HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/2006 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsWorkshop Agenda
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning er Development Services
Call to order
College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment
Administrative Conference Room
1101 Texas Avenue
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
5:30 p.m.
2. Discussion of Administrative Adjustments given by the Administrator.
211 Lee Avenue -TF
Discussion of regular agenda items.
4. 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.
4. 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.
Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment
of College Station, Texas will be held on the 10th day of ]anuary 2006 at 5:30 p.m.
at the Administrative Conference Room, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station,
Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
Posted this the day of 2006 at p.m.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Connie Hooks, City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and
correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice
on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas,
and the City's website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily
accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted
on and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours
preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College
Station City Hall on the following date and time: by
Dated this day of , 2006.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of
2006.
Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas
My commission expires:
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available.
Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the
meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) i-800-735-2989.
Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov.
'a2? i.~!`~b3~6 ~.5: 1~ 97Si6~13446
•
{..:IT'S' fJF COLLEGE STA'370:V
£lcrnrng ~' ~as~elapmena Sen~urs
Filing Fss rf $~tb.pp,
.,~/ wppGcstion completed in full.
/ Additions{ materials may be required of the ap}~lic;et;it such as stte plans, elevation drawings, sign details
end floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the appli; arrt of any extra materials required.
_~-..
MIN{MUM SUF3MITTAL RBGtU1REMENTS:
~~
Date of Preapplication Conference:
APPI_,ICAI~i'T'lPROJECT M1IIAIV`ACFR :S INFORMATION (Primary Confect far the Projcci:a:
... _, . _
Name
~ireet AddreSS ~7UG ~/ ~~~~ ,
States _ ~ Zip Cade ~1? ~~~ E.
Phone Number _97Gf- (09'4--/Z7Z
PROPERTY 4WNEf~'S ~NFORh1AT!ON:
hiame
Cl7C:S UE+•lE~C~"~1Eh:- :fEF'
F'HC,E ~~1@
t=0ti ~FFtGE USE tytVt.Y
CASE NO.:__-_ ~' 3 CQ
DATE
AC?M{NIS~'RATIVE ~#DJUSTMENT APPL{~ATItyN
Street Address . 21~G~ ~~~
•
Fi~or7e Nii~rit~er . ~]q- ~~ - ~%~8
State _~_ Zip Code ~~~ E-Mai( Address
City ~~~~C~~ c~7l~CfTG17
Fax Number
L;-CATIO;~ GF PROPERTY;
Ar~dres4 2I~ ~~ ~1/.lil7Glf , ~0~~~~ ~f~1~~'I ~ ~JC 7 78 ~ a
Let 8toci: Subdivision
Gescrpt@or, i+ there 1s na i_ot, Block and Subdivision
Current Zo;~ing csf Subject Prop~art~; . ~.~ _... ----~
Applicable Ordinance Section: 17L~~~,fs~17'~
811;4103
1 Of
Fax Number 9~~i-'lv~I~-~,~3
F+,'~!i _','?c~ar iF. 18 q?575,~49E COCr 1~E~JELOF'I~IEIJT ,SER F'ArE ':.~'; 0~
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
•
'The epP!':,~n: h~~ pr^eparad thiE application and aerHfle3 Pht~ tote facts staled hey eir, a: id exl~l~its~ rrfl~rche~
he.~:tC are irus, correct arrd cernplef`e.
~ictnatu~-e and TiFio s
•
The following specific adjustment l;up to 10°rb) from the ordinance requirements is requested:~,_
~,~~ s~fbQ~.
Yhis adjustment wlll not be contrary to the public interr~st by virtue of the following facts: _
--
The granting afi the adjustment will not materially or adversely affact adjacent land uses ar the physical
character of u,e uses iii lt~e immeeitate Wldnlty because of the tollov~ing:
The granting of the adjustment will be consistent with the purpage and intent of the Unified Develc~ment
~rdfiartce because afi the fiollowing:
~1 ~a ja~_
(late
6r131p3
2of~
•
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning er Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496
February 15, 2006
Jefferson Christian Custom Homes, Inc.
2700 Earl Rudder Freeway, Suite 2100
College Station, TX 77840
RE: Property located at 211 LEE AVE
•
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is to inform you that the above referenced property has received an
administrative adjustment of two (2') feet.
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 resulting setback
remains consistent with R-1, Single-family Residential setbacks under normal
circumstances;
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 structures in the area have inconsistent existing front
setbacks; and
y
• Page 2
February 15, 2006
Granting the adjustment will be generally consistent with the purposes and intent
of this UDO because there is not an increased risk to fife, safety or general
welfare.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 979.764.3570.
Sincerely,
oey u n, AICP
it or, Planning & Development Services
CC: Mr. & Mrs. Mike Newman, 211 Lee Avenue, College Station, TX 77840
File # 06-00500036
r~
C*7/
Agenda
College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment
City Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 6:00 p.m:
Planning e'r Development Services
1. Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board.
2. Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests.
Mr. Graham Sheffy
3. Consideration to approve meeting minutes:
December 6, 2005 Workshop and Regular
January 10, 2006 Workshop and Regular
4. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a drainage
variance for 1401 University Drive East, Lot 1, Block 1 The Gateway Phase 1, Lot 1,
Block 1, The Gateway Phase 2 and Lot 1, Block 1, The Gateway Phase 3. The applicant
is Brazos Gateway Place Development Ltd. (06-09 AG)
• 5. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a variance to the
minimum lot depth for 617 Columbus Street, Lots A&B, Block 1, in the Prairie View
Heights Subdivision. Applicants are Terry and Robert Smith. (06-19 LB)
6. 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.
Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment
of College Station, Texas will be held on the 7 day of March , 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at
the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The
following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
Posted this the day of .2006 at p.m.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Connie Hooks, City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and
correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice
on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas,
and the City's website, www.cstx.aov. The Agenda and Notice are readily
accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted
on May 23, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. and remained so posted continuously for at least 72
hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College
Station City Hall on the following date and time: by
Dated this day of .2006.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of
2006.
Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas
My commission
expires•
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available.
Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the
meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) i-800-735-2989.
Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.4ov.
ZBA Agenda March 7, 2006
•
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning d Development Strviees
Absence Request Form
For Elected and Appointed Officers
•
Name Graham Sheffy
Request Submitted on Date:February 24, 2006
I will not be in attendance at the meeting of March 6, 2006
for the reason(s) specified:
RECOVERING FROM BEING IN THE HOSPITAL
This request shall be submitted to Deborah Grace one week prior to
meeting date. Fax 764-3496. City of College Station, 1101 Texas Avenue,
College Station, Texas 77840 Attn: Deborah Grace
o:council/absenreq.doc
(Date)
By phone
Signature
•
WORKSHOP MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
• December 6, 2005
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Josh Benn, Donald Braune, Graham Sheffy &
Alternate Derek Dictson.
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Richards. Alternates Denise Whisenant & Charles Taylor
(not needed)
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock,
Staff Planners Jennifer Reeves, Crissy Hartl, Jennifer Prochazka and
Lindsay Boyer, Senior Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Assistant
Director of Planning & Development Services Lance Simms.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Goss called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Discussion of regular agenda items.
• City Staff discussed the cases that were scheduled for the public hearings at the regular meeting of the
Board.
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Presentation and discussion of Administrative Adjustments
approved by the Administrator.
OS-194 - 200 Lee Avenue - 2-Feet to the rear setback
OS-152 - 2704 Texas Avenue South -10 Percent of the required parking
Staff Planner Lindsay Boyer discussed the Administrative Adjustments given. There were no
questions from the Board Members.
AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Presentation and discussion of background information prepared
by staff concerning contextual setback requirements.
The Board discussed the memo supplied in their packet (included as part of minutes).
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: 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.
• Chairman Goss stated that he liked having Workshops and felt that they were beneficial. All Board
Members in attendance agreed.
•
•
AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned.
ATTEST:
Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant
APPROVED:
Jay Goss, Chairman
~~
~~
~~
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning & Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustments
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Section 7.1.D.1.e -Contextual Setbacks
DATE: November 28, 2005
This memo. is written in response to the Zoning Board of Adjustments' request for
further information on the intent of the required contextual setback in older
residential neighborhoods.
