Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-00500113 JUN-09-00 10 :56 AM W. R. TUBBS CONSTR, INC. 1 409 764 9780 P. 02 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY OPO CASE NO.: d©-j 13 DATE SUBMITTED:tD 1 U0 O j/ .:60•4411 (OLtLGt STATION ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: APO 1b0 Kih pIcted 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 INFORMATION(Primary Contact for the Project): Name (,.) .11 . 5 Mailing Address P. to Sr City c.o ,.1,P S•c Arr-=.. State 'T"-A Zip Code "11 S E-Mail Address 1--)r-4-0 Ws a e.e�r h(;r4&.r k Phone Number(.61:14\ '?cam-4118 o Fax Number (cV 1°i' Eoci Cc-50$2., PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name S�TM•g, Mailing Address City State _ Zip Code E-Mail Address Phone Number Fax Number LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address 2 t 5fro.�T Lot g Block 2.5 Subdivision "Sao.c ss P&& 1-A Description if there is no Lot., Block and Subdivision Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Variance Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation •1 •:1 1 • . ance Special Exception Sign Variance Other Current Zoning of Subject Property 2- ( — Applicable Ordinance Section I_3% The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached taereto are true, correct and complete. Signature and Title Date 7RA•OPI Ir ATIAu 1 "f 2 JUN-09-00 10 :57 AM W. R. TUBES CONSTR.. INC. 1 409 764 9780 P. 03 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY !, CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: tOLL161 STAI.ON VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: lib.�t' 1L c. 'S-r-pm v _AST S-c_ rm o1;"' 4-6. 5�t' A�h� alta•..'7•S r4-liar TA .S .e_rarr- . This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions: v,)"r$ DV En_ Solo Go.+-.p t TE w kZ�J RyvLc 1:JC1Z=-ou neo �n�c.rZot Knncw"-r- S'treC-t- u-IM-(11M.. A '%t.�V3'L- (�r�Lc-'t.�� P Gl y.-)Ti�l� wA s-3zs/E40 W e-T 1 L o JT' !J DTAT js The unnecessary hardship(s)involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: 142w• c nT5 a 1•)-ors o w r-) L aT POcz-faL.f•-nr' t-iti 'S Da ,J o-r- Pn 5' A Aar-G.Ty t Ce t The facts stated in this application are true and correct. 641 . 1,(<1/OD Applicant Date The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will Bt1e1 lance hold a public hearing tocon- The fr sider a front setbackvar- mint, var- ifor 214 Stuttgart Cir- WO 0 p b re- Applicant is W. R. fear a setback var- cis.lance for 214 Stuttgart Cir- cle. Applicant is W.R. Tubbs,inc. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the The hearing will be held in Colleg Station City !#11, the Council Room of the Col- 1101 buts Avenue the lege Station City Hall, 1101 8110 p.m. meeting cd the Texas Avenue at the 0:00 Board on Tuesday, July tit 200 p.m.a special meeting of the ' Board on Tuesday, August Myreguest for sign. iftIW- 29,2000. WOWS services for the hear- Any request for sign inter- kg impaired mint be mi prettve services for the hear- 46 how*before the nMwilp. ing Impaired must be made lb arrangemer M 48 hours before the meeting. (ST$) 164-3547 or ( OO) To-make arrangements cut 1-809435-2989. (409) 764-3547 or(TDD) 1- For additional information, 800-735-2989. ` please contact me at For additional information, (979)764-3570. please contact me at (409) 784-1670 Shauna Laauwe egfeBnapeer- 14.-0111 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION REPRINT �;.,��j *** CUSTOMER RECEIPT *** I5 .�Jab/1-,""i"6l'�S OPER: GMESSARRA CT DRAWER: 1 ,r DATE: 6/14/00 00 RECEIPT: 0241442 DESCRIPTION QTY AMOUNT TP TN PLANNING2008 & ZONINI3 1 CK: 1778*PL TENDER DETAIL CK 1778 $75.00 DATE: 6/14/00 TIME: 15:11:51 TOTAL PERSONAL CHECK 575,40 AMOUNT TENDERED $75,00 THANK YOU ti 0,1 • )13, "Ao t*13 000 O-3 -102 NV P m • -17i � N / �� cc5' zo / c) , ��,�I _ dC 4• `% =` E g Nftah / 'r' 1 E a • [-',0 _ 7 y •• .� r-_, m ^ ' jj, m r a '165,1/O ', CZ 01/<< 410.. �ti �9ti m� #5', 1011 kil;".E.„ o OpG irtz it 442- �'N�� 0 ,,cL) --, VW L n a,4104 0 N xi _ 0 0 ,,,, ,, , , .4r# , m 0 4:::1 i". cy& *i 4=- > ?fl ' / cc, 6, 1 c444041 pio,t 4110•10 4110* r,, oT -';'4t H / co, o . �A. q S �� 6�.A ., , H z 60 ,,c o 'P,1 `� � � ST �� oT ��a `D G� I . A 4V11110 H W �T 9OG m i_� C4' SO '�I S oV o GPG 4 itip ,_,c, 4 ,-v ". ` ♦ _i 114._ r o PJ ti > 0 o ro I i it _�jN p , V O4?'/.?) � 0 12') '''-) 44. .-4 ',`-',,, evt 110 AI(,) , m DC `� 0. 0 rs- ti mAliir c-I AA ti 0 CA 4161.\-14 cj-lb7 11111 titem 111 <>>1 471 NJ ') Q� � � N � � 14111111"*110,e> '", � � ti o D ...._ ,,,,, O �O �\ P 0 .,,,, SO, , ,, o , titititi , C) fir, ,„, (_, ,, ,, „.„, _. g.. __.::__ _ — �� O *4* - ,,, --, , ,,, ,--,,, , ,,„ ‘,---‹ X 010 �0>2 3 5C)1 10 a a m - 9� O C vC) • ,S6•Z l l r••• ....�•- ••••• •••••X --413....3 t�' t. •13S 30S -,09— - - `- q 1 42I IN) ,i I P 1 i ul t- • 9% I O ilso r ,, dreL ;i-- - _, I k / ) , 39'-1' AO; IR Z GV-7" �----- - - i r ". -•` £ o�,,g£ 1 X6.04" _ Or=m • C ..� v W -Ni b It11 N rfri p p -0 tiii 9 • f $ P ? P c I C ZP a o t 0 A'# ( COLSTATION P. 0. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 Tel 409 764 3500 Thursday, August 31, 2000 University Title Company Attn: Autumn 1021 University Drive E. College Station, TX 77840 RE: Property located at 214 Stuttgart Bik 25,Lot 8 Edelweiss Subdivision Dear Autumn: This letter is to serve as verification of a zoning variance granted to the above-mentioned property. On August 29, 2000, the Zoning Board of Adjustments granted a 1.0' to 3'6" variable side setback variance to the required 7.5' side setback as set by the College Station Zoning Ordinance. The variance affects the northeast side of the property and is at its greatest at the front of the structure and it gradually tapers off to a 1.0' variance at the rear of the structure. A variance remains with any piece of property in perpetuity. The approved minutes of the meeting constitute the official public record of the meeting and vote. The minutes of the August 29, 2000 will not be approved, at the earliest, until the next meeting scheduled for October 3`d. A copy of the approved minutes will be available the day after the next meeting of the Board. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please do not hesitate to give me a call. Thank you. Sincerely, ,Z;L&ae.- Shauna A. Laauwe Staff Planner Cc: 1. ZBA file 2. Lender letter file Home of Texas A&M University MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 18, 2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bond,Hill, Lewis, Sheffy& Richards. (Alternate Members Corley& Goss were in the audience) MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Toni Hynds&Dick Birdwell. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Laauwe, Assistant City Attorney Ladd, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock. Development Services Customer Service Representative Cruce. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Bond called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. No request forms were turned in. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 216 Stuttgart, lot 9, block 25,Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W. R. Tubbs. Staff Planner Laauwe stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Laauwe told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance for an error made during construction. This case involves a construction error made at the site plan stage. The applicant designed the home believing that the 10-foot public utility easement (PUE) line shown on the plat was the rear setback line. Unfortunately the Building Department, during the plans review process, did not catch the error. During routine inspections, an inspector did request that the setback lines be laid out with a string line. However,thinking that the PUE was the setback line, this was also done in error. The realization of the mistake was not made until the certificate of occupancy was issued. The result of the error is that a 98.80 square foot section of the back east corner of the home is encroaching into the rear setback. At its furthermost point, the corner extends to only 15.92 feet from the rear property line, thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback of 9.08 feet. The applicant offers a special condition of the error made during the construction process. In addition, the Board may consider the lot's irregular shape as a special condition. The construction of the home is complete,thus the corner of the home would have to be removed. ZBA Minutes July 18,2000 Page 1 of 9 The only alternative to the variance is to tear down the corner of the home that is encroaching into the setback. The City is not under the current policy of rectifying setback violations. If the variance is denied, any future seller of the home would have to obtain a letter stating that the City does not intend to enforce the setback at that time. The applicant has stated that the backyard is large in proportion and that the encroachment will not be a problem to the safety, access or the aesthetics of the subject property or surrounding properties. Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report with pictures of the property. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Laauwe whose oversight was it that allowed this encroachment to occur. Ms. Laauwe replied that the building inspector missed it but it is ultimately the builder's responsibility. Mr. Hill asked if the PUE was shown on the drawing indicating the rear setback when submitted for permit. Ms. Laauwe replied that it is her understanding the PUE line was seen and it was believed to be the setback line. The inspector who inspected the slab thought it was a little off and he asked the builder to put out the string lines to pull the building setbacks, but again the builder thinking the PUE was the setback line,that was the setback line he drew. Mr. Lewis referred to the drawing that was turned in for the building permit. The drawing indicating the position of the house on the lot. It showed the 10 foot PUE but not the rear setback line. Ms. Laauwe replied that it did not show the rear setback. Mr. Lewis stated that it is hard for him to understand if the line had been indicated, it would have been obvious that the house would not fit in that position on the lot. Ms. Laauwe explained that the PUE is located on the plat but not setbacks. Ms. Laauwe guessed that the plan reviewer saw the dash lines of the PUE and assumed it to be the rear setback line. Mr. Richards asked what would the recourse be if the variance is denied. Ms. Laauwe replied that the home would be considered non-conforming. At this time the builder would not be required to tear down the corner of the home that is encroaching. It will make it more difficult to sell the home because each time the home sold the city would have to do a letter to the title company stating the city is aware of the encroachment but at this time are not going to enforce it. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. W. R. Tubbs, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that setback variance being requested is a mistake on his part and he takes full responsibility. Mr. Tubbs stated he submitted the application thinking the rear setback was a 15-foot setback and not a 10-foot setback. The 10-foot PUE was noticed but the slab was set up at a 15-foot setback. Mr. Tubbs explained to the Board that when construction plans were drawn the line was not drawn on the site plan. Mr. Tubbs added that he had drawn the plans himself. Mr. Tubbs stated to the Board that his construction company as well as the city missed that error. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that it was he who caught the encroachment when he submitted the plans to the city for the construction of the home next door. An architect he had hired prepared that site plan and it did show the 25-foot rear setback. Mr. Tubbs ended by telling the Board that he then immediately filed for the variance. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes July 18, 2000 Page 2 of 9 • Mr. Hill 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. The motion failed with a lack of a second. Chairman Bond reopened the public hearing so the applicant could further be questioned. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Laauwe how could a building permit could get approved without the builder knowing what the correct setback requirement is on a lot. Ms. Laauwe replied the plan was submitted and missed by the plan reviewer. Mr. Lewis asked if rear setbacks vary in R-1 zoning. In R-1 zoning is the rear setback always a 25-foot setback. Ms. Laauwe answered yes that is correct with the exception for garages which is 20-feet. Mr. Sheffy referred to the staff report concerning responses received. Mr. Sheffy asked who received the phone calls. Ms. Laauwe answered that she received the calls. The concerns were from area neighbors because of this being a newly developed neighborhood. The concerns were curiosity because of the public hearing sign on the property but one caller was opposed to the variance due to concerns relating to neighboring property values. Mr. Lewis asked Ms. Laauwe if the request is denied, he knows the city is not going to enforce the removal of the structure,but what will happen. Ms. Laauwe replied that a letter would be written to the mortgage and title companies stating that the home is non-conforming and the city does not have any interest in enforcing the setback encroachment. Mr. Lewis asked if a letter would have to be issued each time the property changed ownership. Ms. Laauwe replied yes. W.R. Tubbs approached the Board. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that this home was built as a Parade Home and he was planning on moving into the home for financial purposes while waiting for his personal home to be completed in Woodcreek. Mr. Tubbs stated that when the public signs were placed on the properties the inquiries he received were what the signs were about. Most inquiries where about the property becoming commercial property. The reponses after knowing about the variances seemed to be OK. With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill 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 Mr. Lewis seconded the motion,which passed (4-0-1) Chairman Bond abstaining. Mr. Hill offered clarification for his denial to the applicant. Mr. Hill stated that he feels strongly that in this situation the builder has the responsibility to understand the setbacks and ordinances. Mr. Hill stated that he is sympathetic to the situation but the city should not validate this mistake. ZBA Minutes July 18, 2000 Page 3 of 9 • AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a side setback variance at 214 Stuttgart, lot 8, block 25,Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W.R. Tubbs. Ms. Laauwe stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Laauwe told the Board the applicant is requesting the variance for a construction error. A side setback of 7.5 feet is required for R-1 single family homes. A variable side setback on the northeast side from 6.5 feet to 4.0 feet. The encroaching setback is at its least at the rear of the structure and gradually increases to a maximum of 3.6 feet at the front of the home. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a side setback variance of varying length of 1.0 feet to 3.5 feet. The applicant offers a special condition of an error during the construction of the home. He states that a mistake was made when the wrong string line was pulled during the placement of the slab. Due to the property being located on the radii of a cul-de-sac, several pins are placed in the ground during the platting process. The applicant's foundation contractor pulled the side property string line from the wrong pin, causing the entire structure to encroach into the side setback. The mistake was not caught during the building inspection process, due to the contractor and/or surveyor being held responsible for pulling the correct property lines. The construction of the home is complete, thus the northeast wall of the existing structure would have to be removed and replaced. The City currently does not have the policy of mandating such setback violations to be immediately rectified. The only alternative found is to tear down the sidewall and reconstruct the side without encroaching into the setback. The City is not under the current policy of rectifying setback violations. If the variance is denied, any future seller of the home would have to obtain a letter stating that the City does not intend to enforce the setback at that time. Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report with pictures of the property. Mr. Fill asked Ms. Laauwe if the home at 212 Stuttgart is right on the building setback so that there is actually 11.5 feet between the houses. Ms. Laauwe answered that was correct. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Sheffy moved to approved the variance of 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: due to being only 1-3 foot and still being 11.5 feet between the houses and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: due to having to remove a complete wall for 1-3 foot variance; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: supporting reasons are no main objections for or against by neighbors and the site of the property by myself. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes July 18,2000 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Hill stated that this variance is not warranted for similar reasons to that of the previous variance request. Mr. Hill again stated that the mistake was made on the part of the layout of the home and it is not appropriate for this Board necessarily to validate this type of oversight that was made. Mr. Hill ended by saying that he is under whelmed that the applicant did not feel it worth his time to testify in this case. Mr. Richards stated that he agreed with Mr. Hill and explained that he seconded the motion just so that it could be discussed. Mr. Lewis stated that the builder and contractor where aware of the requirement and it seems that they were making an honest effort to comply. Mr. Lewis ended by stating that he does not see any harm to the neighborhood or the city in this particular case. Mr. Hill stated that his concern is the magnitude of this size encroachment. With the discussion on Mr. Sheffy's motion completed, Chairman Bond called for a vote on the motion. The Board vote was 2-2-1 with Mr. Hill and Mr. Richards voting against and Chairman Bond abstaining. The motion to approve the variance failed. Mr. Hill made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback variance 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. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Bond called for a vote,which resulted in the motion to deny passing. The vote was 3-1-1 with Mr. Hill, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Sheffy voting for the motion to deny and Chairman Bond abstaining. The request for the variance by the applicant was therefore officially denied. AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Consideration of a front setback variance at 3100 Pleasant Forest Drive,lot 11, block 1, Pleasant Forest Subdivision. Applicant is Southwest Homes. Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for the construction of a new home. The subject is undeveloped. A house is planned for this lot that will encroach into the required front setback. A corner of the planned garage extends approximately five feet over the front building setback line. Thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 5-feet to the front setback to allow for the construction of the home. The ZBA could consider the 20-foot drainage and access easement along the western property line as a special condition. The property was platted with a western side setback requirement of 11.5 feet. Because of the easement, the setback requirement is increased by 8.5 feet, reducing the amount of buildable space on the lot. The ZBA could consider that the special condition of the easement creates a hardship. The easement reduces the buildable area of the lot. In comparison to the other lots in the subdivision, this buildable area appears to be smaller. ZBA Minutes July 18,2000 Page 5 of 9 Staff'has identified the following alternatives: 1. Do not grant the variance — The structure is in the planning phase, so, at this time, no physical encroachments exist. A denial will require the applicant to design a home that meets the front setback requirement for the lot. 2. Move the structure to the rear setback line and grant a 3.5 feet variance — The plans show the house will be placed approximately 1.5 feet from the rear setback. If the house were moved back to the line,the front of the house would encroach 1.5 feet less into the front setback. 3. As with any case the Board my grant less than what is requested (0-5 feet). Mr. Hill asked Ms. Hitchcock does the current site plan indicate that the house is to be built 16 or 18 inches forward of the rear setback line. Ms. Hitchcock replied approximately 16 inches. Mr. Richards asked if the builder was aware of the 25-foot setback when the house was designed. Ms. Hitchcock replied that there was a representative in the audience and she believed they did talk to a plan designer and they have worked through several options for this lot. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that she realized 16 inches in not quite the 1-1/2 foot. The 1-1/2 foot was used to give the builder a few inches leeway. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. Walter Williams, applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Williams told the Board when the property owner bought the lot he was unaware of the 20-foot drainage easement. It was when the homeowner came to Southwest Homes to begin the process of designing his home he picked a plan out of a catalogue and thought it would fit on the lot. When the house was being designed to fit it was then realized that that there was a 20 foot drainage easement and there was also a sidewalk running down the easement as well. Mr. Williams ended by telling the Board they worked with the developer as well as redrawing 4 to 5 different plans trying to fit a house within the buildable property. Mr. Hill asked what is the distance between the rear of the slab and the rear setback. Mr. Williams replied it is a 1-1/2 foot distance but he likes to have a little leeway. With no one else stepping forward the speak in favor or opposition of the case, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Lewis 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: unusual lot shape, large drainage easement and a very small portion of the house would actually end up in front of the normal 25 foot setback; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: it would be virtually impossible to build a house to meet the minimum size requirements on this lot; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the back side of the house would be set on the rear setback line so the variance being granted would be 3 1/2 feet to the front setback requirement. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes July 18, 2000 Page 6 of 9 • Mr. Hill made an amendment to the motion to state a 4-foot variance instead of the 3-V2 foot variance. Mr. Lewis seconded the amended motion, which passed (4-0-1). Chairman Bond abstaining from voting. The Board voted (4-0-1)to grant the variance. Chairman Bond abstaining from voting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a parking variance at 2300 Earl Rudder Freeway, lot 2,block 1, Sutton Place Subdivision. Applicant is Tom Bevans,Jr. Staff Planner Laauwe stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Laauwe told the Board that the variance is to allow for redevelopment of a site in compliance with the Wolf Pen Creek Plan. Nightclubs are required to have one parking space for every 50 square feet. The proposed nightclub has a total of 13,171 square feet, for a total requirement of 264 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide parking for cars, motorcycles and bicycles. The Zoning Ordinance, however does not consider motorcycle and bicycle parking towards the off-street parking requirement. The applicant has proposed the following parking: 183 spaces for cars 1 for every 72 sq. ft. (31%variance) 33 spaces for motorcycles 10 spaces for bicycles 226 total spaces proposed 1 for every 58.27 sq. ft. (14.4%variance) While the Board may take in consideration the proposed motorcycle and bicycle parking, the variance must be based on the number of spaces for automobiles. Thus, the applicant is seeking a variance to the off-street parking regulations by the amount of 81 parking spaces(31%). The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing Wolfe Nursery site with a nightclub that will feature dining, a sand volleyball court, bar and stage. Due to the increase in intensity of the use, the parking requirement for the site has risen substantially. The Wolf Pen Creek Corridor Design Review Board (DRB) has met regarding the Roosters' plan and has given strong opinions that they favor a parking variance that would allow for more landscape vegetation rather than the placement of additional parking spaces. The Planning&Zoning Commission will be the approving body of the final site plan. The DRB wishes to limit the amount of surface parking in favor of landscaping and trails that will eventually connect the various entertainment and restaurants along the corridor. The City has hired a Code Consultant and is in the process of reviewing several sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking requirements within the zoning district is one area that may be revised. The owner also owns the abutting properties, making it possible to reconfigure the lots to add the required parking and landscaping. The Board may also grant a variance less than the requested amount (0-81 spaces). Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Mr. Lewis asked what is the parking ratio for a restaurant. Ms. Laauwe replied that it is 1 for 100 sq. ft. because a drive through is being proposed. ZBA Minutes July 18, 2000 Page 7 of 9 • • Ms. Kuenzel stepped before the Board and offered clarification to the parking. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that she had been working with the applicant since the beginning and she would be glad to answer any questions. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that parking for retail is 1 per 250, which is one fifth of a nightclub-parking requirement. The parking requirement for a nightclub is 1-50. It is half that for a restaurant with a drive through. Chairman Bond opened the Public Hearing. Clint Schroff, representative for the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Schroff told the Board that both the applicant and landowner where in attendance and he encouraged the Board to ask them any questions. Mr. Hill asked what the allowed occupancy of the building will be. Mr. Schroff that he could not answer that at this time. They are going specifically on square footages for parking. Paul Clarke,the landowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Clarke explained to the Board that when the application was turned into for ZBA consideration, it was prior to the DRB meeting. Since that time the site plan has changed. The phase 2 parking lot was for the adjacent property. The DRB asked that the phase 2 parking be shown now. The existing site plan shows the phase 2 parking to the west. Since then an alternative parking lot to the south side was planned which would bring the parking up to a night club ratio. The DRB asked them not to put that parking in but instead landscape it. Mr. Clarke told the Board that as a developer they did not want a "sea of concrete" at the focal intersection of Wolf Pen Creek Mr. Clarke ended by telling the Board that the surrounding property owners that were notified, are different partnerships but essentially they are the same partners. So it would be very easy to come up with a parking agreement that all concerned parties would agree to. Mr. Richards asked how many automobile parking spaces are there in phase 2. Mr. Clarke replied that it was an additional 30 spaces to the west. There were continued discussions with the Board and Mr. Clarke concerning the parking and the hours of operation. Mr. Hill made the motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: granting this variance will allow maximum flexibility to the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor Design Review Board to develop the area in the manner that they prefer; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: more surface parking would be required which would reduce the area available for landscaping and trails which is desired by the city; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: a variance of 81 parking spaces will be granted allowing a requirement of 183 parking spaces for the proposed 13,171 square foot nightclub. Mr. Shefly seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes July 18,2000 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Richards asked what all was planned in the 13,171 square feet of the building. Ms. Kuenzel referred to the site plan and told the Board that it would include anything enclosed in the building i.e. meeting rooms, restrooms, any kitchen space and outside serving areas. It does not include the volleyball courts. Board voted (4-0-1). Chairman Bond abstaining from voting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Future Agenda Items. There were no items discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned. Tilt // ifr '4: : :I ; s d, C: :t ATTEST: ---\I ' N'''4, Deborah Grace, Star sistant ZBA Minutes July 18,2000 Page 9 of 9 MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 1, 2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bond, Hill, Lewis, Sheffy&Richards. (Alternate Members Corley& Goss were in the audience) MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Toni Hynds&Dick Birdwell. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Laauwe, City Attorney Cargill, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Bond called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration to rehear the rear setback variance at 216 Stuttgart, Lot 9, block 25,Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W.R. Tubbs. Staff Planner Laauwe stepped before the Board and explained to the Board that this meeting is not a public hearing. The applicant does have a right to have both cases reheard as stated in the section VIII. —of the ZBA Rules and Procedures: 4- when a request is denied, the applicant must ask the ZBA within ten(10) days to consider the request again at a future date. 4- within the ten-(10) days, the applicant must ask the Zoning Official to put the request on the next available ZBA Meeting Agenda. + Applicants must have the ZBA's approval to present the same or similar request regarding the same property after denial of such request by the ZBA. ZBA approval to rehear the request requires a motion to rehear, a second to that motion, and passage by a majority of present members. Mr. Tubbs did submit a letter to the Board dated July 26, 2000 requesting the rehearing. Mr. Lewis questioned the letter sent from the City to Century 21 Real Estate dated July 19, 2000. Ms. Laauwe explained the letter as one that is given to the title companies stating the situation and that the city does not have any immediate plans to take enforcement action of the Boards denial or to prevent the sale of the property. Ms. Laauwe stated that she believes the Title Company accepted the letter but the lender did not. Mr. Lewis asked if the wording of the letter is the standard wording used on other properties. Ms. Laauwe replied yes. Mr. Lewis asked if city staff was aware of any instances where a Title Company or lender had issued a title policy or loan after receiving a letter with this wording. ZBA Minutes August 1,2000 Page I of 4 Ms.'Laauwe answered that these type letters are written only for small encroachments and not for encroachments of this size. Ms. Laauwe stated that the lenders usually go through with the sale of the home. The applicant, W.R. Tubbs stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Tubbs handed the Board Members, and explained a packet of information. 1. Letter from First Federal Savings Bank—homeowner approved for mortgage financing with an acceptable survey and title commitment. 2. 3 petitions from area homeowners that do not dispute the variance for 214 & 216 Stuttgart. 3. Letter from Brazos County Abstract Company to the Staff Planner Laauwe and the reason the Underwriters are not willing to provide express insurance as to violations of encroachment into setback lines. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he has built 37 homes in the B/CS area and he has not had an encroachment. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he is making every effort to assure that this does not happen again. Mr. Richards asked if First Federal was the only lender that he approached. Mr. Tubbs replied that it is not. First American Bank has been approached and they are working to find an Underwriter that will accept this. Guarantee Federal has also been contacted. Mr. Richards stated that looking at the survey he finds it difficult to see how the house and driveway could be placed on the lot without some encroachment. Mr. Tubbs explained the he drew the initial site plan and it was originally achieved with a 25-foot rear setback and in fact that was his initial goal. The left side of the home was pulled over the 7.5-foot setback line on the left side,which allowed it to slide down towards the 25-foot front setback line. That definitely allowed it to fit on the lot and still give the minimum of 20 foot in radius on the front side entry garage,which allows for accessibility. Mr. Tubbs ended by telling the Board that if there is a rehearing he can produce survey showing the home fitting in the direction. Mr. Hill asked what is express insurance. Mr. Tubbs replied that it is his understanding that is states that they are willing to take the home under special provisions. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that his realtor could better answer that question. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Tubbs if there is any information that has been presented that was not available to him at the prior hearing. Mr. Tubbs replied yes. Linda Stribbling of Century 21 stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Stribbling told the Board that other lenders were sought as well as going to another Title Company. Ms. Stribbling told the Board that a buyer is willing to accept the property the way it is, and two title companies are saying they absolutely can not close with the variance. The Underwriters for the four different banks that were approached said even if it did go through this time with this particular buyer, they will have equally a hard time if the home was sold again. Mr. Hill asked again what is express insurance. Ms. Stribbling replied that she is really not sure but she does know that title companies give express insurance in instances when it is not complete insurance. Ms. Stribbling again told the Board she really does not know the answer but she will get the answer for the Board if the case is reheard. ZBA Minutes August 1,2000 Page 2 of 4 Chairman Bond asked Ms. Stribbling what other title companies were contacted. Ms. Stribbling replied University Title Company. Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Sheffy stated that the Board is not here to teach anyone a lesson. The Board is charged to uphold the ordinances of the city and provide variances if need be. Leslie Hill made the motion for the Board to rehear the case for the property at 216 Stuttgart. Graham Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration to rehear the side setback variance at 214 Stuttgart, lot 8, block 25, Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W. R. Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs approached the Board and stated that the packet of information handed out earlier was also information for both 214 & 216 Stuttgart. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that the neighbors do not feel that it is aesthetically a problem. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he explained to the surrounding property owners the situation at both of the homes and everyone he has spoken to do not want to see the variances denied or the homes torn down. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that there is a buyer for this home as well. Mr. Tubbs explained that this home has the exact problems with the lenders & title companies. Mr. Tubbs explained that this home is off on the side setback due to a radius. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that at the last meeting he did not speak to the Board concerning this because he was shocked that the first variance request did not pass. Mr. Tubbs stated that he did not know what to do. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that everyone he talked to from the Building Official to the inspectors was fairly sure that he would not have any problems receiving the variances. Other people told Mr. Tubbs that there were new Board Members and a rumor of the Board passing variances to easily and things needed to be taken more harshly. Chairman Bond stated that he has no supporting information before him showing any additional information to support a rehearing in this case. Mr. Tubbs replied that this home is set to close on the 10th of this month. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that if this case were to be reheard he would have additional supporting material to present. The lenders are in the process of going to underwriting. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing. Mr. Joffar stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Joffar told the Board he is the buyer of the home. Mr. Joffar explained that this has put a hardship on his situation as well. Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Hill made a motion to rehear the request for setback variance. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Hill explained his that he felt very strongly at the meeting to deny the request. Mr. Hill told Mr. Tubbs that as a Board they are charged to uphold the ordinances but at the same time as a Board within the City they have a responsibility to the citizens. Mr. Hill ended by telling Mr. Tubbs that he wants to make sure he is given every opportunity to present his case. The Board voted (5-0) in favor of rehearing the case. ZBA Minutes August 1, 2000 Page 3 of 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration to call a Special Meeting August 29th to rehear 214 & 216 Stuttgart. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to hold the Special Meeting. Mr. Hill seconded the motion, which passed (5-0). This meeting wiU cancel out the September 5 meeting of the Board. This will allow staff to prepare& present a workshop for the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. • p 1 , 4/8/ Ak ' _ d nd, Chairman ATTEST: eborah Grace,Staff • ssistant ZBA Minutes August 1,2000 Page 4 of 4 MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 29,2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bond, Lewis, Sheffy, Richards& Alternate Members Corely& Goss. MEMBERS ABSENT: Hill, Dr. Toni Hynds&Dick Birdwell. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Laauwe, City Attorney Cargill, Staff Planner Timmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock, Building Official Simms. (Assistant City Manager Brown was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order - Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Bond called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS August 29, 2000 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bond,Lewis, Sheffy, Richards& Alternate Members Corely& Goss. MEMBERS ABSENT: Hill, Dr. Toni Hynds&Dick Birdwell. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Laauwe, City Attorney Cargill, Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock, Building Official Simms. (Assistant City Manager Brown was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Bond called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. Leslie Hill turned in a request to be absence from the meeting due to being out of the state for work related business. Mr. Lewis made the motion to approve the absence. Mr. Richards seconded the motion,which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from June 6, 2000 meeting of the Board. Mr.Richards made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Corley seconded the motion,which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Approval of minutes from July 18, 2000 meeting of the Board. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Mr. Bond discussed the vote to deny on Agenda Item No. 4 (page 5 of 9). Mr. Bond called for the vote to approve the minutes as written. The vote failed (5-0). Mr. Lewis made the motion to amend the motion to read: Chairman Bond called for a vote, which resulted in the motion to deny passing. The vote was 3-1-1 with Mr. Hill, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Sheffy voting for the motion to deny and Chairman Bond abstaining. The request for the variance by the applicant was therefore officially denied. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion to amend,which passed(5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Approval of minutes from the August 1, 2000 meeting of the Board. Mr. Corley made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). The applicant for agenda items 6& 7 asked to have the items switched to hear 214 Stuttgart first AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Consideration of a side setback variance at 214 Stuttgart. Lot 8, block 25,Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W. R. Tubbs. Ms. Laauwe stepped before the Board and stated that this case was originally heard and denied a variance on July 18, 2000. The Board recommended denial based on a finding of no special conditions or hardships. On August 1d of this year, at the applicant's request, the Board granted a rehearing in order to reconsider the original side setback variance. The applicant has not provided Staff with any additional information regarding this item. Ms. Laauwe ended her report by showing the Board pictures the property. Mr. Richards asked if there are any fire codes problems due to the setback error. Ms. Laauwe replied that she believes that there are no problems with this property with fire codes. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. W.R. Tubbs, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Tubbs approached the Board and handed them items of supporting material. Mr. Tubbs showed and spoke about the building permit. Under the special notes and comments on the building permit, the contractor was requested to place the string lines for the building setback lines. When the inspectors make that inspection, if the string lines are at the wrong pin, it would not be detected at that time. Mr. Tubbs showed the Board copies of the slab inspection where the result showed approved with no comments. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he has spoken to several Title Companies and they have talked to Underwriters across the state trying to find one to give a title policy to this property so a loan institution would accept it. Mr. Tubbs stated that all efforts have been exhausted. Mr. Tubbs ended by telling the Board that he made a mistake and he has taken steps to rectify these mistakes in the future. Mr. Corley asked if the string that was pulled incorrectly was for the property line and if so was that where things went wrong. Mr. Tubbs replied that was correct. Mr. Corley asked if the house is out of square. Mr. Tubbs replied the house is not out of square. The wrong pin was found. Mr. Tubbs ended by saying that a survey would have kept that from happening. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Tubbs if there is any hardship that is imposed on him other than solely financial that he would consider an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Tubbs replied that there is a family that wants to move into the home. No financing can be obtained without the variance being approved. Mr. Tubbs stated that he believes that is a hardship. Chairman Bond stated that is along the line of financial and could he site any other hardship. Mr. Tubbs answered that the green tag that was given approving the slab is a hardship. He would have rather caught the mistakes at that stage and corrected the problem. Mr. Tubbs ended by saying that it is hardship that he was allowed to continue the process of construction not knowing that it was in error. Page 2 of Il ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Joshua Benn, Legal Council for University Title Company, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Benn told the Board that he was asked to come and give a brief explanation of the situation as it relates to title insurance. Without the variance the underwriters for the Title Company is not going to give title insurance on this property. Basically the home can not be sold except for cash. Mr. Benn explained that when a title commitment is issued on a piece of property, there are certain things not accepted from the insurance. In this case specifically that would be the encroachment. At some point a title company will consider granting "express insurance" which say's they will go a head and expressly insure against this issue. This property being new construction as far as a title company is concerned would not have express coverage available to it. That is something that is granted in situations where 20 years down the line there has been a building that encroaches and no one has said anything about it. It has been waived over the years. Mr. Benn ended by telling the Board that on this property a title company will not issue express coverage and the end result the home can not be sold. At least for anything other than cash. Clay Lee, realtor for the home, stepped before the board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Lee stated that the major hardship is on the homeowners. They are in the process of buying the house with a 1% down program through their lender. Mr. Lee told the Board that a financial cost is a hardship to a first time homebuyer when they put half their money into a survey and an appraisal. A second hardship is the homeowner's son just started a new school. The third hardship is for the neighborhood itself. If the home is not given the variance it will be looked at as being unsafe or unattractive in some way. Mr. Lee told the Board that if the home were sold for cash most likely it would become rental property. Mr. Lee ended by telling the Board that rental property decreases property value. Chairman Bond told Mr. Lee that the job of the Board requires that they follow strict guidelines in determining whether there could be a variance from the ordinance. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Lee what is his basis on which to believe that this property will become rental property. Mr. Lee responded the maximum FHA loan amount in this town is 123,025.00 which is the medium price range for the homes on the street now. Most of the homes on this street have sold FHA. Mr. Lee told the Board that his speculation that the home will become a rental property is because no one is going to pay cash for that amount. It is a very rare occurrence if it did sell for cash it is usually a parent that has a student going to A&M that has three roommates. Mr. Lee ended by telling the Board that in this price range of houses, 70% of parents and investors buy them for rentals. Mr. Jaffar, 3808 Goldfinch, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Jaffar told the Board the reason he was there is to talk about hardships regarding this particular house. Mr. Jaffar told the Board that he has talked to different title companies in town and they told him they only have a number of underwriters they use. The guidelines that are use on new constructed homes they are not able to provide title insurance until a variance is granted. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Jaffar what is his involvement with the property. Mr. Jaffar stated that Mr. Tubbs was building the home for him as an investment property. Linda Stribbling, Century 21, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Stribbling told the Board that this property could not become rental property due to deed restrictions. being rental property. The hardship then would be a vacant property bringing down the value of area properties. The only thing to do then is to sell it to an owner who can pay cash for it. Ms. Stribbling ended by saying that it then becomes a hardship for the builder, owner and the neighborhood 3 of 11 ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Katherine Jackson, 1206 Airline Drive, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Jackson told the Board that her and her husband are trying to purchase the home. Ms. Jackson told the Board that the hardship for her family is her younger son having to switch schools. She asked to Board to consider the request. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request. Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Corley 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 finished house is aesthetically pleasing and presents no hazards to the public safety; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: difficulty in selling or buying the property and possibly lowering property values of the surrounding properties; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Corley stated it is one of the Zoning Ordinance purposes to protect property values. Mr. Corley added that in this case it does not protect property values. By not granting the variance the other properties might be adversely affecting property values. Mr. Corley ended by saying that some excellent hardships have been brought up. Mr. Lewis stated that this is very difficult because they are trying to keep the human elements in mind but also not set a precedent for approving the mistakes that are made in the construction process. Mr. Lewis ended by saying that a good argument has been made as far as the intent of the ordinance and by not granting the variance it may actually damage the neighborhood. With the discussion of Mr. Corley's motion completed, Chairman Bond called for a vote on the motion. The Board vote was(4-1). Chairman Bond voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 216 Stuttgart, lot 9, block 25,Edelweiss 7-B. Applicant is W. R. Tubbs. Ms. Laauwe approached the Board and stated that this case was originally heard and denied on July 18, 2000. The Board recommended denial based on a finding of no special conditions or hardships. On August 1t of this year, at the applicant's request, the Board granted a rehearing in order to reconsider the original side setback variance. The applicant has not provided Staff with any additional information regarding this item. Ms. Laauwe ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Mr. Richards stated that he wanted to know how many times during the construction process someone could or should have known this problem was occurring. Ms. Laauwe replied that she would defer that question to Lance Simms the Building Official. Mr. Simms stepped before the Board and gave a brief overview of his position. Mr. Simms told the Board that he supervises 4 Building Inspectors that go into the field to do all the inspections, as well as a Plans Examiner that reviews all construction plans. Mr. Simms explained that when the Plans Examiner gets over loaded he would step in and help. ZBPage 4 of 11 Mr. Simms stated that this case is one of those times that he helped out and it was he who checked this house plan out. Mr. Simms told the Board that he is personally responsible for any errors at the plan review level for this home. Mr. Simms continued to discuss the site plan and it clearly showed the 10- foot PUE. Typically on single-family lots the PUE is 25-feet. Mr. Simms stated that there were 433 homes permitted last year and you tend to get into a routine of seeing a line and in this case he just assumed it was 25 foot and it was clearly marked 10 foot. Mr. Simms stated that was the first mistake and if that had have been caught, the problem would not exist. The second time any problem could have been caught is at the foundation inspection. Mr. Richards asked would the builder have needed to do any additional checking. Mr. Simms replied nothing other than knowing what the property lines and setback are. Mr. Lewis referred to the site plan submitted for the building permit. Mr. Lewis asked if this is the typical amount of detail that is seen when site plans are turned in. Mr. Simms replied that it is not typical. Usually it is a modification of the plat, which clearly indicates the 25-foot front and rear setback. Mr. Lewis stated that he asked that because the one submitted did not show the setback and that is the beginning of the problem. Mr. Corley asked since the site plan is not typical, does it meet the city's requirement for a preliminary site plan. Mr. Simms responded yes. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Simms if 214 Stuttgart has the similar problems in terms of an oversight. Mr. Simms replied that in that case the plan was correct it was in the field that the wrong pin was used. Mr. Simms told the Board that the inspectors really don't have time to physically verify that the pins are correct. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Simms if there was anything that would prevent this from happening again. Mr. Simms replied that the plan examiner would have caught this. This is just something that happened. Mr. Lewis asked if there is any kind of a checklist showing what must be shown on plans. Mr. Simms replied yes there is a checklist. Mr. Lewis asked if the setback line is listed. Mr. Simms replied that he could not answer that. In this particular case, single-family is pretty straightforward and he is guilty in not even using the checklist. Mr. Lewis asked if the list of what is looked for in plans is given to the builders. Mr. Simms replied that there is a brochure that outlines what is needed. Chairman Bond opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance. W. R. Tubbs stepped before the Board. Having already been sworn in, Chairman Bond directed him to proceed. Mr. Tubbs handed to the Board supporting material. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that the basic hardships of the property are the same. The only difference is that he is the owner of the property. There is a buyer for the property and it needs a title policy in order to close. Again Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he was given an approval on the site plan and foundation. Mr. Tubbs told the Board about one thing that was not caught at the previous meeting. He thought the setback line was 15-foot. He went back to the plat once the encroachment was found and looked at the comments on the plat and found that the zoning was R-1. Mr. Tubbs looked to see what R-1 was and that is when he found that it was a 25-foot rear setback. That is when he filed for the variance. ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Page Sof 11 Mr. Tubbs ended by telling the Board that he is making every effort in seeing that this never happens again. Mr. Richards questioned the error of the 15-foot setback. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that he has built some homes on Ceclia Court, which is adjacent to these lots that have a special setback of 15-feet. There are subdivisions that have different zoning for the setbacks. Mr. Tubbs told the Board that it was an oversight on his part. Mr. Lewis stated that he does not see how Mr. Tubbs could not have understood that the setback was a 25 foot knowing the zoning was R-1. Mr. Tubbs admitted that he was relying on the city to catch any mistakes and in previous properties relying on his designers as well. Clay Lee stepped before the Board. Having already been sworn in, Chairman Bond directed him to proceed. Mr. Lee spoke to Mr. Lewis and his concern about setting a precedent on the last case. Mr. Lee explained to the Board that College Station is growing very fast and builders can not keep up in this town. There are new builders building here. Mr. Lee stated that he feels these problems are going to increase in the future unless the Building Department Staff is increased to keep up with the demands. Mr. Lee stated that he does not think the Board should penalize one property here by not granting the variance when it was a valid city mistake. Mr. Jaffar stepped before the Board. Having already been sworn in, Chairman Bond directed him to proceed. Mr. Jaffar again explained the hardships and asked the Board grant this variance. Linda Stribbling stepped before the Board. Having already been sworn in, Chairman Bond directed him to proceed. Ms. Stribbling told the Board that the buyer is living in the home and the hardship is that the man is handicapped and it would be difficult to move him. He would have no place to move to. Ms. Stribbling told the Board that he was allowed to move into the property prior to the closing originally. The reason is because he did not have a place to move into until the time of closing. With no one else stepping forward to speak, Chairman Bond closed the public hearing. Mr. Corley made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback variance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the finished house, constructed according to the site plan approved by the city, is aesthetically pleasing and presents no hazards to the public safety. • - . - -" . - - - .- - - .. .