HomeMy WebLinkAbout220 ZBA 4.19.83 Ja Wic Homes Com'1 Pkg Lot on Welsh. . -
' ..
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUST~JENT
Name of Applicant Jan-Wic Homes, Inc.
FILE NO. ----
----~--------------------------
_Nailing Address __ P_. _O_._B_o_x_9_9_3_5_C_o_l_l_e~g~e_S_t_a_t_i o_n~, _T_e_x_a_s_7_7_8_4_0 _______ _
Phone 693-3955 ------------
Location: Lo t 3 --Block ---Subdivision Whitley
Description, If appli~able In the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract · No. 7
Action requested: Grant variance for proposed parking lot at 1806 Wels h St.
NAflE ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
Tract 149 C. Burnett Tract 152 c. Burnett
Lancrlry, Larry Enloe Construction Co
P.O. Box 3752 404 University Dr.
Bryan, Tx 77801 College Station, Tx 77840
Blk. 6, Lot 15r-22r Southwood V Whitley, Lots lA, lB, 2
Blk. 6a, Lots 3,4,5,&6 Southwood V
Cain, D.R.
P.O. Box AV
College Station, Tx 77840
Southwest Stor-Mor
602 Southwest Parkway
College Station, Tx 77840
Whitley, Lot 4 Whitley, Lot 5 Tract 51 c. Burnett -
Redco Co. Rob~rt Whitley A&M Consolidated ISD
P.O. Box 7508 P.O. Box 7508 100 Anderson
Wa co, Tx 76710 Waco, Tx 7 6710 Coll~~ _s_t:at i OIL Tx
..
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.
Present zonin g of land in question _..::C_--=l=-----------------------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought ___ .;_7_-=D-=2,__ _________ _
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: see proposed
parking plan. (8copies)
Set back for the proposed plan would be reduced to 4 feet
instead of 8 feet.
-------------------------------· --···------------··----·--·---------
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special condition s of
the land not found in like districts:
~ 16 foot rightaway on We lsh street necessit~t~s ths variance .
~ .. ~
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possibl e :
Take the full 8 feet set back and reduce .the remaining parking lot by
16 parking spaces, ihus leaving inadequate parking for the project
This variance wlll not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
.f'~ct-~: In no way is safety compromised with the proposed variance.
The proposed plan includesa 16 foot rightaway with a 4 foot set back
leaving a 20 foot landscaped gree n belt between the road and parking lot.
Typically an 11 foot rightaway with an 8 foot set back would leave a 19 foot
gree n b~ t.
Th e fact s stated by me in this application are true and correct.
April 8, 1983
Date
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission deci s i o n
denyin g s ite pl a n approval due to the lack of an 8 foot setback on a parking lot at 18 06
Welsh Str ee t. App e al is in the name of Jan-Wic Homes, Inc.
( Mrs. Kee gave ba ckground to this appeal of the P&Z Commission decision. Board Me mbers
Wagner, Lindsay & Upham stated they had been contacted by someone concerning thi s appl i-
cation but had d e clined to discuss the item with them. Mr. McKean came forward and was
sworn in, then r e quested that this item be tabled until a later date when a quorum was
present. Mr. McKean was advised that a quorum is present at this date, but he clarifi e d
by saying he would prefer his appeal to be heard by the Board when all members are present.
Mr. Lindsay made a motion to table this item until the next meeting. Mr. Upham seconded
the motion. Motion to table this appeal until the next meeting carried unanimously (4-0 ).
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 T EXAS AVENUE
C OLL EGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
May 25, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Wick McKean, 2553 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX
Project Review Committee ~
Al Mayo, Director of Planning~-.
Elrey B. Ash I I, Director of Capital Improvements
Jim Behling, Planning & Zoning Chairman
Other Staff:
J. Kee, Zoning Official
H. Davis, Fire Marshall
J. Guidry, Electrical Superintendent
J. McCord, Electric Power Eng.
J. Braswell, Gte
S. Volk, Planning Technician
Welsh Office Bldg Parking Lot Plans
The P.R.C. met on Tuesday, May 25, 1982 to review parking lot plans
for an office building on Welsh St. south of the corner of Southwest
Parkway. The P.R.C. recommends approval with the following condi-
tions :-1:
(1) Need m1n1mum of 30 parking spaces plus spaces
for emp 1 oyees. (Add emp 1 oyee parking.)