The contextual setback was created with the adoption of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) in 2003. Section 7.1.D.1.e states the following:
"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
to the street or father back from the street than the nearest neighboring units."
This requirement is applicable to new construction and alterations of existing
buildings.
The contextual setback requirement was created in response to increasing infill
development pressures in our older residential neighborhoods. It was developed
to insure that the placement of infill structures is compatible with the existing
housing patterns in older areas. The intent is not to increase or decrease the
buildable area of the lot, but to insure that infill housing visually "blends in" with
the existing development in the area. Contextual setbacks are an aesthetic
compatibility issue more than a density issue, as with standard building setbacks.
This type of neighborhood protection standard is not unique to the City of
College Station. Generally, contextual setbacks are used to preserve and
protect neighborhood features, identity or character as infill development takes
place. This type of standard is generally valuable when the development pattern
is already set.
MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
• December 6, 2005
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Josh Benn, Donald Braune, Graham Sheffy &
Alternate Derek Dictson.
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Richards. Alternates Denise Whisenant & Charles Taylor
(not needed)
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock,
Staff Planners Jennifer Reeves, Crissy Hartl and Lindsay Boyer, Senior
Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson, Assistant Director of Planning
& Development Services Lance Simms.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Goss called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests.
• Mr. Richards submitted an absence request stating that he had a prior commitment. Mr. Benn made
the motion to approve the absence request. Mr. Braune seconded the motion, which passed
unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action of a
building setback variance for 1208 Walton, Lott, Block 15, Third Installment of College Hills
Estates. Applicant is Tres Watson. (OS-204 CH).
Crissy Hartl presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow
for the construction of a carport. The applicant would like to construct a 2-vehicle carport 27.5-feet in
width on the side of his house, thus the applicant is requesting a 4.5-foot variance to the side setback.
As a special condition the applicant states: "the request is made due to the location of mature live oak
trees located along the inside and at the end of the existing driveway and parking area."
As a hardship the applicant states: "Due to the location of the trees, the carport and driveway cannot be
moved without removal or possible damage to the trees."
Staff recommends denial for this variance request. The applicant states that the trees on his property
are a hazdship that restricts the construction of a 2-vehicle carport. While the trees along the driveway
are a constraint, they are not perceived to be a hardship for the carport. In staff's opinion, it is more of
• a hardship for the applicant to relocate the driveway that is not necessary for the construction of the
carport; therefore, it is staff's opinion that this would be a self -inflicted hardship. In addition, the City
of College Station does not consider the ash tree to be a specimen tree and therefore does not award
development projects landscaping points for those trees.
Additionally, it is the opinion of the staff that the variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, nor do extraordinary or special conditions
affect the subject property such that a strict application of City codes and/or ordinances deprives an
applicant reasonable use of his or her property.
Chairman Goss opened the public hearing.
Tres Watson, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr.
Watson spoke in favor of the variance.
Mr. Benn asked Mr. Watson if his concern is if the carport has to be built within the ordinance, the
construction of the driveway might kill the Ash tree. Mr. Watson replied that he would either have to
remove the tree or the driveway would be close enough to the tree where it might cause damage.
Mr. Benn asked Mr. Watson if the variance was not granted, what he would do. Mr. Watson replied
that it would allow roughly a 23-foot carport overall. He believed the eve has to also be out of the
setback. If you add in the posts on either side he would probably have to take out a couple of feet. He
figured that would leave him right at 20-feet. He added that that would be enough to get a car in if you
came in at an angle. He was not sure how that would work.
Mr. Dictson asked if you could overhang in a setback. Mr. Hartl replied that the eve can extend 18-
inches into the setback.
Mr. Watson ended by saying that he would accept a lesser variance as staff indicated as an alternative
• in the staff report.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Goss closed the public
hearing.
There were discussions among the Board Members as to what the special conditions and hardships
were.
Mr. Sheffy made the motion to not authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of
this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of any special conditions, and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary
hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done. Mr. Dictson seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Public hearing, presentation, discussion and possible action of an
Appeal to the Zoning Official's Interpretation concerning whether a specific use is appropriate
in C-1 (General Commercial). Applicant is Clint Schroff, Clarke & Wyndham. (OS-198).
The Administrator issued a Written Interpretation stating that the use proposed by the applicant is not
permitted in the C-1 General Commercial zoning district. Please see the attached letter of Written
Interpretation issued on November 3, 2005 for background information and for the Administrator's
final determination. The Written Interpretation has been appealed by the applicant, Mr. Clint Schroff,
CCIM, Senior Property Manager for Clarke & Wyndham, Inc.
The proposed use includes primazily fabrication, storage of scientific instruments for maintenance and
calibration, pallet storage, training. This use also requires the installation of an 8-foot roll up door and
loading zone on the property. The Administrator does not believe that the use is consistent with .the
. intent of the C-1 General Commercial zoning district. Section 5.3 of the Unified Development
Ordinance states the following as the purpose of the C-1 General Commercial zoning district: "This
District is designed to provide locations for general commercial purposes, that is, retail sales and
service uses that function to serve the entire community and its visitors." It is the Administrator's
opinion that the proposed use would be more compatible with the R&D Reseazch and Development
zoning district, the M-1 Light Industrial zoning district, or possibly the C-2 Commercial Industrial
zoning district, all of which permit similar uses.
It is important to note that the Administrator's interpretation does not apply to any particulaz property,
but to the C-1 General Commercial zoning district in general. Any decision by the Zoning Boazd of
Adjustments will apply to all C-1 General Commercial property within the City of College Station.
Mr. Simms ended his staff report by showing the Board pictures of subject property.
Chairman Goss opened the public hearing.
The following persons stepped forward to speak in favor of the variance and were sworn in by
Chairman Goss.
Clint Schroff, the applicant
Frank Wilford, Lease space tenant
After lengthy discussions on what the actual use of the lease space would be, Mr. Schroff stated that he
made a mistake. He filed the building permit in haste with the floor plan showing the fabrication azea
and wood working shop. He stated that these functions will not take place at this location.
Mr. Benn stated that if the lease space is not going to be for these functions, could the application be
withdrawn and a new building permit filed stating the correct use. Mr. Wilford stated that if that
would be the best way to approach this and he could get some assurance that that is all he needed to do,
he would do that.
Mr. Simms stated that he would recommend that the Board vote to uphold the Zoning Official's
Interpretation and the applicant could go through the process of amending the building permit
application.
Mr. Benn made the motion to uphold the decision or interpretation by the Administrator in the
enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of
the Ordinance and substantial justice done. The motion was seconded by Mr. Braune and passed
unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action, to
consider a parking variance for 1351 Earl Rudder Freeway, Lot 1-R, Block 1, in the High Ridge
Subdivision. Applicant is Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group -Planning Solutions. (05-205).
i
Staff Planner Lindsay Boyer presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the
variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces for the Varsity Ford Auto Dealership by 77
spaces.
+This property was annexed in 1958 and subsequently zoned R-1. In 1989, the property was rezoned to
C-2. The property was platted in 1993, and 10 acres was developed as the Varsity Ford Dealership in
1994. This development included 29,450 square feet of service azea and body shop, which requires
pazking at a ratio of 1 space per 100 square feet of building azea. The total pazking required at this time
was 348 spaces, and 396 spaces were provided at the time of development. The property was replatted
in 2003 into its current configuration.
In 1998, Varsity Ford sought to expand its service azea body shop by 7,380 squaze feet. This expansion
resulted in the loss of 98 required spaces on the lot, and an additional 74 that were accommodated in a
satellite parking lot on the property to the north. Overall the required pazking for the site became 422
spaces. With the development of the satellite parking, the total number of spaces provided was 496.
The satellite pazking lot contains a total of 151 spaces.
The variance request is being sought by the owner in order to sell the adjacent property on which the
satellite pazking lot is located. The applicant maintains that the required pazking ratio is excessive. The
1 space per 100 squaze feet ratio was set by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1984 for the
development of Allen Honda. This ratio was included in the Unified Development Ordinance, adopted
in 2003. (Those minutes were included in the Boards packet)
Staff agrees that the pazking is excessive. Of the 10 acres of the property located out of the floodplain,
neazly 100% of the azea is impervious cover. A retail or office building of the same size would result in
only 118 required parking spaces, rather than 294. A survey was completed of 37 of cities by both the
City and the applicant, finding that College Station requirements result in the highest number of spaces
required for body shops and automobile service azeas. Additionally, the only uses in the City with
parking requirements equal or greater than an automobile service azea are restaurants and nightclubs. In
the coming months, as part of next year's annual UDO review, staff will be recommending a change to
the required parking spaces for automobile service shops.
