Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA MINUTES October 3, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance to the lot dimensions and setback requirements for Steeplechase Subdivision Phase 7 & 8 at 105 Navarro. Applicant is McClure Engineering. Ms. Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board that variance is only for the portion zoned R-3. The request is to allow for more efficient use of the land and to simplify the maintenance of common areas. Variance Information Required: Lot size: 2000 SF minimum Lot width: 20 ft. Lot Depth: 100 ft. Setbacks: Front: 25 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Side: 7.5 ft. Lot line construction is only allowed where access to the rear of the building is provided. Requested: Lot size: 2000 SF Minimum Lot Width: minimum is 20 ft and it is expected to exceed this Lot Depth: none Setbacks: Lots 1-27 Lots 29-31 Lots 28 & 32 Front: 6 ft Front: 6 ft Front: 6 ft Rear: 10 ft Rear: 20 ft Rear: 20 ft Side: none Side: none Side: 7.5 ft Lot line construction to be allowed without providing access to the rear of the building. The applicant is proposing to meet the lot size requirement for the R-3 district, which is 2000 SF. The applicant would like the flexibility to do it with different lot dimensions than those prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance (20 x 100). This would be similar to the requirements for the R -1A and R -1B districts that do not have set minimum dimensions for lot width and depth. Additionally, the applicant is asking for the variances to the setbacks to simplify the lot line layout for the project. To meet the setback requirements the lot lines would have to extend into the parking space between two lots. Even though these areas would be required to have parking easements, conflicts over use and maintenance could result. The applicant has varied his setback request based on the location of the proposed lots. For those lots interior to the project (1-27), the largest variances are being requested. For the row of lots directly adjacent to the neighboring properties, the applicant is proposing to meet the setback requirements for those property lines they have in common with outside property owners. In this manner they do not infringe on the adjacent property owner's open space or access to light. The common areas at the end of the building rows address the need for open space and light interior to the project. A concern may arise in respect to the overall density that may result when setback variances are granted. The R-3 zoning district has a maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is comprised of approximately 3.5 acres, which would allow for up to 49 units. The 32 units proposed result in a density of approximately 9 dwelling units per acre. In an attempt to encourage developers to move parking from in front of buildings, to alleviate congestion and traffic hazards, as well as, to remove parking from public view, several different zoning districts offer the incentive of lesser setbacks. In the R-3 zoning district, exception B listed in Table A allows lot line construction if access is provided to the rear of the buildings. The applicant's proposal provides for more off-street parking than the Ordinance requires and the majority of parking spaces is screened from public view by the building layout. In summary, the applicant is requesting variances to: the minimum lot width and depth for all lots to zero, a variance to the front setback of all lots of 19 feet from the 25 foot requirement, a variance to the rear setback for lots 1-27 of 10 feet from the 20 foot requirement and a variance allowing side lot line construction without providing rear vehicular access to all lots, which will result in a side setback variance for lots 1-27 and 29-31 of 7.5 feet from the 7.5 foot requirement. The special conditions the Board can consider are: - The driveway alignment that is required by the driveway ordinance. - The turning radii requirements for an internal street system, including emergency vehicle access. - The irregular configuration of the property. - That the Homeowner's Association will be necessary to maintain the access -ways, the parking areas and the common areas. The applicant believes that meeting the provisions of the ordinance would be an inefficient use of the land and that the proposed development meets the intent or the zoning district in which it is to be located. Staff has identified the following alternatives: - Lot lines can be extended to the centerline of the access -ways, allowing each lot to meet the requirements of Table A. - The applicant could attempt to rezone the property to a PDD -H (Planned Development District for Housing). - The may grant variances less than those requested. Mr. Richards asked for clarification to Table A in the Zoning Ordinance as it states: lot line construction on interior lots is allowed where access to the rear of the building is provided on the site or by dedicated right-of-way or easement. Ms Jimmerson stated that an access through an easement would need to be provided