HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2000-000075 (2)NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
The College Station Zoning
Board of Adjustment will
hold a publ ic hearing to con-
sider a side street setback
for 2100 Maplewood Court .
Applicant is John J. Alber-
naz, Inc.
The hearing will be held in
the Council Room of the
College Station City Hall ,
1101 Texas Avenue at th e
6:00 p.m. meeting of the
Board on May 2 , 2000 .
Any request for sign inter-
pretive services for the hear-
ing impaired must be made
48 hours before the meeting .
To make arrangements call
(979) 764-3547 or (TDD)
1-800-735-2989.
For additional information
please contact me at
(979)764-3570 .
Shauna Anderson
Staff Planner
4-19-00
CITY lW Ctll.l.l~!;1°: 5fATlllll
••• CUSTOMER RECE IPT •••
OPER: GMESSARRA CT DRA ER: 1 DATE: 4/07 /00 00 RECEIPT: 0178307
DESCRIPTION QTY AMOUNT TP TM
2000 G9 1 $75.00 •PL CK
PLANNING 8. ZONIN CK: 2734
TENDER DETAIL CK 2734 $75. 00
DATE: 4/07/00 TIKE: 11:14:14
TOTAL PERSONAL CHECK $75.00
AMOUNT TENDERED $75.00
THANK YOU
MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
MAY2,2000
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy , Bond, Alternate Members Searcy & Dr.
Bailey.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Happ , Hill , Alternate Members Lewis , & Ellis.
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Assistant Grace ,
Staff Planner Anderson, Assistant City Attorney DeCluitt,
Staff Planner Jimmerson, Staff Planner Hitchcock. Assistant City
Manager Brown was in the audience.
Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. (John Happ).
Mr. Bond made the motion to approve the request from Mr. Happ. Mr. Searcy seconded the
motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from the April 4, 2000 meeting of the Board.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Searcy seconded the
motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4:
for 7704 Sherman Court.
Consideration to remove from the table the front setback variance
Mr. Searcy made the motion to remove the item from the table. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.5: Consideration of front setback variance at 7704 Sherman Court, lots
3 & 4, block 1, Raintree Subdivision. Applicants are Laurie & Boyd Sorrell.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms . Anderson told the
Board that the purpose of the variance is to allow the construction of a new garage. The applicant
wishes to renovate the existing garage into a room and bathroom for an elderly parent. The requested
variance is to allow for the construction of a new 550-sq. ft. (22'x25 ') garage to replace the one that is
to be renovated.
ZBAMinutes May2,2000 Page I of 8
The applicants propose to con ct the new garage in front of the exis _ garage space. This location
however, calls for approximately 350 square feet (14'x25') to extend 10 feet from the property line.
Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 15-foot variance to the front setback.
The applicant states two special conditions as:
1) the property has several large , mature, oak trees , which would have to be removed if the
garage was placed at a different location and;
2) a pond cuts through the property, thus limiting the amount of space that would be added to
the side of the home.
The applicant states two hardships as:
1) cannot build behind the house due to the lack of space, utility lines and no drive access and ;
2) cutting down the trees would result in more erosion along the bank of the pond.
Ms . Anderson ended her staff report by showing the Board Members pictures of the property.
There were discussion among the Board Members about the pond, wood deck and the trees.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing.
Boyd Sorrell, the applicant/homeowner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman
Alexander. Mr. Sorrell presented the Board a petition from the neighbors on the street that are in favor
of the request. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that he and his next door neighbor are some of the original
Raintree residents. Mr. Sorrell explained that the project was designed to not destroy any of the trees
on the property as well as to have the addition set back far enough from the street. Mr. Sorrell
explained to the Board pictures that he had taken of the property. Mr. Sorrell told the Board that
TXDOT has easements that run through the pond and therefore the pond cannot be covered up. Mr.
Sorrell told the Board that the addition would conform to the existing home. Mr. Sorrell ended by
telling the Board that if this addition required the removal of many of the native trees they would chose
not to build the addition. The cul-de-sac and the pond limit what can be done on the lot.
