No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/2005 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of Adjustments Workshop Agenda College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment Administrative Conference Room 1101 Texas Avenue Tuesday, August 2, 2005 5:00 p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning er Development Services 1. Call to order 2. Discussion and possible action concerning the wording for the notification letters sent to property owners. 3. Discussion and possible action concerning the 200-foot notification area. 4. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding Zoning Board of Adjustments' role as quasi judicial board, including contact with citizens, and related matters. 5. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551 071• possible action The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. WORKSHOP AGENDA ITEM N0.2 July 19, 2005 TO WHOMIT MAY CONCERN: Re: Variance request NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a variance request for the following property: Applicant: Keith Ellis for Patrick and Sue Mahoney • Subiect Property: 210 Timber Street (See attached location map.) Proposed Variance: Front Set Back The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 2, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas. All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (979) 764-3570. JENNIFER REEVES STAFF PLANNER • wo~KS~.ep q;~rda`~~K. x~ 3 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning e'r Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas ??842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM January 6, 2004 TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment FROM: Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planner SUBJECT: 200-foot public hearing mail notification Asa °future agenda item" on May 4, 2004, board members requested that the staff provide • information about the 200-foot notification standard the City of College Station uses for mailed notifications of public hearings for variance requests. The purpose of this memorandum is to: explain the types of notification required for variance requests, discuss the City's reason for requiring a 200-foot notification for variance requests, summarize recent discussions by City Council regarding changing the 200-foot notification standard, and provide the notification standards of other Texas cities. Should the Board wish to discuss the information in this memorandum and the issue of notification, a member should request that it be placed on a future agenda. Current Notification Standards When a variance to zoning regulations is to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustments, the City of College Station notifies the public by: 1. Posting a meeting agenda at City Hall least 72 hours before the meeting; 2. Publishing a notice in The Eagle at least 15 days prior to the meeting; and 3. Mailing a notice to property owners within 200 feet of the parcel under consideration at least 10 days prior to the meeting. At a minimum, Section 3.1(F)(2)(c) of the Unified Development Ordinance requires that published and mailed notices provide: 1. The general location of the land that is the subject of the application; 2. The substance of the application, including the magnitude of proposed development and the current zoning district; 3. The time, date, and location of the public hearing; and • 4. A phone number to contact the City. As a standard practice, staff also places public hearing signs on the parcel under consideration the week before the hearing. The 200-Foot Standard Section 211.007 of the Texas Local Government Code requires cities to provide notice of a request for rezoning of property to owners of real property within 200 feet of the property on • which the rezoning is proposed. Yet there is no similar statutory notification requirement for requests for variances. Nonetheless, since 1940, the College Station City Council has consistently adopted, in the City's zoning ordinance, the same notification requirements for variance requests as state law requires for rezonings. It is likely that the City Council adopted variance notice requirements that are identical to the state-required rezoning notice requirements for consistency and ease of implementation. City Council Discussions In 2003, the City Council held policy discussions to give City staff direction in the drafting of the Unified Development Ordinance. When posed with the question of whether or not notification distances should be increased, the Council's consensus was that the official required distance ought to be the same as statutory requirements. However, the Council also determined that as a policy, the City should continue to strive to exceed the statutory requirements to, for example, notify homeowners associations and other interested groups. Based upon that direction, as a practice, Staff has been sending mailed notification to known