Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/1998 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 1, 1998 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Hill, Happ, Warren, Murphy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lewis, Searcy, Lanier, Hausenfluck, Bailey. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Battle, Assistant City Attorney Robinson, Housing Program Coordinator Brumley, Staff Assistant Charanza. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. • Chairman Alexander called the B oard to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of August 18, 1998. Ms. Warren made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Happ seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to the side and rear setback requirement to allow the construction of a new single family home at 1114 Carolina to be built by the City of College Station Community Development office. Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to the side setbacks to allow construction of one new house with a garage. This lot is located in an older area of the city that is currently targeted for revitalization. The lot is currently vacant. The Community Development Office is proposing to construct a new house with cone-car garage on this lot. However, the house design is 38 feet wide and would encroach into the side setbacks. In addition, due to the shape of the lot, the front and rear setback lines run diagonally across the property. This would cause • the western rear corner of the house to encroach into the rear setback. ZBA Murutes September 1, 1998 Page 1 ojS It is difficult to find a house and garage design that could be built within the setbacks. The shape of the lot reduces the buildable depth of the lot. • It is not unusual for some Community Development houses to encroach into the setback. Some federal funding programs waive setback requirements. This particular funding does not fall into that category. Variances are intended to ensure equity by allowing an owner to develop in a way that is comparable to other similar developments in the city, and where the zoning ordinance would technically prevent it. Most new homes built within the city have a garage. In this case, the applicant feels that a garage could not be practical without a variance. Therefore, the hardship of not being able to build a garage could exist. Because this is a Community Development house, funds for construction are limited. In addition, funds used to build these houses are from grants that must be used this year (under contract by September 30). If plans for these houses cannot be finalized, then grant funds will be lost. Staff has identified the following alternatives: 1) Change the design of the house. Reducing the width of the house by 3 feet would allow it to fit within the setbacks. However, it may be difficult to find a design that includes a garage. 2) Build the house without a garage. However, it is reasonable to want a garage. On August 18, 1998, the Board granted a variance to the side setbacks of two houses being built by the Community Development Office. These were also houses being built with one-car garages on lots only 50 feet wide. The Board has also granted variances to the rear setback due to unusual lot shape. • Mr. Happ asked Mr. Battle if this house will be the same house design as the houses that came before the Board on August 18. Mr. Battle replied that he understands it to be the same design. Mr. Happ stated that he understood that the previous plan was a generic design and it is not an actual architectural drawing. Mr. Battle referred that question to Randy Brumley. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Randy Brumley from the College Station Community Development Office stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Brumley handed to the Board a copy of the house plans. Mr. Brumley stated that the plan was picked for this particular lot to efficiently utilize the use of the sq. ft. It was the plan to accommodate a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1 car garage. This house will be sold to first time home buyers and it is the desire of city staff to have it as nice as possible. Mr. Brumley explained to the Board that they are faced with two difficulties: 1) the lot being of minimal size (50'V~ and; 2) it is angled quite a bit due to the frontage on Carolina Street. Mr. Brumley referred to the site plan included in the packet of information showing how it angles. The front and rear setback makes it hard to find a plan that would fit with the particular setbacks. Mr. Brumley compared this lot with the lot on Southland Street that came before the Board at the last meeting and stated that this lot does not have the extra depth. Otherwise they would move the house back as far as possible to give more room in front. Mr. Brumley told the Board that the Community Development Staff has done around 30 projects in this area. The projects being a combination of renovations and new construction. It is the desire of the city staff to make this neighborhood more desirable through revitalization. • ZBA Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 2 ojS Ms. Warren asked Mr. Brumley if it was families that are purchasing the homes. Mr. Brumley replied by saying yes. The majority of them that are buying, are residents in that area or they have lived in the • area at one time and still have family and friends there and desire to move back. Chairman Alexander asked what the square footage of the home is. Mr. Brumley replied that it is right at 1200 sq. ft. heated and 1600 sq. ft. total slab. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Brumley what the cost of the home is. Mr. Brumley replied that since the time of scheduling this house for this meeting, they have let for bids and have received bids back in the range from $59,000 - $60,000. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Brumley if any of the other homes on the street required any variances, and do they all have one car garages. Mr. Brumley replied that the majority of the homes do not have garages and it is the desire of city staff to help initiate a move in the direction that nicer higher quality homes be built where possible. Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Brumley if a private builder or homeowner would be in the same situation needing a variance to put a floor plan with a garage like this on their property. Mr. Brumley replied yes. If a private developer where looking at this particular lot they would in fact need a variance. Mr. Hill stated that looking at the site plan it appears that the house plan has been crowded forward as far as possible (due to lot depth) to minimize the rear setback variance. Mr. Brumley replied that was correct because city staff did not want to ask for a variance to the front and back. It was decided that • more room in the front would be more desirable then having the added space in the back. This would provide the extra drive length and should there ever be sidewalk construction along the front then it would not all of a sudden be crowed. Mr. Hill stated because of the size of the lot, basically the entire buildable area is being used for all practical purposes. Mr. Brumley replied that was correct with the size and the orientation. