HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/2025 - 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: 248 628 823 308 4 | Passcode: EH6iS9so
Phone: 833-240-7855 | Phone Conference ID: 855 404 808#
The City Council may or may not attend this meeting.
August 5, 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. June 3 2025
2.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a front setback variance
to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 5.2.A. ‘Dimensional Standards for Non-Clustered
and Clustered Developments’, for the property located at Sweet Briar Subdivision, Block 1, Lot
21 generally located at 1004 Rose Circle. The subject property is zoned GS General Suburban.
Case #AWV2025-000040
Sponsors: Garrett Segraves
Attachments: 1. Staff Report
2. Aerial
3. Small Area Map
4. Supporting Info Variance
5. Applicant's Exhibit
3. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
A member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to
a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
4. Adjourn.
Adjournment into Executive Session may occur in order to consider any item listed on the agenda if a
matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall,
1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on July 30, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.
Page 1 of 13
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Page 2 August 5, 2025
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 13
July 1, 2025 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 1 of 2
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustments
Regular Meeting
July 1, 2025
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Bill Lartigue, Board Members Justin Collins, Michael
Martinez, James Hutchins, and Brian Yung
MEMBERS ABSENT: Board Member Jaymeson Hacker
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning & Development Services Anthony Armstrong,
Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner Jeff
Howell, Assistant City Attorney David Purnell, Lead Technology Service Specialist Lillian
Wells, Staff Assistant Gina Saldana, and Administrative Support Specialist Kristen Hejny
1.Call meeting to order.
Chairperson Lartigue 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:
•June 3, 2025
Board Member Collins moved to approve the meeting minutes from June 3, 2025,
Board Member Martinez seconded the motion, the 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 W.C. Boyett Estate Partition,
Block 12, Lots 1-4, generally located at 201 Church Avenue. The property is zoned NG-
1 Core Northgate. Case #AWV2025-000012
Senior Planner Howell presented the item to the Board and stated that the applicant is
requesting a 215.44-foot height variance for the use of a temporary helper crane and a
159.4- foot height variance for use of a tower crane.
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.
Page 3 of 13
July 1, 2025 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 of 2
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 visitors spoke.
Chairperson Lartigue closed the public hearing.
Board Member Martinez 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 Collins seconded the
motion, the motion 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 on future agenda items.
5.Adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
______________________________ ________________________________
Bill Lartigue, Chairperson Gina Saldana, Board Secretary
Page 4 of 13
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 4
August 5, 2025
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
1004 Rose Cir
AWV2025-000040
REQUEST: A 6.5-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’ for an accessory carport structure.
LOCATION: 1004 Rose Cir
Sweet Briar Addition, Block 1, Lot 21
ZONING: GS General Suburban
PROPERTY OWNER: Terry Creasy
APPLICANT: Terry Creasy
PROJECT MANAGER: Garrett Segraves, Staff Planner
gsegraves@cstx.gov
BACKGROUND: The applicant wants to place a 420 (20.5’x20.5’) sq. ft. carport on an existing
slab where the carport would encroach approximately 134 sq. ft. into 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 6.5’
into the required 7.5-foot side setback, resulting in a 1-ft side setback. It is
worth noting that concrete slabs are allowed in setbacks, and the house on the
property does have a 2-car garage.
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 based on the protection of property
values.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
Page 5 of 13
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 4
August 5, 2025
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: August 5th, 2025
Property owner notices mailed: 15
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 Single-Family Dwelling
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 property has 100 linear feet of frontage on Rose Cir.
2. Access: The property takes access from Rose Cir.
3. Topography and vegetation: The subject property appears relatively flat. There is a non-canopy tree at the
west corner of the house between the parking slab and the garage, as well as a canopy tree at the southeast
side of the parking slab.
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.
There are no extraordinary conditions affecting the land such that the application of the UDO will deprive
the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. They will still be able to use the lot for a single-family
residential home and will still have parking for the home. The existing home has a two-car garage which
could be used for protective parking at the front of the house with side entry on the west facade. The
parking pad where the applicant is proposing to place the two-car carport is the maneuvering pad for garage
access. The applicant has stated that to place the carport on the existing slab and have adequate room to
access the side door of the house, the carport must be four feet from the house.