Dr. Bailey asked if the proposed garage doors would open on to the street or a driveway. Mr. Sorrell
replied that they would open on to a driveway.
Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell if he was familiar with the alternatives the city staff had for his plan. Mr.
Sorrell replied that the alternative of placing the garage on the left side of the house , that is the side
where the bedrooms are and city codes requires that all bedrooms have windows to the exterior. Mr.
Bond questioned the alternative of removing the wood deck adjacent to the house. Mr. Sorrell replied
that was not possible because there is not enough area and there are huge oak trees there that would
have to be removed. Mr. Sorrell stated that area in the back where the wood deck is ; the highway
department will not allow any fill toward the pond where they have their easement.
Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell how far into to his property do the TXDOT easement extends . Mr.
Sorrell replied that the easement runs through the cannel of the pond that runs through both his lots .
ZBAMinutes May2, 2000 Page2of8
Mr. Bond asked Mr. Sorrell w many total trees would be remove or this addition. Mr. Sorrell
replied that only 1 tree would have to be removed for the proposed garage. If the garage were placed
some other place on the lot it would be at least 7 or 8 trees . Dr. Bailey asked if the trees are all native :
Mr. Sorrell replied yes .
Mr. Searcy stated that the staff report listed an alternative for the Board to grant less than what is
requested. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Sorrell if that would be feasible if the variance was less. Mr. Sorrell
replied that the garage door was planned for 22 feet but it could easily be cut down to 20 feet.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: a
TXDOT easement makes this the only feasible plan; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions
of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the destruction of mature
native trees ; and such that the plan is not changed. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed
unopposed (4-1). Mr. Bond voting against granting the variance
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a side street setback variance at 210Q Maplewood,
lot 27, block 18, Emerald Forest Phase 10. Applicant is John J. Albernaz Inc.
Mr. Bond told Chairman Alexander that he needed to step down from hearing this case due to a
conflict of interest. Chairman Alexander told the applicant that positive action from this Board would
require the remaining members to all vote in favor of the variance. Chairman Ale xander asked the
applicant if he wanted to reschedule this when a full Board was voting. Mr. Albemaz stated that he
would proceed with the hearing.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the
Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an encroachment into the side street
setback. The subject property is located on the comer of Maplewood Court , a cul-de-sac, and
Appomattox Drive. Maplewood Court is considered to constitute the front of the home , while the West
Side of the home has frontage along the side street Appomattox Drive . This case involves a recently
constructed home that, at the time of sale, was found to encroach into the required side street setback
along Appomattox Drive. A survey of the subject property shows an 18.21 foot section of the home
that is only 13.35 feet (instead of the required 15 feet) from the property line along Appomattox Drive ,
thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.65 feet to the side street setback requirements.
The applicant offers a special condition of a subtle curvature in Appomattox Drive that resulted in a
foundation placement miscalculation that led to the subsequent encroachment. The applicant adds that
the site plan and construction was approved by the College Station Building Department, however
these inspections were based on erroneous site data that did not take into account the curvature of the
road .
The applicant has stated a hardship of the only remedy to the encroachment being the removal and
replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. He argues that such removal and replacement would
cause the structural integrity of the entire structure to be unsafe.
ZBA Minutes May2, 2000 Page3 of8
The City is not currently under the policy of enforcing setbacks when encroachments are found,
however failure to remedy the encroachment through reconstruction or variance could make future
sales of the home difficult.
The only alternative to the variance which would clear up future surveys that has been found by the
applicant and staff is to remove the area that is encroaching into the side street setback.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request.
John Albernaz, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr.
Albernaz told the Board that he believes the · Board has all the information in their packets and he is
there if there were any questions .
Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Albernaz if the home was constructed according to the plans and in the location
approved by the city. Mr. Albernaz told the Board that there was an error in the site plan. The plan
showed a 94-foot frontage and it is actually 91 feet because of the curve in the road.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: a
slight curvature in the road that was left out of the site plan resulted in the encroachment ; and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this
applicant being: the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. Such action would
result in an unsafe structure; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed ( 4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a rear setback at 102 Church Street. Applicant is
William O'Brian for Connie Wortham.
Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson told
the Board that the variance is to allow accessory buildings to be within the required setbacks.
Currently existing on the site is a walk-in cooler and a portable metal building. If they were not to be
moved they would be considered legally nonconforming.
The applicant is proposing to do three things:
1. Move the walk-in cooler to the east, inline with its present location, not encroaching into
the setback any farther than currently.
2. Enclose the area where the walk-in cooler is presently located, to provide for additional
food preparation area.
3. Move the portable building to allow for the new location of the cooler.
If the Board decides to grant this variance, staff would recommend that the Board limit the variance to
the three buildings listed in this request and require that they be located according to the site plan
submitted in conjunction with this request.
ZBA Minutes May2, 2000 Page4of8
The applicant offers a special condition that there is insufficient space in the building for the type of
food preparation needed. Another special condition that may be considered is that the existing building
predates the current and several previous zoning ordinances and site planning requirements.
The applicant states that there really is no other room on the lot itself to do any enlargements or
additions. Additionally, because of the existing layout of the site and the building, the amount of
unusable space is even further reduced.
Mr. Searcy asked what is the setback now with the existing building. Ms. Jimmerson replied that is
about 6 inches.
Mr. Bond asked for clarification in the staff report as it states "on this particular block, this type of
access area will not occur unless the entire area is redeveloped". Ms. Jimmerson replied that there are
exiting buildings there that do not meet the 15 foot rear setback. If this variance were approved this
would make the other existing structures come into compliance.
Mr. Bond asked what is to the rear of the building now. Ms. Jimmerson replied that it is vacant
property. Mr. Bond asked who owned the property. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she did not know that
but it may be on the survey. The survey showed Jack Boyett as the owner.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing.
William O'Brian & Costa Dallis, the applicant & tenant, stepped forward and were sworn in by
Chairman Alexander. Mr. O'Brian told the Board that they are wanting to expand the kitchen area of
the restaurant due to its small area. The walk in cooler would be moved down to allow more food
preparation. In order to move the cooler the portable building would have to be moved.
Mr. Dallis told the board that it is desirable to have direct access to the walk-in cooler and it not be free
standing on the property because of the fresh fish. Mr. Dallis stated that the Health Department would
like it as well that they did not have to go out side to access the cooler
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Alexander closed the
pubic hearing.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of
this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions:
existing development predates the zoning ordinances; and because a strict enforcement of the
provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: significant
removal of existing development and also the failure to meet health ordinances; and such that the spirit
of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: no
change in the site plan. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion.
Mr. Bond made an amendment to add under special conditions "and in order to assure space for
rear access per the ordinance intent the entire area would require redevelopment." Mr. Searcy
seconded the amendment.
The Board voted (5-0) to approve the variance.
ZBA Minutes May2, 2000 Page 5 o/8
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: nsideration of a height variance 1 "'uest at 301 Church Street.
Applicant is Tom Kirkland for the Tradition @Northgate, LDT.
Senior Planner Kuenzel stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Kuenzel told the
Board that the variance is being sought to allow for the construction of the proposed dormitory with a
roofline that will screen roof top equipment.
The area was rezoned in 1996 with the rest of the Northgate area subsequent to the City's adoption of
the Northgate Redevelopment Plan. That plan targets the Northgate are for rehabilitation and
redevelopment as an urbanized historic business area near the Wellborn and University Drive with
residential uses behind the commercial areas . The plan provides for high-density development in all
three of the Northgate subdistricts with pedestrian and bicycle-oriented uses. In an effort to achieve
these goals , site design review is discretionary through the Northgate Revitalization Board Review
Subcommittee (NRB). Future development and redevelopment is to occur in more of an urban,
compact style, rather than the suburban style that occurs in other parts of the City.
