HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportCITY OF COLLEGE STATION
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
603 Montclair Avenue
REQUEST: To allow an accessory structure to have an area that is greater
than 25 percent of the principal structure.
LOCATION: 603 Montclair Avenue, Lots 6 & 7, Block A of the College Park
Subdivision
APPLICANT: Jeff Morris, Property Owner
PROJECT MANAGER: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner
mhilgemeier @cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
BACKGROUND: The subject property was originally platted in the 1940's before the City of
College Station had subdivision regulations in place. The original single - family structure was
constructed in 1948, but was recently demolished on May 16, 2011. The applicant currently has
an active building permit to construct a three - bedroom dwelling unit that will have a total livable
area of 1,925 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct an accessory structure on the
property, which will include a small accessory apartment. The accessory apartment will have a
total livable area of 788 square feet; this is equal to 41 percent of the size of the principal
structure. Section 6.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) states that " In combination,
all accessory uses shall contain no more square footage than 25 percent of the habitable floor
area of the principal structure (with exception of garage or carport areas devoted to the storage
of vehicles, which shall not be included in the calculation and may exceed the 25 percent
restriction)." The area of the proposed accessory dwelling unit is 16 percent (301 square feet)
larger than what is allowed by ordinance (481 square feet). Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance to Section 6.4.B.5.c "Accessory Structures" of the Unified
Development Ordinance to allow an accessory structure to be 16 percent over the 25
percent maximum allowed, for a total of 41 percent of the living area of the principal
structure.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 7
June 7. 2011
Princi al Structure
Accessory Structure
Total Livable
1,925 square feet
Proposed
788 square feet
Area
Livable Area
25% of
Area Greater
Principal
481 square feet
than 25% (788
301 square feet or 16%
Structure
SF- 481 SF
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 6.4.B.5.c "Accessory Structures — Living
Quarters"
ORDINANCE INTENT: To allow for the construction of accessory structures that are
subordinate to and serve the primary use or principal structure while protecting the character
and integrity of the surrounding residential area.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 7
June 7, 2011
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 7
June 7, 2011
00 r Q
\ m
r 0 � N
A
y C{z— O L L TQ N
MM `� O ° ID N OtR` -0 O
LO
H
a n v a> m
00 \\ /
a
�zzz0wSe
(h
C? ,
/ X i � O N
\ E >0
�ry r / o
_ . c -
r V \r O
r N 0 y
�� N \ Et =x>
O c\
CD
Jxxc�0�:aa
LO
r r I I I -came Q
r'
�U� ti d.
-T C)
i\ r �� o
V A `°
p \ �" �v A\ T_
R
IP1
V J O .
Q "1O Q\ \ \r \ 21 � ' o
\\ \ N . `T' N >
(C) i �������
\ \ \\ / \ 3 _QI R C 0
w
LU
LO M
w
r P \ a w
5— O
r \ .e —J
N >
\ -
\ t— \ W \ p� = T'o
> -j5:2 E
\ LO
o
/ 0 Ll oo
I I I I
_ N aa���
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 7
June 7, 2011
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: June 7, 2011
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:
Lincoln Area Neighborhood Association
Property owner notices mailed
Contacts in support:
Contacts in opposition:
Inquiry contacts:
ZONING AND LAND USES
25
None at the time of staff report.
Two at the time of staff report. Residents expressed their
concerns regarding the size of the accessory structure.
Two at the time of staff report.
Direction
Zoning
Land Use
Subject Property
R -1 Single Family
Residential (under construction)
North
R -1 Single Family
Residential
South
R -1 Single Family
Residential
East
R -1 Single Family
Residential
West
R -1 Single Family
Residential
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: The subject property has 105 linear feet of frontage along Montclair Avenue
2. Access: Access to this building plot is via one residential driveway located on Montclair
Avenue
3. Topography and vegetation: The subject property has a two -foot slope running north to
south and is moderately vegetated.
4. Floodplain: N/A
REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Extraordinary conditions: The applicant states that the "size of the accessory structure is
limited by [the] small size of existing historic structure to be remodeled." However, since
submitting the variance application, the applicant has demolished the previous residential
structure and is in the process of constructing a new residential structure.
It is staff's opinion that a special condition does not exist on the property that creates a
hardship limiting the applicant the reasonable use of the property. In addition, it is important
to note that the original structure had no historic designation.
2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: The granting of this variance is not necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant because if
the variance is denied, the applicant is not prohibited from utilizing the property for
residential use. Also, the applicant can reduce the size of the accessory structure to meet
the standards of the UDO.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 7
June 7, 2011
3. Substantial detriment: The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, welfare, or injurious to other property in the area because the property owner
is allowed to build an accessory structure on their lot regardless of Zoning Board of
Adjustment's decision. Denying the applicant's request does not prohibit them from
constructing an accessory living quarter; it will only restrict the size of the livable area.
However, the granting of this variance would be detrimental to the City in administering the
provision of the UDO because it would essentially allow two primary structures on one
single - family lot. The intent of an accessory living quarter is to be subordinate to the primary
living structure. Granting the proposed variance allows the accessory structure an area that
is almost half the size of the primary structure.
4. Subdivision: The granting of this variance will not affect the orderly subdivision of other
land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO.
5. Flood hazard protection: The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing
flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements
because no portion of this property is located within the floodplain.
6. Other property: The special conditions provide by the applicant are not unique to this
property. The standards of Section 6.4.B.5.c apply to any property owner proposing to
construct an accessory dwelling unit on their property and the size of the previous and
existing primary structures are similar to the sizes other structures in the surrounding area.
7. Hardships: A hardship does not exist in this case. The applicant states that the "proposed
development is not unreasonable, but is being penalized by the limited square footage of the
historic primary structure design." It is staff's opinion that the hardship is the result of the
applicant's own actions because once they choose to demolish the previous structure, they
were no longer limited in the design of the accessory structure.
8. Comprehensive Plan: The granting of this variance would substantially conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan or the purposes of this UDO because it essentially allows two primary
structures on a single - family lot.
9. Utilization: The application of the UDO standards to this particular piece of property does
not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. The
property owner currently has an active building permit to construct a residential structure on
the property; therefore, they are not prohibited or restricted in the utilization of their property.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant has provided the following alternative to the requested variance:
Connect the primary and new living structures so both can be considered a primary
structure.
Staff has identified the following additional alternatives to granting the requested variance:
1. The applicant could reduce the size of the accessory structure to meet the
requirements of the UDO.
2. The applicant could increase the size of the primary structure to allow for a larger
accessory structure.
3. The applicant could choose to not build an accessory structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 7
June 7, 2011
Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a variance to allow for an accessory
living quarter that has a livable area 16 percent larger than what is allowed by the UDO. The
applicant has not provided evidence that a physical condition exists with the property, creating a
hardship such that the strict application of the provision of this UDO will deprive them of the
reasonable use of their property. The applicant has an active building permit to construct a new
single - family dwelling unit on the property therefore; the outcome of this variance request will
not prohibit or restrict the applicant from continuing to utilize their property.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Building Plans and Survey
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 7 of 7
June 7. 2011