Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2002 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments (2)._ ~.: MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment February 5, 2002 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Lewis, Birdwell, Richazds and Alternate Member Goss. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Shelly. Alternate Members Corley & Allison, not needed. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Reeves, Iitchcock & Jimmerson, Planning Intern Flannery, Assist. City Attorney Robinson, Development Review Manager Ruiz. AGENDA TT~M NO. 1: Cali to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. Z: Consider any absence request forms. Mr. Shelly submitted an absence request. Mr. Birdwell approved the request. Mr. Goss seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). I AGENDA ITEM N0.3• from January 15, 2002. I ZBA Minutes Consideration, discussion and possible action of meeting minutes Mr. Birdwell made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Richazds seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration, discussion and possible action of a front and rear setback variance request for 1210 Arizona, lot 18, block 1, McCullough Addition. Applicant is Neatherlin Homes. (82-09}. Staff Planner Ms. Hitchcock presented her staff report and told the Board that this case has two different applications. The first application was lacking pertinent information that was needed for staff to complete the report. The second application was received after the staff report was completed and it is more clear and complete. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a new home. The subject property is undeveloped. A house is planned for this lot that will encroach into the rear setback. According to one of the two site plans submitted, a new house could be set parallel to the property line, which would seem to create a minimal, if any, setback encroachment. The second plan shows that if the house is set parallel to the street, a varying encroachment would occur. It is uncleaz how the applicant plans to orient the house, but the applicant is requesting a variance of four feet to the reaz setback to allow for the construction of the house. The applicant has offered that the lets on Arizona Street were created at a slant. This area began residential development before College Station enforced subdivision regulations. February S, 29112 Page 1 of 10 As a hardship the applicant has asked that the Board consider it would not be possible to fit a large enough home model for the occupants in the buildable area on the existing lot. Chairman Hill stated that the staff report states "staff as recommending denial because of the incomplete and unclear variance request". Chairman Hill asked if staff has a differing position on that at this time. Ms. Hitchcock replied that her staff report was written on the information submitted the first time. Since then better information was submitted with the second application that the Board should be able to make a decision. Mr. Goss stated that the hardship as listed in the staff report reflects that the neighboring property would be affected. Does that mean staff does not feel there is a hardship on the property. Ms. Hitchcock replied that she spoke with the property owner and even he admitted that the hardship presented with the first application had nothing to do with the property in question. When the first application was submitted there was no hardship listed. When the application was resubmitted it mentioned the affect one property had on the neighboring property. It did not reference the subject property. On the new application the applicant did state a hardship that the Board could consider. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Mia Neuvenhoff, Neatherlin Homes, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Ms. Neuvenhoff told the Board that the reason the proposed home is not shown facing parallel with the street is because the side setback lines would be affected and they are trying to affect as little as possible. Ms. Neuvenhoff told the Board that the applicant has actually purchased two lots on that street. Before all the zoning took place, the neighboring property owner had encroached on to the subject property because of the slanted lots. It was then decided to reduce the size of the home and build on one lot. Ms. Neuenhoff told the Board that they reduced the house plan by 1-'/z feet. If the house was reduced anymore it would affect the interior of the plan. Ms. Neuvenhoff stated that the applicant owns lots 18 & 19. Lot 19 is not usable because of the neighboring home on lot 20 is encroaching. Mr. Richards asked if there was a smaller model home that can be placed on the lot. Ms. Neuevenhoff replied that it would require altering the plan and it would not be very appealing. Mr. Birdwell stated that there is roughly a foot clearance on the side so a wider house could be built. Ms. Neuvenhoff replied that there are 22 floor plans and the plan submitted is the best plan for the applicant's requests as well as working within the boundaries of the lot. Mr. Goss asked why did the applicant not ask for a variance to build the house on the two lots he owns. Ms. Neuvenhoff replied that the neighboring home is encroaching by 8 feet in the front and 18 feet in the back. Chairman Hill asked Legal Staff if it is inappropriate for the Board to get into the particulars on lot 19 in consideration of a variance request for lot 18. Ms. Robinson stated that she did not think the Board would be precluded in taking that into account. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the application is for lot 18. Staff did know that the landowner also owned lot 19 but never knew if the landowner had considered the option that the home could span both lots. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the landowner could build over property lines. This would be allowed and no replatting is required. Ms. Neuvenhoff stated that she does not know if the owner wants to build one house on both lots. Ms. Hitchcock made clarification that only one primary structure would be allowed per lot. So if he built over the property line only one home was allowed. ZBA Minutes February S, 2002 Page 2 of 10 Sterling Whitley Sr., the property owner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Whitley told the Board that he did purchase both lots to place two structures there. It was never his intent to build a home to span both lots. Mr. Whitley explained the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Whitley what his thoughts were about staffs alternative to move the house forward where there would be a Iittle encroachment in front and in back. 1VIr. Whitley replied that he would have no problem with that. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be comrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: both side lot lines are at an angle to the street; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: due to the angle of the side lot lines and street the lot is a parallelogram. This makes the maximum size rectangular house smaller; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: concrete forms to be checked by a licensed surveyor before pouring concrete, rear setback variance not to exceed 2 feet and front setback variance not to exceed 2 feet. Mr. Goss seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration, discussion and possible action of a lot depth, lot width and lot area variance request for 501, 503 &505 Cooner, lots 23, 24 & 25, block 1 of the Cooner Addition. Applicant is Municipal Development Group. (01-268). . Staff Planner Jimmerson presented her staff report and told the Board that the variances are being requested for the purpose of allowing further subdivision. The requirements are: a lot area of 3500 sq. ft. for each dwelling unit or 7000 sq. ft. total is required for R-2 zoned property. A corresponding lot width of 35 feet per unit or 70 feet total is required as well as a depth of 100 feet. The variances being requested: Lot 23R-1 Lot width of 62.5 feet - a variance of 7.5 feet Lot 24R-1 Lot width of 62.5 feet - a variance of 7.5 feet Lot 25R-1 Lot width of 62.5 feet - a variance of 7.5 feet Lot 23R 2 Lot depth of 70.5 feet - a variance of 29.5 feet Lot 25R-2 Lot depth of 70.5 feet - a variance of 29.5 feet Lot area of 6165 sq. ft. - a variance of 835 sq. ft. The property was subdivided into this configuration prior to the City's adoption of the Subdivision Regulations, so the existing lots are legally nonconforming. The property has been zoned R-2 for quite some time. In 1995 the property owner chose to make use of his property and build one duplex on each of his lots, in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. At this time the property owner is contemplating resubdividing the property to create two additional lots at the front of the three existing lots. If these variance requests are granted to lot width, depth and area, the lots that are subsequently platted will not meet today's subdivision standards, and will make it difFicult to meet today's setback requirements and still have enough buildable space. Further variance requests for this property may be expected, especially if, in addition to the setback requirements, the affect the existing access easements will have on the amount buildable area, is considered. ZBA Minutes February S, 2002 Page 3 of 10 The applicant states as a special condition "The subdivision was laid out circa 1945 with 62.5' wide lots. When the area was zoned R-2, and lot width stricture of 70' was imposed this was a defacto prohibition of any further development unless variance was sought. The duplexes on existing lots were . built in 1995 with proper permits and City approval. The lots, as they exist, are very oversized for their zoning district -denial of variance in this instance prevents reasonable use of the remainder of the property. In fact, the subdivision rules in affect at the time the owner of the property choose to build were effectively the same as they are today. At that time, the owner could have easily subdivided the property into more lots, which met ordinance requirements, if he had a concern about usage of a greater percentage of the property. Having an oversized lot, on which the owner has an existing legitimate use, is not recognized as a special condition. The existing lots 23, 24 & 25 were subdivided