HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/2025 - 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: 277 222 824 268 0 | Passcode: Co7Vy2sJ
Phone: 833-240-7855 | Phone Conference: 547 458 74#
The City Council may or may not attend this meeting.
May 6, 2025 6:00 PM Council Chambers
College Station, TX Page 1
Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the meeting body will be present in the physical location
stated above where citizens may also attend in order to view a member(s) participating by
videoconference call as allowed by 551.127, Texas Government Code. The City uses a third-
party vendor to host the virtual portion of the meeting; if virtual access is unavailable, meeting
access and participation will be in-person only.
1. Call meeting to order and consider absence requests.
2. Agenda Items
2.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes:
Attachments: 1. April 1 2025
2.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a contextual front setback
variance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 5.2.A.c ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-
Clustered and Clustered Developments’, for property located at Carter's Grove Ph 1, Block 2, Lot
13 (90' of), generally located at 1104 Berkeley Street. The subject property is zoned GS General
Suburban. Case #AWV2025-000014
Sponsors: Gabriel Schrum
Attachments: 1. Staff Report
2. Aerial and Small Area Map
3. Applicant's Supporting Information
4. Applicant's Exhibit
5. Development Permit Plans
6. Residential Permit Plans
2.3. 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 Mission Ranch Ph 203A, Block 14, Lot 24,
generally located at 3545 Anderson Arbor Court. The subject property is zoned RS Restricted
Suburban. Case #AWV2025-000018
Sponsors: Garrett Segraves
Attachments: 1. Staff Report
2. Aerial and Small Area Map
3. Applicant's Supporting Info
4. Applicant's Exhibit
3. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
Page 1 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Page 2 May 6, 2025
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, 2025 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,
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 26
April 1, 2025 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 1 of 2
Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustments
Regular Meeting April 1, 2025
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Bill Lartigue, Board Members Jaymeson Hacker, Justin Collins, James Hutchins, and Michael Martinez CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Molly
Hitchcock, Assistant City Attorney David Purnell, Staff Planner Gabriel Schrum, Technology
Service Specialist Trey Branson, and Administrative Support Specialist Kristen Hejny 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 Collins moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 7, 2025,
Board Member Martinez seconded the motion, the motion passed 5-0.
2.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a height variance
to the Airport Zoning Ordinance for the property located at Boyett, Block 9, Lots 4, 5 &
6, being 0.511 acres generally located at 201 Boyett Street. The property is zoned NG-1
Core Northgate. Case #AWV2025-000008
Staff Planner Schrum presented the item to the Board and stated that the applicant is requesting a height variance of 272 feet to allow for a temporary helper crane to assemble
the main crane needed for the construction of the Highrise.
Staff recommended approval of the request due to the fact that it meets the specified criteria. Specifically:
1. A literal application or enforcement of the regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship. 2. The granting of the relief would result in substantial justice being done. 3. The granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. 4. The granting of the relief would be in accordance with the spirit of the
regulation.
Board Member Collins asked if there was any alternative to a helper crane.
Veronica Morgan, Applicant, Mitchell & Morgan Engineers, confirmed that there is no
alternative.
Page 3 of 26
April 1, 2025 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 of 2
Chairperson Lartigue opened the public hearing.
No visitors spoke.
Chairperson Lartigue closed the public hearing.
Board Member Martinez moved to approve the item as it will not be contrary to the public interest, Board Member Hacker seconded the motion, the motion 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 6:05 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
______________________________ ________________________________ Bill Lartigue, Chairperson Kristen Hejny, Board Secretary
Page 4 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 May 6, 2025
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
1104 Berkeley Street
AWV2025-000014
REQUEST: A 15.1 ft reduction to the minimum contextual front setback as set forth in
Section 5.2.A.c ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered
Developments’
LOCATION: 1104 Berkeley Street
CARTER'S GROVE PH 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 13 (90' OF)
ZONING: GS General Suburban
PROPERTY OWNER: VL PARTNERS LLC
APPLICANT: LINTZ CONSTRUCTION LLC
PROJECT MANAGER: Gabriel Schrum, Staff Planner
gschrum@cstx.gov
BACKGROUND: The under construction 2,684 sq.ft. single-family dwelling encroaches into the
contextual front setback by 15.1 ft. Per UDO Section 5.2.A.c the contextual front
setback for this lot should be between 43’ and 53’. The existing structure
currently has a front setback of approximately 26’. Approximately 466 sq.ft. of
the structure encroaches into the contextual front setback. The applicant is
seeking a variance to continue the construction on the structure as it sits within
the contextual front setback.
