Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2001-500174NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Th e Co ll ege St ation Zo ning Board of Adjustme nt will hold a publi c heari ng to cons id er a variance for 3212 Nue berg Co urt , lo t 7, block 11 , Edelweiss Es tates Phase 14. Ap plican t is Kerr Surveying for Stylecraft Bui lders. Th e hearin g wi ll be held In the Council Room of th e Col- lege Stati on City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m. mee ti ng of th e Board on September 12 , 2001 . Any re quest for sign int erpretive services for the hearing impa ired must be mad e 48 hours before the meeting . To ma ke arr ang ements call (4 09) 764-3547 or (TDD ) 1- 800-735-2 98 9 . Fo r additional information , please contact me at (4 09) 764-3570 . j Jen nife r Reeves Staff Planner 8-29-01 CITY "" .. JL.LEGE STATI~ ttt Cl.i.l10MER RECEIPT ttt OPER: MFORD CT DRAWER: 1 DATE: .8/14/01 00 RECEIPT: 0285360 DESCRIPTION QTY AM<WT TP TM 2001 500174 1 $75 .00 tPl CK PLANNING & ZONIN CK : 12608 TENDER DETAIL CK 12608 $7 5. 00 DATE: 8/14/01 TIME : 14:50:24 TOTAL PERSONAL CHECK $75 .00 AMOONT TENDERED $75. 00 THANK YOU NOTIFICATION AREA City of College Station, Texas PLANNING DIVISION . . r., 3212 NEUBURG COURT ~ NOT TO SCALE ZONING CASE: ZBA 09/12/01 .. L '> ,, ,.:. SETBACK VARIANCE C H ECK B Y : __ _ DATE : MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment September 12, 2001 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Chairman Hill , Birdwell , Sheffy , Richards & Lewis. Alternate Members Goss & Corley, not needed . Alternate Member Allison ; not need but in the audience . Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Reeves & Hitchcock, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik. Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider Absence Request from meeting. No requests to consider. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of meeting minutes from August 7, 2001 Mr. Birdwell made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a sign variance at 3939 State Highway 6 South, lot 29, block 1, Woodcreek Subdivision. Applicant is Chandler Signs L.P. for Courtyard Marriott. (01-166) Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the use of a larger and taller freestanding sign than is allowed by ordinance. The applicant would like to erect an approximately 131 sq . ft . sign, 41 feet behind the curb at a height of 19- feet for a new development on Highway 6 and Woodcreek Drive, but because the highway is a greater classified street, the highway frontage is used for sign considerations . Section 12 .3 K. of the Zoning Ordinance (Free Standing Commercial Signs) states that "a premise with less than 75 feet of frontage shall be allowed to use one low profile sign". Low profile signs have a maximum area of 60-sq . ft., a maximum height of 4 feet, and are required to be placed at a minimum of 10 feet from the right-of-way . Thus, the applicant would like a variance to the restriction that only a low profile sign is allowed on a property with less than 7 5 feet of frontage . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 1 of9 The lot has an odd configuration that limits its frontage on the Highway 6 frontage road ; but was platted in this way with the knowledge that signage would be limited . Hotel Village Partners, L.P. had the subject property platted for the Marriott Hotel in 1999 . At that time, staff was concerned about the limitations the configuration had on signage options and expressed those concerns . Despite the known impact , the property was platted in the configuration that limits the options for the hotel. The applicant has also stated that the hotel will have limited visibility from the access road due to trees . It is staff's experience that , much like the Marriott Hotel site, when the properties at the front of the subdivision develop , many of the trees will be removed . A variance hardship is the inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law . The sign company representative believes quests and the motoring public will be inconvenienced by the lack of hotel visibility . Without the variance, the applicant would still be able to hav e a freestanding low profile sign along the Highway 6 frontage . Low profile signs are 4 feet tall , but because of the topography of the area, would be perceived as taller. Placing a low profile sign ten feet back from the right-of-way (as the ordinance requires) would put a low profile at an elevation of 318 feet (top of sign). The elevation of the centerline of Highway 6 varies between 308 -310 feet from its intersection with Rock Prairie to the hotel driveway. The elevation of the centerline of Highway 6 varies from 290 feet at the Rock Prairie underpass to 298 feet at the Business 6 intersection with Deacon . Realistically , the four-foot low profile sign would be 8 -10 feet tall from the perspective of the feeder road and 20 -28 feet tall from the perspective of the highway . The hotel would also be able to utilize attached signage . The building has three stories with the height to the eave line at approximately 30 feet. At a finished floor elevation of317.5, the bulk of the building stands between approximately 9 -39 feet above than the frontage road and 27 -57 feet above than the highway . Attached signs are allowed at this location as long as they advertise only the name of, uses of, or good or services available with the building to which the signs are attached , and as long as the signs are parallel to the face of the building, not cantilevered away from the structure, and do not extend more than one foot from any exterior building face , mansard , awning or canopy . If the property met the minimum frontage requirements for a pole-mounted freestanding sign, the sign would be allowed 50 sq . ft. To have the approximate 131-sq . ft . of signage that is requested , the hotel would have to have 251-300 feet of frontage . Ms. Hitchcock ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property . Chairman Hill opened the public hearing to those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Rockford Gray, Chandler Signs , stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Gray handed the Board a copy of the final rendering of the sign . Mr. Gray told the Board that the property that houses the hotel is almost 700 feet from the highway. Mr. Gray stated that the sign they are requesting is much smaller than the typical highway sign that the Courtyard Marriott tries to acquire . Mr. Gray added that the letters on the sign are only 24". Mr. Gray made reference to the staff reports mention of the access road . Mr. Gray told the Board that most of the people looking for the hotel are not on the access road . ZBAMinutes September 12, 2001 Page 2 o/9 They are travelers on Highway 6 going North and South. Mr. Gray stated that the issues about the access road really do not apply to what this hotel needs for just basic visibility and identification . Mr. Gray noted that the staff report also mentions the trees on both sides of the hotel. "Once development occurs on those properties and the trees are removed a low profile sign may be seen better ." Mr. Gray stated that is if the property is developed and if the trees are removed . Mr. Gray talked about a low profile sign and how it would not be sufficient for the hotel. Mr. Gray ended by telling the Board that 19 feet is low for highway signage and the 2-foot lettering is not that large . It is adequate at this location to properly identify and properly see before exiting decisions need to be made Mr. Birdwell asked if the developer was aware of the sign ordinance at the time the property was purchased and platted. Mr. Gray replied that he heard that the developer was made aware if this . Mr. Birdwell asked if Courtyard uses wall signs on their buildings . Mr. Gray responded they will in this case and it will be near the top of the building . Again , the trees come into play plus the building is parallel to Highway 6 . Mr. Gray ended by telling the Board that that sign will not be affective to the motoring public . Mr. Sheffy also questioned the developer 's knowledge at the time of platting, that the signage would be limited . Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Gray if the Courtyard Marriott does signs in combination with other adjacent businesses . Mr. Gray answered yes they have done that. Mr. Lewis stated that he was guessing that the two lots adjacent to the hotel are likely going to be restaurants . Mr. Richards made the statement that he did not understand why the owner of the property was not at the meeting . The variance is for the owner, not the Sign Company. The owner could answer the questions concerning the platting . Mr. Lewis stated that there are two things the Board has to find to grant a variance . One could understand that a hardship could be related to traffic safety . Special conditions are related to the physical characteristics of the property, but since the developer knowing the sign ordinance decided the configuration of the lot, that would not constitute a special condition . Mr. Lewis asked if there was another special condition. Mr. Gray responded that if the property had been developed by a third party and the hotel company decided to buy the property, and they came to the Board with the same issue of needing identification from the highway, the needs, conditions, and hardships are still the same . Mr. Gray stated that the low profile sign, which is allowed, would not be seen . That is the condition of the topography . Mr. Gray ended by saying that what is allowed is totally useless . It is a major hardship for a hotel not to be seen from the highway . The hardship is presented to the Board to hear not the development-related issues . Mr. Richards stated that the developer created its own hardship. Mr. Birdwell pointed out to Mr. Gray that the Board could not consider a financial hardship and this was a financial decision made by the developer . It is obvious that Marriott could have bought the whole tract of land . Mr. Birdwell ended by saying that their option now is to either acquire more frontage or make a joint agreement with the developers of the property next to them to have a joint sign . Chairman Hill asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the variance . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page3 o/9 Manuel Pena Jr., 9308 Amberwood Court, stepped before the Board and was sw orn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. Pena stated that the request is quite significant. Mr. Pena stated that if a sign was placed on the building that would allow the hotel to be seen from a distance . Pena expressed gratitude for being notified about the variance . He was not notified when the original approval was made for the construction. Mr. Pena summarized his complete opposition . Jeanie Baggett, 9310 Amberwood Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Ms . Baggett encouraged the Board to follow the ordinances and deny the variance . James Russell , 9302 Amberwood Court, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. Russell stated that he and others in the area are less than pleased at the way the development of the hotel happened in relation to the housing . Mr. Russell ended by saying he is against g ranting the vanance . Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle , stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. McClure told the Board that he owns property next to the hotel as well as being the president of the Amberlake Homeowners Association . Mr. McClure stated his concern is the traffic that will go through Woodcreek Drive. Mr. McClure also stated his concerns about the other signs for the future restaurants . Mr. McClure ended by saying that he has a little different perspective than his neighbors . Chairman Hill asked Mr. McClure if was opposed to the variance . Mr. McClure stated that as an office business owner he is for the variance because he wants them to be successful. Chairman Hill asked city staff to clarify the signage for the restaurants and Marriott Courtyard . Ms Hitchcock stated that it is possible for the three properties to have shared signage . But they would have to replat the entire area as one plot . Mr. Lewis asked ifthere could be an easement granted for signage . Ms . Hitchcock answered no. With no one else stepping forward to speak, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Mr. Birdwell made the motion to deny a variance to the sign regulation from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest , due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: alleged special condition was a decision by developer. Additional frontage could be acquired or a joint sign could be negotiated ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant , and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served . Mr. Richards seconded the motion. Chairman Hill stated that he does not have a problem with the developer coming before the Board for the variance knowing he had full knowledge of the sign ordinance prior to the construction of the hotel. Mr. Hill stated that is how the system works . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 4 of9 Chairman Hill called for a vote on Mr. Birdwell 's motion to deny and Mr. Richards second . The Board voted ( 5-0) for denial. AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration of a sign variance for 800 Earl Rudder Freeway, lot 3, block 1, The Gateway Subdivision. Applicant is Clayton Rhoades for Chicken Express. (01- 170). Mr. Hitchcock stepped before the Board and told them Staff is recommending that the Board deny this variance request. The case as presented by the applicant is not appropriate for consideration by the Zoning Board of Adjustments . Property owners that are aggrieved by the Zoning Ordinance may apply for a variance as allowed by the ordinance, or request that the Council changes the standard . If a variance request is appropriate , the Zoning Board of Adjustments is legally bound to find special conditions and hardships related to the subject site to grant it a variance . Since variances run in perpetuity with the land, it is necessary for applicants to show special conditions that are tied to the land and not to a personal situation . The special condition(s) of the land must result in a hardship that is other than purely financial. Challenges that a standard in the Zoning Ordinance violates a federal act can not be resolved by the ZBA but must be resolved through legislative or judicial processes . Since ordinance standards are adopted by the City Council, land or business owners arguing not the application of a standard, but the existence of the standard may ask the City Council to change the standard . If unsatisfied with the outcome of the legislative process, arguments may be made in court . In the case of Chicken Express, the business owner would like to use a third font on a freestanding sign in the University Drive Overlay Corridor zoning district. The City Council adopted the Overlay Corridor District to enhance the image of key entry points, major corridors, and other areas of concern, as determined by the City Council, by maintaining a sense of openness and continuity. To help reach this vision, the City Council adopted the standard that only two fonts could be used on a sign in this district. On his original ZBA application, the applicant did not list special conditions, but stated that the ordinance standard violated federal legislation . Staff called the applicant and his sign contractor, Mc Co-Ad Signs , and explained how Lee Einsweiler of Duncan & Associates (the city's consultant for the Unified Development Code project) had informed the city that the two-font standard was acceptable. The applicant and sign company were also told that the ZBA was the wrong venue for the argument they were using to gain permission for their desired signage . They were informed that the Zoning Ordinance is currently being updated as part of the drafting of the Unified Development Code and that the opportunity exists to share their opinions with City Council and request consideration of changes to the code. After this discussion, the applicant was still interested in pursuing a variance . Staff reiterated the purpose and requirements of the variance procedure . Mr. Rhoades submitted a new request form that still challenges the legality of an Overlay Corridor sign standard and does not provide special conditions appropriate for ZBA consideration . The applicant may ask the City Council to change the standard they have adopted for the Corridor Overlay District or apply to a court oflaw. Ms. Hitchcock ended her report by showing the Board pictures of the property . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 5 o/9 Mr. Birdwell stated that there are two variance requests in this case. Ms . Hitchcock repli ed that was correct. Mr. Birdwell stated that one request does make reference to special conditions . Ms . Hithcock replied that it not how city staff sees it. The applicant is arguing there are three businesses and they should be allowed three fonts . That is not the standard that the City Council has set. Each sign gets a maximum of two fonts . Mr. Richards asked if the Board approves this variance, does that approve it or would the applicant have to go the City Council. Ms . Hitchcock replied that if they approved the variance they would have to find special conditions that are tied to the land. Mr. Lewis asked if the two-font rule applied only to the freestanding sign or to the bu ildin g as well . Ms . Hithcock replied that it would apply to the building as well . But each attached si gn is a different sign . The freestandin g sign, because it is a shopping center they would all have to share one si gn . Mr. Richards asked when did the applicant become aware that the ordinance would not allo w this . Ms . Hitchcock replied that the applicant would have to answer that question . Mr. Birdwell asked if the graphic that was presented, was it otherwise acceptable in terms of size , area and hei ght. Ms . Hitchcock replied yes . Chairman Hill opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the variance . Clayton Rhoades, the applicant , College Station, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Rhoades showed the Board a graphic of the sign . Mr. Rhoades stated that his argument is a legal issue . Mr. Rhoades explained that when you look at the property and the sign that has been approved that will be on the building itself, it would not be visible from the highway or the frontage due to the canopy in the front. He stated he does not understand why an agreement could not be reached to get this sign approved . Mr. Rhoades told the Board that there already is a billboard up on Highway 6 visible with the logos of Exxon, Subway and Chicken Express . When people exit the University Drive exit they are not going to be able to see where Chicken Express is because it is not visible from the freeway until your right there . Mr. Rhoades ended by saying that he wants to get the visibility . He stated that he did not see how this would be a hindrance . Mr. Richards asked Mr. Rhoades if he was aware of the signage limitation before he si gned his lease . Mr. Rhoades replied that he was not. Mr. Rhoades stated that he signed his lease prior to Subway to appling for their sign permit. Mr. Richards asked Mr. Rhoades when did he become aware of the requirement. Mr. Rhoades replied that it was right about the time Subway 's sign was put up . It was then that the landowner mentioned that there might be some difficulties . With no one stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Chairman Hill began the discussion by saying that this variance request does not meet the purpose of the Board. According to the staff report this can not be resolved by ZBA, but must be resolved through legislative or judicial processes . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Birdwell stated that is why he asked staff about the second variance request. The applicant does have a general variance request. It clearly states a special condition and makes no reference to the constitution . Mr. Birdwell stated that he sees no problem with it. He came to the meeting with the thought of deferring action but now that he has been provided a graphic he is prepared to make a motion . Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance tot he sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the following special conditions not generally found within the City : ordinance prohibits use of existing trademark sign ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to the applicant being ; inability to use national recognition sign; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be observed and the general interests of the public and applicant served , subject to the following limitations : use of a sign as presented in the graphic to the Board . Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Mr. Richards stated that he has difficulty with this for the simp le reason that they do not have the authority to grant it. Mr. Richards stated the intent of the ordinance is to maintain a continuity of signs . Mr. Birdwell did not see how they could argue fonts . The Board discussed the sign and their jurisdiction. Chairman Hill asked is the color limited as well . Ms . Hitchcock answered that the ordinance does limit the color and height. The ordinance reads no more than three colors and two letter styles . Ms . Hitchcock stated that black and white is a free color. With no further discussion Chairman Hill asked Mr. Birdwell to re-read his motion . Mr. Hill asked Mr. Rhoades if the graphic presented is how the sign would look. Mr. Rhoades replied that the trademark would actually be smaller and placed below the Subway sign . The Board voted (4-1) to approve the variance. Mr. Richards voting to deny. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a rear setback variance for 3212 Nueburg, lot 7, block 11, Edelweiss Estates Phase 14. Applicant is Kerr Surveying for Stylecraft Builders. (01- 174). Staff Planner Reeves stepped before the Board and presented the staff report . Ms . Reeves told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an error made during the survey . The result is an encroachment that reaches 23.3/4 ' from the property line to the closest part of the home ; thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 1.5 feet . As special conditions the applicant offers that a human error made during the survey and that the house backs up to a common area, which backs up to Wellborn Road . Because variances run with the land , special conditions must relate tot he particular property, therefore , staff does not consider these reasons to be special conditions . ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 7 o/9 The applicant states that the buyers are awaiting approval. A hardship should be a direct result of the special condition . The applicant states no alternatives; however, staff feels to legitimize the encroachment without a variance they would need to remove the portion of the home that is encroaching . Ms . Reeves ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property . Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Randy French, Owner Stylecraft Builders, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill . Mr. French told the Board that he is coming to the Board acknowledging the encroachment. Mr. French spoke about the lot being on a cul-de-sac . Mr. French stated that in this case there is a common area to the rear of the property and no other house or residential structure will be placed on the adjoining land . Mr. French ended by telling the Board that he takes this extremely seriousl y . Mr. Richards stated that looking at the survey he does not know how that house could be placed on the lot. Mr. French replied when they went in for the building permit it did work. Mr. French told the Board that he does have a buyer that has children in the house . They did know prior to moving into the house of this issue . With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the case, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing . Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions : variance is deminimus ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being : causes encroachment; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations : variance limited to the encroachment of existing structure. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Chairman Hill told Mr. French that he personally has a problem with the Board validating mistakes like this that should have not happened . But at the same time he will agree with Mr. Birdwell that this is very minor and the rule of common sense should kick in at some point. Chairman Hill called the vote from Mr. Birdwell's motion and Mr. Sheffy's second. The Board voted (5-0) to grant the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO 7: Future Agenda items. Mr. Birdwell stated there is a need to hold a workshop with the Board to discuss the Unified Development Code . City staff should be given the authority to approve small variances. Mr. Birdwell asked to have the consultants make a presentation to the Board with the changes being implemented . The Staff Planners told the Board they would get with Senior Staff and report back to the Board . The Board expressed a desire to get a draft copy and overview of the UDC. City staff will follow up and report to the Board. ZBA Minutes September 12, 2001 Page 8 of 9 AGENDA ITEM NO 8: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned . APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ZBAMinutes September 12, 2001 Page 9 o/9 ·~~ .-.. -... ,'-'._'&:.I..'-'~ U.3.1:1 Ui"tL)'. CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED:-=rt--:n--- COU.lGl STATION -;;.:51~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION /, ~INIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: V h iling Fee of$75.00 . _7_ Application completed in full. _Request form completed in full . _Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sign details and floor plans . The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required . APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name /rffr '-5J ( 10-f f 05 -4luf'se iXJcker Mailing Address &= t?horch 1.sl. City <!o llf!Je uMcfYJ State ~'f/15 Zip Code 11~l/ I Phone Number c?J68 --.3 /q,5 PROPERlY OWNER'S INFORMATION: E-Mail Address bof1@tca, /Je_f Fax Number «;Jf/j -JJC/fJ l/ N=e QMetffjf~e; Mailing Address i u(Jv':/h E-Mail Address State J1. Zip Code 17g4s -----------~ Phone Number (dlO -/ :;aa Fax Number '190-o 3</R LOCATION OF PROPERlY: Address ~I a Aleo.bum Cood- Lot 7 Block // Subdivision Cck/lde/.ss ~ fJAefse J</ Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision -------------------- Action Requested: (Circle One) ~ Parking Variance Sign Variance Current Zoning of Subject Property -I Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation Special Exception Other ---------- Applicable Ordinance Section \S::;oh'an Z ~ eJd'oarce #fb3£ I The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and complete. ~ StlaMt 'iEe/ini'eian Signature and itle Z8A AP PUCA TION ZBAAPP .DOC 3/7:Sl99 1of2 VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: .l'"UK U.l''.HCE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: ___ _ Y/;e slrudure ea?r-Mck I JS ;fl ()(/ff ¥6e dS" /tear velb:uk TIUs variance is necessary due to the following special conditions: Y/ze h0l15e I~ pfly Wn{J/ekcJ <i!f5/1Hs yf))-z~ 1be unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: Y/Je p()-lerrftal J:;fJ'/ms are lf<(j)fltfr'y c?fPnrr-a/ tJ /ll(J(e 1/J alt)(_ 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 : cz71~ h tL C!tlmmazz tjted (/xJfo t<JneJ ~ aJI Vtfe (ftJL aP/IJe 1be facts stated in this application are true and correct. ~AL-MM~ Applicant VARIANCE REQUEST VARIANCE.DOC 3flSl99 2of2 SCALE : 1" 30' LEGEND : AERl,6.1.. ELECTRIC LINES ------WOOD FENCE """ ----11----11----1~ CONCRETE ""' """ """ ""' ""' 20' WATER LINE L...>..,...--..>.,. EASEMENT 528/466 PER DEED RETR ICTl DNS 1827/J15 THERE IS RESERVED A BLANKET EASEMENT AND AN ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT OVER ,6.1..L LOTS AND COMMON AREAS. BUILDING SETBACK LI NES PER CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ORDINANCE ND . 1638. CM -CDNIBDW NG MONUMENT FOUND AND USED TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY LINES. BEARIN G SYSTEM SHOWN HEREON IS HONORING THE PtAT C,6.1..LED BEAR INGS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOL 40H, PG . 97, AND AS MONUMENTED ON THE GRO UN D. LOT 6 BLOCK 11 NEUBURG COURT 50' R.O.W. LOT 8 BLOCK 11 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE : I. BRAD KERR , R.P.LS . NO. 4502. 