The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About33 Dorsey McCrory 8.10.76 Nimitz and CoonerWNI~ 0 8NI ~ avis 0 D ·oN ·.>118 ·oN 101 "lc-ll c---tf a~oa REQUEST FOR INSPECTIOiJ .S-:L CJ~ .Jate Electrical Plumb5.ng 1 st ___ _ 1st __ _ 2nd __ _ 2nd_ 2nd _._ ., I_, ' . Framing Inspection Ch e ck .List I GENERAL Conf orms to floor plan Garage conn e ction if required II PLATES ·-----.. .. .... - . ~) " . B~l ts in place, fastened ~2) Fastener spacing ~(J) All isolated plates secure against movement C:JJ.-~fz;J-Plates treated wh ere required by plans III WAlL FR.f\J1ING Wind bracing installed, nailed by schedule Corner framing Studs at op ening Spacing of studs Penetrations of top plates and studs Nailing-secure a gainst twisting; nail schedule Sheathing in place \.mere required by plans Nailing schedule of sheathing or siding Header size as p er plans Fit of cripples at openings Framed sill height in bedroom window Firestop at stairs or floor & c eiling level IV . ROOF FRAMING Collar braces in place Ridge, valleys correct size Bracing and rafter spans as per plans Rafter size, spacing, grade as per plans Rafter nailing as per schedule; ha.11.g ers as required Roof deck edge support, nailing schedule Tenna.11.t separation in plac e if required on plan Attic vent present v CEILING JOISTS I FLOOR JOISTS ~- [9--1~) i ) ~ ~ Size grade and spacing as p er plans Adequate bearing or hangers or ledger as required Nailing sche dule Lower chord tie if requir ed. Fireplace clearance Penetrations correctly sized a.11.d located Bridging over bearing walls, on floor joist spans over 12 feet in all but one and two family nspector 7 fl'"' Pag'e 2 of 2 RE QUE ST FOR VARIAN CE Pre s en t z oning of land in que s tion.~__.R""-'--~3'--~~- Section of ordinan ce from which variance i s sou ght~~_.;6~-~G=-=-·~3'------~~~~~ Th e followin g specific variat ion from the ordinance i s r equest ed : _______ _ T o a llow a s tructure to r e m a in at 6 . 7 feet f rom the s i.d e prope r ty line at o ne ,e n d a n d 7 .4 f eet a t the othe r, a ss uming the se to be accurate d ata . This variance i s neces s ary due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not found in like districts: 1 .A .majority of other buildings in the addition are built with lesser side s e t back requirements, 2. The new str11ct11re in q11estian is weJJ b11ilt, has elicited many favorable comments as to ~ its ~ppearance and is believed to enhance the appea ranee of the n eighborhood and !Jroperty values there. The following al~ernatives to the requested variance are possible:~~~~~~~- This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following The new structure was built to provide relatively low cost re'.ltal uni.ts close facts: to the university. They were rented immediately by prospective tenants upon s e eing them, and we have had numerous subsequent requests for them. ~ll uni.ts are lea sed for the coming school year, wi.th leases call i.ng for o c cupa n c y jn mid-August. S e e atta ched copy of a lease, and a letter from a pare nt. (Se e attached page) his application are true and correct. cf4/a:/V0 ate · Page 2 of 2 Cont. The city street, Nimitz, that the structure parallels encroaches upon the lot throughout most of its length to the extent of over three feet at th e juncture of Nimitz and Cooner streets rraking un- int e ntional errors in strict conioliance with set ba ck requirements much r:nore possible. A registered e ngin eer was employed to set stakes on the prop et~ty line bordering Nimitz s treet for set ba ck measuring purposes, and one o f the finest and most experienced builders in Brazos County laid out the foundation perimeter. Neither of these fine men would intentionally violate the prescribed set back requirements and certainly would not intentionally place the owner's structure in jeopardy. It appears that the surveyor's fractional dimentions are in tenths of feet. Accepting his data, this would mean that the south corner of the structure is set back about 7 feet and five inches from the pro- p e rty line whereas the northwest corner is six feet and eight and one half inches, which hopefully suggests that any error in set back was an honest and unintentional mistake. However, a gain accepting the surveyor's data that the foundation of the structure is 22. 