The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous,` i i i ~j ~ ~ ~ i ~ i N ~ ~ I I I I iC I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I t N I j ~ ~ ~ i 6 ~~~ c ~ I v ~` ~~^1 T o ~o ti ~,~ ~ ~ i ~` ~ r~ i I I I r i i i I I ~ j ,i~~! ~ ,` ~; s1 ;~s~, i~ i I 0 I ~ ~`• is ~ i I I ; ~ t I~ I i ~ ~ I! ;~.~ o '~ i.~ i ' 1 ~ ~ ~ I -~ j ~ ~~ ~~VP j~ ~o ~ ~ 4 ~ 1` ~ `~. ~ I N y r ~ i I i IN ~' U ~ ~ ~~ `J ~I { 1 i~, ~, i ~ ~ ~_ ~ I ~ ~ ' ' ' ` ~ I ~ i ~ ~ I _ i ~ \ t f i i 1 \ r '' ' ~ (~ i I ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~,, ~ i , I 1 i I~ ' ` i~ I ~ ^ '~ ! i a ~ I L ,~ ,~ n '`. ,?, a VARIANCE REQUEST F- The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: c~ ~_ l~ CC~LL? S c-c, Y~ ct l V 1 ,S ~~ _ . , ~ ~ , _ _ ~ h c.., c~v~ i /~-` _ -f~'1 ~~ ~ r _f/l cf~...Z c~~l /,CG ~ Q ~C~ GG'f L(S ~ h-P a ~/-P ¢o ~('PC lG /vi! e1~1L/~ ~ ~4~`"~ ~ ~ ~ v/'a c/ ~'c~~ The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: _ ~,~- - ~ ~ ~ This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions: ~ ems- .~, ~ ,~- ~. o-~.,,1 0 ~' a ~~/' w-~ 4- Sr~7y'~/s ~/,, ~ -~ t This variance will. not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: ~t'c ~ ~ ` e ~ ° ~^ i/a ~i ct~~~ c ~ c~;- ,~~~ ~l~~w Si ~~ ~ ~ e c~~'~'efca~-e~ Ta ~i F~ ?~ ~ C ~• ~% - os 0~ s , ' T l~s i s ~: ~c~S~~(a ~/-E ~~`~!~'/~ `c.~r s0/K ~ GJ6I ~ c G/ ~~?) u v~~- e facts stated in this application are true and correct. / ~~ ~' ~- A licant Date ~~ PP ~.....~,..~,,... ~ -~~ -~G-~cN~ ~t.1~- /1 l.~-e~-•~ tom' The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: ' r '_ ~~d / ~ ~ b c ~~ G~ ~< ~ d _C~I Z ~ ~~fi v 11ilUNICIPA.L DEVELOPMENT GROUP 203 Holleman Drive East • College Station, Texas 77840.• 409-693-5359 • FAX.• 409-693-4243 Engineering, Surveying, Planning and Environmental Consultants ,~_:, July 26, 1996 Jane Kee, City Planner Development Services Department City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station, texas 77840 Re: LaCour Subdivision Variance request Dear Jane: As we had discussed previously, we have encountered several difficulties during our preliminary design for this project and are seeking to have them resolved in the fastest manner possible. As you recall, SCC is legally obligated to have the Office Max store ready for business by 31 December 1996, so time is of the essence to us in these matters. We are requesting a variance to two items: Item 1 Variance to 7.F.2.a, Page 7-37 We would like the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission to fill our site all the way to the dedication line as we discussed out our pre-development meeting of 1 ~ July. Obviously if we do this, it will be necessary to place fill in the dedication area as well, in order to carry the slope back to natural ground. I spoke with Kent Laza about this yesterday and he told me that the ordinance would not allow us to do this without a variance. We feel this is a reasonable approach to developing the site- if we cannot do this we are deprived. of about 20 feet of buildable area on what is proving to be very tight site. Our only other alternative to this that would allow us full use of the site would be the erection of a retaining wall the entire length of the lot along the dedication line. There are several drawbacks to this approach, the first being that the dedicated area would be below a 5 foot high wall and access would. be difficult. Aesthetically, a simple concrete wall will not be attractive, and any improvement of this solution will result in more delays and expense. In addition, this option wouldcost over $130000 for a simple concrete wall and such an expenditure would probably kill the entire project. What we propose to do will benefit the city- the dedication area will receive over $5000 dollaxs of free fill, compacted in place and sodded. This is something that will probably be required when the jogging paths and walkways are developed, any way. Why not let us do it now? (See accompanying sketch) i Jane Kee Page jul~~ ? 6, 1996 Item 2 Variance to 7.F.l.a.(7), Page.?-36 As eve discussed at pre-development meeting, this may :not actually require a variance, as it is my understanding that the building facade on the creek side will be as aesthetically acceptable as on the front. If this is the case, we appear to be allowed the use of compact car spaces, and dont require a variance. Nevertheless, we wish to have this interpretation approved by the staffand P & Z. At this stage we simply must know, we can't do all this site design based on a supposition. We seek to allow the southern tier of parking to be developed as "compact car "spaces. The reason for this is twofold. We can provide more parking spaces on the site and lesson the problem of congestion. Additionally, since the compact space is only 7.~ feet by 16 feet we aze able to accomplish what David Brochu suggested at our meeting- we can provide 2 feet of bumper overhang and still have two feet available for a hedge type planting and the irrigation system, all without encroaching into the Wolf Pen Creek Dedication Area, or shifting the parking lot back, which also creates design and space utilization problems. This is also a reasonable request. We sincerely believe that neither of these two variances will damagee the city in any way, or threaten the integrity of the Wolf Pen Creek corridor. These variances will allow for the most efficient use of the site, improve the: aesthetics of the creek and the developed site and will allow for the enhancement of the WPC by actually having a high visibility commercial project succeed. We ask for your support in this matter. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Gre?ory K. Taggart Vice President 00081-G20 - 16 (27~I) c7 e ~r'C,w ~(-~'uv~ L i vt ee 1 j~rm19osce~ ~~'!l / '~ -.7 ~ 1 Araa. o f X ~ vari qrt ct ~ t[1 ~ ~ ~ e. g t.L. L 5 f' U ~ - p evGto ~/ ~ p,~,LK~ S~ ~~ Lo-~ ~ L. a... Ga u~ - ~ u.b d ~ vi s i wt ~'x i s ~-~',~ ~ - N w-l-u ra C7 Yp KYt of .Zap ~'+~'c.a.. G<~ativ~cl ~~ood~Jay (..ine. aid wbsolKfc. Lirni}~ o~ ~ili ~~ Y ~t, Y' 1, q, vt C ~ 1~ C y ~,~, c s U