The ordinance states that it is “for those lots designated as Neighborhood
Conservation in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use & Character Map that
were created by plat before July 15, 1970, the front setback for a new single-
family dwelling unit shall be based on the front setbacks of the adjacent lots per
the Required Yards (Setbacks) in Article 7, General Development Standards of
this UDO.”
A building permit application was submitted in February 2022 which showed the
proposed structure having a front setback of 46 ft, meeting the contextual front
setback requirements. This application was approved in the beginning of March
Page 5 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 May 6, 2025
2022. With the unique position of this site with the elevations and creek’s
proximity, the permit was put on hold and then re-approved at the end of
March 2022 due to drainage concerns. To identify and alleviate some of these
concerns, staff provided direction to submit a Development Permit application
with an elevation certificate. This application was submitted in September 2022
and went through three rounds of review to then be approved in April 2023.
The elevation certificate outlined a retaining wall to help with the concerns
regarding drainage. There were additional modifications made to the structure
footprint and overall layout for the proposed home on this document. This did
not match the location of the structure on the original approved single family
residential building permit and now showed it encroaching on the contextual
front setback. When construction occurred the builders utilized the approved
development permit plans which inaccurately depicted the approved site layout
shown on the building permit. The review of the development permit consisted
of grading and drainage on the site, not the review of the structure itself.
With the contextual front setback being applied in this case, the front setback
area of encroachment sits at 15.1 ft or 466 sq ft of the home.
The proposed and constructed improvements require a variance to Section
5.2.A.c ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’
contextual front setback and would be a reduction of approximately 15’ into the
required 43’ front setback.
APPLICABLE
ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 5.2.A.c ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered
Developments’
ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 5.2.A.c ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered
Developments’ sets minimum setback standards that allow for some degree of
control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. It
additionally provides regulations to ensure the older neighborhoods (classified
as NCO’s) that experience redevelopment are harmonious and matches the
character of the area. These standards also are typically justified based on the
protection of property values.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
Page 6 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 May 6, 2025
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: May 6, 2025
Property owner notices mailed: 21
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 GS General Suburban Single-Family Dwelling
North GS General Suburban Berkeley Street (Local Street)
South GS General Suburban Single-Family Dwelling
East GS General Suburban Single-Family Dwelling
West GS General Suburban Single-Family Dwelling
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: The subject property has approximately 90 feet of frontage on Berkeley Street.
2. Access: The subject property takes access from Berkeley Street.
3. Topography and vegetation: The subject property is relatively flat with trees but has a drop in elevation on
the rear and eastern property line abutting a creek.
4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain but is in close proximity.
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.
Page 7 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 May 6, 2025
Staff has found no extraordinary or special condition exists that would deprive the applicant a reasonable
use of the land. The applicant has stated that “The DP (Development Permit) with the site plan was
approved prior to the building permit. We received a building permit and started construction, unaware of
the contextual front set back requirement. Our front set back is 27' 1" which is well within the 15'
requirement with rear parking which is allowed by UDO. Our understanding was that our front set back was
15'. ”.
The lots within this subdivision were platted in 1964. According to UDO Section 5.2.A.c for all new single
family dwelling units put on lots that were platted prior to July 15th 1970 and are designated as
Neighborhood Conservation in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use & Character Map must meet the
front setback based on the adjacent lots front setback. In this case the original residential building permit
that was reviewed and approved on March2022 showed the new single family dwelling unit meeting this
requirement. When the subsequent development permit came in September of 2022 and approved in April
2023 to alleviate drainage concerns, the home builder used these plans for the structure and overall site. If
the original residential building permit that was approved in March of 2022 was utilized for construction
purposes the structure would be conforming.
