HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/2021 - Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsCollege Station, TX
Meeting Agenda
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Phone: *888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 991 7654 2617
Internet: https://zoom.us/j/99176542617
The City Council may or may not attend the Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting.
May 4, 2021 6:00 PM 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX Page 1
*The City uses a thirdparty vendor to help host the meeting and if the callin number is not
functioning access will be through the internet link 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.December 8, 2020
2.2.Discussion of Approved Administrative Adjustments:
AWV2020000013 2350 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South; Front Yard Parking Percentage
(DGS)
AWV2020000016 Venable Place; 301 Glade Street; Lot Width (RL)
AWV2021000001 3922 Brownway Court; Rear Setback (CDG)
AWV2021000003 LHV Landing Block 1, Lot 3; 418 Edward Street; Lot Depth (RL)
AWV2021000004 LHV Landing Block 1, Lot 2; 418 Edward Street; Lot Depth (RL)
AWV2021000005 LHV Landing Block 1, Lot 1; 418 Edward Street; Lot Depth (RL)
AWV2021000006 Venable Estate; 303 Glade Street; Lot Width (RL)
AWV2021000010 315 College Main; Parking Count (JD)
AWV2021000014 315 College Main; Setback from Back of Curb (JD)
2.3.Public Hearing, presentation, discussion and possible action regarding a variance to Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 6.5.B.1 'Accessory Structures' to allow an accessory
structure larger than 25% of the habitable floor area of the principal structure for the property
located at 903 Francis Drive. The subject property is zoned GS General Suburban. Case
#AWV2021000013
Sponsors:Rachel Lazo
Attachments:1.Staff Report
2.Applicant Supporting Information
3.Applicant Variance Letter
4.Proposed Floor Plan
5.Proposed Site Plan
6.Vicinity Aerial and Small Area Map
Page 1 of 19
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Page 2 May 4, 2021
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 27, 2021 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) 7643541, TDD
at 18007352989, 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 SubCapitulo 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 19
December 8, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 1 of 2
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Regular Meeting
December 8, 2020 6:00 P.M. Internet: https://zoom.us/j/9564728483
Phone: *888 475 4499 and Meeting ID: 956 4724 8483
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Smith, Howard Mayne, Fred Dupriest, William Pugh, and Rachel Smith.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Molly Hitchcock, Jesse Dimeolo, Leslie Whitten, and Crystal Derkowski 1. Call meeting to order Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Hear Visitors No visitors spoke
3. Agenda Items 3.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes:
Member Smith motioned to approve the meeting minutes from November 10, 2020. Member Dupriest seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
3.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a
height variance to the Airport Zoning Ordinance for the property located at
315 College Main, which is zoned NG-1 Core Northgate. Case #AWV2020-
000011
Jesse Dimeolo, Staff Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the
applicant is requesting a height variance to the Easterwood Airport Zoning
Ordinance.
There was general discussion amongst the Board regarding the variance
request.
Chairperson Smith opened the public hearing.
Applicant, Veronica Morgan, spoke in favor of the variance request.
Citizen, Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camile Drive, spoke in favor of the variance
request.
Page 3 of 19
December 8, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 of 2
Citizen, Rick Lemons, 301 Sophia, spoke in favor of the variance request.
Chairperson Smith closed the public hearing.
There was a general discussion amongst the Board.
Board Member Smith motioned to approve the variance as it would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship for the applicant. The granting would subsequently result in justice being done and not be contrary to public interest and be in in accordance with the spirit of the regulations and Airport zoning with the FAA findings. Board Member
Mayne seconded the motion.
Chairperson Smith called for the vote. Motion to approve passed (5-0).
4. 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.
5. Adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Approved: Attest:
______________________________ ________________________________ Mark Smith, Chairman Crystal Derkowski, Staff Assistant
Page 4 of 19
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 4, 2021
Page 1 of 5
VARIANCE REQUEST
for
903 Francis Drive
AWV2021-000013
REQUEST:A variance to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section
6.5.B ‘Accessory Structures’ to allow an additional 1,049 square
feet to the maximum 25% (473 square feet) of the principal
structure’s habitable floor area for an Accessory Structure.
LOCATION:903 Francis Drive
ZONING:GS General Suburban
PROPERTY OWNER:Beverly Jo Woodruff
APPLICANT:Dana Hudson
PROJECT MANAGER:Rachel Lazo, Senior Planner
rlazo@cstx.gov
BACKGROUND:The subject property is the location of a 1,894 square foot Single
Family home. The current property owner is proposing to
construct a 1,163 square foot accessory living quarter in addition
to the existing 360 sq.ft. freestanding office. By ordinance, all
accessory uses are not to exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the
area of the principal structure, which in this case is 473 square
feet. A 1,163 sq.ft. living structure combined with the existing 360
sq.ft. accessory structure would be 80.5% of the floor area of the
primary home on site; therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Section 6.5.B ‘Accessory Structures’ to allow an additional
55.5% (1,050 square feet) to the maximum 25% (473 square
feet) of the principal structure’s habitable floor area to allow a
1,163 square-foot accessory living structure in a single-family
neighborhood.
