Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/2005 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsAgenda College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning e'r Development Services City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue Tuesday, January 4, 2005 6:00 p.m. Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Oat of Office and Statement of Appointed Officer -Graham Sheffy. 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from August 3, 2004. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, consideration and possible action, to approve a variance for 1509 Fairhaven Cove, Lot 8, Block 1, Fairhaven Cove Subdivision. The applicant is Sunset Homes. 6. Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by city staff. 12900 Old Welborn Road (04-197) 306 Onyx (04-218) 7. 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. 8. 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. MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment August 3, 2004 • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, John Richards, Ward Wells, Jay Goss & Alternate Joshua Benn. (Jason Schneider was in the audience) MEMBERS ABSENT: Graham Sheffy. Alternate Donald Braune (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planners Jennifer Prochazka, Jennifer Reeves & Molly Hitchcock, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Regina Kelly. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider any absence request forms. Graham Sheffy was absent from the meeting. No absent request was received. The Board did not vote on his absence. Joshua Benn was in the audience and was asked to serve in Mr. Sheffy's absence. • AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from July 6, 2004. Mr. Richards made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Wells seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance for 4742 Stonebriar Circle, lot 22, block 15, Pebble Creek Phase 2-A. Applicant is Mike Lane for Jana Schweitzer Lane. (03-227). Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves presented the staff report and told the Board that the builder is requesting the variance to construct a house on the lot. The applicant states as a special condition: a smaller buildable area than what is seen on adjacent lots. This approval allows this home to be built on the same size buildable area as the home next door. The applicant states as a hardship: the rear lot line not being square to the front yields an impractical buildable area as platted. Ms. Reeves also stated that along the rear property line there is a 30-foot public utility easement that the property line follows. It was platted that way to keep the easement off the property. There is an 18- • inch sewer main that runs along the 30-foot easement. ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 1 of 6 A rear setback of 20-feet is required for R-1 Single Family homes. • The setback requested is a rear setback 19-feet to 14-feet 4-inches. This case involves a lot that does not have the buildable area as the neighboring lots due to size and shape of the lot. The rear setback line decreases the buildable area as the neighboring lots. Thus, the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 5-feet 8-inches. Ms. Reeves ended her report by saying that the applicant has met with and acquired 22 signatures from surrounding owners that have stated that they are in support of the variance request. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Mike Lane, the applicant, stepped forward and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Lane spoke in favor the variance. Mr. Richards stated that the special condition and hardship are not strong. Mr. Lane responded that the utility easement creates the shortage of the lots buildable area. Mr. Lane told the Board that he spent a lot of time visiting with the surrounding property owners. They all felt that it would impact no one because of the distance across the back. Mr. Lane stated that he began his process with Davis Young, the developer, to make sure he was comfortable or he would have never pursued the case. • Mr. Benn asked what the end result would be if the variance is not granted. Mr. Lane replied that the home would be 5-foot 8-inches less in length on that side. In a garden home that is a narrow lot line configuration. He ended by saying it makes it worth coming to talk to the Board. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Lane when he bought the lot was he aware of the lot lines, building lines and that the back line was not parallel to the front. Mr. Lane replied yes. He added that he purchased the lot two years ago and at that time he inquired with the developer and the neighbors near by what their feelings would be. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: configuration of the lot, the existence of a utility easement behind the lot that forms the boundary of the lot in an unnatural manner, the existence of an iron fence that creates an illusion of the lot line, and the general nature of construction of garden homes in Pebble Creek, as well as the fact that the lot backs up to the golf course and is not visible and will not have an impact from the back; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the house would not line up to the neighboring houses and would be required to be smaller than it would have been but for the utility easement; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Benn seconded the motion. • ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Chairman Hill stated that Mr. Richards voiced many of the same concerns he was having. The rules and procedures of the Board state that in order to grant a variance the Board must determine the existence of special conditions. In the case he is not seeing anything special to this lot. The lot and the • building area are shorter than the adjacent lots but that is the way the lot was platted. The owner was aware of the lot size and building area when he purchased the lot. However, on a personal basis he does not have any particular problem with this variance. As a member of the Board, and the rules and procedures, he does not see a special condition to this lot. Mr. Goss stated that he agreed what the Board is here for but he thinks government has to be flexible in some instances. This is an instance where there is clearly a difference in the neighboring lots. There is an ability to enhance the neighborhood by building a larger home as opposed to a smaller home. This is going to be a positive impact on the people around it. Mr. Goss stated that the alternative is to have the lot replatted. This would be easy to do since the city and developer are in favor of it but it would be expensive. He ended by saying that he can not see requiring a builder to do something where no body is objecting to it. Mr. Richards stated that he agreed that government needed to be flexible but he also knows that builders need to be flexible too. The only benefit he can see for the builder in building a larger home is financial. That is something the Board cannot consider. Mr. Wells stated that the variance is to the buildable area. In granting the variance the variance runs with the land. Mr. Wells added that he is looking at it from the standpoint of hardship and he has concluded that there is no hardship. On the other hand you have the "no harm" aspect. Ms. Reeves pointed out to the Board that on the application as an example for special condition it lists; • a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots. She ended by saying that is what the applicant is also stating. Mr. Goss stated that if the Board went by the strict letter of the law there are no variances that they could grant. Chairman Hill stated that he sees no downside to granting the variance or any harm in granting the variance. But in his opinion this particular variance request does not meet the requirements that must be satisfied in order for the Board to grant the variance. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (1-4) Board Members, Hill, Benn, Richards & Ward voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance for 1604 Rock Prairie Road, lot 1R, block 3, Belmont Place Subdivision. Applicant is David Watkins, PWCRA Architects for College Station Medical Center. (04-156). Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting on additional freestanding sign. ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 3 of 6 r~ ~J The College Station Medical Center facility began development in 1983. The Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time reflected the sign regulations of today -that each commercial building plot is allowed one freestanding sign or any number of low profile signs as long as they are a minimum of 150 feet • apart along the frontage. In 1986, the ZBA granted the hospital's land a sign variance to allow three freestanding signs. There is one freestanding sign located at each entrance from Rock Prairie Road. The applicant is requesting an additional freestanding sign for a new entrance off of Birmingham Road. The special condition stated in the motion for a variance in the previous ZBA hearing was that "a Conditional Use Permit was granted to construct the hospital facility in this area requiring directional signs for access to the property". The applicant has stated that a need exists to identify the hospital entrance along Birmingham for patients seeking medical attention. The only alternative to a freestanding sign on Birmingham is a directional traffic control sign. The ordinance allows one per driveway and they are limited to three square feet in area (50% or less being copy or logo), four feet in height, and setback four feet from the right-of--way. Mr. Goss stated that they have to identify special conditions and hardships. They are asking for an additional sign to identify the emergency room, hospital and offices. Mr. Goss asked if they could do that with a smaller sign without approval by ZBA. Ms. Hitchcock replied no. All they would be allowed is the directional sign which is 3 square feet in area. It would be limited to the amount of wording it has on it. • Mr. Wells asked about the placement of the signage. Ms. Hitchcock replied that the placement of the signage is going to be based on the roadway and not the front or back of the building. If the building had no driveways onto Rock Prairie and the building did not face Rock Prairie that might be a different situation. Rock Prairie carries more cars so that is where the freestanding sign is placed for the most visibility. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Frank Hartman, Director of Facilities for College Station Medical Center, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Hartman spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Hartman told the Board that the future Longmire Drive which is located one block east of the CSMC is due to be a major north/south corridor thoroughfare for the city. It is the belief when this happens they will have more patients and visitors that will access the facility off of Birmingham Drive. The additional sign would make the medical campus easily identifiable. Mr. Hartman also stated that they where told from city officials that a median will be placed on Rock Prairie Road. The median will cut off one of the main entrances to the medical facilities as you are traveling west from Highway 6 down Rock Prairie Road. This will reduced the medical facility to two entrances off of Rock Prairie Road. Mr. Hartman ended by saying that they feel people will have easier access coming off of Birmingham Drive. • ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Chairman Hill asked if they are planning on closing the entrance that will not be available to west bound traffic. Mr. Hartman replied that after meeting with the city traffic engineers they indicated the best plan would be for them to have curb cuts for the west bound traffic at the emergency room, the • medical office building, but not at the main entrance. Mr. Hartman explained that the expansion is currently underway. The access way off of Birmingham will provide for: the emergency room, same day surgery and intensive care traffic. They feel as the citizens get used to the medical campus layout they will have a lot of traffic that will utilize that entrance strictly because it will be easier than Rock Prairie Road. Chairman Hill asked if it would be realistic to remove the sign on Rock Prairie and place it on Birmingham Drive. Mr. Hartman replied they had considered that. One of the signs out front is for the medical offices. The other two are for the hospital and emergency room traffic. They still think they need the sign on Rock Prairie for identity. Chairman Hill asked about incorporating the signs. Mr. Hartman replied that they are bound by Texas Department of Health to sign the emergency room separately so there is no confusion. Mr. Goss asked about incorporating the medical offices sign and the hospital sign. Mr. Hartman replied that there are laws that say they have to separate physicians and hospital practices. Mr. Benn asked is there a difference in just having a directional sign off of Birmingham saying "hospital" or "emergency room". Mr. Hartman replied that obviously they would want to have their name on it. They want the citizens to know that they are at CSMC. He added that having a sign similar to what you would find out on Highway 6 saying "hospital" is not what they are trying to achieve here. Mr. Hartman added that the signs out front will be removed and replace with signs that are lower in height. • Troy Ransdale, with PWCRA Architects, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Ransdale spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Ransdale