(2) Show width of the existing curb cut between this
property and adjacent property.
(3) Need 8 ft. setback from property line on Welsh St •
. to the raised parking stops.
(4) Need 6 ft. sid ewalk next to the building to accommo-
date the 2 ft . overhang of parking spaces.
(5) Need landscaping plans or notes on plan.
Fire hydrant will
point on building
Fire Marshall.
cerning this.
be needed within 300 ft. from farthest
to be located at point designated by
Conf e r with Jerry Bishop con-
(7) Need 10 copies of revis e d site pl a n by noon, Tuesday,
June 1 , 1982.
*Any chang e s to the approved site plan must be cleared through the office
of the Director of Planning.
sjv
February 1, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FRO M:
City of College Station
POST OFFIC E BOX 9960 I I O I TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION. T EXAS 7 7 840
Planning and Zoning Commission
Wick McKean & Steve Hansen
Project Review Committee ~ .~
Al Mayo, Director of Planning~·
David Pullen, City Engineer .
Jim Behling, Chairman P&Z
Other Staff:
Jane Kee, Zoning Official
Dan Dupies, Ass't to Zoning Official
Harry Davis, Fire Marshal
Mac Allen, Director of Public Services
Jim McCord, Elec. Power Engrs.
GTE Representative
Shirley Volk, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: (82-416) Office/Retail Building by Jan-Wic Homes, Inc.
located on Welsh
The P.R.C. met to discuss the "as built" plans and the plans which had been
approved by the P&Z, but which were not the same.
After discussion df the actual 4'-0 11 setback instead of the required and approved
8 1 -011 setbac k , the safety and asthetic reasons for the 8 1 -0 11 requirement, and
Mr. McKean's statement that an error had been made for which he apologized, the
City Engin e er (David Pullen) and Chairman of the P&Z (Jim Behling) indicated that
in their opinion, the 4 1 -011 setback which is provided is acceptable, and th e y can
recommend to the P&Z the "as built" plans be approved. Their reasoning is that
they believe an error has been made.
Mr. Mayo disagreed with this recommendation, because when th e developer was ques-
tioned about the error, he admitted that the dimensions on the original site plan
had never been adjusted after the P&Z required the eight foot setback.
A suggestion followed by the Assistant Zoning Official that if the "as built"
plans are approved·, the developer perhaps would be required to provide more
inten s ified landscaping on a berm along this front setback to compensate for the
lace of space provided.
sjv
·. City of College Station
P OST OFFICE BOX 9960 I I 0 I TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STA TIO N , T EX,'\S 7 7 840
March 10, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning & Zoning Commission
Wick McKean
Project Review Committee:
Jim Callaway (for Al Mayo), Assistant
David Pullen, City Engineer
Jim Behling, Chairman P&Z
u
o;rector of Plannin~
Other Staff:
Jane Kee, Zoning Official
Shirley Volk, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Office/Retail Building by Jan-Wic Homes, Inc. located on Welsh St.
(82-416)
The P.R.C. met to discuss the revised plans and the plans which had been
approved by the P&Z, but which were not the same.
After discussion of the required and approved 8 1 -0 11 setback, the safety and
asthetic reasons for the 8 1 -0 11 requirement, and Mr. McKean's statement that
an error had been made for which he apologized, the City Engineer (David Pullen)
and Chairman of the P&Z (Jim Behling) indicated th a t in their opinion, the
4 1 -0 11 setback which is proposed is acceptable, and they can recommend to the
P&Z the revised plans be approved. Their reasoning is that they believe an
error has been made. Mr. Callaway disagreed with this recommendation, prefer-
ring the required 8 ft. setback.
Agreement was reached that the dimensions on the parking lot were acceptable
and would handle traffic and parked vehicles, however, it was pointed out by
staff that 36 parking spaces are required for this project, and the plan as
shown at the time of this review only provides 32 parking spaces . The P.R.C.
recommends that these required 4 spaces be provided for.
P.R.C. also requests that actual dimensions be shown on the site plan.
Any changes to an approved site plan must be cleared through the Office of the
Director of Planning.