into this configuration prior to the City's Subdivision Regulations, and because of this the existing lots are legally nonconforming, or grandfathered, so building permits were issued for the duplexes. However, once the legally nonconforming lots are altered, such as by replatting, then the entirety of the lots must come into compliance with current regulations. Another way to say that is that once the existing lots are changed with the proposed resubdivision the grandfathered status is lost. As a hardship the applicant states, "the duplexes akeady exist and the lot's lines cannot be redrawn in some way to make lots 70' wide. So, short of demolition, they cannot be made to conform to staffs interpretation of the ordinance. This being the case unless variance is granted owner is denied reasonable use of the remainder of his property, or approximately 14,000-sq. ft. of land. • Since the special condition stated above by the applicant, of having an oversized lot, is not recognized, then it allows that the hardship stated by the applicant, of not having reasonable use of the land, is not recognized either. Especially, when it is considered that the owner has an existing legitimate use of the property, which was recently developed. The applicant has identified one alternative. Rezone lots 23R-1 and 24R-lA, which is single-family residential district allowing the smallest lot size. However, even with the rezoning a lot width variance would still need to be ganted on lots 23R-1, 24R-1 and 25R-1, for this alternative to work. Ms. Jimmerson showed the Board pictures of the property and added that the applicant has come up with another alternative. The possibility of rezoning some of the lots to a lesser zoning district. That would be something City Council would be the deciding factor. However, the applicant was advised that staff would not support the approval. Ms. Jimmerson ended her staff report by telling the Board that there were about 5 phone calls in opposition to the variances. The Board continued discussions with Ms. Jimmerson on all the variances requested. The Board warned to make sure, exactly what the applicant was requesting. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. ZBA Minutes February S, 2(/02 Page 4 of IO Gregg Taggert, Municipal Development Group, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Taggert told the Board that he is appearing on be-half of the property owner. Mr. Taggert handed the Board a handout that he said would answer many of their questions concerning the . requested variances. Mr. Taggert questioned the 5 phone calls in opposition. Mr. Taggert told the Board that the neighborhood is essentially commercial {duplex or apartment). Mr. Taggert stated that there are 43 separate land parcels on Cooner Street according to the Appraisal District. There are rental houses, apartments, a City of Bryan electric substation and duplexes. Only 2 of the 43 land parcels are owner occupied residences. Mr. Taggert stated that this is not a standard residential subdivision. Mr. Taggert called it a unique situation. Mr. Taggert stated that what is being proposed would not damage property values. Mr. Taggert described the lots, the zoning and what is being proposed. Mr. Taggert described a central driveway with two Rl-A houses that face each other across the central driveway. Mr. Taggert ended his discussion concerning the existing Lots and urged the Board to grant the variances so the owner can build and develop his two lots. Mr. Richards asked if the 5 phone calls in opposition were from property owners. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she did not have those notes with her but she believed 3 were from neighbors, which means they are property owners, and the other two were from individuals who had seen the public hearing signs. Ms Jimmerson stated that they could have been tenants and not property owners. Mr. Richards stated that Mr. Taggert talks about Rl-A. Is Rl-A what is being talked about. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she believes staff and the applicant differ on their interpretation on how the verbiage applies in this zoning district. The R2 zoning district does allow for development under RI-A standards. However that does not alleviate the requirement to plat and subdivide according to the R2 • requirement. Ms. Jimmerson stated that the way staff has interpreted that over time is when someone comes in to build on one of those lots, what setbacks, etc would be established. So if your in a duplex area and you want to build a single family home, that is allowed, but now staff has the ability to know what setbacks are to be applied to the building proposal by use of the clause in the district standard. There was some confusion with the Board on the zoning and building requirements. Ms. Timmerson stated that there are two separate issues that are being discussed in the case. One is the use of the property and the subdivision of the property. The subdivision of the property needs to be in compliance with the zoning district that it is in. The use of the property, once the owner chooses to use the property as a duplex lot, he has to follow a certain set of setbacks and other requirements in the ordinance. If