This lot has unique topography declining as it gets closer to the eastern property line but does not affect the
usability of the lot. While this property is subject to these additional standards, and does have a creek in
proximity, there were approved plans that showed the subject area remaining unimproved. As there is
buildable land on this lot and a plan was both drafted and approved initially meeting requirements, there is
no special conditions of the land which have been identified that would deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of the land.
2. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
There are no special conditions identified that would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the land.
With the size of this lot, there is a buildable area outside of the contextual front setback in which the single-
family residence can be built without a variance. The other lots within this subdivision were also able to
meet this requirement and maintain the character of the neighborhood.
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 not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the
applicant. While the currently constructed dwelling encroaches into the contextual front setback, if the
proposed variance is not granted, the applicant can still build a single-family dwelling outside of the 43’
front setback and be in compliance with Section 5.2.A.c ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and
Clustered Developments’ of the UDO. This is further shown on the initially approved residential building
permit plans that do meet the front setback requirements. If the existing partially constructed structure
were to remain, it would encroach 15’ 1” into the front setback requirements.
4. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.
There is not a hardship that has occurred due to an extraordinary condition of the land—the hardship has
occurred based upon the applicant’s own actions. The applicant is seeking a variance to the contextual front
setback for a single-family structure that was constructed to the wrong set of approved plans. If the
applicant had constructed to the initially approved residential building permit plans, then this request would
not have come forward. Based on the original approved residential plan proposal, there is ability to develop
Page 8 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 May 6, 2025
on the property outside of the contextual front setbacks and the improvements for the single-family
dwelling may be able to be redesigned from how it sits today to meet the requirements of the UDO.
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 the UDO. The surrounding properties are platted lots.
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 has been reviewed and partially 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 substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and with the purposes
of the UDO as it does not meet the UDO Section 5.2.A.C requirement which is specifically for areas
designated as Neighborhood Conservation in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use & Character Map. By
not meeting this standard of the contextual front setback of the lot, the intent of the Neighborhood
Conservation land use and harmonious nature it provides with single family developments will not be met.
The subdivision in this area has been able to meet this requirement and has established a consistent front
setback around the blocks.
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 not restrict the applicant in the
utilization of their property. The applicant is still able to utilize their property as a residential lot and build a
single-family dwelling while still meeting the contextual setback requirements of the UDO.
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. The contextual front setback line that the single
family structure sits at will provide a contrast difference in distance from the public right-of-way in
comparison to the conforming existing single family developed lots it is adjacent to, as well as the rest of the
neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant is proposing to maintain the proposed construction to the approved development permit rather
than the initially approved residential building permit. The applicant could demolish a portion of the front of the
structure and provide updated plans clearly showing the front setback now being met. This would help alleviate
the encroachment completely or help with the severity of it in this case. The applicant has stated that, “The left
side of the house is a creek and heavily wooded. We could add some landscaping to the right side of our house
to help provide some natural shading.”
Page 9 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 May 6, 2025
As it sits today with this variance request, there is a substantial encroachment into the setback that the
structure has been constructed to. The applicant has demonstrated that the design of the single-family dwelling
can meet contextual front seatbacks as shown in the initial residential building permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is seeking a 15.1 ft. variance to the minimum 43 ft contextual front setback as set forth in Section
5.2.A.c ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’. Due to the lack of meeting all
of the required criteria, including having a special condition that has resulted in a hardship on the property, Staff
recommends denial of the variance request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial, and Small Area Map
2. Applicant’s Supporting Information
3. Applicant’s Exhibit
4. Development Permit Plans
5. Residential Permit Plans
Page 10 of 26
Page 11 of 26
Page 12 of 26
Name of Project: CONTEXTUAL SETBACK VARIANCE (AWV2025-000014)
Address: 1104 BERKELEY ST
Legal Description: CARTER'S GROVE PH 1, BLOCK 2, LOT 13 (90' OF)
Applicant: LINTZ CONSTRUCTION LLC
Property Owner: VL PARTNERS LLC
Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from:
5.2.A.c
The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested:
We are looking for a variance on the contextual front set back. The left side is a drainage creek and heavily
wooded. The right side neighbor's house is sitting 42'8" from the property line. 1104 Berkeley is at 27' 1" from
the front property line.