Provide 10 copies'of the revised plan to the Planning Department by 5 P.M. on
March 11th i'n order to be included on P&Z Agenda for March 17th.
sj v
)
)
P&Z Minutes
3-17-83
page 5
to be left open pending a resolution of access to the Drew Wood property and any access
agreement or arrangement should be referred to our City Attorney because it involves
2 property owners. Mr. Miller asked if the landscaping plan received goes w~th this
plan and Mr. Callaway replied that it does. Mr. Callaway suggested that the curb be
changed as necessary to accommodate any changes and further suggested that a certificate of
occupancy be withheld until the access problems are resolved, or if desired, the building
permit could be withheld until access problems are resolved.
Mr. Hal 1 said that this Commission is penalizing this applicant, and it is really not
their problem, but rather the other neighbor's problem. Mr. Kelly suggested this item be
tabled until the access agreement is reached or curbing is agreed to around the entire
parking area. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve with P.R.C. recommendations plus the
requirement that a 611 raised curb be placed around the entire parking area (specifically
between the area of Drew Wood's property and this warehouse project.) Mr. Hall asked for
an amendment to this motion to say that the entire parking area must be curbed or an agree-
ment concerning access reached prior to issuance of a C.O. Mr. Bailey refused to have
this amendment made to his motion. Mr, Callaway asked if this included the right-hand
side of the property between this project and the future proposed project, and Mr. Bailey
said it covers what was recommended in the P.R.C. report. Mr. Kelly asked if we couldn't
31 low the use of wheel stops because it would be temporary and Mr. Callaway said it could
be allowed. Mr. Miller said he preferred curbing because 11 temporary 11 wheelstops have a
tendancy to become permanent. This motion .died for lack of a second.
Mr. Fleming asked what would keep trucks from jumping the curbing, but no real answer
was supplied. Mr. Miller asked what would happen if the Commission required the Building
Permit be withheld until an agreement is reached or the area is curbed. Mr. Bailey said
the motion which just died would make Drew Wood work harder at reaching agreement. Robert
Schmitt spoke from the audience stating that some kind of agreement has been proposed at
this time.
Mr. Hall made a motion to approve this plan subject to either an agreement regarding access
between property owners being worked out for joint access prior to the issuance of a C.O.,
or installation of curbing around the entire parking area, (he referred to item #5 of the
P.R.C. report). Mr. Fleming seconded the motion. Mr. Kelly said that a letter or instru-
ment of agreement or the curb around the entire parking area would be required before a
C.O. is issued. Motion was defeated with Hall and Fleming voting for the motion and
Miller, Bailey and Kelly voting against it (2-3).
Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve this plan with P.R.C. recommendations and with
the understanding that a Building Permit will not be issued until either the curbing is
included around the entire project (item #5 of the P.R.C. report) or an instrument for
joint access which is acceptable to the City Attorney is presented. Mr. Bailey seconded
the motion for purposes of discussion, and then clarified that the motion he had seconded
required either an agreement to curbing on the site plan or an agreement to access. Dis-
cussion followed until the Acting Chairman called for votes. Motion carried 4-1 with
Hal 1 voting against.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: 82-416: Reconsideration of a Parking Lot Plan Revision -Office
Building by Jan-Wic Homes, Inc. located on Welsh Avenue.
Mr. Callaway explained the site plan which had been revised to handle some of the errors
the builder had made. Mr. Miller asked specifically what changes were being proposed from
the site plan which had been approved by this Commission at a previous date. Mr. Callaway
explained changes included a 4 ft. to 5 ft. setback (rather than 8 ft.), the narrower
driveway and the angled parking. He further pointed out that raised islands are normally
)
)
P&Z Minutes
3-17-83
page 6
required, and this request includes some which ar~ raised and some which are striped.
The reason for keeping the raised islands is that some are existing and landscaped at
this time.
Mr. Fleming asked why changes weren't made in December when the developer had been noti-
fied of the errors. Mr. McKean ·of Jan-Wic Homes, Inc. spoke from the floor and stated
that the parking lot had already been poured at that time. Mr. Kelly called a 5 minute
recess at this time. After 5 minutes the meeting was reconvened, and Mr. Hall asked what
this Commission would be allowing which it would normally not allow. Mr. Callaway pointed
out the 4 ft. setback proposed is from the property line, which is also the street right-
of-way 1 ine. He was asked when this trouble was noted and he answered it was prior to
November 15th and the alternatives would be to go into the area marked "reserved for fu-
ture development" for additional parking and require the 8 ft. setback as the required
setback would reduce the number of parking spaces available on this site. Mr. McKean
explained the basic problem is the encroachment into the 8 ft. setback. He explained an
error had been made and the building had not been placed where it was supposed to be.
