HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/2017 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsZoning Board of Adjustment
College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
The City Council may or may not attend this meeting.
Council Chambers6:00 PMTuesday, May 9, 2017
1. Call meeting to order.
Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding meeting
minutes.
* April 4, 2017
17-02092.
April 4, 2017Attachments:
Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to
consider a setback variance to the Unified Development Ordinance
12-5.2 ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ for The Knoll
Subdivision, Block 9, Lot 18, generally located at 1211 Winding
Road, which is zoned GS General Suburban. Case
#AWV2017-000012
17-01823.
Sponsors:Thomas
Staff Report
Application
Plans
Elevation
Attachments:
Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to
consider a variance to the Code of Ordinances Section 2-52.3,
regarding the minimum 100-foot distance of an enclosure that
houses fowl from dwellings other than the dwelling occupied by the
owner of the fowl for Reatta Meadows Sec 1, Ph 2, Block 2, Lot 1,
generally located at 900 LaDove Drive, which is zoned GS General
Suburban. Case #AWV2017-000011
17-02024.
Sponsors:Paz
Staff Report-900 LaDove Dr
Application
Distance Exhibit
Attachments:
5. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual
information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 5/2/2017
May 9, 2017Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Agenda - Final
limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
6. Adjourn.
The Board or Commission may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item
listed on this agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session
discussion. An announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session
discussion.
APPROVED
_____________________
City Manager
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on May 02, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
_____________________
City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this
meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as
interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary ’s Office at
(979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989 , or email adaassistance@cstx .gov at least
two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made .
If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting,
the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations.
Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried
Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an
Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con
Licencia.
“Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de
mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H,
Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben
entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.”
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 5/2/2017
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:217-0209 Name:
Status:Type:Minutes Agenda Ready
File created:In control:4/26/2017 Zoning Board of Adjustment
On agenda:Final action:5/9/2017
Title:Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding meeting minutes.
* April 4, 2017
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:April 4, 2017
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Title......
Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding meeting minutes.
* April 4, 2017
College Station, TX Printed on 5/2/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:317-0182 Name:1211 Winding Road - ZBA
Status:Type:Variance Agenda Ready
File created:In control:4/12/2017 Zoning Board of Adjustment
On agenda:Final action:5/9/2017
Title:Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a setback variance to the
Unified Development Ordinance 12-5.2 ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ for The Knoll
Subdivision, Block 9, Lot 18, generally located at 1211 Winding Road, which is zoned GS General
Suburban. Case #AWV2017-000012
Sponsors:Madison Thomas
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Application
Plans
Elevation
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a setback variance to the Unified
Development Ordinance 12-5.2 ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ for The Knoll Subdivision, Block 9, Lot
18, generally located at 1211 Winding Road, which is zoned GS General Suburban. Case #AWV2017-000012
College Station, TX Printed on 5/2/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2017
1
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
1211 Winding Road
AWV2017-000012
REQUEST: A variance to Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-5.2
‘Residential Dimensional Standards’, to allow for a 3-foot variance to the
required rear setback of 20 feet for an accessory structure- living
quarters in a GS General Suburban Zoning District.
LOCATION: 1211 Winding Road
The Knoll, Block 9, Lot 18
APPLICANT: Tracy Hammond
PROJECT MANAGER: Madison Thomas, AICP
Staff Planner
mthomas@cstx.gov
BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in The Knoll Subdivision and is zoned GS
General Suburban, which allows for single-family residential uses. The
property owner installed the shed on the property in 2016 to be used as
a shed. It met the minimum 15-foot setback for this use. The property
owner would like to convert the existing shed into a living quarter for her
elderly father. The use of the shed would change to a living quarter use
and would need to meet the additional regulations that this use requires.
It currently meets the rule that states accessory uses must not exceed a
maximum size of twenty-five percent of the area of the principal
structure. The UDO requires setbacks for living quarters to meet the
same setbacks for the district it is in. This property is located in a GS
General Suburban Zoning District and is required to meet the 20 foot
rear setback. The structure is currently 17 feet from the property line.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 12-5.2, ‘Residential
Dimensional Standards’ to allow for a reduction of 3 feet to the 20-
foot minimum rear setback.
APPLICABLE
ORDINANCE SECTION: UDO Section 12-5.2 ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’
ORDINANCE INTENT: UDO Section 12-5.2 ‘Residential Dimensional Standards’ sets
dimensional standard requirements that usually allow for some degree of
control over population density, access to light and air, and fire
protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the
protection of property values.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2017
2
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2017
3
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2017
4
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: May 9, 2017
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s
Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing:
The Knoll
Property owner notices mailed: 19
Contacts in support: None at the time of this report.
