Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/2005 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Graham Sheffy, Josh Benn, Donald Braune & John Richards. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternates Derek Dictson & Denise Whisenant were in the audience. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner Trey Fletcher, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Lance Simms. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Goss called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. No requests were submitted. AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action, to consider a variance for 1000 Spring Loop, Lots 4-9, Block U, University Park Phase II. Applicant is Municipal Development Group for River Ridge Townhomes, LTD. (OS-240) Senior Planner Trey Fletcher presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a new multi-family residential development. River Ridge Townhomes LTD is in the process of developing "84 townhouse-style condos" on Spring Loop. The parcel was recently rezoned from A-P Administrative Professional to R-4 Multi-family with a condition that all access is to/from Spring Loop, and a second emergency access may be to/from the public alley near the northwest corner of the parcel. The applicant states that "these apartments would meet the parking requirements if they were platted as twnhomes, i.e. no change to the drawing except lot calls". The UDO defines twnhomes as "one of a group of no less than three, nor more than twelve, attached dwelling units, each dwelling unit located on a separate lot and thereby distinguished from condominium units". Amulti-family dwelling (also referenced as an apartment building) is defined as, "A residential structure providing complete, independent living facilities for three or more families or households living independently of each other and including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation in each unit. Condominiums are included in the definition." • The UDO requires townhomes to provide parking for two vehicles per dwelling unit. Parking for multi-family is based upon the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing 2- bedroom units exclusively; these require 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom, except when each bedroom .has less than 130 square feet, 1.25 parking spaces per bedroom as required. With a proposal for 84 two-bedroom units, a complex would be required to provide 252 parking spaces. The applicant would like to provide 176 spaces, thus requesting a variance of 76 parking spaces. Under Special Conditions and Hardships on the application, the applicant does not address any attributes of the specific property in question but states that the only difference between the townhome and condominium parking requirements is the why the property is platted. The applicant states that, "the technically of drawing lot in no way changes the site plan physically. The proposed parking would actually be surplus." As referenced in the previous section, townhomes must have each dwelling unit located on a separate lot and are thereby distinguished from condominium units. That is, each lot must have frontage to a public street, or private street constructed to a public standard. This includes a minimum right-of--way of 50-feet and the parking to be provided off-street. Required front setbacks may be reduced when rear access to the lot is provided. The applicant has stated that the project could be abandoned or the number of units reduced. Another alternative involves constructing the same density but reconfiguring the design to free additional land for surface parking. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. • h irman Goss. Mr. Ta ert Greg Taggert with Mumcipal Development Group was sworn m by C a gg handed the Board a modified site plan and stated that the plan has been reworked and he can now get 207 parking paces and only needs a variance for 45 parking spaces. Mr. Richards had concerns with it being a gated community and it having only one way in and out. Mr. Benn asked about the special conditions. Mr. Taggert stated that the gas line running through the property would be the special condition. Also the property is sloped and there are utility and access easements on one side that would be a special conditions as well for the lot. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Richards made the motion to deny the parking variance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Braune seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). • ZBA Minutes September 6, 2005 Page 2 of S AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, consideration and possible . action, to consider a variance for 316 Pershing, Lots 19 & 20, Block 5, Oakwood Addition. Applicant is Darrell Barrington LLC. (OS-133) Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff and stated that the applicant is requesting the variances to allow the builder to continue the construction of a single family home. When the UDO was adopted in 2003, a provision for contextual front setbacks was made to aide the compatibility of infill development in older residential neighborhoods, it states: where an existing block was created by an approved plat prior to July 15, 