6 feet wide, this translates into slightly over 22 feet and 7 inches. The owner • has asked several individuals to measure the width of the foundation using conventional tapes graduated in feet and inches and the widest read- ing given him has been 22 ft. andfive inches. The architects design width was 22 feet and six inches. Again, this also hopefully suggests that variations and unintentional errors in measurements can and do o ccur. The adjace nt property owner whose actions necessitated this re- quest first contacted the owner when the structure had been under const- ruction three months. By then finish work had begun, all subcontractors w ere on the last phase of their work, all materials and appliances had be e n ordered, and permanent financing arranged. We are very pleased with the structure and proud of its acceptance by prospective tenants. To deny its completion and occupancy at this late date would be a heavy price to pay. I • TELEP HONE (713 ) 779-3 555 July 22, 1976 W. F. Koehler Building Official Box 9960 FR AN!\ STEE L MAN ATTORN EY AT LAW 116 NORTH WASHINGTON B RYAN . TEX AS 77801 College Station, Texas 77840 Re: Burkhalter vs . McCrory Dear Mr . Koehler: Enclosed is a platt prepared by Spencer J . Buchanan and Asso- c~ates Inc. The surveyor who prepared the platt is Donald W. Bockman. Mr . Bockman reflects that Lot 5, which is owned by D. E. McCrory has two (2) buildings under construction on it which infringe the 7 1/2 foot easement for buildings accord- ing to the building code of the City of College Station. I represent Mr. James Burkhalter, who owns Lot 4, the adjoin- ing lot . Mr . Burkhalter of course is upset in that he feels that his property is being damaged by Mr . McCrory's construc- tion inside the building easement. Mr. Bockman tells me that he has talked with the surveyor who works for Bryan Engineering, who had prepared a survey for Mr. McCrory. Mr. Bockman sa i d that there is no difference in the survey prepared by Bryan Engineering and the one prepared by Spencer J . Buchanan and Associates Inc. They both have the boundary line of Lot 4 and Lot 5 in the same location. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. FS/dd Enclosure Frank Steelman -, COON ER'S ADDITION S CA LE ,l""?o '#--,-________ _ () -I ~-<:-0 00 ~ ~ COONER STREET -FOU: D IRON ROD I ) ·· -..._so.o· ____.., ........__ 5o.o · ---1 5ET IRON ROD b LOT 3 ~ If) LOT 4 VOL .124, P553 D/R ~f 4J 0 ({) If) 6 7' ____ rn "~-. SINGLE r0 LEVEL 0 N HOUSE --_1_9_Q_ -- 26 .3 L~ 0 LOT 5 ~ 1) 22 6 -__ ?.QJ_'_ -f\ r-w w 0:: r- (f) N r- 2 z +o .o· LOTS 4 and 5, BLOCK 3 COONERS .ADDITION ·-:.. ··.; · .... · ··'·· ~ .. :: :···. .... · ·-··· z Q l- o 0 <( Cf) -0:: w z 8 0 r-- RICHARD CARTER LEAGUE, A-8 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEX.<\S Sl'fNCU J. WOIANAN AND ASSOCIATH, INC . (Oftr&Jl ll""1G f:NiCM';fftS llYAH . TfXAS \ I CITY OF COLLEGE STATIO N POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77840 July 22, 1976 Mr. D. E. McCrory 2109 Langford Circle College Station, Texas 77840 Dear Mr. McCrory: I have received a letter today from Mr. Frank Steelman representing Mr. James Burkhalter along with a co py of a plat which indicates that the apartment building under construction at 308 Cooner Street is nearer than 7 1/2 feet to the interior lo·t line. -We mu.;Jt requite )6ti to stopa:r;i,y further wo i::-k-o~h-i-s-- -Projest ua:t:il t-~~plia:nee w-tth-the;,-Zoning-6?.'di:n;ince is resolved. ;::br~d'r PYvr.< /J ,7 / lie r n l.. or /h: OtnkleI .. pj/~ It appears that you have two alternatives which would resolve this matter to the satisfaction of the City: (1) Reconstruct the northwest wall to meet the setback requirement or, (2) Obtain from the Zoning Board of Adjustment a variance to the side setback requirement of the Zoning Ordinance Forms for presenting a case to the Board of Adjustment along with information concerning the findings which the Board must make in order to grant a variance are available from the Public Works Clerk in the City Hall. Sincerely, William F. Koehler Building Official WFK:vlm Page 1 of 2 APPLICATIO N , File No . Application Da te ------- Rec 1 d by ------- Name of Ap p licant D.E. McCro..!X_.---------~------------~ Address 210 9 Langford ---'---""---------------------------~-~~- Phone Lo t 5 Block 3 Subdivision Cooner ------------------------- Descripti on , If applicable 308 Cooner St . ~------------------------~ Action requested : (Appeal , Nonconforming Use , Variance) _v_a_r_i_an_c_e ______ ~ Date set for hearing ------------------------------ Adjoiners notified --Ma iling Date ------------------------ NAME ADDRESS From current tax roll s , College Station Tax Assessor Page 2 of 2 RE.fQU-~ST FOR VARIAN CE I / J Present zoning of land in question _ ___.R ___ -=3 __ _ Section of ordinance from wh ich variance is sought~~--'6~-_G.