In November 1999 , the NRB and City Staff held a predevelopment meeting to discuss the conceptual
plan for the dormitory. At that time, the NRB expressed some concern regarding the scale of the
project, and gave the applicant direction to focus on the site areas between the building and the streets
such that these areas would create a semi-public transition with landscaping and pedestrian-friendly
facilities (sidewalks, benches, lighting, etc.) The NRB recommended approval of a slight increase in
height in order to effect these goals on the rest of the site .
The overall permitted building height in this subdistrict is 50 feet -the visible roofline of the proposed
dormitory will be 53 feet 3 inches. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 3 feet 3 inches ,
or 6.5%.
Mr. Bond asked if the alternatives listed in the staff report are the only ones available to the applicant.
Are there any structural changes that can be made. Ms. Kuenzel replied that staff had not identified
any but there possibly could be some. Ms. Kuenzel referred the question to the applicant.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing .
Tim Kirkland, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr.
Kirkland told the Board that he has been working with the city for a better part of a year and the NRB
to come up with a concept that both the city and the NRB would be pleased with. Mr. Kirkland told
the Board that 4 significantly large air conditioning units are being proposed and placed on top of the
building. The fa9ade is to cover the units from being seen. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that one of the
alternatives is not to place the units on top the building but rather have them on the ground and build
some structure around them. Mr. Kirkland explained that the landscaping plan that is being worked on
by the NRB and the city involves Second Street, Church Street & Boyett Street. Aesthetically it would
not be ideal for the plan to place the units on the ground . It would impact the sidewalks , the pedestrian
ways and the bicycle routes. Mr. Kirkland stated that the best architectural thing to do would leave the
units on the roof and cover them up. Mr. Kirkland ended by telling the Board that the architect was in
the audience if they had any questions .
ZBA Minutes May2, 2000 Page 6 of8
John Garrison, the architect , ed before the Board and was sworn i Chairman Alexander.
Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Garrison if there has to be a certain number of feet per floor. Mr. Garrison
replied that clear heights are needed that a ceiling can not encroach. To be able to accommodate all the
infrastructure in the plenum you have to have a certain floor to floor height to accommodate that.
Mr. Searcy questioned the overhang shown on the drawing and asked if the screening could be
provided inside that edge , which would then still hide the equipment but not require the variance .
Mr. Garrison replied that it was possible. When working with the NRB and the ordinance , one of its
intents is to have the buildings step back from the street and have some movement and scale to them .
Mr. Garrison explained the proposed building and how the canopy on the ground level projects the
base of the building out and as the building rises the roof screen overhang creates some relief and
shadow at the top of the building. This makes it look more active and vibrant. Mr. Garrison told the
Board that the screen could move back to be flush with the building but the shadow would be lost. Mr.
Garrison explained the shadow as being an important part of the building. Mr. Searcy asked Mr.
Garrison if he would agree that the primary reason for the variance is for the aesthetics of the building.
Mr. Garrison stated that he would agree to that statement.
Mr. Bond asked Mr. Garrison if 3 feet 3 inches reduced the building height , would it in some way
violate the southern building code requirement for clearance in each floor. Mr. Garrison replied that
the top four floors of the building have minimum clearance. From a floor to floor stand point once
everything is installed; the bathroom ceiling heights are at the minimum height they can be. The only
place for additional height is on the ground floor. This could be lowered down but that is the main
plenum for all the infrastructure to go up through the building . It then would have to go to the top of
the roof and be exposed and that would be a severe hardship to the design of the building .
Chairman asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request.
Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde , stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman
Alexander. Mr. Flores-Meath told the Board that when he first saw the project he understood it to only
be four floors. Mr. Flores-Meath agreed that placing the heating and cooling units on ground level on
the side of the building is not very practical. Mr. Flores-Meath suggested taking out a few of the inside
dorm rooms on the fourth floor and install the ale units there , then a variance would not be required .
