Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout214 Zoning Board of Adjustment June 21, 1983ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances : From Section 11-B.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) ----- lot width (Table A) ----- lot depth (Table A) ----- sign regulations (Section 8) ----- X minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) -------' from the ter ms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts: / to+ ,td1 ~C(4'+-+, -V\9•""-y (JJ,._l, U?,c"~J /o } ~"t~:~ZL-<-1. 2. v vl (('lv1 i Z'W ~1J DC-r,d ~ ~ f /1 t ~ lt rto ~ t'et1';.._, I 3. --------------------------------~ 4. --------------------------------~ s. --------------------------------- 6. and because a strict enforcement of the 'provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnec ss r y hardsh.ip to .this applicant being: .1 is ·s 1/\-(, :· l) ,·~--le_;: . l ?o ~A. ~a ~ /;1 +l l "/1~~;~; and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following 1 imitations: 1. --------------------------------- 2. 3. --------------------------------- 4. ----------------------r------------1 This motion was made by ___ J=--;1 ...... ~.._1\f""',_~_-'-N_l..._c--'-~-'--"';_\_·r_l._'--_____ _ Seconded by ~ 112 , /j -+-The variance_w_a_s_g-ra_n_t_e_d-:-':b_y_t~h-e-'-:f~o~l~l-o-w~i-n_g_v_o_t_e_: __ ;f"-+--_-..-1~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJ USTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) x parking requirements (Section 7) 3, -~~-'-""-....._=-~-4-~ ........... ~~-=~~-'--~-~~~~-'--'-.:.._--'-;_~~~~~~- 4. -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'-~~~~~~~~~- s. -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6. and because a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. to this app.Jicant being' l l ~ 6'+r.~~-~ 1 d11--"t~ t!J Ou ,~ ,WV\_~ JJ t .,'fo/Jvi~~} ~1 1 ~ ./-f-~J -vr ~ i I and such that the spirit of this Or inance shal l be observed and substantial justice done, subject t o the fol l owing l i~tatlo n s: 1. lk·t)/,. .. ;.c_ -fo K1;t:-1f-~1~i :i;:,~wt-'""01rv-i ~r fl1"-- 2. Y f \j 3·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---,-~~~~~~~~~~- Th is motion was made by /..( {e l,1.__(,'c+- Seconded by }2rin.if C1 c.., c The variance was -granted -~ the fa l lowing vote: 12 -z.._. D E ,J rco -IA KE.5 f J o/£.s 7D /7 1"?Rof/E ,,...,1-~.,, .... ,_ Ir · ~~~~~~~--------------------------~ . . AGENDA CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of_ Adjustment June21, 1983 7:00 P.M. 1. Approval of minutes -meeting of May 17, 1983. 2 . Consideration of a request for variance to side setback as required by Ordinance 850 Table A to expand a primary structure located at 400 Fairview. Request is in the name of Richard R. Davison, Jr. 3. Reconsideration of a request for variance to the parking requirements on Loi 11, Block 3B of the .College Hills Subdivision (108 Walton). Application is in the name of J. F. & T .. M. Sousares . This request was tabled in December, 1982. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjourn. ( MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment May 17, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Dan MacGilvray, Members Wagner, Upham, Wendt, Meyer and Alternate Member McGuirk was in the audience. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Director of Planning Mayo, Ass 1 t to the Zoning Official Dupies and Planning Technicia-n Volk Chairman MacGilvray introduced the new Board Members Wendt, Meyer and McGuirk. The public hearing was then opened and the Chair stated the duties and obligations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -meeting of April 19, 1983. Mr. MacGilvray referred to Item #5 and asked that his name be included on the 1 ist of people contacted, as well as to Item #6 and requested the word 11 in 11 be changed to the word 11 to 11 • With those changes, Mr. Wagner then made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Upham seconding. Motion carri.ed unanimously. (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision den in site plan a roval due to the lack of an 8 foot setback on a parkin lot at 1806 Welsh Street. A eal is in the name of Jan-Wic Homes, Inc. This item was tabled at the April 19th meeting. Mrs. Kee presented the appeal and gave the background of this site plan, referring to the Project Review Committee reports rn the packets, as well as to the minutes of the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission meetings and the approved, and proposed site plans. Mr. Mac- Gilvray asked about the issuance of building permits and the actual pouring of the park- ing lot, and Mrs. Kee explained; then he asked about the fact that the parking lot ex- tends into the City right-of-way. Discussion followed, Mrs. Kee explained that the plan the Board has is the proposed plan, and not what actually exists on the ground. Proponents of this appeal were called forward and W. A. (Wic) McKean came forward and was sworn in. He explained the site as it exists and further explained that the mistake was made primarily because the 16 ft. R.O.W. on Welsh is atypical, as most streets call for an 11 ft. R.O.W. on each side of the pavement. Mr. Upham asked if a surveyor had laid this project out, and Mr. McKean answered that he had done it himself, and the mis- take was two-fold; that he was not aware of the extra 5 ft. R.O.W., and he had mistakenly set the building forward on the lot 5 feet, which had compounded the error which now totals 10 feet. Ms. Meyer asked for clarification, and Mr. MacGilvray explained. Mr. McKean continued with his proposal to reconstruct the present parking, moving it back and using angled parking which he indicated has been approved by the City. Mr. Mac- Gi lvray asked Mr . Mayo to confirm this, and Mr. Mayo came forward, was sworn in and said he would have to check on this to make sure, but he assumed the plans came from an approved Architectural Standards book. Mr. Upham asked if this parking lot is moved back out of the right-of-way as the proposed plan indicated, would the site then meet all requirements. Mr. McKean pointed out that he would still be four feet short of the required 8 foot set- back requirement. ( ( ZBA Minutes 5-17-83 page 2 Mr. MacGilvray asked if the proposed plan would cover the required parking for the project and Mrs. Kee indicated that it would. The proposed 4 parking spaces at the rear of the building were discussed, and Mr. Wendt asked if these spaces could be designated for employee only parking. Mr. McKean said he would do whatever the City