Contacts in opposition: 1 time of this report.
Inquiry contacts: 1 time of this report.
ZONING AND LAND USES
Direction Zoning Land Use
Subject Property GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence
North GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence
South (Across
Winding Road) GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence
East GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence
West GS General Suburban Single-Family Residence
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: The subject property has approximately 110 feet of frontage along Winding
Road.
2. Access: The subject lot is currently taking access from Winding Road.
3. Topography and vegetation: The subject property is relatively flat and has mature
vegetation on the south and west sides of the property.
4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain.
REVIEW CRITERIA
According to Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-3.19.E ‘Criteria for Approval of
Variance’, no variance shall be granted unless the Board makes affirmative findings in regard to
all nine of the following criteria:
1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the
land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
The applicant states that the current shed use of the structure needs to be converted to a
living quarter to allow for her elderly father to live with her so she can take care of him. The
application has not provided a condition that affects the land that would create an
extraordinary condition. Staff does not believe that an extraordinary or special condition
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2017
5
exists. A strict application of the UDO would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
of the property.
2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property
right of the applicant. If the proposed variance is not granted, the property can still be used
for single-family and current use of the structure as a storage shed can be continued.
3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in
administering this UDO.
Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
injurious to other property in the area, or to the City.
4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the
orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO.
The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of
land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO because the subject and
surrounding properties cannot be further subdivided unless they comply with the subdivision
regulations.
5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of
preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and
Improvements.
The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in
accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements due to no portion of this
property being located within floodplain.
6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the
vicinity.
For the addition of an accessory structure- living quarters building, the same setback
requirements apply to all properties zoned GS General Suburban and are not unique to this
property.
7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.
A hardship does not exist on this property. The building was originally installed in 2016 and
intended to be used as an accessory structure – shed. It met all setback requirements for
the shed use, which are a minimum of 15 feet.
8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO.
The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan,
and the purposes of this UDO.
9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular
piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the
property.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 9, 2017
6
The application of the UDO standards to this particular property does not prohibit the
applicant in the utilization of their property. The setback does not restrict the applicant from
utilizing a large portion of the property. New structures can be built within required building
setbacks or the existing structure can be removed or moved.
ALTERNATIVES
The applicant has not provided any alternative solutions to meet the minimum setback
requirements. Based upon the survey provided by the applicant, staff believes a new structure
could be built within the requirements or the existing structure moved to meet the requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Plans
3. Elevation
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:217-0202 Name:900 LaDove Drive ZBA
Status:Type:Variance Agenda Ready
File created:In control:4/24/2017 Zoning Board of Adjustment
On agenda:Final action:5/9/2017
Title:Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a variance to the Code of
Ordinances Section 2-52.3, regarding the minimum 100-foot distance of an enclosure that houses
fowl from dwellings other than the dwelling occupied by the owner of the fowl for Reatta Meadows Sec
1, Ph 2, Block 2, Lot 1, generally located at 900 LaDove Drive, which is zoned GS General Suburban.
Case #AWV2017-000011
Sponsors:Jenifer Paz
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report-900 LaDove Dr
Application
Distance Exhibit
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a variance to the Code of
Ordinances Section 2-52.3, regarding the minimum 100-foot distance of an enclosure that houses
fowl from dwellings other than the dwelling occupied by the owner of the fowl for Reatta Meadows
Sec 1, Ph 2, Block 2, Lot 1, generally located at 900 LaDove Drive, which is zoned GS General
Suburban. Case #AWV2017-000011
College Station, TX Printed on 5/2/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 1 of 7
May 9, 2017
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR
900 LaDove Drive
AWV2017-0000011
REQUEST: A variance of 5, 11, 18, and 38 feet to the City of College Station
Code of Ordinances (COO) Section 2-52.3, which requires a
minimum 100-foot distance of an enclosure that houses fowl from
dwellings other than the dwelling occupied by the owner of the
fowl.
LOCATION: 900 LaDove Drive, Reatta Meadows Sec 1, Ph 2, Block 2, Lot 1
PROPERTY OWNER: Kuy & Jamie Houser
APPLICANT: Terrance P Carey, resident
PROJECT MANAGER: Jenifer Paz, AICP, Senior Planner
jpaz@cstx.gov
BACKGROUND: The applicant has a chicken coop and enclosure, approximately
64 sq. ft. in area, located in the side yard between the home and
Bittern Drive. The property, located at 900 LaDove Drive, is
located in the Reatta Meadows Subdivision platted in 2008. The
property is approximately 8,741 sq. ft. in area and is zoned GS
General Suburban. This zoning district allows the keeping of fowl
upon the issuance of a permit and by meeting applicable
regulations set forth in the Code of Ordinances.