The effective pazking ratio, should the variance be granted, would be 1 space per 127 square feet of
building area. For comparison purposes, the City of Grapevine and the City of Georgetown aze the only
cities with a pazking ratio that this vaziance would not meet.
During recent site visits, staff has noted that the parking lot has never been fully utilized.
Approximately 30 to 50 percent of the pazking remains vacant in the reaz pazking azeas.
Of the 10 acres of the property located out of the floodplain, neazly 100% of the azea is impervious
cover.
1.3 acres of the property remains undeveloped, but lies in the Carter Creek floodplain. Additional
development on this site would further impact this floodplain.
The City's requirement for the number of pazking spaces creates difficulty for auto dealerships with
service shops to develop. In this instance, the number of spaces required to be dedicated to the body
shop is over 85 percent of the required pazking, as well as new and used caz sales.
There have been several instances of vaziances requested from the minimum parking requirements, but
none have been for auto dealerships. The majority of these requests were approved prior to 1990, and a
majority was approved. For reference, only two other dealerships aze located in the city.
Douglass Nissan has 6,340 square feet of service area, and Allen Honda has 4,965 square feet.
~Ms. Boyer ended her staff report and stated that Staff recommends approval of this request. The ZBA
has the authority to grant variances up to 77 spaces.
Chairman Goss opened the public hearing.
Natalie Ruiz, the applicant, stepped before the Board to speak in favor of the variance and was sworn
in by Chairman Goss.
Chairman Goss closed the public hearing.
Mr. Sheffy made the motion to authorize a variance to the Parking Requirements from the terms of
this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions:
there will still be adequate parking for public use and put a more adequate use of the body shop parking
and there is a creek that won't prohibit them from making additional parking; and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being: staff will ask for reduced parking in the Unified Development Ordinance; and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Braune seconded the
motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
Jay Goss, Chairman
ATTEST:
Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant
r-~
U
WORKSHOP MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
• January 10, 2006
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Donald Braune, John Richards, Alternate Denise
Whisenant & Alternate Charles Taylor
MEMBERS ABSENT: Graham Sheffy & Josh Benn. Alternate Derek Dictson (not needed)
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock,
Staff Planners Jennifer Reeves, Crissy Hartl, and Lindsay Boyer, Senior
Planner Trey Fletcher, Senior Assistant City Attorney Cazla Robinson,
Assistant City Attorney Angela Deluca, Mapping Coordinator, Sven
Griffin & GIS Technician Adrian Welsh.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Goss called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Discussion of regular agenda items.
• Chairman Goss suggested to have the item read "Presentation of regular agenda items" so that the
Board can hear a little more before the regulaz meeting. No action was taken.
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: 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.
There were not items discussed.
AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
Jay Goss, Chairman
ATTEST:
•
Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant
MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
January 10, 2006
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Jay Goss, Donald Braune, John Richards, Alternate Denise
Whisenant & Alternate Charles Taylor.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Graham Sheffy, Josh Benn & Alternate Denise Derek Dictson (not
needed)
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock,
Staff Planners Jennifer Reeves, Crissy Hartl, and Lindsay Boyer, Senior
Planner Trey Fletcher, Senior Assistant City Attorney Cazla Robinson,
Assistant City Attorney Angela Deluca, Mapping Specialist, Sven Griffin,
GIS Technician, Adrian Welsh.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Goss called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests.
Mr. Benn submitted an absence request stating that he could not attend due to work related business.
Mr. Braune made the motion to approve the request Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed (S-0)
Mr. Sheffy submitted an absence request stating that he could not attend due to recuperating from being
in the hospital. Mr. Richards made the motion to approve. Mr. Braune seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed (S-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting
minutes from the November 1, 2005 Workshop and Regular Meeting.
Mr. Richards made the motion to approve. Ms. Whisenant seconded the motion, which passed
unopposed (S-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion of a
landscape variance for 3205 Earl Rudder Freeway South, Lot 1, Block 1, in the C.S.L. of Texas
Subdivision. Applicant is Anthony L. Jones. (OS-206)
Staff Planner Crissy Hartl presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the
variance to exclude a drainage easement from azea calculations for landscape point requirements.
i
In 1998, the applicant submitted a site plan application for the construction of Legacy Construction
office building. The site plan included two phases for construction. The first phase included the
western portion of the lot that fronts on Eazl Rudder Freeway South, excluding the 60-foot drainage
~asement. The second phase contained the eastern portion of the lot and the entire 60-foot drainage
easement. Landscaping points were calculated for Phase I, and was built accordingly.
The applicant has since submitted a site plan to develop Phase II and wishes to remove the entire
drainage easement from the landscape and streetscape requirements, thus his is requesting a variance of
10021andscape points and 3 canopy street trees.
The applicant states as his special condition: "Staff in 1998, did not want anything to incur blockage
within this azea. It is an offsite drainage/collection facility for Sebesta Road and surrounding properties.
We maintain, mow and cleaz trash in all of the drainage easement".
The applicant states as his hazdship: "This is a lazge detention/collection facility that will handle a lot of
offsite property yet to be developed. I'm respectfully requesting that the drainage azea not be included
with any of the landscape calculations for the new office"
Staff is recommending denial for this request. In order to meet landscaping requirements, landscaping
does not need to be planted in the easement, but rather compensated throughout the site.
Mr. Braune asked if any portion of the drainage detention area was included in the phase I landscape
calculations. Ms. Hartl referred to the aerial map and pointed out that there was a small portion
included in the first phase.
Chairman Goss stated that Mr. Jones indicated that the detention azea services other properties. Ms.
Hartl replied that was correct.
Chairman Goss opened the public heazing.
Anthony Jones, 3205 Eazl Rudder Freeway South, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by
Chairman Goss. Mr. Jones spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Jones made correction that none of the
property was included in the first phase landscape calculations. Staff at that time made
recommendations for no landscaping to be included since it was for a detention azea. Mr. Jones stated
that right now there is over 7000 points of trees that have not been counted. Mr. Jones ended by saying
that he is asking for the variance by not using the calculations in the drainage azea.
Mr. Goss asked Mr. Jones if he had a conversation with staff concerning the landscape points he
indicated were not being counted. Mr. Jones replied that he did not think about it until he got his staff
report and so he wanted to indicate it at the meeting.
Mr. Taylor asked staff if landscaping could be planted in the drainage easement. Ms. Hartl replied that
it would be allowed outside the easement along the fringe of it.
With no one else stepping forwazd Chairman Goss closed the public hearing.
•ZBA Minutes
January l0, 2006
Page 2 of 8
Mr. Taylor made the motion to authorize a variance to the landscaping requirements form the terms of
this Ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions:
e property is burdened by an easement which is a drainage collection for adjacent property; and
~ecause a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to
this applicant being: it would be difficult to successfully maintain in a flood collection area; and such
that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Braune seconded
the motion, which passed (4-1). Denise Whisenant voting against granting the variance.
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to
consider a parking variance for 1200 University Drive East, Lot 1, Block 1, in the Wheeler
Subdivision Phase 2. Applicant is Rabon Metcalf Engineering for Mae Dean Wheeler. (05-214)
Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves stated for clarification that the request is for parking setback variance.
Ms. Reeves presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a front setback, for
parking along Lincoln Avenue, of 10-feet from the parking area, instead of 20-feet that is required in
Section 5.8.A.1 Setbacks. The property is located in the Corridor Overlay District.
For Special Conditions the applicant states that "the subject property is encumbered by multiple items
which restrict the developable and buildable area" The items are summarized as follows:
A secondary drainage way, flowing south to north, bisects approximately through the middle of the
property;
An unnamed tributary of Burton Creek, located in the secondary drainage system, bisects the northern
1/3 of the property. This creek drains from west to east and is a studied creek with mapped floodway
and floodplain. This floodway is located in a platted variable width drainage easement which is
sigmficantly wider than the studied floodway;
A 30-foot wide gas easement, running north and south, bisects approximately through the middle of
the property; and
A 20-foot wide sewer easement, running west and east, bisects the northern 1/3 of the property.