neighborhood organizations. Standards of Other Cities A survey of seventeen other Texas cities establishes a trend that most cities, like College Station, send mailed notification for variance requests to 200 feet from the property line. Two cities-Austin and Grand Prairie-notify to 300 feet from the property line. • Mailed° Notification . .Distances for YBA Arlin ton 200 ft. Austin 300 Beaumont 200 B an 200 Cor us Christi 200 Denton 200 Garland 200 Grand Prairie 300 Gra evine 200 Irvin 200 Killeen 200 Lewisville 200 McAllen 200 Plano 200 Victoria 200 Waco 200 Wichita Falls 200 • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning er Development Services Agenda College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue Tuesday, August 2, 2005 6:00 p.m. 1. Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from Apri15, 2005. 4. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action, to consider a variance for 210 Timber Street, lot 5, block 1 of the Holik Subdivision. Applicant is Keith Ellis for Patrick and Sue Mahoney. (OS-125 JR) 5. Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. OS-56 611 & 613 Banks Street - 1-foot to the rear setback OS-86 1731 University Drive East - 6 parking spaces 6. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items - A Zoning Board 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. 7. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.071; uossible action. The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. -After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available.. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment Apri15, 2005 • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, John Richards, Ward Wells, Graham Sheffy, Jay Goss & Alternate Donald Braune was in the audience. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Joshua Benn. (Not needed) STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planners Molly Hitchcock & Jennifer Prochazka, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Lance Simms, Action Center Representative Bryan Cook. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. No requests were submitted. • AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from January 4, 2005. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Goss asked that the minutes begin reflecting the reasons why Board Members ask to be excused from meetings. Mr. Goss stated for record that his absence from the January 4 meeting was due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Ward seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (S-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, consideration and possible action, to consider an expansion of anon-conforming use at 415 Graham Road, lot 1-R, block 1, Deuel Subdivision. Applicant is Roger Pasch, Energy Laboratories. (OS-18) Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting to increase the square footage of area within an existing structure devoted to anon-conforming use. The facility at 415 Graham was developed before annexation in 1992 and expanded in 1995, under the City of College Station's Zoning Ordinance. Under the Zoning Ordinance, many zoning districts were • cumulative -uses permitted in less intense zoning districts were allowed in the related zoning district(s) for higher-intense uses. For this reason, laboratories, offices, and storage (light industrial uses) were permitted in M-2 Heavy Industrial zoning districts. When the City adopted the Unified Development Ordinance in 2002, cumulative zoning was removed in order to encourage the highest and best use of the property and eliminate possible compatibility conflicts. When the UDO took effect, Energy Laboratories, Ines laboratory use became legally non-conforming • and was allowed to continue. The business would now like to expand their lab into some of their existing storage space. To do so, they must be granted permission from the ZBA to expand their area of non-conformity. The UDO prohibits expansions greater than 25% of the original area of non- conformity. Of their 5,228 sq. ft. of laboratory space, Energy Laboratories, Inc. wishes to expand an additional 960 sq. ft., or 18.3%. A special condition listed was the shift from cumulative to non-cumulative zoning with the adoption of the UDO has limited a previously permitted land use on the property. The application offers as a hardship that the property cannot utilize as originally intended when developed. An alternative would be that the property owner request a rezoning to M-1 from the City Council. Also offered was a reduction of the request to an expansion of 480 sq.ft, or 9.2%. When the property was replated into two lots and the facilities expanded in 1995, the applicant at the time (Soil Analytical) requested a special exception to expand anon-conforming structure. The original building was built before it was within city requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. When the additional structure was built, Soil Analytical requested that they be able to build without meeting parking and landscaping requirements. The exception was granted. • Ms. Hitchcock ended her staff report by saying that she did receive a phone call from a neighboring property owner that just had general questions concerning the notification letter. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Roger Pasch stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. He spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Pasch explained to the Board the history of the property and the type of work being conducted there. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to authorize the enlargement or completion of a building devoted to a non-conforming use upon the lot occupied by such building, where such enlargement or completion is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not exceed ~ 18.3% of the original area ofnon-conformity. Mr. Goss seconded the motion. Ms. Robinson stated for clarification that this is a different case from what the Board is accustomed to hearing. They are not required to make the same findings as hardships and special conditions. What the ordinance does is gives the Board the discretion to approve the expansion if the extension is necessary and incidental to the existing use and does not exceed the 25% of the original area of non- conformity. ZBA Minutes April S, 2005 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Wells asked if they are allowing the applicant, the requested 18.3% or what is stated on the motion form for up to 25%. Chairman Hill stated that he would feel more comfortable stating the amount of expansion. • Mr. Shef made the motion to amend his motion. The motion to read not to exceed the 18.3 %. fY Mr. Wells seconded the motion to amend. Mr. Goss asked what difference did it make. They are allowed up to 25% anyway. Why not just give them the 25%. There were continued discussions on the percent given in the motion. Mr. Pasch stepped before the Board and offered clarification. He stated that they feel the existing building as is would probably be satisfactory for them for a considerable length of time. They are not planning on doing any new construction or adding on. Chairman Hill called for a vote on Mr. Sheffy's motion to amend the motion to read: "not to exceed 18.3% to the allowed expansion". The Board voted (4-0). Mr. Goss abstained from voting. Chairman Hill called for a vote on the motion as amended not to exceed 18.3%. The Board voted (5-0). The motion was approved. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. • ~ None to report. AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items - A Zoning 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. Mr. Richards asked that the following be added for future discussion at a workshop: Open discussion on contact limitations Notifications letters 200 foot notification area Ms. Hitchcock asked the Board if they had received her memo concerning the history of the 200-foot notification. They all stated they had received it. Mr. Wells stated that it answered all the questions that he had and he felt no further discussion was needed. ZBA Minutes April S, 2005 Page 3 oj4 • AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. • APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZBA Minutes April S, 2005 Page 4 of 4 • STAFF REPORT • Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Email: jreeevs@cstx.gov Report Date: July 18, 2005 ZBA Meeting Date: August 2, 2005 APPLICANT: Keith Ellis, Applicant REQUEST: Front Setback Variance of five feet and one inch. LOCATION: 210 Timber Street PURPOSE: To allow the builder to continue the construction of a single family home. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Builder, Ellison Custom Homes Property Owner: Patrick & Sue Mahoney Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7.1.D.1.e of the Unified Development Ordinance • (UDO):"Where an existing block was created by an approved plat prior to July 15, 1970, a new (infill) single -family dwelling unit shall use the adjacent lots to determine the appropriate front yard setback. The new dwelling unit shall be set no closer the street or farther back from the street than the nearest neighboring units." PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: The subject property as well as the surrounding properties is zoned R-1 Single Family. Frontage & Access: The subject property has frontage and access via Timber Drive Topography & Vegetation: Relatively flat with large caliper Live Oaks in the front and rear of the lot. Flood Plain: Not located within the 100-year flood plain. VARIANCE INFORMATION ANALYSIS Item Background: The Applicant is requesting a variance to Section 7.1.D.1.e of the UDO in order to construct a larger than current average home in this area • to continue the upgrading trend already evidenced in the neighborhood. Even though the resulting setback lies within the R-1 