The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial
hardship is/are:
The city official did not make us aware of the front set back difference until March 6th and we were already
80% complete with the house. To meet the contextual front set back at this point would mean tearing the
house down which is not financially feasible.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
The left side of the house is a creek and heavily wooded. We could add some landscaping to the right side of
our house to help provide some natural shading.
APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to:
I believe the intent of the contextual front set back is to hinder new development from altering the look and feel
of the existing street. This house is unique in that it has the creek to the side of it and there is a natural
separation from the neighboring property to distract from seeing all the front elevations of the houses.
The following special condition exists:
The PD with the site plan was approved prior to the building permit. We received a building permit and started
construction, unaware of the contextual front set back requirement. Our front set back is 27' 1" which is well
within the 15' requirement with rear parking which is allowed by UDO. Our understanding was that our front
set back was 15'.
Page 1 of 1
Page 13 of 26
BERKELEY STREETSCALEPLOTTING SCALE:VERTICALHORIZONTALSURVEYEDDLDDESIGNEDDLDDRAWNAPPROVEDJPSJOB NO.DATE1:122-98822-9881104 BERKELEY STREETCARTER'S GROVE PHASE 1LOT 13, SAVE AND EXCEPT 30' ADJOINING LOT 14,BLOCK 2 - COLLEGE STATION, TEXASMARCH 2023SHEETFILE NAME:KERR911 Southwest Pkwy E.College Station, Texas 77840979.764.3900TBPE FIRM NO. 123271"=30'N/AGRADING PLANC1•••VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEBERKELEY STREET
WESTO
VER
S
T
R
EETNEAL PICKETT DRIVE
SHAD
Y DRI
VE
FRANCIS DRIVECAROL STREETMERRY
O
A
K
S DRI
V
E
POSTOAKCIRCLECIR
C
L
EROSE HOLT STREETSTORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION DETAILN.T.S.SECTION A-ACONSTRUCTION EXIT SILT CONTROL DETAILN.T.S.TYPICAL CONCRETE WASHOUT DETAILN.T.S.PLANTYPE - "ABOVE GRADE"N.T.S.SECTION B-BSILT FENCE ASSEMBLY DETAILN.T.S.REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCECITY OF COLLEGE STATIONPLANNING & DEVELOPMENTSERVICES DEPARTMENTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION GILLIAN SITLER, GRADUATE ENGINEER I04/18/2023ELEVATIONCERTIFICATEREQUIREDPage 14 of 26
BERKELEY STREETWESTOVER STREETBERKELEY STREETWESTOVER STREETBERKELEY STREETWESTOVER STREETSCALEPLOTTING SCALE:VERTICALHORIZONTALSURVEYEDDLDDESIGNEDDLDDRAWNAPPROVEDJPSJOB NO.DATE1:122-98822-9881104 BERKELEY STREETCARTER'S GROVE PHASE 1LOT 13, SAVE AND EXCEPT 30' ADJOINING LOT 14,BLOCK 2 - COLLEGE STATION, TEXASMARCH 2023SHEETFILE NAME:KERR911 Southwest Pkwy E.College Station, Texas 77840979.764.3900TBPE FIRM NO. 123271"=30'N/ADEVELOPMENTCONDITIONS PLANC2REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCECITY OF COLLEGE STATIONPLANNING & DEVELOPMENTSERVICES DEPARTMENTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION GILLIAN SITLER, GRADUATE ENGINEER I04/18/2023ELEVATIONCERTIFICATEREQUIREDPage 15 of 26
BERKELEY STREET
SCALE
PLOTTING SCALE:
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
SURVEYED
DLD
DESIGNED
DLD
DRAWN APPROVED
JPS
JOB NO.DATE 1:1
22-98822-988
1104 BERKELEY STREET
CARTER'S GROVE PHASE 1
LOT 13, SAVE AND EXCEPT 30' ADJOINING LOT 14,
BLOCK 2 - COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
MARCH 2023
SHEET
FILE NAME:KERR
911 Southwest Pkwy E.
College Station, Texas 77840
979.764.3900
TBPE FIRM NO. 12327 1"=30'
N/A
GRADING PLAN C1
…
”
”
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
B
E
R
K
E
L
E
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
O
V
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
A
L
P
I
C
K
E
T
T
D
R
I
V
E
S
H
A
D
Y
D
R
I
V
E
FRANCIS
DRI
VE
CAROL ST
REETME
R
R
Y
O
A
K
S
D
R
I
V
EPOSTOAKCIRCLE
CIRCLER
O
S
E
HOLT STREETSTORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION DETAIL
N.T.S.