As a hardship the applicant states that the "Reasonable development of the land would be significantly
decreased and undesirable due to the reduced buildable area and locations for accessory uses on the part
of the multiple encumbrances and the required corridor setback increases".
Staff supports the applicant's special condition and hardship, of existing floodway, floodplain and
drainage way that bisects the subject property and inhibits the developable area.
The setback for parking that is not located in an Overlay District is 10-feet from aright-of--way. The
subject property is located in the Corridor Overlay District and is required by Ordinance to provide a
20-foot parking setback if parking is located along the right-of--way. Because of the above mentioned
special conditions and hardships and the applicant still meeting the spirit of the Ordinance by providing
a 10-foot parking setback, staff recommends approval of this variance request.
. ZBA Minutes January 10, 2006 Page 3 oj8
Chairman Goss asked for Ms. Reeves to give the Board and citizens an overview of what the Overlay
District purpose is. Ms. Reeves stated that the is district was established to enhance the image of
gateways and key entry points into the city and to provide openness and continuity, as well as more
green space between the developments.
Chairman Goss opened the public heazing.
Rabon Metcalf, the applicant, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Mr.
Metcalf spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Metcalf stated the area that they aze requesting the vaziance
for is not along the University Drive Overlay District. The Overlay District extends to the azea along
Lincoln Avenue which is not a gateway into the city. Mr. Metcalf added that all they are asking for is a
vaziance to the position that the cars aze parked. He further added that the site plan for the property has
not been submitted to the city and it could change from what is being shown now. The use will not
change unless they ask for a zoning change.
Mr. Richards stated that he has a hazd time approving something without an approved site plan.
The Boazd had several questions concerning the site plan. Mr. Metcalf dedicated time explaining what
the applicant hoped to accomplish. Mr. Metcalf stated that from the back of the curb on Lincoln to the
back of the curb for pazking they will have 20-feet of green space.
Ron Cowe, 1919 Whitney, Houston, Texas, spoke in favor of the request.
Those speaking in opposition were:
Cyril Hosley, 911 Grand Oaks
Pete Normand, 918 Grand Oaks
Chairman Goss asked for clarification if the variance was for both University and Lincoln Drives. Ms.
Reeves state that vaziance request if only for along Lincoln Drive.
Chairman Goss closed the public heazing.
Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions:
various drainage ways and various easements cross the property which limit the ability to develop the
area: and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to
the following limitations: variance relates to the southern border of the overlay district to green space on
Lincoln Avenue. The vaziance is only for Lincoln Avenue. Motion was seconded by Donald Braune.
The Board voted (4-1). Mr. Richards voting against granting the variance.
AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to
consider a parking variance for 1351 Earl Rudder Freeway South. Lot 2, Block 1, in the High
Ridge Subdivision. Applicant is Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group -Planning Solutions. (OS-215)
Staff Planner Lindsay Boyer presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the
parking variance to reduce the number of required pazking spaces for a proposed furniture store
development located north of the Vazsity Ford development.
ZBA Minutes January 10, 2006 Page 4 of 8
The applicant is currently pursuing the development of a 50,000 sq. ft. furniture store made up of
35,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 15,000 storage space. The UDO allows storage space in C-1 zoning
istricts if it is less than 50% of the total squaze footage of the development, as provided by the Sales
~Iatrix located in Article 6.3.N. Based on the amount of storage, this type of development is located in a
C-1 quadrant, and the associated parking ratio for C-1 retail is 1 space per 250 sq. ft, per Article 7.2.H.
Number of Off Street Parking Spaces Required.
The applicant is requesting a variance to the retail parking requirement. Their proposal is to increase
the ratio for furniture sales to 1 space per 450 square feet. This proposal would result in an
effective parking variance of 88 spaces. The total spaces provided would be 112.
The entire site, based on a proposed greenway dedication area is approximately 6.5 acres. Subtracting
out the space for the building, there is approximately 240,000 remaining to incorporate a 200 sq. ft.
parking space, maneuvering room, drive aisles, parking islands, landscaping and pazking setbacks. Staff
believes that there is enough land to accommodate all ordinance requirements.
This variance would apply to any C-1 use that might development on this property. Given the vaziety of
uses that might develop or redevelop instead of a furniture store or that the proposed furniture store
might one day use the storage space for retail azea, Staff does not support a variance.
This parking ratio is being considered by staff for an amendment to the Unified Development
Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission heazd a presentation by the applicant on this pazking
ratio on Jan. 5. They have indicated the need to address this issue, and we have tentatively scheduled
this amendment to be heard on February 2.
ff has also been workin with the applicant since the staff report was written on an alternative
Sta g
pazking plan which would allow a reduction in pazking based on a study of the pazking for that use, but
requires land be set aside as open space that would accommodate the required parking. The applicant
has indicated that they cannot accommodate the area for the 100 additional spaces that would be
required.
Staff conducted a survey of 22 cities and found only 6 cities have parking requirements that support
such a request. There is a lazge range of parking requirements with the average ratio around 1 space per
350. The ITE Parking Generation Handbook also indicates a ratio of approximately 1 per 820 sq. ft.;
however this study was done in 1960 and only includes 2 studies.
The ZBA does not have the authority to set parking ratios, and this ratio should be reviewed for an
amendment change by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Special Conditions: The application indicates that the nature of furniture sales necessitates a specific
pazking ratio separate from conventional retail sales. Due to the nature of large displays, the real
occupancy of the building is diminished.
The International Building Code does not distinguish between types of retail uses for a building, but
does give a concession on warehouse space. However, the sales matrix allows for the reduction of this
warehouse space at will, and the pazking ratio is set so that should this site ever have 100% retail,
• parking would be accommodated without amending a site plan
ZBA Minutes January 10, 2006 Page S of 8
Chairman Goss opened the public hearing.
Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Goss. Ms. Ruiz
poke in favor of the request. Ms. Ruiz gave a lengthy presentation.
Others speaking in favor of the request were:
Tom James, 2638 Lombardi, Dallas, Texas, Developer of the property.
Brett McCully, 1722 Broadmore, Bryan, Texas, Engineer for the developer.
Chairman Goss closed the public hearing.
The Board had discussions and decided that they would table the request and let the applicant go before
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for a text amendment to the UDO.
Mr. Braune made the motion to table. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which passed unopposed
(S-0).
The applicant gained approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission on February 2 and the City
Council on February 9.' No further action is required by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to
consider a setback variance for 211 Lee Avenue. Lot 20, Block 3, in the Oakwood Addition
Subdivision. Applicant is Jefferson Christian Custom Homes, Inc. for Micajah & Nancy
Newman. (OS-221)
Staff Planner Trey Fletcher presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the
variance to allow for the construction of a carport as an accessory use.
The property owner is proposing to construct a 2-car carport and storage building within the required
rear setback of 20 feet in addition to a substantial one-story kitchen/master bedroom addition to the
primary structure, which is a two-story residence. The applicant is requesting to encroach 15 feet,
resulting in a 5-foot rear setback. The enlarged primary structure and the proposed carport /storage
building would be connected by a covered breezeway.
For special conditions the the applicant states: "The long, narrow shape of the lot creates a smaller
building area than is seen on surrounding lot and the rear setback restriction eliminates the ability to
provide covered off-street parking."
There were no hardships offered by the applicant; however, the applicant may reconfigure the home
addition or construct a smaller addition that would allow the new carport/storage structure to be moved
out of the setback. The carport/storage structure could also be moved closer to the home. As always,
the Board may grant a lesser variance.
•ZBA Minutes
January 10, 2006 Page 6 of 8
Staff recommends denial of the request. The homeowner is proposing the construction of the carport in
addition to a substantial addition to the reaz of the house significantly reducing the buildable azea
available for such an accessory use. A porte cohere is proposed along the north side of the house, and
,meets required setbacks. Two movable sheds exist in the reaz of the lot and will be relocated or
removed to accommodate the planned improvements. As structures are prohibited from easements, the
proposed carport and storage building aze planned to be constructed next to a 5-foot public utility
easement that runs along the rear of the property.
It is the opinion of staff that the vaziance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, nor do extraordinary or special conditions affect the subject
property such that a strict application of City codes and/or ordinances deprives an applicant reasonable
use of his or her property.