the owner chooses to use the property as single-family then staff has a guide for what set of setbacks should be followed. Mr. Richards stated that he is having difficulty finding a special condition or hardship for the request. Mr. Richards added that he can see how the added dwellings would greatly increase the density. Mr. Birdwell asked how many automobiles would be expected to be on the properties if the variances were granted. Mr. Taggert stated that it would be his expectation that 2 - 3 bedroom houses would be built and that would be 3 automobiles per home. Mr. Birdwell calculated that with the duplexes in the back that 18 cars would be parked in that area. Mr. Taggert agreed and stated that it would increase the Coaner Street traffic counts at approximately 60 vehicles per day. . ZBA Minutes February S, 2002 Page S of IO With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or apposition of the variance, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Goss made the motion to deny a variance to the lot width, and lot depth from the terms of the 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 this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that Mr. Taggert made an excellent presentation an the thought that the current zoning was Rl-A when it is R2. Mr. Birdwell added that he views this as cutting out the front yard and build two additional structures. Mr. Birdwell added that it would be totally inappropriate. Mr. Birdwell added that he drove through the area and he would suggest that a City Code Enforcement Officer spend some time in that area. Mr. Richards added that there are no special conditions or hardships to consider in granting the variances. Mr. Lewis added that he did not think what was being proposed would hurt the neighborhood but he agreed with Mr. Richards. Chairman Hill stated that he is also opposed to any additional division or replatting. Chairman Hill called for a vote from Mr. Goss's motion. The Board voted (5-0) to deny the variances. • n AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration, discussion and possible action of a rear setback a d rot depth variance request at 8~ Avenue A, lots 5 & 6 of the D A Smith Subdivision. Applicant is Shabeer Jaffar. (02-OS) Ms. Reeves presented her staff report and told the Board the applicant is requesting the variances to increase the buildable space on the lot. This case involves a plat that was platted and approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission in October of 2001, however the lot does not meet our current subdivision regulations on lot depth. An R-1 single family lot has a depth requirement of 100 feet. Staff or the Planning & Zoning Commission did not catch this; thus the applicant is requesting a lot depth variance of 31.92 feet. This also means that since the property does not meet the current depth requirement for an R-1 single family lot, this would make it difficult to have enough buildable space, thus the applicant. is requesting a rear setback variance of 15 feet. The applicant states, "the primary special condition in this case is the narrow size of the existing lot, due to physical constraints as well as the dedication of 7 feet to the width of the roadway. As a hardship the applicant states "the 68 feet lot depth makes the property very difficult to develop as residential under current ordinance standards". Ms. Reeves ended her staff report by showing the Board pictwes of the property. ZBA Minutes February S, 2002 Page 6 of 10 The Board had general questions for staff Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the request. • Shabeer Jaffaz the a licant st ed before the Board and was sworn in b Chairman Hill. Mr. Jaffaz PP ~ ePP Y told the Board that the addition of the home would be a benefit to the azea. Mr. Jaffar told the Board that a special condition to the lot is he dedicated 7 feet of the right-of--way so the city could widen the street in the future. Mr. Jaffar also added that the lot is long and narrow and it would be very difficult to fit a structure under the current guidelines. Chairman Hill asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition. Sandi Santanna, 308 Ash, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Ms. Santanna told the Board that she wanted to know what was going to be built on the lot. Ms. Santanna described the neighborhood and the lack of parking for the residences there now. Ms. Santanna asked the Board and staff if they knew what the applicant was proposing to build . City staff replied that it would be a single-family residence. Ms. Santanna stated her concerns as population & traffic density as well as parking concerns. Marilyn Patton stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bill. Ms. Patton told the Board that her pazents own the home that is next to the lot Mr. Jaffar is proposing to develop. Ms. Patton described the problems of coming and going in this neighborhood. Ms. Patton stated that the students that rent the duplexes drive big vehicles and they park up and down the street. Ms. Patton ended by describing the trouble it takes to get to their home. • Mr. Jaffar stepped back before the Board. Mr. Jaffar told the Board that all the land on the left side of Avenue A as you enter it is vacant. In the past the land was used for dumping. Mr. Jaffar stated that all the parking for the proposed residence would be concrete parking. Mr. Jaffar ended by saying that the proposed homes will add a nice look to the neighborhood. Chairman Bill asked if the homes would be 4 bedroom. Mr. Jaffar replied that was correct. The Board continued discussions with Mr. Jaffaz on his plans. Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Goss made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the odd shape of the Iot and the oversight by City Staff and Planning & Zoning when the lot was rezoned; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: that it would be difficult to build a house under the current regulations because the lot does not meet the current subdivision regulations; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice dc~t+e subject to the following special limitations: there be at least 4 off street parking space that would be authorized. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion. Z89 Minutes February S, 2002 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Birdwell made an amendment to the motion to add under limitations: the off street parking spaces to be located on the right or left side of the structure and they be at least 20 feet from the front lot line. Mr. Goss seconded the amendment. The Board voted (5-0) to accept the amendment. Chairman Hill asked al Council if it is enforceable for the Board to specify where the additional parking should be placed Ms. Robinson stated that she is not aware of anything that would disallow enforcement of that. Chairman Hill suggested adding that the parking needs to be located on the left side of the structure so it would be as far away from the adjacent home. Chairman Hill asked Legal Council if that would be enforceable. Ms. Robinson replied that would meet the requirements. Mr. Birdwell offered an amendment to the motion to add under limitation: off street parking spaces to be located on the left side of the structure to be located at least 20 feet from the front of the curb. Mr. Goss seconded the amendment. The Board voted (5-0) to approve the amendment. Chairman Hill called for the vote from Mr. Goss's motion to authorize the variance. The Board voted (5-0) to approve the variance. AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Consideration, discussion and possible action of a rear setback variance request at 821 Avenue A, portions of lot 6 of the D. A. Smith Subdivision. Applicant is Shabeer Jaffar. (02-04) Ms. Reeves presented her staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to increase the buildable space on the lot. This case involves a subdivision that was created in 1967, which • means that this subdivision is grandfathered by right today. However, this lot does not meet today's subdivision standards, which makes it difficult to meet today's setback requirements and still have enough buildable space; thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 13 feet. The applicant states , "the primary special condition in this case is the small size of the existing lot. Due to physical constraints as a result of the historical development of the neighborhood". As a hardship the applicant states "the 74 foot iot depth makes the property very difficult to develop as residential under current ordinance standards." Mr. Richards asked if other lots on that street have been granted variance. Ms. Reeves answered yes there have been other variances but she could not give any details. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the request. Shabeer Jaffar, the applicant, stepped before the Board. Chairman Hill reminded Mr. Jaffar that he is still under oath. Mr. Jaffar handed to the Board Members copies of ZBA minutes from July 16, 1996 where rear variances of i 3 feet were granted for lots 6 & 7. The Board had general discussions with the applicant. ZBA Minates Fehrrtwy S, 24112 page 8 of 10 Chairman Hill asked for anyone wanting to speak in favor or opposition of the request. With no one else stepping forward Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: shallow lot -existing variance on adjacent lot; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: reduced buildable area; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: 13 foot rear setback variance. Mr. Goss seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Consideration, discussion and possible action of the proposed Unified Development Code. Ms. Ruiz, Development Services Development Manager, stepped before the Board and told the Board she was filling in for Ms. Kuenzels while she was out for a funeral. Ms. Ruiz stated that she would be glad to hear any additional concerns they would like to share. Mr. Birdwell spoke about Table A 6.2A - Residential dimension standards, the percentage of the lot you can build on and the percentage that is required to be open space. Mr. Birdwell stated that those percentages do not add up to 100%. Ms. Ruiz replied that that whole section is being looked at very close. Mr. Birdwell also spoke about what he understands to be a UDO check if any remodeling is done under the new code. Ms. Ruiz stated that she would have to look