Page 5 of 19
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 4, 2021
Page 2 of 5
APPLICABLE
ORDINANCE SECTION:UDO Section 6.5.B ‘Accessory Structures’
ORDINANCE INTENT:UDO Section 6.5.B ‘Accessory Structures’ sets maximum square
footage requirements for Accessory Structures that limit the size
and scale of accessory living quarters to remain appropriate for
single family zoning districts.
RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date:May 4, 2021
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:
College Woodlands
Property owner notices mailed:18
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.
ZONING AND LAND USES
Direction Zoning Land Use
Subject Property GS General Suburban Single Family Residential
North GS General Suburban Single Family Residential
South GS General Suburban Single Family Residential
East GS General Suburban Single Family Residential
North GS General Suburban Single Family Residential
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1.Frontage: The subject property has approximately 300 feet of frontage on Munson Avenue,
and 225 feet of frontage on Francis Drive.
2.Access: The subject property is currently taking access from Munson Avenue.
Page 6 of 19
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 4, 2021
Page 3 of 5
3.Topography and Impervious Cover: The subject property slopes 3 feet from the
northeast corner towards the southwest corner along Francis Drive. According to City
estimates, the impervious cover for the entire lot does not exceed 55% which is the
maximum impervious cover allowed for the lot. In the future, when the landowner applies
for a building permit, a more detailed calculation will be needed showing that the maximum
impervious cover limit has not been exceeded.
4.Vegetation: The property has many canopy trees on site. The proposed addition
would not conflict with much of the existing vegetation.
5.Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain.
REVIEW CRITERIA
According to Unified Development Ordinance Section 3.19.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 does not believe that an extraordinary or special condition exists that would
deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the land. In this case the applicant
has approached the City with a request to increase the square footage allowed
for an accessory structure.
The square footage maximum, as outlined in the Unified Development
Ordinance, allows for 25% of the principal structure’s habitable floor area to be
designated for all accessory structures, including accessory living quarters.
A strict application of the UDO would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable
use of the property, nor does it take away rights to build an accessory structure
that is up to 473 square feet.
The applicant has stated that special consideration should be given to the
request as the 1940’s cottage-style home has been recognized through the City
of College Station’s Historic Marker program.. However, this designation does
not protect the physical alteration of the structure or its outbuildings. Also, the
current City ordinance does not require the modification of the home or provide
protection from future alteration, demolition, or subdivision of land.
2.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. If the proposed variance is not granted, the applicant could
submit a request for an Accessory Living Quarter that is in compliance with the standards
outlined for the Living Quarters that allows for a habitable space. If the variance is not
granted, the applicant is not being denied a substantial property right of a single-family lot.
3.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
Page 7 of 19
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 4, 2021
Page 4 of 5
administering 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.
4.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.
5.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.
6.Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in
the vicinity.
No extraordinary conditions related to the land have been identified. The Accessory
Structure standards apply to all property within the GS General Suburban zoning district
and are not unique to this property.
7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.
A hardship that occurs because of an extraordinary condition of the land does not exist on
the subject property. The applicant is not denied a right to build an Accessory Living
Quarter. The applicant states in the request that the hardship is that they would like to
preserve the historic nature of the existing home. The accessory living quarter does not
require any physical modification to the existing structure, it is only limited in size in relation
to the principal structure, and does not relate to a physical characteristic of the property
itself.
8.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 conflicts with the Neighborhood Conservation land use
designation of this property on the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use and
Character Map by effectively allowing two principal structures on a single lot, bypassing
the additional subdivision regulations as outlined in UDO Section 8.3.H.2. Platting and
Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions.
9.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 prohibit the
Page 8 of 19
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 4, 2021
Page 5 of 5
applicant in the utilization of their property; the single-family home constructed in 1939 will
remain in use, and an Accessory Living Quarter is still permitted on the property.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative exists to construct an addition to the existing 360 square-foot freestanding
accessory structure (‘office’) that will allow for a habitable area that complies with the 473
square feet allowed for Accessory Structures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
SUPPORTING MATERIAL
1.Applicant Supporting Information
2.Applicant Variance Letter
3.Proposed Floor Plan
4.Proposed Site Plan
5.Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
Page 9 of 19
Name of Project: ACCESSORY DWELLING VARIANCE
Address: 903 FRANCIS DR
Legal Description: WOODLAND ACRES, LOT 18-19 (NE 225' OF)
Applicant: Dana Hudson
Property Owner: WOODRUFF BEVERLY JO
Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from:
6.5 B. Accessory Structures.1.In combination, all accessory uses shall contain no more square footage than
twenty-five (25) percent of the habitable floor area of the principal structure or 400 square feet, whichever is
greater. Garage or carport areas devoted to the storage of vehicles shall not be included in the calculation of
the twenty-five (25) percent restriction.
