Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT Date: April 26, 2000 ZBA Meeting Date: May 2, 2000 APPLICANT: John J. Albernaz, Inc. REQUEST: Variance to the side street setback LOCATION: 2100 Maplewood Court PURPOSE: To legitimize an encroachment into the side street setback. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Builder Property Owner: Eddie and Lori Archibeque Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7, Table A — District Use Schedule PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: The subject property and the areas to the north, south and west are zoned and developed as R-lA, Single Family Residential. The abutting property to the east is located in a large A -O, Agricultural Open undeveloped area. Frontage: Maplewood Court 94' Appomatox Drive 130' Access: Access is provided via a driveway onto Maplewood Court. Topography & Relatively flat with landscaped vegetation. Vegetation: Flood Plain: Not located within a flood plain P:\HTL TR\PZL TR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ02972. DOC VARIANCE INFORMATION Setback Required: 15' side street setback is required. Setback Requested: 13.35' side street setback is requested. Case Overview: The subject property is located on the corner of Maplewood Court, a cul de sac, and Appomattox Drive. Maplewood Court is considered to constitute the front of the home, while the west side of the home has frontage along the side street Appomattox Drive. This case involves a recently constructed home that, at the time of sale, was found to encroach into the required side street setback along Appomattox. A survey of the subject property shows an 18.21' section of the home that is only 13.35' (instead of the required 15') from the property line along Appomattox Drive, thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.65' to the side street setback requirements. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The applicant offers a special condition of a subtle curvature in Appomattox Drive that resulted in a foundation placement miscalculation that led to the subsequent encroachment. The applicant adds that the site plan and construction was approved by the College Station Building Department, however these inspections were based on erroneous site data that did not take into account the curvature of the road. Hardships: The applicant has stated a hardship of the only remedy to the encroachment being the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. He argues that such removal and replacement would cause the structural integrity of the entire structure to be unsafe. The City is not currently under the policy of enforcing setbacks when encroachments are found, however failure to remedy the encroachment through reconstruction or variance could make future sales of the home difficult. Alternatives: The only alternative to the variance which would clear up future surveys that has been found by the applicant and P:\HTL TR\PZL TR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ02972. DOC Staff is to remove the area that is encroaching into the side street setback. P:\HTL TR\PZL TR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ02972. DOC SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements usually allows 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. Similar Requests: All cases found relating to side street setback variances were in relation to an encroachment of a garage, which have a minimum side street setback of 20 feet. Unusual lot shape and irregular lot size were special conditions in the instances where a variance was granted. Number of Property Owners Notified: 13 Responses Received: I have received three calls regarding this case, however no particular opinions for or against were expressed. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Survey P:\HTL TR\PZL TR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ02972. DOC