The owner of the fowl, resident of the property, built the enclosure
without obtaining the necessary permits from the City of College
Station. In February, a neighbor inquired about the chicken coop
to the Police Department, which led to Animal Control discovering
that the existing chicken enclosure is within 100 feet of nearby
dwelling units. Specifically the home to the east, 902 LaDove
Drive, is 62 feet from the coop. To the west, across Bittern Drive,
there are three dwelling units within 100 feet of the chicken
enclosure. The enclosure is 95 feet away from the home at 4012
Bittern Drive, 82 feet from 4014 Bittern Drive and 89 feet from
4016 Bittern Drive. The Code of Ordinances allows the owner of
the fowl to seek a deviation from this distance to the Zoning Board
of Adjustment; therefore the applicant is requesting a variance
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 7
May 9, 2017
to the Code of Ordinances Section 2-52.3 to allow for a
reduction of 5, 11, 18, and 38 feet to the minimum 100-foot
separation of an enclosure that houses fowl from any
dwelling other than the dwelling occupied by the owner of the
fowl.
APPLICABLE
ORDINANCE SECTION: COO Section 2-52.3 – ‘Any enclosure that houses fowl must be at
least one hundred (100) feet from any dwelling other than the
dwelling occupied by the owner of the fowl.’
ORDINANCE INTENT: The intent of the ordinance is to minimize nuisance associated
with the housing of fowl in single-family zoning districts within a
suburban area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 7
May 9, 2017
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 7
May 9, 2017
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 7
May 9, 2017
NOTIFICATIONS
Advertised Board Hearing Date: May 9, 2017
The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s
Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing:
Reatta Meadows HOA
Property owner notices mailed: 30
Contacts in support: None at the time of this report.
Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report.
Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report.
ZONING AND LAND USES
Direction Zoning Land Use
Subject Property GS General Suburban Detached single-family residential
North
(across LaDove Drive) GS General Suburban Detached single-family residential
South GS General Suburban Detached single-family residential
East GS General Suburban Detached single-family residential
West
(across Bittern Drive) GS General Suburban Detached single-family residential
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
1. Frontage: The subject property has approximately 68 feet of frontage on LaDove Drive.
2. Access: The subject property is currently taking access from LaDove Drive.
3. Topography and vegetation: The subject property slopes one foot from the northeast
corner towards the southwest corner to Bittern Drive. The property has minimal vegetation
with two canopy trees on the site and approximately 27% impervious cover.
4. Floodplain: The subject property is not located within FEMA regulated floodplain.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 7
May 9, 2017
REVIEW CRITERIA
According to Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-3.19.E ‘Criteria for Approval of
Variance’, no variance shall be granted unless the Board makes affirmative findings in regard to
all nine of the following criteria:
1. Extraordinary conditions: That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the
land involved such that strict application of the provisions of the UDO will deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
The property located within the Reatta Meadows Subdivision platted in 2008. The zoning of
the property is GS General Suburban, which requires single-family lots to be a minimum
5,000 square feet, with a minimum 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep. The subject property is
8,741 square feet. The average lot area in the subdivision is 8,276 square feet. There are
no extraordinary or special condition affecting the land given that all lots within the
subdivision are similar in size and the subject property exceeds the minimum requires for
the zoning and average lot size in the subdivision.
2. Enjoyment of a substantial property right: That the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
right of the applicant. If the proposed variance is not granted, the current use of the property
as single-family residential would still be permitted.
3. Substantial detriment: That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in
administering this UDO.
The applicant has stated that the coop, that houses four (4) chickens, has been on the
property for over a year without complaints and believes the location is not contrary to public
interest. In February, the chicken coop was discovered by an Animal Control officer that
derived from a neighbor’s inquiry to the Police Department regarding the permission of a
chicken coop on the property. Although there have been no complaints from the general
public, the Code of Ordinance specifies a distance of 100 feet from other dwelling units in
order to minimize nuisance associated with keeping of fowl in suburban, single-family
neighborhoods.
4. Subdivision: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the
orderly subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this UDO.
The adjacent and subject properties are platted, located within the Reatta Meadows
Subdivision. The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly
subdivision of land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the UDO.
5. Flood hazard protection: That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of
preventing flood hazard protection in accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and
Improvements.
