Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/2025 - 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: 247 714 552 335 | Passcode: KX6wf2Pu Phone: 833-240-7855 | Phone Conference: 480 277 764# The City Council may or may not attend this meeting. January 7, 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. November 6, 2024 2.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a rear setback variance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ and a variance to the maximum size of an accessory structure per the Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.5.B.1. ‘Accessory Structures’, for property located at College Park Subdivision, Block 12, Lot 11 & 12, generally located at 600 Guernsey Street. The subject property is zoned GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. Case #AWV2024-000026 Sponsors: Jeff Howell Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Aerial and Small Area Maps 3. Applicant's Supporting Information 4. Applicant's Exhibit 5. NCO Ordinance 2019-4073 2.3. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a rear setback variance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.5.B.5.a 'Accessory Structures' for the property located at Oakwood Addition, Block 1A, Lot 4, generally located at 200 Suffolk Avenue. The property is zoned GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. Case #AWV2024-000021 Sponsors: Gabriel Schrum Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Aerial and Small Area Map 3. Applicant's Supporting Information 4. Survey 5. St. Thomas Episcopal Church Letter of Support Page 1 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 January 7, 2025 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 December 31, 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, 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 34 November 6, 2024 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 1 of 2 Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting November 6, 2024 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Bill Lartigue, Board Members Michael Martinez, James Hutchins, Trent Thomas, and Justin Collins CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Assistant City Attorney David Purnell, Staff Planners Gabriel Schrum, Garrett Segraves, Transportation & Mobility Planner Carl Ahrens, Technology Service Specialist Trey Bransom, Technology Service Specialist Roxanna Duran 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 Collins motioned to approve the meeting minutes from October 1, 2024, 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 S. The property is zoned NG-1 Core Northgate. Case#AWV2024-000017 Staff Planner Schrum presented the item to the Board and stated that the applicant is requesting a 110-foot height variance for a multi-family residential building, and a 180- foot variance for the use of a tower crane to construct the building. 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. Chairperson Lartigue opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Page 3 of 34 November 6, 2024 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 of 2 Chairperson Lartigue closed the public hearing. Board Member Hutchins motioned to approve the variance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Texas A&M University did not have concerns, and that the approval was within the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s jurisdiction, Board Member Thomas 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 Crystal Fails, Board Secretary Page 4 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 6 January 7, 2025 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 600 Guernsey Street AWV2024-000026 REQUEST:A 2’-0” reduction to the minimum 20-foot rear setback as set forth in Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ and a 37 square foot increase to the maximum size of an accessory structure as set forth in Section 6.5.B.1. ‘Accessory Structures’ LOCATION:600 Guernsey Street College Park Subdivision, Block 12, Lot 11 & 12 ZONING:GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay PROPERTY OWNER:Everette Newland APPLICANT:Everette Newland PROJECT MANAGER:Jeff Howell, Senior Planner jhowell@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to build improvements for a 648 sq. ft. accessory structure (accessory living quarters above a detached garage) encroaching approximately 54 sq. ft. within the rear setback. The improvements are proposed to be constructed 18 feet from the property line and thus require a 2- ft. variance to the 20-foot rear setback required by Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ . The proposed improvements also require a variance to Section 6.5.B.1. ‘Accessory Structures’ for a 37 square foot increase from the required limitation of 25% of the habitable floor area of the principal structure to build a 648 sq.ft. accessory living quarters. The size of the principal structure is 2,444 sq.ft. therefore the maximum area of an accessory structure is limited to 611 sq. ft.. It is worth noting that the area of a detached garage is not limited. Only the conditioned (heated/cooled) floor area of the proposed accessory living quarters above the garage is being considered as part of this request. Page 5 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 6 January 7, 2025 It is also worth noting that with the proposed improvements, it appears the development would be within the maximum 55% of Impervious Cover allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, but additional information would be required to confirm this during the building permit process. If the Impervious Cover requirement is not met, backyard modifications or an additional variance would be required at that time. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’; and UDO Section 6.5.B.1. ‘Accessory Structures’ 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; and UDO Section 6.5.B.1. ‘Accessory Structures’ sets a limitation on the size of accessory structures to help ensure they are subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to the primary use served and remain appropriate for single family zoning districts. RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends denial of the variance request. NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 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: 23 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 Page 6 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 6 January 7, 2025 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Dwelling North GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Dwelling and Guernsey Street ROW South GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Dwelling East GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Dwelling and alley ROW West GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Dwelling and Ayrshire Street ROW PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1.Frontage: The subject property has approximately 120 feet of frontage on Guernsey Street and 134.63 feet on Ayrshire Street. 2.Access: The subject property takes vehicular access from Ayrshire 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. 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. No extraordinary or special condition exists that would deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the land. The applicant has stated that the “2-foot setback variance is necessary to protect the critical root zone of the live oak tree”. Also, the applicant also states that “based on the 25% rule, is not functional for modern use, creating a significant design and usability challenge” While the lots within this subdivision were platted in 1923, this property at 120’ x 134.63’ and 16,117 sq.ft. exceeds the minimum lot size standard for GS General Suburban (50’ x 100’ and 5,000 sq. ft.), and is one of the largest lots on the block face, so a structure may be constructed on site that does not encroach into the setback of a shared property line. A Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (NCO) was established in 2019 with special provisions for building height, lot size, and tree protection/preservation outside of the buildable area during construction. This proposal will not affect trees outside of the building area. When existing trees are required to be protected, they are so one foot for each caliper inch, which is typically the extent of a tree’s canopy coverage. Based on the aerial, it appears there is space on the property to develop that would not Page 7 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 6 January 7, 2025 impact the existing trees. An accessory structure built in 1925 previously existed on the property, which was smaller (468 sq. ft.) and encroached into the rear setback (approx. 10’), however it has since been demolished. While the encroachment is proposed to be less than the previous structure, it is proposed to be larger in height and area. Based on the proposal, some of the property still remains developable and the proposal may be able to be redesigned in order to meet the setback and size requirements of the UDO while remaining a distance from a larger vegetative canopy. 2. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The Residential Dimensional Standards apply to all property within the GS General Suburban and NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay zoning district and are not unique to this property. There are several lots in the area of the subject property that are of similar size with existing trees. There are also some in the area which have accessory structures as well. There have been no extraordinary conditions identified for this property. 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 existing dwelling (2,444 sq. ft.) was built in 1925, if the proposed variance is not granted, the applicant can still build an accessory living quarters outside of the 20-foot rear setback, reduce the area to be under 25% of the primary structure (611 sq. ft.) and be in compliance with Section 5.2.A ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ and Section 6.5.B.1. ‘Accessory Structures’ of the UDO. If the variance is not granted, the applicant is not being denied a substantial property right of a single-family lot. 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 upon the applicant’s own actions and does not occur due to an extraordinary condition of the land. The applicant has stated that the “2-foot setback variance is necessary to protect the critical root zone of the live oak tree. Strict compliance with the current ordinance would render the accessory structure functionally obsolete and risk harm to this tree”. The applicant has also stated that the “25% ordinance rule restricts the accessory structure to 611 square feet, which is inadequate for a functional layout by modern standards”. The applicant is seeking to have an accessory structure (accessory living quarters) that is 27 feet long encroach 2’-0” feet into the required rear setback (54 square feet) and be Page 8 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 6 January 7, 2025 a 37 square foot increase from the 25% limitation of the habitable floor area of the principal structure (648 sq. ft.). While the applicant is proposing to include parking for the accessory living quarters in a garage below, they have indicated that there is area for improvement on the site amongst the existing trees. Based on the proposal, it appears that some of the property still remains developable and the improvements for the accessory living quarters may be able to be redesigned in order to meet the setback and size 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 within the College Park Subdivision. 