Mr. Flores-Meath told the Board that a lot of money has been spent in the Northgate area to make it
quaint and now this monster box appears in the middle. Mr. Flores-Meath described the project too big
for the area.
With no one else stepping forward , Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing.
ZBAMinutes May2, 2000 Page 7of8
Mr. Bond made the motio e authorize a variance to the buil height requirement from the
terms of this ordinance as it wi ll not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special
conditions: area blocks were created prior to city incorporation making consolidation of property and
redevelopment difficult and the effective loss of the perimeter of the site for landscaping purposes
requires the increase height of the building to accommodate the design; and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being: the alternative of additional land acquisition to make the project feasible and to leave enough
transition area is not feasible in the Northgate area as elsewhere in the city, and maintaining as much
open area within and around the site is important to the design of this project and to the overall
Northgate area. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Discussion of topics for future workshop agenda.
Mr. Bond stated that he understood that eventually this Board would have a workshop meeting. No
topics where discussed.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned.
ATT EST:
ZBAMinutes May2,2000 Page8of8
STAFF REPORT
Date: April 26 , 2000 ZBA Meeting Date: May 2 , 2000
APPLICANT: John J. Albernaz, Inc.
REQUEST: Variance to the side street setback
LOCATION: 2100 Maplewood Court
PURPOSE: To legitimize an encroachment into the side street setback.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant:
Property Owner:
Applicable
Ordinance Section:
Builder
Eddie and Lori Archibeque
Section 7 , Table A-District Use Schedule
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land Use:
Frontage:
Access:
Topography &
Vegetation:
Flood Plain:
J:\PZTEXT\PZ02972 .DOC
The subject property and the areas to the north, south and west are
zoned and developed as R-IA, Single Family Residential. The
abutting property to the east is located in a large A-0, Agricultural
Open undeveloped area.
Maplewood Court
Appomatox Drive
94'
130 '
Access is provided via a driveway onto Maplewood Court.
Relatively flat with landscaped vegetation.
Not located within a flood plain
VARIANCE INFORMATION
Setback Required:
Setback Requested:
Case Overview:
ANALYSIS
Special Conditions:
Hardships:
Alternatives:
J :\PZTEXT\PZ02972.DOC
15' side street setback is required.
13.35' side street setback is requested.
The subject property is located on the comer of Maplewood
Court , a cul de sac , and Appomattox Drive. Maplewood
Court is considered to constitute the front of the home ,
while the west side of the home has frontage along the side
street Appomattox Drive. This case involves a recentl y
constructed home that, at the time of sale , was found to
encroach into the required side street setback along
Appomattox. A survey of the subject property shows an
18.21' section of the home that is only 13 .3 5 ' (instead of
the required 15 ') from the property line along Appomattox
Drive, thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.65'
to the side street setback requirements.
The applicant offers a special condition of a subtle
curvature in Appomattox Drive that resulted in a
foundation placement miscalculation that led to the
subsequent encroachment. The applicant adds that the site
plan and construction was approved by the College Station
Building Department, however these inspections were
based on erroneous site data that did not take into account
the curvature of the road.
The applicant has stated a hardship of the only remedy to
the encroachment being the removal and replacement of the
foundation and exterior walls . He argues that such removal
and replacement would cause the structural integrity of the
entire structure to be unsafe.
The City is not currently under the policy of enforcing
setbacks when encroachments are found, however failure to
remedy the encroachment through reconstruction or
variance could make future sales of the home difficult.
The only alternative to the variance which would clear up
future surveys that has been found by the applicant and
J:\PZTEXT\PZ02972.DOC
Staff is to remove the area that is encroaching into the side
street setback.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Intent:
Similar Requests:
Number of Property
Owners Notified:
Responses Received:
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Application
Survey
J :\PZTEX1\PZ02972 . DOC
Building setback requirements usually allows 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 .
All cases found relating to side street setback variances
were in relation to an encroachment of a garage , which
have a minimum side street setback of 20 feet. Unusual lot
shape and irregular lot size were special conditions in the
instances where a variance was granted.