Chairman Goss opened the public hearing.
Those speaking in favor of the request were:
Micajah Newman, 211 Lee Avenue. Mr. Newman gave a picture presentation.
Nancy Newman, 211 Lee Avenue
Gains West, 200 Suffolk
Linda Price 306 Lee Avenue
Bruce Hoekstra, 210 Lee Avenue
Patricia Burks, Hereford Drive
Sandra Hoekstra, 210 Lee Avenue
Steve Moore, 200 Lee Avenue
Speaking in opposition were:
Carroll Claycamp, 300 Lee Avenue
With no one else stepping forwazd Chairman Goss closed the public hearing
Mr. Goss asked Mr. Fletcher if the alley was abandoned by the city. Mr. Fletcher referred to the survey
in the Boards packet. He stated there was a 5-foot utility easement along the backside of the properties
including Mr. Newrnan's, a 10-foot reserve strip that comprises part of the alley, an overhead electrical
easement and then another 5-foot reserve strip. It appears the width exceeds 15-feet. Mr. Fletcher
stated that he has no evidence that the alley has been abandoned formally.
Mr. Richards made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirements from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interests, due to the following special
conditions: relative shape of the lot in subject neighborhood inhibits building area for full normal home
structures; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to the applicant being: the rear setback restriction eliminates the ability to provide
covered off-street parking; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed. Ms. Whisenant
seconded the motion, which failed (3-2). Mr. Braune and Mr. Taylor voting to against granting the
variance.
• ZBA Minutes
January 10, 2006
Page 7 of 8
u
ATTEST:
Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant
•
ZBA Minutes
APPROVED:
Jay Goss, Chairman
January 10, 2006
Page 8 of 8
u
• STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Alan Gibbs, P.E., Senior Asst. City Engineer
Email: agibbs@cstx.gov Report Date: February 28, 2006
Project Number: 06-00500009 Meeting Date: March 7, 2006
APPLICANT: David Scarmardo, President of Brazos Gateway Place
Development, Ltd.
REQUEST: Floodway Variance from Section G(1) of the Flood Protection
Ordinance prohibiting encroachment into designated floodways.
LOCATION: 1401 University Drive East, Lot 1, Block 1, The Gateway Phase 2;
Lot 1, Block 1, The Gateway Phase 3; Lot 1, Block 1, The Gateway Phase 4.
PURPOSE: To construct a private access drive with creek crossing consisting of
fill, 3- 10'x7' reinforced concrete box culverts, 2 - 48" RCP culverts and public
waterline improvements.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Property Owner: Brazos Gateway Place Development, Ltd.
Applicable Ordinance Section: Chapter 13, Section 5.G -Special Provisions
for Fooodways
G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS
Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in
Section 5-B are areas designated as floodways. The floodway is
an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters
which carry debris, potential projectiles, and the potential for
erosion; therefore, the following provisions shall be required:
(1) Encroachments shall be prohibited, including fill, new
construction, substantial improvements of existing
construction, structures, manufactured homes, or other
development. Variances requested on this standard shall be
accompanied by a complete engineering report fully
demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any
increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard up-
stream, within, or downstream of the encroachment location.
The engineering report shall conform to the requirements of
the Drainage Policy and Design Standards and shall bear
• the dated seal and signature of a registered professional
engineer;
(Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987)
O:\group\deve_ser\stfipt\zngstfrpt\honda. doc
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land Use
• Subject Property: Zoned R-4 Multi-family and C-1 General Commercial.
A portion of the property is developed as the Gateway Villas.
• North: The City of Bryan's sewer treatment plant is located to the north
with the City Limits being the common boundary line.
• West: Zoned R-3 Townhouse, developed as duplexes
• East: Zoned C-1 General Commercial, undeveloped
• South: Zoned C-1 General Commercial, developed as the Gateway
Shopping Center, and University Drive.
Frontage and Access: The Gateway Phase 3; Lot 1, Block 1, The Gateway
Phase 4 has frontage to University Drive through a private access easement
where the current drive exists.
Topography and Vegetation: Phase Two is currently developed as
condominiums. Phase Four is currently undeveloped. The common lot line
between Phases Two and Four is the center line of the creek tributary. Phase
Four is largely in its natural state and heavily wooded.
Flood Plain: An unnamed tributary of Burton Creek with Base Flood Elevations
as well and Floodway delineation exists on the common lot line of Phases Two
and Four. This tributary discharges in a northerly direction into Burton Creek
main which discharges in an easterly direction. Depictions of the Floodplain and
Floodway are provided in the enclosed Site Plans.
VARIANCE INFORMATION
Background: To participate in the National Flood Insurance Program so that
our citizens can have subsidized flood insurance, the City has adopted the Flood
Protection Ordinance in accordance the associated Code of Federal Regulations
for FEMA. The City has opted to increase the regulations in regard to floodway
encroachments. The minimum requirements federal state that encroachments
into the floodway are permissible with a zero rise study. The City's regulations
require a variance with the attached criteria as well.
The federal code generally defines the floodway as the channel of a river or
other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to
discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface
elevation more than a designated height (1 foot). The proposed drive and
waterline creek crossing clearly encroaches into the associated floodway. The
applicant has addressed each of the criteria as well as provided a drainage
• analysis which depicts the water surface will not increase above the allowable
floodway elevation.
O:\group\deve_serlstfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc
ANALYSIS .
Special Conditions: The applicant states: "A tributary to Burton Creek crosses
the subject tracts cutting off approximately 7.6 acres of land (proposed Gateway
Phase 4). The only way to access the 7.6 acre Phase 4 is to cross the tributary
creek. This crossing has to be above the 100 year flood stage and provide
access for emergency services. To not allow the crossing will deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of land."
Hardships: The applicant states: "City Ordinance 13, Section 5.G prohibits
encroachments including fill and new construction within floodway areas without
a variance granted by the ZBA. The literal requirement of the Ordinance would
render the 7.6 acre Phase 4 tract unusable by the applicant."
Alternatives: The applicant states: "None - To gain access to the 7.6 acre
Phase 4 tract, the tributary creek must be crossed."
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
The applicant states: "The culvert structure (3- 10'x7' RCB & 2 - 48" RCP) has
been designed in accordance with Section G(1) of the Flood Protection
Ordinance and FEMA regulations as defined by 44 CFR Chapter 1, Parts 60 &
65."
The applicant states: "An engineering report consisting of a hydraulic analysis
has been provided to the City documenting the effects of the culvert on water
surface elevations and flood velocities."
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Intent: Chapter 13, Section B states: "It is the purpose of this
chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, and general
welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the
adverse impacts associated with the increased storm water flows generated by
development. It is also the purpose of this chapter to enhance the public health,
safety and welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the City of College
Station Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements."
Unmitigated encroachments into designated floodways are known to cause
increases in flood levels and the potential for damage from flooding events. As
such they are specifically prohibited.
It is clearly the intent of the Ordinance to prohibit encroachments into the areas
reserved for flood waters. It does not appear that the intent was to prohibit
encroachment into areas that may be above a reasonable flood event, even
though the encroachment would be within the regulatory limits of the floodway.
Number of Property Owners Notified: 23
•
Responses Received: No responses were received.
O:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda. doc
a ATTACHMENTS
1. Small Area Map and Aerial Map
2. Application
3. Memo addressing Flood Protection Ordinance Variance Criteria
4. Site Plan Exerpt(provided in packet)
U
•
O:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda. doc
r- ~ P ~
a
c~'$ Eby ~~ ~ O/ 'P~ ~'A, ~.