Single Family Residential setback of 25-feet, the applicant is requesting a 5-foot 1-inch variance to comply O:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\hond a. doc with the contextual front setback as referenced in Section 7.1.D.1.e. of the UDO. • Special Conditions & Hardship: The applicant states: "The City of Colle e 9 Station granted a building permit for 210 Timber to Ellis Custom Homes, based upon the current site plan which Ellis Custom Homes has followed. After construction commenced including, site work, pier installation and foundation preparations, Ellis ordered an independent form survey to be completed the day before the foundation pour. It was during the survey that the UDO Section 7.1. D. 1.e was discovered by an independent surveyor and brought to our attention. Ellis Custom Homes then notified the Cify of College Station. Substantial trees at the rear of the property preclude the client from moving his home further back without sacrificing the shade trees which characterize the neighborhood. We request a front setback variance of 5.1-feet for the above reasons." Alternatives: The applicant states: "Reducing the size of the residence (and scope of the project) would cause it to fit within the setback limits of Section 7.1.D.1.e. However this would defeat the effort to upgrade this area of the City". SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements 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. The intent of this section is to insure that any infill development in older • neighborhoods is in context with the existing development. Number of Property Owners Notified: 24 Responses Received: None as of date of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS • Location Map • Application • Memo to Staff from Applicant • Survey/Site Plan • O:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda. doc b ~ L boa (v , )N `o~` °°~ ago ~ yO N ~O~` 9o`r- L ~ N o° ~ ~ M no Q o ~O O a0y 0 a~ ~ 1°^ Off` ~ N N •. n~ M a°° a° ~ a°o 100 Foy` ~ • o^ ~ a°°` O o N ~ °~.°N M a°^ aoti ~ a°~ ao ° I` d' r ,o° ~ M oo ~- oh a°a 06 ~ CV ,~~~` a O ap a M 0 ~ °°a ti M ~ °°o ~o~~ a°° ao~ ~/ 1 O ~' °°.~ o° O o° N ~ tip` h `~ O o'` a o~ ~ M '~° r- a CO 1 °°° ~ ,~o'~ o°~O ~ o'` ~ci 1 p ~ ~ O ~ 3 °°a ~ e '~°6 zoo ~Maoh ,~o° N Oof` oti 00 ~° O ~ M M a°° U ^~ boa °~ o° ~ oo~ O a M ~ °°y ~ o O M y,~~. ~- ~ N °o° ~~~- °° 00 N M o'`° °^ a ~~0 0090 r- ~ ~. o~ M ° G`~ N 3~' °,~o ° ~ W ~ y J °° ~ M m N ~ ti°o ,yo`O NN °03° Q` ~o`O ~M yo~~ • ~ X03 ~ o~ ~ °o°` ~ O ~ °~ o o'` ~ ti°a M N N ~~~, ° ° ~°~' OO Dc O M ~'` '` ti ~yo r ry~° 00 a° °~ti N ,~~. ti~ M ~ tiN ° o 1 o° N `~ ti ~ ~° 1` ~ ~ Aj ~ ti° o° ~ N °~' °°o Cfl ~ ti CO ~ •. o°` ~ ~ ~ ~°'~ rya d' MN ~,~'O J °°ti~ ~~~~ ~ °^ ~° N ^ ~ P o°° M ~ ^ryh ~ N o~ ~J~ ~^o ~ W ~ ti Q a r ti ~'` O~ '`'~° titi ~ M ~ ti`a O ~ ~s ° g o ti ~ "~ I` ~. ~~h ~^o ~~o ~ 00 Z o ry°° O ~ N ~~`~~~~ W ~ o ~ ^'`a O ~ ~ N °ti~~ goo ,y'~`O ~ ~° ~ ~. `~ oh ~^ti O o° o N °^~ ti ti r ~ ~o ~ tio°` d' 0 Jul 11 2005 5:09PM 101 GROVE ST 979-7647999 p.2 97/09/2905 16:13 979}~ .;~Q95 COOS t7EVELOPMI ? 5ER PACaE 03!04 .y • FOR OFFICE U8! OFR_Y nn ~ll ~. CASE NO.: ~ *~' ~~`)`J t)ATC slJetlNfTTCD• ~ ` I ~~"~ S Clrlr nr Cour:.ce S7~naty ~I ~ AM~i~d.Drw~iry~r~rrSrrrlm , ~~~~.L any ~~ I~~'t'~' ZONING BQARD O~ ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION __ ___ NINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Filing Fee of 5150.00. Applicatbn completed in full. Additional materials msy be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation dnswings, sign details and floor plans. The Zonis Official shall inform the ap !!cant of a extra materials requirod. Date of Praappilcation Conference: APALICANt/PRn,IEt^.T MANA+;ER'S INFORMATION {Primary Contsot for the Projoot): Name ~ Street Address ' (~ 1 ~ tJV~ ~~. City State ~_ Zip Code ~7Q E-Mail Address ~ ~~'?/t Phone Numhar . 97~ "' (Q9J~-~'~~J~~ Fax Number ~~9'~ ~~D~' "' ~~q~ PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: -- ~~ ` ~ ~~`r Street Address ~{'~Q ~ Y~ ~pQ . City State _,,,,~,_ Zip Mode ,,,~'~,~ E-Mail Address ~G~'e~ ~t"_ Phone Number ~r ~.,,~~~.2-'" ~~f~ Fax Number LOCATION OF Address Lot ~_ Block ~ 3ubdivision {-iU [.. t ~ _ Description ff there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback a anC Appeal of Zoning OiFiciei's Interpretation Parking Variance Specdai Exception Sign Variwnoa other Current Zoning of Subject Properly: ~""~- . Applicable Ordinance Section: C v ,`~. • 6119A9 Pape 1 d 6 Jul 11 2005 5:09PM 101 GROVE ST 9.79-7647999 p.3 07/08/2005 16:13 979ii X496 COL.'S DEUELOPNL `~ SER PAGE 04/04 .. • GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST ~~--~~ The tollowinp specific variation from the ordinance la requested: This Vatiance is n8cesaary dua in f>,a fnltowing opaclal condiiiona: Special Condttian Definition: To justityr a variance, the diificulty must be due to unique circumstances involving the particular property. The unique rirrin»stAru~s must bo rolsited