Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-00000050 NOTICE OF r NOTICE OF - . 'PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING The College Station Zoning The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to con- hold a public hearing to con- sider a setback variance for Sider a setback variance for 7704 Sherman Court. Appli- I 7704 Sherman Court. Appli- 'cant is Boyd&Laurie Sorel'. cant is Boyd and Laurie Sor- ell. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the The hearing will be held in College Station City Hall, the Council Room of the 1101 Texas Avenue at the College Station City Hall, ' 6:00 p.m: meeting of the 1101 Texas Avenue at the Board on Tuesday, April 4, 6:00 p.m. meeting of the moo. Board on Tuesday, May 2, 2000. Any request for sign inter- pretive services for the hear- Any request for sign inter- ing impaired must be made pretive services for the hear- 48 hours before the meeting. ing impaired must be made To make arrangements call 48 hours before the meeting. (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) To make arrangements call 1-800-735-2989. • (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. For additional information, please contact me at For additional information, (979)764-3570. please contact me at (979)764-3570. Shauna Anderson Staff Planner Shauna Anderson Staff Planner 3-22-00 4-19-00 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION REPRINT *** CUSTOMER RECEIPT *** OPER: MRODGERS CT DRAWER: 1 DATE: 3/13/00 00 RECEIPT: 0156166 t ki PLC- • G D`"1° DESCRIPTION OTY AMOUNT TP TM T Tt- MISC PLANNING CH 1 $75.00 *2D CKSiArkt TENDER DETAIL CK 3926 $75.00 DATE: 3/13/00 TINE: 15:27:41 TOTAL PERSONAL CHECK $75.00 AMOUNT TENDERED $75.00 THANK YOU MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS MAY 2, 2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Bond, Alternate Members Searcy & Dr. Bailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Happ, Hill, Alternate Members Lewis, & Ellis. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson,Assistant City Attorney DeCluitt, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock. Assistant City Manager Brown was in the audience. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. (John Happ). Mr. Bond made the motion to approve the request from Mr. Happ. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion,which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Approval of minutes from the April 4,2000 meeting of the Board. Mr. Murphy made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion,which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration to remove from the table the front setback variance for 7704 Sherman Court. Mr. Searcy made the motion to remove the item from the table. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of front setback variance at 7704 Sherman Court, lots 3 & 4, block 1, Raintree Subdivision. Applicants are Laurie & Boyd Sorrell. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of a new garage. The applicant wishes to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550-sq. ft. (22'x25') garage to replace the one that is to be renovated. ZBA Minutes May 2,2000 Page 1 of 8 The applicants propose to coi...__uct the new garage in front of the exis _g garage space. This location however, calls for approximately 350 square feet (14'x25') to extend 10 feet from the property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 15-foot variance to the front setback. The applicant states two special conditions as: 1) the property has several large, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the garage was placed at a different location and; 2) a pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that would be added to the side of the home. The applicant states two hardships as: 1) cannot build behind the house due to the lack of space, utility lines and no drive access and; 2) cutting down the trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board Members pictures of the property. There were discussion among the Board Members about the pond, wood deck and the trees. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Boyd Sorrell, the applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Sorrell presented the Board a petition from the neighbors on the street that are in favor of the request. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that he and his next door neighbor are some of the original Raintree residents. Mr. Sorrell explained that the project was designed to not destroy any of the trees on the property as well as to have the addition set back far enough from the street. Mr. Sorrell explained to the Board pictures that he had taken of the property. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that TXDOT has easements that run through the pond and therefore the pond cannot be covered up. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that the addition would conform to the existing home. Mr. Sorrell ended by telling the Board that if this addition required the removal of many of the native trees they would chose not to build the addition. The cul-de-sac and the pond limit what can be done on the lot. Dr. Bailey asked if the proposed garage doors would open on to the street or a driveway. Mr. Sorrell replied that they would open on to a driveway. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell if he was familiar with the alternatives the city staff had for his plan. Mr. Sorrell replied that the alternative of placing the garage on the left side of the house, that is the side where the bedrooms are and city codes requires that all bedrooms have windows to the exterior. Mr. Bond questioned the alternative of removing the wood deck adjacent to the house. Mr. Sorrell replied that was not possible because there is not enough area and there are huge oak trees there that would have to be removed. Mr. Sorrell stated that area in the back where the wood deck is; the highway department will not allow any fill toward the pond where they have their easement. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell how far into to his property do the TXDOT easement extends. Mr. Sorrell replied that the easement runs through the cannel of the pond that runs through both his lots. ZBA Minutes May 2,2000 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell _ iw many total trees would be removt. for this addition. Mr. Sorrell replied that only 1 tree would have to be removed for the proposed garage. If the garage were placed some other place on the lot it would be at least 7 or 8 trees. Dr. Bailey asked if the trees are all native. Mr. Sorrell replied yes. Mr. Searcy stated that the staff report listed an alternative for the Board to grant less than what is requested. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell if that would be feasible if the variance was less. Mr. Sorrell replied that the garage door was planned for 22 feet but it could easily be cut down to 20 feet. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy 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: a TXDOT easement makes this the only feasible plan; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the destruction of mature native trees; and such that the plan is not changed. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-1). Mr. Bond voting against granting the variance AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a side street setback variance at 2100 Maplewood, lot 27, block 18, Emerald Forest Phase 10. Applicant is John J. Albernaz Inc. Mr. Bond told Chairman Alexander that he needed to step down from hearing this case due to a conflict of interest. Chairman Alexander told the applicant that positive action from this Board would require the remaining members to all vote in favor of the variance. Chairman Alexander asked the applicant if he wanted to reschedule this when a full Board was voting. Mr. Albernaz stated that he would proceed with the hearing. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an encroachment into the side street setback. The subject property is located on the corner of Maplewood Court, a cul-de-sac, and Appomattox Drive. Maplewood Court is considered to constitute the front of the home, while the West Side of the home has frontage along the side street Appomattox Drive. This case involves a recently constructed home that, at the time of sale, was found to encroach into the required side street setback along Appomattox Drive. A survey of the subject property shows an 18.21 foot section of the home that is only 13.35 feet (instead of the required 15 feet) from the property line along Appomattox Drive, thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.65 feet to the side street setback requirements. The applicant offers a special condition of a subtle curvature in Appomattox Drive that resulted in a foundation placement miscalculation that led to the subsequent encroachment. The applicant adds that the site plan and construction was approved by the College Station Building Department, however these inspections were based on erroneous site data that did not take into account the curvature of the road. The applicant has stated a hardship of the only remedy to the encroachment being the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. He argues that such removal and replacement would cause the structural integrity of the entire structure to be unsafe. ZBA Minutes May 2,2000 Page 3 of 8 The City is not currently under the policy of enforcing setbacks when encroachments are found, however failure to remedy the encroachment through reconstruction or variance could make future sales of the home difficult. The only alternative to the variance which would clear up future surveys that has been found by the applicant and staff is to remove the area that is encroaching into the side street setback. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. John Albernaz, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Albernaz told the Board that he believes the Board has all the information in their packets and he is there if there were any questions. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Albernaz if the home was constructed according to the plans and in the location approved by the city. Mr. Albernaz told the Board that there was an error in the site plan. The plan showed a 94-foot frontage and it is actually 91 feet because of the curve in the road. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy made a 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: a slight curvature in the road that was left out of the site plan resulted in the encroachment; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. Such action would result in an unsafe structure; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion,which passed unopposed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a rear setback at 102 Church Street. Applicant is William O'Brian for Connie Wortham. Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board that the variance is to allow accessory buildings to be within the required setbacks. Currently existing on the site is a walk-in cooler and a portable metal building. If they were not to be moved they would be considered legally nonconforming. The applicant is proposing to do three things: 1. Move the walk-in cooler to the east, inline with its present location, not encroaching into the setback any farther than currently. 2. Enclose the area where the walk-in cooler is presently located, to provide for additional food preparation area. 3. Move the portable building to allow for the new location of the cooler. If the Board decides to grant this variance, staff would recommend that the Board limit the variance to the three buildings listed in this request and require that they be located according to the site plan submitted in conjunction with this request. ZBA Minutes May 2,2000 Page 4 of 8 The applicant offers a special condition that there is insufficient space in the building for the type of food preparation needed. Another special condition that may be considered is that the existing building predates the current and several previous zoning ordinances and site planning requirements. The applicant states that there really is no other room on the lot itself to do any enlargements or additions. Additionally, because of the existing layout of the site and the building, the amount of unusable space is even further reduced. Mr. Searcy asked what is the setback now with the existing building. Ms. Jimmerson replied that is about 6 inches. Mr. Bond asked for clarification in the staff report as it states "on this particular block, this type of access area will not occur unless the entire area is redeveloped". Ms. Jimmerson replied that there are exiting buildings there that do not meet the 15 foot rear setback. If this variance were approved this would make the other existing structures come into compliance. Mr. Bond asked what is to the rear of the building now. Ms. Jimmerson replied that it is vacant property. Mr. Bond asked who owned the property. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she did not know that but it may be on the survey. The survey showed Jack Boyett as the owner. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. William O'Brian & Costa Dallis, the applicant & tenant, stepped forward and were sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. O'Brian told the Board that they are wanting to expand the kitchen area of the restaurant due to its small area. The walk in cooler would be moved down to allow more food preparation. In order to move the cooler the portable building would have to be moved. Mr. Dallis told the board that it is desirable to have direct access to the walk-in cooler and it not be free standing on the property because of the fresh fish. Mr. Dallis stated that the Health Department would like it as well that they did not have to go out side to access the cooler With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Alexander closed the pubic hearing. Mr. Murphy 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: existing development predates the zoning ordinances; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: significant removal of existing development and also the failure to meet health ordinances; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: no change in the site plan. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion. Mr. Bond made an amendment to add under special conditions "and in order to assure space for rear access per the ordinance intent the entire area would require redevelopment." Mr. Searcy seconded the amendment. The Board voted (5-0) to approve the variance. ZBA Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 5 of 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: insideration of a height variance , guest at 301 Church Street. Applicant is Tom Kirkland for the Tradition @ Northgate, LDT. Senior Planner Kuenzel stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that the variance is being sought to allow for the construction of the proposed dormitory with a roofline that will screen roof top equipment. The area was rezoned in 1996 with the rest of the Northgate area subsequent to the City's adoption of the Northgate Redevelopment Plan. That plan targets the Northgate are for rehabilitation and redevelopment as an urbanized historic business area near the Wellborn and University Drive with residential uses behind the commercial areas. The plan provides for high-density development in all three of the Northgate subdistricts with pedestrian and bicycle-oriented uses. In an effort to achieve these goals, site design review is discretionary through the Northgate Revitalization Board Review Subcommittee (NRB). Future development and redevelopment is to occur in more of an urban, compact style, rather than the suburban style that occurs in other parts of the City. In November 1999, the NRB and City Staff held a predevelopment meeting to discuss the conceptual plan for the dormitory. At that time, the NRB expressed some concern regarding the scale of the project, and gave the applicant direction to focus on the site areas between the building and the streets such that these areas would create a semi-public transition with landscaping and pedestrian-friendly facilities (sidewalks, benches, lighting, etc.) The NRB recommended approval of a slight increase in height in order to effect these goals on the rest of the site. The overall permitted building height in this subdistrict is 50 feet—the visible roofline of the proposed dormitory will be 53 feet 3 inches. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 3 feet 3 inches, or 6.5%. Mr. Bond asked if the alternatives listed in the staff report are the only ones available to the applicant. Are there any structural changes that can be made. Ms. Kuenzel replied that staff had not identified any but there possibly could be some. Ms. Kuenzel referred the question to the applicant. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Tim Kirkland, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that he has been working with the city for a better part of a year and the NRB to come up with a concept that both the city and the NRB would be pleased with. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that 4 significantly large air conditioning units are being proposed and placed on top of the building. The façade is to cover the units from being seen. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that one of the alternatives is not to place the units on top the building but rather have them on the ground and build some structure around them. Mr. Kirkland explained that the landscaping plan that is being worked on by the NRB and the city involves Second Street, Church Street & Boyett Street. Aesthetically it would not be ideal for the plan to place the units on the ground. It would impact the sidewalks, the pedestrian ways and the bicycle routes. Mr. Kirkland stated that the best architectural thing to do would leave the units on the roof and cover them up. Mr. Kirkland ended by telling the Board that the architect was in the audience if they had any questions. ZBA Minutes May 2,2000 Page 6 of 8 John Garrison, the architect, s,_,Jped before the Board and was sworn 1_ Jy Chairman Alexander. Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Garrison if there has to be a certain number of feet per floor. Mr. Garrison replied that clear heights are needed that a ceiling can not encroach. To be able to accommodate all the infrastructure in the plenum you have to have a certain floor to floor height to accommodate that. Mr. Searcy questioned the overhang shown on the drawing and asked if the screening could be provided inside that edge, which would then still hide the equipment but not require the variance. Mr. Garrison replied that it was possible. When working with the NRB and the ordinance, one of its intents is to have the buildings step back from the street and have some movement and scale to them. Mr. Garrison explained the proposed building and how the canopy on the ground level projects the base of the building out and as the building rises the roof screen overhang creates some relief and shadow at the top of the building. This makes it look more active and vibrant. Mr. Garrison told the Board that the screen could move back to be flush with the building but the shadow would be lost. Mr. Garrison explained the shadow as being an important part of the building. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Garrison if he would agree that the primary reason for the variance is for the aesthetics of the building. Mr. Garrison stated that he would agree to that statement. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Garrison if 3 feet 3 inches reduced the building height, would it in some way violate the southern building code requirement for clearance in each floor. Mr. Garrison replied that the top four floors of the building have minimum clearance. From a floor to floor stand point once everything is installed; the bathroom ceiling heights are at the minimum height they can be. The only place for additional height is on the ground floor. This could be lowered down but that is the main plenum for all the infrastructure to go up through the building. It then would have to go to the top of the roof and be exposed and that would be a severe hardship to the design of the building. Chairman asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Board that when he first saw the project he understood it to only be four floors. Mr. Flores-Meath agreed that placing the heating and cooling units on ground level on the side of the building is not very practical. Mr. Flores-Meath suggested taking out a few of the inside dorm rooms on the fourth floor and install the a/c units there, then a variance would not be required. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Board that a lot of money has been spent in the Northgate area to make it quaint and now this monster box appears in the middle. Mr. Flores-Meath described the project too big for the area. With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes May 2,2000 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Bond made the motio 'ie authorize a variance to the built' height requirement from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: area blocks were created prior to city incorporation making consolidation of property and redevelopment difficult and the effective loss of the perimeter of the site for landscaping purposes requires the increase height of the building to accommodate the design; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the alternative of additional land acquisition to make the project feasible and to leave enough transition area is not feasible in the Northgate area as elsewhere in the city, and maintaining as much open area within and around the site is important to the design of this project and to the overall Northgate area. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion,which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.9: Discussion of topics for future workshop agenda. Mr. Bond stated that he understood that eventually this Board would have a workshop meeting. No topics where discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: 411111111111111 David Alexander, hai man AT: EST: 4. S Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZBA Minutes May 2,2000 Page 8 of 8 MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS April 4, 2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Hill &Alternate Member Ellis. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy, Dr. Bailey& Board Member Bond. TAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Assistant City Attorney DeCluitt, Staff Planner Hitchcock, (Assistant City Manager Brown was in the Audience). GENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. ' GENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. (Randy Bond). Mr. tdapp made the motion to approve Mr. Bond's absence. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from the March 7, 1999 meeting of the Board. Mr. Hill made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Happ seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 3500 Regal Row, lot 1, block 2, Williams Court Subdivision. Applicant is Greg& Noel Salata. Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the applicants are requesting a setback variance to allow the construction of a new family room. In conjunction with a home remodeling project, the applicants wish to add an approximately 315 feet family room to the rear of their house and extend the roof line to cover an adjacent, existing patio area. The proposed room addition would conform to the side setback, but would be located 18 feet from the rear property line. Thus, the applicants are requesting a variance of 7 feet to the rear setback to allow for the addition to the house. The applicants state a special condition is the shape and design of the house, which would render the rear of the property the only place suitable for a home addition. The applicants argue an addition to the house anywhere else on the subject property would disrupt the visual integrity of the neighborhood. ZBA Minutes April 4,2000 Page 1 of 5 The applicants offer a hardship that by meeting the provisions of the c.. .nance, the visual aesthetics of their neighborhood would not be preserved. Ms. Hitchcock ended her staff report by telling the Board that two phones calls where received concerning this case and neither one express support or opposition. With no questions from the Board Members, Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Greg Salata, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Salata presented the Board pictures of the property and explained the need for the addition to be added to the rear of the home instead of the front. Mr. Salata explained that with the layout of the home now, if a square room were placed at the rear it would be very easy to extend the roofline down to the new room and also cover the patio in one construction project. This would also make a clean roofline. Mr. Salata stated that the only other option would be to put the room at the front left corner of the property and the problem would then be the house would have an odd U shape. :r. Salata stated that it then would not conform to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Slata ended by telling the Board about two large oak trees that would have to be removed. In the backyard there is one tree that sets on the setback line and that tree would be moved to the other side of the backyard. Noel Salata, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Ale}._order. Mrs. Salata told the Board that they thought of various ways of adding the room and the plan presented was the best for them as well as the neighborhood. Mrs. Salata ended by telling the Board that they spoke with the area neighbors and no one was in opposition h no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the request, Chairman Alexander ci.sed the public hearing. Mr. Happ made the motion to deny 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 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. Ms. Ellis seconded the motion. Chairman Alexander asked the applicants if there was any special need for the room addition. Mr. Salata replied that they plan on staying in this area and with two children the addition would allow each child a room of their own. Board vote (4-1) to deny. Mr. Murphy voting for granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 718 Willow Loop, lot 28, lock B, Brandon Heights II Subdivision. Applicant is William H. Rupley. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the construction of an attached carport. The applicant proposes to construct a 440 sq. ft. carport addition to the rear of his home. Approximately half of this carport would lie within the 20-foot setback. ZBA Minutes April 4,2000 Page 2 of 5 The proposed carport is angle in such a way as to encroach into the . : setback by 9 feet at one rear corner and by 15 feet at the opposite corner. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 15 to 9 feet. The applicant offers a special condition of limited access, stating that the only access to the proposed carport is through the existing driveway. Another special condition that may be considered by the Board is a 50-foot common area/utility easement at the rear of the property that separates the subject property from the neighbor directly behind the proposed carport. The applicant stated that he wished for the issue of limited access to also be considered as a hardship. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. With no questions from the Board Members, Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr. Rupley, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Rupley showed and described to the Board some pictures of the property. One of the pictures showed a drainage area, which is like a retention pond. Mr. Rupley told the Board that when the home was built, it was his understanding that there was a 25-foot setback line. Mr. Rupley described the home as oddly shaped. Mr. Rupley told the Board of the considerable time it took to place the home on the lot so it looked aesthetically pleasing and to also allow a driveway. Mr. Rupley stated that the existing driveway is actually built over the easement. Mr. Rupley told the Board that the common area where the garage is proposed, there is maybe as much as 90 feet to the next house and maybe 65 feet to the back neighbors garage. Mr. Rupley ended by telling the Board that he presented his plan to the Architectural Committee for the Brandon Heights II Subdivision and it meets all the requirements for the Associations standards. Ms. Ellis asked if the letter submitted by Mr. Anderholm (included in the Board's packet) supporting the request, was his neighbor directly behind his property. Mr. Rupley replied that Mr. Anderholm is catty corner from him and that no one lives in the home directly behind him at this time. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Rupley if the proposed carport is going to be open or enclosed on the sides. Mr. Rupley replied that the side to the back of the lot would have a 5 foot high brick wall. Mr. Rupley referred to the architectural drawing that was included in the Board Members packets. Mr. Happ asked staff if the Board could restrict the kind of structure other than just giving a variance to the space. Ms. Anderson replied that they could restrict it to a carport especially since carports and garages have different rear setback requirements than other structures. Mr. Happ 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 condition: the irregular shape of the lot restricts options of the structure's alteration. Additionally the lot has a common (drainage area) or 50'green area directly behind the proposed carport; ZBA Minutes April 4,2000 Page 3 of 5 and because a strict enforct..ient of the provisions of the ordinary would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the applicant has limited or no options to alter this structure due to lot location and it's shape; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the alterations should be limited to an open carport structure as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Ms. Ellis asked if the amount of the variance needed to be stated. Mr. Happ replied yes that he needed to add that. Ms. Ellis made the amendment to read "minimum rear yard setback between 5' & 11 ` to allow for the construction of the carport as requested by the applicant and shown on the plan. " Mr. Murphy seconded the amendment,which passed (5-0). Mr. Happ read in full the amended motion. Board voted (5-0) for approval. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a front setback variance at 7704 Sherman Court, lots 3 & 4, block 1,Raintree Subdivision. Applicants are Laurie & Boyd Sorell. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicants are requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a new garage. The applicants wish to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550 sq. ft. (22' x 25') garage to replace the one that is to be renovated. The applicants propose to construct the new garage in front of the existing garage space. This location however, calls for approximately 350 sq. ft. (14' x 25') to extend 10 feet front the property line. Therefore,the applicants are requesting a 15-foot variance to the front setback. The applicant offers two special conditions. 1. The property has several large, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the garage was placed at a different location. 2. A pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that may be added to the side of the home. The applicants have identified the following hardships. 1. Cannot build behind the house due to the lack of space, utility lines and no drive access. 2. Cutting down trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Boyd Sorrell, applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Sorrell told the Board the he and his neighbor are the last of the original residents of Raintree. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that the reason for the home addition is to make room to take care of a 90-year-old mother. Ms. Sorrell explained that they had an architect draw the plans and one of the concerns is saving the trees. The aesthetics of the lot and neighborhood are also a great concern. ZBA Minutes April 4,2000 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Sorrell explained to the . ird pictures he had taken of the proper nd the layout of the proposed garage. The Board had several questions for the applicant. The questions were for clarification purposes in regards to the pictures he had presented. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy made a 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 unnatural lot size and presence of a pond and trees limit the location of the proposed addition; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: a significant loss in the ability to provide a living space to an elderly family member; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: there are no changes in the existing site plan. With no second, the motion died. Mr. Happ received an emergency phone call, which required him to leave the meeting. Chairman Alexander explained to the applicant his options: 1. He could proceed with the variance request, however it would require all four voting members to vote in favor of the request to pass. 2. A special meeting could be called by the Board to rehear the case. 3. Table the item and schedule it for the next regular meeting of the Board. Mr. Sorrell stated that he would wait for the next regular schedule meeting of the Board. Mr. Hill made the motion to table the item. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion,which passed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion of topics for future workshop agenda. Mr. Hill made the motion to table this item to be reheard at the May 2, 2000 meeting. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion,which passed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVE 0 '"' 10%b \4 �.b Chairman, David A •xander ATTEST: 4111111111& _1 Ir. Staff Assistant, Deborah Grace ZBA Minutes April 4,2000 Page 5 of 5 h f 5 V «:l ` • Y4 HVAPP:1- ,...Z. ri s F s •'Nr '��•�•�,-.1 �. ►� ' y �it dal ?a if� •.,,.e..1 Y_ .' { '+ • - A' F * ' f•"' fS 'l• y . Y. �"7_moi- yy�' ;f. V. ! �}}}}' '. 4 , `f } $ - ,10)., A ..• --- -4r,,,• ' . - ,.. c,,,.04„ 1 _____ MN> '4. .,..4.-t111..„ 4 ♦ $ • • =I��. . . lR ,«rr 'V • Isl • •- s'• Sy t. • j St K'. 1 N 1 _ it , t I 11...,..• i a' ' rte . :_ Er STAFF REPORT Date: April 25, 2000 ZBA Meeting Date: May 2, 2000 APPLICANT: Boyd and Laurie Sore11 REQUEST: Variance to the front setback. LOCATION: 7704 Sherman Court PURPOSE: Allow for the construction of a new garage. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Property owners Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7: District Use Schedule—Table A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning& Land Use: The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned and developed as R-1 Single Family. The property is located within the Raintree Subdivision. Frontage: The subject property consists of two lots, Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Block 1. These two lots combined give the property approximately 120' of frontage along Sherman Court. Lot Dimensions: Due to encompassing two lots, the property has an unusual shape. The following lot dimensions are approximate, please refer to enclosed site plan for more detail. 120' of frontage along Sherman Court 217' northwest (rear property line) 134' southwest (side property line) 132' north (side property line) Access: Access is given via a driveway onto Sherman Court. Topography & Vegetation: Relatively flat topography, several large trees scatter the back of the property. Flood Plain: Not located within a flood plain. J:\PZTEXT\PZ02825.DOC VARIANCE INFORMATION Setback Required: A front setback of 25 feet is required for R-1 Single Family homes. Setback Requested: 10 feet Case Overview: The applicants wish to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550 sq.ft. (22'x 25') garage to replace the one that is to be renovated. The applicants propose to construct the new garage in front of the existing garage space. This location however, calls for approximately 350 square feet(14' x 25')to extend 10 feet from the front property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 15 foot variance to the front setback. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The applicants offer several special conditions: 1. The property has several large, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the garage was placed at a different location. 2. A pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that may be added to the side of the home. Hardships: The applicants have identified the following hardships: 1. Cannot build behind the house due to lack of space, utility lines and no drive access. 2. Cutting down the trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond. Alternatives: Staff has identified the following alternatives: 1. Remove the wood deck adjacent to the pond in order to allow more buildable land for the proposed garage. 2. Place the garage on the opposite side of the house. J:\PZTEXT\PZ02825.DOC 3. As with any case,the Board may grant less than what is requested(0' to 15'). SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. Similar Requests: The Board has approved variances to the front setback where unique special conditions existed, including size of lot, in older neighborhoods or in some areas to avoid the loss of valuable trees, and where undue hardship would result from enforcement of the ordinance. Front setback variance requests are usually highly scrutinized by the Board due to the visual impact to the public and surrounding residents. The most recent cases where a front setback variance was sought was in the Fall of 1999. On August 3rd,the Board granted a 4.5' front setback variance to 1002 Haley Drive in order for the owners to construct a covered porch. This property is located in Foxfire,where a 50' front setback is required. On September 21S`, the Board denied a request for a 5.0' front setback variance for 516-518 Tarrow. This variance was denied due to concerns of increased density and a negative public hearing response. I was unable to find a case in which the Board granted a front setback variance of this magnitude (15). The largest variance sought and granted that I found dealt with the string of Nimitz homes that were granted 10' front setback variances on April 1, 1997. The age and very small sizes of the lots and the wish to revitalize the aging area were the special conditions and hardships stated in the case. Previous Action: This variance request was tabled at the April 4, 2000 meeting of the Board due to Board Member Happ being called away for an emergency during the public hearing portion of the case. The applicant requested that the variance request be reheard during the next regularly scheduled meeting (May 2, 2000). Number of Property J:\PZTEXT\PZ02825.DOC Owners Notified: 14 Responses Received: Since the April 4th meeting, I have received two calls regarding this case. The callers,however, did not express if they were for or against the variance request. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Site Plan Floor Plan J:\PZTEXT\PZ02825.DOC 9ti CI - v 4 t z. ` i i oFF 'v' ��a � w t7 Os i t� @it • -0 n �Dnn Zo n Vit VV 1.45 )10 0 - r',1 12D w , OGT y� o 0 11 SOP ti/y t4 0 Cts ST �>,�� O O , A z n �F �1 os*dM N T V v o ,v ?ii 1 1117.. .t �yd�s fr 01=, ��^fid�l ; Z 1 cn 00 ,d, App4,4-, z ti �`,- 0 of •. -.6. ,,,:: ° = �� �� AcApp. ti , lir 9 \O)' ' * 0-v A .-3 cz, ilk, -9, ,t,44 'Z'c)* '-. c'Z'' 06%\• ("'"$ •.,# 40,$) AA*ti$ � 7a x 4' 4;04 ‘6 N a V4 t 010 .p. o I , �0o5zin . SgLq00,, f ig m m iP : 1. aD ® T 0,-"A Ille4P1-16, #.,441,'f.' ..,1,1, ,\:4' 'Pi, "-2>)1_1_ #+0_17 6 �s mr H C7, ` o \ o' t 1507 a 9O9Z n, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: `0 DATE SUBMITTED: COLLEGE STATION ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Filing Fee of$75.00. Application completed in full. Request form 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. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S^nER'S INFORMATION(Primary Contact for the Project): D1j Name d LC/AM ,S,Ae,1/ Mailing Address -7' D1 S hermu'n f! 2 City ('-6/l L S ',{)--)1 State / Zip Code -7 E-Mail Address _So red i'-C c •n P�7�- Phone Number ' -(p q'lo ?it 3 Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name h Q,[)r/E `ll 13 e / Se /I Mailing Address 7 4 t���irrnn/') �? CL City /of S J3--j State 7t Zip Code 477-CF L/ E-Mail Address So re/(cat)1-ca , ✓7P Phone Number 97--q- (p ?t o `,:ff 83 Fax Number LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address j o ( Si;er/n'ta'r7 Lot �` �l Block / Subdivision kat.)frees Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Variance ) Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation Parking Variance Special Exception Sign Variance Other Current Zoning of Subject Property _ Applicable Ordinance Section The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached rrereto are true, correct and complete. ae.*A Pi197 t, is , ��� - Signature and Title ,/ / Date ZBA APPLICATION 1 of 2 ZBAAPP.DOC 3/25/99 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: COLLEGE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: - mm, • F Iv / / il: _ /PIMA, o u-6 This variance is necessary due tothefollowing special conditions: / d..e a2 �ctA-» c of /9e.././(;q1 2 Pere&A/d is f�..c7� a l u O.f f/a,,,r) twAin6vSe sz-ZD eefehli, T 4 s/ce of t o .hatteik to scvi/it /•7 d r ,-/P c-C turn.° -k/ `z9 cuad) � Lc1;// �nrrda c�� Gt,��i V� e?c� / 4! �`/i20 U The unnecessary hardship (s)involved✓✓/ by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financiall hardship is/are: I. ()dime,'" {,?��:kl hind use dee, Sod /dto de C LP 9' 051 ltic/ /Flo, " o`? • 7-C p/t-ns i &c t'te-C� ,�c /� me iu_e � "trees G£rau.,/ Ad-ze* "' c3 �2 Z , riere air % ro'm iK) - gri o'f't'o-t 'Aa be,: lam/- , �i-nd c�� �r� U • 9 e �t G onda //rP�at4 `) `7'-�'�P�es (kite u��ccrr� n�.��e en-Ts/671' a/ a�1 ,�' /' the requested variance are possible: y§ 4 :4)1Pc ��� " 1461. The following alternatives to eq „ ?, 60C This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: Wry -e{ak • hoie. (,Can brick'. roc2/ria_ .1 Cl • LVi/ /ir' _1 'I Id. - 4 of vA,o• The facts stated in this application are true and correct. y i'' ' feut)/ / Applicant /3czepdi VARIANCE REQUEST 2 of 2 VARIANCE.DOC 3/25/99 ii-e4xv-Acaci/ rediti4 owyr oy. a./ afia-4-6-tx-eiV xi-flays stad- /CI 6 , 4,// 1 - �.`�"A.e ° ( G�,., n, to lel , 2 cd Aet ' • ; , v w N U I 02 O °° r 0 CI) , J LL x °- 4( 11\ al8 z v o c V - •:, 6 3 \il 7 :4_i 7 .., W 0 v > W 0 '',4 ''t41 L 111 W V V >-(..\ V w �(� • N V� 'w°l - <i t-, ill I 'WIZ' 0 ---- Io 2p.0(Plat) *P�a!Bea�inq used a9 8 0 N Iwsis 0i-b�"in W 42`2�57E Z0.1��A��— 9S �� d'g1-1.+; IN;I:1°1 - 0 , SEaaene^r F p'Ufilif� u ` 5./4-4,,,.; y 1 z aha * / N -,....-, r "'� 0 Curve Datd: u d•9/'0/'02.• `-�� 17. 'Q=sa0' S-- • cP 7 So.89' �' cP r- A Arc `79.83' NN w �1 ok 4 9��,!J/ C40',21. S34°//32'e 7/33 m • Jj �8 ate/ Curt/ m / / e Data. h a /.4 " y a=4-a°45'00.. �, ��, // ' IY o(' O / ,J �/ �� • R°25.6' o '� c n 114/ Q T`//.32' Hm28x O O '� 0 Ce?y'/R ° y � ��� ' ro/ fig. z P kll AS -Z/27 > oo2 �m °' J .., ' / 09 .7-F Z how 5 SS°2/ 99'E 20.69' = o o __�% .Ib D y =T D .o o U o 1 5.1 j/ ��,,`j`7� ® X41 Ill Ql -- 0 N 08 >1 �A -- -- /NAS' I� il/'/.'�rr'"Fj�_ yp�_ T 3 Z�O, O.W ° g' 4) o 'tn 1145 H N'/Zig �'•l�� � Q.6 � C Q iC ' O X 0 O.f Bask 1 Story y��Z .-->1�1 �Z v 3 °' c. c 1 y Br ck Nouae c C a, c ao c 159.4 oa1 18.o.s' �aa _ ®�/ cv c 0vi cv 90iJ7•hS3' N • o ac C17nLJnk lrp? 220' G .3 0.1 rnm fYV � 1 . � . o° zy 5 "W /34:/ f) S s '(QiaY=/d `O m , ` " ° o /34 33Ac�) e� v t-vi k1 ; � � ca ; ', �1oc x G> v) Q Q c 5 L °� 'a 130.c.2 o SFnd Y2"/.P �� c v ~" a 'p S `� T3 •O 0 �SEgle7f' recorded 4 Oe0 �'w U N n.s°' ✓o/96 2i y Pq B is o b/rnAe1 � O O earernenf W M G. ov N `a w 1 141411Lais .. gm, ,. e7 M x S 3 r Eck. EQ, I N N j j 1 �. L_--- U 1 II N 1 10 _..._.._4„___,, � ���mm AJ IUB Vv� r�/ N, II �A gX Q 1^ I ,I 4-T- oz � ,, 11t - e c�g I il3z � 03 I( l mI°RA 3 < oJ 6R I Q0 73 V-1 f1 1 I FR7JZ II L Z�� ZF A 0) rn I _*.4 ,- _ ` 1 ➢ z 8 moo. I Ti.... ,,,,E -( '� lP_ l 2 I IP S nT , H ., �_I O ' , MIRK v , A 9I 6#4 rS23 =13 4 '14 I z I t-,k-Th-j_iff__ - i 1 V II J. z Di .‘ ‘ t MINEW. , 1 J N ''''ExfERloF-. 5 'Co+Ur�N�k 2 , 51 111 41-Iot. 9°1 GI-I II c,L-•91' 31 ' iY y2. 91_00 G Q vnN 1-rY r I v�12Fvu✓ IIS 1_— _7roWNlEz -. I `x� 1 w I s ,_ 4 � �,i , 6 m 512 oa,P I I o l D4. Ucil Z{ A oaA E N — c�4- z�,Nc Al ` o b_ UV) T N ---r- ' `t n70 7 '5301 -7( z ➢ z , RI y w �� \, e, �o° { 4I� too 8 o d Q t 1 eco'-oil -< yiAII � Re[- I47D�L DESIGIN Fvrz U1e C7 /0 v R. ‘ .eL_L_ MGCU PLAN --,vME, -,UFFIcE. , April 19, 2000 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Variance request for 7704 Sherman Court NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a variance request for the following property: Applicant: LAURIE& BOYD SORELL Subject Property: 7704 SHERMAN CT (See attached location map.) Proposed Variance: Front Setback The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 2, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas. All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (979) 764-3570. Shauna Anderson Staff Planner 00-50 00-50 00-75 Carla Young Amy Tremblay Laurence Sistrunk Raintree Representative Raintree Representative Emerald Forest Representative 2711 Redhill 2715 Wilderness North 8700 Bent Tree College Station,Texas 77845 College Station,Texas 77845 College Station,Texas 77845 00-75 00-50 00-75 Eldred Keahey Amy Tremblay Laurence Sistrunk Emerald Forest Representative Raintree Representative Emerald Forest Representative 1610 Emerald Forest 2715 Wilderness North 8700 Bent Tree College Station,Texas 77845 College Station,Texas 77845 College Station,Texas 77845 00-50 00-75 Carla Young Eldred Keahey Raintree Representative Emerald Forest Representative 2711 Redhill 1610 Emerald Forest College Station,Texas 77845 College Station,Texas 77845 r LEGAL NOTICE DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: APRIL 19,2000 ONLY BILL TO: The City of College Station P.O. Box 9973 College Station,TX 77842 REFERENCE PURCHASE ORDER# 149 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a setback variance for 7704 Sherman Court. Applicant is Boyd& Laurie Sorell. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m. meeting of the Board on Tuesday, May 2, 2000. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, please contact me at(409) 764-3570. Shauna Anderson Staff Planner Pnle 4WDi4t 44, 1 STAFF REPORT Date: March 29, 2000 ZBA Meeting Date: April 4, 2000 APPLICANT: Boyd and Laurie Sorell REQUEST: Variance to the front setback. LOCATION: 7704 Sherman Court PURPOSE: Allow for the construction of a new garage. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Property owners Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7: District Use Schedule — Table A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning & Land Use: The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned and developed as R-1 Single Family. The property is located within the Raintree Subdivision. Frontage: The subject property consists of two lots, Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Block 1. These two lots combined give the property approximately 120' of frontage along Sherman Court. Lot Dimensions: Due to encompassing two lots, the property has an unusual shape. The following lot dimensions are approximate, please refer to enclosed site plan for more detail. 120' of frontage along Sherman Court 217' northwest (rear property line) 134' southwest (side property line) 132' north (side property line) Access: Access is given via a driveway onto Sherman Court. Topography & Vegetation: Relatively flat topography, several large trees scatter the back of the property. J:\PZTEXT\PZ02825.DOC Flood Plain: Not located within a flood plain. VARIANCE INFORMATION Setback Required: A front setback of 25 feet is required for R-1 Single Family homes. Setback Requested: 10 feet Case Overview: The applicants wish to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550 sq.ft. (22'x 25') garage to replace the one that is to be renovated. The applicants propose to construct the new garage in front of the existing garage space. This location however, calls for approximately 350 square feet (14' x 25') to extend 10 feet from the front property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 15 foot variance to the front setback. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The applicants offer several special conditions: 1. The property has several large, mature, oak trees, which would have to be removed if the garage was placed at a different location. 2. A pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that may be added to the side of the home. Hardships: The applicants have identified the following hardships: 1. Cannot build behind the house due to lack of space, utility lines and no drive access. 2. Cutting down the trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond. J:\PZTEXT\PZ02825.DOC Alternatives: Staff has identified the following alternatives: 1. Remove the wood deck adjacent to the pond in order to allow more buildable land for the proposed garage. 2. Place the garage on the opposite side of the house. 3. As with any case, the Board may grant less than what is requested (0' to 15'). SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. Similar Requests: The Board has approved variances to the front setback where unique special conditions existed, including size of lot, in older neighborhoods or in some areas to avoid the loss of valuable trees, and where undue hardship would result from enforcement of the ordinance. Front setback variance requests are usually highly scrutinized by the Board due to the visual impact to the public and surrounding residents. The most recent cases where a front setback variance was sought was in the Fall of 1999. On August 3rd, the Board granted a 4.5' front setback variance to 1002 Haley Drive in order for the owners to construct a covered porch. This property is located in Foxfire, where a 50' front setback is required. On September 21st, the Board denied a request for a 5.0' front setback variance for 516-518 Tarrow. This variance was denied due to concerns of increased density and a negative public hearing response. I was unable to find a case in which the Board granted a front setback variance of this magnitude (15). The largest variance sought and granted that I found dealt with the string of Nimitz homes that were granted 10' front setback variances on April 1, 1997. J:\PZTEXT\PZ02825.DOC The age and very small sizes of the lots and the wish to revitalize the aging area were the special conditions and hardships stated in the case. Number of Property Owners Notified: 14 Responses Received: None as of March 29,2000. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Site Plan Floor Plan J:\PZTEXT\PZ02825.DOC March 22, 2000 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Variance request for 7704 Sherman Court NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a variance request for the following property: Applicant: LAURIE & BOYD SORELL Subject Property: 7704 SHERMAN CT (See attached location map.) Fr clue Proposed Variance: Reac Setback The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas. All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (979) 764-3570. Shauna Anderson Staff Planner v % t.� * ° 1�,+ ' 7. 0 .6 0 LIAR 2 2'0 0 PB METER 70,173S 'U• OSTAGE (9"" I ))11 Zz ai J p Q o Lir \ZI 'Cr J � �t 0 a W O W z CCS > "- WW L ® O O U c H " zN CO d o E aN ® ° OW O `o val t/ co N 0 a) �w E ° O GA m w0z > O • p a+ O r� J 0 cc 2 ® ° oo a)a w0 LL U G r NU- a U New _0 a Cl0. m- o I I ti uj Y p d O (n a x a. NTS *s72 7( -F. * .., 1., leep 4 41 .. a b u -.. 1, 1. 0 K 1O�p0 / TAo� ic ?b 141E1 U.S, P°% 70171- \ \ \ LIo zW x 00 24 4. � . c— u.. � � o O Q � -- co bp y it: p o0 iii no ww N tr. rF , d - N pd bAO�'sy � O co ja ® (1 co � 7 C7 cls 01 V i----oI ® T O Z s- ©,1 � U Y U O2 6E co N E E U1 u ? o�_S• y 1 1 LL o� a \ N r NOLL d O O O°3 y UN)-4.Cc), K 7 '2a ui ®1 v Ge qI * APR 19'0 C1-6z1 . � :p �►�poers173s U.S. POSTAGE o \ \ \ o z Zw ;? J p o R.° � 2a ‹ Gc.) v00 D a � 5� o � ul CI r� ; Y 2 ct Wr N Cll 0C Q a F- "")t. a J F\ 0 c) ° rn Vco CCC 0 J y E a3 ct m � a IL. CD E — r is LU pQ r-) I V UCO _, Oct LL U w d Fa- N� v ° LL mew ' d I I Nam� d O N Q� ct 7 2a l t� ,' ° r% X0 .60 = * " RPR f 9'0 0 . •• t pPAE7Ea U.S. POSTAGE 748173°3 o kr,k Jo �) ''v o y Ncd cn �y. �� -4--, r., cd w8 to c") 1. .� N E-' el ex V cc �.J • • ,, o O si O FrW- ..„1 fi 10 c r cd tn 0 4I U rn/t mWCC z v bAV ao 1.. N •r, a czs r E P4 -6O mNw r_ cc r )z E Nu_ ` '0 rr J 0 Q y IIIO . 0 Nd d LL> N 0_m j d O U) N Q Q cc n 2a � r '34 APR �soo = t 0 b 0-.° flok-1154 Bp � METER , U.S. MOSTAOE )081738 ...�,» I-- 0 z J_ Q .... 2a 3 w Z t� - ! -Ci0 0 Q a Wss-' (2, o0 H - cr o2 U 0U N d 111 Z w LJ _. ' C7! 0co va1= 1 o Cl? `° H 7ri ct co w w 0 7 p >- ! E � O .. cy, w Z ^ wMy+' m m ES OLL z N o F-� I� N fr 0 ' 0 CO Q ct 0 LL o' v Cr) n▪ LL ( dN C W .? p W0 m5 d WI I LL U C (1 QQ O O �` dl r-- 4wa�"...�m r o " MSR 2 2'Q 0 a <'� i 1 .. 0 .60 _ * 1 * .r. , PB MET{� 70 . `�OSTAQE �,0 z Z NSI�� l- 7 o Z # . v" y Q ° 0 GUUt; 4 2 u. < n W Z n ., Q Q 11.1 • 1�-' k C'3 �' E^ U cc� U U. F W 0 •® o Vi ) L: f= z co J •+ •�-° O 3 aI o cc o co . o 0 k N 0 411 CO w P a LL - cyl a) 0) Ww 0 0 rn 0 = E .-. > cc D0D I— .0 t U U, LLz O� EU s J 0 cc O Q w0 LL ® 0 00 O W CD D Q > a Ca mmL 0U c O ui QT c, a 0 LLs (n- 2 a a N .......�. .r•� �1P i ..fur J'e"i # 7r1-oi. 4;`•j® �� nae 22a-o � 0 pBmETER „ S pOSTAQE * " 2'9� / zcp Z a a ' I.., vO �� r ' ' 3 � � a Cl) Cp 7G 1.-- w8 111 }- s- °' K Q Z :� o 0 N LL W w J '+� v O at H rr m b � z Q J � m U CC o2 ® 0U) d O -t-,z; O W IdZ 1-(8 �.� N m 4. cd Y am a JW bDo ., inpQ >".W U -c7' U o cc 'f► o 10 -- O r w Z t o H U COM N c J o O •I� U E W W aN0 7 a O LL a m� p 1 1 > a n. 2a .6 ,oa°o�,��<::k r0 0 : 0 nae 2Tf METER U.S. PO.. R p ... . 10:1731 / s I 0° z4,1„,,,,, Z Z N j Jw • o .. 