13
I have received three calls regarding this case , however no
particular opinions for or against were expressed.
M-1
A-0
A-0
1'.j·~r City of Co ll ege Station, Texas
~ PLAN I G DIVISION
A-0
' \
' ; 200'
/' NOTIFICATION
, AREA
:r> -u -u
0 ;:: g
x
0 ;o
2100 MAPLEWOOD CT.
A-0
A-0
ZBA 05/02/2000 SETBACK
VARIANCE
ZONING BOARD OF ADnJSTMENT APPLICATION
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
h iling Fee of $75 .00.
V'" AppliCation completed in full .
v" Request form completed in full.
7 Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor
plans. The Zoning Official shall infonn the applicant of any extra materials required.
AP~LICANr/PROJECT MANAGER'S. ,~ORMA TION (Primary Contact for the Project): ....
Name J ohn J. Albernaz, Inc.
Mailing Address __ 9_2_3_1 _B_r_o_o_kw_a_t_e_r_C_ir_c_l_e _____ _ City College Station
State . Texas Zip Code 77 845 E-Mail Address -------------
Phone Number (979) 68 0 -1033
PROPER1Y OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Fax Number ________________ ~
Name Eddie and Lori Archibeque
Mailing Address __ 2_1_0_0_Ma~p_l_ew_o_o_d_C_o_ur_t ________ _ City Co l lege Station
State Texas Zip Code 77 845 E-Mail Address -------------
. Phone Number Fax Number ----------~ -----------------~
LOCATION OF PROPER'IY:
Address 21 00 Maplewo od Court , College Station _____ ..;__ _______ _....;;;'---------~-=-------------
Lot 27 Block 18 Subdivision &terald Fo~est . Phase 10
Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision ----------------------
Action Requested: (Circle One)
Current Zoning of Subject Property
Applicable Ordinance Section
Q etback Varian~
Parking Variance
Sign Variance
Appeal of Zoning Officia_l's Interpretation
Special Exception
Other __________ ~
~ applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached
reto are true , co ect and complete.
VARIANCE REQUEST
The followi n g specific v ariation from the ordinance is reques ted:
Variance to pennit permanent encroachment into side street setback of portion of
residence structure (approximately 15' x 1.5' along Appomattox Drive frontage.
Lot 27, Block 18, Fln::rald Forest, Phase 10
This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions:
Residence structure was constructed on Lot according to site plan for lot prepared by
!
architect and approvals by COCS inspections based on erroneous site data in site plan.
Subtle curvature in street resulted in foundation placement miscalculation and thus ..
encroachment.
T he unnecessary_ hardship (s) involved by meeti ng the provisions of the ordin ance other than
financial h a rdship is/are:
Residence structure is presently occupied by third party purchaser from variance
applicant. Foundation and exterior walls would have to be rermved and replaced.
Replacement could result in structural integrity of entire structure becorrdn~ unsafe.
T he following altern a tives to the requested variance are possible:
Physical rerroval of encroaching improvements from setb ack; however, rerroval will cause
. substant:ial inconveni ence and detriment to welfare of occupant owners and possible
_threat to overall structural integrity of buildin~ and its .use.
T his va riance will not be contrary to th e public i nterest by virtue of the following fa cts:
Existence of the encroachment ~-ill not threaten or hann public interests relating to
fire safety, traffic safety or neighb orhood design harrrony. The encroachrrent is
minin]al (only a 15' x 1. 5' section within the concave curvature of a City street). The
encroachment does not restrict or hinder sight for traffic flow when traveling down
either street abutting the Lot. Also exi~tt:;n~e of the er:croachrn=r:t does r:ot restrict,·'
block, or hinder access to the Lot or adJommg properties relative to fire or other-,,
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts slated h er ein and exhibits a ttached
heret are true, correl and complete.
CSBVARI
CSTAPP.