requests. Mr. Upham spoke of the requirement of the Board to consider 11 unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts" and stated that in his opinion, be- cause this is new construction and the other projects around had been able to comply, it would be hard to fulfill this requirement, and in his opinion, the hardship would be only financial. Mr. Mayo came forward as an opponent to this appeal and stated staff has taken a position of recommending denial of relief for several reasons, including the 8 foot setback which assures the City there will always be 8 feet between the parking lot and the pavement for the street, because there is always the possibility that the street could be widened at some future point in time. He advised that the 8 foot setback not only provides a green space, but also serves as a guarantee that the sight distance necessary for safety can be provided. Mr. Upham concurred with this reasoning, and stated that this is an unfortunate situation, but he fears approval of this appeal and a variance to the required 8 foot setback would cause problems with acceptance of standards in the future, and could be a step backward. Mr. MacGilvray asked if there is a viable alternative, and Mr. Mayo pointed out that there is land adjacent to this tract which is owned by the same person, and upon which a second phase to this project has been mentioned. He went on to say that this second phase could be planned on a scale which would allow parking for this project to overflow to that tract. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. McKean if any alternatives had been considered and he replied that they had exhausted al 1 alternatives. Mr. McKean asked Mr. Mayo if the 8 foot setback had ever been waived, and Mr. Mayo replied that it had been for some four-plexes in University Park, but that would have been some years ago; and that in the past few years it has not been waived. Mr. Mayo further point- ed out that the P ,R.C. and the P&Z had specifically required the 8 foot setback on this project. Discussion followed conc~rning certain commercial projects where the setbacks had been waived, and Mr. Mayo pointed out that on one in particular, it had been waived only after the City had found it had approved a maneuverability pattern which would not work, and in order to correct that problem, the setback had been waived. He went on to say that in retrospect, in all probability it would not be waived should the problem occur now. Further discussion followed concerning the possibility of widening Welsh, increased speed 1 imits, establishment of sidewalks in the right-of-way and the possibility of creation of a dangerous situation at the driveway of this project. Mr. Wagner asked about dates of the review by the P.R.C. in relation to beginning of construction of this project, and stated that to him, the requirements wRich had been approved by the P&Z were very clear. Mr. McKean agreed, but again stated that two errors had been made. The requirement of the eight foot setback was discussed, after which Mr. Wagner reminded the Board that they are not considering a variance, but rather either upholding a decision or repealing a decision the Planning & Zoning Commission has made. Mr. Wendt then made a motion to reverse the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance for the following reason: the 20 foot setback shown on March 1 83 plan is adequate and the parking requirements are met as required. Mr. MacGilvray asked if unique and special conditions should be addressed, and Mrs. Kee replied that they should in cases of variances, but the Board is now involved ( . ' ( ZBA Minutes 5-17-83 page 3 in pol icy-making decisions. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Upham then made a motion to uphold the decision made by the Planning & Zoning Com- mission in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance, as the decision meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Wagner seconded. Mr. Wendt asked if this Board could make a compromise and Mr. MacGilvray advised that compromises were not within the jurisdiction of this Board, although he, too, leans in that direction. He further pointed out that the owner and developer had to come up with any compromises. Votes were cast, and the motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Wendt voting against it . AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to Section 8-D.9 of Ordinance 850 limiting commercial businesses to one detached sign. A plication is in the name of Plantation Oaks A artments/Tower Properties LTD. This item was tabled at the April 19th meeting . Mrs. Kee gave background to the ZBA variance given in 1976 and the Conditional Use Permit for a Daycare center issued by the P&Z in 1982, then explained this request. No one was in the audience to represent the applicant, and Mrs. Kee explained that after the request was tabled at the last meeting, she had contacted the applicant and informed them of the time and date of this meeting when the request would be heard. The Chair then made a motion to deny this request because there was no one there to represent the applicant on two separate occasions. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request to Section 7-C of Ordinance 850 regarding the number of required on-site parking spaces provided at a project located on Valley View Drive and the Texas Avenue frontage road. Application is in the name of Auto Horse, Inc., a Texas corporation. Mrs. Kee gave the background leading up to this request for a variance, stating that the City may have contributed to the creation of a hardship for the applicant which would not be a totally self-imposed hardship. She explained that several projects in shopping centers have written cross-parking agreements, and the City had mistakenly assumed that a written agreement could be furnished for this project. and had approva:l the site plan and then issued the building perm]t for _the project to begin prior to receiving the written cross-parking agreement. She further explained that after exhausting all avenues, the architect, the developer and his lawyers have been unable to get this written agree- ment, and the building has already begun. Larry Catlin, attorney for the developer came forward and was sworn in. He gave a more complete background to the developers' efforts to acquire the written agreement, stating names of management companies and lease holders which had been contacted by a different attorney and subsequently by him, to no avail. He further indicated that until as late as the ·beginning of April of 1983, the developer and he were under the impression that the agreement would be forthcoming, and that there would be no problems, but on April 20th, a letter was received from the K-Mart corporation denying the request citing a decision which had been reached in December of 1982 (but about which the developer had never been informed). Mr. MacGilvray asked about the possibility of leasing spaces or of buying additional and Mr. Catlin advised that all possible remedies to this problem had been pursued. further said that K-Mart Is not willing to furnish a written agreement, but also has indicated that the spaces could not be used, should the need arise. land, He not Mr. Wagner asked about the type of business and Ms. Meyer asked about lot dimensions. Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Upham agreed that a building which is too big for the lot has been designed. Further discussion fol lowed concerning other cross-parking agreements in the City and Mr. Mayo cited several cases, indicating Grandy's restaurant as the most ( ( ( ZBA Minutes 5-17-83 page 4 recent case. Ira Held came forward and was sworn in and asked the Board to consider that a great deal of the square footage of this building will be warehousing. Parking for warehouses was discussed, and a figure of less than the 8 parking spaces variance was reached, and the number was revised to perhaps 3 spaces short. Walt Harden was sworn in and stated that he was contacted as a property owner within 200 feet of this project, and stated further that this variance is acceptable to him . Ms. Meyer made the motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (l)the applicant was working under the assumption of approval of owners of adjacent property,(2)the applicant was working under staff approval of a building permit and, (3)adequate parking is available on adjacent property. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner and carried 4-1 with Mr. Upham voting against. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a variance request to Table A of Ordinance 850 regarding side setback requirements for the erection of a carport at 303 Walton. Appl i- cation is in the name of Dorothy & J. G. Mackin. Mrs. Kee explained the request and non-conforming uses vs. variances were discussed. Mr. Upham gave the history of this particular area and cited his inclination to treat this area as unique. Dorothy Mackin was sworn in as a proponent (and applicant) of this variance and stated that Mrs. Kee had explained the request adequately. She further stated that this carport would not obstruct anyone's vision, was not contrary to the public interest, and she was simply requesting a variance. Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum side setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (!)this is the original.ly platted area on the east side of the City of College Station, therefore there are no like districts and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice dbne. Mr. Wendt seconded. Mr. Wagner asked if the Board is comfortable with this reason as the sole condition and suggested an amendment to limiting the non-conformity. ·Mr. Upham moved to amend the motion to include the limitation, and repeated the motion: I move to authorize a variance to the minimum side setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: (1) this is the originally platted area on the east side of the City of College Station, therefore there are no other like districts and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, sub- ject to the following limitations: (!)the proposed addition will not exceed the existing non-conformity. Amended motion was seconded by Mr. Wendt and carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a variance request to Table A of Ordinance 850 side setback re uirements for the erection of a patio cover at 303 West Uni- Bogies Restaurant . Application is in the name of A. P. Boegner 303 Inc. Mrs. Kee explained the background of the property and the current request, then passed around photos of the project which had been taken on this date. She stated staff has concerns over the stack of windows in the photos, as the building permit which has been issued covers a patio cover which meets setbacks and the request is for a patio cover from property line to property 1 ine, but if windows are proposed, it would indicate that a room is being created rather than a walled-in area with a cover over it. ( ( ZBA Minutes 5-17-83 page 5 Should this be the case, technically the City would not be considering any additional seating, but the added area might inadvertantly create the need for additional parking, (even if it is not required based on numbers of seats). Mr. MacGjlvray read aloud a letter the Board has received from Richard B. Benning in which Mr. Benning requests a denial of this variance request. Allen Boegner came forward as a proponent and was sworn in, stating he was plCTlning to raise the walls and include the windows, but if the Board does not want him to do this, it did not make any difference to him. The Chair asked Mr. Boegner to explain the site plan he had furnished, and he went forward and did so. Discussion followed concerning the additional capacity although no additional seats were to be included, and Mr. Mac- Gi lvray asked Mrs. Kee if this business has the required number of parking spaces, and she explained that the parking requirement had been met for the original use, but tech- nically does not meet the current parking requirements. Ms. Meyer asked for clarifica- tion, stating that if this variance is for a patio cover only, and the applicant has already received a building permit for a patio cover which meets the setback require- ments, what would happen if this request is granted. Mr. Upham explained that any changes to the original proposal which is covered by the existing building permit would have to be covered in a new building permit. Donald Bouchard came forward and was sworn in and stated he is a friend of the applicant and a customer at the business, and that he thinks the patio cover would enhance the area and is in favor of the request. Further discussion followed concerning the zero setbacks existing in the Northgate area, the possibility of changing the Zoning Ordinance for that area, the burned out buildings which will not be replaced because of the restrictions in the current Zoning Ordinance, the possibility of this area being unique, the addition of a room to this building, and the convenience to customers of this business. Mr. Wendt then made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum side setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts: (l)due to the typical zero lot line (zero setback) situation found in the Northgate area. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried 4-1 with ~r. MacGilvray voting against. Discussion of putting 1 imitations on this variance followed with the decision reached that the building permit controls the necessary checks, and this variance is not for extending any walls or adding any screens or windows to the walls. Mr. MacGilvray then explained the variance to Mr. Boegner stating that if he asks for anything in addition to the extension of the patio cover from property line to property line, it will have to be considered separately from this variance by the Building Depart- ment and the Planning Staff and is not covered by this variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a variance request to Table A of Ordinance 850 regarding rear setback requirements for the erection of a garage at Lot 16 Block 2 of Emerald Forest IV Subdivision, located at the corner of Rosebud & Bent Tree. Appl ica- tion is in the name of Ranco Home, Mrs. Kee gave the background of this request, stating that setback requirements had not been discussed at the time other problems on the lot were addressed, but that a setback problem had been noted on the building permit. She felt that staff must take some of the responsibility for this problem, but that the ~ also states on the building permit that he is aware of the requirements. ~141 l~ ( ZBA Minutes 5-17-83 page 6 Sarah Norman came forward and was sworn in as a proponent of this request and identified herself as one of the applicants. She reiterated the background already given and then referred to a plot plan provided. Discussion followed concerning the utilities in the easement which would be at the edge of the garage. Mr. MacGilvray explained the problems the Board faces with the corner lots and said there are plans for buildings which would fit on this lot, and offered the opinion that planning has been neglected in this case. Ted Randall came forward and was sworn in and identified also as an applicant. He gave generally the same background as had been heard, but added that he, as a builder, had been assured by the previous owner that there were no problems with the City on this plan. Mrs. Kee gave information that the builder who had drawn up these plans had said he had spoken to the City and had been told there were no problems, but she has been unable to locate anyone from the City who had this conversation. Ms. Meyer pointed out that a corner lot with an easement ~~e rear is not a unique condition. Mrs. Kee spoke of the fact that although t~~~2 ~&J;.,..is,..'il.JJ:),mat;tlY.~.,ep~.1.£, staff did not discuss the problem of setback with him ~scussion 1 tolT'O~Cf"CO nc~~g ·~ staff's mistaken actions in issuing a building permit where a setback problem existed without discussing it with the applicant, and then the Chair (MacGilvray) made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts: (l)unique lot configuration contributing to staff error by City in issuing original building permit on project clearly in non-compliance with rear setback requirement. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion which carried 4-1 (Meyer voting against). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other business Minutes for the Special Legal Workshop were approved with the Chair (MacGilvray) making the motion and Mr. Upham seconding. Motion to approve carried unanimously. Mrs. Kee spoke of a proposal by the Director of Planning to take a tour prior to each meeting. The Board discussed the proposal and gave Mrs. Kee a reading that the Board is against the tour citing the pos~ible ~estruction of independent thinking if it was done, Mr. Upham moved to adjourn the meeting with Mr. Wagner seconding. Motion carried unanimously APPROVED: Acting Chairman, Dan MacGilvray ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones . . ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Name of Applicant --~B-j-c-h~a -r-d~E-.~D~a.v~i~g~oHn~,~J±r~.~--------------- Phone ---'-"F,-'9""'3_-__.7'-'8""-9.._3...._ ____ _ Location: Lot -·~--Block _$_~ Sub d i v ision Cofl-«ie-pC1\"k Description, If applicable --~~o~t ~i~s~5~0~-f~t~/-1~2~0~-f~t--------------~ ---------------------------------------~ Action requested: . / --~S~e~, t~b.ack Vari a nce NAME ADDR ESS (From current tax rolls, College Stati~n Tax Assessor) ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Present zoning of land in question fi-1 ----="--~-----~-----------~ Section of ordinance from which variance i s sou ght TCt.¥d&.. Al C?~ ~ ~Q The followin g spe cific v a riation from the ordinance is reque s t e<l : A y a r i ailc.e __ Th i a wonld pnt the }:JJ j] a i ng 3 feet frn _the p r operty 1 i ne. This vari ance is necessary due to the following unique and special condltions of the land net found in like d:i.stricts: -· ·-·--~~9 of t he .na.t.u~ ·of th" h ous..&-~ thQ l ot , the -o-n:-+l-;.y,___- ---.. _12.Q.§Si ble way to e nlare-e wi th o!Jt dr a stj c ex pend itnre i<> _____ t_o~ __ b_u_i _l _d i n th e d ire ct io~_;;.f the ne x t d oor nei ghbo r. ------------------------------ The followi n g alternatives to the requested variance ~re possible: '110 re -p l at , My ne i gh bor :who o wns t wo lots ann who s e hoUSP, is a l read y on both lot ~)wou l d be wilJj ng t o se ll a 5 fe e t ~tr1 p o f h i s l ot to Ple This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following f~~t ~: .--1... I t i s pi1 gh l y un] j kel y th a t it won l d b ~ p o~rn i b l e to b uild a dw el l i ng o n t h e lo t i mmediate l y a dj a c e n t to onl?s •• _____ 2_._._T_h'e e add i t ion wou ld h a ve a b j p roof sJ o p p in e; a way f rom t he ne i g hboring property a n d would not a ppe a r ob trns jye , \ 3 . The r e a re n o .ut i l i tv :r:i P-h t of' ·wavs in +h i.s ·a re a The fac.t s state d by me in this app~ieacion are true ~nd~orr ~c-c-. • f)t:~ p_~ ~ ~, Applicant ~ '/c /83 Da t e --. --------------------' COLLEGE PARK BK 3, LT 1 Hefti, Edward 0. 300 Fairview College Station, TX 77840 BK 3, LT 2 Allen, W. Wayne Dr. Rt. 2, Box 136 Wharton, TX 77 488 ·· BK 3, LT 3,4 McAfee, T.E. Mrs. 304 Fairview College Station, TX 77840 Bk 3, LT 5,6 Creswell, H.S. Mrs. P. 0. Box 1871 Del Valle, TX 78617 BK 3, LT 7,8 Hunt, R. L. 300 Montclair College Station, TX 77840 BK 4, LT 1,2,3,4 Spriggs, Rosa E. Mrs . 