behind the buildings. At this time it is only being proposed behind the buildings. On lots 1-27 there are looking for a 10 -ft rear setback which will be used as a utility easement not as an access easement. Ms. Jimmerson stated that that area might be used as a yard or public area Utilities would be in that area and they don't want to have to pave it and provide vehicular access. Mr. Richards asked if the Fire Department has any problems with this plan. Ms. Jimmerson replied that drive access around the building was designed in such a way that the fire trucks can maneuver through the development. There will also be additional requirements for a firewall. Mr. Richards asked if it is acceptable by the Fire Department. Ms. Jimmerson replied that they have no problem with the layout. There were questions & discussions concerning the driveway. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board that the Engineer could better answer their questions. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Mike McClure, the Engineer, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. McClure told the Board that he was there representing the Developer, Brazos Triad Land Development Partnership. Mr. McClure also stated that the purchaser of the property, Mr. Blake Cathey, is also in attendance. Mr. McClure began by clarifying some questions of the Board. Mr. McClure explained to the Board that the reason they did not chose to rezone the property to PDD -H. Staff asked if they did rezone the tract of land to rezone the entire tracks not one part. Mr. McClure went over the layout for the tract of land and the area of land that is closest to Wellborn Road, which is, zoned C-1. That area is being marketed and there are no plans as to what will go into that area. The only thing that could be determined is the access point. In order to meet the driveway ordinance city staff directed them to align the access driveway with Pronghorn Loop. Mr. McClure told the Board that the internal circulation and coordination for emergency vehicles have been given adequate space. Mr. McClure described to the Board from that point they looked at the irregularity of the property and townhomes were the best for the tract of land. Mr. McClure stated that he saw one item in the staff report that was not clear. On lots 28-32 he believes what is being requested is a 0 setback on side and a 15' foot setback on the other. Mr. McClure ended by telling the Board that a homeowner's association will be formed to maintain the common area The only area being sold will be the lot. Mr. Richards asked Mr. McClure what the target audience was for the townhomes. Mr. McClure replied that he would expect students. Mr. Richards asked about the landscaping. Mr. McClure replied that a 15 -foot landscaping buffer will be provided along the most westerly side and it will be extensively landscaped. There will also be a fence around the perimeter that will match the fencing along Navarro now. Mr. Hill asked if the rear of the townhomes would be fenced. Mr. McClure replied and he would anticipate that it would since it will be a yard area Chairman Bond told Mr. McClure that he has mentioned one hardship of meeting the requirements of the variance. The hardship being it would not be an efficient use of the land. Chairman Bond asked Mr. McClure to explain that. Mr. McClure replied that if he took a 20 x 100 -foot lot and placed the townhomes within the site it would not be very efficient. Chairman Bond asked if that meant not being able to fit as many townhomes on a piece of land. Mr. McClure replied that zoning allows up to 14 units to an acre and they are not getting that even with this configuration. Mr. McClure stated that it just would not be practical. Chairman Bond stated that his only concern is that when someone presents a case that a piece of land may not be suitable to meet the zoning ordinances. There are going to be times that you can not do what you want to do based on zoning ordinances. Chairman Bond stated that he is confused with the hardship of not an efficient use of the land. Chairman Bond added that he takes that to mean that your not able to build as many structures as proposed in the given space. Chairman Bond stated that if he could got a real understanding of how efficiency is a hardship other than the fact that it is going to be less money. Mr. McClure responded that leaving large areas unplanned is not good. Chairman Bond added that to him that is the whole intent of ordinances. Mr. McClure added that it is high maintenance and you have to have enough people there to justify the cost in maintaining such areas. This is a preaxial location for this type housing. Chairman Bond asked Mr. McClure to explain why. Mr. McClure answered it's proximity to R-2 zoning and it is sort of a step up from the C-1 zoning and it is a very appropriate thing to have between an R-2 and C-1 zoning areas. Mr. Hill asked Mr. McClure if he was required to meet the entire ordinance would he be able to put the same number of units on this piece of property. Mr. McClure replied that he would doubt