Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2023 - Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments College Station, TX Meeting Agenda Zoning Board of Adjustment 1101 Texas Ave, College Station, TX 77840 Internet: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89345403951 Phone: 888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 893 4540 3951 The City Council may or may not attend this meeting. February 7, 2023 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers College Station, TX Page 1 Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the meeting body will be present in the physical location stated above where citizens may also attend in order to view a member(s) participating by videoconference call as allowed by 551.127, Texas Government Code. The City uses a third- party vendor to host the virtual portion of the meeting; if virtual access is unavailable, meeting access and participation will be in-person only. 1. Call meeting to order and consider absence requests. 2. Agenda Items 2.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes: Attachments: 1. January 3, 2023 2.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a height variance to the Airport Zoning Ordinance for the property located at W.C. Boyett Estate Partition, Block 12, Lots 1-4, generally located at 203 Church Avenue. The property is zoned NG-1 Core Northgate. Case #AWV2022-000020 Sponsors: Jeff Howell Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 4. Federal Aviation Administration Documentation 5. Easterwood Airport Management Documentation 6. TAMU System Documentation 7. Building Height Exhibit 2.3. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a variance to the maximum size of accessory structures per the Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.5.B.1 ‘Accessory Structures,’ for the property located at Oakwood Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 1-2 & 18' of Lot 3, generally located at 101 Lee Avenue. The property is zoned GS General Suburban. Case #AWV2022-000027 Sponsors: Gabriel Schrum Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 3. Applicant's Supporting Information 4. Applicant's Photos and Schematics 2.4. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a setback variance to 6.5.B.5.A 'Accessory Structures' for the property located at Oakwood Addition, Block 1A, Lot 4, Page 1 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 February 7, 2023 generally located at 200 Suffolk Ave. The property is zoned GS General Suburban. Case #AWV2022-000025 Sponsors: Gabriel Schrum Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 3. Applicant's Supporting Information 4. Survey 5. St Thomas Episcopal Church Letter of Approval 3. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items. A member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 4. Adjourn. Adjournment into Executive Session may occur in order to consider any item listed on the agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on February 2, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.” Page 2 of 91 January 3, 2023 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 1 of 3 Minutes Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting January 3, 2023 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Dupriest, Board Members Rachel Smith, James Hutchins, John Crittenden, and Chad Jackson CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning and Development Services Michael Ostrowski, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Deputy Attorney Leslie Tipton-Whitten, Senior Planner Jeff Howell, Staff Planner Robin Macias, and Staff Assistant II Crystal Fails 1. Call meeting to order. Chairperson Dupriest called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Agenda Items 2.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes: Board Member Smith motioned to approve the meeting minutes from November 9, 2022, Board Member Crittenden seconded the motion, the motion passed 5-0. 2.2. Discussion of Requested Administrative Adjustments: • AWV2022-000019 Accessory Building Addition; 101 Lee Ave.; 10% increase in the size of an accessory structure; Request denied. Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Hitchcock provided an overview of the administrative adjustment. Public Hearing, presentation, and discussion on Agenda Items #2.3 and #2.4 were held together. 2.3. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a height variance to the Airport Zoning Ordinance for the property located at Traditions Phase 23, Block 1, Lot 2, generally located at 3939 Fujifilm Way. The property is zoned PDD Planned Development District. Case #AWV2022-000021 - Temporary Mobile Crane 2.4. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a height variance to the Airport Zoning Ordinance for the property located at Traditions Phase 23, Block 1, Lot 2, generally located at 3939 Fujifilm Way. The property is zoned Page 3 of 91 January 3, 2023 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 of 3 PDD Planned Development District. Case # AWV2022-000022 - Temporary Tower Crane Staff Planner Macias presented the items 2.3 and 2.4 to the Board and stated that the applicant is requesting a 12-foot variance to allow for the use of a temporary mobile crane for assembly and disassembly of the tower crane, and a 12-foot variance to allow for the use of a temporary tower crane for construction. Staff recommended approval of the requests due to the fact that they meet the specified criteria. Specifically: 1. A literal application or enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. 2. The granting of the relief would result in substantial justice being done. 3. The granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. 4. The granting of the relief would be in accordance with the spirit of the regulation. Chairperson Dupriest asked staff why the variances for both the mobile crane and the tower crane are 12 feet if the mobile crane has a higher height. Staff Planner Macias replied that the mobile crane will move around the building and will have varying heights. As the crane moves around the building the maximum allowable height changes. The variance they are requesting is for the maximum height of the crane. Chairperson Dupriest opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public meeting. Chairperson Dupriest closed the public hearing. Board Member Hutchins motioned to approve item 2.3, a 12-foot height variance to the Easterwood Airport Zoning Ordinance for a temporary mobile crane, as it will not be contrary to the public interest, the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Texas A&M University did not have concerns, and that the approval was within the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s jurisdiction, Board Member Crittenden seconded the motion, the motion passed 5-0. Board Member Smith motioned to approve item 2.4, a 12-foot height variance to the Easterwood Airport Zoning Ordinance for a temporary tower crane, as it will not be contrary to the public interest, the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Texas A&M University did not have concerns, and that the approval was within the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s jurisdiction, Board Member Jackson seconded the motion, the motion passed 5-0. 3. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a Page 4 of 91 January 3, 2023 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 3 of 3 proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There was no discussion on future agenda items. 4. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Approved: Attest: ______________________________ ________________________________ Fred Dupriest, Chairperson Crystal Fails, Board Secretary Page 5 of 91 Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 3 February 7, 2023 AIRPORT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AIRPORT HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 203 Church Avenue AWV2022-000020 REQUEST:Height variance to the Easterwood Airport Zoning Ordinance LOCATION:203 Church Avenue W.C. Boyett Estate Partition, Block 12, Lots 1-4 ZONING:NG-1 Core Northgate PROPERTY OWNER:Rountree Development, LTD APPLICANT:CA Ventures PROJECT MANAGER:Jeff Howell, Senior Planner jhowell@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION:Approval BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing a new mixed-use development in Northgate encompassing four lots on the corner of First Street and Church Avenue. This building is anticipated to consist of commercial use on the ground floor, with a parking garage and residential units above which will be similar in character to other developments in the area. The structure is anticipated to be approximately 23 stories in height. The north corner of the building is proposed to sit at 576 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), the west corner at 576 feet AMSL, the east corner at 576 feet AMSL, and the south corner at 578 feet AMSL. The highest point of the proposed building is to be at 578 AMSL (or 235 AGL). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Easterwood Airport Management have provided support of height up to 578 feet ASML. Per the Airport Zoning Ordinance for Easterwood Airport, the maximum height of a structure at this location is limited to 470.6 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). Page 6 of 91 Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 3 February 7, 2023 The applicant is requesting a height variance to the Airport Ordinance for up to approximately 107.4 feet. ORDINANCE INTENT: The purpose of the Airport Zoning Ordinance is to establish clear and unambiguous regulations for the protection of the lives and property of users, owners, and occupants of and in the vicinity of Easterwood Field Airport and for the protection of airport operations. NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: February 7, 2023 Property owner notices mailed: 11 Contacts in support: None at time of staff report Contacts in opposition: None at time of staff report Inquiry contacts: None at time of staff report ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use North NG-1 Core Northgate Multi-family development East NG-1 Core Northgate Restaurant, multi-family development South NG-1 Core Northgate Church Avenue (Right-of-Way) West NG-1 Core Northgate First Street (Right-of-Way) REVIEW CRITERIA According to the Texas Local Government Code Section 241.034 Variances, the Board shall allow a variance from an airport zoning regulation if all of the following criteria are met: 1. A literal application or enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. 2. The granting of the relief would result in substantial justice being done. 3. The granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. 4. The granting of the relief would be in accordance with the spirit of the regulation. The Board may impose any reasonable conditions on the variance that it considers necessary to accomplish the purpose of airport zoning. The variance request is to allow for an increase in maximum height for a new proposed mixed-use structure. The applicant will be coming forward at a later date with a separate variance request for a crane if this structural variance is granted. The overall building height will sit at a maximum of 578 feet Above Mean Sea Level (or 235 Page 7 of 91 Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 3 February 7, 2023 Above Ground Level (AGL)). The FAA has made the determination that No Hazard to Air Navigation is present for the proposed structure at 203 Church Avenue. The Easterwood Airport Management (EAM) team has no objections to granting a height variance for the proposed structure. In consultation with the EAM team, the TAMU System has no objections to the granting of a height variance. Allowing the height encroachment for this development will result in substantial justice being done. The relief would not be contrary to public interest as the FAA, EAM, and TAMU systems have deemed this proposal acceptable with the proper communication between the applicant and airport required. The relief would further be in accordance with the spirit of regulation to allow development while protecting lives, property, and airport operations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the request and the related criteria, the information provided by the FAA, EAM and TAMU, staff recommends approval of the request. The granting of the variance would result in substantial justice being done without being contrary to the public interest, and the spirit of the regulation remains. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 2. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3. Federal Aviation Administration Documentation 4. Easterwood Airport Management Documentation 5. TAMU System Documentation 6. Building Height Exhibit Page 8 of 91 Page 9 of 91 Page 10 of 91 Page 11 of 91 Name of Project: 203 CHURCH AVE - HEIGHT VARIANCE Address: 203 CHURCH AVE Legal Description: BOYETT, BLOCK 12, LOT 1-2 (51' OF) Applicant: CA VENTURES Property Owner: ROUNTREE DEVELOPMENT LTD Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from: Easterwood Field Airport Zoning Ordinance regarding height limitations The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested: Variation to construct building at 235ft AGL The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: We consider this parcel¶s constraints a hardship to the proposed project and its ability to fully comply with the Northgate Design District (NG) and the concepts related to the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) standards. If the variance is approved, the 203 Church parcel will uphold Northgate¶s design standards and will produce the district¶s intended end result: a unique, pedestrian-friendly, dense urban environment that allows citizens of College Station and students of Texas A&M to safely eat, work, live, and recreate in an area within APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION The following special condition exists: The subject parcel, 203 Church, is located in the heart of Northgate and directly across the street from Texas A&M University in an urban dense zone in the city of College Station. The 203 Church project team is seeking a variance to update and improve the current conditions of the parcel by constructing a new mixed-use apartment building which will bring residential units and commercial space to this urban core location. The proposed project¶s height was recently approved by the FAA and will be comparable in height with other residential developments (also approved by the FAA and Easterwood Airport) constructed in the Northgate Urban Zone. The delivery of residential units and ground floor commercial space along University Ave will benefit all College Station residents compared to what is on site currently making for an improved pedestrian experience. Additionally, the project will look to contribute to Northgate¶s unique "campus neighborhood" which contains local businesses, churches, and off-campus housing in close proximity to the University. Page 1 of 2 Page 12 of 91 close proximity to the University. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: N/A The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to: The project team is requesting a variance on the parcel to safely house the required parking spaces per the zoning code. Due to the parcel¶s dimensional constraints and small acreage, the project will not be able to adequately provide the required parking spaces onsite without the approved variance. With this variance, the project will be able to house all the required parking in a parking structure within the parcel mitigating any need for offsite parking. An approved variance will improve the project¶s compliance with Northgate design standards and preferences and will provide the project¶s patrons with the safest means to ingress/egress within the parcel¶s boundaries. Page 2 of 2 Page 13 of 91 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2022-ASW-21783-OE Prior Study No. 2022-ASW-13278-OE Page 1 of 9 Issued Date: 11/29/2022 Henry Dickson CASL Holdings, LLC 130 E Randolph Street Suite #2100 Chicago, IL 60601 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure:Building 203 Church Ave - North Corner R1 Location:College Station, TX Latitude:30-37-05.24N NAD 83 Longitude:96-20-54.86W Heights:346 feet site elevation (SE) 232 feet above ground level (AGL) 578 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters 4,5(Red),&15. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. This determination expires on 05/29/2024 unless: Page 14 of 91 Page 2 of 9 (a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before December 29, 2022. In the event an interested party files a petition for review, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which the petition is made. Petitions can be submitted to the Manager of the Rules and Regulations Group via e-mail at OEPetitions@faa.gov, via mail to Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Rules and Regulations Group, Room 425, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or via facsimile (202) 267-9328. FAA encourages the use of email to ensure timely processing. This determination becomes final on January 08, 2023 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Rules and Regulations Group via telephone – 202-267-8783. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed Page 15 of 91 Page 3 of 9 structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). This determination cancels and supersedes prior determinations issued for this structure. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Andrew Hollie, at (817) 222-5933, or andrew.hollie@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022- ASW-21783-OE. Signature Control No: 559819633-562930712 ( DNH ) Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Case Description Map(s) Page 16 of 91 Page 4 of 9 Additional information for ASN 2022-ASW-21783-OE Abbreviations AGL = Above Ground Level MSL = Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Mile RWY = Runway NEH = No Effect Height Part 77 = Title 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace Our study has disclosed that this proposed building project is composed of five studies that represent the corners of the building, located approximately 1.90 nm northeast of the airport reference point, is within the protected surfaces at Easterwood Field (CLL), College Station, TX. The initial five studies were circulated for public comment and received a favorable determination on 10/26/2022. But since the coordinates were changed and are now further away from the airport and the height of the building increased, but the site elevation was corrected to be lower, new studies were required. For comparison purposes, both sets of studies are listed The five previous studies have been terminated and are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-13278-OE 218 / 580 8993 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-13279-OE 218 / 578 8927 feet / 1.46 nm 2022-ASW-13280-OE 218 / 577 8833 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-13281-OE 218 / 577 8802 feet / 1.44 nm 2022-ASW-13282-OE 218 / 577 8857 feet / 1.45 nm The five new studies are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-21783-OE 232 / 578 9013 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-21784-OE 233 / 577 8948 feet / 1.47 nm 2022-ASW-21786-OE 235 / 578 8855 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21787-OE 235 / 578 8822 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21788-OE 234 / 578 8879 feet / 1.46 nm At the proposed height, this structure will penetrate these protected airport surfaces: > 77.17 (a)(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 18 feet. Page 17 of 91 Page 5 of 9 New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 32 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 33 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 34 feet. > 77.17 (a)(5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.19, 77.21, or 77.23. 77.19 (a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 110 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 107 feet. New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 107 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 107 feet. **Part 77 obstruction standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study. This study is conducted in order to determine if the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations and airspace. While part 77 obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including public circularization, these obstruction standards do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds certain obstruction standards of part 77 is in itself not sufficient grounds for issuance of a determination of hazard to air navigation. The proposal was previously circularized for public comment on 09/08/2022 to 6073 email respondents with zero response returned. The new studies were not circulated as the impact is less than the greatest impact of the previous studies that were circulated. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. Page 18 of 91 Page 6 of 9 AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public-use or military airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public-use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 19 of 91 Page 7 of 9 Case Description for ASN 2022-ASW-21783-OE new multifamily building. Resubmitting since site elevations were lower Page 20 of 91 Page 8 of 9 TOPO Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21783-OE Page 21 of 91 Page 9 of 9 Sectional Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21783-OE Page 22 of 91 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2022-ASW-21784-OE Prior Study No. 2022-ASW-13279-OE Page 1 of 9 Issued Date: 11/29/2022 Henry Dickson CASL Holdings, LLC 130 E Randolph Street Suite #2100 Chicago, IL 60601 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure:Building 203 Church Ave - East Corner R1 Location:College Station, TX Latitude:30-37-03.73N NAD 83 Longitude:96-20-53.38W Heights:344 feet site elevation (SE) 233 feet above ground level (AGL) 577 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters 4,5(Red),&15. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. This determination expires on 05/29/2024 unless: Page 23 of 91 Page 2 of 9 (a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before December 29, 2022. In the event an interested party files a petition for review, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which the petition is made. Petitions can be submitted to the Manager of the Rules and Regulations Group via e-mail at OEPetitions@faa.gov, via mail to Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Rules and Regulations Group, Room 425, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or via facsimile (202) 267-9328. FAA encourages the use of email to ensure timely processing. This determination becomes final on January 08, 2023 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Rules and Regulations Group via telephone – 202-267-8783. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed Page 24 of 91 Page 3 of 9 structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). This determination cancels and supersedes prior determinations issued for this structure. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Andrew Hollie, at (817) 222-5933, or andrew.hollie@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022- ASW-21784-OE. Signature Control No: 559820507-562930713 ( DNH ) Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Case Description Map(s) Page 25 of 91 Page 4 of 9 Additional information for ASN 2022-ASW-21784-OE Abbreviations AGL = Above Ground Level MSL = Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Mile RWY = Runway NEH = No Effect Height Part 77 = Title 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace Our study has disclosed that this proposed building project is composed of five studies that represent the corners of the building, located approximately 1.90 nm northeast of the airport reference point, is within the protected surfaces at Easterwood Field (CLL), College Station, TX. The initial five studies were circulated for public comment and received a favorable determination on 10/26/2022. But since the coordinates were changed and are now further away from the airport and the height of the building increased, but the site elevation was corrected to be lower, new studies were required. For comparison purposes, both sets of studies are listed The five previous studies have been terminated and are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-13278-OE 218 / 580 8993 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-13279-OE 218 / 578 8927 feet / 1.46 nm 2022-ASW-13280-OE 218 / 577 8833 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-13281-OE 218 / 577 8802 feet / 1.44 nm 2022-ASW-13282-OE 218 / 577 8857 feet / 1.45 nm The five new studies are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-21783-OE 232 / 578 9013 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-21784-OE 233 / 577 8948 feet / 1.47 nm 2022-ASW-21786-OE 235 / 578 8855 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21787-OE 235 / 578 8822 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21788-OE 234 / 578 8879 feet / 1.46 nm At the proposed height, this structure will penetrate these protected airport surfaces: > 77.17 (a)(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 18 feet. Page 26 of 91 Page 5 of 9 New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 32 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 33 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 34 feet. > 77.17 (a)(5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.19, 77.21, or 77.23. 77.19 (a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 110 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 107 feet. New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 107 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 107 feet. **Part 77 obstruction standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study. This study is conducted in order to determine if the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations and airspace. While part 77 obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including public circularization, these obstruction standards do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds certain obstruction standards of part 77 is in itself not sufficient grounds for issuance of a determination of hazard to air navigation. The proposal was previously circularized for public comment on 09/08/2022 to 6073 email respondents with zero response returned. The new studies were not circulated as the impact is less than the greatest impact of the previous studies that were circulated. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. Page 27 of 91 Page 6 of 9 AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public-use or military airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public-use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 28 of 91 Page 7 of 9 Case Description for ASN 2022-ASW-21784-OE new multifamily building. Resubmitting because elevations were lower Page 29 of 91 Page 8 of 9 TOPO Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21784-OE Page 30 of 91 Page 9 of 9 Sectional Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21784-OE Page 31 of 91 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2022-ASW-21788-OE Prior Study No. 2022-ASW-13282-OE Page 1 of 9 Issued Date: 11/29/2022 Henry Dickson CASL Holdings, LLC 130 E Randolph Street Suite #2100 Chicago, IL 60601 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure:Building 203 Church Ave - West Corner R1 Location:College Station, TX Latitude:30-37-04.25N NAD 83 Longitude:96-20-55.96W Heights:343 feet site elevation (SE) 234 feet above ground level (AGL) 577 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters 4,5(Red),&15. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. This determination expires on 05/29/2024 unless: Page 32 of 91 Page 2 of 9 (a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before December 29, 2022. In the event an interested party files a petition for review, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which the petition is made. Petitions can be submitted to the Manager of the Rules and Regulations Group via e-mail at OEPetitions@faa.gov, via mail to Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Rules and Regulations Group, Room 425, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or via facsimile (202) 267-9328. FAA encourages the use of email to ensure timely processing. This determination becomes final on January 08, 2023 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Rules and Regulations Group via telephone – 202-267-8783. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed Page 33 of 91 Page 3 of 9 structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). This determination cancels and supersedes prior determinations issued for this structure. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Andrew Hollie, at (817) 222-5933, or andrew.hollie@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022- ASW-21788-OE. Signature Control No: 559824468-562930709 ( DNH ) Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Case Description Map(s) Page 34 of 91 Page 4 of 9 Additional information for ASN 2022-ASW-21788-OE Abbreviations AGL = Above Ground Level MSL = Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Mile RWY = Runway NEH = No Effect Height Part 77 = Title 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace Our study has disclosed that this proposed building project is composed of five studies that represent the corners of the building, located approximately 1.90 nm northeast of the airport reference point, is within the protected surfaces at Easterwood Field (CLL), College Station, TX. The initial five studies were circulated for public comment and received a favorable determination on 10/26/2022. But since the coordinates were changed and are now further away from the airport and the height of the building increased, but the site elevation was corrected to be lower, new studies were required. For comparison purposes, both sets of studies are listed The five previous studies have been terminated and are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-13278-OE 218 / 580 8993 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-13279-OE 218 / 578 8927 feet / 1.46 nm 2022-ASW-13280-OE 218 / 577 8833 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-13281-OE 218 / 577 8802 feet / 1.44 nm 2022-ASW-13282-OE 218 / 577 8857 feet / 1.45 nm The five new studies are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-21783-OE 232 / 578 9013 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-21784-OE 233 / 577 8948 feet / 1.47 nm 2022-ASW-21786-OE 235 / 578 8855 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21787-OE 235 / 578 8822 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21788-OE 234 / 578 8879 feet / 1.46 nm At the proposed height, this structure will penetrate these protected airport surfaces: > 77.17 (a)(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 18 feet. Page 35 of 91 Page 5 of 9 New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 32 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 33 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 34 feet. > 77.17 (a)(5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.19, 77.21, or 77.23. 77.19 (a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 110 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 107 feet. New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 107 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 107 feet. **Part 77 obstruction standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study. This study is conducted in order to determine if the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations and airspace. While part 77 obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including public circularization, these obstruction standards do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds certain obstruction standards of part 77 is in itself not sufficient grounds for issuance of a determination of hazard to air navigation. The proposal was previously circularized for public comment on 09/08/2022 to 6073 email respondents with zero response returned. The new studies were not circulated as the impact is less than the greatest impact of the previous studies that were circulated. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. Page 36 of 91 Page 6 of 9 AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public-use or military airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public-use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 37 of 91 Page 7 of 9 Case Description for ASN 2022-ASW-21788-OE new multifamily building resubmitting because site elevations were lower Page 38 of 91 Page 8 of 9 TOPO Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21788-OE Page 39 of 91 Page 9 of 9 Sectional Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21788-OE Page 40 of 91 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2022-ASW-21786-OE Prior Study No. 2022-ASW-13280-OE Page 1 of 9 Issued Date: 11/29/2022 Henry Dickson CASL Holdings, LLC 130 E Randolph Street Suite #2100 Chicago, IL 60601 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure:Building 203 Church Ave - First South Corner R1 Location:College Station, TX Latitude:30-37-03.05N NAD 83 Longitude:96-20-54.14W Heights:343 feet site elevation (SE) 235 feet above ground level (AGL) 578 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters 4,5(Red),&15. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. This determination expires on 05/29/2024 unless: Page 41 of 91 Page 2 of 9 (a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before December 29, 2022. In the event an interested party files a petition for review, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which the petition is made. Petitions can be submitted to the Manager of the Rules and Regulations Group via e-mail at OEPetitions@faa.gov, via mail to Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Rules and Regulations Group, Room 425, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or via facsimile (202) 267-9328. FAA encourages the use of email to ensure timely processing. This determination becomes final on January 08, 2023 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Rules and Regulations Group via telephone – 202-267-8783. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed Page 42 of 91 Page 3 of 9 structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). This determination cancels and supersedes prior determinations issued for this structure. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Andrew Hollie, at (817) 222-5933, or andrew.hollie@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022- ASW-21786-OE. Signature Control No: 559821203-562930710 ( DNH ) Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Case Description Map(s) Page 43 of 91 Page 4 of 9 Additional information for ASN 2022-ASW-21786-OE Abbreviations AGL = Above Ground Level MSL = Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Mile RWY = Runway NEH = No Effect Height Part 77 = Title 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace Our study has disclosed that this proposed building project is composed of five studies that represent the corners of the building, located approximately 1.90 nm northeast of the airport reference point, is within the protected surfaces at Easterwood Field (CLL), College Station, TX. The initial five studies were circulated for public comment and received a favorable determination on 10/26/2022. But since the coordinates were changed and are now further away from the airport and the height of the building increased, but the site elevation was corrected to be lower, new studies were required. For comparison purposes, both sets of studies are listed The five previous studies have been terminated and are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-13278-OE 218 / 580 8993 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-13279-OE 218 / 578 8927 feet / 1.46 nm 2022-ASW-13280-OE 218 / 577 8833 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-13281-OE 218 / 577 8802 feet / 1.44 nm 2022-ASW-13282-OE 218 / 577 8857 feet / 1.45 nm The five new studies are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-21783-OE 232 / 578 9013 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-21784-OE 233 / 577 8948 feet / 1.47 nm 2022-ASW-21786-OE 235 / 578 8855 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21787-OE 235 / 578 8822 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21788-OE 234 / 578 8879 feet / 1.46 nm At the proposed height, this structure will penetrate these protected airport surfaces: > 77.17 (a)(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 18 feet. Page 44 of 91 Page 5 of 9 New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 32 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 33 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 34 feet. > 77.17 (a)(5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.19, 77.21, or 77.23. 