Page 6 of 13
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 4
August 5, 2025
2. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
There are no special conditions identified that generally apply to this property or other property in the
vicinity. The surrounding area consists of platted lots which are subject to the standards set forth in Section
5.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Generally, the lots in the vicinity do not have two-car carports.
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 property rights of the applicant. If the
proposed variance is not granted, the applicant can still construct a carport outside of the 7.5 ft side setback
and be in compliance with the UDO.
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.
None of the hardships listed above have been found to apply to the property and proposed structure. The
current location of the parking slab is original to the house, and the applicant is still allowed to park on the
slab in its current location as concrete slabs are allowed within setbacks. The applicant has stated that
extending the driveway to the backyard allowing for the carport to comply with the Unified Development
Ordinance would be costly, but it has not met the test to be a hardship as defined by the state statute and
the Unified Development Ordinance.
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 Sweet
Briar 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.
Page 7 of 13
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 4
August 5, 2025
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 the two-car garage and their property as a
residential lot.
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 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 carport would be one foot from the
property line. While cars are allowed to park there, there is currently no structure which would have greater
impact on the neighboring property.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant could construct a single-car or tandem two-car carport without encroaching on the setback, or
they could use the currently in place two-car garage within the house to protect their vehicles. In order for the
applicant to comply with the UDO while utilizing a two-car carport, they would have to extend the concrete pad
into the backyard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is seeking a 6.5-foot 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 substantial
encroachment of the setback is not within the parameters of the UDO to justify a variance, including the lack of
a special condition and hardship. As all nine of the review criteria are not met, staff recommends denial of the
variance request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial
2. Small Area Map
3. Applicant’s Supporting Information
4. Applicant’s Exhibit
Page 8 of 13
Name of Project: DETACHED CARPORT ON EXISTING PARKING PAD, SIDE SETBACK (AWV2025-
000040)
Address: 1004 ROSE CIR
Legal Description: SWEET BRIAR, BLOCK 1, LOT 21
Applicant: TERRY CREASY
Property Owner: CREASY TERRY S & LUISA M DECKA
Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from:
UDO Section 5.2.A Residential Zoning District Dimensional Standards
The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested:
Request a variance to allow installation of a detached carport on the existing parking pad to encroach on the
7.5 foot side setback.
The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial
hardship is/are:
The placement of the driveway and parking pad were original to the house, and were not a result of our
actions. There is no other reasonable location where we can locate the carport. Placing a carport over the
parking pad where we already park our cars, which is on the side of our house and far set back from the street,
and which will be in line with the board fence on the right property line, would have a negligible impact on our
neighbor.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
Because of the placement of the driveway and parking pad next to our house, there is no other reasonable
location where we can locate the carport. The only alternative would be to extend the driveway into the
backyard, build a new parking pad in the backyard, and then build the carport there. This would be extremely
expensive and undesirable since we would lose the use of a significant part of the backyard.
APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to:
Placing a carport over the existing parking pad where we already park our cars, on the side of our house and
set back far from the street, would have negligible impact on the public interest or on our neighbors. Having
already had cars severely damaged from hail, the inability to install a carport would place a significant financial
burden on us in the event of future hailstorms. Allowing College Station residents to protect their cars from hail
is in the public interest.
The following special condition exists:
A carport is needed to protect our cars from hail. The current parking pad, where we park our cars, is located
at the end of the driveway, on the side of the house. The width of the parking pad is 25 feet, and covers the
distance between the side of the house to the property line. The carport we propose to install is 20 feet wide,
which will allow just enough room for two cars to be parked side-by-side, with room for the car doors to open.
In order to allow enough access to the side door of the house, we must position the carport with the right side
of the carport 1 foot from the right property line (covering the current parking pad) and the left side 4 feet from
the house. This requires a variance from the setback requirement.
Page 1 of 2
Page 11 of 13
Page 2 of 2
Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 13