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 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 an accessory structure (accessory living quarters) while still meeting the 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. ALTERNATIVES The applicant is proposing to construct improvements for a 648 sq. ft. accessory structure (accessory living quarters) encroaching approximately 54 sq. ft. within the rear setback. The applicant has stated that alternatives are “not applicable”. The applicant could reduce the square footage of the accessory living quarters to be smaller and redesign it so that it could fall outside of the 20-foot rear setback and meet the requirements set forth in Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered and Clustered Developments’ and Section 6.5.B.1. ‘Accessory Structures’ of the UDO. Page 9 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6 January 7, 2025 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 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 Maps 2.Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.Applicant’s Exhibit 4.NCO Ordinance 2019-4073 Page 10 of 34 Page 11 of 34 Page 12 of 34 Name of Project: 600 GUERNSEY - NEW OUTDOOR CASITA (AWV2024-000026) Address: 600 GUERNSEY ST Legal Description: COLLEGE PARK, BLOCK 12, LOT 11 & 12 Applicant: EVERETTE NEWLAND Property Owner: EVERETTE NEWLAND Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from: We are requesting a variance from the College Station Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 6.5.B.1, which limits the combined floor area of all accessory structures to 25% of the habitable floor area of the principal structure or 400 square feet, whichever is greater. Given the principal structure’s size of 2,444 square feet, the current allowance for accessory structures is 611 square feet. We seek a variance to construct a more functional accessory structure that includes one bedroom, one bath, a den, and a kitchen. Additionally, we are requesting a variance from the UDO’s setback requirements to encroach two feet into the 20-foot rear setback. This adjustment aims to protect the drip line of a 100-year-old live oak tree in my backyard, preserving its health and the property’s historic character. These variances will enable you to maintain the unique charm of our 101-year-old home and its surrounding environment, aligning with the community’s historic preservation goals. The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested: 1. Variance to Section 6.5.B.1: An increase in the allowable size of the accessory structure from the current maximum of 25% of the habitable floor area of the principal structure (611 square feet) to 27% (648 sqft) of the habitable floor area, to accommodate a more functional design including a bedroom, bath, den, and kitchen. 2. Variance to the Rear Setback Requirement: A reduction of the 20-foot rear setback by 2 feet, resulting in an 18-foot setback. This adjustment is necessary to avoid disturbing the drip line of a significant 100-year-old live oak tree located in the backyard. These variances allow the preservation of the historic character of the property while maintaining its functionality and respecting environmental and community values. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: see attached document 1 - FINAL The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: Not Applicable APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION The following special condition exists: The variance is necessary due to the unique characteristics of the property and its historical context. The lot is substantially larger than the 101-year-old home, which occupies less than 20% of the lot’s area. The allowed 611-square-foot accessory structure, based on the 25% rule, is not functional for modern use, creating a significant design and usability challenge. Additionally, the presence of a 100-year-old live oak tree with a large drip line requires careful placement of the accessory structure to avoid damaging its roots. The requested 2- foot setback variance accommodates this environmental necessity while preserving the tree’s health. These conditions—historical preservation, environmental stewardship, and the physical limitations of the lot—make the variance essential for balancing functionality with respect for the property’s unique characteristics and the broader community’s values. Page 1 of 2 Page 13 of 34 The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to: This variance aligns with the public interest because it supports the preservation of a historically significant 101- year-old home and mature live oak trees, contributing to the neighborhood's charm and heritage. By maintaining the character of the property and avoiding overdevelopment, the proposed structure respects the area's aesthetic and environmental integrity. Additionally, the requested adjustment minimizes functional issues while adhering to modern safety standards, promoting thoughtful and responsible use of the land. These efforts enhance community value, reflecting a commitment to honoring the historic district and its unique appeal. Page 2 of 2 Page 14 of 34 Thank you for your time and attention regarding our variance request. We greatly appreciate your assistance throughout this process. Below, we have outlined key details to provide clarity and context, as well as the specific hardships associated with our request. 1. Storage Needs and Lawn Maintenance The lawn care for the property to maintain immaculate conditions consists of a lawn mower, a weed eater, leaf blower, and basic tools such as weed shears and other small tools. Currently, the house lacks storage space for these items. Accommodating personal lawn equipment and bicycles for our children to ride to campus in the garage design would help us maintain the landscaping and support functional use of the property. 