to a phyeiasl cherecterietlc of life property itself, not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land. Exsmpl~: A creek bisrscGrry n lot, a smaiter buildable anew than is seen on surrounding Ivts, specimen trees. Note: A cul-de-sac is a standaM street layout in College Station. The Shape of standard cul-de-sec Iota are generally not special Conditlons. The unnRr:aaeary hardship (s) in~olvod by mocting the provisions of the ortliiinnce other tAan rinande! hardahlp is/are: Hardship potinition: The inability to make re~~ui~-ble use of the property in atxord with the literal requirehnents of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition. F~campie: A hardship d a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area- nn the let, when compared to neighboring properties, 'The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: This variance wli not be contrsary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: The applicant ties prepared is applice-tlon and certifies that the facts stated hanaln and exhibNs attached ho~reto a-Q t , c mplohr. ~ 1i 0 ~ S{o s#nd Titlo Dat ~~ • 6H3103 Pepe 8 q 6 • • Jul 11 2005 5:09PM 101 GROVE ST 979-7647999 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST Appiicabte tJrdinance Section: 7.1.D. t .e Specffic Variation: Variance requested to follow Building Setbacks as currently applied to Residential Zoning District R-1. Reasons: The location of this tot and its proximity to the historical areas of the City and to TAMU lends itself to the development of a high end residential home. The construction of a Larger than the current average home in this area will continue the upgrading trend already evidenced in the neighborhood. The high-end value of the proposed residence will enhance the quality of the neighborhood. Public Safety: No changes in traffic volume or patterns will be occasioned by this Variance nor public safety wilt be compromised. Alternative: Reducing the size of the residence (and scope of the project) would cause it to fit within the setback limits of Section 7.1.D.1.e. However this would defeat the effort to upgrade this area of the City. Attachments: Survey of Lot S and adjoining 45' of Lot 6, Bloch 1, Hol~c's Restricted Home Sites, showing the slab farnos as already placed on the ground. City of Cdlege Station land base map showing the proposed building and the existing neighboring house. p.4 • W W W E L L I S C U 5 T O M H O M E S C O M 1 O1 GROVE STREET (COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 ~ PFIONE 979.695.8394 ~ FAX 979.764.7999 !. C7 July 1 S, 2005 Jennifer Reaves, via fax 979-764-3496 City of College Station - Plarming and Development Services RE: Memorandum dated July 13, 2005 1VIs. Reeves, in response to your memorandum dated July 13, 2005 the following information is provided • This is a front setback variance request.. • The variance requesfled is 5.1' -See clouded Galindo Engineering Survey attached • The front satbarck anessw+aments for each neighboring property am: 5.1' and 16.1' -See clouded Galindo Enginoaring Survey attached • The "Spacial Condition" or "HarcL4hip"maybe stated as fouows: The City of College Station granted a building permit for 210 Timber bo Ellis Custom Homes, • based upon the c~urent site pin which Ellis Custom Homes has followed. AfEar construction commenced including. sitework, pier installation & foundation preparations, Elfis ordered an independen form survey to be co~-pleted tho day before the foundation pone. It was during the survey that the UDO ordinance 7.1.D.1.e was discovered by an independent surveyor and brought to our attention. Ellis Custom Homes then notified the City of College Station. Substantial trees at the rear of tl~ property prechide the cliecrt from moving hie home fiuther back without sacrificing the shade trees which characterize the neighborhood. We request a front setback variaace of 5.1' for the above reasons. Please contact our office shouts you have further questions or regtrire additional infaa~nnatian. You may contact tree the office (979) 695-8394 or on my cell phone (979) 229-6936 Sincerely, Keith Ellis President -Ellis Custom Homes CC: Lance Sims Chris Haver • W W W E L L I S C U S T O M H O M E S C O M 101 GROVE STREET ~ COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 7784U ~ PHONE 979,645.8394 ~ F,4X 979.764.7999 Z'd 666G~9G-6L6 1S 3A021J IOi Wd9E~ZI SOOZ SI IBC JU1~-11-05 MON f~:08 GALINDO ENGINEERS 9T9 846@66B P. 03 • ~rt9LIN~0 l:.NG1'NLE~tS AN13 PL~4,11lNERS~ X1VC• 3833 S°uth Texas Ave., Suite 213 Bryan. Yexas 77802 (878) 848-8888 NOTES: ~0~ t. ~L LINEAR DI1~EN510NS ARE IN rEET UNLESS OTFIERNASE NOTED. Z. WHERE ~IEASUREa CALLS DIFFER FRDN SLANTE0.0 CALLS THEY ARE SHOww ri 4~ Q rs0 ~~~ J. TOTAL AREA (R j ~ p.~017 ACR, ~ R~,~";'~' ~ TOTAL AREA M 0.012 ACR. ~ '~~ • ' ~ SJ. ~.6EARINO SOURCE IS PLAT IN 10~/{5 ~~ ~Y` qtr ~ S. QASE LINE IS NOTEO WITH •, / ~ ,~ ~ •O0, .T~, (~~~ 6.8Ls 5ET BY ORDINANCE pp~~ 7• COAAMITMENT REF: BCI-C CF / 141408 ,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$, •~N~ 6 A ~' / ~ a a`~ / ~s~ •g ~. ,`\~~ H~OlL~1~/ASN ~a ~~ •~~~ ~t0 A ~ B~~ r'' !