~a, d• ~ 0 8 ~ ~ ~
r N 4 ~8 ~ ~
N N ~ i
~ ~ ~~ ~ 8' ~ W ~,
V ~P,~ o~ ~ $ ~~ ~r m `~ N M
co ~ ~~'
'~ , cn 'n
~ M1 N ~ ~ N pf N~ ~a0
N ~ ~ ~ ~ +~
M r
a,V t~ v R YN nnn ~ `o u~ ~ n
N F U r 6~ A LJ ~ $~ (O
r
~
V
F
~~ Hn Y a0
U
o m
m
' m N
N
Q
`~ ~ ~
N
~ ~7/~ ''~~ ~ ~ ~ toa~
~ m ~ a ao
~ /Nd~7 w rn rn s 'n,
27 O~s~~ a mod'
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ lr~~C'J ~ B ~
~ _
~~ /~~J
n ~ N~ /`[`~jf1i//j5 O
N
O
~
~
0
~R\S
V
Y
, O
~ Q
~
U ~,
m
~Q
~°° ~Fl m
s,~,~~, , `~ /
o ~ ~
~
4/ ~~
a
r w
o
1s~~
~ Neil L ~
~ I.L
~jG
J ~ 0
Q
a ~ w
} ~ r N ~
F
~
Q ~
R
r ~
c~
r c+D r
~ +~ ~
;6' ~ a , ,Ma
~
+z Q
~}'
~ A ~
~ N
~ r
~ r
rq~r
V
,
~,
~y ~ J
~~
~
~
h
~
~o~ , ~,
mr
p
00 '~
~
~ .
cQi R" ~ ~
Xn7
L~
O
O tp _ ~
~~ J
~' ' ~ N ~ r
~
(7 R ~ ~ ~ ~ J
~ t`
~ ~xw ~
^~
~ ~ R
N R ~ ~ $ ~ A 5
Ii ~
'
>
W
~
n~
v ~ .(
,o ~~y a ~
~
S
,,, ,,,: ,~ s v ~~ ,ri ~
~ ,
N
e 7 ,.
y
d ~
m
M ^
N Y
~ b7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"°PARK RD ,g ~ ~ rn °` s ~ ° ~ tACy
W
wn ~ s
~ ~~, FP~~CR a0 ~ Z
~
n c0 E ~ .o4N 8 .
~`
wt M ~
~ O
J
~ `O
~ o ~ N
v ~ ~ ~' ~ m ~ GKV ~
~ ~ j
~/~
~/
VU L
~ ao ,~ Q 0
w
moo e ~.~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
m
,
~
~
o
~
N ~ ~ H ,~' ~,[J~ M
a ~ ~~~ ~~~
a
~
~, g th N 4~~y X ~ ~ ~ ~
(
~
~ s ~ ~ o
z ~
.i
,N $ s ~~ ~o
g N
a m N ~ a~ 2CY.~
~
v
~
~ s Y
V ` vm ~ Ni
-
~ ~
__
~
NU
n
' a~
r1
r
~ ~ !~ ~ _ p M ~ V
~
a
4.-- Q
.._.
~
J
O
N
r L.
i ,
` FOR OFFpIC~ E USE ONLY
CASE NO.: i' Q '
~ DATE SUBMITTED: I "' ~ ~~
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~^
Planning C°r Development Services - I ~• ~ ~ r> ~ , ~---
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION ~J
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
X Filing Fee of $150.00.
X 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: December 19, 2005 (most recent)
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Brazos Gateway Place Development, Ltd c/o David Scarmardo, President
Street Address 1289 North Harvey Mitchell Parkway
City Bryan
State Texas Zip Code 77805 E-Mail Address david(a~scarmardofoods.com
Phone Number 979-779-7209 Fax Number 979-822-1763
~PERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Same as Applicant
Street Address
State Zip Code
Phone Number
E-Mail Address
Phase 4
Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision
Fax Number
City
Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Variance Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation
Parking Variance Special Exception
Sign Variance Other Drainage Variance
ent Zoning of Subject Property: C-1 & R-4 _ -
plicable Ordinance Section: Chapter 13. Section 5.G -Special Provisions for Floodways
6/13/03 Page 1 of 6
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
GE~v~RAL VARIANCE RE(~u'EST
specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
Culverts, 2-48" RCP Culverts & Public Waterline Improvements
This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions:
Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances
involving the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the
property itself, not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will
run with the land.
Example: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, specimen 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.
A tributary to Burton Creek crosses the subject tracts cutting off approximately 7.6 acres of land (proposed
Gateway Phase 4). The only way to access the 7.6 acre Phase 4 is to cross the tributary creek. This crossing
has to be above the 100 year flood stage and provide access for emergency services. To not allow the
crossing will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial
hardship is/are:
dship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal
irements of the law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition.
xample: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when
compared to neighboring properties.
City Ordinance 13, Section 5.G prohibits encroachments including fill and new construction within floodwav
areas without a variance granted by the ZBA. The literal requirement of the Ordinance would render the 7.6
acre Phase 4 tract unusable by the Applicant.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
None - To pain access to the 7.6 acre Phase 4 tract, the tributary creek must be crossed.
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts:
1) The culvert structure (3-10'x7' RCB & 2-48" RCP) has been designed in accordance with FEMA regulations
as defined by 44 CFR Chapter 1, Parts 60 & 65
2) A engineering report consisting of a hydraulic analysis has been provided to the Citv documenting the
effects of the culvert on water surface elevations and flood velocities.
applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached
to are true, coact and complete.
~~R~~
and Title
/l~
Da e
6/13/03 ~N~/ L~
//~~,~ ~j ~~~,~ ln~i . n Page 2 of 6
^o~ 3~
KUNG ENGINEERING & SURVEYING "'~~~`~
Consulting Engineers • Land Surveyors ~~•~
4101 Teaas Aveaue, Suite A Post Office Boa 4234 I'0 V
Bryaa, Teass 7?802 Bryaa, Teass 77806
Telephoae 9T9/846-6212
Fsa 9T9/846-8252
B.J. KliaB, P.E., R.P.L.S.
8.)!1. KliaB, R.P.L.S.
Memo: February 16, 2006
To: City of College Station
Development Engineering
c/o Alan Gibbs, P.E.
Re: The Gateway Subdivision Phases 2-4 Creek Crossing
ZBA Variance Request - upporting Documentation
From: Fred Pain
The following memo is in response to your request to address each item listed in
Section 6.A(1)-(3) and 6.C.(5).(a)-(d) of Chapter 13 -Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance.
The Variance Request is with respect to the provision documented in Section 5.G.(1)
"Special Provisions for Floodways" of Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of
College Station. The text of this provision is as follows:
"Encroachments shall be prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements
of existing construction, stnJctures, manufactured homes, or other development. Variances
requested on this standard shalt be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully
demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in watersurtace elevation
or flood hazani upstream, within, or down stream of the encroachment location. The
engineering report shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Policy and Design
Standards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer;"
Section 6.A.(1): Special Circumstances/Conditions affecting the land such that strict
compliance with the provisions would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land
is as follows:
An unnamed tributary to Burton Creek crosses the subject tracts. This tributary creek
forms the boundary between platted and proposed platted areas of Gateway Phases 2-4
(refer to the approved preliminary plat-attached). Approximately 7.6 acres of property is
isolated on the west side of the channel (proposed Gateway Phase 4, Lot 1, R-4 zoning).
In order to access and utilize this property, the channel must be crossed with a roadway and
utilities. Current access consists of a gravel oil well access road with a low water crossing.
This crossing is inaccessible during larger rainfall events.
Section 6.A.(2L Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
The proposed project specific variation from the ordinance is construction of a private
access drive consisting of roadway embankment fill, 3-10'x7' reinforced concrete box
culverts, 2-48" reinforced concrete pipe culverts, and public waterline. Strict compliance
with Section S.G.(1) would prohibit the road crossing and render the 7.6 acre lot unusable
by the applicant.
Section 6.A.L31: Variances may be issued for reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration
of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Not Applicable.
Section 6.C.(51.(a): Strict compliance with the provision documented in Section 5.G.(1)
"Special Provisions for Floodways" of Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of
College Station would cause undue hardship on the applicant and deprive him of the
reasonable use of his land. The text of this provision is as follows:
"Encroachments shall be prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements
of existing construction, structures, manufactured homes, or other development. Variances
requested on this standarti shall be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully
demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in watersurface elevation
or flood hazard upstream, within, or down stream of the encroachment location. The
engineering report shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Policy and Design
Standards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer;"
Section 6.C.(5).(b1: The minimum relief to this hardship is to provide an access road protected
from the 100 year flood event and public utilities to the 7.6 acre tract. Specific measures taken
to relieve the hardship are the construction of a roadway, creek crossing, and waterline
extension. The creek crossing will consist of large culvert structures that will pass the 100
year storm event flows without adversely affecting upstream, downstream or adjacent
properties (Refer to attached plan sheet for depiction of crossing).