SECTION A-A
CONSTRUCTION EXIT SILT CONTROL DETAIL
N.T.S.
TYPICAL CONCRETE WASHOUT DETAIL
N.T.S.
PLAN
TYPE - "ABOVE GRADE"
N.T.S.
SECTION B-B
SILT FENCE ASSEMBLY DETAIL
N.T.S.
REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENTSERVICES DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
GILLIAN SITLER, GRADUATE ENGINEER I
04/18/2023
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE REQUIRED
Page 16 of 26
BERKELEY STREET
WESTOVER STREET
BERKELEY STREET
WESTOVER STREET
BERKELEY STREET
WESTOVER STREET
SCALE
PLOTTING SCALE:
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
SURVEYED
DLD
DESIGNED
DLD
DRAWN APPROVED
JPS
JOB NO.DATE 1:1
22-98822-988
1104 BERKELEY STREET
CARTER'S GROVE PHASE 1
LOT 13, SAVE AND EXCEPT 30' ADJOINING LOT 14,
BLOCK 2 - COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
MARCH 2023
SHEET
FILE NAME:KERR
911 Southwest Pkwy E.
College Station, Texas 77840
979.764.3900
TBPE FIRM NO. 12327 1"=30'
N/ADEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONS PLAN C2
REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DEPARTMENTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
GILLIAN SITLER, GRADUATE ENGINEER I
04/18/2023
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE REQUIRED
Page 17 of 26
130'-0"25'-0"30'-0"7'-6"10'-0"
7'-6"
10'-0"20'-0"25'-0"Berkeley St
25'-0"
Scale 1=1011'-2"BOC52'-3"52'-3"53'-4"110211061104
N
Existing lot impervious Cover: 0 SF
Existing lot size: 11700 SF
Proposed Impervious cover: 3040 SF
Impervious percentage: 26%
Total front yard: 3475 SF
Front yard impervious cover: 1034 SF
Impervious percentage: 29%
1,034.39 sf
20' REAR SETBACK
25' REAR SETBACK
10' SIDE SETBACK
7.5' SIDE SETBACK
25' FRONT SETBACK
30' FRONT SETBACK
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
BUILDING DIVISION
REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE
SEE NOTES ON PLANS
SEE NOTES ON PERMIT
BY: DATE: 03/07/2022
Bryce Trujillo, Plans Examiner
Page 18 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 4
April 2, 2024
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
3545 Anderson Arbor Ct
AWV2025-000018
REQUEST:A 2.3-foot reduction to the minimum 7.5-foot side setback as set forth in
Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered
Developments’
LOCATION:3545 Anderson Arbor Ct
Mission Ranch Phase 203A, Block 14, Lot 24
ZONING:RS Restricted Suburban
PROPERTY OWNER:Reece Homes
APPLICANT:Reece Homes
PROJECT MANAGER:Garrett Segraves, Staff Planner
gsegraves@cstx.gov
BACKGROUND: The applicant has built a 3,000 sq. ft. single-family dwelling encroaching
approximately 58 sq. ft. within the side setback. This requires a variance to
Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered
Developments’ and would be a reduction of approximately 2’- 4” into the
required 7.5-foot side setback. It is worth noting that with the proposed
variance, the development would still be outside of the absolute minimum
building separation of 10’ with the adjacent house.
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 setback standards that 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.
Page 19 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 4
April 2, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends approval of the variance request.