1970, a new (infill) single-family dwelling unit shall use the adjacent lots to determine the appropriate front yard setback. The new dwelling until shall be set no closer to the street or farther back from the street than the nearest neighboring units. The site the applicant was using was approved in error by the City. The standard single family front setback of 25 feet was shown on the plan, but contextual setbacks apply in this area. The subject property was built with a front setback of 24.88 feet. The neighboring property has a front setback of 44.41 feet; thus the variance of 20 feet is requested to the front setback. The property's survey shows the required 7.5 foot side setback to be at 7.32 feet; thus a variance of 3 inches is requested to the side setback. The applicant states as a special condition that the setback information was not the deed, slab survey, or building permit. The a licant states as a hardshi that the location of the house has been established. pp P The Board may grant lesser variances. Such an alternative will require the removal of the existing foundation. Mr. Simms told the Board that one individual does all the plan review for single-family building permits. He is relatively new and he was certainly aware of the setbacks. This plan was reviewed and approved prior to the other case the Board heard concerning the same type variance (210 Timber). It was the slab surveyor who told the builder that he complied with the standard 25-foot setback but not the contextual setback. Mr. Simms told the Board that the Plans Examiner is aware of this now. Chairman Goss opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Darrell Barrington stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr. Barrington explained that the house will enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Richards stated that with a home this size the parking is a concern for him. • ZBA Minutes September 6, 2005 Page 3 of S The following spoke in favor of the request: Charles McCandless, 310 Suffolk Sandy Hoekstra, 210 Lee Bruce Hoekstra, 210 Lee Jeanette McCandless, 310 Suffolk Greg Normand, 315 Suffolk, Debbie Napoli, 300 Pershing Hugh Sterns, 316 Suffolk, stepped before the Board. Mr. Sterns was not speaking in opposition to this variance, but to others coming in and building on the entire lot. He questioned what president is the Board setting. Mr. Benn asked Mr. Barrington about him continuing to construct the home when he knew there was a problem. Mr. Barrington stated that he has already put in $350,000 in work and figured another $30,000 would not make that big of a difference. Patricia McDermott, 701 Dexter, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Ms. McDermott voiced concern how the city could have over looked something like this. Chairman Goss closed the public hearing. Mr. Benn made the motion to authorize the variance of 20-feet to the front setback variance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: that the setback information was not described in the deed, slab survey or building permit issued by the city; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: that the location of the house has been established; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). Mr. Sheffy made the motion to authorize the variance of 3-inches to the side setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: due to the smallness of the variance; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: small variance and minor correction to the house; and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed (4-1). Mr. Benn voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: None to report. • Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. ZBA Minutes September 6, 2005 Page 4 of S • AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items - A Zoning 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 future items discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. A D: G s, Chairman TTEST: eborah Grace, Sta sistant ZBA Minutes September 6„ 2005 Page S of S • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning eT'Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM January 6, 2004 TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment FROM: Molly Hitchcock, StafF Planner SUBJECT: 200-foot public hearing mail notification Asa "future agenda item" on May 4, 2004, board members requested that the stafF provide information about the 200-foot notification standard the City of College Station uses for mailed notifications of public hearings for variance requests. The purpose of this memorandum is to: explain the types of notification required for variance requests, discuss the City's reason for requiring a 200-foot notification for variance requests, summarize recent discussions by City Council regarding changing the 200-foot notification standard, and provide the notification standards of other Texas cities. Should the Board wish to discuss the information in this memorandum and the issue of notification, a member should request that it be placed on a future agenda. Current Notification Standards When a variance to zoning regulations is to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustments, the City of College Station notifies the public by: 1. Posting