4. ,-- ,...., ..c, OzunA • ... � V 66 — o x 0 a zN ,1 O 9. vii 01 ui cm 3 Uvo E m Oww �� I.Q c 173 COwOl'-l'-'. v U0M oU CO CO W°z E ° E N LL o mOJ O cc, Ly aI \ V- Q N -p Nr ] d yod a wo o aro m 0 �a 10 t. sT4". s,_eprfA. naR22'00Z g •e gik - 0 .6 PBMETER U.S. pOST4°E « ....'"'T_...... 7°81735 < < , O \ E ' AR . zZ •? t N j' .,r l J p Z. • °Lod a C J e. 09 O ts- . LT-0 i r y O 4 4o Oa r -4-1 �¢ C 6)I.' In' � 0 - y 3 r/D coWzA i- o N 0U Qo , • a. — ior E cd d mr-atya Lu OQ 0 • U U U U 0 cc v o CO W pZ o r) ,occ LL d E Fa- 7Ow v a I N I Ll. d I N w G pa m� O LL 2a .`+- �G8 S Tq ®�,� i '°'`er%= X0 .60 - 0 na_a 22'0° = Noe -,R pp METER3U.S. '03TAGE 706 7a CI' • ; 1 1 � o �;` paa i .o Z Z '. ,`.. J o ..• v Q p i , r'• a' oo 2 -t 2 + .. 4 0 a 0 - 'CS (.) X c 0 3 F� Q 4 0) - ,� Vt.,.._;.... ...„ O .i ,O °� N ._ O L.. D2 e1 r• rn W zr © 0 - Q p w V Qp f. l to _ r a U. u. ca a? wV oO 2z * U U p� l 2etN co OLL Z S M N O wp > • d I LL a m5 0 0 d D 2a : 0 ......_ .... 4. . . NO 0 ° .6 0 - IØ 2 2'O o .... -- - -•, ., . 7., 7031731 U.S. POSTAGE t _ • CD 1r5z - ' Z to Z 11 t 0 a cl — : r,„ trl u.2 1.- -zzl- 0 a' cn o ' • : .4#- 00 ;.-....., c-- i-2 W :c (9 cm - a) 0 cc1,171 C )... ()1 cc ILI 0 0 0 >tp nr. Lu Lu ....3 _A •••• 1-I- a) i-' •-• lg . u.i z 1- (1 6co . 6 0 0 4 u) — ,• a) -Ici c> rx1 a) E ..., 2 z rast 0 .1 0 > w --0, .• i , . a w,,,0 U- CD Cn CO w 0 2 E o ui 0 .a. 0- 11- 03— 0, W 8 > u c u- v G rq�10 �v * []p * � PB METER * '" 108 . POSTAGE t r , • I I I zZ a� 4C 2Q Z ® c‘t r " u_ • a� -- ao C3'Z H -o o CX 1.7t ' may( > = VQQtjj 1- o °a W X O y O L WZ� ® a+ m O 0 3 ' N Q O ® a-+ ' .'�. .O Q. 2Z Q E VD °� O • o os .Q @? cO C7 U ,...: NLL? r p NQ Ow O 23 M d NDw ro n E a m @ 8 I I ILI- 2a °C d . ■� s� �� * / � � - } � ° � (oPR I9'o 1 - c 0 : O - Mra■ U.S.uPOSTAGE } � ©7G■|7!� 0 z0,\ « 0 % ■ ƒ , = \ / N 6 U � } .. X • ƒ u \ � o O Cr ° I._ I-- < \� C £ » o . ® ± & o %( % ) J \ �2 & C.) ƒ • @ q %' S % / a e o 0 % % U / oz\\ �+ N ± o y a• "o _ \ a_jj \ \ \ 6 /3 } o E s2$ saw . esr�s .: � ‘iii *1 d: .APR 19'00 z carits6t E 0 .6 0 * PB `,... 10$1733 U.S. POSTAGE I-- U' Z Zu, J p r a0 i ' o Y u.2 i ` � � 00 wZ � �w 01 < o 4 ,Q X c ct E� www O ° C3 - 0 �W (!) E '-. C/] c V4Uo ) Q , c+n' W m C> 0° a' L1 'O b.15w 0 E ctl N . U � ^ m sccu " �� 0 7. U 11 0 u) � r Qw0 LL d el U V- u)u- v u E O w m .a I I I O O wp z m LL a m— c ui >o 01 ° a Q 4)•w 4,. ---- ' APR 19'00 = .re.1 7, 0 .60» * ., PB METER r1.011173gE� U.S. POSTAGE ---�� <o . ,`r3 LL.2 ®C ' _, i a0 O a z LN O 111 •CD a) O Qa 0r - O UX Vccc w X . o � V � H w w W Zo O NO oOd o la z, • - ct Pa 0)y . . ° . V]drn wzw Q E 2 O � a) m Q 2 N C W 0 U r- NLL? E CO 0 o o co a wo ui C> y M N D W d a E vi >p o O I N j 2 Sc_ a. • O o f 0'II - APR 19'0 0 z ,►�!A•'R1 : 0 .6 0 : PB * PB METER ' 78-81733 U.S; POSTAGE 0 o oxf. . . 1 }= ,.. ._ J --- I1 2 }'_ O 0 a 00 CES W z CEJ E� 'a y.., O O r- in 4 < C- c 0 Uccx J p p o Q 0 -occt LL17.; 1-I- J CO 8 o vn o� .= O N CC o2 U © y o 8 ,_tz 3 ^. V �o LL E1112 m: (---1 Q P 0 m C/a o, O co o oc 0 o m n Lu oz E _a t o N 0 o aOw 1- LL m co VI D U O wp > a E amd— d C ui >, c • Q ¢ O 2a a = -fir . 0 0 : PB mETEH no ins u.S. POSTAGE 1-- 0 Z J0D w 0 a ' Z kr, � J W o 1 O cr Q¢ COX W > «t U CLQ) ~ «iQH i--. u) Llj C o U W z§ J -o p � O V aci _J (a °, «f w`i' (i1 10 ti O bQ p, w � LL' i.� m N CO U o a 0 Q) E i - m ¢a )- ° H U w O v� tti az E N- < ° J F- UO w ..� u) Ow a ° n w w d N a m o ' c ,� a o > g CO aa c O p` LL CO a o - r 4 t APR 19'0 0 Z .4�b -.; PP METER 7001733 U.S. POSTAQE H Z z0, J w 7. Q ' O � wo (.0 Q H 2 W 0) )— — .71- < (130) `' ono Cr Cr LU— 1-I. J a o p ai I— �a J m CTs v z >C U a N O o Ci) E p a) eta ° o co COw UOQ ® i > �¢ 0 Om w ON t to w Z C r J o cc 2 aw0 w c ttn D w v i M O w w > a CL m_ a y 6 >-8 ¢ c I LL is O cn Q_ V G8 ST4 � IMPi %r%%; wo .6o � qAR 22'00 2 "' ••ii * �(� * U METER 7O$t733 U.S. POSTAGE It t I I zZ w -4 a wz 1+ Q �• T` bn� � V a z 1p1 U X N ww Il. F r til x ® v o 7 cd CC o 2 J CD os "`r' 5 e, 0 U<N O - o ^ - O) u� 0 � . �73 � rn a r. w w Q ['j E o a) v W b0 m w2Z O m �_ - QN `tel o Q o r OLL z ,k v UCO p sp ♦ 0 C,1 a wo \ E I- .• a d D w > n o a m o 0 1 i I d u: QO 4)o § , \ o , u ii -(' Rivv" 22®©E Us ■osTA@■W°4` ii * 7081733 o} Ze �jCI) s • �} � @» o iu ° */\ ui og U q\� .% A / / j �k �±te U Pcc_4 c ° SIG ƒ / 6 / /2 t » . e1 U ! 4, o §} cO Q f /2i N J}\ (� \ i \ \ E \�o ` \ g� 2 o «« ± \ 2 /\_ cc ,_ v �E S T4 ��,� . * Aa * ° z t:$1 - 0 .60 - APR 4900 „ ,;,:; PB * PB METERU S POSTAQE ** 708173'1 0 z C Zci, a L�'a oJ d CC IL 0 ::: 4c't fJT• lU90 ti) CACC Vz O cc� " u. IL-"I'2 0. Orno 1: °,;(' 4) -0 0 N Q .� U ap� 4`# -�--++ C) VD co rn �a -ii b�A rn wm E i, W w 0 > p�� c 2 N._z •• w a p O ,-.- 1.- u M t- NL E O O w > a I I O O w a co p Uj Y 0O N a� a 2a 93C 0 ' O> N 0 a, m O O I I I o m m p m O N 3 a T N --4 CO m ^ Om > 0 7o p r T CO ° 3 z O m n '4 a 0A < 0 O " 07 Z O m �� < n �� m CD J F 3 n ^N CJQ J 0 m co CD O ,- - m coo CI a C��D z m r' go CD CD % QOv -a Circ '-r1 a Ca co r- NI .n P $y ° "g 0 r A Z C) ( 0 P/� C.0 (s1 ZD m 00 Cl) �'a. r g Ca+ -4 o D O -. C N Z Z p +n I I I _ . i���i l. - � i 3ovisOd Tf N313W�Vd y 79• pw r� z00,sivao i �"'r1�0 rb'1 S 3 ' .:. v 133 c .o { •in m o °m I I I `O < °w o m m mn e cn o • a m i W m ,01 T O m D Zm N oJ vm O a p — c UP ' om Zomd Ci J =sD ®O3 ' Im o TX NcLA Cs 0. ®n 0-(g C"5>mNO 60 ll m CD 5 cr 9 . m Dzn X n , --1 . C,3 ' D �. rn ^ x a a m z , z 2 lb . 30VIS0d a3 3wga + 8Gl * E 0 9. 0 - eis� 000izz lYA o 0 4 it 4_ . -4 o�P0 :mob co U I° OAR 22'0 o z < E 0 .6 0 d PB METER U.S. pOSTAQE ' 70E1738 CD o 4 2 Z , tAl? 4 W T • Qr" .� JY2 lU 00 y J ^ -t I\ en Q a co cz = Z >C C) - a) ( N V w w C) - o O E a) C E'-� z�' X '' N o '" a�Ln 0 °' o 0~C z- m ' d o E-' -- .Y W � ` y cr co � a E Q '. m WW (- t"--- N v o ¢ NcO O > crD► + • a U ¢ OZ o W W N Q w O0 15 co('CC) NW N N C W > a I R m5 u c (O ui O d O U) 2a a ...:."'.."*"........."..".""""'74;;;;;;2. ""'r--w.� , air.....,-...1.................-• v 4 l �0a p OP22'00 :inn{pr�a0°` f30$T3� u.s. POSTAGE * `-F..: -. 705178 -o ; CNz 'iORO 0 Zaz 00 47„' QsOJ �- -z Na . l . * c bA At Z t11 • o O sem-' (1)v ffi w C�3 C •-• I '.'' r p O CC 1-- H CO 2cn V o • co -15 Ta Uy N 0 Tr) al U 0 0) E z ® -, m ui oa ° , 9 U r zi rtLli u o M Q Lu Nop- v •. a I I I 6 NO W w > C (/) p m� 0 d N Qp CC 7 a V O i 4S, a IN 22,00= <r% k 0 .6 0 P BME713Ea ER s POSTAGE 10i1 , .., o 'k 242 MAR 2 w y 00 4.° Z. in 444t2000 U z c coir_ o c, o Q 9� on t:4) a> ,y z Y ani E-' mt V ill 9 ° o' n i cc . 0 Q a U. zQ W 0� 70cc/i� rn CO w Q A a !. V U d t? .R N r I • f •---, .2. .- 0 OK CO7 Q7 7 w .. Z o % , E o� U I ° Q NO v a LL w O w o 'a, O a 0- CO 7 m N Q i cc o a v G Tei•0 44 nae22'oo2 g::•i. •" 0 .60 x x .': 77$MiBRU.S. POSTAGE x ''' .S h� ' TS\ t� zo ? Z aW c' z ; , J� .`�► _ ; LL 2 Q Wz fO +� � N o o 0 QZ W iV—yww til X O H ZNrn d O CC Dz oQ v O 4C� H • coaQ �v9J p ri) CS o� ) 0 ct ,--• 2 MNO -1- 40 ° •aQ .-.-4 r. NWz Oco0 JQ (O W ,..AU MC NLL N 61 E W ) Q o w,vi >O m O I I I N 2a 0 dC * : �naR 2 2'0 o . .. , TPB D METEq ,*t t.,wI OSTAGE w CO z / , ®' Z r.-r. I, Qo G N ' ' U. 2; <C :VS (1) a co CD 00 LU 1 o LWJvpi ..0. _ U z (D p >C r c - w w LL! X C U cC 1-- c'' O O o Z c Q. (; -� o U � H v" Luo U Q p ..Ci �, 0 co N� Lt' tl. ,a) m o � � •o u., o¢ 1' E °� — > °cc _� 0 = N cr x� �1 N bq hoz `'E c7 -� QO 2 ® O FuJ0 w a U 0) to 0 LL v w m O o CO a m O .Fl .a CO U)• QO a0 E ala cc O I I I LL v) d 41, vV Tye 1�'� o.- - ......y v i �* O O //ice%\� APR 19P0 0 = . -', •b 0 .6 0 :. ` PB(gyp METER 701173$ U.S. POSTAGE C7 0 I I I zcn J w D Q 0 -04 f.) u_ a c E cc 0 -- < h F„ o ". XO ,/Q a ILI . F . cc) U x 0Z0 " C) r.., Cll R. � F-+ � z� 11J , . o kr) E . cc 04 .J u cCo Ci °' W Z- V 0 0 0 110 v C/] ,a Il. n 9 °�• 03 w wm bq a) w 2 z 0 • E C---O 0¢ •- S m ix-, 0 m w 00) ~ '– U 2 co u— E el .- J Occ o w 0 w Oco �w m d M O w > a m ow .5 n • vi > m a' O QO ¢ O LL E N d