Section 6.C.(51(c1: Effects of the variance in terms of channel hydraulic characteristics areas
follows:
Results for Effective FEMA Model
River Station 387 512(Culvert) 554 632
Q total (cfs) 941 / 941 NA 941 / 941 941 / 941
Q channel (cfs) 479.9 / 627.2 NA 543.3 / 756.0 323.0 / 345.8
WSEL (ft) 274.2 / 275.1 NA 275.0 / 275.9 275.6 / 276.5
Depth of Flow (ft) 6.2 / 7.1 NA 6.0 / 6.9 8.4 / 9.3
Ave. Velocity (ft/s) 2.4 / 3.3 NA 2.7 / 3.4 2.4 / 2.5
rcesurts organ¢eo as touows (floodplain / floodway)
Results for Proposed Crossing (3-10'x7' RCB & 2-48" RCP1
River Station
387
512(Culvert) -,
554
632
Q total (cfs) 941 /941 941 /941 941 / 941 941 / 941
Q channel (cfs) 477.4 / 625.6 941 / 941 500.2 / 758.1 316.5 / 347.1
WSEL (ft) 274.2 / 275.1 275.1 / 275.8 275.3 / 275.9 275.8 / 276.5
Depth of Flow (ft) 6.2 / 7.2 5.4 / 6.1 6.3 / 6.9 8.6 / 9.3
Ave. Velocity (ft/s) 2.4 / 3.3 4.9 (ave) 2.2 / 4.0 2.3 / 2.5
i.
As shown in the tables above, the addition of the 3-10'x7' RCB and 2-48" RCP culvert structure
does not increase the base flood elevation above floodway water surface elevations allowed
for encroachments. The basis of the results described in the above tables are contained in
a report submitted to the City of College Station, Development Engineering November 09,
2005 and approved thereafter.
Section 6.C.(5).(d): Special conditions to be considered as criteria for granting the variance
are as follows:
1. In orderforthe property to be utilized consistent with it's designated R-4 zoning,
access must be granted which is not rendered impassible by the 100 year flood
event.
2. This access is required to protect the health, safety and welfare of property,
structures, and residents of an R-4 development.
3. This access .will not adversely affect water surface elevations or velocities
upstream, downstream, or adjacent to the crossing.
4. An engineering report is on file with the City which conforms to current City
drainage policies.
5. No alternative to provide safe and constant access to the 7.6 acre tract exists.
t
•
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Planner Report Date: February 28, 2006
Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov Meeting Date: March 7, 2006
Project Number: 06-00500019
APPLICANT: Terry & Robert Smith
REQUEST: Lot depth variance
LOCATION: 617 Columbus Street
PURPOSE: To allow the property to legally re-subdivide.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant: Property owner
Applicable Ordinance Section: 5.2 Residential Dimensional Standards
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land Use of Subject Property and Surrounding Area: Zoned R-1
Single Family Residential and developed as single family housing.
Frontage & Access: 150 feet on Columbus Street
Topography 8~ Vegetation: Relatively flat with some vegetation.
Flood Plain: Not within a floodplain.
VARIANCE INFORMATION
Background: The property was platted as Prairie View Heights prior to the
requirement to plat and prior to the 100 foot lot depth now required in single
family developments. In 1983, the applicants replatted Lots 3, 4, and 5 into Lots
A and B. Lot A is currently undeveloped. Lot B has an existing home that it
approximately 800 square feet in area. The applicants' intent is to remove the
existing home and develop the property as three single family homes. The
applicant requests this variance in order to return the property to its original
configuration, three 50 foot by 85 foot single family lots.
• The existing lot depth is 85 feet; therefore a 15 foot lot depth variance is
requested.
ANALYSIS
Special Conditions: As a special condition the applicant states the following:
"Lot depths are only 85 feet."
Hardships: As a hardship the applicant states the following: "I will be unable to
divide the lots into 50 feet by 85 feet. I will be unable to use property similar to
existing lots in area. All are 50 feet by 85 feet. There is no way to capture 100
foot depth. Land doesn't exist."
Alternatives: There is no identified alternative to the lot depth variance
requested.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot depth variance request
because the depth currently exists and there is no foreseeable opportunity to
increase the lot depth.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Intent: The intent of lot dimension requirements usually allow for
some degree of control over population density. These standards are typically
justified on the basis of the protection of property values. The Board must
• determine if the intent of the ordinance is met by the request and should ensure
that the request is reasonable based on the special conditions and hardships.
Number of Property Owners Notified: 29
Responses Received: I have received one inquiry phone call. The caller was
not concerned with the variance request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Small Area Map and Aerial Map
2. Application
3. Existing Plat (provided in packet)
4. Original Plat drawing (provided in packet)
~, ~
J
V ~_
N
O ~
L~
~ J
8b
8'
~ ry
8
~ ~
d~° M
NN a
~i.
u~
~ (~~
n v
`( O
~ ~ f
O( ~ ~
of O ~
N
~` O
`( N
<< ~ ~ ~
~ r~( e
r4 c N
O
°r _ ~ N
~i7 q'( U7
4 % N ~ (`(~bs b(N N
h ~
M `( ~~~ ~` r M rqr qtr
~ (` s N ~@
(p eo( qtr
119 'Q.~ ~
a'• `~ ,~
~ ~ ~ r~
N ~._ 5~ .
~
~ Q
~
N ~ U
Q ~
o
r
~ ~
'/G
L7 ~
M
8
U
m
~'
m
e 8~
'~d'
co
. ~p~~ ~
b
,,
~
VU
N ~ Q
ao ^
~ R ~ N ,~
a
t0 M ~ ,~
N
~,/p~ R
~)~ M N ~ r
fV
M
I
~^
~ !"
~ '~
r
o
O
N
m
^'
N
0
°' ~ M
~ y
o
0
~ n °N
o ~
~ O
u~ ~ 0
„m
O
t0
~
$~~ v~ M
2 1
O
N
M
~ p
V'
~~~
~ `3 $ U
~ N
~~b
~
r
~n J
~U
~~~~ ~
- 1 `~ ~ O
4 O~
~4 o~N r9 O
"~ '~' by o ~ (d'b v
dA ~ `9 Q rQ ~
•tr . ~ ~` r ~ ~ r qp
~ ~ N n `q'
~pU ~ ~ ra r, ao r ~WNy
N ~ -yrJ ~N I` m ~' ~ I.L
M
N >~ ~ '~ ¢~ ' 1j~ m Z
q3 ~, qr"' W
t` ~ rg `~' ~' `~ p Q
m -~ JQ' p to c°h ~ ~,
to p '~~'`° s a ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~~
`g N r~~" ~~ t~\ 1 ~ r4 O ~ Q
N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4
~ N
st ~ O ~ ~~ M ~
M ~' 4 qy a ~ ~s s~ ` rri k M
}
°4 ~ r4 ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ b~ O
O> ~~ ~ n M1 tl M `~" ~ Sd~ M
O ao .4, r> '~ a ~p , '~i m
n a q,
~,
<o r4 ~ , O
e
t
F'
..ti 'w
~
CrrY O.F COLY.EGE STATIOt~T
Ara»nFr-~ d.L~ttKlo/,menr.5rruhei
t / `i
r.
FOnRrnOFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO.: `~ Vl •
DATE SUBMITTED: ! ' ~~' D ~Q
31~~ o c
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
~Flling 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 plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required.