77.19 (a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 110 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 107 feet. New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 107 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 107 feet. **Part 77 obstruction standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study. This study is conducted in order to determine if the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations and airspace. While part 77 obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including public circularization, these obstruction standards do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds certain obstruction standards of part 77 is in itself not sufficient grounds for issuance of a determination of hazard to air navigation. The proposal was previously circularized for public comment on 09/08/2022 to 6073 email respondents with zero response returned. The new studies were not circulated as the impact is less than the greatest impact of the previous studies that were circulated. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. Page 45 of 91 Page 6 of 9 AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public-use or military airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public-use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 46 of 91 Page 7 of 9 Case Description for ASN 2022-ASW-21786-OE New multifamily building resubmitting because elevations were lower Page 47 of 91 Page 8 of 9 TOPO Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21786-OE Page 48 of 91 Page 9 of 9 Sectional Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21786-OE Page 49 of 91 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2022-ASW-21787-OE Prior Study No. 2022-ASW-13281-OE Page 1 of 9 Issued Date: 11/29/2022 Henry Dickson CASL Holdings, LLC 130 E Randolph Street Suite #2100 Chicago, IL 60601 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure:Building 203 Church Ave - Second South Corner R1 Location:College Station, TX Latitude:30-37-03.07N NAD 83 Longitude:96-20-54.90W Heights:343 feet site elevation (SE) 235 feet above ground level (AGL) 578 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters 4,5(Red),&15. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. This determination expires on 05/29/2024 unless: Page 50 of 91 Page 2 of 9 (a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before December 29, 2022. In the event an interested party files a petition for review, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which the petition is made. Petitions can be submitted to the Manager of the Rules and Regulations Group via e-mail at OEPetitions@faa.gov, via mail to Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Rules and Regulations Group, Room 425, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or via facsimile (202) 267-9328. FAA encourages the use of email to ensure timely processing. This determination becomes final on January 08, 2023 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Rules and Regulations Group via telephone – 202-267-8783. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed Page 51 of 91 Page 3 of 9 structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). This determination cancels and supersedes prior determinations issued for this structure. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Andrew Hollie, at (817) 222-5933, or andrew.hollie@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022- ASW-21787-OE. Signature Control No: 559822097-562930711 ( DNH ) Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Case Description Map(s) Page 52 of 91 Page 4 of 9 Additional information for ASN 2022-ASW-21787-OE Abbreviations AGL = Above Ground Level MSL = Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Mile RWY = Runway NEH = No Effect Height Part 77 = Title 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace Our study has disclosed that this proposed building project is composed of five studies that represent the corners of the building, located approximately 1.90 nm northeast of the airport reference point, is within the protected surfaces at Easterwood Field (CLL), College Station, TX. The initial five studies were circulated for public comment and received a favorable determination on 10/26/2022. But since the coordinates were changed and are now further away from the airport and the height of the building increased, but the site elevation was corrected to be lower, new studies were required. For comparison purposes, both sets of studies are listed The five previous studies have been terminated and are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-13278-OE 218 / 580 8993 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-13279-OE 218 / 578 8927 feet / 1.46 nm 2022-ASW-13280-OE 218 / 577 8833 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-13281-OE 218 / 577 8802 feet / 1.44 nm 2022-ASW-13282-OE 218 / 577 8857 feet / 1.45 nm The five new studies are: Aeronautical Study AGL / MSL Direct distance from runway end 16 2022-ASW-21783-OE 232 / 578 9013 feet / 1.48 nm 2022-ASW-21784-OE 233 / 577 8948 feet / 1.47 nm 2022-ASW-21786-OE 235 / 578 8855 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21787-OE 235 / 578 8822 feet / 1.45 nm 2022-ASW-21788-OE 234 / 578 8879 feet / 1.46 nm At the proposed height, this structure will penetrate these protected airport surfaces: > 77.17 (a)(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 18 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 18 feet. Page 53 of 91 Page 5 of 9 New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 32 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 33 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 35 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 34 feet. > 77.17 (a)(5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.19, 77.21, or 77.23. 77.19 (a) Horizontal surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation. Old 2022-ASW-13278-OE exceeds by 110 feet. 2022-ASW-13279-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13280-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13281-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-13282-OE exceeds by 107 feet. New 2022-ASW-21783-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21784-OE exceeds by 107 feet. 2022-ASW-21786-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21787-OE exceeds by 108 feet. 2022-ASW-21788-OE exceeds by 107 feet. **Part 77 obstruction standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study. This study is conducted in order to determine if the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations and airspace. While part 77 obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including public circularization, these obstruction standards do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds certain obstruction standards of part 77 is in itself not sufficient grounds for issuance of a determination of hazard to air navigation. The proposal was previously circularized for public comment on 09/08/2022 to 6073 email respondents with zero response returned. The new studies were not circulated as the impact is less than the greatest impact of the previous studies that were circulated. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. Page 54 of 91 Page 6 of 9 AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public-use or military airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public-use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 55 of 91 Page 7 of 9 Case Description for ASN 2022-ASW-21787-OE new multifamily building re-submitting because site elevations were lower Page 56 of 91 Page 8 of 9 TOPO Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21787-OE Page 57 of 91 Page 9 of 9 Sectional Map for ASN 2022-ASW-21787-OE Page 58 of 91 Easterwood Airport Management 1 McKenzie Terminal Blvd, College Station, TX 77845 Decmber 5, 2022 Anthony Armstrong, P.E., CFM, Land Development Review Administrator City Of College Station 1101 Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77840 Re: 203 Church Ave – Building Height Variance #AWV2022-000020 Dear Mr. Armstrong: Easterwood Management has reviewed the application for a height variance for the construction of a 235 foot tall building at 203 Church Ave as well as the FAA letters of “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.” Easterwood Airport Management has no objection to granting this height variance, so long as the builder complies with the conditions outlined in the FAA Letters. Respectfully, Kevin Davis Easterwood Airport Management Page 59 of 91 From:Anthony Armstrong To:Jeff Howell Subject:FW: 203 Church Ave Building Variance Date:Tuesday, December 6, 2022 3:26:18 PM Attachments:Height Variance Letter 203 Church Ave .pdf letter_562930711 (4).pdf letter_562930711 (1).pdf letter_562930711 (3).pdf letter_562930711 (2).pdf letter_562930711.pdf FYI attached and below Anthony Armstrong, P.E., CFM Land Development Review Administrator Planning and Development Services City of College Station Work: (979) 764-3758 Email: aarmstrong@cstx.gov From: O'Neill, John <joneill@tamus.edu> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 5:26 PM To: Anthony Armstrong <aarmstrong@cstx.gov>; Molly Hitchcock <mhitchcock@cstx.gov> Cc: Kevin Davis <KDavis@EasterwoodAirport.com> Subject: 203 Church Ave Building Variance ***** This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without positive sender verification of purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from this email. ***** Anthony, The Texas A&M University System (TAMUS) relies on the expertise of the Easterwood Airport Management (EAM) team and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine the impacts of height variance requests which would or could affect the airport’s operations. At this time, the EAM team has no objections to granting a height variance, as the FAA has made determinations that NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION is present for the building variance at 203 Church Avenue, as long as the builder complies with the conditions outlined in the FAA Letters. In consultation with the EAM team, the TAMU System has no objections based on the determinations made by our subject matter experts in the field, as long as the builder complies with the conditions outlined in the FAA letters. Thanks and should you need anything else, please feel free to contact me, John Page 60 of 91 John J. O’Neill, MBA | Executive Director, Business Affairs System Risk Managementjoneill@tamus.edu 1262 TAMU | College Station, TX 77840-7896 Tel. 979.458.6234 | Fax 979.458.6247 | www.tamus.edu Moore/Connally Building301 Tarrow St., 5th FloorCollege Station, TX 77840-7896 Page 61 of 91 Building Height Exhibit 203 Church Street - College Station, Texas CA VENTURES | 12.01.2022 Page 62 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 5 February 7, 2023 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 101 LEE AVENUE AWV2022-000027 REQUEST:An increase to the maximum size of an accessory structure as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.5.B.1 ‘Accessory Structures’ LOCATION:101 Lee Ave Oakwood Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 1-2 & 18' of Lot 3 ZONING:GS General Suburban; (NCO) Neighborhood Conservation Overlay PROPERTY OWNER:KERRY STEIN APPLICANT:KERRY STEIN PROJECT MANAGER:Gabriel Schrum, Staff Planner gschrum@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The subject property is the location of a 2,078.00-sq.ft. single family home with a 225-sq.ft. accessory cottage. The home on site is the former home of F.W. Hensel, a prominent College Station citizen and alumnus/professor of Texas A&M. The cottage is a campus accessory structure named "the Professor's Cottage" that Mr. Hensel relocated to the property when the home was built in 1941. In 2020, the applicant requested and received a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to facilitate the restoration and increase in the size of the accessory unit within the rear setback. The applicant is seeking to build an approximately 342-sq.ft. addition to the existing cottage. With the proposed addition, the cottage would be approximately 568 sq.ft. An approximately 14 x 14-ft. (196 square feet) covered patio sits as an additional accessory structure between the principal structure and the professor’s cottage on the lot. With the current size of the cottage and the covered patio, the combined square footage of accessory structures on the lot is 421, or 20% of the principal structure. By ordinance, the combined area of all accessory uses is not to exceed 25% of the area of the principal structure, or a minimum of 400 sq.ft., which in this case is 519.5 sq.ft. At the proposed size of 568 sq.ft. for the cottage, the total amount of accessory structures for the lot Page 63 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 5 February 7, 2023 would be 763 sq.ft or 36.7% of the size of the home on site; therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.5.B ‘Accessory Structures’ to allow the total accessory structures on the lot to exceed the 25% maximum (519.5 square feet) by allowing an additional 243.5 sq.ft. of accessory structures, which is 36.7% of the size of the home. APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 6.5.B.1 ‘Accessory Structures’ ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 6.5.B.4.A ‘Accessory Structures’ sets maximum square footage requirements for Accessory Structures that limit the size and scale of accessory living quarters to remain appropriate for single family zoning districts. RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends denial of the variance request. NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: February 7, 2023 Property owner notices mailed: 9 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property GS General Suburban with NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home North (across Timber Street)GS General Suburban Barbara Bush Parent Center CSISD Early Head Start South (across Lee Avenue) GS General Suburban with NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home East GS General Suburban with NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home West (across George Bush Drive)C-U College and University Texas A&M University campus PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1.Frontage: The subject property has approximately 95 feet of frontage on Timber Street, 152 feet of frontage on George Bush Drive, and 95 feet of frontage on Lee Avenue. 2.Access: The subject property is currently taking access from Timber Street. Page 64 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 5 February 7, 2023 3.Topography and vegetation: The subject property slopes four feet from the southeast corner towards the northern corner at Timber Street. According to City estimates, the impervious cover for the entire lot does not exceed 55%. In the future, when the landowner applies for a building permit, a more detailed calculation will be needed showing that the maximum impervious cover limit has not been exceeded. 4.Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain. REVIEW CRITERIA According to Unified Development Ordinance Section 3.19.E ‘Criteria for Approval of Variance’, no variance shall be granted unless the Board makes affirmative findings in regard to all nine of the following criteria: 1.Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Extraordinary or special conditions do exist for this property, but they do not affect the size of the accessory structure as it relates to the home on site. The property is uniquely surrounded by rights-of-way on three sides and additionally has a buffer from Timber St right-of-way of five feet of reserved tract that is found within the fenced property. These circumstances were relevant in the consideration of the previous variance request to expand the accessory structure within the minimum rear setback. The special conditions do not require an accessory structure to exceed the size limitations of the regulations. The applicant has stated that the NCO overlay and the existing professor’s cottage being a historical structure are special conditions to be considered. While the professors’ cottage is found on this unique corner lot, there is no extraordinary condition of the land that hinders the ability to construct the accessory structure addition within the 25% maximum. 2.Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the applicant. If the proposed variance is not granted, the applicant can still build an addition to their accessory structure within the 25% threshold and follow Section 6.5.B.1 ‘Accessory Structures’ of the UDO. If the variance is not granted, the applicant is not being denied a substantial property right of a single-family lot. 3.Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering the UDO. 4.Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. The surrounding properties are platted lots within the Oakwood Subdivision. 5.Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. Page 65 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 5 February 7, 2023 The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements as the site is already developed and due to no portion of this property being located within floodplain. 