/~. ~0~n \ 7 P 4 ,~ `~~~ 1 ;per' /,, ~ 'p ~, '~~. / 1 4° ~ ~ \~~ ,~~ ~ ` +a INSIDE EDGE Of s ~~ wr ~ SLAB FORMS ~o ~ / '" ' ti ~\ ~`JO, \ 'h J, t \ \ \ ,~` ` ~ ~ JJ~. a •0°01 ~ , a y I_ ~ CMD ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ou w COHf~E~TE MMKEA d- \1 ~~ / ~. 00 ~ . uoc - IinAK pw court MrI~ ~ ~ y/ O• ~ .1;1 ~CMJND Z~ tw~nMm ~ `~, ,~, i ~ X39' © •oo ~. oUE w las Y~~ \ `1 ~ ' ~ 6 ~ `~ \ I \\ 1AYLOELR At IRARY aO • RE1wD ~ w ~D ~ p co ~P ~ f4' '~' C • ~_` ` t~N~•1111~•~w.M~M~ N WV y_°fy~L~\` • R~S~AN~IM~ZE MI~+ICO sa - ~liWr- 9CMKA SCALE : ~ S~ `~ 9 X473 "~ -Q' N ~~' t'av : 'rae~E N[ PtOf!<TK ~ '' 30 ~+o~` `~` '~ij, °~aes~,°.`~~O >~ . M~itR/IANIKER ~ 30 ~~ ~~ ~ BUR ~ own ~ ovE~~R 1--, .-, r--I FT fOP • EOOt Or aAVE1ttNT \~ `~ 19C ^ MtM C~ GVR9 ••r ~ PE • P(OEfi1gIW ACCt~ • iCV • IRRIO. CONTRpI VAWE ~ ` (N y . MLASYAEO ~., (A . piCDRDtD ~~ ~ E'd 666Gb9G-6G6 1S 3A021J TOT Wd9E~ZT SOOZ Si T~f Jul 11 2005 5:09PM 101 GROVE ST 979-7647999 p.6 JUL-l1-03 MON 141 6ALINDO ENGINEERS F~ 6d6B66B P.04 O ~-~~~ O • • Granting the adjustment will not materially or adversely affect adjacent land uses or the physical character of uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development because the encroachment does not materially alter the character of the structure or its use; and April 27, 2005 Mike Bar6ai 1740 N. Earl rudder freeway Bryan, TX 77808 RE: Property located at 611 & 613 Banks Street Dear Mr. Barton: This letter is to inform you that the above referenced property has received an administrative adjustment of one (1) foot to the rear setback. According to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 3.15, the Administrator has the authority to authorize adjustment of up to 10 percent from any numerical zoning standard set forth in Articles 5, 6, or 7 of the Unified Development Ordinance. To approve the application for an administrative adjustment, the Administrator shall make an affirmative finding that specific criteria, as outlined in Section 3.15.E of the Unified Development Ordinance, have been met The Administrator has found that: Granting the adjustment will ensure the same general level of land use compatibility as the otherwise applicable standards because the granting of the variance will not alter the intensity of the land use. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Service Granting the adjustment will be generally consistent with the purposes and intent of this UDO owing to the scale of encroachment • If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (979) 764-3570. Sincerely, Joe unn, AICP Director of Planning i3< Development CC: File # 05-56 P.O. BOX 9960 • i 1oi TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION • TEXAS •77842 979.764.3570 W W W.C8bC.QOV . ~ ~ ~.~y ~oR os+Rlce uae oa~v . case No.: 5'~ ~ OATS 8UBMITTED: iO ITY OF COLI{ECrE STATION Alan~ing d ,PeWelop-smr Serviar ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUST'MEN'T APPLICATION 1 / MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREIUIENT$: ling Fee of $40.00. placation completed in full. / Addltivnal materials may be required of tho applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign dstaiis and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall Inform the applicant of any extra materials reaulred. Cate of Preapplication Conference: APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact far the Project): Name ~i KE T'ac./ Street Address /~I~g ~ ~gL ~Qt.td ~EAC ~i~/ City ~R.t,/~/ State ~_ Zip Code _3808 E-Mail Address rHEaar~iar,c(tS wal~errncl~c~»~+ Phons Number TTZ£3- x(03 Fax Number -325"0 • PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name _. l..~t2~ ~dyy„q~.y Street Address r4~ ~ . ~~(gE- ~~~~~ ~- __ City - State ~_„ Zip Code -17303, _ _ E-Mail Address Phone Number $22~ ~5 (os Fax Number LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address L l l ~ la 13 , . u St• -~... Lot 5 ~ 4_ gloms Subdivision ~ ~ =5 Descriptio~~ if there is no Lqt, BIoCk and Subdivision Current Zoning of Subject Property: Applicable Ordinance Section: ?.O r '?E~_ ~~,~~~ • 0113103 E0/Z0 39dd ~13S 1N3Wd0~3113Q S~O~ 1 oP2 96bEb9L6L6 00~0T 900Z/90/b0 p-DMINISTRATI'VE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST The following speci~C adlustment,(up to 10%) from the ordinance requirements is requested: ~. ~ ~4cL 1 L ~ w-~ . ~o . ~.>~. SQL ~r~ zo' -+o l 8 ~ This adjustment will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following -- -~ --- - The granting of the adjustment will not materially or adversely affect adjacent land uses or the physical character of the uses in the imrnedia#e vicinity t~~c~us® of the following:. `T~n,;s sc~ ta~(~ IZer.,,/es ~ ~ W n C YS i -~ 'f'~~ V i C 1 y- i ,,'4,Tcf 't3.