2. Floor Plan Considerations We are carefully reviewing the floor plan to ensure practicality. For instance, proper clearance around the washer and dryer is necessary to allow ease of use, and having sufficient space at the end of a bed—ideally 3 to 5 feet instead of 2 feet—greatly improves comfort and functionality. Additionally, we require space for a king-size bed, as one of us uses a CPAP machine, making a larger bed essential for comfort and health. 3. Site Location and Tree Preservation Relocating the structure to the back corner of the property is essential to protect a 100-year-old live oak tree. Building a two-story structure in the previous location where the old structure was would require extensive branch removal, potentially compromising the tree’s health. After careful evaluation, we determined that moving the new structure to the rear of the property within the 20ft setback would better align with our commitment to environmental stewardship, and better curb appeal for the community. 4. Hardship Justification The hardship arises from unique conditions of the property and its historic significance, not from actions we have taken. The 25% ordinance rule restricts the accessory structure to 611 square feet, which is inadequate for a functional layout by modern standards. Despite having the option to demolish the 101-year-old home to build a larger structure that could accommodate a more sizable guest house, we have chosen to preserve the home due to its historic character. Additionally, the 2-foot setback variance is necessary to protect the critical root zone of the live oak tree. Strict compliance with the current ordinance would render the accessory structure functionally obsolete and risk harm to this tree. This hardship underscores the balance we seek between maintaining the historic integrity of the home and protecting the environmental features of the lot. Our commitment to preserving the home’s historic and environmental attributes aligns with community goals. The requested variance is critical to achieving a practical, functional design while maintaining the character and natural elements of the property. We will provide any additional details or clarifications as needed. Thank you again for your guidance and support throughout this process. Page 15 of 34 VARIANCE APP DESCRIPTIONS 1. The first variance request seeks to increase the allowable home size from 611 sq. ft. to 648 sq. ft. This adjustment is specifically intended to accommodate a new structure measuring approximately 24 feet in width by 27 feet in length. The variance ensures adequate living conditions while maintaining a modest footprint. 2. Additionally, the 2-foot setback variance into the 20ft setback is necessary to protect the critical root zone of the live oak tree. Strict compliance with the current ordinance would render the accessory structure functionally obsolete and risk harm to this tree. This hardship underscores the balance we seek between maintaining the historic integrity of the home and protecting the environmental features of the lot. The total request for are square footage into the setback would be 54 square feet with a measurement of 2ft width (into setback) with a 27ft length. Page 16 of 34 First Floor Screened in Porch (NOT TO SCALE and NOT Heated or Cooled) SETBACK Area dimensions: 27ft in length X 2ft into setback -- looking at roughly 54sqft into setback Old structure demolishedProposed Structure Size:24ft (width) X 27ft (length)648 Heated/Cooled sqftTOTAL Page 17 of 34 Location of stairs & landing Page 18 of 34 This rendering does not precisely depict the exterior of this home. The final design will align with the main house, featuring a tin roof, white exterior, cedar garage door, and maroon accents. This structure is designed to mirror the primary residence in appearance. Page 19 of 34 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-4073 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A “UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE,” ARTICLE 4 “ZONING DISTRICTS,” SECTION 12-4.2, “OFFICIAL ZONING MAP” OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, BY ADDING A NCO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT FOR APPROXIMATELY 126.92 ACRES, BEING LOCATED IN ALL OR PORTIONS OF THE COLLEGE PARK, SOUTH OAKWOOD, DULANEY, AND WOODSON VILLAGE PHASES 1 & 2 SUBDIVISIONS, AN AREA GENERALLY BORDERED TO THE NORTH BY GEORGE BUSH DRIVE; TO THE EAST BY THE LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF LEE AVENUE TO PARK PLACE; TO THE SOUTH BY LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARK PLACE, LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF PERSHING DRIVE SOUTH TO TIMM DRIVE AND THE WEST SIDE OF PERSHING DRIVE TO SOUTH TO THOMAS STREET, THE NORTHERN CUL-DE- SAC OF HAWTHORN STREET, AND LUTHER STREET; AND TO THE WEST BY THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF FAIRVIEW IN COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That Appendix A “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 4 “Zoning Districts ,” Section 12-4.2 “Official Zoning Map” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, be amended as set out in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance for all purposes. PART 2: If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, the invalidity or unconstitutionality does not affect other provisions or application of this Ordinance or the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. PART 3: That any person, corporation, organization, government, governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association and any other legal entity violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not less than twenty five dollars ($25.00) and not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) for a violation of fire safety, zoning, or public health and sanitation ordinances, other than the dumping of refuse. Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Page 20 of 34 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-4073 Page 2 of 5 PART 4: This Ordinance is a penal ordinance and becomes effective ten (10) days after its date of passage by the City Council, as provided by City of College Station Charter Section 35. PASSED, ADOPTED, and APPROVED this 14th day of February, 2019. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Secretary Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney Page 21 of 34 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-4073 Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A That Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 4, “Zoning Districts ,” Section 12- 4.2, “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended and is to read as follows: The following property is rezoned to add the NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay, shown graphically in EXHIBIT “B,” with Overlay restrictions described in EXHIBIT “C.” Approximately 127 acres, being located in all or portions of the College Park, South Oakwood, Dulaney, and Woodson Village Phases 1 & 2 Subdivisions, an area generally located southeast of George Bush Drive between the lots on the west side of Fairview Avenue and the lots on the east side of Lee Avenue. in College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Page 22 of 34 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-4073 Page 4 of 5 Exhibit B Page 23 of 34 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-4073 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit C The following additional standards are required to be met for any development or redevelopment of single-family property, including expansion of existing structures. 1) Maximum building height of 33 feet; 2) For all new subdivisions, lot size as provided for in the Platting and Replatting in Older Neighborhoods subsection ‘b’ in Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements; and 3) Any existing tree of eight-inch caliper or greater in good form and condition and reasonably free of damage by insects and/or disease located outside the buildable area are required to be barricaded and preserved during construction. A barricade detail must be provided on the site plan. Trees must be barricaded one (1) foot per caliper inch. Barricades must be in place prior to any development activity on the property including, but not limited to, grading. Page 24 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 5 January 7, 2025 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 200 SUFFOLK AVENUE AWV2024-000021 REQUEST:A 15-foot reduction to the minimum 15-foot rear setback for an accessory structure as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’ LOCATION:200 Suffolk Ave Oakwood Addition, Block 1A, Lot 4 ZONING:GS General Suburban NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay PROPERTY OWNER:Gaines & Susan West APPLICANT:Crissy Hartl, Mitchell and Morgan PROJECT MANAGER:Gabriel Schrum, Staff Planner gschrum@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the rear setback for their shed by 15 feet per the requirements of Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’, which states the minimum rear setback for accessory structures is 15 feet. The applicant previously brought forth a variance request to the rear setback for the property in February of 2023 which was denied. The current request is for a variance to the minimum rear setback specifically for the 30-sq.ft. existing shed located on site. Any portable building or structure that the Building Official has determined does not require a building permit may be located within building setbacks. An accessory structure that does not require a building permit is generally under 120 sq.ft. in area, is not permanently affixed to the ground, and does not have utilities. The applicant has an existing shed on the property line that has not needed a building permit to this point. The property owner would like to now run utilities to the structure to transform it into a changing room with a shower, which will Page 25 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 5 January 7, 2025 then require a building permit and thus the need for it to meet the setback requirements. The applicant would like to keep the structure in its existing location on the property line; therefore the applicant is requesting a 15-ft. variance to the rear setback of an accessory structure, being the existing 30- sq.ft. shed. Page 26 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 5 January 7, 2025 APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’ ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’ sets minimum setback standards for accessory structures that usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends denial of the variance request. NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Property owner notices mailed: 22 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report Inquiry contacts: One at the time of this report ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property GS General Suburban with NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home North (across undeveloped alley) GS General Suburban NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home South (across undeveloped alley) GS General Suburban NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (across from undeveloped alley) Single-Family Home East GS General Suburban NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home West GS General Suburban NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay St. Thomas Episcopal Church PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1.Frontage: The subject property has approximately 45 feet of frontage on Suffolk Avenue. 2.Access: The subject property takes access from Suffolk Avenue. 3.Topography and vegetation: The subject property is relatively flat with existing canopy trees concentrated along southern property line and vegetation along the eastern and western property lines. Page 27 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 5 January 7, 2025 4.