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Brumley if any variances have been granted on lots around this particular lot. Mr. Brumley replied that he could answer the question in part. The city does have a particular program that could be used in this area of town. If an income eligible homeowner has a dilapidated structure and they are eligible for replacement housing, they have been waived by City Council approval of the program guidelines and they would get automatic variances. Occasionally it is used to replace structures but not in this situation. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Brumley if the majority of the lots in this area are of similar size. Mr. Brumley replied that the large majority are 50 x 100 feet. Most of the lots on the 3 or 4 streets in that area are minimal size lots. There are not a lot of large platted lots. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Brumley if the city currently owns or intends to acquire additional lots in this area for similar type of development. Mr. Brumley replied that city staff keeps an eye open for lots that might become available because of the ability to use Federal Funds to help in the renovation/revitalization process. The city does own a couple of lots on Detroit which is one or two • streets over. ZBA Minutes September 1, 1998 Page 3 ojS There are also one or two lots on Holleman. Mr. Brumley stated that city staff has been visiting with Habitat with Humanity. This area has turned around enough that Habitat has families that are wanting • to move there. The city is looking in the future, if not to donate lots to Habitat, but also help them obtained lots with Federal Funds. Mr. Brumley ended by saying that the Community Development Office may possibly be acquiring lots for their own use and possibly for Habitat in the future as well. Mr. Happ asked Mr. Brumley why does he want to put this quality of house in the neighborhood. Mr. Brumley replied that it is not the only home in the neighborhood that is going to have a garage. It was thought that a 3 bedroom, 2 bath home is desirable by families. The added space of the garage will help to encourage the revitalization and private investment on the streets in the subdivision. Mr. Brumley ended by saying they hope to see a situation where more and more developers or family members will find families that have benefited from one of the programs and will have other family members acquire lots close by. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Brumley if the purchaser of this house qualified for any special funding. Mr. Brumley replied that using the funds that is being used to build this property, staff would be obligated by Federal guidelines to make it available only to income eligible families. Mr. Hill stated that one of the reasons sited in this case, as in the previous cases for variances, has to do with time constraints and the pending expiration of the funding. If more time were given to work with the size and shape of the lot, would a plan be obtainable to meet the stated requirements and desire of the type of dwelling. Mr. Brumley stated that he believes given the right amount of money anything can be accomplished. So with the time and money, plans could be found to accommodate. Mr. Brumley further added that in the future if they had another minimally size lot or if it was oriented such that it • restricts the ability to build on it, they would probably ask for variances. Although it was mentioned that there is a time constraint on this one due to the grant funding year ending. Mr. Brumley told the Board if the variance was not granted what would probably happen is they would eliminate a bath or maybe the garage. This would enable the size dwelling needed and a parking pad would be in front verses the garage. However, the garage is desired for the quality of housing but it also helps with community appearance by encouraging people to store some belongings inside verses outside. Mr. Warren stated that the goals of the project, the small amount of variance that is being asked for is quite insignificant in terms of having the garage for storage of extra things. The garage is one thing in neighborhoods that can really develop an unsightly appearance. Ms. Warren stated that she was appreciative of staff wanting to have the garage. Chairman Alexander told Mr. Brumley that the whole Board is appreciate and thanked him for his time. Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Happ moved to authorize a variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638, minimum side and rear setbacks from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: these lots were not only platted at 50 foot widths, but were not platted as rectangular lots; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: unable to construct a dwelling that would meet all setback requirements and still be a viable and functional structure; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. • Mr. Hill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). ZBA Minuses September 1, 1998 Page 4 j5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other Business • Mr. Battle reminded the Board of the Citizens Banquet being held on September 15. There will be no regular meeting this night. Mr. Battle reminded the Board of the Workshop Meeting September 29 at 6:00 PM. There will be no regular meeting this night. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn Mr. Hill moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). APPROVED: Chairman, David .TTEST: • Staff Assistant, Deborah • ZBA Minutes September 1, 1998 Page S ojS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSrI'IVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.~ lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sy(,~A.~.~ I~~1' minimumrsetbacl~ parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: ~h`~ ~s u~c ~ az` ~'a G~l~ ~ l~~c ~Ir~' ,C~Gi~~rts ,~'~r~,o and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result. in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: zv ~ ~ ~ ~C,U~-~' lca. ~wiG~a.r.C. and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by /! Date ~~~~" ~~ l .~ -- O Seconded by ~C. C,S ~ ~ ~~ „ Results Chair Signature YARP1638.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment [] i• ~ • Guest Register Date c_tc~'C~? c- ~ . ~ ~~~ Name 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address