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: May 6th, 2025
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: 1 at the time of this report
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES
Direction Zoning Land Use
Subject Property RS Restricted Suburban Single-Family Dwelling
North MH Middle Housing with a HOO High
Occupancy Overlay Duplex Residential
South RS Restricted Suburban Single-Family Dwelling
East PDD Planned Development District Multi-family Dwelling
West RS Restricted Suburban Single-Family Dwelling
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1.Frontage: The subject property has approximately 77.5 feet of frontage on Anderson Arbor Ct.
2.Access: The subject property takes access from Anderson Arbor Ct.
3.Topography and vegetation: The subject property appears relatively flat.
4.Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain.
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.
Page 20 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 4
April 2, 2024
There is a 10’ Public Utility Easement located on the northwest side of the lot. Per Section 8.3.I.2.c,
“Buildings, signs, masonry walls, and other vertical structures that require a building permit are not
permitted within utility easements.” This reduces the buildable area on the side of the lot by 2.5 ft. Other
lots withing the subdivision are only subject to a 5’ PUE on the side lot line.
2. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
There are only a few lots within Mission Ranch Phase 203A that are encumbered by Public Utility Easements
on their side lot lines. The typical lot only has a PUE along the rear property line. This lot is equipped with
one of three Public Utility Easements that are placed on side lot lines, affecting roughly 5 of the 18 (≈28%)
lots within Mission Ranch Phase 203A.
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 rights of the
applicant. The 10 ft Public Utility Easement located on the northwest side lot line has reduced the buildable
area of the lot compared to others in the vicinity. While other lots have a 7.5-ft side setback, any structure
on this lot must be set back 10 ft. from the northwest side to stay out of the easement. While the existing
dwelling’s foundation encroaches a little less than 2.5 ft into the southeast side setback.
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;
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 occurred based on the 10’ Public Utility Easement located along the northwest side of the
lot. The standard of a 7.5’ side setback on the southeast side of the lot would cause the house to encroach
into this easement. Per Section 8.3.I.2.c, “Buildings, signs, masonry walls, and other vertical structures that
require a building permit are not permitted within utility easements.” Compliance would result in the
unreasonable encroachment of an easement (Hardship #4).
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 the UDO. The surrounding properties are platted lots within the
McCulloch's Subdivision.
Page 21 of 26
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 4
April 2, 2024
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 restricts the applicant in the utilization of
their property. The applicant is still able to utilize their property as a residential lot and build a single-family
dwelling while still meeting the setback requirements of the UDO, but the extra encumbrance restricts full
utilization of the property when compared to others on the block.
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. Some phases within Mission Ranch Subdivision
are developed as a cluster development that allows a reduced setback as long as there is a minimum 10 ft
separation between structures. While this lot is not within a phase that allows for reduced setbacks, it would
be of similar character to other properties within the subdivision if the variance were granted.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant could reduce the square footage of the single-family dwelling or remodel it so that it could fall
outside of the 7.5-foot side setback and meet the requirements set forth in Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional
Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ of the UDO.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is seeking a 2’- 4” variance to the minimum 7.5-foot side setback as set forth in Section 5.2.A.
‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’. Staff has found that the 10-ft. PUE on
the side lot line is an extraordinary condition of the land, a hardship exists, and these conditions generally do not
affect other lots within the subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the variance request.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Aerial, and Small Area Map
2.Applicant’s Supporting Information
3.Applicant’s Exhibit
Page 22 of 26
Page 23 of 26
Page 24 of 26
Name of Project: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 2.5' (AWV2025-000018)
Address: 3545 ANDERSON ARBOR CT
Legal Description: MISSION RANCH PH 203A, BLOCK 14, LOT 24
Applicant: REECE HOMES
Property Owner: REECE HOMES LLC
Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from:
Right Side Setback of 7.5'
The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested:
We are requesting a variance of 2.5' over the side setback line.
The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial
hardship is/are:
1
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
No known alternatives
APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to:
This subdivision allows 5' setbacks in all other phases of the development. Based on setback guidelines
throughout this subdivision, we see no reason this variance will be contrary to the public interest.
The following special condition exists:
Building permit was approved without any indication that the side setback was incorrect on the Plans set. This
house is complete and compliance with this ordinance would require a complete rebuild. We also received a
final survey which is attached that did not indicate any issue with the setbacks.
Page 1 of 1
Page 25 of 26
Page 26 of 26