=;_:.~3'--~~~~~~~~- The followin g specific variation from the ordinance is requested: ____ -~~~- __ __.!_o allow a structure to remain at 6. 7 feet from the side property line . at one end and 7. 4 feet at the other, assuming these to be accurate data. This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not found in like districts: 1 .A. .majority of other buildings in the addition are buHt with lesser side set back requirements. 2. The new structure in question is welJ b1iilt, has elicited many favorabl~ comments as to·:tts s;lppearance and is believed to enhance the appearance of the neighborhood and f?roperty values there. The following al~ernatives to the requested variance are possible:~~~~~~~- This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following The new structure was built to provide relatively low cost rental units close facts: to the uniyersity. They were rented immediately h31 prospective tenants upon seeing them, and we have had numerous subsequent requests for them. All units are leased for the coming school year, with leases calling for , . occupancy jn mid-August.. See attached copy of a lease, and a letter from a parent. (See attached page) his application are true and correct. &4<c;11Z0 ate REVIEW AND COMMENT: Fire Marshal The Zoning Board of Adjustment has examined the facts presented herein and reflected in the minutes of the public meeting of and have determined that the requested variance (IS / IS NOT) contrary to the public interest and that unique and special conditions (DO /DO NOT) exist as stated herein and as reflected in the minutes of the Boardts proceedings and the variance as requested herein (IS / IS NOT) approved subject to the ~ollow:trig terms and conditions: Chairperpo11, ·Zoning Board oJ Adjustment Date Filed NOTE: Any person or persons or any tax~ayer or any officer, department, board, commission or committee of the City, jointly or se¥erally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Adjustment, may present to a court of record a petition, verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be presented to the court within ten (10) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board. Page 2 of 2 Cont. The city street, Ni.mi.tz, that the structure parallels encroaches upon the lot throughout most of i.ts length to the extent of over three feet at the juncture of Ni.mi.tz and C ooner streets rraki.ng un- i.ntenti.onal errors i.n strict conp>li.ance wi.th set back requirements much more possible. A registered engineer was employed to set stakes on the property- 1 i.ne boraeri.ng Ni.mi.tz str.eet for set back measuring purposes, and one of the finest and most experienced builders i.n Brazos County lai.d out the foundation perimeter. Neither of these fi.ne men would i.ntenti.onally vi.elate the prescribed set back requirements and certainly would not i.ntenti.onally place the owner's structure i.n jeopardy. It appears that the surveyor's fractional di.mentions are i.n tenths of feet. Accepting hi.s data, thi.s would mean that the south corner of the structure i.s set back about 7 feet and five inches from the pro- perty li.ne whereas the northwest corner i.s si.x feet and eight and one half inches, which hopefully suggests that any error i.n set back was an honest and uni.ntenti.onal mi.stake. However, again accepting the surveyor's data that the foundation of the structure i.s 22.6 feet wide, thi.s translates i.nto slightly over 22Z feet and 7 inches. The owner has asked several i.ndi.vi.duals to measure the wi.dth of the foundation using conventional tapes graduated i.n feet and inches and the widest read- ing given hi.m has been 22 ft. andfi.ve inches. The architects design width was 22 feet and si.x inches. Agai.n, thi.s also hopefully suggests that vari.ati.ons and uni.ntenti.onal errors i.n measurements can and do occur;- The adjacent property owner whose , ,actions necessitated thi.s re- quest first contacted the owner when the structuce had been under const- ruction three months. By then fi.ni.sh work had begun1 all subcontractors were on the last phase of their work, all materials and appliances had been ordered, and permanent fi.nanci.ng arranged. We are very pleased wi.th the structure and proud of i.ts acceptance by prospective tenants. To deny i.ts completion and occupancy at thi.s late date would be a heavy price to pay. 0 ".-2 y ,J [{/ :;:i'CV\ 4 ~~uvi / l-~r__,_ 7 7 ( 14· id-:;:_, JI I 9 7 ~