Mr. Kelly referred to the P.R.C. report dated 5-25-82 and said that item #3 required the
8 ft. setback. Mr. Kelly then asked for an honest opinion and stated the devoper just
4 blocks down the street had been made to comply to the 8 ft. setback and another developer
had been required to install curbing and he wondered what would happen in the future if
this "error" was allowed and the developer did not fulfill the recommendations of the
P&Z Commission and the P.R.C. He further said he believed the Zoning Board of Adjustments
would have to make a ruling, and he did not think this Commission should recommend approval
of this revised plan. Mr. Kelly then asked the City Engineer why he had recommended that
this revised plan be approved and Mr. Pullen said that if he had been dealing with anything
other than asthetics, he would not have approved it, and at the time of the latest P.R.C.
meeting there did not seem to be a reasonable adjustment to be required. It is his opinion
that this decision does not affect the 1 ife, safety, general health or welfare of the cit-
izenry of the Community, but rather is an error. He explained that at the time this error
was noted, there was an infringement on the 8 ft, setback of not 4 ft., but rather a
negative 12 11 -18 11 , for the green area was into the right-of-way, and he could have said
that if it was going to be moved, it could be moved 8 ft., but he had previously found
the 4 ft. setback acceptable and he is aiming for consistency. He then referred to a site
down the street with the required 8 ft. setback, and to another one which is paved to the
property line, with no green area. Mr. Miller asked if he would say the same thing if this
project wasn't on the ground, and Mr. Pullen said that he would not, but as it is, it is
not a matter which can be easily fixed. Mr. Miller added " ... without considerable ex-
pense." Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Pullen is asking this Commission to legislate an error
and Mr. Pullen said he was not asking this Commission to do anything. Mr. Hall said he
wondered if a decision to al low this mistake would actually cause other developers to
make the same type of mistake, but he also stated that the measurements of this project
did not seem to be very complicated, and wondered how this error happened. Mr. Pullen
agreed and stated that one problem staff has had to face is that there have been 2 site
plans; an approved plan and the actual plan. Mr. Hall stated the proposed site plan would
actually call for moving the curb back and if Mr. Kelly is correct in his belief that there
will be a lack of room for manuvering a car in the drive and parking spaces proposed, per-
haps it would be safer to leave the encroachment into the right-of-way. Mr. Kelly said
the City Attorney has advised him there can be no encroachment into the right-of-way.
Mr. Bailey said perhaps the applicant should appeal to the City Council because after
reading the conditions to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustments which include
"unique and special conditions of the land", he could not see how this land has any uni-.
que and special conditions to be considered. Mr. Miller said unfortunate mistakes 1 ike
this one can continue if developers get the impression that this Commission wil 1 bend
the rules, and then asked why there is a setback rule if we do not plan to enforce it.
He further stated that he sympathizes with the developer, but thinks rules are set to be
fo 11 owed.
)
)
P&Z Minutes
3-17-83
page 7
Mr. McKean asked the purpose of the 8 ft. setback, stated that Welsh Street has a 16 ft.
right-of-way instead of an 11 ft. right-of-way, as he believed, and wondered ho w thi s
4 ft. setback would hurt the public because he is not in violation to the po~nt of jeo-
pardizing anyone entering or leaving this property. Mr. Miller advised he would have a
much stronger argument if this project was not already on the ground. Mr. McKean stated
he had gained nothing by the existance of the encroachment and what he is as k ing would not
impair the people of College Station : He then cited substantial monetary loss to himself
as a problem. He further stated he must have parking in front of the building to have a
viable project. Mr. Hall asked what Mr, McKean proposes for the adjacent future project
and Mr. McKean replied that it would have a full 8 ft. setback with the 16 ft. right-of-
way figured into the planning. Mr. Hal 1 said it is his opinion that this Commission must
stick with the guidelines and enforce them unless an unusual situation is pr~sented, and
in his oprnron, this would be an unusual situation; and under the circumstances and in view
of Mr. Pullen 1 s statement, he would make a motion to approve this revised site plan. Mr.
Bailey seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Mr. Miller then said he did not
think it is in the jurisdiction of this body to legislate things contrary to the rules
of the City and that there are other avenues than this body where this should be solved.
Mr. Bailey asked the number of parking spaces required for this project and Mr. Callaway
answered that 35 spaces are required. Mr. Hal 1 stated that perhaps the City Council would
be in a better position to figure the cost and the political implications in many cases,
but that this particular case could be solved by this Commission as it is simply a mistake.