into that a bit further. Mr. Birdwell stated that he has not read the whole draft of the UDO yet and he has heard a lot of complaints from the development community. Mr. Goss talked about the percentage that the Board would be given in granting variances. Chairman • Hill stated that he will be present at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to support the Board's decision that 10 % be approved. Mr. Richards stated that city staff and the ZBA should have to same standards in granting and denying variances. The UDO states that City Staff will have different standards. Chairman Hill told the Board to a-mail any concerns to him and he would forward them to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr Birdwell made the motion to defer the neat two items to the March 5`" meeting. Mr. Goss seconded the motion, which passed (5-01. AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Presentation & discussion by Legal Staff regarding requirements for determination of variances. Deferred to neat meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Consideration, discussion and possible action on amending the Board's Rules and Procedures -meeting time. Deferred to neat meetins. Z&4 Minutes February S, 2002 Page 9 oj10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. • Mr. Birdwell made a recommendation to go on record that Avenue A be paved by assessment of adjoining property owners. AGENDA ITEM NO. 12: Adjourned. ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant • ZBA Minutes APP O ~ D: ` Leslie Hill, Chairman February S, 2002 Page 10 of 10 LJ ZONING B OARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE~~NQ ~ c~~J NAME ADDRESS 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. sa ~ ~r ~ ~~~~ 1~~ ~t ~ (~~~ A 2~ 2a~ia ~•~ - 30 ~ ~S~ 5 ~ ~ 8~ z ~ ~ CS ZONTIVG BOARD OF ADJUSTMII~IT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance tom Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) y lot depth (Table A) i~ muumum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: T ~ ~ ~'.~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~ yam- ~'sr~~~~~ ~.~ ms's" >5- /S ~.~i°'r~~~, ~~ ; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by ~1 ~. ~+~,1~3~1~ Date ~~, ~ ~... Gf ~~ Seconded by ~ ~-~~ ~ ,~ Voting Results ~- ~ ~ Br ~ Chair Signature vnrrPisse.DOc S'od ~ ~c~3 ~.-~o~ ~oc~e.C' r~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJLTSTNII~I`P FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to deny a variance to the yard (Section 8.Z) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) • 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 this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. (~ ~ Z~ Motion made by OS Date S Seconded by ~ Voting Results ~ Chair Signature Y/iRN! 638~OC ~J ~o~n ~i~~~c. ~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT O ON FORMAT FOR P SITI'IVE MOTI , Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: , ,~~ ~ o~.. a s • n ~~ s~-~-~ ~~ ,~~ Z w~ ~-~ ,~ ,~ was ~/ po?o Nye 11 ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: ~.l ~ ` sk and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subjec tQ the fo wing limitations: _ ~1 s ~ ~~,~.~, ~D~~o~ ~D,~. ~~~i ~~ ~ ~ l.J ~ ~ ~ ~ '~'~t+~ r m Motion made b `~`~'S-S Date ~ .~ ~ Y 0 Seconded by t'z, _ Voting Results s • Chair Signature ,_ __. V/IRPl638.DOC ~~\ ~c~1ec~J~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POS O PI'IVE MOTI N Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.7) lot width (Table A) _/lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: • and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: /~~7~G,~11 fir// L-^~~°-~ /~fc l~'I~-' _ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ,~.~- ~ Ski- ~~ ~~iE~J`w~~" Motion made by ~ ~~~ ~~ / .Date 7i~' ~ _6 !~ Seconded b / -- Y __ ~./~"~ ~ Voting Results S _ ~ ,.. ~ it ~ " .e Chair Signature v'`~~ .~'/ , VARPI 638.DOC Deborah Grace - Re: lJDO Meeting Monday Page 1 From: "Graham Sheffy" <chase1~cox-intemet.com> To: "Deborah Grace" <dgrace~ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 2/4/02 11:53AM Subject: Re: UDO Meeting Monday Sony about the short notice, but I had been Phoenix all last week for meetings. I just got informed that I have to go to Sioux Falls S.D. in the morning for more bank meetings, so I won't be at the ZBA meeting tomorrow night. Like I said, sooty for the short notice, but I just got informed myself. Thanks. Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Grace" <dgrace~ci.college-station.tx.us> To: <jgossr~bruchez.com>; <chasel~cox-internet.com>; <rodger~FellowshipCC.org>; <rallison(ttimail.tca,net>; <Ihill~tca.net>; <pcorley(8,~tca.net>; <richards~txcyber.com>; <d.birdtaIDverizon.net> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:59 AM Subject: UDO Meeting Monday The meeting location for this has changed to Altersgate Church ~ 2201 Earl Rudder Freeway (Across from Post Oak Mall). 4-8 with the Home Owner's Association Presidents. Deborah Grace ><> Staff Assistant City of College Station Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 979-764-3784 Desk 979-784-3498 Fax dgrace(~ci.college-station.tx. us www. ci. college-station.tx. us College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future.