00 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT IS A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY MADE ON TH E GROUND UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACH MENTS ON THIS TRACT EXCEPT AS SHOWN HEREON . THI S TRACT DOES NOT LIE WITHIN A DESIGNATED 1 00 YEAR FLOOD PlAJN ACCORD ING TO THE F.l.R.M. MAPS, COMMUNITY PANE L NO . 46041C01B2 C, EFFE CTIVE DATE : 07-02-1992. BRAD KERR REG ISTERED PROFESS IONAL LAND SURVEYOR NO . 4502 BUYER DANIEL BOWLING AND TERRY BOWLING TITLE AGGIEL.AND TITLE COMPANY COMPANY G.F. No. DOOOOO LAND TITLE SURVEY PLAT OF LOT 7, BLOCK 11 EDELWEISS ESTATES, PHASE 14 VOLUME 4024, PAGE 97 CO LLEGE STAT ION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS SCALE : 1 INCH -JO FEET SURVEY DATE: 08-09 -01 PLAT DATE: 08-10-01 JOB NUMBER : 01-1046 CAD NAME: 01-1046 CR5 FILE : EDEL-15 (cont); 01-1046 (job) PREPARED BY: KERR SURI/EYING CO . 505 CHURCH STREET. P.O. BOX 269 coll.EGE STATION. TEXAS ne41 PHONE (979) 268-3195 I STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Jennifer Reeves Date : 08/21 /01 Date: 08/21/01 ZBA Meeting Date: 09/12/01 APPLICANT: Louise Barker with Kerr Surveying REQUEST: A 1.5' variance to the 25' rear setback LOCATION: 3212 Neuburg Court PURPOSE: To legitimize a variance error made during the survey. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Property Owner: Applicable Ordinance Section: Louise with Kerr Surveying Stylecraft Builders Section 7: District Use Schedule -Table A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned and developed as R-1 Single Family. The property is located within the Edelweiss Subdivision. Subject Property: The following lot dimensions are approximate , please refer to enclosed site plan for more detail. Frontage: Access: 30' of frontage along Neuburg Court 92' northwest (side of property line) 118' southwest (rear property line) 134' southeast (side of property line) The subject property, consist of one lot , Lot 7 of Block 11. This g ives the property approximately 30' of frontage along Neuburg Court. Access is given via a driveway onto Neuburg Court. O :\gro up\deve _ ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\ho nd a.doc Topography & Vegetation: Flood Plain: VARIANCE INFORMATION Setback Required: Setback Requested: ANALYSIS Special Conditions: Hardships: Alternatives: SPECIAL INFORMATION Number of Property Owner's Notified: 18 Responses Received: 0 ATTACHMENTS O :\group\deve _ ser\s tfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda .doc Relatively flat topography with no trees . Not located within a flood plain. A rear setback of 25' is required for R-1 Single Family homes . This case involves an error made by the surveyor in establishing the rear 25' setback . The result is an encroachment that reaches 23 .3/4' from the property line to the closest part of the home ; thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback variance of 1.5 feet. As special conditions the applicant offers that a human error was made during the survey and that the house backs up to a common area , which backs up to Wellborn Road. Because variances run with the land , special conditions must relate to the particular property; therefore , Staff does not consider these reasons to be special conditions . The applicant states that the buyers are awa iting approval. A hardship should be a direct result of the special condition. The applicant has stated no alternatives ; however, staff feels to legitimize the encroachment without a variance they would need to remove the portion of the home that is encroaching. Location Map Application Site Plan O:\group \deve _ ser\s tfrpt\zn gstfrpt\honda. doc From: To: Date: Subject: Jennifer Reeves OebOrah Grace 8/30/01 4:59PM 3212 Newburg Randy Bond -called ma about this. Apparently he is a neighbor to this property. I have already had three phone calls complaining about the people in this house. It's all students and they are parking in front of the mail boxes. I talked to Jon Mies about this, and he said there is nothing in the ordinance to stop them, but he would send someone by to take a look. Anyway, ............ Randy would like a copy of the packet that went out. I told him to stop by and see you early next week. Thanks jennifer •' '·. ~. '> •• ·-~ f .... ••.. : , : ., .. '~ : ... -.. ; .. · : ~ • l ': •• ::-1 ; .. ...". .: .......... ·. " " . . .,: ...... ... I ' f' ~ • ~ I • ' • ..., ~ . ··:. ~ .. . ; . ·· .. ' .f ,4' .. ~, ... ( ... ' • ' ·~ '• •''I ;5 i ··'. \~~ .. ': ~.:'' ,!·'~ ,• ~ •,. I ~· FACSIMILE COVER SHEIT CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979)764-3570 I Fax (979)764-3496 · Date: C\ ...-~ -0 ~ # of pages including cover: / \ ff you did not receive a complete f~ please ca// oar ofnce immediately for a new Iran~ To:b \:5'0.\S«-.b ~e..\ FAX: _____ _ COMPANY: ~e_\\ RE: 2)6 \\-\-\~~ FROM:V ~\G._ ~K PHONE:_--"-'(9:;......o7....=;.9.L...;)7:......::6:.....=4__::-3::;_:;5:....:..7....;:;...0_ COMPANY:.~~~~~___;C=i~ty~o=f~C=o=ll~eg=e~S~ta=ti=·o=n~~~~~~~~ REMARKS: D Urgent D For your review D Replay ASAP D FYI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , 09 /04 /01 13 :16 U979 7 ti4 J4llo TR AN SMISSIO N OK TX/RX NO. CO N ECTIO N TEL CO ECTIO N ID START THIE USAGE TIME PAGES RESULT *************************** *** ACTI VITY REPORT *** *************************** 9259 9p6918904 09 /04 13 :15 01 '13 4 OK 9a00nd Address of S ender 6 c ITV OF COLLEGE STATION P.O Box 9960 Co ll ege Station , TX 7784 2 01-174 M W Construction 2912 Cain Road College Station, Texas 77845-6224 01-174 Herman Edward & Bonnie Lee Couch 1282 Stauffer Circle College Station, Texas 77845 -36 70 01-174 Charles Thomas Homes P .O. Box 10106 College Station, Texas 77845-0106 01-174 Susan W. Sheffield 3208 Nueburg Court College Station, Texas 77845 01-174 GDT Inc OBA Benchmark Home 1110 121h Man Circle College Station, Texas 77845-8978 ·~ 15 Total Number of Pie ces Total Number of~ LJ"OO G:) """"''" "'~ PS Form 3877 Au ust 2000 / g Check type of mail or service: A ffix S tamp H ere $_---= (If issued as a O Ce rtified 0 Recorded De livery (Internat ional) certifica te of mailing, ~ ~GE$~~-Z.