~'t?4l. A-2Gn o~ }~~~ 1 l3 5ei' AM4c ~ A+Q~E'A LK ZG : Ss Sf The granting of the adjustment will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Unified Development Ordinance because of the following: "1" 'S w~~Q ~,c,~;n~~ -~ ~~ ~a~ a~ o~~tr rc '2e eK~-~C ~ Cw~.S~rwc'~'~ a~+.~ The applleant has prepared this applirafinn and certifies that the faces stated heroin and exhiBits attached hereto are free, correct and complete. 1 Y 1 cam. C~L1,6Y1~.- Signature and Title '~ ~ o~ Date 6h3i03 2 of Z E0/E0 3Jdd 213S 1N3Wd0~3113Q 5~0~ 96b6b9L6L6 99~0Z 50az/90/b0 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION • ~~r-- ~` Planning e~ Development Services May 26, 2005 Mr. Phillip Wattel - Berryhill 5719 Bering Circle Houston Tx 77057 RE: T30 Earl Rudder Freeway, College Station Texas Lots 2RA 8 2RC, Block 1, Gateway Subdivision Dear Mr. Wattel: This letter is to inform you that the above referenced property has received an administrative adjustment of six parking spaces to the 78 parking spaces required for the proposed 4,937 square feet of restaurant space. This requirement is based on a parking ratio of one space per 250 square feet of shopping center and one space per 65 for more intense use over 25% of the total square footage. According to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Section 3.15, the Administrator has the authority to grant an adjustment of up to 10 percent from any numerical zoning standard set forth in Articles 5, 6, or 7 of the UDO. To approve the application for an administrative adjustment, the Administrator shall make an affirmative finding that specific criteria, as outlined in Section 3.15.E of the • UDO, have been met. The Admirnstrator has found that: Granting the 7.5% adjustment will ensure the same general level of land use compatibility as the otherwise applicable standards because the amount of the adjustment is negligible and will not significantly alter the intensity of the land use; Granting the adjustment will not materially or adversely affect adjacent land uses or the physical character of uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development, because of the significant grade change from adjacent restaurants and that this particular development is not oriented toward the surrounding restaurant uses. Granting the adjustment will be generally consistent with the purposes and intent of this UDO owing to the fact that the reduction of six parking spaces is negligible. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 979.764.3570 Sincerely, Joe unn, AICP ' ctor of Planning & Development Services cc: Case File # 05-86 Todd Cames -Baker &Cames Investments, LLC ~a Fax 979.693.7839 • P.O. BOX 9960.1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION • TEXAS • 77842 979.764.3570 WVYVKCBb(.QOV ~IT'Y OF COLLEGE STATION Planning of Dcvelopmrnt Strvins ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: X Filing Fee of $40.00. X Application completed in full. X_,_ Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required. Date of Preapplication Conference: May ~, 2005 APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Phi li attel - f3errvhill Street Address 5719 Bering Circle City Houston State TX Zip Code 77057 E-Mail Address pwattel a("tiberrvhillbaiaarill.com Phone Number (832) 640-8090 Fax Number (713) 523-7735 • PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name Todd Cames -~ Baker &Cames Investments LLC Street Address 730 Earl Rudder Freeeway South City College Station State TX Zip Code 77845 ~ E-Mail Address toddcamesCa~tconline.net Phone Number (979) 693-7835 Fax Number (979) 693-7839 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address 73Q_Earl Rudder Freeway South Lot 2RA 8~ 2RC Block 1 Subdivision Gateway Subdivision Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Current Zoning of Subject Property: C -1 Applicable Ordinance Section: Article 7.2 and 7.2.H,8 FOR O/FF~ICE U8E ONt_Y CASE NO.:_ ~ `" ~ ~C h DATE SUBMITTED: ~_ ~ ~ (~ V` ~ r, ~ VJ • ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT .REQUEST ~he following specific adjustment (up to 10%) from the ordinance requirements is r nested b Simbaki Ltd. eq Y , Dba. Berryhill Baja Grill, in order to achieve the tropical "Baja California" motif that our concept requires. To accurately represent our concept, in Phase II of Gateway Center, we need to provide the property and premises with large scale natural and decorative elements, an elaborate landscaping plan and a building designed to transport an oasis to the center of what currently could be perceived as a concrete flat land. The grand scale and endless spans of concrete of the Home Depot development, has left a panoramic view void of any natural visual appeal. Phase II, Gateway Center located in the center of the Home Depot development is poised to be the pertect location to bring back large trees and natural elements, so sorely lacking, but truly needed and wanted by the College Station community. "Retail seating capacity" is a key factor used to predict possible profitability of a