Mr. Bailey asked if the Commission would be granting a variance; and Mr. Kelly answered
that it would not, but rather voting to approve this plan. Mr. Hall as ked if this Com-
mission has the authority and Mr. Callaway answered that historically the Planning & Zon-
ing Commission has reviewed site plans and approved with latitude in some cases, but he
could not state whether or not those projects were already on the ground. Mr. Miller
asked again what alternatives the applicant would have and Mr. Bailey said that he could
appeal to the City Council or go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Mr. Callaway informed
the Commission that the City Attorney is of the opinion that the only alternative the
applicant has is to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustments to request a variance, if
this body does not rule in his favor tonight. Mr. Miller said he agreed with this, but
Mr. Hal 1 said historically this was not true and that this Commission seems to be charged
with this duty. The motion was repeated and an addition made to it to give the option
to the applicant to relocate the 4 parking spaces at the rear with staff given the right
to determine if they remain there, whether there is actually enough room for them. Votes
were cast and motion to approve the site plan was defeated 2-3 with Hall & Bailey in favor
and Fleming, Kelly & Miller opposed.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13: Other Business
Mr. Bailey announced the next Northgate Committee meeting for April 6. Mr. Callaway said
the Planning Dept. is currently working on an amendment to the Ordinance to establish a
separate setback requirement for separate structures in a residential area. Mr. Bailey
made the motion to adjourn with Mr. Hal 1 seconding; motion carried unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
Roy W. Kelly, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
,; HIGH SCHo'oL
.• _ .... --· -·
SITE
BLVD. '1'··
'. ,.
..
-:~l::.;_1,. ~--· --~;. .. ·.;; --...... :( -.~& PROPOSED OFFICE
2 " BUILDING
• .-i
. ' : :./ ~ .. ~
'. .
' .. .. , -. >··-..
' .... /'~ -· ... .!! ... rl ·--
. ~. '":· :,!., '~ ••
·-- . t F' • ~'I
;.. . -~-.
-,,...,,,, _:-·
·'"--:
.. -,•
. _ .. -:
-ti ~
-3!! -·
.. ,
llJ z
~
...!
.-"7-
llJ z
1 j::
(/)
a:
:I: u
r; ..
. <'·
~ .. ~
. --·~~ ' -
! i
-.. .. .., -~-..
"'"-· .
""":. "
'·
-~·-. . ""-_ .. , .....
' . . -·· .. --__ :--7~·}':·\ .. ...... --
.. . '• . ,. .,,, , '
. ~. .. . ---.
_ .. :~y.:-J .
.<: -• ... .
OA O
=====================================================
···~ ITEM NO:-·~,~l· Case No: 82-416 Scale: 1 "=600'
===========~·~~-·================== ======-.:======:.-::=========== == ::'----····
Type of Case: PARKING PLAN <REVISION>
=====================================================
OFFICE BUILDING
Sou t hwe st Parkway
l.i.Jelsh f'::ive. 50 0 feet south of
========~============================================
'-~: ~ . ':'·' :r
~~ .. ~-: 1 ..... ./ ~ ,.
·-:~~ :~:i~'.''.
. . ' .:.. -: ....
\ .:-~-.
. . .
· ..........
'-f" .. ·
. t ~ '
.;
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR MOTIONS
Appeal of Planning & Zoning · Commission Decision (Section 7-D. 11 & 11-E)
I move to uphold the decision made by the Planning & Zoning Commission
in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance, as the decision
meets~~ tp~~~of this ordinance and substantial justice was done.
/)).gVt~ t vto ·t . ~
I move to ~~:h~~t:~ ~:: ~~:la~~ng~Zonitommission
in the enforcement of Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance for the following
reasons:
I
Motion made by Upham, Second by Wagner
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR MOTIONS
Appeal of Planning & Zoning Commission Decision (Section 7-D. 11 & 11-E)
I move to uphold the decision made by the Planning & Zoning Commission
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.
I move to reverse the decision made by the Planning & Zoning Commission
in the enforcement of _Section 7-D.3 of this ordinance for the following
reasons:
Motion made by Wendt; died for lack of second.
£.":>:< .. , . ' .. . . .. ·i.:: '
. c :• ....
. ..!-· ·. \
..
.....