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. The subject property is one of the largest residential lots on the block. It has very little street frontage but much of its yard can be seen from Suffolk Ave. While these are special conditions of the land, they do not deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the land. The applicant has stated that the unique configuration of the lot and location of utility lines does not provide many suitable locations for the end use of the accessory structure. The sizeable lot has few encumbrances that would hinder the relocation of the accessory structure. The applicant does mention utilities, but the location and proximity of public infrastructure lines do not impede a relocation of the shed to other locations on the property outside of minimum setbacks. 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, utilities may not be extended to the structure but the applicant can still utilize the existing shed as is, or the applicant may move the structure to a conforming location. 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 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 property line that the shed abuts is shared with St. Thomas Episcopal Church. The applicant has provided a letter indicating that the church has no objection to the variance request. 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. The surrounding properties are platted lots. 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. Page 28 of 34 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 5 January 7, 2025 The Accessory Structure dimensional standards apply to all property within residential districts and are not unique to this property. The subject property is the second largest lot on the block, and due to its larger size affords more room to locate an accessory building that meets the district standards compared to other smaller lots. 7. 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 to extend utilities to the existing shed that is currently conforming to setback requirements. The applicants’ desire to upgrade the shed with utilities causes the need to move the structure out of the accessory structure setback. 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 does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and with the purposes of the UDO. 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 restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. The applicant is still able to utilize their property as a single-family lot and utilize the existing shed. ALTERNATIVES The alternative provided by the applicant would be to keep the shed in the same location and not have utilities be extended to the building. The applicant could also move the shed outside of the setback or to a different conforming location on the lot to allow for the desired use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The applicant is seeking a variance of 15 feet to the minimum 15-foot rear setback for an accessory structure per Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’. Due to the lack of meeting all the required criteria, including the lack of an extraordinary condition that is denying the owners a substantial property right, Staff recommends denial of the variance request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 2. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3. Survey 4. St. Thomas Episcopal Church Letter of Approval Page 29 of 34 Page 30 of 34 Page 31 of 34 Name of Project: 200 SUFFOLK AVENUE SETBACK VARIANCE (AWV2024-000021) Address: 200 SUFFOLK AVE Legal Description: OAKWOOD, BLOCK 1A, LOT 4 Applicant: CRISSY HARTL Property Owner: WEST GAINES & SUSAN Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from: 5.2 – Residential Dimensional Standards. We request a variance to the Minimum Rear Setback of 20’ applied only to the shed. The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested: RESPONSE: We request to reduce the rear setback to 0’ for the existing shed only so that it may serve as an accessory structure with utilities. The shed was placed on the property 12 years ago as a storage structure. The storage shed did not need a building permit as it is well below the 150-sf threshold and did not have utilities extended. With the addition of the pool, there is an opportunity for the structure to serve as a changing room with an outdoor shower head. Without utilities, the shed may remain in its current location. We are requesting the variance so that utilities may be extended to the existing structure. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: RESPONSE: The purpose of the structure will be to offer a privacy space to the residents and guests of the residence. The structure is discreetly located along the rear property line. Relocating the building to meet the rear setback would disrupt the aesthetic value of the rear yard as well as from the Suffolk Avenue right of way, as much of the yard is visible from the street, due to the configuration of the lot. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: RESPONSE: Alternatively, the shed will remain in the existing location and will not have utilities extended to the building. APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to: RESPONSE: The shed has been located in this spot for the past 12 years. The structure cannot be expanded, nor is there room to make this any kind of living space. This property shares a rear property line with St. Thomas Episcopal church and representatives have expressed support of the variance. The following special condition exists: RESPONSE: The configuration of the lot and the location of the existing utility lines on the lot does not present many suitable alternative locations for the privacy room. The existing placement of the shed along the rear property line is the ideal location for the structure. Page 1 of 1 Page 32 of 34 Page 33 of 34 Page 34 of 34