Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report DraftSTAFF REPORT Date: 9/27/00 ZBA Meeting Date: 10/3/00 APPLICANT: Mike McClure REQUEST: Lot dimension and setback variances LOCATION: Steeplechase Phase 7 PURPOSE: To allow for a more efficient use of the land and to simplify the maintenance of common areas. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Project Engineer Property Owner: John Duncum, Brazos Triad Land Development Partnership Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7 District Regulations; Table A Area Requirements PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: Subject Recently rezoned to R-3, Townhomes. The site is currently Property: vacant. It is shown on Land Use Plan as high density residential. North: Zoned A -O, with some existing residential development. West: Zoned C-1, and currently vacant. East: Zoned R-2, and recently developed as part of the larger Steeplechase Master Development plan. South: Across Navarro is zoned A -O and R1 -B. The A -O portion has an existing mini -warehouse. The R1 -B was also recently developed as part of the larger Steeplechase development. Frontage: Approximately 395 feet of frontage on Navarro. Access: To comply with the driveway ordinance, only one access drive will be permitted, and it is required to align with the existing Pronghorn Loop. Topography & Vegetation: It is a relatively flat, open field. Flood Plain: Not located in the floodplain P:\FITLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ03682.DOC Page 1 of 4 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 (same as required) Lot Width: none Lot Depth: none Setbacks: Lots 1-27 Lots29-31 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. Case Overview: 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 (20x100). This would be similar to the requirements for the R-1 A and R-1 B 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 areas and accessways, sometimes splitting one 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 a setback variance is 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 P:AFITLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ03682.DOC Page 2 of 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 are screened from public view by the building layout. In summary, the applicant is requesting variances to: the minimum lot with 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 the 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. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The following special conditions may be considered by the Board: 1. The driveway alignment that is required by the driveway ordinance. 2. The turning radii requirements for an internal street system, including emergency vehicle access. 3. The irregular configuration of the property. 4. That a Homeowner's Association will be necessary to maintain the accessways, the parking areas and the common areas. Hardships: 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 of the zoning district in which it is to be located. Alternatives: Staff has identified the following alternatives: 1. Lot lines can be extended to the centerline of the accessways, allowing each lot to meet the requirements of Table A. 2. The applicant could attempt to rezone the property to a PDD -H (Planned Development District for Housing). 3. The Board may grant variances less than those requested. P:AFITLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ03682.DOC Page 3 of 4 SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Minimum lot size and building setback requirements usually allow 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. The purpose statement for the R-3 Townhome District states that: "This district contains land which is to be used for a unique type of dwelling, which is designed for individual ownership or ownership in group of single family attached residences constructed on individually platted lots." Similar Requests: Number of Property Owners Notified: Responses Received: ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Site Plan No similar requests were located. 25 None as of date of staff report. P:\FITLTR\PZLTR\PROD\PZ2000\PZ03682.DOC Page 4 of 4