The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested:
We would like to not be restricted by the square footage allowance for the detached quarters. We are asking
for an approximate 1150sqft instead of 470 sqft. About 2.5 times the allowed number.
The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial
hardship is/are:
The aesthetics should not be altered by elongating the building. Also, given the age of the structures, it is not
advisable to structurally tie into the building. This could pose some permanent damage to the building that we
would like to protect.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
Our alternative is to allow it to be detached with a visual link. This helps give it the look of a cohesive structure
without turning an early century cottage into a mid century rambling ranch.
Therefore, we are proposing a visual link between the structures via a like fence, and joining deck and pergola.
APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The following special condition exists:
This is a designated historic structure with the City of College Station, therefore special consideration should
be given to how the design is approached to protect the aesthetics, and the structural integrity.
Page 1 of 2
Page 10 of 19
This mimics the aesthetics on the east side of the property that is today used as the front of the home.
Another possible alternative would be to get a Historic District Overlay for the property, however, I am not sure
of that feasibility. I have had multiple conversations with city staff, and this never came up.
The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to:
Our intent is to allow this to be a long term family investment that honors the architecture of the old faculty
homes that were placed in this neighborhood. Many now gone. The small home and large lot lends itself to
possible future demolition and re- development of multiple dwellings. In my experience, that is not something
these older neighborhoods want.
Page 2 of 2
Page 11 of 19
Hudson Architecture, PLLC 1114 Hopewell Court College Station, Texas 77845 PH 979.324.6062 E-Mail hudson_architecture@outlook.com
Date March 18, 2021 Project 21.R001 903 Francis Dr
City of College Station Zoning Board
1101 Texas Ave College Station, Texas 77845
979.764.3570
Re: Accessory Dwelling Variance for 903 Francis Dr Historic Home #44
Zoning Board of Adjustments,
Our understanding of the College Station Ordinances state that an accessory dwelling may not be developed that is more than 1/4 the size of the original home’s heated square footage unless directly attached. We are requesting a variance that will allow a larger dwelling that is not directly connected. Following are the reasons for our plea.
903 Francis is designated by College Station as a historically significant structure. While College Station has not developed any restrictions to altering a historical structure, it is common practice to not allow the
structure to be altered at all or only very minimally depending on the relevant historical designation. It is our desire to respect the existing structure and honor its character. To do this it is not only necessary to have a detached dwelling for the aesthetics, but also to protect the structural integrity of the 1940 building.
We hope to have achieved an agreeable solution by connecting the dwelling visually with a white fence and deck/pergola that mimics the appearance of the connection of the East side entry to the property. The attached photo shows the home and existing office building. There is a deck and pergola in the background covered in wisteria that can be a little hard to make out in the photo, so I have attached an additional photo of the pergola before we put the fence in.
We would like to add the attachment as a private dwelling for the matriarch of the family who loves to quilt and wants her own space. The previous owners also wanted to add a dwelling to the property for kids and grandkids to have a place to stay when they visited. However, they were blocked by the
ordinance. They decided to build a new home and relocate. We would have to do the same. We also believe that another family would want to do the same or demolish as the property has plenty of room for larger multi building development.
We would like to maintain, respect, and protect the property. We have already replaced the five layers of roofing, reframed the roof, and reroofed bringing back the original cedar shingle and copper roof. We also
Page 12 of 19
rebuilt the deck and cover protecting the wisteria in place. We hope to add this accessory dwelling for family now and family to come. Although, we don’t need the extra deck. So, if you are willing to grant
the variance without that part of the visual connection, we will graciously accept. We also plan to add a three-car garage designed much like an old carriage house replacing the existing carport that straddles the building setback line, but mimic it’s architecture. And over time we hope to landscape even more southern charm into this property.
Hopefully, by now we have imparted upon you our seriousness in respecting the property and College Station’s history. We understand the concern of additional dwellings, especially given College Station’s dynamics. We have already spoken with a neighborhood planning group, and they voiced their support. We hope to gain yours as well.
Sincerely,
Dana Hudson, AIA (owner’s daughter and representative)
CC:
Page 13 of 19
View prior to the fence we built, but this image shows the wisteria covered deck and pergola a bit better wrapped in lights.
Page 14 of 19
Page 15 of 19
Page 16 of 19
Page 17 of 19
Page 18 of 19
Page 19 of 19