2 of2
N
0
0..
al
0
0
0
I
Ill
N
I
I.
" !
SCALE : 1"
~EC"-0:
WO~J rENCC: ___,,._..,..__.
.30'
c·
D•CSJS'4S'
R=;o115 .1J
~~69 .05
T=JL.5J
LC •69.0J
Cll •N 45• 15·59• 'fl
C2
D·9<Y 17 ·59•
R-2~.00
L•J9.•C
T=2S.· 3
.• C•JS.45
Cil•N 03'06'5 '" W
BRIO< .t .. 'OCO r ;:r;:::(
--:>--<>--
C 0 M:il r.t
1/2 ~:H llC•
ROD rou...~ -:11
•·· ·.t
EASOl ;:t<" TO 0 -.,. ~ CO:.L£G€ S-Al!O N
· J66/J2•. oocs ~or -~· -o ·Hs RAI:;.
BUNK~ E.lS:wENI TC Cl'Y or BllY .....
144/SIJ. OXS ltF~.Y ·o T-t'! 1RAC-. '
3\.1.L~ NO 5CT8'0( LINts PER CITY C' cau.rcc STA'ION OllONAN(;( NO . I EJ6
•HJ [)[;:o R~ICT!ONS 2.lM/113.
C .. -CO,;JROU.•ICO llONUlj(\T:
AIC1'L'Mf:K![O P'!Of!ffTY co~.•ERS rrur.o AAO
USC!l ro ESl•.'!U9i PROPEHr C:>RN[R$.
B!Ml.'C S"'"STEM Sl1CWN -C:ACOH IS HOWO!tlt..C
THE PLAT <:AU.ED BEAR"~ AS -ON !;[ ~~~ffc ~ ~ 2~...:f J:U, AAD
LC;-26
BLOCK 18
5U'M:YOl!'S C;:Rllf'CA-(:
·, dq.tl) KE•ll, R.P .L.S. NC . 4JC2. 00 •ERCBr :t:RTlfV -T r .. s P..li! IS .. ·~J;:
RCPREHHTA,ON or .. SUR'JCY ""°E ON '"( ~~OIJ•t UNDER ..,y SUPERY .SIV'< .l#J THAT
lH(R( All( ~O (NCAOA::•lll/fli C'I lHS TilACT EXC£PT AS SHO\\ ... •[Rt:~
lltS nucr DD!S "'°-J [ ... , ..... OESICMl'C) I JO YCAR FL ::<l'J PL)f• ACC;)fl)I ... ; ro
THE ,.I .A .... i.w'S. COM""-""' FAML ND . 48l4 'C016J C, E'TECTI YE '.Y>IE : C7-Cl-199Z.
Flf"URE ,..._ASE
EMERA'-D ::-~REST
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Bll'!'ER I ::OWAW F . .ARCH IBE:OU: ANC
. .OR ' I<. ARC HIBEQUE
TITl.E I LAWYERS T ~LE
COl.tPANY I COM PAA Y
G.F . No . I S2 12J7
1..AN O TITLE S UR\l[V "LJo.T
LOf 27, 8LOCK t 8
P.AERAD FOREST, "HAS:: ·o
VO LU ME 2379. PACE .3.33
COL::GE STATIO N, B~AZOS CCUNTY,
SCAI.(. •. "'CH • JC rt(T
S.MriV C.O.t:: Ol-24 -0~
P·..AT :l4T ~ OJ-2!-00
J C8 .a,11a~R: :X: -OJ:<:<
CAC MNK: 00-0322
CR5 R ..E: EMCVol.O (<:Ol'I): oa-o:>i2 :.iobl
PAl=~1'EO B"t': K£RR SUll'VEYNC CO .
sos ~M STREcr . :a .o . ICX 219
CO LLEl7-il~Tl<N, ~ 176•1
?HOM!: (4M) l&e-3191~
TEXAS
LEGAL NOTICE
DATE TO BE PUBLISHED: APRIL 19, 2000
BILL TO: The City of College Station
P .0. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
REFERENCE PURCHASE ORDER# 149
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
ONLY
The College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a
side street setback for 2100 Maplewood Court. Applicant is John J . Albemaz, 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 May 2 , 2000.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-
2989.