° -- " -• - - . • _ •• -, • _ • , • • . . . - - _-; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: continued difficulty in selling/buying the property now and in the future. The potential would then exist for surrounding property values to adversely affected; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Lewis made an amendment to delete the last sentence of the special conditions. Mr. Richards seconded the motion,which passed unopposed. The Board vote on Mr. Corley's motion was(5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a parking variance at 501 University Oaks Blvd. Applicant is Mitchell& Morgan LLP for Asset Campus Housing. Chairman Bond told the Board that Mr. Lewis is stepping down from hearing this case and Mr. Goss would set in. Ms. Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that the variance is to allow for a reduced parking space requirement for a new development. Dormitories are required to have one parking space for every person(bed). For this proposed project, a total of 596 parking spaces would be required. The applicant is proposing to provide parking that meets apartment requirements. Under apartment parking, 527 spaces would be required. Apartment Parking 3 spaces for every 2-bedroom unit= 429 1.5 spaces for every 1-bedroom unit= +98 Total spaces required for apartment= 527 The applicant is seeking a variance to the off-street parking regulations of dormitories by the amount of 69 spaces(approximately 11.6%) The applicant describes the Asset Campus Housing Project as a hybrid between a dormitory and an apartment building and considers this a special condition. The Zoning Ordinance defines a dormitory as "any structure specifically designed for the exclusive purpose of housing students of a university, college or school, excepting resident staff'. An apartment building is "a building or portion thereof used or intended to be used as a home for three or more families or households living independently of each other and each equipped for preparation of food". The applicant states that the project is similar to a dormitory as it is marketed as student housing; yet, rental is open to non-students. Because there will not be full cooking facilities in the units,the staff considers the development a dormitory. Off-street parking requirements for dormitories are more stringent than those for apartments. The applicant would like the Board to consider this as a unique housing project reflecting characteristics of apartments, that the requirements for off-street parking spaces be able to meet those of apartments. Off-street parking requirements for dormitories are more stringent than those for apartments. The applicant would like the Board to consider that since this is a unique housing project reflecting characteristics of apartments, that the requirements for off-street parking spaces be able to meet those of apartments. ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Page 7 of I I The applicant has identified the timing of the project in relation to the timing of a new College Station Zoning Ordinance as a hardship. College Station will have the opportunity to change its current requirements when a new ordinance is adopted (estimated in the spring of 2001), but it is not known if and what changes will occur. The following alternatives to the variance have been identified: 1. With a CUP for a parking lot from the Planning and Zoning Commission and a variance to the 200- foot off-premise parking lot distance from the ZBA, a 30-space satellite parking lot may be created 300 feet away from the project. This lot and the addition of 39 spaces to the original lot would meet ordinance requirements. 2. Reduce the size of the project so less parking would be required. 3. The Board may grant a variance less than the requested amount 0-69 spaces. Mr. Richards asked if Dominik was a collector street. Ms. Hitchcock answered yes. Mr. Goss stated that one of the alternatives is to provide satellite parking. Would that have to be a variance. Ms. Hitchcock replied that a conditional use permit would have to be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. A variance would have to be granted by ZBA for the lesser amount because they need a variance to their on-site parking. Mr. Goss asked if the on-site parking were two blocks away on a satellite lot, would they need a variance for that as well. Ms. Hitchcock responded that a variance could be granted with a condition that the extra parking spaces be met on an off-site lot. Also a variance will need to given for the distance for a satellite parking lot. The Zoning Ordinance requires no more than 200 feet away from the property it is serving. In this case it will be approximately 300 feet. Chairman Bond asked what is staff interpretation to the applicant's definition of hybrid facility. Ms. Hitchcock replied that staff takes the position that it is a dorm Chairman Bond opened the public for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan LLP, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Morgan told the Board that in the design of the project it became apparent whether or not this would be classified an apartment or a dorm. Ms. Morgan stated that she does not disagree with staff's assessment that it is a dormitory. The only question was if it does fit that exact definition. Ms. Morgan referred to a letter supplied in the Boards packet that states that the non-students could reside in the complex as well. Ms. Morgan went on to explain the only concern is the discrepancy that is between an apartment parking space requirements and the dormitory parking space requirements. Ms. Morgan explained that there is a large discrepancy depending on how the project is defined. Ms. Morgan told the Board that this project can not wait until the new unified Development Code to come into affect next year to decide what the parking requirement may be. Ms. Morgan told the Baod that the consultant that is reviewing the current Zoning Ordinance did point out the dormitory requirement seems to be off and unusually high. Ms. Morgan concluded by telling the Board that Asset Campus housing did contact the property owner concerning the satellite parking and there is a verbal commitment to sell the lot. ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Page 8 of 11 Mr. Corely asked if the site could hold 572 spaces and still be in compliance with the landscaping requirements. Ms. Morgan replied yes. Mr. Goss stated that it appears in this case there is excessive parking, would that not be the same case with any dormitory that came before ZBA. The same argument to say that the ordinance is wrong or excessive and therefore the ordinance should not be followed or a variance be granted. Mr. Goss asked if this matter is one for City Council. Ms. Morgan replied that the timing is the item that is being appealed to here. The hardship is waiting for the unified Development Code to be developed. Mr. Richards questioned the parking spaces at the site and the satellite lot. Ms. Morgan told the Board that the satellite lot would not be considered on-site parking and would not meet the city ordinance with regard to on-site parking because it is further than 200 feet away. Mr. Corley stated that the maximum occupancy is 596 but it is not limited to students only. Is there a possibility that a family could move in and is it possible that more that than 596 people could live here. Ms. Morgan responded no. The number of beds would limit that. Michael Peter, Asset Campus Housing, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Peter told the Board that they are currently zoned for 208 units,which would allow 592 beds. Mr. Peter stated that he does not disagree that this could be classified as a dormitory, it is quite an exceptional dormitory. Mr. Pete explained that this dormitory is fully furnished and it also has private and semi-private baths, private living rooms and bedrooms. Each unit, at least the standard unit is 800 sq. ft. The typical dormitory room is closer to 200—250 sq. ft. To call this an apartment is a very fare and accurate. Mr. Peter told the Board that his experience with housing goes back to 1985 and it has been primarily with off-campus residence halls. There is a great difference between the amount of cars that are brought to campus or to the off campus sites, and to apartments and residence halls. In the residence hall setting you usually have freshman and occcasionally sophomores and more often then not you do not have more than 50 % of residents that actually bring vehicles that seek parking. Mr. Peter added that it differs when you have juniors and seniors that have vehicles. Mr. Peter told the Board of two other off-campus facilities they are managing. One is Lubbock and it houses 1000 students and it has 500 parking spaces. The other property is at Florida State University that has 525 students with 300 parking spaces. Mr. Peter added that the only hardship in this case is strictly the timing. They want to break ground the first of October to get the project open by fall 2001. Mr. Peter told the Board that they are trying to avoid putting in a parking ramp. Not necessarily because of the financial reasons although they are there. Even though the financial impacts get pushed onto the students. But rather there is extensive parking throughout the area. The owner of the Polo Apartments has offered to lease him as many spaces and is needed. Across the street to the south are the Courtyard Apartments. Mr. Peter described it as a sea of asphalt and one thing that they are trying to avoid is creating another sea of asphalt or placing a one story parking ramp which is not aesthically pleasing to the neighbor or residents either. Mr. Peter referred to the plan and explained how extensively the complex is going to be landscaped. Mr. Peter ended by saying that they do not need 600 parking spaces. Those are extra spots that will go unused and he thinks greenspace and landscaping is a pretty good alternative to unused parking spaces. Mr. Goss asked in regard to the parking to be supplied by the area apartment owners, would those be within 200 feet of facility. Mr. Peter stated that they would be about 20 yards away. ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Page 9 of 11 Mr. Goss asked Mr. Peter what would be unique about this dorm that it would need less. Mr. Peter replied that the greatest special circumstance here is the timeline. Mr. Peter stated that the Callaway House to his knowledge is the only other dormitory in town that actually does meet the requirement of 1 parking space per bed. Chairman Alexander called for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request. Bob Droleskey, College Hills Woodlands Neighborhood Association, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Mr. Droleskey told the Board that a major concern is the off-site parking possibility. The property backs up to housing and he did not think it would be appropriate to have the lights for the parking shine in someone's backyard. The concern also is traffic congestion in the area. The off-site parking lot would be an undue hardship for the residence in the area. Mr. Droleskey asked where were visitors going to park. Mr. Droleskey ended by saying that he is in opposition of the request. Mr. Goss asked Mr. Droleskey if he would be in opposition if the Polo Club did allow them to park there. Mr. Droleskey replied that would be a very workable solution. Mr. Goss asked city staff if the off-site parking was immediately adjacent and under contract would that require a variance. Ms. Kuenzel replied that the adjacent apartment complex would have to exceed its own parking requirement. What ever is above and beyond their own parking requirement they can offer. Shelly Cain, Courtyard Apartments Representative, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Bond. Ms. Cain told the Board that the owner of Courtyard Apartment is not in favor of this because he does not want to share parking. Mr. Goss asked Ms. Cain if the owner would agree to sell unused parking spaces. Ms. Cain stated that he would not. Mr. Goss asked Mr. Peter if this variance is not approved what is his alternative. Mr. Peter replied that they would build a one story-parking ramp. Mr. Peter told the Board that the Polo Apartments are at 100 % occupancy and have been for the last two years. Despite being full they have a lot of unused parking available. Mr. Peter stated that they would probably need to seek a variance as well. Mr. Peter ended by telling the Board that Asset Campus has an outstanding reputation working with their neighbors and in particular with University's in the cities where they have property. They would work diligently with Courtyard Apartments to make sure the residents would not parking there. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to deny a variance to the parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the 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 be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Goss seconded the motion. Mr. Corley stated that the ordinance is designed so that there is not a lack of parking spaces. On one hand there has been evidence presented that suggest there will be plenty of parking but the ordinance says that is not enough. Page 10 of 11 ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Mr. Goss asked Mr. Corley if someone else came before the Board with a similar request with the canvassing being adequate would his analysis be the same. Mr. Corley replied that there is a point where it would not be. Mr. Corley added that they can build 566 spaces on the site without the ramp and it would require a change in the plan. They are planning 527 so that leaves 39 spaces needed. Mr. Corley ended by saying that the special condition would be the hybrid nature of the project. Chairman Bond asked Mr. Corely if he was presenting this as a motion to amend Mr. Sheffy's motion. Mr. Corely replied that Mr. Shelly's motion was to deny and his would be for granting the variance with the special exception. The Board continued discussions about the motion presented. Ms. Kuenzel stepped before the Board and told the Board that even if they voted to deny this variance, another motion could be made afterwards. Chairman Bond called for a vote on Mr. Sheffy' motion to deny. The Board vote was (4-1). The motion to deny was granted. Mr. Corley voting not to deny the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO.9: Future Agenda Items. There were no items discussed. AGENDA ITEM. NO, 10: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. • PP 'O 'i► 111. Ra ' Bond, Chairman ATTEST: a" liceDeborah Grace, tall Assistant ZBA Minutes August 29,2000 Page 11 of 11 MEMORANDUM August 22, 2000 TO: Zoning Board of Adjustments FROM: Shauna A. Laauwe rV SUBJECT: Variance for 214 Stuttgart Item: Rehearing for the consideration of a variance for 214 Stuttgart, consisting of a variable side setback encroachment on the northeast side of 1.0' to 3'6". Applicant: W.R. Tubbs Item Summary: The encroachment into the required 7.5' side setback is the greatest at the front of the property and it gradually tapers off to an 1' encroachment to the rear. This case was originally heard and denied a variance on July 18, 2000. The Board recommended denial based on a finding of no special conditions or hardships. On August 1st of this year, at the applicant's request, the Board granted a rehearing in order to reconsider the original side setback variance. The applicant has not provided Staff with any additional information regarding this item. Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Staff Report dated July 12, 2000 4. Minutes of July 18, 2000 ZBA meeting 5. Minutes of August 1 , 2000 ZBA Meeting STAFF REPORT Date: July 12, 2000 ZBA Meeting Date: July 18, 2000 APPLICANT: W.R. Tubbs REQUEST: Side setback variance LOCATION: 214 Stuttgart Circle PURPOSE: To receive a variance for a construction error. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Builder/owner Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7: District Use Schedule—Table A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS d Zoning and Land Use: The developed aect sR 1 Single Fand amilyl .The propertyris located withies are zoned in the P Edelweiss Subdivision. Frontage: Approximately 55.31 feet along Stuttgart Cr. Lot Dimensions: The subject lot is located within the curve of Stuttgart, a cul- de-sac street, causing the lot to be irregular ine shape. The following lot dimensions are approximate, please to enclosed plan for more detail. 55.31' of frontage along Stuttgart Circle 112.95' southwest (side property line) 126.04' northeast (side property line) 67.01' north(rear property line) Access: Access is via a front driveway onto Stuttgart. Topography & Relatively flat, landscaped vegetation. Vegetation: Flood Plain: Not located within a flood plain. J:\PZTEXT\PZ03375.DOC VARIANCE INFORMATION Setback Required: A side setback of 7.5 feet is required for R-1 Single Family homes. Setback Requested: A variable side setback on the northeast side from 6.5' to 4.0'. The encroaching setback is at its least at the rear of the structure and gradually increases to a maximum of 3'6" at the front of the home. The applicant therefore, is requesting a side setback variance of varying length between 1.0' to 3.5'. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The applicant offers a special condition of an error during the construction of the home. He states that a mistake was made when the wrong string line was pulled during the placement of the slab. Due to the property being located on the radii of a cul-de-sac, several pins are placed in the ground during the platting process. The applicant's foundation contractor pulled the side property string line from the wrong pin, causing the entire structure to encroach into the side setback. The mistake was not caught during the building inspection process, due to the contractor and/or surveyor being held responsible for pulling the correct property lines. Hardships: The construction of the home is complete, thus the northeast wall of the existing structure would have to be removed and replaced. The City currently does not have the policy of mandating such setback violations to be immediately rectified. Alternatives: The only alternative found is to tear down the side wall and reconstruct the side without encroaching into the setback. The City is not under the current policy of rectifying setback violations. If the variance is denied, any future seller of the home would have to obtain a letter stating that the City does not intend to enforce the setback at that time. SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Minimum lot size and 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: In the past the Board has granted variances to the side setback. These cases typically have involved a nonconforming lot size with a hardship placed on the owner to have a safe and functional house on the property. The J:\PZTEXT\PZ03375.DOC Board has also granted variances where the hardship included no alternatives to the destruction of large and valuable trees. The Board has heard several "string line" cases over the past year. On August 3, 1999, a side setback variance of 1.44 and .55 feet, respectfully, was granted to 2329-2331 and 2325- 2327 Pheasant Lane. In addition, on February 3rd of this year the Board granted a variance of 0.81' to the side setback for 1114 Carolina. Most string line errors and subsequent variances are minor; thus I was unable to find a mistake of this magnitude corrected by a Zoning Board of Adjustments decision. Number of Property Owners Notified: 15 Responses Received: I have received several calls regarding this case. Many callers expressed their disappointment of the mistake, but did not go as far as to say that the variance should be denied. I did however have one gentleman who expressed a strong opinion against the granting of a variance. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Site Plan J:\PZ TEXT\PZ03 3 7 5.DOC August 16, 2000 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Rehearing of a variance request for 214 Stuttgart Circle NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station is rehearing the case for a variance request for the following property: Applicant: W R TUBBS Subject Property: 214 STUTTGART CIR (See attached location map.) Proposed Variance: Front Setback The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,August 29, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. to consider l 101 Texas Avenue 3oulic th, Co lege Stationbe hTexeld as the City Hall Council Room located at 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 (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (409) 764-3570. Shauna Laauwe Staff Planner LEGAL NOTICE DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY,AUGUST 16, 2000 ONLY BILL TO: Jim Callaway Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Eagle Account# 11106712 Mastercard#5404 8231 9343 5497 Expiration date: 3/02 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to rehear a front setback variance for 214 Stuttgart Circle. Applicant is W.R. Tubbs, Inc. The hearing will be held in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m. a special meeting of the Board on Tuesday, August 29, 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 Laauwe Staff Planner July 26, 2000 City of College Station Attn: Shauna Laauwe RE.Property located at 214 Stuttgart;Lot 8,Block 25 216 Stuttgart;Lot 9,Block 25 Dear Shauna, I, W.R.Tubbs,request a rehearing from the Zoning Board of Adjustments on both of the properties named above. Thank you, Sincerely, A4- W.R. Tubbs Builder MEMORANDUM TO: ZBA File re: 214 Stuttgart FROM: Natalie Thomas Ruiz, Development Coor nat DATE: July 20, 2000 at 12:00 noon RE: Filing of the ZBA decision to deny the setback variance at 214 Stuttgart. An application was received by W.R. Tubbs on June 9, 2000 requesting a setback variance for the above mentioned property. The ZBA met on July 18, 2000 and denied the variance request. As stated in the Board's Rules and Procedures, this decision becomes final at Thursday noon after the meeting. In this case, the decision is final as of today at noon. This memo constitutes the official filing of the ZBA decision to deny the setback variance request at 214 Stuttgart per their meeting of July 18, 2000. LEGAL NOTICE DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY,JULY 5,2000 ONLY BILL TO: Jim Callaway Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Eagle Account# 11106712 Mastercard# 5404 8231 9343 5497 Expiration date: 3/02 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a front setback variance for 214 Stuttgart Circle. Applicant is W.R. Tubbs, Inc. 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, July 18, 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 Laauwe Staff Planner w, x E NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to con- sider a front setback var- iance for 214 Stuttgart Cir5/14.1 - cle. Applicant is W. R. Tubbs, Inc. 