(~-==-1..:: :. * 0 COD 0 Reg istered or for additional " .. -~ 4r--- * 0 Delivery Confi rmation 0 Return Receipt for M erchandise copies of th is bill) ., ~ !II ----,. r AUG 29'01 ~,~:f = * 0 Expre ss Mai l 0 Signature Confirmation Pos tmark and 125= * n In sured Date of Recei12.t ~~ * * me, Stree t, and PO Address Postage Fee Handling A ctL PB,.·~1'" * Cha rge if RI * 't lt * -,, 14367 U.S. POSTAGE : -• I > .. .... --~ h\ ~F.Qr., > ·-·-Cl> I\. -(,) 1. ~· ~~ , -~~ en Q Q,I .... "\ >c. ~ c c a: ,., ·-.,.. ~~ t.f:i I.>' ,~, ·-"O Cl) -... .. ~ l'O c ... :I -~ c ~~ ,. (,) .... ~--~~ o-:c ·a;; Cl> ·-.. ... a: .. ·-l/j t ... ->---.,. ,;,;: -0 u a: .. (,.) ·-dl C: Cl) Q. 0 .. (I) ... ::s -.... > "' .. c -~ -.::::" > ·-(I) - 0 Postmast r, Per (Name of re ceiving emp loy ee) The full decla ration of va lue is re quire d on a I do mestic an d international registere d mall. Th e maximum inde mnity payable for the recon stru ct io n of non ne go ti ab le docum ent s under Express Mail docu ment recons truct ion insurance is $500 per piece subject to add itional li mitat io ns for mu ltiple piece s lo st or damage s in a si ng le catas troph ic occ urrence. The maxim um inde mn ity paya ble lY(\\;\ on Express Ma il merch and ise insurance is $500 , but op ti on al Express Mail Service me rchandi se insurance is available for up to $5,000 to so me , but no t all cou ntrie s. The ma xi mum indemn ity payable is $2 5,0 00 fo r registered mail. See Domestic Mail Manu al R900 , S913 , and S921 for limitation s of cove rage on insured an d COD mail. See International Mail Manual for limitations . / of cove raae on int ern atio na l mail. So eci al ha ndl ina chara es aoolv onlv to Sta nd ard Mail IA\ an d Sta nd ard Mail (B) parcels . Co~ ljllete by Typewriter, Ink, or Ball Point Pen . ' e2!JOOd Add ress of Sende r Check type of mai l or service : Affix Stamp He re D C e rtified D (If is sued as a ~ --:-L~ I • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Record ed Deliv ery {In te rnational) certifica te o f mailing, ':-oE'Sr ~~ •¥-• D COD D Reg istered or fo r additional -· .. ,,. ii!!! ~ * P.O Box 9960 D Delivery C o nfi rmatio n D Return Receipt for M erchandise copies of this bill) * D Ex press M ail D Signature Confirmation Postmark and ~ ., mt~ -* Colleoe Station TX 77A4? ~u AUG 2 9'0 1. 3 , .,filil ; 1 .2 5 * D Insured Date of Receiot -* -Handli ng A • Name, Street, and PO Address Postage Fee • Charge if PB MEHR • 01-174 O.S. POSTAGE • TV 7114367 • Oleksiy V. & Galyna V Mishonova - 3209 Neubuerg Court College Station, Texas 77845 01-174 Stylecraft Builders Inc . 4112 SH-6 South College Station, Texas 77845-8964 ::... .h\L -=.t:~ ~ ~ 01-174 ~r ~ ~· --> Randall & Tammy Boehme ·-Q) ~ --u ~. 3205 Neuburg Court l~\O( . (;> !::j c:n Q w College Station, Texas 77845 tO.' <:3-~ [) ,) Q c c a: 0 ·-.,.. ~~ "'7 ·-'ti Q) -... .. 01-174 1\:1 c ... :I c -~ '"' (,) .... Edelweiss Estates HOA -o-:c .. Q) C/O Begonia Corp. ·-.. .... a: ... ::: Ill ~ -190 l San Jacinto -.. :: -0 a: Houston, Texas 77002 .. 0 u ·-t'J c 4> 0. 01-174 ~ .. en _:I Begonia Corporation .... >-1\:1 1901 San Jacinto .. c Houston, Texas 77002 ·.::---.!::~ > ·-Cl) - 15 1 0 Total Number of Pieces Total Numbe r of Pieces Postmaste ~ Per (Name of receiving e mploy ee) The full declaration of value is required on a I domestic and international registered mail. The maximum indemnity payable for the ""~C)' Recei ved at Post Office re construction of non negotia ble docume nts under Exp ress Mail docu ment reconstruction insurance is $500 per piece subject to ~· ~ add itio nal li mitatio ns for multipl e pieces lost or da ma ges in a single catas trophic occurrence. The maximum indemnity payable on Express Mail merc han d ise insurance is $500 , but optional Express Mail Service merchandise insurance is availab le for up to ) $5,000 to some , but not all countries . The maximum indemnity paya ble is $25 ,000 for registered mail. See Domestic Mail Manu al R9 00 , S91 3, and S92 1 fo r li mitations of coverage on insured and COD mail. See International Mail Manual for limitations of cove ra ge on inte rn atio nal mail. Soecial handling charges apply only to Standard Mail (A) and Standard Mail (Bl oarcel•. PS Form 3877, Au ust 2000 g / Complete by TyPewriter, Ink, or Ball Point Pen .· r . Address of Sender CITY OF COLLEG E ST ATION P.O Box 996 0 College Station , TX 77842 01-174 Wayne Carroll Edelweiss Representative 3229 Innsbrook Circle College Statio n, Texas 77845 01-174 Jack Anding 705 Hassett College Station , Texas 77845 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Number of Pieces Total Number of Pieces Listed by Sender Received at Post Office ~ 0--,, Check type of mail or service: Affix Stamp Here * (If issued as a * Q-::I i.:=:;-~2 -O Certified 0 Recorded Delivery {International) certificate of mailing, ·-· ~ 0£ s, ~~a * 0 COD 0 Registered or for additional " ii! " ~o ote'f~ -* 0 Delivery Confirmation 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise copies of this bill) 0 Express Mail 0 Signature Confirmation Postmark and D Insured Date of Receiot me . Street, and PO Address Postage Fee Handling Actual V Charge if Regist, M LEGi' t\. I ~ IO§Z~ ~, "I-.'\~ ~\ IC: ~ c.!:I {.