The granting of this variance will not have the effect of preventing flood hazard protection in
accordance with Article 8, Subdivision Design and Improvements as the site is already
developed and due to no portion of this property being located within floodplain.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 7 of 7
May 9, 2017
6. Other property: That these conditions do not generally apply to other property in the
vicinity.
The development conditions of the subject property generally apply to other property in the
vicinity. The majority of the lots would not comply with the 100-foot distance required by the
Code of Ordinances for a chicken coop from a dwelling unit. The subject property is part of
Reatta Meadows Subdivision, zoned GS General Suburban. The average lot size in the
subdivision is 8,276 square feet, maximum size being 16,459 square feet and the smallest
lot is 6,524 square feet.
7. Hardships: That the hardship is not the result of the applicant’s own actions.
The applicant states that they were not aware of the requirement to locate the chicken coop
at least 100 feet from other dwelling units, therefore constituting a hardship. While the
applicant may not have been aware of the requirement, the Code of Ordinances does
require a permit to be obtained when keeping fowl in GS General Suburban zoning districts.
It should also be noted that the applicant is a renter of the home and could choose to locate
at a different location that would allow comply with the distance requirement.
8. Comprehensive Plan: That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this UDO.
The granting of this variance does not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or
purposes of the UDO.
9. Utilization: That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO to the particular
piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the
property.
The subject property is located within a GS General Suburban subdivision which allows lots
to be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The average lot size in the subdivision is 8,276
square feet. The majority of the lots would not comply with the 100-foot distance required by
the Code of Ordinances. Given that the same conditions exist on the majority of the lots
within the subdivision and exceed the minimum required for the zoning district, application of
COO Section 2.52-3 to this particular piece of property would not effectively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.
ALTERNATIVES
The only alternative would be the removal of the chicken coop from the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
SUPPORTING MATERIAL
1. Application
2. Supporting Documents
Page 1 of 510/10
CrrY oF Co1.1 H;E S-mTION
1-fome tif '/l'.1;111 Ach\l U11iver1ity
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
Date of Optional Preapplication Conference
ADDRESS 900 LaDove Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Lot, Block, Subdivision) REATTA M EADOWS SECl, PH 2, BLOCK 2, LOT I
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Name Kuy H ouser
Street Address 900 LaDove Dri ve
E-mail tcarey@tamu.edu
City College Station State Texas Zip Code 7784=5 _
Phone Number 713-503-6406 ---------- Fax Number
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners):
Name Kuy Houser
Street Address 5109 Trupeter Swan
E-mail aggiefamilydoc@gmail.com
City College Station State TX ------Zip Code _7_7_84_5 _
Phone Number 713-503-6406-----------Fax Number
Current zoning of subject property Residential
--------------
----------------------------
Action requested (check all that apply):
0 Setback variance
0 Parking variance
0 Sign variance
O Lot dimension variance
Applicable ordinance section to vary from:
0 · Appeal of Written Interpretation
0 Special Exception
D Drainage Variance
!Kl Other M i nimum 100' from andy dwelling unit
2013-3488 4012 Bittern Drive - 95' (5' variance)
4016 Bittern Drive - 89' (11' variance)
902 Ladove Drive - 62' (38' variance)
4014 Bittern Drive - 82’ (18’ variance)
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
0 $380 Zoning Board of Adjustment Application Fee.
D Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used
and may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided. 0 Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details,
and floor plans. The applicant shall be informed of any extra materials required.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO.:
DATE SUBMITIED: ------
TIME:
STAFF: ---------
Page 2 of 510/10
GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST
1. The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
2. 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.
3. The unnecessary hardship(s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are:
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.
Example: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the lot, when
compared to neighboring properties.
4. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
5. This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts:
Not contrary to public interest. We have 4 chickens (CS city ordinance states IO or more). They do not
smell and are not loud. There will not be more than 4 chickens at any one time as these were given as a gift
Prior permission from the landlord was optained
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are
true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is
more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the
application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its
behalf.
3/3/2016
Date
Did not know a variance was required. Have had 4 chickens for over I year without complaints.
Residence across street is less than 100'. 4012 Bittern Drive - 95' (5' variance), 4016 Bittern Drive - 89' (11' variance),
902 Ladove Drive - 62' (38' variance), 4014 Bittern Drive – 82’(18’ variance). See suplimental pictures
Would like to have 4 chickens within the 100' minimum distance to any dwelling unit
4012 Bittern4014 Bittern 4016 Bittern 902 LaDoveChicken enclosure900 LaDove