For additional information, please contact me at (409) 764-3570.
Shauna Anderson
Staff Planner
April 19, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Re: Variance request for 2100 Mapplewood Court.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a variance request for
the following property:
Applicant:
Subject Property:
Proposed Variance:
JOHN J. ALBERNAZ, INC .
2100 MAPLEWOOD CT
(See attached location map.)
Side Street Setback
The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 2, 2000 at
6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall
Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas.
All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject
property have received notification of this request.
Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735-
2989.
For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (409) 764-3570.
Shauna Anderson
Staff Planner
SITUS SITUS_STR OWNER_NAM2 OWNER_ADD1
2104 WALNUT GROVE SWOBODA, ALLEN R 8415 APPOMATTOX DR
2107 MAPLEWOOD CT JOHNSON , DORIS B 2107 MAPLEWOOD CT
2102 WALNUT GROVE SWOBODA, ALLEN R 8415 APPOMATTOX DR
2105 MAPLEWOOD CT SWOBODA, ALLEN R 8415 APPOMATTOX DR
2100 WALNUT GROVE SWOBODA, ALLEN R 8415 APPOMATTOX DR
2106 MAPLEWOOD CT BOYER , JIM & CYNTHIA 2106 MAPLEWOOD CT
2103 MAPLEWOOD CT BURKE , HORACE R & SHIRLEY D 2103 MAPLEWOOD CT
2104 MAPLEWOOD CT SWOBODA, ALLEN R 8415 APPOMATTOX DR
2101 MAPLEWOOD CT JETT, BARRY L & !RENE 9375 EL CAMPO TRL
8301 SHADOW OAKS RAY , JANICE M 8301 SHADOW OAKS
2102 MAPLEWOOD CT TOMLINSON , JOHN A & SABRINA D 2102 MAPLEWOOD CT
2100 MAPLEWOOD CT SWOBODA, ALLEN R 8415 APPOMATTOX DR
8403 WHITEROSE CT MESSER , CARROLL JOE & BARBARA ELAINE
8401 WHITEROSE CT ORVILLE , RICHARD E & BARBARA 8401 WHITEROSE CT
8405 WHITEROSE CT GAINES, WILLIAM GERALD JR & MARY ENTWISTLE GAINES
8407 WHITEROSE CT LEE , PAO HUA LIU 8407 WHITEROSE CT
8409 WHITEROSE CT HOYLE , JOHN R & CAROLYN F 8409 WHITEROSE CT
8411 WHITEROSE CT HELFELDT, JACK P & BETTY J 8411 WHITEROSE CT
8415 APPOMATTOX DR SWOBODA, ALLEN R 8415 APPOMATTOX DR
OWNER_ADD2 OWNER_ CITY OW OWNER_ZIP
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845-3016
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845-4614
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
8403 WHITEROSE CT COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845-4604
8405 WHITEROSE CT COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845-4604
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
00-50
Carla Young
Raintree Representative
2711 Redhill
College Station, Texas 77845
00-75
Eldred Keahey
Emerald Forest Representative
1610 Emerald Forest
College Station, Texas 77845
00-50
Carla Young
Raintree Representative
2711 Redhill
College Station, Texas 77845
00-50
Amy Tremblay
Raintree Representative
2715 Wilderness North
College Station , Texas 77845
00-50
Amy Tremblay
Raintree Representative
2715 Wilderness North
College Station, Texas 77845
00-75
Eldred Keahey
Emerald Forest Representative
1610 Emerald Forest
College Station, Texas 77845
00-75.
Laurence Sistrunk
Emerald Forest Representative
8700 Bent Tree
College Station, Texas 77845
00-75
Laurence Sistrunk
Emerald Forest Representative
8700 Bent Tree
College Station, Texas 77845