Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/2024 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments College Station, TX Meeting Agenda Zoning Board of Adjustment 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX 77840 Internet: www.microsoft.com/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeting Meeting ID: 295 739 717 763 | Passcode: UksmS8 Phone: 833-240-7855 | Phone Conference: 630 867 972# The City Council may or may not attend this meeting. May 7, 2024 6:00 PM Council Chambers College Station, TX Page 1 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Agenda Items 2.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes: Attachments: 1. April 2, 2024 2.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a lot width and lot area variance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non- Clustered and Clustered Developments’, for property described as 6750 sq.ft. tract described in Volume 474, Page 93 DRBCT, Crawford Burnett League Survey, Abstract 7, generally located at 206 Luther Street. The subject property is zoned R-6 High Density Multi-Family. Case #AWV2024-000009 Sponsors: Jeff Howell Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Vicinity, Aerial, and Small Area Map 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 4. Applicant's Exhibit 3. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items. A 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. 4. Adjourn. Adjournment into Executive Session may occur in order to consider any item listed on the agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on April 30, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, Page 1 of 16 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 May 7, 2024 readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.” Page 2 of 16 April 2, 2024 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 1 of 3 Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting April 2, 2024 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Bill Lartigue, Board Members Michael Martinez, James Hutchins, Justin Collins, and Jaymeson Hacker CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Assistant City Attorney Gavin Midgley, Senior Planner Jeff Howell, and Staff Assistant II Crystal Fails 1.Call meeting to order. Chairperson Lartigue called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2.Agenda Items 2.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes: Board Member Martinez motioned to approve the meeting minutes from March 4, 2024, Board Member Collins seconded the motion, the motion passed 5-0. 2.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a side setback variance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’, for property located at McCulloch’s Subdivision, Block 5, Lot 21 generally located at 1110 Detroit Street. The subject property is zoned GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. Case #AWV2023-000023 Senior Planner Howell presented the item to the Board and stated that the applicant is requesting a variance of 3.5 feet to the minimum 7.5-foot side setback. Staff recommended denial of the request due to the fact that it does not meet the specified criteria. Specifically, staff found that: 1.There are no extraordinary conditions affecting the land depriving the owner of its use; 2.The granting of a variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of a substantialproperty right; 3. A hardship is a result of the applicant’s own actions;4. The application of the UDO would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. Page 3 of 16 April 2, 2024 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 of 3 John Rhodes, Applicant, RAI Designs, presented to the Board regarding the history of the property and the requirements that the HOA has. He also stated that the owner is not going to tear down the current home but wants to keep what is there. He added that they are going to bring the current home up to compliance and keep the home a two bedroom. Board Member Collins asked what special conditions apply to this house that do not apply to the other properties in this area. Mr. Rhodes stated that there was none. Chairperson Lartigue opened the public hearing. Sterling Whitley, 1103 Georgia Street, property owner, presented to the Board the history of this home within his family. He stated that he understands that the property needs to be brought up to compliance but there are other properties in their area that are not. He also stated that no one has ever had an issue with the property until he wanted to upgrade the property. Charles Beckman, 14703 Emerald Cypress Lane in Cypress Texas, property owner representative, stated the granting of the variance will have the biggest impact on the property that his company, Back Porch Partners, owns at 1112 Detroit Street. With the extent of changes proposed to the house, he questioned what part of this property will be saved for the purpose of historical preservation. He also stated that the house proposed does not meet the style of homes in this neighborhood. He stated that he was okay with the variance but not the concept. Chairperson Lartigue closed the public hearing. Chairperson Lartigue reopened the public hearing. Mr. Rhodes stated that he had to come to the Zoning Board of Adjustments for the variance and not the plan. He told the Board that the plan in the packet was not what he submitted for the meeting. He stated that they were saving the entire original foundation and some exterior walls for historical preservation. Chairperson Lartigue closed the public hearing. Board Member Hutchins stated that there was no justification to grant this variance. Board Member Martinez stated that he understood the history part of it but there was no justification to grant the variance, and he could not be on board with it. Board Member Martinez motioned to deny the variance as it did not meet the required criteria, Board Member Hacker seconded the motion, the motion to deny the variance passed 5-0. 2.3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an update to the Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures. Page 4 of 16 April 2, 2024 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 3 of 3 Assistant Director Hitchcock presented the item to the Board and stated that the Rules and Procedures currently states that decisions of the Board become final the Thursday after the meeting. This statement is being removed to come into compliance with state statute that indicates the decision is effective immediately. Board Member Martinez asked if this was something that the ZBA votes on and would the City Council have a vote as well. Assistant Director Hitchcock answered that a Board vote was necessary, and that the Rules and Procedures would be considered by Council. Board Member Collins motioned to approve the update to the Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures, Board Member Hacker seconded the motion, the motion to approve the updated to the Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures passed 5-0. 3. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A 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 was no discussion on future agenda items. 4. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Bill Lartigue, Chairperson Crystal Fails, Board Secretary Page 5 of 16 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 5 May 7, 2024 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 206 Luther Street AWV2024-000009 REQUEST:A 20-foot reduction to the minimum 70-foot lot width and 250 sq.ft. reduction to the minimum 7,000 sq. ft. lot area for a duplex as set forth in Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ LOCATION:206 Luther Street Described as 6750 sq. ft. tract described in Volume 474, Page 93 DRBCT, Crawford Burnett League Survey, Abstract 7 ZONING:R-6 High Density Multi-Family PROPERTY OWNER:Robert and Tom Mills APPLICANT:Mitchell & Morgan PROJECT MANAGER:Jeff Howell, Senior Planner jhowell@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The property owner has an unplatted property dimensioned at approximately 50-feet wide and 135-feet deep, containing 6,750 sq.ft. The existing duplex structures on the property were constructed in 1955 and 1996. The applicant proposes to redevelop the property and construct a duplex. Section 5.2.A. of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires that the lot be a minimum of 70-feet wide (35-feet per dwelling unit) and have a lot area of 7,000 sq.ft. (3,500 sq.ft. per dwelling unit). The existing lot is 50-feet wide with an area of 6,750 sq.ft. and does not meet this dimensional requirement. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ sets minimum lot area and width standards that allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire Page 6 of 16 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 5 May 7, 2024 protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends approval of the variance request. NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: May 7, 2024 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: N/A Property owner notices mailed: 10 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property R-6 High Density Multi-Family Two Duplexes North MH Middle Housing and HOO High Occupancy Overlay Single-Family Dwellings South R-6 High Density Multi-Family Apartments East R-6 High Density Multi-Family Apartments and a park West R-6 High Density Multi-Family Duplex PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1.Frontage: The subject property has approximately 50 feet of frontage on Luther Street. 2.Access: The subject property takes access from Luther Street. 3.Topography and vegetation: The subject property is relatively flat with a several existing trees. 4.Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain. Page 7 of 16 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 5 May 7, 2024 REVIEW CRITERIA According to Unified Development Ordinance Section 3.16.E. ‘Criteria for Approval of Variance’, no variance shall be granted unless the Board makes affirmative findings in regard to all nine of the following 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. Staff has found an extraordinary or special condition exists that would deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the land. The applicant has stated that “this property is developed with two small duplexes, one built in 1955 and the second in 1996. These uses today would require the same minimum lot width and area that are required today”. The applicant also states “without any other opportunity to consolidate adjacent properties for a larger development, these variances are necessary for a potential duplex redevelopment”. The subject property has never been platted. The existing structures at 206 Luther were built in 1955 and 1996 according to BCAD. Both existing structures are duplexes, which were compliant with the regulations when they were constructed, however would not be permitted under the current standards in the R-6 zoning district. Per Section 5.5.C., R-6 is a Retired District and specific uses are required to comply with the current dimensional standards of other districts, specifically for duplex and townhouse uses. Per Section 5.2.A., the dimensional standards for D Duplex is a minimum of 70-feet wide (35 feet per dwelling unit) and a lot area of 7,000 sq.ft. (3,500 sq.ft. per dwelling unit). The only permitted residential use that does not have dimensional standards in R-6 is multi-family, but the property is too small to meet the development standards required for dense multifamily. 2. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. Similar conditions apply to the adjacent property at 204 Luther and a variance was granted for a similar request in 2018 (the property is 60-ft wide by 135-feet deep and has since been redeveloped as a duplex). These conditions do not apply to other adjacent properties (which are owned by and/or developed as the Southgate Village Apartments) or other properties in the vicinity. 3. 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 necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the applicant. While the existing development is non-conforming, if the proposed variance is not granted, the applicant can only develop a limited number of residential uses such as multi-family or townhouses. These uses would likely need additional variances to be granted, such as to parking and landscaping requirements, to be developed on the property. 4. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may consider the following as grounds to determine whether compliance with this ordinance as applied to a structure that is the subject of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship: 1) The financial cost of compliance is greater than fifty (50) percent of the appraised value of the structure as shown on the most recent appraisal roll certified to the assessor for the city under Chapter 26 of the Texas Tax Code; Page 8 of 16 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 5 May 7, 2024 2) Compliance would result in a loss to the lot on which the structure is located of at least twenty-five (25) percent of the area on which development may physically occur; 3) Compliance would result in the structure not being in compliance with a requirement of a City of College Station ordinance, building code, or other requirement; 4) Compliance would result in the unreasonable encroachment on an adjacent property or easement; or 5) The City considers the structure to be a nonconforming