The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/06/2009 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsAGENDA C , H..,,fT,. &Muswmry ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 06, 2009 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. Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests from meetings. 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting Minutes. • July 7, 2009 Meeting Minutes. 4. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a request for variances to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.2 Residential Dimensional Standards regarding minimum rear and front setback requirements, minimum lot depth requirements, and minimum lot area requirements for 814 & 816 Nimitz Street, Lots 5 & 6, Block B of the D.A. Smith Subdivision. Case# 09- 00500146(MKH) 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. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas A&M University" MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment July 7, 2009 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue 6 :00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Josh Benn, Rodney Hill, John Richards, Robert Brick and Melissa Cunningham. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Jay Goss and Hunter Goodwin. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Amber Carter, Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Lance Simms, First Assistant City Attorney Mary Ann Powell, and Action Center Representative Kerry Mullins. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Acting Chairman Josh Benn called the meeting to order at 6:08 PM. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2:: Consideration, discussion and possible action of Absence Requests from meetings. John Richards motioned to approve the absence request for Chairman Jay Goss for the July 7, 2009 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. Robert Brick seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5- 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes. After initial discussion regarding a correction to the meeting minutes for the May 5, 2009 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, Rodney Hill motioned to approve meeting minutes as amended. Melissa Cunningham seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding variances to the Northgate Sidewalk Standards, Section 5.6.B.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance, and to the Northgate Landscape and Streetscape Standards, Section 5.6.B.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance, for 303 College Main in Northgate. Case # 09- 00500096(JP) Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka presented the staff report, stating that the applicant was requesting the variances to the Northgate Sidewalk Standards and the Northgate Landscape and Streetscape Standards in regard to the required width of the sidewalk as well as the placement of tree grates. Ms. Prochazka ended by saying that City Staff is recommending denial of the variance requests. Josh Benn opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Robert Grabowski of 1404 Lawyer, College Station, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Benn. Mr. Grabowski, the applicant seeking the variance, spoke in favor of the request. Robert Forest of 3011 Westwood Main, Bryan, Texas, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Benn. Mr. Forest, the owner of the property located at 303 College Main, spoke in favor of the request. Josh Benn opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in opposition of the request. With no one else stepping forward to speak, Mr. Benn closed the public hearing. Robert Brick motioned to deny the variance to the Northgate Sidewalk Standards and to the Northgate Landscape and Streetscape Standards from the terms of the 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. Rodney Hill seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 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 items addressed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Rodney Hill motioned to adjourn. John Richards seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). The meeting was adjourned at 7:09 PM. APPROVED: ATTEST: Josh Benn, Acting Chairman Amber Carter, Staff Assistant CASE DATE SUBM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: V $150 Filing Fee - G Application completed in full. Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra m aterials required. Date of Preapplication Conference: APPLICANT /PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name s k a J`i Street Address 4 On Sen pr. City State T) Zip Code 77 6 2;2_ E - Mail Address !�SA ask X- 0 q Mc t ( C ann Phone Number 6 9 0 — al 56 Fax Number LOCATION OF PROPERTY: LL Address 814 + S1 6 i T Z 64 r• ee+ Lot 1 5 +16 Block Subdivision D A, sl fl�i��h Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Current Zoning of Subject Property: Applicable Ordinance Section: 0 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Parking Variance Page 1 of 6 Special Exception Drainage Varia Action Requested: (Circle One) Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions: Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself, not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land. Example: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, specimen trees. Note: A cul -de -sac is a standard street layout in College Station. The shape of standard cul -de -sac lots are generally not special conditions. en al G I&L- 16f at lef LdCez 0 J1"- l /L AAy /Yfid. SAR.,c�t^ S en 6ltd_ /T Nat IinC rvA c P"jzh At 6v^ � S",k The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is /are: Hardship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition. Example: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when compared to neighboring properties. . . . _ t . The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. IF APPLICATION IS FILED BYANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER. 7-13-0 Signatur owner (or agent) or applicant Date Page 2 of 6 This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 814 & 816 Nimitz St. (09- 00500146) REQUEST: Variances to Residential Dimensional Standards, Section 5.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. LOCATION: 814 & 816 Nimitz St. APPLICANT: John Rhodes, project manager PROPERTY OWNER: Husan Askari PROJECT MANAGER: Matthew Hilgemeier Staff Planner mhilgemeier @cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Approval BACKGROUND: The subject properties were originally platted around the time that the City incorporated and were included in a single lot, lot 6 of the D.A. Smith Subdivision. In the 1940's, lot 6 was subdivided into 13 smaller lots that averaged 50'X 60' (3,000 SF). Overtime, 10 of the 13 lots were granted similar variances due to the physical constraint of the lots as a result of the historical development of the neighborhood. Additionally, Nimitz Street was built with an average encroachment of 10'- 9" into the front yard of the subject lots. These lots have been held in common ownership since before July 15, 1970 and, therefore, are considered one building plot. The applicant is planning to reestablish the platted lot lines for this property through a replat. However, because of the configuration of the subject and surrounding properties, the applicant cannot subdivide the property in a manner that meets all the requirements of Section 5.