501 Kerry College Station, TX 77840 BK 4, LT 5,6, pt. of 7 Brown, James R. 1812 Laura Lane College Station, TX 77840 BK 4, LT 8, 25' of 7 Anthony, John 301 Fairview College Station, TX 77840 BK 5, LT 2,3 Bingham, Billy Wayne 404 Fairview College Station, TX 77840 BK 5, LT 4 Woodworth, James P. 406 Fairview College Station, TX 77840 BK 5, LT 5 Gilleland, Charles Wayne 2804 Hillside Dr. Bryan, TX 77801 BK 5, LT 12, 12.5' of 13 Marek, Louis A. 411 Montclair College Station, TX 77840 BK 5, LT 6 Harms, Joel I. 410 Fairview College Station, TX 77840 BK 5, LT 37.5' of 13, 25' of 14 Davis, Leslie L. 409 Montclair College Station, TX 77840 BK 5, LT 25' of 14, 15 Rice, Aburey R. 405 Montclair College Station, TX 77840 BK 5, LT 16, 17 Tax, Carmon F. 401 Montclair St. College Station, TX 77840 BK 6, LT 1,2 Potter, Anne L. Mrs. 502 Kerry St. College Station, TX 77840 BK 6, LT 3, 12' of 4 Anderson, Howard N. 501 Guernsey St. College Station, TX 77840 BK 6, LT 40' of 4, 22.3' of 5 Pyeatt, Robert ·, 407 Fairview St. College Station, TX 77840 BK 6, LT 27.7' of 5, 35' of 6 Poore, James E. 405 Fairview College Station, TX 77840 BK 6, LT 15' of 6, 7 Wiersig, Donald 0. 1107 Sul Ross Bryan, TX 77801 WEST PARK BK 5, LT 9, 10, 25' of 11 Murphy, Oscar C. 400 Montclair College Station, TX 77840 BK 8, LT pt 26 Hunt, R. L 300 Montclair .. College Station, TX 77840 BK 8, LT pt 25 Colson, James 305 Grove St. College Station, TX 77840 STAFF REPORT TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: June 9, 1983 FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Officia GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Richard R. Davision Jr. Status of Applicant: property owner since 1979 Location: (address, lot, block, subdiNision) 400 Fairview Lot 1, Block 5, College Park Existing Zoning: R-1 Single Family Requested Action: Variance of 4.5' to side setback .... - Purpose: To expand a room Applicable Ordinance Section: Table A -District Use Schedule SPECIAL INFORMATION: Variance Setbacks Required: Front 25' Rear 25' Side 7.5' Side Street 15' Adjacent Structures: Adjacent resioence is approx. 35' from side property ine Existing Parking: N/A Parking Required: N/A Utilities: No utilities run along this side property line ( elec. & sewer along rear/water along s1cre street) Other: 15' alley along rear Use Permit Existing Use Par king Required Proposed Use Pa rki ng Requ"i red Area of Non-Conforming Building Area of Expansion Greater than 25% Apprais ed Value Cost of Reconstruction Staff Repo~t (Continued) Page 2 Date: June 9, 1983 Appeals PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Lot Dimensions: 50 x 120 existing house is 1222 S.F. Access: No garage or driveway Topography: Fairly level -gently slopes to south Existing Vegetation: Heavy shrubbery along side prop. line. -large crepe . myrtles on side street -sparse in rear Flood Plain: ANALYSIS: Alternatives: Hardship: Ordinance Intent: Owner could purchase enough land from adjacent property owner an~ replat tp avoid necessity of variance (adjacent owner has lots 2 & 3) Provide adequate separation between residences Previous Action on this Property: Non e ATTACHMENTS: Application List of Property Owners within 200 ft. Site Plan Other: Aerial photo r: \. -"--' / l t --"";i, (c _J 'l of 1. __,__~ -· --- ~==-=---·---==--==-=====----== ------~ I 1 l ' l I I lo+ 3 t ' ! ! ~ --···----- ------------------------------------0 (Cl. Dctv\Sc:tv- LfC>o f-ctl<'V~ CS°. Glf3 78~3 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: 3. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ s. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6. and because a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following 1 imitations: 3. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This motion was made by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Seconded by (Date) ~~~~~---,-,-~---,-~-::--:-:-~-:-~~~~~~~~~~ The variance was granted by the following vote: Chair Signature ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS Variances : From Section 11-B.5 I move to deny a variance to the yard (6-G) ------ lot width (Table A) ------ l~t depth (Table A) ------ sign regulations (Section 8) ------ minimum setback (Table A) ------ parking requirements (Section 7) ------"' from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: 1. -------------------------------------~ 2. -------------------------------------~ 3. -------------------------------------~ 4. -------------------------------------~ and because a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. This motion was made by Seconded by The variance was denied by the following vote: Chair Signature Date ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Phone _ _:6..::9..::6_--'-4~1.:...9.:...7 ______ _ Location: Lot ---'1"""1 __ _ Block 3B Subdiv ision COLLEGE HILLS Description, If applicable ___ ___._l~D~S-'-~l ~{)~.1"""'"""e-·~~·~'~-'-~~~b~c~x_l _~~,_.....U~J ·~-i~c~'·~··~1 -'-f~~~~,m~6~,;ia,.._.~~""'+'~~o~l1~);._ I I I ·r Action requested: VarJ:~E~~-!o Parking Requirements Seetl~n.~7 __________ _ NAME ADDR ESS (From current tax rolls, Colle ge Station Tax Assessor) -ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Present zoning of land in question ___£:!_·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Section of ordinance from which variance is sought Section 7 The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: J1aptx:icbeoftequdlccedoHombeaDfx~x:><tk~ To Allow 6 Parking Units (. 3 in Front and 3 at rear) of Lot 11 Block 3B College Bills Subdivision of the City of College Station~ This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not found in like districts: t The Lot in Queation is only 25 feet wide in Front and less than 23 feet in Reawt' Parkin~ Spaces to meet Variance Request will be taken in Part from Land next d~or. Owned by Same Party. The following c.lternatives to the requested variance are possible: Because of the Size of the Property, no Alternatives are availahle, The Entire . ,, Front and the Entire 'Rear of the Property will be used to Meet the Primary Variation Request. This variance wiil not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following ., f~ct:~: Sufficient Parking will he Available, on Street or in Adj1cent Areas Without the Possibl:_~ty of Going into Adjacent neighborhoods. ' The facts stated by me in this application are true and correct. #~=~ _ November ~l~8.,_,_.