a meeting agenda at City Hall least 72 hours before the meeting; 2. Publishing a notice in The Eagle at least 15 days prior to the meeting; and 3. Mailing a notice to property owners within 200 feet of the parcel under consideration at least 10 days prior to the meeting. At a minimum, Section 3.1(F)(2)(c) of the Unified Development Ordinance requires that published and mailed notices provide: 1. The general location of the land that is the subject of the application; 2. The substance of the application, including the magnitude of proposed development and the current zoning district; • 3. The time, date, and location of the public hearing; and 4. A phone number to contact the City. As a standard practice, staff also places public hearing signs on the parcel under consideration the week before the hearing. The 200-Foot Standard Section 211.007 of the Texas Local Government Code requires cities to provide notice of a request for rezoning of property to owners of real property within 200 feet of the property on a which the rezoning is proposed. Yet there is no similar statutory notification requirement for requests for variances. Nonetheless, since 1940, the College Station City Council has consistently adopted, in the City's zoning ordinance, the same notification requirements for variance requests as state law requires for rezonings. It is likely that the City Council adopted variance notice requirements that are identical to the state-required rezoning notice requirements for consistency and ease of implementation. City Council Discussions In 2003, the City Council held policy discussions to give City staff direction in the drafting of the Unified Development Ordinance. When posed with the question of whether or not notification distances should be increased, the Council's consensus was that the official required distance ought to be the same as statutory requirements. However, the Council also determined that as a policy, the City should continue to strive to exceed the statutory requirements to, for example, notify homeowners associations and other interested groups. Based upon that direction, as a practice, Staff has been sending mailed notification to known neighborhood organizations. Standards of Other Cities A survey of seventeen other Texas cities establishes a trend that most cities, like College Station, send mailed notification for variance requests to 200 feet from the property line. Two cities-Austin and Grand Prairie-notify to 300 feet from the properly line. Mailed Notification Distances for ZBA Arlin ton 200 ft. Austin 300 Beaumont 200 B an 200 Cor us Christi 200 Denton 200 Garland 200 Grand Prairie 300 Gra evine 200 Irvin 200 Killeen 200 Lewisville 200 McAllen 200 Plano 200 Victoria 200 Waco 200 Wichita Falls 200 • ~~ ~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~~C~Ir~t ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMIIVT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) - lot depth (Table A) ~\ minimum setback a~ 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: ~C~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~G dun ~..~ s ~o f c.{QJc~ I Yf~ //V~-Q~i[ ~h.~ CL. r.~ji.. t9~ '~JI sA rq ~. ~-V N'l ~ T ~ (C ~.P and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: u)~ ~ o.a ~rc~ n Qsk S (~, ~ Q~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~~~ • Motion made by o ~e.~ ~ Seconded by /~ .~ Chair Signature Date ~~ ~.- o ~ Voting Results var~r ssa-ooc CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d' Development Services '~ ~to~~e~s~:~C~y ~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION of the Unified Development Ordinance. I move to authorize a variance to the Yard (Article 5) Lot Width (Article 5) Lot Depth (Article 5) Minimum Setback (Article 5) Section 5.2 & 5.4 Dimensional Standards Parking Requirements (Section 9) Article 7, Section 7.2 Off-Street Parking Standards from the terms of this Ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the followin/g~special conditions: ~ /- G !f / ~ ~ ~/~I~GIJ!/~S rl7` v~42T~c1,~,~'~~_ and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by `_ Seconded by 1'~'~'~ ~ 5 (~ .` • Voting Results -~ 1~2t~ V ~ ~~S Chair Signature Date and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in ZONING B OARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE: September 6, 2005 7. s. 9. • 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. • 23. 24. 25. NAME 1./~u~ 2. ~ »~, ~ 3. 4. a` s.~~ ~ ~ 6. r'r--~ ~~~D ~ ADDRESS ~~ ,l~ ~~ L e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. L~~~ _~ ~ ~~. ~ rc ~ ~ ~~. ~~ ~ ~7o r 8~~ ~~~~ 2s~s'j ~¢ ~ s S ~ ~ << 15 20 21. 22. ~ooo Sprir• 1..00 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning u' Development Seroiccs ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION of the Unified Development Ordinance. I mov~to authorize a variance to the Yard (Article 5) Lot Width (Article 5) Lot Depth (Article 5) Minimum Setback (Article 5) Section 5.2 & 5.4 Dimensional Standards Parking Requirements (Section 9) Article 7, Section 7.2 Off-Street Parking Standards • from the terms of this Ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship. to this applicant, and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Motion madf Seconded by Voting Resu: Chair Signatt •