talked about the picture graphics included in the Boards packets. With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Richards made the motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: a conditional use permit was previously granted to construct this hospital facility in the area requiring directional signs for access to the property; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: a standing need exists to identify the hospital entrance along Birmingham for patients seeking medical attention; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be preserved and general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Well seconded the motion. The topics of finding a limitation, special conditions and hardships received considerable discussion. Mr. Wells made a motion to amend the motion to add under limitations that the sign would be approximately 9 feet by 7 feet tall as shown on the existing drawing. Richards seconded the motion. ~, .~ ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page S of 6 Chairman Hill stated that using the word approximate in the motion is not good. He suggested being more specific. • Mr. Wells made a motion to withdraw his motion to amend. Mr. Wells made the motion to amend the motion to add under limitations that the sign size shall be equal to what has been submitted in the Board's packet. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. The board voted (4-1). Mr. Goss voting against the amendment The amendment was approved. Chairman Hill stated when he first got his meeting packet; he thought the hospital needed more signage because he believed it is very critical that they have good signage. In this case, this piece of property already has three freestanding signs and they should be able to achieve what they need. He went on to say that as far as identifying the emergency room there are allowances for proper identification. He added that he does not feel that the property has special conditions that require that they give them a forth freestanding sign. He ended by saying that hospitals should have been dealt with differently in the UDO. Chairman Hill called for the vote for authorization of the sign variance. The Board voted (3-2). Chairman Hill & Mr. Benn voting against granting the variance. The motion was denied. AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. No adjustments to report • AGENDA ITEM N0.7: 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. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant • ZBA Minutes August 3, 2004 Page 6 of 6 STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov Date: December 20, 2004 • ~, .~ ZBA Meeting Date: January 4, 2005 APPLICANT: John Albernaz REQUEST: Setback variance LOCATION: 1509 Fairhaven Cove PURPOSE: To allow for the construction of a single family home that will encroach into the required rear and front setbacks. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Home builder Property Owner: Joy Wood Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 5.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance, Residential Dimensional Standards PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use Subject Property: Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and undeveloped North: Zoned and developed as R-1 Single Family Residential West: Out side of the City Limits and developed as Nantucket Subdivision East: Zoned and developed as R-1 Single Family Residential South: Zoned and developed as R-1 Single Family Residential Property The following dimensions are from the submitted site plan: Dimensions: 61.65' along Fairhaven Cove 55.34' west (rear property line) 125.81' north (side property line) 105.41' south (side property line) Frontage: 61.65 feet along Fairhaven Cove Access: Via driveway from Fairhaven Cove Topography & Vegetation: Relatively flat, with several mature trees O:\group\deve_ser\Stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda. doc Flood Plain: This property is not located within the 100-year floodplain • VARIANCE INFORMATION Item Background: The majority of this small subdivision was developed before the property was annexed into the City limits. The deed restrictions placed on the property prior to annexation allowed fora 10-foot rear setback. The applicant would like to construct a house approximately 10 feet from the rear property line and 20 feet from the front property line. The required rear setback for R-1 Single Family Residential is 20 feet and the required front setback is 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 10' variance to the