Date of Preapplication Conference: ~11Pc
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Street Address ~ 3 ~4 ~ \ ; ~ S~ City ~ it R E r ~.~~~ ~ `~X
State ~~ Zip Code _~-1'LS~y~ E-Mail Address -fS n.~-t-~. ~ c V~~.,~5' -~-~ ~. s
Phone Number __ ~l`l~~ Z~ fC - ~i~tS Fax Number
~'ROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name~.ru .~ (~,~,1.~.~--- ~;~,
Street Address ~-~ \ Z G~ lk._ \.~,- ~ City ~ l~~ ~ ~ ~ ~s ,~
State `~k Zip Code _'1Ztiy~ E-Mail Address -tc~~,,,~~ ~~,,~ ~r<zo,'- -~ u~
Phone Number ~t`l~- 13-1yZ~ Fax Number
LOCATION OF PR/O~PERTY:
Address tY I'
Lot /~ ~ '~ Block Z. Subdivision _ Pra t r i` c ~/ 1e W 4-1 ~ u --, ~-~
Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision
Action Requested: (Circle One) etback Variance Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation
Parking Variance Special Exception
Sign Variance ther Mtn, L~~- 17in~-e~1S1'c~nS
Current Zoning of Subject Property: ~.-
Applicable Ordinance Section: ~ . 2 ~._eSfd ei~~-i r~l 17 ~ ~ ~ vac t, .v,r. i C L.,. ,~ _i _ . _h
r~
U
~~~-
6/13
/03
Page 1 of 6
r->,
~~
~ i
GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST
~he followin s eciflc variation fr m
g p _ o the ordinance is requested:
~~„Irnvrn lo~ Stz~ ~ '~0 5o X ~5
SLR ~Jacl~- yzy ~ at-to n 5 • -15 ~.~~
This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions:
Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances
involving the particular property. The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the
property itself, not to the owner's personal situation. This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will
run with the land.
Example: A creek bisecting a lot, a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots, specimen 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 is/are:
financial
Hardship Definition: The inability 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.
xample: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when
om ared to neighboring properties. ~
--aca ~~c Q('op~~-l-~s .~•~•:~\~~'~ ~K~t~-~~ ~~f ~.~ crcc,~ ~l`e~(-c S~~'t'k F't:
~~.~~ ~~ n. w«, ~ cap-~„cc loofFt- ~,p•4.1~. ~--~.~ c~or~.}r ~t~a~'
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts:
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached
herefo are true, correct and complete.
~\i~~o~
Signa re nd Title Date
6/13/03
Page 2 of 6
_ ~u/ ~~t.•~ „
l~Pj'
` ?' ~~j~~ ~~' ~ ~..
! r
a+ ~ # to ~: :. 3 _ CMUF2CHILL STREET ~ c~cH n. - r~~r i
~~}
yr i3K ~ 1 i~ 9fj~' a~,3ip~~1~ _ .
;~> ~Yr ..
- ~ v
4 .-
--+, . ~ m
. -:
m
-~ ~
r t7
\. ~^? 2 S ~:ri F
..; i ~; i ~ _ 4 ~ s
1 ~.
~ , `: ~ "' F ~r~, ~ YARROW STREET luovcRSTr a+: vu,.i
~ ~ `~_; ° 5 ii 9 y
~ 4e
x ~'~
CHURCHILL STREET ~ci*xc„ sc-v~ar ~ ^.
•
w. L
•
A ~ GY q
/9 An i ~1 $
t>
'~l i Y'lr i
U
~
~,
~ C ~ fy R :~ ~~ ~i
J Q
(,
y
p
y SSEj ~~ {4I~ ~ {{ 1
y
~~~~t yi
~etii y. ~{ a . h ~\~
~ ggll
t
P ~'i;~;
7 !j
~S
~ ~~s~
~ gy ~}ee
1
-{~
~
~ ~~~~*
gg
p r
~
S '
f
. c
= ~ 6
~
~ ~ 6 ~
~ ,
_ ! ~ i a ~
r
CS
O
c
m g
m '
m
m
b
yH
f
YARROW STREET 'tuxtvcasnr op~xnT~
•
L
f R.s~>
}}Sdd
Sly ~. ~l frt
~~
~~~~
~
r
~
z
~"~ ~ ~' ° n
§ D __
~
S 4
;
~ a~ ~.
~
~.
$ N ~
f`
t~
f
•
•
•
`•,r
.~,,.
6
~~~
~ ~~ ~ ~
~:,~aaaaasa~~??3a
,,
~~~$~j
~#~,~
ss,~~j
~~~ _
~i;
r/~,
i i ~~
~j
ii~
~ ~;~
~~ ~
~II
~~~
•
r~
u
~~ ~
w
~~ ~
s
~~~~
~~
~ s=
#~~
*Ea~
i
~~~
~~
~~~
~~~~
~ ~YY~
~3~
yes
~~
~~
~e ~j~~s~ j ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~i~a~ @~{ ~ ~ ~~
~~~~s~s~~ ~~~ ~ s ~~
! ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ s~ ~ ~ d ~# ~
a ~ ~ ~ ~~~j ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~s ~
° • ~~ t ° • •
~ ~i~ ~j~;~s~et ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~,~~
s s s ~:s~~~~d #~~ ~ s ~ ~.
~ ~~ e ~ . ~ ~ ~
~ ~ j~ ! ~ ~~~ ~ `i~~s ~ ~' k s~ ~i
r. ~~~ ~ [ ~~~ p ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~
~~ ~~~~~~~: ~~~ ~ t6 ~
~,
~~~
.~
`' ' '~
;~
,~
E
~~~
l
~ ~%
~+ ~
-..."" _ _ .e ~ ~
Y~
,, , ----~~-__.J
~ ~1-
~ ~-
~~
f
~ ~, ° ~
~~ ;: ~ ~ ~
' ~ ~~ ~
R~~b R ~R
R R
~ ~_~
as ~ ~ {t'
a R
~ ~ ~ ~ °~s r r s
' g °~~ES ~ ~~E~ ~~ ~~ j~
.;~
o~
O
~ o ~'' ~
Q ~
m .:
Z V ~ w ~ ~ ~~~~Ny,«
W ~ W ~ ¢l~wN'`~~~i~.
_~ ~~ ~P ~
M ~ '~
ii. O ~ O ~ ~ Q~-Nvt ~ i
a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
1W-- Z W o ~ ~ ~
N ~ ~ s
~ ~ s
~~~~~i~~l~~l~~~~$~~E~~
r
R
X
a~
.~
~ ~ ~~I-' ~1~_
e~
~~
~~~
.._
r~
~R
,`\.
~ '
~,w
~ ~ ~
~~ __~
~ ~_____ _
~,
i '
~ .
t ~~'
~~
.~
~~
r~
7
3
w
t
tl+
~ ~ ~ ~ IF-a
~ AIR ~~i~' ILaMC
-,,,r-,
~ 6 !
~ L
,~ ~ ~- ~, ~
r ~
i /
,,y~~,~
.7`~ ~ i
~ ~
`~
r i i
1
~~
~ -~
\\
~`
//,.,
i~~
~'~"
S
U
Z
W
!" ..~ \
o
Y
o> V v p a a
K ¢
w;~
J (1
~ ~
/~ C
Y
oSEooY = DD. o 'c
V O. G a .G.. h p r0 _ p
~
i T^ V Y O` V C N C C ° C Y u
Vn
~a
~
O CV
j LL .
C O.
O >.
o° m o n^° Y
u c
t7 c
u
N V O G V b 0 V C n =[ SV] Q~ ~n
Ivd
F Y > anE V~ O 0 ; pG > v V yl
d Y `u
°„' ` °'
E~
~
_ v
co
°
Z >.G~CO~' CYL O.•~ya'Vm.~
o 'araopu..o'aoo~no c'>;'
;~„gaa~D;;:'ate°a~°a
Y ~~,
~~
`. ,
/ :.
~~.~~j.~
.: r ~~.
.. • ~ •. - ~
:~~.: .~ ..: :; I.
~~•.~~~~
.::.. :i ..: :::,
~_ : ~ ~.
_ V ~ ~ ~ rr
--~`
/~ ~~!` ~~
C./
~ ~ , ~~ \
..• i
i ~
,'~ / !~/
/ //.
i
~ ~~ ~
i
I / /~`.''(~ / ~
I ~r~ ~'
~ ,i~i~
i
i
I
i
//
I: ' Z
. ~ ~ ~~
. ~ ~ ~.. z~
:1. •..:~: :.' Za
r ,•• ,, NZ
~• ~••`
~..~:~ .
~ _ s '''---..
_ _
~y I
Q.,.
-~i--
.. ~ ~
/ ~ Y ., ' y ~
/ ~ F ~ Ii
~' i^I
~ ..: ~ - . ~Q . I ~
It\ 7 , • ~ q ~ ~ d ~ • '
`. -, .a v,
' -r . .
~> .4
r .s~~ ~
\ e ®,~
_ ~
of
~a
~~
W
~ pp~
~~ ~
~ ~ a
o cb ~
~~ dew ~.urvr~r~
3lVOS Ol lON