~1L9~8~2..._~~~~~ Date Blk. 3-B, Lots 1-9 College Hills . Fontana, Joseph 1216 Munson College Station, Tx. 77840 Blk. 3-B, Lot 12,rt 3 College Hills Pruitt, John H. Drawer A B College Station, Tx. 77840 BlR, 3-B, Lot 14,T5 ;-22 ·:Cbll~~e Hills Morehead, Bruce & Leonard 116 Walton, - College Station, Tx. 77840 Blk. 3-B, Lot 16, 17 College Hi 11 s Redmond, H. E. Box 9965 College Station, Tx. 77840 Bl k. 3-B, Lot 18, 19, l0 1 of 20 College Hills Ganter, Don B. 307 University Dr. College Station, Tx. 77840 . . Blk. 3-B, Lot 35 1 of 20, 21 College Hills White, Robert C. 710 S. Rosemary Dr. Bryan, Tx. 77801 I • ~ • Blk . 3, Lot 1 College Hills Payne, Vestal S. % J. B. Payne 217 Hird St. Gainesville, Tx. 76240 Blk 3, Lot 2 College Hills Scasta, W. C. Jr. Rt. 1 Box 87 Bryan, Tx. 77840 B"lk. 1, Lot 5.Col lege Hills Robinson, R. M. And Dorothy 103-A Walton Dr. College Station, Tx. 77840 Blk.-1, lot 6 College Hills Destefano, Frank & Bessie ,; Trust % S. F. Destefano Grandchildren Box 256 Mumford, Tx. 77867 Blk. 1, lot 7, 8, 9, 19 College Hills Culpepper, J. C. Jr. Drawer JC College Station, Tx. 77840 TAMU James Bond 319 Systems Bldg. College Station, Tx. 77843 - STAFF REPORT TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: June 14, 1983 FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zonin Official GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: J. F.-~& T. M. Sousares Status of Applicant: property owners Location: (address, lot, block, subdivision) 108 Walton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lot 11 Block 3B College Hills Existing Zoning: C-1 General Commercial Requested Action: Variance to parking requirements of 5+ spaces. -·· Purpose: To construct a new building of 1320 sq.ft. for a medical clinic and com- bine parking for businesses on Lots 10 & 11. (See attached letter) Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7 -Medical clinic requires 1 space per 150 sq.ft. SPECIAL INFORMATION: Variance Setbacks Required: Front -25 ft.· Sides -7,5 ft.; Rear-15 ft. Adjacent Structures: Wilson Plumbing Supply on Lot 10, Lot 12 is vacant Existing Parking: Parking Required: '. , . 5 spaces in fr9nt -partially in R.O.W. of Walton Drive. Wilson Plumbing Supply - 5 plus 1 for 2 employees; Medical Clinic-9 Utilities: water line along front in R.O.W. Sewer along Texas and along rear. Other: Use Permit Existing Use Parking Required Proposed Use Parking Requ'i red Area of Non-Conforming Building Area of Expansion Greater than 25% Appraised Value Cost of Reconstruction Staff Report (Continued) Page 2 Date: 6-14-83 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Appeals Lot Dimensions: 25.0 front x 125.2 x l~.4 x 129.35 (see site plan) Access: R.O.W. of Walton in front, 20 ft. alley along rear. Topography: Level with gentle slope to the south. Existing Vegetation: Very sparse. ~----~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ANALYSIS : Alternatives: Build smaller structure; combine lots for development. '' . ' Hardship: Lot size is not necessarily a hardship as the lot in question meets the City's current minimum requirement. Ordinance Intent: Eliminate on-street parking and avoid traffic congestibn caused by failure to provide parking. Previous Action on this Property: This item was tabled 12-7-82; see attached minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Application List of Property Site Plan Owners within 200 ft. Other: Minutes of 12-7-82 meeting, aerial photo, 1 etter ! ZBA Minutes 12-7-82 page 2 initial variance had been granted one year ago, and after that one year, Mr. Lampo and Mrs. Kee had begun dialogue, but the Lampos did not understand that the hour s were a determining factor to granting the parking variance. Mr. Wagner congratulated him on the preparation for this request, and then referred to a mandate handed down by the City Council which precludes any variances to parking requirements being granted for a 12 month period which began in September of this year. Mrs. Cook began to give a bit of history concerning the previous variance and Mr. Upham continued to explain exactly what had taken place at the public hearing which led up to the Board granting the variance which includ ed the hours of operation as a signi- fican t factor in the agreement to grant it. Mrs. Cook then explained the mandate under which the Board must operate now, explaining that there will be no parking variances given for one year in Northgate. She ex pres sed appreciation for the survey information, indicating that it may well be used by the Committee studying the Northgate area, but feels the Board is committed to the mandate set down and the Zoning Ordinance spells out the requirements concerning the number of parking spaces which must be provided off-street and on-site. Mr. MacGilvray further explained the Ordinance, and also thinks this request must fall under the moratorium establ ish~d by the Council. Mr. Payne asked about this mandate and proposed that the only request now is for hours of operation and suggested that it be granJed on a moratorium basis also until the Northgate study is complete . Mr. Upham explained this Board ·cannot take action on any parking variances for this 12 month period in this area, and if this variance had been for something other than parking, there wou ld be no problem. Council Liaison Boughton confirmed the mandate requirements and then further pointed out that at the time of the original request, Mr. Lampo said there was no problem with parking, but in fact, the churches in the area had at that time complained about people other than \ church committee members using their parking lots. / Mr. Wagner then made a motion to table this motion until the mandate set down by the Council concerning parking variances in the Northgate area is removed. Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a request for a variance to Parking Requirements (Section 7) at 108 Walton which is located next to Wilson's Plumbing Supply. Request is in ~the name of J. F. & T. M. Sousares. I": Mrs. Kee explained the request and said that a medical office building is being pro- posed which would require 10 spaces on-site off-street according to the Ordinance. She further indicated that Mr. Sousares has not been through a formal site plan review, but that he has met with the Director of Planhin g for preliminary discussions. Mr. MacGilvray asked about front, rear and side setbacks, and Mrs. Kee explained the appl i- cant could have lot 1 ine construction in commercially zoned areas with a required firewall which is governed by building codes. Discussion followed with Mrs. Kee pointing out the area on an aerial photo. ~immy Sousares, one of the applicants, was sworn in and said the building would be an emergency type medical office with perhaps several rooms and probably no more than 3 employees. He said he owns the plumbing shop building next door, and that some park- ing would be available there because no work is done on the premises so very few patrons us e the available parking spaces. Mr. Upham suggested the City mak e some kind of survey or study to find out the width of the access road, who maintains it and what- ever else is available on the tract. Mr. Upham then made a motion to table this request and to direct the Building Official to find out what the geography is at that location. Mr. MacGilvray asked to point out that the Ordinance requires off-street parking, and further pointed out that a lot to provide the required parking for this building would be larg er than the lot. Mr, Upham said this is a special interest situation and the public could possibly be well served by the granting of a variance. ) - IZ-7-82 page 3 Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that in essence, Mr. Upham would be referring to a City- owned "parking lot. Mr. Upham reiterated his motion and Mr. Wagner seconded, with the condition that the motion be amended to say "Zoning Official" rather than "Building Official", and that the request be tabled until the next regular meeting of the ZBA. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other Business Mrs. Kee asked the Board to choose a date for the Workshop with the City Attorney, and the Board chose January 11th or 12th . Mrs. Cook requested t .he staff to take a car-count at the AM/PM Clinic in Bryan on weekends and evenings to help determine the amount of traffic generated at such a business. Mr. MacGilvray gave a report on the Northgate Committee indicating a survey of busi- nesses in the area had been done and data is being compiled, and that more data is being generated including population figures, bus traffic, traffic counts, etc. Mr. Upham suggested that perhaps the number of parking violations and number of accidents could be helpful, as well as the revenue ~enerated in that a~ea. Hr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Upham seconding. Motion carried unanimously. ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary APP ROVED: I / \ ' J4' . I ) .{\ f"!(_ Acting Chairman Dan HacGilvr i y ...... / • .:J." ,_ '-~---=======-___,__---- L ) MINUTES City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustments January 18, 1983 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Upham, Wagner, Donahue, Alternate Member Lindsay & Council Liaison Boughton MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee, Assistant to Zoning Official Dupies and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes from December 7, 1982 i Mr. Wagner .made a motion to approve the minutes as written; Mr. Upham seconded; motion carried unanimously. ' r . AGENDA · ITEM NO. 2: Reconsideration of a re uest for a variante to Parking Requirements Section 7 at 108 Walton which is located next to Wilson's Plumbing Supply. Request is in the name of J. F. & T. M. Sousares. The public was informed that there will be one abstention concerning this item. Mr. Upham then made a motion to bring this item off the table; Mr. Wagner seconded; motion to take off table carried unanimously. Jimmy Sousares was sworn in and said he felt that patrons to this proposed business would be entitled to park across the street as much as anyone else. He said again that he owns the plumbing shop next door which generates very 1 ittle parking traffic, and it is his belief that the two businesses should be al lowed to share parking. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that this proposed business would require 10 spaces and Mr. Upham informed the public that the current parking spaces being used for all these businesses are on City ~ght-of-way and therefore, would not b~ ~vailable for additional parking. Mrs. Kee explai ~ed the location of right-of-way for ~both Texas Avenue and Walton, and said the present parking being used is on Walton R.O.W. She further explained there are approxi- mately 50 spaces currently available in that R.O.W., and one already existing business alone wou require in excess of ..§g_s.p~ces accord.ing to the current ordina!.'ce. Mr. MacGilvray said that he thinks th e-City Ha-s a po f ential Northgate ln this area. Mr. Up- ham explained the ordinance would require approximately twice as many spaces for existing businesses as are available. Mr. Sousares explained that the proposed emergency clinic would never require the 10 spaces as required by ordinance. Mr. Upham spoke of an area behind the alley in the rear that could possibly be bought to alleviate part of the park- ing problem. Mr. Sousares spoke of his ownership of an adjoining lot, and in not allow- ing him to build this clinic, he felt the City would be discriminating against him. He then pointed out that several spaces would be available in the rear of the building. Mr. Upham suggested perhaps 3 employees could park in the back and Mrs. Kee pointed out the lot is only 19 ft. wide in the rear, therefore only 2 spaces would be available there. Mr. Wagner asked if Mr. Sousares would be willing to dedicate the area at the rear of the plumbing shop to parking for the clinic and Mr. Sousares said this could happen. Mrs. Kee then informed the Board that Mr. Mayo, Director of Planning, had suggested to Mr. Sousares a combined site plan of the two businesses and then a study could be made of the available parking at that time. Mr. Wagner suggested this item be tabled again until • ZBA Minutes 1-18-83 page 2 a combined site plan could be presented. Then Mr. Wagner so moved. Mr. Upham seconded ~ the motion. Mr. MacGilvray said the City would be willing to work with Mr. Sousares _..., if he was willing to come up with a combined site plan. Motion carried unanimously. ) _) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a request for a variance to Rear Setback Require- ments (Table A) at 1004 Walton Drive. Request is in the name of Wayne & Mary Saslow. Wayne Saslow was sworn in and handed out information concerning his request. Mr. Mac- Gi lvray read it, and said it concerned the request to delete several names from the peti- tions which had been -presented against this variance; those name were Mr. & Mrs. Joe R. Callaway, Mr. Howard Bivins, and Mr. & Mrs. Johnson. Mr. MacGilvray said that before considering the petitions presented, the Board should consider the request for variance. Mr. Saslow said his wife had been painting (artist) in the home for 3 years, but now their children are old enough to require their own rooms, so her painting room would have to be given up. He said her work in this building would cause no noise, no traffic, no teach- ing, and no adverse effects on the neighborhood. He then explained the reasoffi for lo- cating it in the spot they had chosen included the shape of the lot, access to the house, present landscaping which would have to be destroyed if it were placed in another location, and the view his wife would have which would be conducive to her artistic talents. Mrs. Kee pointed out that the land to the rear of the Saslow property is actually an alley, rather than an easement. Mr. Sousares showed some photos of the area to the Board. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out there is room for this building on the lot without encroaching the setback requirements of the ordinance, and asked why the building could not be located somewhere else. Mr. Saslow's answer included light necessary for painting, access to the home and the irregular shape of the lot, as well as destruction of a neighbor's view. Mr. Lindsay talked about questions which had arisen concerning the possibility of this being used commercially, and repeated what Mr. Sas low had earlier pointed out; that there would be no teaching, no traffic, no noise, and then asked if there would be commercial sales made out of the building. Mr. Sas low said it would not be 1 ike an art gallery, there is no bathroom, and it would be like an ordinary workshop, but quieter than most. Mr. Wagner asked if all possibilities had been considered in the placement of this building, and further added that it seemed to him that all hardships mentioned seemed like self- imposed hardships, when the size of the lot is considered. Mr. Saslow said the parti- cular kind of use would make the proposed site best. He further said that moving the building 10 ft. forward would make it seen nfrom the street. M,. Upham pointed out that most buildings of this nature can be seen from the street. Mr. Saslow mentioned the planned inclusion of a skylight in the building, and Mr. Wagner pointed out that light and skylights should make another site a~ceptable. Mr. Sas low then pointed out several buildings in the neighborhood which are in violation of the ordinance, and Mr. MacGilvray said that fact is not relevant if these buildings were there before the current ordinance went into affect in 1972. Mr. Wagner again mentioned the use of skylights in this build- ing which would provide ample light, and Mr. Saslow said only one skylight is being plan- ned. Mr. MacGilvray asked for any other people who had an interest in this to come for- ward, and pointed out the photos showing buildings in violation were not relevant because these buildings had been built prior to the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Upham concurred and said that he had visited the site, and he knew this to be a fact. Allen Fredericks was sworn in and said he is a neighbor and wanted to speak in favor of this variance. He said big trucks would not have to go down the alley, so that should pose no problem. Mrs. E. F. Sauer was sworn in and spoke of the petition which she had p~esented to the Board. She spoke of zoning laws and deed restrictions, and pointed out that the size of the lot made another location of the building possible. Mr. MacGilvray asked about deed restrictions, and Mrs. Sauer said that they read that nothing should be built within 25 feet of the property 1 ine. Mr. MacGilvray then pointed out that deed restrictions were not a concern of this Board, but they were dealt with in another court. . . POST OFFICE BOX 4383 June 13, 1983 Mr. Al Mayo ROBERT B. HARRIS, P. C. ATIORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 3131 BRIARCREST DRIVE I SUITE 200 BRYAN , TEXAS 77801 City of College Station College Station, Texas Dear Al, TELEPHONE (409) 779 -9646 The following is the information requested by your staff regarding the square footage on Dr. Sousares' property which is the subject of a variance. Wilson Building -front 24x60 back 23x60 1400 square feet approximately retail -720 sq. ft. storage -690 sq. ft. New Building 22x60 132P square feet. \ ": RBH/agb ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-B.5 I move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) minimum setback (Table A) parking requirements (Sec tl on 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and specia l conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts: 1 2. 3. 4. 5. t ": 6. and because a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following 1 imitations: 3. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This motion was made by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Seconded by (Date) ~~~~~~~~~~-.,-~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The variance was granted by the following vote: Chair Signature ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS Variances: From Section ll-B.5 I move to deny a variance to the yard (6-G) ~~~~~- lot width (Table A) ~~~~~- l~t depth (Table A) ~~~~~- sign regulations (Section 8) ~~~~~- minimum setback (Table A) ~~~~~- parking requirements (Section 7) ~~~~~---' from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: 3·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. This motion was made by ~~~~~~~~~----'~~~~~~ Seconded by The variance was denied by the following vote: Chair Signature Date City of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATIO . TEXAS 77840-2499 June 16, 1983 MEMORANDUM FROM: Zoning Board of Adjustment~ Jane R. Kee, Zoning Officia . Other Business -June 21, 983 meeting TO: SUBJECT: Edsel Jones will be approaching the Boardand asking for your thoughts concer- ning a possible future variance requ~st. He is proposing to develop a trailer park on proper t y presently outside t he City Limits. Before requesting annex- ation he would like to ask for a straw vote from the Board regarding a variance to th e maximum allowed density in the R-7 zone . Mr. Jones is well aware that · any straw vote is not in any way binding, and that the Board members may change , or their minds may change based on the receipt of additional information. I have no further information as to the particulars of this situation. By the night of the meeting there will hopefully be a site plan available and Mr. Jones will be present. Enclosed in your packets is a copy of the Mobile Home Park Ordinance for your review. JK/sjv -. 1 I\: . !