>I ~I ,(J.! > A .,,,,, ~ -~~ 0 .5 0 = ~ AUG 2 9'0 \ 2 , ~Jj{"' -'!9 * • • * * • JlBM£TEA T'lll 7114167 U.S. POSTAGE • • - ~ .. .... ·-- > ;;' ·-Cl.I -(,) al Q w c c a: ,.. -'l"l ·-"D Cl) .. .. ~ c .. ::s c t--~ -u .... o-:c ... Cll ·-.. .. a: .... ::: Cl) ~ -E r--._ ;; 0 u a: .. (,.) ·-dl c Cl.I a. ~~ .. en t--:::s .. ~ CV .. c ~ "'' > ·-·-en -0 PostmastE • Per (Name of receiving employee) The full declaration of value is required on a I domestic and international registered mail. The max imum indemnity payable for the reconstruct ion of nonnegotiable documents under Express Ma il document reconstruction insurance is $500 per piece sub ject to ,J;r\\f\~ additional limitations for multiple pieces lost or damages in a single catastroph ic occurrence . The maximum indemnity payab le on Express Mail merchandise insurance is $500, but optional Express Mall Service merchandise insurance is ava ilable for up to $5,000 to some, but not all countries . The maximum indemnity payable is $25 ,000 for registered mail. See Domestic Ma il Manual R900 , 5913 , and 5921 for limitations of coverage on insured and COD mail. See International Mail Manualfor lim itations ,/ of coveraae on international mail. Special handlina charges aoolv onlv to Standard Mail IAl and Standard Mail (Bl oarcels. , Co moledl b\ Typewriter, Ink, or Ball Po int Pen ·. August 29, 2001 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re Variance Request NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station has received an application requesting a variance for the following property: Apolicant: Kerr Surveying for Stylecraft Homes. Subject Propertv: 3212 Neuburg Court (See attached map) Action Requested : Rear Setback Variance The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider the request on Wednesday, September 12, 2001 at 6:00 PM at the College Station City Hall Council Chambers at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas. All property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any requests for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting . To make arrangements call (409) 764-3547 or (IDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (409) 764-3570. Jennifer Reeves Staff Planner r ~, , .' I " .f I .. • , ~-t • • • ..,..1 ' . ' ' I . ·. ... ,. ·' ,. ~ . . . . ., ... .. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: fhe College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing to consider a variance for 3212 Nueberg Court, lot 7, :>lock 11, Edelweiss Estates Phase 14. Applicant is Kerr Surveying for Stylecraft Builders. The hearing will be held i 1 the Council Room of the Col- lege Station City Hall, 1 · 01 Texas Avenue at the 6:00 p.m. meeting of the Boarcl on September 12, 2001. 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. Jennifer Reeves Staff Planner 8-29-01 * --1 , _ ___,__J .. BCAD_IO OWNNAM OWNAD1 R108533 WARD, RICHARD A & MARKS GOLDEN OBA M W CONSTRUCTION R108535 R108538 R108540 R108541 COUCH , HERMAN EDWARD & BONNIE LEE 12a2 STAUFFER CIR CHARLES THOMAS HOMES INC PO BOX 10106 SHEFFIELD, SUSAN W 3208 NEUBURG COURT GOT INC OBA BENCHMARK HOMES .. OWNCTY COLL GE STATION COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION 1110 12TH MAN CIR COLLEGE STATION OVOWNZIP TX 778456224 TX 778453670 TX778420106 TX77845 TX 778458978 -================= ~ ...... ---WiMi .... MISHONOVA, OLEKS1Y V & GAL YNA V STYLECRAFT BUILDERS INC BOEHME, RANDALL & TAMMY EDELWEISS ESTATES HOME R109634 BEGONIA CORPORA TfON RX9 3209 NEUBURG CT 4112 SH-6 S 3205 NEUBURG CT OWNER'S ASSOCIATION 1901 SAN JACINTO ST COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STAT~ON COLLEGE STATION C/O BEGONIA CORP HOUSTON HOUSTON TX77845 TX 778458964 TX77845 TX 770028219 TX 770028219 ... .. ~ .. .. . ~ .. - Aug 21 01 lO:Olp Kerr Surve~ing Fax Transmittal Date : ~~k~/oL.J__; __ _ ~I From~~ Kerr Surveying Company 505 Church Street P .O. Box 269 College Station , TX 77841 Phone : 979-268-3195 Fax : 979-691-8904 To Cjk&/_u ·, &8 . C/O : f!t11.5 Fax : 161-3196 979-691-8904 Number of sheets transmitted , including cover sheet : ef '° . l 21 01 1o:Olp Aug Au 21 01 09:13a ~ VD I LU !Ul 1~:2~ Kerr surve~ing (979)690-9069 STYLECRAFT BL DRS 'C87& 764 34&6 DEVELOPME NT SVCS GENERAL V ARl.ANCE REQU.EST The following spec ific variition from the occhnllJICC is requested : p .2 fl]002 ~ ~ t?5£rb.!GtN zs' ~ ~~t?rTrlE '?100-~~~-A t'@ml~ "11'0E1Pi?filX£ ntt- ~ <Se'l"" ~ UkX (.SFr]1' A Z3'/Pr·.~~~/mt' J'rl6"~.,ifp[ (c;Tf ~'OJ ~ ··------ l lns variance is necessnry due to the followin~ sp1tcial conditions : Special Coudition Definition; To ju!\tify 11 variance, the difficulty must be due to unique cucum~lances involvirig the particular property . Tl11: unique circumst:anc · must rel;:it c m ~ particuliU propcrl 'ror which relief i~ >ought, not to the owner's 1x;r:;onal situation . This is because regnrdlcss of ownership, th~ variance will run with the land . tiample: A creek bisecting a lQt. Note : A cul-dc·s~c 1:; :i standard ~1.reet layout ill c.~nc:ge Station . The ~h~pe o! st~dord cul-de -sat lot~ I.lie uut special :lliell9. '~ l fbJ;E 1Sta-1\?l£1ID. St:z'Lfltro:T{a~~thB.Es \?fU.$UWE91U 10 ~ <:f~ 9.Jb S)~ ~ ffi~fklS.11\§tE ~s MiQMAU~ H"27 B1_ ~= ]ttE+b.tE ~ w10 "cnw·tcNl«I\ l'J\\n\ ms UlllliOliltllttJlD· Mfilror~ 1s m ~ HooSfS ~®.dtD e t53{l.(L~Ot~b u &~3 ~llb Tile UMece!l~ilry h:\rdsh.ip (s) involvetl by meeting the provisions of the orcfoiatu.;c other th&111 finam:i al hardship is/are · Hard5hip Definitlou: The inability to make reoso1111bk use of the prnpcrt.y in accord with the liter:t.i requirements of the law . The bord9h.ip must be a direct rcisuh uf the special cn11llilion. Example: A lnmJlihiP of a creek bi~ecli ng a lot cou.1<1 be the reduction of the buildable .lre;i on tlic lut, whrn compared tu 1ft~t~J~G~~s~~~t~\.51~]-\!)V\~ tmq>nJa-O'P(ctE./ftlv.ln~) ~ ttkHf, ~ 'ffltlt\h \>J\~ ~rew t~SUJ . ~ ™~-MB ~fO\l=~'~N'f~pi>Jesl~,------------ The following alternatives to the requested varianc.e ;ue pos:Jibh:: -----·----------------- ---------------------------------------- This variance will not be ccntrary to the publi~ illl\:r\:st by virrue of\hc fuUowin~ facts : 1ttf(& fS A @M()J M~[[Z4f(t~) ttri\EO~(l{#:CFP~ ~]{#) 1Qff ~\\XS'~ I~ =f?{)liQ-1'X;>EJ'f'rt'aZ.tfll~q? e/tshr . k ~1"6Jr-S"f1\J. 200