~·
It . ·:' . ·'\·
' .
I
I
I
I
'
-~:~"-.
.
...
···.
. '
· ..
~r -
. . ·-
UI Ill
..I c u co
.. ~
...
.
"
, .
..
~. iJ
\
o• i: -.. .. ... .,, i~
... )l &. ~.J ~
. · ~ ..
. \, (·
'r
~·· Tl'\ I(.
<.v~ 10"
"\'\) It c.
lt.11"~ .-
~·· .
..
; ' -~
~ ..
·.·.
· .
. ''·,"',,·;..
,~' ..
'· ..
SCALE
. . .... . . ;
I ·:
·t -
f
" .· ..
"
.1 ---~o
' . .. " ...
~· . ,, .. · .. '( ~ .
• ...! ~ • ".!
• ..-;If
...... ..,
\ -:
. ~.-. ")
·=}~
· •. if;~ .,
. ..;. ;··
.r
. , .... ~ ' .
,, .
,.,
-.. ~f
.,,.,
<.,.,--·:... .<::>:
··~-·~:
-~~:,;
• ~:. i,~ , .•
.'!" ~ .
...
•.;."':~·
: r~: .
. \'!:.) ..
,·-. .. ·. · .....
·.
··· ...
. ~· ..
.-.
.. .:.1:..)
' . ~
. :
. : ·::: ~-NCJIE.$: .... · , . .
. ··::: .. ;:( PAlt-1(.1~ ··-1J.,.,--~'1b :;ll!ii.. It'• -r~K ·.
', >i,;~~;O~ .'44 ". <At4P .~I\.~ -~ G.Y c; 10" ...
. : ·: ~~?~; ' ,.._ \.. \.. rJ>.llii<~·o . crw-C-s · ~ . 11 c. · , '. ;-» p-.1 ~0 ~lloltHTS::-· .. , ~-r~11"~· _
,· r
· .. ( .
• ~ .' ;.Ir.
. ..
·".:. ""~&:S!. _.._:It
_;:,·'.'. ·~~·.i. . '
~ .· ...... ".•. '.
--
.,
,l
.. ,,.i.
.... ~
~ .. ~·
'":..•'
.... ··,_
~:·
. .
;..
···; /'>'
. .;.v ·:
.. ·
.,......._·--f -------·--'
'.
\/~jo-rE-5 ; .. _ , .. '.
... ~.--~~(,' f'A,it,1(.1~ •.wl,))'f: .:~·:;• • 4'-'~ "'f°~K .
. )'.~~-.0~ : ..... ~,_~. f'l\.i..: . ~ (.Y.' 10· ;:.~· ...._\..L f"1>.~!(.Qo.40 .. ·C'~.;s . '\"'&>
-7·p,..1l'f'T1'0 . ;~~OH'i~·-·· 4:1'1'-J .. ~~-.
~·::... . . ' ..
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-2499
April 11, 1983
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of College Station will consider
an appeal in the name of:
Jan-Wic Homes, Inc .
P. 0. Box 9935
College Station, TX 77840
Said appeal will be heard by the Board at their regular meeting in the Council
Room, College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday,
April 19, 1983 at 7:00 P .M.
The nature of the case ls as follows:
An appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision den y ing site plan approval
due to the lack of an 8 foot . setback on a parking lot at 1806 We lsh Street.
Further information is available at the office of the Zoning Official of the
City of College Station, (409) 696-8868.
Jane Kee
Zoning Official
LEGA L NOTICE :
DATE(S) TO BE PUBLISHED:
/
. ") -1 /--.--TI." (/ i./ r:.__~L/• ./
BILL TO: THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
P. 0. BOX 9960
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
-~ / ,' _/ / ..:· > ,,-,J
-·'/~.
/ . .
The Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Colle ge Station will consider en appeal
in the name of:
Jan-Wic Homes Inc.
P. 0. Box 9935
College Station, TX 77840
Said case will be heard by the Board at their· r e gular meeting in the Council Room, College
Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue ·on Tuesday, April 19, 1983 at 7:00 P.M.
The nature of the case is as follows:
An appeal of a Planni .ng & Zoning Commissio.n decision denying site plan approval
due to the lack of an 8 foot setback on a ,parkJng lot at 1806 Welsh Street.
'. I
I
..
Further information is available at the office of the Zoning Official of the City of
College Station, ~09) 696-8868
Jane Kee
Zoning Official
\