Commission approves 5-foot lot-width variance for proposed replat on Cottonwood Street

The Bryan Planning and Zoning Commission on April 3 approved planning variance PV25-03 to allow a five-foot reduction in required lot width for a proposed replat at 1708 Cottonwood Street.

Benjamin Johnson, staff planner, said the site is zoned RD-5 and the applicants seek a variance from the typical 50-foot lot width so that five proposed lots would each have a 45-foot width. Johnson said the parcel covers about 1.43 acres and that an earlier house and accessory structures were demolished in early March. He said the proposed lots greatly exceed minimum lot depth and area requirements and that the replat includes one lot (2A1R) at 55 feet to accommodate a public utility easement.

Johnson told the commission that the replat includes a note indicating a 35-foot front setback, but he cautioned that under Section 62-163 of the city's Land and Site Development Ordinance the city can only enforce setbacks established in that section; the noted 35-foot front setback on the plat would not itself be an enforceable city standard. The applicants provided a letter from the buyer under contract indicating the builder’s willingness to abide by a 35-foot front setback.

Applicant agent Lehi Jones of J4 Engineering said the applicants had revised the plan after the commission’s prior meeting and that the builder had agreed to the voluntary 35-foot front setback. Johnson said staff recommended approval because the reduced width is offset by large lot depths and areas and remains consistent with the comprehensive plan’s low-density residential category. Staff also told commissioners the request would provide an infill opportunity and efficient use of land without detrimental effects to neighboring properties.

A single citizen comment submitted from the property across the street expressed concerns about congestion and adding additional housing. Commissioners discussed design approaches—narrower, deeper houses—and several members expressed support for the proposal as appropriate infill; one commissioner said they had driven the area and observed improvements in nearby properties. A motion to adopt the staff report and approve PV25-03 was made and seconded by unnamed commissioners; the motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

The commission record includes the replat drawings submitted for SDRC review and a buyer’s letter committing to the voluntary 35-foot front setback, but the transcript reflects that the setback note on the plat is not an enforceable development standard under the cited ordinance section.