6.Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. The Accessory Structure Dimensional Standards apply to all property within residential districts and are not unique to this property. There are other lots that have accessory structures within the block that meet size standards put forth in Section 6.5.B.1 ‘Accessory Structures’. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. A hardship has occurred based upon the applicant’s own actions and does not occur due to an extraordinary condition of the land. The applicant is seeking to build to 36.7% of the total principal structure compared to 25% permitted by Section 6.5.B.1 ‘Accessory Structures’. The addition could be redesigned to meet standards without a variance. 8.Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. While the granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, variances that increase the allowable size of accessory structures do adversely affect the physical character of the area and would be generally inconsistent with the purposes and intent of the UDO. 9.Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular property does not restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. The applicant is still able to utilize their property as a single-family lot and build an addition to their accessory structure while still being within the maximum allotted accessory structure size. ALTERNATIVES The applicant is proposing to add an approximately 342-sq.ft. addition to the existing cottage. The applicant has provided alternatives of altering the original home to build an addition to the main home to allow for this desired accessory building addition. Alternatively, the applicant could reduce the square footage of the addition to their accessory structure so that it could fall within the 25% requirement (519.5 sq.ft.) put forth in Section 6.5.B.1 ‘Accessory Structures’ of the UDO. The applicant has also mentioned removing the covered patio, which would allow a larger addition to the cottage than is currently possible, but a variance would still be necessary to build to the desired size. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The applicant is seeking a variance to the maximum accessory structure size of 25% of the principal structure as set forth in Section 6.5.B.1 ‘Accessory Structures’. Due to the lack of meeting all of the required criteria provided above, including lack of a special condition on the property that necessitates a variance to allow for a larger accessory structure and the fact that there is no denial of a substantial property right, Staff recommends denial of the variance request. Page 66 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 5 February 7, 2023 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 2. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3. Applicant’s Photos and Schematic Page 67 of 91 Page 68 of 91 Page 69 of 91 Page 70 of 91 Name of Project: INCREASE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF ACCESSORY BLDG WITH ADDITION Address: 101 LEE AVE Legal Description: OAKWOOD, BLOCK 3, LOT 1-2 & 18' OF 3 Applicant: KERRY STEIN Property Owner: STEIN KERRY W & ANGELA M Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from: Appendix A - Article 6- Section 6.5 The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested: Increase the size restriction for the accessory building from 25% to 27.5%. This percentage is in relation the principal residence. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: 1) The Hensel house does not offer a viable location to build the desired addition without radically altering the look and character of the original home. This is due to the existing floor plan, roof structure, and the location of the home on the lot. 2) The principal structure has historical significance to the city of College Station. The owners do not want to make any material alterations to the home. 3) The lot borders 3 streets (a highly unusual configuration) including George Bush Dr. Any construction along that side of the lot would have an adverse effect on the historical character of the residence. APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION The following special condition exists: 1) The property includes two historic structures: The principal residence is the former home of F.W. Hensel, a prominent College Station citizen and outstanding alumnus/professor of Texas A&M. Also located on the lot is "the Professor's Cottage" that Mr. Hensel relocated to the property from campus when the home was built in 1941. 2) The property meets the standards for designation of a historical overlay Page 1 of 2 Page 71 of 91 The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: 1) Radically alter the original home or raze/rebuild the house. (i.e., abandon the preservation goal) 2) Build a 200 square foot addition to the main home, so that the desired addition to the accessory building would then be conforming. The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to: 1) This variance would facilitate the preservation of an important piece of early College Station heritage. 2) The variance would have no adverse visual or mechanical or natural impact on the neighbors or on the community. 3) The proposed accessory building would be smaller than an allowable garage. Thus, it cannot be considered out of scale or in any other way a violation of the intent and purpose of UDO 6.5 4) As the property is in a very visible location, these public interests are magnified. It would be a shame to alter Mr. Hensel¶s original home instead of the proposed accessory addition. Page 2 of 2 Page 72 of 91 Kerry and Angela Stein Page 73 of 91 Built 1941 by Frederick W. Hensel 101 Lee Ave Neigborhood was platted in mid 1930s by Oakwood Realty Company Oakwood Subdivision –part of original land that was incorporated as College Station in 1938. Within Southside District NCO Page 74 of 91 •1907 Graduate •1925 Professor in the Landscape Art Department; Appointed department head in 1926; Appointed as the first Landscape Architect for the A&M Campus; Recognized as outstanding faculty member in 1948 •Donated free time to landscaping of the College Station Cemetery; •Designer of College Park subdivision including Brison Park •Hensel Park is named in his honor Page 75 of 91 Relocated from campus circa 1941 by Frederick W. Hensel From this angle, Timber St is to the left (northeast); Rear of house is to the right. Parking area is in foreground. Access to lot is from Timber Street. Foundation damage is evident by the bow in the roof line. Interior floor is solid. Inspected by Anchor Foundation Repair (CS, Tx) Proposed addition will be behind cottage in this view. Page 76 of 91 §Professor’s Cottage (left) §Install new foundation §Replace deteriorated structural members as needed (most) §Restore original double-hung window §Refinish original wood flooring §New Addition (right) §Arched steel truss framing §Steel roof §Corten siding §Roofline will stay below the ridgeline of the cottage. Page 77 of 91 The property is bordered by streets on three sides. Lee Ave, George Bush Drive, and Timber St. Location of proposed addition is shown adjacent to the Professor’s cottage. Both the House and the Professor’s Cottage will remain visible from the Northwest (George Bush Dr.) The lot boundaries parallel to Lee and George Bush Dr are lined with a short picket fence. The addition would be mostly hidden from off-the-lot views. Page 78 of 91 §Existing cottage is 22’2” x 10’2” §Total 225.4 sqft §Proposed Addition is 18.5’ x 18.5 ft §Total 342.25 sqft §Combined: 568 sqft §The size of an average 2-car garage. §27.3%of the principal residence Addition 18.5’x 18.5’ Cottage 10’ 2”x 22’2” Page 79 of 91 Referencing the red dashed line: The location of the proposed addition is not atypical of both accessory buildings or home extensions of the neighboring lots that border Timber Street. This map was copied from CSTX.gov Page 80 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 4 February 7, 2023 VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 200 SUFFOLK AVENUE AWV2022-000025 REQUEST:A 15-foot reduction to the minimum 15-foot rear setback for an accessory structure as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’ LOCATION:200 Suffolk Ave Oakwood Addition, Block 1A, Lot 4 ZONING:GS General Suburban NCO Neighborhood Conservation Overlay PROPERTY OWNER:Gaines & Susan West APPLICANT:Mitchell & Morgan, LLP C/O Veronica Morgan PROJECT MANAGER:Gabriel Schrum, Staff Planner gschrum@cstx.gov BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the rear setback of the property by 15 feet per the requirements of Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’, which states that the minimum rear setback for accessory structures is 15 feet. Any portable building or structure that the Building Official has determined does not require a building permit may be located within building setbacks. An accessory structure that does not require a building permit is generally under 120 sq.ft. in area, is not permanently affixed to the ground, and does not have utilities. The applicant has an