required rear setback and a 5' setback to the required front setback. Special Conditions: The applicant states: "For the construction of a single family dwelling (single story) consistent with the surrounding homes that have built prior to the annexation. This variance will maintain continuity on Phis street. " • Hardships: The applicant states: "Upon annexation the required setbacks for R-1 exceed what has been accepted from the Architectural Control Committee for the surrounding homes in Phis area prior to the annexation. " Alternatives: The applicant states: "Build a two story home, however this option would not be consistent with the area which is a retirement community of age-qualified occupants of 50 years of age or older. The other homes are single story. " Another alternative is to reduce the total square footage of the proposed home. 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. Number of Property Owners Notified: 13 • Responses Received: None as of date of staff report O:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\hond a. doc • ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application 2 site surveys showing alternate setbacks • • O:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda. doc ~~ I I a ti z ~. 0 a. y I ~, 0• ~ ~,,, ~NDPIPER CV ~ I o R ~ nlr>ntn -e -ao I--+ A~ `" R ~ ~ a ~• o a b '~ a C w_ q f~ ~ ti lL,_ ~ ~ f p ~ ~ ~ ,- °' F(~Cq~~ Pa~T ~ ~~ . 11yy J'!i c~",. ~ ~ _~ b ~ i " a ~ ~ c., ~ o n - z ~ ~ '~ a ~ ti ti v ~ ti o < ~ `O O ,~ ~ 4 ~ ~c ~ o, ~ 7 ~3~WdCo -~ ~ a~- 1 r -,~ _ -~~yy v ~r , N 9~N5 `' ~~'; ~~ c.,, 1~ v O ~ ap9ad ~ o ~ v,~~ s ti MyH c..-. ti 0 w v ~ arc w ~:; ~ ~ ~ .- ~ti v a~ ^' - - ti ~ y5 a ,. 0 ~yd `~~~\~ c;j ~ d dW ~ n `~ a _ O ~ su m ~~18 ^' ,p ~ ~ ~,I , ~] ~ tb V ~J m A a ~ -~ a - 7J~ J l6 II/B ~ W -'-i ~ ~A' / a w ti 1,1 c., ~ti ~ .~ ::-:j a cti ~ z~~a~da ~~~^, o~ 1-~~,~~ ~. ~~ ~o\ydyr7 ~y~~~ a :+ -~. ~. • CTT'Y OF COLLEGE J 1'ATION. .~'~' , FOR OFFICE U8E ONLY CAGE Nq.: "' ' I `Jr o~-TE susMtrrEO: Ja -!o ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION -- II~IINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREM : ~ ~. cling Fee of $150.00. ,Application completed In full. // Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor clans. The Zoning Offlcial shall infomn the applicant of an extra materials uired. date of Preappllcation Conference: APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORM ION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Street Address ~ ~ City State ~~ Zip Code E-Mail Address Phone Number ~,D -' f ~ Fax Number ~9~ ~Dy~l • ~~ PROPERTY OWNF$S INFORMATION: Name Street Address City State --~-~--- Zi C e E-Mail Address Phone Number - Fax Number LOCATION OF PR~ER Address ~~~/7 ,~~~V~ Lot _~ Block _,~_ Subdivision ~G{. t r ~'I.,OW-C.(~L GD~/~- Description if there Is no Lot, Block and Subdivision ~I~d,~ ~~l-~''` Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Varian Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation king Variance Special Exception Sign Variance Other Current Zoning of Subject Property: .... Applicable Ordinance Section: • 8N3/03 'Pope 1 d6 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST • n cific venation from the ordinance is re nested: ' The foltowl g spe q v/CIZ.w.o I/Cd.IO ~~~/~dir.~ ~/~a..~ //1~~/l~~ //N /~~///~~ This vanance is necessary due to the following special conditions: Special Condition Deflnition: To Justify a variance, the difficulty must:pe dye to unique circumstances involving the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related tb a physical charactenstic of the property itself, not to the owners personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land. fiExsmple: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, spedmen trees. Note: A cul-de-sac is a standard street layout In College Station. The shape of standard cul-de-sac lots are generally not special conditions. .~ The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance oth r than financial harddshlp is/are: Hardship Deflnition: The inab(lity to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition. Example: A hardship of a creak bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when • ~., compared to neighboring properties. - - - -- ~- - -. _ it ~ ~i .~ The owing alternatives to the requested variance are possible: This variance will not be .~ Signs ~f~3103 the public interest by virtue of the following facts: «~~ /~ ~'/ ~~y Date Peso 2 vi 6 The ap Ikant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached here true, correct and complete. ~ \ ~~ ~~ ~ z m FO ~ U ~ "FAIRHAVEN COVE" aawTE STREET ANo t PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT \L~f ~~ . ~ ~~~ b d ~~ C~ ` ~.. `!