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, July 18, 2000. Any request for sign inter- pretive services for the hear- ing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. a' ,fUo-r-a) To make arrangements call l 764-3547 or (TDD) e .t (979)1-800-735-2989. D�� 5E664 �tc. For additional information, please contact me at (979)764-3570. " Shauna Laauwe Staff Planner /'°"j �S 7-5-00 PS, 7nniTnniA c1nc INFTMOIRARla FF- 31fV3 3H1 CS00 $LL 60fi. 8£:TT 00/TZ/80 July 5, 2000 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Variance request for 214 Stuttgart Circle 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: W R TUBBS Subject Property: 214 STUTTGART CIR (See attached location map.) Proposed Vatriance: Front Setback The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 18, 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 (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (409) 764-3570. Shauna Laauwe Staff Planner SITUS SITUS_STR OWNER ADD1 OWNER ADD2 FM 2154 1901 SAN JACINTO 206 STUTTGART CR 1901 SAN JACINTO 208 STUTTGART CR 6345 SMITH RD 210 STUTTGART CR P 0 BOX 126 205 STUTTGART CR 1901 SAN JACINTO 212 STUTTGART CR 4224 DEERFIELD DR 207 STUTTGART CR PO BOX 10106 214 STUTTGART CR 1901 SAN JACINTO 209 STUTTGART CR PO BOX 10106 216 STUTTGART CR 3113 PLEASANT FOREST DR 211 STUTTGART CR SUMMER ANNE 211 STUTTGART CIR 239 STUTTGART CR 1901 SAN JACINTO 213 STUTTGART CR J STEPHEN ARDEN 4103 S TEXAS AVE#100 237 STUTTGART CR 4112 SH-6 S 218 STUTTGART CR DBA TDT HOMES 1110 TWELFTH MAN CIR 235 STUTTGART CR C/O RAY HARBER P 0 BOX 6161 220 STUTTGART CR 1901 SAN JACINTO 222 STUTTGART CR 1901 SAN JACINTO 224 STUTTGART CR PO BOX 534 OWNER_CITY OWNE OWNERZP OWNER_NAME SITUS_ADDR HOUSTON TX 77002 VAN RIET, LIEVEN J TRUSTEE FM 2154 HOUSTON TX 77002 BEGONIA CORPORATION 206 STUTTGART CR BELLVILLE TX 77418 B A CATHEY L.L.C. 208 STUTTGART CR GAUSE TX 77857 GAUSE, DOROTHY L 210 STUTTGART CR HOUSTON TX 77002 BEGONIA CORPORATION 205 STUTTGART CR COLLEGE STATION TX 77845 LEGE, JOHN L INC 212 STUTTGART CR COLLEGE STATION TX 77842 CHARLES THOMAS HOMES INC 207 STUTTGART CR HOUSTON TX 77002 BEGONIA CORPORATION 214 STUTTGART CR COLLEGE STATION TX 77842 CHARLES THOMAS HOMES INC 209 STUTTGART CR COLLEGE STATION TX 77845-5042 TUBBS,W R CONSTRUCTION INC 216 STUTTGART CR COLLEGE STATION TX 77845 CARTER CHARLES BRANDT& 211 STUTTGART CR HOUSTON TX 77002 BEGONIA CORPORATION 239 STUTTGART CR BRYAN TX 77803 ARDEN'S OF B/CS, INC 213 STUTTGART CR COLLEGE STATION TX 77845-8964 STYLECRAFT BUILDERS INC 237 STUTTGART CR 7 STUTTGART CR COLLEGE STATION TX 77845 GDT INC BRYAN TX 77805 L &H HOMES 235 STUTTGART CR HOUSTON TX 77002 BEGONIA CORPORATION 220 STUTTGART CR HOUSTON TX 77002 BEGONIA CORPORATION 222 STUTTGART CR PONCHO SPRINGS CO 81242 BUCKNER,WALTER 224 STUTTGART CR `— E ._=__ z ° AJU! 05'00 O b p .o . PB METER 7081738 U.S. POSTAGE * 0 o 0 Z I •I _ o 0 0 Q a Q OQCD LuZ X � Q a 0 e cv O O O V z 1.1.1C -+ -� Li F F _.1 0 a .E n z — �-4 ,- ti pCo< 00 •. 4 -.VJ x, a LL C7) •-; p O co V 0 �° a co o) UQQ 0 > O O x • >cc o , U a m hoz U • 2 s J D¢ O n zi E2 O LL O LLco D O d (n o W w 2 N co a• }j U 0 0 aO ¢ C I I I O a O LL CO a " JUL .5'0 p z no "1"4 1 Z 0 60y k P$METER 7®81738 u.s. PosrAQE CO I I /!/i / fJ LQ Q r 1` OZ CO O ^ O 00 LL W W M cn CC° ..1 Co E., cdnWzO • cts m , qr Va7-a � o � O� V � in LLQ. O •y /)tiC)Ww I)Iij OE_ U E W.p® O oO LL (n LL 'O O I� W W N N LL m LI1 m.n I I I gF 8 LL co a " JUL 0 5'0 0 Z ei..,.R1 E 0 .6 0 E * 31j 3i .S. POSTAGE Z . jt� Jp a O 2Q Z -. - In u_ 0 N a oZ H � r- U as {yy vii CC.) W W W� ,O) X • O M CC `•r E", 17- Q0 w 'i N a '� O CC 0 W X o m p ' m 1 .0 LU -. 3 '� C) ..- CD n a• _° 3 N a rn 10 N ® (!1 E N 2z U e 3 woa LLQ" U 2 v r W LLZ y MW25° QO 1. \ \ \ ELL4W D ao m 15 u c u- «i Q o 2 O d o s t �4r %.... . v O r,.2A11 E0 Jit f5'00 z0 .60 708173a U.S. POSTAGE Zu, , ; J p • Q o Z 2Q 0 Y.2 00 W z �— n '-a c3 N O O h V z cc W y X Fzv 0 C o vs � E� a O y o U LUZ1- J d vn - Vav, (Z v , M .' rn �� o0 Cl1 Ai= i Cd ) rn a 10 co CD Zci U 0Q O 2 s cc ! U. . o N N LLZ , J 0. O CO W NON I I I G u, uj W > C. O d m— U C 0 uj Yp d O N a� a 3E S � "_ -+ v I A• s JUL 5'0 0 z .•�;1 : •0 .6 0 PB METER * T 798133E U.S. POSTAGE 0 o Z JU . 0 LL 2 O O -, F— ryMNt uj Z W ~ Fo ~ ^ G O U z CO : O O ¢¢ X L, .E s LI w W zit J ® :? HO 0aU J co z-- d O •� co v O0O COw U0 .z `3 ''w0)LU 02 U 5 cc Cit, t iii wocn zy. o a W¢cc� a o In ww i2. ro M aEn o ¢ Y f d ° I LL N a �v OE S Tq.):� � a o �/°'ri4 0 .60E U Jul 65'0 0 Z �� d R Ppp UMETER U.S. POSTAGE 798173$ I �, I I Z u, J p LQ O a Q ol r- W o Uo a) `p wGO I-- r � 6 xo tIl V fc W V r � O O f'�a W X r m Q1 v 8 fn •r'�' CCZ� J ° '. °' gQ � ago v Uao Jm • , W aria" nu o Q O •W c y 2z LL0 I U v ii 2 u occ 0 9 r cc N z E F— ° co c,)c J0, L V u)7 U '' v aI I l8 am9 m c I d N O D_ N as 2 2a a.«2�� �4:441 ` _ 4 ' r / Ile° ' \ Z ;°§ , �2�� \ \ !k ° O© - tAE $» * . A ys jos l©� ' - ; \ > \ \ \* \ .0 ' r 7r �k k % �k • � -, \vak caw 0 .t 8 \ k» < o © & \/ -' 10 W ' 7 1'3i% o . \ 3 i gw ( IIt % 2z @ - 'co- o 7 f 0 O• ' E \tz • O } f/\ \ \ k � �� 0 \ 0o\� & 6 \ } n t " JUL •500 M�- _ 0 .6 0 _ ; (U METER x 79147. aU„S: POSTAGE * t— I .� I 1 coz ZN Jp z Q 0 0 , , a W z co O ,r O Q ¢ cis V z F O M fn IL F W x w ,•, • CI •. a O Xz� p A) CC 2 —1 b dO 4 • Va~ 0 • -o O0i U 10 pCOa V cn fZ ® N > m 2 ON o co N LLZ U N -J I:,Cr o co FW LL N coOLL -0 m E UI7W > 'a I I I 6 N YO G N Na-2 o t, d E m - _ toy s rQ�ems'' �� se " JUl /5'OOZ .. •11 E 0 .6 -� pBmETER U.S posTAGE * 7®617. t J "' ZO Z E p In a 0_ N 0000 u..2 r- v r Oa Q 0 1~ Z u) 1..... ® m Q O .rte .„ti 5 C7 i� -Q i+ WaN "CC o2 � cLS 8 0 ago m ^ to O) U a0. U 0 - ate+ rN„ N I E V1 O LU o LU < 4A 63 s wn 5 Cs 0 r wiz o cn p ce w U N d N w W d n O O w p > m I LL a m> 0 O N CO.QO K d 2a l0 * " JUL 15'0 0 z fir.i e1 _ 0 .6 0 E PB BMETER pill 73� U.S. POSTAGI IE 0 0 Z z + ="I Ow 0 L 2 F- CO • in J CLu z^ ,� o� r 5 S 0 z S�WRR E-- E U ei ¢W V M U LL F- Z u) W ©cc • •- S H < y a v Cr.,* co H V1 CO w .o �ES^�1. LY; Q O - O) N u_Z ri J O�0� N FLL� CO - F- v L M d m 0- mo > n EE vj Y 0 aa, aa Q 2 o LL EF_ Cl) CL V� I of s .....7.-,,,,,E_ t T . ` 4`.._. ,... o c.) 0° =7,7.,15'0 O z r':s� _ f 7941,44-. .S. ROSTAQE 1- co o Zz . �. N d0cu Z Q 0 O E< - � wz CO n I- X kr) Cr z W H- '^ 00 FE FE H zti J O a x `N°. W z§ J f(t h �' >. O y O xaaaF� 0 W OD wl° ® a a7 E .aUaco rn U OO ((�\�cc S ` W 0. 0 s N O H y0 W 0 co d W Q > U CO > d m E, n E vi >p y d 4a ¢ O I L.L. N a ®2�� ,_� � : y- � ��� `�&�7:21:.. . / ' ' / fL■� z -�:00 f ; 11.0.) �IER /\ v0S1A®ag}0 6g{ 2\ O . , ` k / \! : \ \ ". . •tt ` ` % o 4 q <� � \ c ' 3 t a k��v‘i -, , k - k k g ta_ \/ ' \ - et 0 R 3 - - ---i , I a, HA2 ry� -� ee v O 60,1 p 0 5+Q 0 i0].,,,...,,,,4,-4. E 0 ,��t I nQMEtEe1 ,� �s?fid 18111 4�= 1 \ \ az 0 Z• 2a Q R r oa W o N co �U Z r ?Q J v 03 c/1 00 rn WZp ® i m r A C1 Y$ u- !3- 't E fid, C� U?W n �.. m N r .._ E- l '- ` s v 0 4 4Lo�r" �+ * i° +: I 20 .60 * " JUL 1500 PA T P��i73 U.S. POST Aaf - I I r ZO z .. , `°a •` Q0 Z . rL Q Q 0a Q . n o W o I— ti 6 k M Vz W U � � 22 /([ E M . CC c:1 W Z� J CD CO v O Ri E m w 2 zog. t., w G Up, ` d Q ( o1) O wz E co *6co J W 2' O` m r a N0 y N G 7LL a O O up d i a) I I LL cny0 u O d d Q Q O 2a ' �..mow A t'G 1''1 . % 7i' d� * 4 se PfMeTER 7x#.1138. U.,S. POSTAGE * I‘ 0 0 ZI J o ,, •' 0 ' t .��, g _--i. ¢ MM Q .. W O 190 CD H _ yP Lu Z U N _ ¢¢ 0 O) .. m N �`' 0 ii I z Q ..J 0 .�i► 0 C a = cc a1 ,c d 0 °, t oA Q ; N al LL r) m N '. m 1 Q S • C NO _ to, 0ZE _ UJWu_ LL o / co FNv 0 Ih Plka0 w w > n amm mo (n >Q N . LL d ` G N., :�4. V• * * si t9 wO .6O O O 1 • AIM 16'0 t, ;' .,. e/!i17 U SS\ POSTAGE 1 q Ns Z Z N —a Lci Q ` :.... © 0 � CO 4Awo ,® 1` oQooc LL Co en wFF >4Cz y CCC o a G O -74 "' E-+ H 8 Rp wz� coca V�o •. 17, 1M t4 Cr) 03 2 U CP E C1: ~, b4 UOQ. 0 Q) M .4: lii m o J 2 Q O co LL U co Q W W > 16 coCL 5 m c O cO U 2 a O (n a "0 10 ,71i174 ° AU; 16'00z . ! - 060 = PBpp mETERlijimLU.S POSTAGE r ! I I o I Z (1) 7:4'8 z 4 CD 0 �� C J 0a i•-- 0 0 0Q. x C o y� F= a "J 8 m ^" CO d `0 —, ,,,d m w v, a� 1110 Z • (A -°-0 p rn Vacn o v O w V6°. U a 0) R CP 0 E) g co cow W QCD 7. E V] U pQ >- 0 ►� 5 V v K ow .r Oh C d- r N LLz 'r° o a WO LL co U . W / d E o w . a aco> 1 O u ?QO 0N I I I ° L.L.N a * o ,o 6 a . j" \ \ \ t- 0 0 z Z wz ` ;,, Q 2 ct u-2 ~ y r a cl P 1 -- Wp •3dA e Q Q l;3 « H N V�rL W © M z ¢. CS e I h • cc � 4 a r dO � co� Un. U.. • .n .p� ). io F- I 4 E 'G r WOQ , ® ','I! W U U OK _ co 73-3 m o V E Q Np -0 �1 LL- �LL \ \ \ Lu ' a m d m7 0 p 6.Qp K 2° • - vv O r .4l,� 0 .6O ,s 4 Ptt s : „ s. ?c,sc _ * j I r I I 0a Z W o , 7.1 Q O_ I, ~i 2Q Q O Oz � �r- 07 Qa 111 Q 0 a „U ,A Ca (d v V Gsre, d O H zw °CCOn m � � 02 U a) o 5N 0, to ( vm O 0 l z • •• , c O r cn W�z E , o E co Wc, o Q co p v a L. NPW > 9 C I I I co 0- p w 0 'm p ami tea, U)Qp 2 2a _—_74,7-4:7-,7,4---_:_—_-_-_-:-..s, - T % i q � E?fc:3600Z . .. QTER u.SQtAQE s . 7.317” \' \ \ r Zm .,,,_ Jo Q Q c'_ I-- 1-.6 •2 III rn U F- in p) o Wo 3 X O oi� r. O ^ r al,_ Jm m ox 0 u.r r p O N � x �, 0 0) i- 1-Z4 V •0- rn c) „0 co o - a) V vs CD ul ao® p W Ua �- U m w�j r 4' Tir u V U pcc .. K7 ;t M OCC J cy 0 L'. I I O Q N '. a I LL a. i Q0 1 u 7 2a a .., -0 r8,„ .... n Ln - * t METER U.S. POSTAGE « /11R17?S I-- I I ZZ I o ', rL as W p Qa 1~U ego u.rr m ', d Cg �" H M 4- CC O t l',- 'i i. 4��, O °� o4ov a ': 8A � > 1 cn o� ® �AO A o ti) 2 j x 0 o CJ o0 CC W O� 0 d (h N J W 0 u- m F- N d N 4 8 > N a m0 U •♦ O 1 a 6.Q� arc 0 2 a --=----=.--2-ii --,--,..i.„..„.,_._______ 1 r4�, ems : ° 'a�' � 0 .60 : , 0 AUG 16'0 6 x {��p.. e 71$1?3$ U.S. NOSTiGE R C7Z 1 Z Q 2' • F Z �..'.� ot Oa U.2v,- Is- o � " 0 m NXQa V s oc W cp 0) 1 .8i' 0 WrW' C x iH, t ^' O 02 N o z w, d V a0 O O I ^ co Na n- t)D 1 V1 m 15 Noz t' U � /O c: ,- 7W > O Om�aI aI I u- 2 2a N a. my o c Cl C m m -----"""'..... ' .fit ....---- • '""" :1r v�'' v s v cr ���alb • II : 0 .6 0 " PQMETER pOST4GE ,,,.....1.4.i Iasi z` 9` , L . } LL 0a W Zo • 0 E"' LI N Z C. M attp o IT-rill J 'i! d c g 1 H ~0 • • T. o > Cog U) T. ;� o .t rn Vo W °y ; a �y O co NI N z w Ea 173 2 U 02 skt —. 0 c v r 2 ca(3, 0 a O 00 N LL � o 0 Q W o LL U M E N m N ILL a' I, n I O O w m u- 0_ a m- ui>o o a d -- _ vv G q �d„r.� e ° AUG 16'00 IAI 'r •% ~ 0 .6 0 » * . 701171$ U.S. POSTAGE * _ f N, 09 ii Zo ', .:::,, , , ) 1 I � a 0 fir. u_ 2 l Wz N <o . i-- N. Q a '� X00 O Cu. Ww 0 F s U l `''„ U OCog nJ� G 0 x Va — y C iow' � co Z - LL. L-1:: O5 cc +I a° co w p N >"" C o r N LL Z -¢O Co co 0 ww j) d O w0 > a DQO PO I I I u_ N. i ♦� v� oAUG t6'00 ? . •"% - 0 .60 '` / -,/ ',:.METFB * (resi73E -U.S. POSTAGE a ZN - ' J w O Q 0 • 2 -I: 0 LN. Na 0 1-- N cc $ . h. 0 0 Quj ato X Q •Et- Li cn Ill p H o U e E,.., WQ ccn zr,J , ,(SCS v Og rn V 00 UJ13 CO 0 ww cu E aO x Q �� .41)t 2 )- wu_Z EJ._ 44 Q00 -0 1 0 `v' wcC w y U) uj w N �I 0. d Y> 0 LL O w0 O VI c O cc o► 0 V) O 2 o_ n- ,mss ��._ O ...; r 4 'FlgtiETER • •: 41 $ U.S. POSTAGE '' . z c )4 l r: Z Z ' J ,IC a }— r; N O JLL 2 cg >C g co W Z Ul CD } h Q a LU X C E O a L1. cc (� rii o M x O— El), P. menu) - g u 0 W Z1 (� d 0p O '.7 Va0 t1. tF� c. g O a a)v~iw r m 4: oA g z F" 0 E 2 • "' O t O U Nm m y U co OLLZ EIll o n NO LL COCOD I E ow; • 1III '6 EL m2 m N Y O N �� O 7 ga m d " AU6 t 6'0 0 2 ; iZ0. 60 = / Ea 1I. . POSTAGE tir Np + —kill • 0o 1 . Z z f� Q a V 0 moi f_ . oo OaLu z P d I— -2CC 7 XFa. .0 •04 0 I_ z Q /® d �,' rl " O cc o 2 Ci} ct; H oar • W zr +* d a� VFa �. * (!3 m tiN N co w w a" 0. E 4 aid rn U o5 cc D c 2 woWz E o r; J 0Q o OZCCO N O LL O CO CA 7 W m N E O W O > n -944 2 a m_ d cn>p N 0 LL 0ga x 9 d TGE s T4 �, ` * 0 o i /�h _ AUG t 6'0 0 x ` -'? �� E Q .6 0 PB�p * METER * U.S.7081731 POSTAGE z0, J W , o R 0 �" 0 L Q .\. � .. moo , rn ® C) Q Q wi ccc cc et N � Er- L, 0c c � � x YC 17- Lu.0 X � m � � � V00 :, m 0 h cn —a O a Q, CO w W a• a5 E U V 2 a) i U pQ N* c 2 5oD OA1f N U.Z E + 0 c O O CO QWO W s CO H ‘1)LI- ) ", ' C O W 9 > o. I I I Zi E a m_ 4 LL vi Q0 ¢ • o N 7 ga a E77—iro'f.ri k'— — . *0 | ° 4 /%4 A■ l600 ` .% - § : O § « w PB Mem U.S. POSTAGE : d . 708173s i a_ ., 2 ) :/i�v ? \\ l_, . 44 k \ / U. N\}--- 0 , . -' o z co ._. w § •r- o zj X 6 .0 - LU• I-- - § � (§ `� 2 ¢ & wok g — ƒ / � 022 J o F , o c @ co co & co / ' ® Ti \ / oz u •• k 2( 0 - 0:1 ) E2 t,", a_ kF / / S) \ co ) §t i E / §( ƒ \ I I I \ o_