restaurant. Therefore, in almost all applications, designers try maximize "retail seating" and minimize "none retail" or "none revenue" square footage. This factor is applied in our Berryhill Baja Grill designs also, but with much less values compared to preserving our open air tropical feel. Our philosophy is that our guests come to our locations not only for great food and incredible libations, but to feel the natural relaxation of the Tropics. To bring this ~ropical design concept to fruition, oversized patios and oversized interiors are needed. Areas that would ormally be used for "retail seating" are forfeited for large scale decorative and landscaping features. Therefore, significantly reducing the total usable square footage, which in turn reduces the available "retail seating" dramatically. This is why a formula which uses only total square footage, to calculate the appropriate parking ratio, is requested not to be stringently adhered to when applying it to calculating the parking requirements of Berryhill Baja Grill. The average "retail seating" of our Berryhill Baja Grill locations, is thirty-five (35%) to forty (40%) percent less than other restaurants of similar square footage. The building plans will accurately depict the minimal areas available for table placement due to the sacrifice of areas that would normally be reserved for "retail seating", in order to plant live oversized tropical vegetation, both inside and outside the premises, placement of several water features and waterfalls, thatch roofed cabanas, fireplaces, hammocks and a breathtaking design package that focuses on multiple elevation manipulations and state of the art lighting tenuous. The approval of a (10%) adjustment will provide the space necessary to satisfy our decorative and minimum seating requirements without having any negative impact on the parking in Gateway Center. We feel Phase II, Gateway Center will be the best choice for Berryhill Baja Gri11 to build our new flagship location in College Station. • This adjustment will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: ~he adjustment will not adversely affect required parking ratios for several pertinent factors. One is its unique dining.concept ("Fast-Casual"). This concept is now the fastest growing segment of the restaurant industry. The cornerstone of this new concept is "quick turn time". Tables "turn" in one-third the time. of the average "Full-Service" dining concept. Second, thirty-one percent of Berryhill Baja Grill's annual sales revenue is attributed to our take-out and catering service. Third, Todd Carnes Home Design Center, the largest retail facility in Phase I, is operated by appointment only, leaving the largest portion of parking spaces in Phase I, and all the parking in Phase II available to Berryhill Baja Grill. The two other retailers in Phase I are only open until 6 pm. This will provide additional parking spaces in Phase I when Berryhill Baja Grill is busiest. BBG generates sixty-seven (67%) percent it's of sales during evening hours. Fourth, in the unlikely event, the seventy-two (72) parking spaces could be temporarily deficient, the adjusted eight (8) parking spaces could be accommodated within 15 yards of our entrance with ease, and have little or no impact to Home Depot's enormous parking facility. Fifth, the site plan will clearly indicate the inaccessibility of none Phase I and Phase II patrons to occupy our parking spaces. Phase II is surrounded by landscaping. Neighboring patrons would need to walk great distances or cross over steep sloping grass areas to occupy our. The Car Wash facility, adjacent to the east, is a elf serve drive-through design which does not have any parking requirements or needs. Therefore, we believe the parking adjustment will not be contrary to any public interest or virtue. The granting of the adjustment will not materially or adversely affect adjacent land uses or the physical character of the uses in the immediate vicinity because of the following: ANSWERD IN ABOVE STATEMENTS. Granting of the adjustment wilt be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Un~ed Development Ordinance because of the following: ANSWERD IN ABOVE STATEMENTS 1) Eliminate the occurrence of non-residential on street parking in__adjoining neighborhoods: G~tewav center is located in the centgr of Hom® Depot commercial development and will have no_ effect on adioin~g neighborhoods. 121 Avoid the traffic congestion and pubiic safety hazards caused by a fail_„ure ~r_ovide such narking spaces: The adiustmont will notlncre~,se or decrease these conditions C7 r 131 Expedite the movement of traffic on nubli~ tho%_,~„uahfare$ in a safe man,~er___th_u~ in~ln E is cle ovisions t m e s 1 ovisions to com oda bi cl . The s a ~~„arly lndjcates bicx Ic a lock r~ar~gp ovid d The applicant has pnepaned this application and cert~es that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and complete. .~ ' nature and Title 3-- n ~- Date • t