The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/02/2014 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments (2) Zoning Board of Adjustment September 2, 2014 6:00 P.M. Regular Meeting City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 1. Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Discussion of approved Administrative Adjustments.  14-00900173 - 2613 Cartington Ct.; Reduce Side Setback by 9 inches  14-00900188 - 8103 Raintree Dr.; Reduce Side Street Setback by 1.5 feet  14-00900196 - 1007 Harrington Ave.; Reduce Front Setback by 2.5 feet 3. Consideration, possible action and discussion to approve meeting minutes.  July 1, 2014 4. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a building setback variance for the property located at West Park 2nd Addition, Block A, Lot 13, generally located at 114 Park Place which is zoned GS General Suburban. Case # 14-00900190 (J. Cuarón) 5. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 6. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071; possible action. The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of College Station, Texas will be held on Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this the_____day of__________, 2014 at______p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By _____________________________ Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary By _____________________________ Kelly Templin, City Manager I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on___________________p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: ______________________ by _________________________. Dated this _____ day of____________, 2014. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_____________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the _____ day of_______________, 2014. ______________________________ Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:_________________ This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979.764.3517 or (TDD) 800.735.2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. M I N U T E S ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting July 1, 2014 City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Johnny Burns, Rick Floyd, David Ohendalski, Jim Davis and Alternate Gary Erwin MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Hunter Goodwin STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Planner Morgan Hester, Jessica Bullock and Jerry Cuaron, Principal Planner Jason Schubert, Assistant City Attorney John Haislet, Action Center Representative Jeremy Alderete AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order – Explanation of functions of the Board. Acting Chairman Burns called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of absence requests.  Chairman Hunter Goodwin – July 1, 2014 Board Member Floyd motioned to approve the absence request. Board Member Erwin seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Discussion of requested Administrative Adjustments.  (AA) – 3002, 3006, 3008, 3015 Papa Bear Drive; to allow driveways to be 2 feet wider  (AA) – 4703 Camargo Court; to remove the rear setback by 2 feet There was no discussion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, possible action and discussion to approve meeting minutes.  June 3, 2014 Meeting Minutes Board Member Erwin motioned to approve the minutes. Board Member Floyd seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a 10-foot rear setback variance for Lot 21, College Hills Woodlands Subdivision, generally located at 1109 Ashburn Avenue which is zoned GS General Suburban. Case # 14-900133 Staff Planner Hester presented the staff report and stated the applicant is requesting a reduction of 10 feet to the 20-foot rear setback. She ended her staff report by stating staff is recommending denial due to no special condition or hardship existing on the lot. Acting Chairman Burns opened the public hearing. Susan Droleskey, homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Burns. Ms. Droleskey gave a presentation and spoke in favor of the variance request. There was general discussions amongst the Board. Bob Droleskey, homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Actin Chairman Burns. Mr. Droleskey spoke in favor of the variance request. Mary Wells, 1106 Ashburn, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Burns. Ms. Wells spoke in favor of the variance request. Acting Chairman Burns closed the public hearing. Board Member Davis motioned to deny the variance request due to no special condition or hardship existing on the property. Board Member Erwin seconded the motion. There was general discussions amongst the Board. Acting Chairman called for the vote to deny. The Board voted (5-0) to deny the variance request. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a sign variance for the property located at Lot 1, Block V, University Park Phase 2, generally located at 809 University Drive East, Suite 100-A, which is zoned GC General Commercial with OV Corridor Overlay. Case # 14-900150 Staff Planner Hester presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting to allow two roof signs on the building in a building plot where a freestanding sign already exists. She ended her staff report by saying staff was recommending approval as a topographical hardship does exist on the property affecting the site’s visibility. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Acting Chairman Burns opened the public hearing. Brian Sowell, 1203 University Oaks Blvd, College Station, TX., representative for the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Burns. Mr. Sowell gave a brief presentation and spoke in favor of the variance request. Tai Lee, 805 Dove Landing Avenue, College Station, TX., proposed tenant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Burns. Mr. Lee spoke in favor of the variance request. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Acting Chairman Burns closed the public hearing Board Member Ohendalski motioned to approve the sign variance due to the topography of the property: and substantial hardship to the applicant being: inability to see the signage under strict ordinance conditions. Board Member Floyd seconded the motion, which passed (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO.7 : Consideration and possible action on future agenda items – A Zoning Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There were no items discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Board Member Davis motioned to adjourn. Board Member Ohendalski seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). The meeting was adjourned at 7:30. ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________________ _________________________________ Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Assistant Acting Chairman Johnny Burns Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 September 2, 2014 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 114 Park Place 14-00900190 REQUEST: A variance to Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-5.2 ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’, to allow for an 8-foot variance to the required rear setback of 20-feet. LOCATION: 114 Park Place West Park 2nd Addition, Block A, Lot 13 APPLICANT: Tim & Amber Krivdo, Property Owners PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Cuarón, Staff Planner gcuaron@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in the West Park Second Addition Subdivision and is zoned GS General Suburban, which allows for single-family residential uses. The property was originally platted in 1946 and is designated Urban and Redevelopment on the Comprehensive Future Land Use and Character Map. The applicant’s concrete foundation currently encroaches into the 20- foot rear setback eight (8) feet and this location is grandfathered. The applicant is proposing to construct a garage on the existing foundation. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 12-5.2, ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ to allow for a reduction of 8 feet to the 20-foot rear setback. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 12-5.2 ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 12-5.2, ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ sets design standard requirements that 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request as a hardship or special condition does not appear to exist in this case. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 September 2, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 September 2, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 September 2, 2014 NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: September 2, 2014 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: Property owner notices mailed: Twenty-two (22) Contacts in support: None at the time of this report. Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report. Inquiry contacts: One (1) at the time of this report. ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence North (Across Park Place) GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence South GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence East (Across Maryem Street) GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence West GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The subject property has approximately 70.5 feet of frontage on Park Place. 2. Access: The subject property is accessed from Park Place. 3. Topography and vegetation: The subject property is relatively flat with some mature vegetation. 4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The applicant states that due to the subject property being located on a corner lot, they will not be able to comply with the current rear building setback of 20 feet for the construction of their new garage. Staff does not believe that an extraordinary or special condition exists in this case as the surrounding properties are subject to the same rear setback. A strict application of the UDO would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 September 2, 2014 This property is located in the West Park Neighborhood and as designated on the Comprehensive Plan as Urban and Redevelopment. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the applicant. If the proposed variance is not granted, the garage will have to be built to meet the 20-foot rear setback in compliance with the UDO. The current use of the property as a single-family residence in an older subdivision is grandfathered to its current setback encroachment. If the proposed variance request is not granted, the applicant will still be allowed to use the property as a non-conforming structure; therefore, they are not being denied a substantial property right. 3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. Granting the variance would not be as detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO as the rear of this property is adjacent to an alley which separates it from the adjacent property. 4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO because the subject and surrounding properties cannot be further subdivided unless they comply with the subdivision regulations. 5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements due to no portion of this property being located within floodplain. 6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. For new construction, the same setback requirements apply to all properties zoned GS General Suburban and are not unique to this property. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. A hardship does not exist on the subject property. The applicant has proposed locating the new garage on an existing foundation. The request to encroach eight feet into the 20-foot rear setback is a result of the applicant’s own actions and is not the result of a special condition of the property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 September 2, 2014 8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan but does conflict with the provisions of this UDO in that it does not comply with current building setback requirements that are applicable to all new structures on single-family properties. 9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular property does not prohibit the applicant in the utilization of their property. The setback does not restrict the applicant from utilizing a large portion of the property. New structures can be built within required building setbacks. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has not provided any alternative solutions to the location of their garage outside of the rear building setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance request as a hardship or special condition does not exist in this case. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Survey and supporting information