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the following variances to Section 5.2, Residential Dimensional Standards for each lot: Zoning Board of Adjustments Page 1 of 6 October 6, 2009 APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: 5.2 Residential Dimensional Design Standards ORDINANCE INTENT: Residential dimensional design standard 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. Zoning Board of Adjustments Page 2 of 6 October 6, 2009 Required Standard Proposed Standard Variance amount Front Setback 25' 4'- 3" 20'- 9" Rear Setback 20' 7'- 6" 13'- 6" Minimum Lot Depth 100' 55' 45' Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq. ft 2,750 sq. ft. 2,250 sq. ft. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: 5.2 Residential Dimensional Design Standards ORDINANCE INTENT: Residential dimensional design standard 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. Zoning Board of Adjustments Page 2 of 6 October 6, 2009 Zoning Board of Adjustments Page 3 of 6 October 6, 2009 Zoning Districts A— 0 A— OR —1 R - 1B R—ie Agricultural Open Rural Residential Subdivision Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Duplex Residential R-3 R-4 R-6 R-7 A— P C — 1 C-2 Townhouse Multi -Family High Density Multi -Family Manufactured Home Park Administrative/Professional General Commercial Commercial -Industrial C-3 M-1 M-2 C—U R&D P- MUD PDD Light Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial College and University Research and Development Planned Mixed -Use Development Planned Development District WPC NG-1 NG-2 NG-3 OV RDD KO Wolf Pen Creek Dev. Candor Core Northgate Transitional Northgate Residential Northgate Corridor Overlay Redevelopment District Krenek Tap Overlay NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: October 6, 2009 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: None Property owner notices mailed: 21 Contacts in support: 0 Contacts in opposition: 0 Inquiry contacts: 0 ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property R -1 Single - Family Residential Vacant North R-6 Hi 2h Densit Multi -Famil Lincoln Square Apartments South R -1 Single - Family Residential Single family East R -1 Single - Family Residential Single family West R -1 Sin le -Famil Residential Single famil PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Frontage: The property has approximately 100 feet of frontage along Nimitz Street. 2. Access: Access is via a driveway onto Nimitz Street. 3. Topography and vegetation: The property has a moderate amount of vegetation. 4. Floodplain: This property is not located in a floodplain. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Extraordinary conditions: The applicant states that a special condition exists because the lots were divided before minimum dimensional standards were enforced and due to the physical constraints of the lots, application of the current dimensional standards would not allow a reasonable sized structure to be built on the lot. These variances would allow the owner a buildable area of 1,575 square feet per lot (35' X 47') which is comparable to the buildable area of the lots adjacent to the property. 2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: The applicant states that, due to the encroachment of Nimitz Street into the subject property and the lot dimensions, applying the standard setback requirements would result in an unreasonable buildable area, depriving the property owner any reasonable use of the property. Zoning Board of Adjustments Page 5 of 6 October 6, 2009 3. Substantial detriment: The applicant states that the granting of these variance requests would 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 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)because similar variances have been approved for the majority of the lots on this existing block. 4. Subdivision: The granting of this variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of the other land in the area surrounding this property because a majority of the lots on this block have similar lot dimensions have been granted similar variances. 5. Flood hazard protection: Granting this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection. 6. Other property: These conditions do generally apply to other properties in the vicinity and have been granted similar variances. 7. Hardships: The existing hardship is not a result of the applicant's own actions. 8. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates this property as Urban and Redevelopment. Urban areas are intended for intense residential development. While single family is not envisioned for Urban Redevelopment areas, it is allowed by right by virtue of the property's current zoning. The dense development that could be allowed if the variances were granted would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the purpose of the UDO. 9. Utilization: Applying the current residential dimensional standards would reduce the buildable area and unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. ALTERNATIVES The applicant has proposed no alternatives to granting these variance requests. Staff could find no other alternatives to granting the variance requests. The applicant could leave the property as one building plot; however, he would still have to request variances to the residential dimensional standards in order to build a structure on the lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for variances. It is staffs opinion that, due to the location of Nimitz Street and the historical development of the neighborhood, a special condition does exist such that the strict application of the provisions of the UDO would deprive the applicant reasonable use of his land. Furthermore, based on the surrounding lot sizes and the approval of similar variances for the surrounding properties, staff feels that approval of the variances to residential dimensional standards for the subject properties would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or future redevelopment of this area. SUPPORTING MATERIALS 1. Application 2. Survey Zoning Board of Adjustments Page 6 of 6 October 6, 2009 D.A. SMITH SUBDIVISION LOTS -5 &6 N 4 b� 0 0 - - - N 48 T W F PROPOSED T ff A B.L.1 F PROPOSED 7.5 REAR B.L.7 0o I � I m ml w I I w wl 0 I � Q o w, 6 w I Iw 5 0 I Ip (n � I z i n- ° a I ° l a of NOTE: THERE ARE NO CURRENT STRUCTURES ON EITHER LOT. SITE PLAN