nicest home possible. Mr. Brumley ended by telling the Board that they have a buyer and they will proceed with the sale of the home if the variance is granted. With no one stepping forward to speak in opposition of the variance Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill 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 size and shape of the lot make it extremely difficult to build housing with all the desired features; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: efforts to revitalize this neighborhood would be hampered if this variance is not granted; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the previously granted side setback variance of 1.5 feet shall be increased to allow a side setback variance of 2.31 feet. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). Mr. Bond questioned the special conditions. Mr. Hill stated his reasoning is that without the variance features would be cut out, it would reduce the number of rooms and the garage deleted. Mr. Hill added that it would make the house less desirable. Mr. Bond stated that his concern is if we talk about desired features that would infer that things are wanted that they can not have. Mr. Hill replied that he understood but part of that is going back to the original case. Mr. Murphy read the motion granted September 1, 1998. Mr. Bond stated that he did not want it to be a variance for luxury. Mr. Hill made an amendment to the motion. The amendment to the special conditions will read: the size and shape of the lot make it extremely difficult to build a viable and functional structure. Mr. Murphy seconded the amendment. The Board voted for granting the variance (5-0).