To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: JP Ducay, Planner
Subject:
Title
PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a request to amend the ordinance of a previously approved Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a home renovation in conjunction with the construction of an existing accessory structure, on a 1.01-acre lot on the north side of Nightingale Circle, approximately 450 feet west of the intersection of Greenbriar Drive and Nightingale Circle, being Lot 9, Block 1, Florence Place Addition, zoned SF-36 (Single Family Residential - 36,000 square foot minimum), located at 1565 Nightingale Circle. David Johnson, owner/applicant. (SUP-20-0024)
Background:
The property was originally platted in 1983 as Lot 9, Block 1, Florence Place Addition.
The Applicant submitted a SUP application in early 2017, however, due to extensive floodplain related issues the request was denied. These issues were later resolved through FEMA. (Exhibit A: FEMA Documentation)
After resolving the FEMA issues the Applicant submitted a SUP in November 2018, requesting to do substantial renovations to the main house as well as constructing an accessory dwelling unit.
The remodel of the main structure proposed an addition of approximately 4,718 square-feet for a total of 6,722 square-feet under roof after remodel. In addition to the main structure expansion, the applicant proposed to build a 2,334 square-foot accessory dwelling unit located to the rear of the subject property. The purpose of this structure was to house the Applicant while the main structure was being remodeled. Afterwards, the Applicant intended to utilize the accessory structure as a retirement space as well as a workshop to store antique cars and motorcycles.
The purpose of the 2018 SUP request was to permit the construction of the proposed 2,334 square foot, twenty-two foot (22’) high accessory building with variances to the building material, garage door exposure, and maximum height.
The applicant had to also request an SUP to allow the accessory dwelling unit to temporarily exceed 50% of the main structure. Once the remodel was completed as proposed, the accessory structure would no longer exceed 50% of the main structure. Upon the completion of the previously proposed expansion, the main structure would have been approximately 6,722 square-feet. The accessory structure would then be 34.72% the size of the main structure (rather than 116.47%) and would then comply with the current UDC.
The Applicant also requested several variances related to the SUP request. One of the variances was to allow the exterior of the accessory structure to be constructed of materials that are not reflective of the current main structure. The applicant proposed stucco as the exterior material of the accessory structure while the main structure is currently made up of predominately brick. However, the applicant also proposed to construct the entire exterior of the main structure of the same stucco material during the remodeling process. Furthermore, the applicant intended to do the same with a proposed Spanish tiled roofing design. (See ExhibitA: Original submittal documents)
During the November 20th, 2018 City Council meeting, the Applicant requested and was given approval for the following three SUP’s:
SUP’s:
1) Allow the accessory structure to exceed a maximum 1,200 square-feet floor size and allow a 2,334 square-foot structure.
2) Allow the accessory structure to exceed the maximum size ratio of 50% of the main structure and allow a maximum 116.47% of the main structure.
3) Allow the accessory structure to exceed the 15’ foot height requirement and allow a total height of 22’ feet.
Along with these three SUP’s, the Applicant also received approval for the following variances.
Variance Requests:
1) UDC Section 8.10 (A.3) states all accessory buildings will be complimentary to the main structure, constructed of brick or stone, or the same material as the main structure. The applicant proposed to use stucco for the accessory building in lieu of complimenting the main structure’s predominately brick material. This is a temporary variance, because the applicant proposed to convert the main structure façade to stucco as well during the remodel.
2) UDC Section 8.07 (C.4) states that the “maximum garage door(s) exposure to the street shall not exceed one hundred forty-four square feet.” The applicant proposed accessory structure garage doors that would total 264 square feet of street exposure.
3) UDC Section 8.10 (A.10) states “there shall be no more than two (2) detached accessory buildings per single-family lot. “The Applicant had five accessory structures on the property. They include four storage containers and one agricultural building. The Applicant intends on utilizing the accessory containers as storage for home furnishings during the remodel process. The Applicant proposed to remove all accessory structures with the exception of the new 2,334 square-foot structure upon the completion of the remodel.
In addition to the aforementioned requests the City Council Added the following ordinance conditions (See ExhibitA: Original approved ordinance):
1. The accessory building shall not exceed 2,334 square-feet.
2. The accessory building shall not exceed (116.47%) of the maximum size ratio of the main structure initially and not more than 34.72% in 24 months.
3. The accessory building shall not exceed 22’ height.
4. Exterior stucco constructions material shall be utilized specifically as depicted in Exhibit “A”.
5. The garage door shall not exceed 264 square-feet of exposure to the street.
6. There shall not be more than (5) accessory structures on the subject property and all accessory structures except the 2,334 square-foot accessory structure shall be removed upon the completion of the remodel.
Current Status:
Per the ordinance, the Applicant was given 24 months (until November 20th, 2020) to complete these projects. In September of this year, Staff touched base with the Applicant to check on the status of the projects. The 2,334 square-foot accessory dwelling unit had been completed and was being utilized. However, renovations to the main structure never began. The subject property still has 6 accessory structures on site including the newly constructed 2,334 square-foot accessory dwelling unit. The remaining 5 structures are made up of 4 storage containers and a 416 square-foot lawn shed. Due to an array of external variables the Applicant is now requesting to reduce the addition of the main structure which requires amendments to the original ordinance. (Exhibit A: Updated Proposal Documents)
Ordinance Amendment Requests:
1. The Applicant is now proposing an addition of approximately 807 square-feet to main structure in lieu of the previously approved 4,000 square foot addition. With the new proposed addition the main structure would total 3,315 square-feet under roof. Due to the extreme reduction in size and accessory structure necessity, the approved ordinance conditions must be amended as follows:
• Condition #2 reads: The accessory building shall not exceed (116.47%) of the maximum size ratio of the main structure initially and not more than 34.72% in 24 months.
• Condition #2 amendment: The accessory building shall not exceed (116.47%) of the maximum size ratio of the main structure initially and not more than 70% in (To be determined)
2. The Applicant is now requesting to keep the 416 square-foot agriculture shed.
• Condition #6 reads: There shall not be more than (5) accessory structures on the subject property and all accessory structures except the 2,334 square-foot accessory structure shall be removed upon the completion of the remodel.
• Condition #6 amendment: There shall not be more than (6) accessory structures on the subject property and all accessory structures except the 2,334 square-foot accessory structure and the 416 square-foot accessory shed shall be removed upon the completion of the remodel.
Summary:
Section 8.02 (F.2.a) of the UDC states that when considering a SUP request, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors:
1) The use is harmonious and compatible with surrounding existing uses or proposed uses;
2) The activities requested by the applicant are normally associated with the permitted uses in the base district;
3) The nature of the use is reasonable and appropriate in the immediate area;
4) Any negative impact on the surrounding area has been mitigated; and
5) That any additional conditions specified ensure that the intent of the district purposes are being upheld.
Citizen Input:
On November 25, 2020, the City mailed out sixteen (16) letters of Notifications for a Public Hearing to property owners within three hundred feet (300’) of the subject property. Staff also posted a public hearing notice sign on the subject property.
As of December 2, 2020, staff has not received any letters of opposition from the public regarding this SUP application.
Alternatives:
Planning and Zoning Commission has the following options when considering a Specific Use Permit:
- Recommend approval as submitted.
- Recommend approve with modified or additional condition(s).
- Table the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose.
- Recommend denial.
City Council Action:
If Planning and Zoning makes a recommendation tonight, City Council will see this
item on January 5th, 2020.
Attachments:
• Maps
• ExhibitA
o FEMA documentation.
o Original submittal documents
o Original approved ordinance.
o Updated proposal documents.