it. Mr. Hill asked Mr. McClure what amount of reduction it would be if he had to comply with ordinances. Mr. McClure answered that initially he did sketch them out and he could see that he would have trouble with the emergency access and the turning radius and it was seen that it was not a good way to lay it out. Mr. McClure stated that it would probably reduce it to at least 70%. Mr. Hill stated that a big concern of his is the complete lack of rear access. If the unit on lot 18 caught fire, which is in the middle of the 7 -unit row, how would the fire department get to the rear of the unit. Mr. McClure replied that he asked the proposed builder how he would consider that problem and he mentioned that they would probably be placing gates all through to where a hose could be dragged through. Chairman Bond asked Mr. McClure if the Fire Department has signed off on the development. Mr. McClure replied they have not totally signed off on it. They need to see another layer of detail that would be done neat on the Preliminary Plat. The Fire Department has given the plan their initial look. Mr. McClure stated that the Fire Department has two more reviews to look at. Mr. Sheffy asked if a plan has been sketched out showing it meeting the requirements. Mr. McClure replied that it was not going to work. Mr. Sheffy asked it was not going to work because of efficiency. Mr. McClure replied because of the amount of street that is being generated and the price tag that would have to be asked. It would not be a marketable product. Ms. Jimmerson added that the Planning Staff looks at the fire protection. Unless there is a very unusual site the Fire Marshall is not called in to look at a site plan or plat specifically. This plan meets all the requirements. Generally any portion of a building needs to be within 150 ft. of the fire lane. The accessways that are being provided meet the fire lane requirements. Everything on this site is within range of fire fighting abilities. They would not necessarily require access to the rear of the buildings. Mr. Hill asked if the requirement for rear access on a zero lot line building is it motivated at all by access by fire fighting crews. Ms. Jimmerson replied not for fire, it is primarily for alleviating on street traffic and the site aesthics of the property. There are incentives in R-2 to reduce the front and side setbacks if they provide the parking to the rear instead of the front. This is a similar requirement. They are asking for the access and the parking to be out of the public view and off the main thoroughfare in the city streets. Blake Cathey, 3512 Regal Row, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Cathey asked the Board to look at the proposed lot configuration. Mr. Cathey spoke about the Campus Park development that is similar to this project. It was approved asPDD zoning. A 10 -foot setback in the rear was used because they did not want a large backyard. The property lines were also extended out to the center of the driveway giving them something close again to the 100 ft. requirement that is under the Zoning Ordinance. In the case it was dropped back to make the parking area part of the homeowner's Association for maintenance purposes. Chairman Bond asked if there is anything other than financial reasons that would create a hardship for following the ordinance. Mr. Cathey answered that it would put a hardship on the HOA. Chairman Bond asked in what way. Mr. Cathey replied that the property line is going to be extended into the center of the parking lots making the homeowners responsible for parking areas that may or may not be used by them. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Lewis stated that he thought a good case was made for the way the zoning was established for the area. The step down effect as you approach Wellborn Road was a good idea Mr. Hill stated that he thought the parking spaces becoming the concern of the HOA is valid point. Mr. Hill stated that a major concern he has no rear access. Even though it is not a requirement. Mr. Lewis made the motion to authorize a variance to the lot width, depth and minimum setback requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary tot he public interest, due to the following special conditions: irregular configuration of lot, difficulty with complying with driveway alignment and emergency vehicle turning radii; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: nearly impossible to develop an R-3 development as it is zoned; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following special limitations: lot size not less than 2000 sq. ft., minimum 20 ft. between buildings, HOA required to maintain common areas, driveways and parking. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Mr. Hill stated that he does not see any hardship that can be defined other than financial. There were discussions among the Board concerning the motion. Chairman Bond called for a vote as presented by Mr. Lewis. Board vote was (3-2). The motion to authorize a variance failed. Chairman Bond and Mr. Hill, voting against granting the variance.