~ \! V~ Q ~ `f~~ ~ U ~ A` 1- O `1p om m .~ Z~Z ~y W O Z ~~~+ ~N Y ~ ~~s~ N O ~~~z~ mZ ~~ ~~~ ~ HW~~~ ~~~~Q N o ~~~g~ v ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ . $~~d ~~bZa '~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~o~v a~~ ~~~°~~~ a, ~~~ ~ ~~~. w':~~~~ ~~n ~~ ~ O O t~ . ~° >~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ V 3 I N . O N ~~ ~~oo-~O~ OtM01OMf ~M~MN ng UgU U 11Vm JV (KGJI- o ~, g °~to~o ~M ... ~(1~f~MNN II N N NUm ~GJh+Jt~ ~f`NN•-N N ^Y U •~~. H O \~ ~0 ~JQ~ ro Y ~ ~- 3 o m ~ ~. :~ •~.n \\ \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ ~~ ~z W N ~~ ~i' ~$ ~~ :~ n yy,~~++ ~ iIi•SS ~ wZ~~«~~O N COMMON AREA AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT m W W ~ ~, 0.~.. Y ~~~ Y~~m UM Z p ~~ .~ 5 l~~~~~~ ~g~ ~~ ~~ ~Y~~ 6 ~~ 1€B a~ ~H~ • ~ • ` ` a~ "FAIRHAVEN COVE" PRNATE STREET ANO t PUBLIC UTAJTY EASEMENT ."~ _` /J • ~~ ~ ~ • ` ~ . ~_`,~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ d ~~; ' '~ ~, ~~I `~ W S `~~ ~ ~ `~ ° ~ °° ;z .~ ~ ' ~ ~ 4~ ~ ..a ~~ ~~ ~?h~~~~~ ~'d~~ ~ or - .~~ . ~ ~a ~~ ~~ ~~~ Q ~~ ~~g~ ~~~ ~:: ~ ~ : . 8~ ,~~ . ~~~ ~~ ~~ . ~ ,~,yy ~Y< ~ ~.~ ,~. ~ f. ~ o ~~~~~ ~ ~ t0 ~~ \ ~ \ ~ a ~' ~~ ~~ ~ z ~a 4: m ~ v ~I ~~ n~ N .,. ~ ~~- CW9 V • 3 N ~ N O :~ 10 CI ~~F O, ~ ~F-KiaDMM'1N a g t ~,,~ ~ a u. ~ ~o~w~3$ ~ `~ ~~G ~ ~ a~ Y ~ ~ 3 m ~ ~• °~~, ~ ' ~~ f - - - . r.i ~/ r~~V' ,d~ . Gf~1 COMMON AREA AND Pueuc ununr ~-sEMENr ~. ~~ e ° ~~$ ~~ ~~ . ~~~ ~9 ~e~ op~ g C1 t i0 01 U1 M~ ~01pQ-^ V n N N .+ M N uuau~a~ xa~~~~ nY I- o Om __; f _, _ i .. __. ~_.r :, -, , ,' .~ , ,. : ~~--r~ I ~ . ~ _ 1 - I r .. ... , ' ~ 1 ., 1 : I -v , I,_ ~ I a_ . 1 1-'~~'1, ~i ~ 1 I .. - ~ ~ , , • -I~l~E ( i iI 11 ( i j I : j- i ,., _ _ , , fi : . : _ ,~, I ( ~_ ~ , ~ I '~ , A I : ~ I ~ 4 _ - - . ~~ 7. _,._ ,_ ' _: • ._ , C . ,. , , . ~.,.. ~ t ' ,_ Q __ _• 1 I r I ~ 1 ~ ! ~ , _, ,.. ,-,. i _ - - ~ _ r-1 - ..~ _ _ - ' ~ f r~ 1 i -}~ • l+' ~ 1 ~~ ,. I ,. ,- ... ..-~ ~-r -- - - , -~ ,; ,_., , ,_i , .-1 ~-?_(- , _~_(..,-._I GAD ~'-,~,- fi -' _., . Qi- - - -~ ... . . -Y _ ~- ',. ; I , ~ ,.. ,; ' ~ _ .. -,--, -, -, ,_ , _..., - - ~...1 , _, _. , _ - - -- - .I : r : . 1 __ ~ I~ _ 1 , _. ... ,____ _ I. ~ , k ,1 17, ! - 1 --,-- -,--.-,--, ' - -r i .~ .~.. I t- - r ~~ , C 1. ~ i - t _-~ _ _ __ . f ~ I '- _ , . ,- r rt--- - 1 r--; ; I I r- -~ ~ ~- r--1--~ I I , j-- ~~ r ~- - ~--1. . -~~.-.' , ~ ,..~..-1 ~_-t--'-'I -j- t- ~- ~., .- i I .. 1 I_ _+_~(_ I 1 1 1 ~ -~ I f -i j r - - --.._.~.--..-. 1 _-I _ : - _. ( +- _. r r- I? r r-*- r-- I r. ,. - --- , _ _ _, , , I 1`~ ;. I , ,- ~ 1~~ ~ : ~- 1- fi r- , I I , r ' - : ~ r ~ _~ ~- _, - ~._ ~_.Q t t t I ~ t r I 1 I ' ` ~ 1' (, r- f 1-f I- r f 1 (--1 r I r, I-, ~ , ' (-. C r_r. ! I ~ r t_ ~I .~_.~.. -t' j-- ~+~..~ ( ~ a r ' l I i I ~~ ! ~I I I ~ ~ .- . -. _i. , 1 I +. . ~_~ ,-~ I { t' i f ~~ I ~ ~ ~ I i ! i ~ I . 1 . '.-_, I I r i ~~ I i ~ - I r I : , t i - - ,- - ~. .~ - ', ~~ : i i i-t7 1 17- 1- f ~~ .: _ i p: .__,. '_I I i ~ ~ - , ; i I ~ ~. ~~ f , ' __, _, , ( ~ f 1? ~I _ ~ - ~; - ,-,~~ , , ,. 1 , ~' ~_- , _ ,. I _..,._. .-.IF _ _ _ ~, _ _I. , _ { r __~ i. _i ..r .... !.. ~~ I ""'Cry r _~ I I I ~I -t ~~i--'t- --r-..-... i--t- ~ '~"-' r.r-_,.. ,_,... I ~ I , .~ i tI A. ( , -~ ~ ~ ~ •- I - ~ ~ 1 I I ~ { (- ~ ( ~ ~ ~ - -_ _. - f ~.. I ~ , , r-~- -~, -y. _I ._. , I ~ f _~ I I ~ t 1 I ! , t 1_ , + ._: I ~i y -~Y~ i-I' r 1- .. - - - (r' , r ; n I (-- 1-- t I {-I-~- 1i I ~ I I i.~ ! ~ .; i IL ri -I r j _i- ( , .. f ~- -1- .~ ._1 _ } r, .. , _, _,... - --~ - I ' I t w_. ~ ,W :.. 1 ~ r i 1 " , I ( ;__ -L-F. - '7 I--i. ._~... ~ i _I. I i-~ I ~. ~ _~i ~ r. G 1 {~ August 23, 2004 Heirloom Gardens & Interior D~COr, Inc. 12900 Cdd Wellborn Rd. College Station, Texas 77845 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 RE: Property located at 12900 Old Wellborn Rd., Lot 10 Block 1 Rock Prairie West Business Park Subdivision Dear Mr. Kotria, This letter is to inform you that the above referenced property has received an administrative adjustment of 1.54 parking spaces from the 15.4 required off-street parking spaces. The number of partcing spaces required has been reduced from 15.4 to 14. 