existing shed on the property line that has not needed a building permit to this point. The property owner would like to now run utilities to the structure to transform it into a changing room with a shower, which will then require a building permit and thus the need for it to meet the setback requirements. The applicant would like to keep the structure in its existing location on the property line; therefore the applicant is requesting a 15-ft. variance to the rear setback of an accessory structure. Page 81 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 4 February 7, 2023 APPLICABLE ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’ ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’ sets minimum setback standards for accessory structures that usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends denial of the variance request. NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Board Hearing Date: February 7, 2023 Property owner notices mailed: 22 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report Inquiry contacts: One at the time of this report ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zoning Land Use Subject Property GS General Suburban with NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home North (across undeveloped alley) GS General Suburban NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home South (across undeveloped alley) GS General Suburban NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (across from undeveloped alley) Single-Family Home East GS General Suburban NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Single-Family Home West GS General Suburban NCO, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay St. Thomas Episcopal Church PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1.Frontage: The subject property has approximately 45 feet of frontage on Suffolk Avenue. 2.Access: The subject property takes access from Suffolk Avenue. 3.Topography and vegetation: The subject property is relatively flat with existing canopy trees concentrated along southern property line and vegetation along the eastern and western property lines. Page 82 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 4 February 7, 2023 4.Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain. REVIEW CRITERIA According to Unified Development Ordinance Section 3.19.E ‘Criteria for Approval of Variance’, no variance shall be granted unless the Board makes affirmative findings in regard to all nine of the following criteria: 1.Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The subject property is one of the largest residential lots on the block. It has very little street frontage but much of its yard can be seen from Suffolk Ave. While these are special conditions of the land, they do not deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the land. The applicant has stated that the unique configuration of the lot and location of utility lines does not provide many suitable locations for the end use of the accessory structure. The sizeable lot has few encumbrances that would hinder the relocation of the accessory structure. The applicant does mention utilities, but the location and proximity of public infrastructure lines do not impede a relocation of the shed to other locations on the property outside of minimum setbacks. 2.Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the applicant. If the proposed variance is not granted, utilities may not be extended to the structure but the applicant can still utilize the existing shed as is, or the applicant may move the structure to a conforming location. If the variance is not granted, the applicant is not being denied a substantial property right of a single-family lot. 3.Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this UDO. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering the UDO. The property line that the shed abuts is shared with St. Thomas Episcopal Church. The applicant has provided a letter indicating that the church has no objection to the variance request. 4.Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO. The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. The surrounding properties are platted lots. 5.Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements. The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements as the site is already developed and due to no portion of this property being located within floodplain. 6.Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. Page 83 of 91 Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 4 February 7, 2023 The Accessory Structure dimensional standards apply to all property within residential districts and are not unique to this property. The subject property is the second largest lot on the block, and due to its larger size affords more room to locate an accessory building that meets the district standards compared to other smaller lots. 7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions. There is not a hardship that has occurred due to an extraordinary condition of the land—the hardship has occurred based upon the applicant’s own actions. The applicant is seeking to extend utilities to the existing shed that is currently conforming to setback requirements. The applicants’ desire to upgrade the shed with utilities causes the need to move the structure out of the accessory structure setback. 8.Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO. The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and with the purposes of the UDO. 9.Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The application of the UDO standards to this particular property does not restrict the applicant in the utilization of their property. The applicant is still able to utilize their property as a single-family lot and utilize the existing shed. ALTERNATIVES The alternative provided by the applicant would be to keep the shed in the same location and not have utilities be extended to the building. The applicant could also move the shed outside of the setback or to a different conforming location on the lot to allow for the desired use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The applicant is seeking a variance of 15 feet to the minimum 15-foot rear setback for an accessory structure per Section 6.5.B.5.a ‘Accessory Structures’. Due to the lack of meeting all the required criteria, including the lack of an extraordinary condition that is denying the owners a substantial property right, Staff recommends denial of the variance request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map 2. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3. Survey 4. St. Thomas Episcopal Church Letter of Approval Page 84 of 91 Page 85 of 91 Page 86 of 91 Page 87 of 91 Name of Project: 200 SUFFOLK AVENUE Address: 200 SUFFOLK AVE Legal Description: OAKWOOD, BLOCK 1A, LOT 4 Applicant: MITCHELL & MORGAN Property Owner: WEST GAINES & SUSAN Applicable ordinance section being appealed/seeking waiver from: UDO Section 5.2 ±Residential Dimensional Standards The following specific variation to the ordinance is requested: We request to reduce the rear setback to ¶for the existing shed so that it may serve as an accessory structure with utilities. The shed was placed on the property 10 years ago as a storage structure. The storage shed did not need a building permit as it is well below the 150-sf threshold and did not have utilities extended. With the addition of the pool, there is an opportunity for the structure to serve as a changing room with an outdoor shower head. Without utilities, the shed may remain in its current location. We are requesting the variance so that utilities may be extended to the existing structure. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: The purpose of the structure will be to offer a privacy space to the residents and guests of the residence. The structure is discreetly located along the rear property line. Relocating the building to meet the rear setback would disrupt the aesthetic value of the rear yard as well as from the Suffolk Avenue right of way, as much of the yard is visible from the street, due to the configuration of the lot. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: Alternatively, the shed will remain in the existing location and will not have utilities extended to the building. APPEAL/WAIVER APPLICATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION The following special condition exists: The configuration of the lot and the location of the existing utility lines on the lot does not present many suitable alternative locations for the privacy room. The existing placement of the shed along the rear property line is the ideal location for the structure. Page 1 of 2 Page 88 of 91 The variance will not be contrary to public interest due to: The shed has been located in this spot for the past 10 years. The structure cannot be expanded, nor is there room to make this any kind of living space. This property shares a rear property line with St. Thomas Episcopal church and representatives have expressed support of the variance. Page 2 of 2 Page 89 of 91 Page 90 of 91 Page 91 of 91