structure. A hardship has not occurred based upon the applicant’s own actions and occurs due to an extraordinary condition of the land. The applicant has stated that the “this property is ripe for redevelopment” and “the existing duplex structures are non-compliant on this lot and without variances nor the opportunity to add adjacent property to this lot, there are very few options to bring this lot and development into compliance.” The existing structures were built in 1955 and 1996, and the property has been in this size configuration since 1957. Both existing structures are duplexes, which were compliant with the regulations when they were constructed, however would not be permitted under the current standards in the R-6 zoning district. The nonconformity on the property may continue to exist, but is not allowed to be expanded beyond 50%. The applicant is seeking to redevelop the property for a duplex, however the lot does not meet the dimensional requirements for D Duplex found in Section 5.2.A. Only a limited number of other residential uses are permitted in the R-6 zoning district such as townhouse or multi-family, but due to the lot size, additional waivers or variances would likely be necessary for development. 5.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 this UDO. The dimensions of the subject property will remain the same as they have been since 1957. The adjacent duplex property and the properties across Luther have been platted, however the larger, surrounding apartment property has not been platted. The subject property has not been subdivided and will need to be platted prior to development. 6. 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 as the site is already developed and due to no portion of this property being located within floodplain. 7. 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 and with the purposes of the UDO. 8. 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 restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. Due to the existing non-conformities on the property, the applicant is limited in the Page 9 of 16 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 5 May 7, 2024 improvements they are able to make. Under the current zoning and standards, the applicant is only able to utilize their property as a residential lot for a limited amount of uses such as townhouse or multi-family development. All allowed uses will likely need considerations to development standards in order to fit on the property in its current configuration. 9. 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 detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering the UDO. ALTERNATIVES The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property for a duplex on a tract that is currently 50-feet wide and 135-feet deep. The applicant has stated that “Multi-family residences, such as apartments, do not have minimum lot dimensions; but do require drainage studies which makes a financially feasible redevelopment much more difficult. Without variances for a duplex use, the non-compliant uses would remain”. The applicant could develop the property as a limited number of residential uses, such as townhouse or multi-family development and meet the requirements set forth in Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ of the UDO, however they would likely need additional modifications to fit on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request due to affirmative findings to all nine waiver criteria, including the special conditions of the small lot size in the R-6 High Density Multifamily zoning district and the non-conformities of the site that have resulted from the age of the development, that have created a hardship for the property owner to develop on the property. ATTACHMENTS 1.Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 2.Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.Applicant’s Exhibit Page 10 of 16 Page 11 of 16 Page 12 of 16 Page 13 of 16 Name of Project: 206 LUTHER STREET-REDUCED LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH (AWV2024-000009) Address: 206 LUTHER ST Legal Description: HRDLICKA, BLOCK 7, LOT 1 Applicant: CRISSY HARTL Property Owner: MILLS ROBERT T & GAIL A Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from: UDO Section 5.2 – Residential Dimensional Standards The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested: We are requesting a 20’ variance to the minimum lot width and 250 sf variance to minimum lot area for a duplex development. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: This property is ripe for redevelopment, but without any ability to include more property for a larger redevelopment that would meet city codes and ordinances, this single property is bound by a duplex to the west that was redeveloped in 2018 and the Southgate Village apartments. The existing duplex structures are non-compliant on this lot and without variances nor the opportunity to add adjacent property to this lot, there are very few options to bring this lot and development into compliance. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: Multi-family residences, such as apartments, do not have minimum lot dimensions; but do require drainage studies which makes a financially feasible redevelopment much more difficult. Without variances for a duplex use, the non-compliant uses would remain. APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to: The proposed duplex compliments the surrounding residences and character of the neighborhood. All required The following special condition exists: This property is developed with two small duplexes, one built in 1955 and the second in 1996. These uses today would require the same minimum lot width and area that are required today. There is an opportunity to redevelop the property to accommodate more residents, as is the vision according to the Comprehensive Plan. Due to the small size of the lot, a duplex is the most appropriate use for the property is a duplex. However, duplex lots are required to have a minimum lot width of 35’/dwelling unit or 70’ and a minimum area of 7,000 sf. This property is only 50’ wide and an area of 6,750 sf. Ideally, this property would be consolidated with an adjacent property and redeveloped as a single cohesive development. However, the property to the west was redeveloped in 2018 and the Southgate Village apartments bound the subject lot to the east and south. Without any other opportunity to consolidate adjacent properties for a larger development, these variances are necessary for a potential duplex redevelopment Page 1 of 2 Page 14 of 16 parking will be provided on-site and will not have a negative impact to the neighborhood, nor will it be contrary to the public interest. Page 2 of 2 Page 15 of 16 Page 16 of 16