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 320 sq.ft. front porch addition to the main structure would inquire the paving, curbing, and guttering of one parking space in a 14-space, nonconforming, grandfathered parking lot; 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; and, Granting the adjustment will be generally consistent with the purposes and intent of this UDO since parking spaces are an integral part of a larger parking lot, which in this case is not built to City standards. If you have any questions, please feel free to call meat 979.764.3570. Sincerely, Joey u irector of Development Services • City of College Station CC: File # 04-197 Zoning Board of Adjustment FOROrF~FICE/USE ONLY //~~ CASE NO.: n "~ ~ V' `~V • ~ ~ ~ DJ1TE SUBMrrTED: ~ ~ ~ -~ -1 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: V`"~Fling Fee of $40.00. ~! Application completed in full. _ 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 Preappltcation Conference: APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name • • Street Address - ~~7yU E ~d W~1,~1~rir~~,~{cl City (~O ~ ~_ ~~ 1'1 Dn State TX _ Zip Code ~ ~ ~~5 E-Mail Address Phone Number ~I ~ q ~ 5 ` Z~ y ~ Fax Number ~ 7~ (pq3 $sd PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name ~,~~~~'~~ Street Address _ IZ~1Dn ~ A a.~ ~r ~~_ City (.yf1~ ~~a~Z~~ State ~_ Zip Code `7 ~ ,Q 4 S E-Mail Address Phone Number q "1~j (p~! S Zcj ~,lGf Fax Number ~17~1 lp~J 3 85zs LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address Lot lD s Block \ ~ Subdivision _~ ~c~ t~-o;,~,,W~k (~,~.s~ ~ ~S ~oc'~ Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision '~or „~~--lu ~ ~I~~.,a„ ~ ~ ~~{- ~ , n , G Current Zoning of Subject Property: 7 Applicable"Ordinance Section: - ~-c~'• fl ~ .? • ~ ~~ ' She c-~.~. ~-..rc''1c~ .tis~ c-~.S 1 of 2 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST The following specific adjustment (up to 10%) from the ordinance requirements is .,,. ., This adjustment will not be contrarx 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 immediate vicinity because of the following: e _ . n .. ~'7n~t,de ~~~JJ ~ G~ ~tc~.~~ cJ-oCr a~1.¢G~ The granting of the adjustment will be consistent with the purpose and Ordinance be/ca~use of the ~ -~'~ fa of the Unified Development The applicant has prepared this applkation and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and complete. Signatu and ifie Date ©to~ 2of2 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 September 3, 2004 Chad Wooton 611 Castlebrook College Station, Texas 77845 RE: Property located at 306 Onyx, Lot 6, Block 4 Stoneforest Subdivision, Phase 3. Dear Mr. Wooton: This letter is to inform you that the above-referenced property has received an administrative adjustment of 2 feet 6 inches from the required 25-foot rear setback. This adjustment will allow for a 22-foot 6-inch 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; 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; and Granting the adjustment will be generally consistent with the purposes and intent of this UDO. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 979.764.3570. Sincerely, Jo D nn rector of Development Services City of College Station • CC: File # 04-218 Zoning Board of Adjustment • 3,.`~C~ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ DATE SUBMITTED: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Filing Fee of $40.00. Application completed in full. -,~ 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: • APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name /~~,,..d L/~po~n-.,,.~ Street Address 60 /! C~. s ~/~ ~.n. k City <e //~ ,f,...r~•r'" State r~_ Zip Code 7~ 4'~,If"' E-Mail Address G~r..~/,,,de s5.., ~,yQx ,~e1 Phone Number ~~9~?ort Fax Number ?b'f-7G'7L PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Street Address Name ,S~..AI State Zip Code Phone Number LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Fax Number City Address ~ ~' ~r o ~ Lot ~ Block Subdivision S~ont ono, ~ P~..,,p 3 Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Current Zoning of Subject Prod Applicable Ordinance Section: S~-an,daa-cf~ E-Mail Address 6/26/2003 ~ of 2 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST The following specific adjustment (up to 10%), from the ordinance requirements is requested: • _ ,9//O..c~ 7 ~ G ~ ~ ~/a~i; o..^ vD o ..tom- 2S ~ Slj6~ ~.k. This a~djustment will not b contr ry to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: c-l-. l d a 2~'i~~l~~nwn~_ The granting of the adjustment will not materially or adversely affect adjacent land uses or the physical character of the uses in thJe,imm~ ed' to vicinity because of the following: ' GU% :t7 (5 Q 58~ o The granting of the adjustment will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Un ~w f • n Ordinance because of the following: • Development 11 / h The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct pee. ~~ ~6-'n~ Signature and Title Date L` 6/26/2003 2 of 2