HomeMy WebLinkAbout174 ZBA Aprl 20, 1982A G E N D A
Zoning Board of Adjustment
City of College Station, Texas
April 20, 1982
7:00 p.m.
l. Approval of Minutes.
2. Consideration of a Variance to required .lot depth for a duplex in
the name of Enloe Construction, Lots 3 & 4, Block N, University Park.
3. Consideration of an Appeal alleging an error in interpretation
regarding a screen fence in the name of Arthur Wright at 601 Turner
Street.
-4. Consideration .of a Variance to the rear setback for a room addition
in the name of Michael Murphy at 305 Pershing.
5. ·other Business.
6. Adjourn.
)
)
)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
MINUTES
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustments
February 15, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Board Members, Wes Harper, Dan MacGilvray, Vie Cook, G. Wagner; Council
Liaison Pat Boughton.
Board Member, Jack Upham.
Zoning Official Kee; Zoning Inspector Keigley; Plan n ing Technician
Sexton.
Approval of minutes -November 17, 1981.
Dan MacGilvray moved for the approval of t he minutes of November 17, 1981; G. Wagner
seconded; motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Harper asked Council Liaison Boughton to serve as a voting meni·ber.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of r e quest to expand a non-conforming structure at
1300 Anna. The application is in the name of Joe G. Marek.
Melton Marek~ applicant's son, was sworn in by Chairman Harper.
Mr. Marek stated the structure was non-conforming beca us e the house was built before any
required setback ordinance existed. The applicant wants to enclose an open utility porch,
·with an already existing roof, to extend a family room and adjoining kitchen. The rooms
are needed for the present use of the house.
Mr. Wagner asked if there was a possibility this would be subdiv ided in the future.
Mr. Marek stated there was no possibility of this.
A neighbor spoke in favor of the use permit.
Jane Kee stated she saw no problem with the request.
Dan MacGilvray asked if the fire place would protrude from the existing building.
Mr. Marek ?tated the fire place would be even with the wall, with the cleaning tray open-
ing to the outside of the house.
Chairman Harper moved to grant the use permit for enlargement of this building, because
the extension is necessary and incidental to the existing use of the building, because it
does not increase the area of the building devoted to the non-conforming use more than
25%, and in our opinion does not prolong the 1 ife of t _he non-conforming unit or prevent a
return of such property to a conforming unit. Dan MacGilvray seconded the motion, and
the motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Other business.
Vie Cook stated she would ch eck with the City Attorney to see if he had reviewe d the
changes requested on t he forms requ est ing a variance and a use permit for a ~on-conform
ing use.
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustme nts -2-February 15, 1982
AGENDA ITEM NO~ 4: Adjournment.
) Chairman Harp er moved to adjourn; Dan MacGilvray seconded; motion carri e d unanimously.
APPROVED:
\
)
\
)
C ity o f C o lege Station
P OST OFFI CE BOX 9960 I IOI T EXAS AVENUE
COLL EGE STATIO N , T EXAS 7 7 840
April 13, 1982
MEM0RANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM.: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
SUBJECT: Agenda Items, April 20, 1982
AGEND~-ITEM NO. 2 : Consideration of a Variance to required lot depth
for -a duplex in the name of Enloe Construction, Lots 3 & 4, Block N,
University p·ark.
Ordinance 850 specif ies minllllum lot widths and depths for various
zoning districts. A ··b u ildable duplex lot with front parking must have
g miminum width of seventy (70) feet and a minimum depth of one hundred
(100) feet. The City's policy concerning how these minimums are to
be measured wa s -.reflected in a memorandum from the Director of Planning
to_.l ocal En gineering F irms dated July 17, 1981. (See enclosed memo.)
Desp±te -this · requirement-, the plat of University Park II, a Resubdivision
of Bl ocks N and ~ h a s 2 lots which are not buildable duplex lots under
the provision of ·this policy. The subdivider was advised of the prob-
lem during the platting process. The builder now wishes to build
duplex es on the 2 lots, but must have a v ariance to the required
depth in order to do so.
The 2 lots in question may be developed as they are platted under the
zoning -restriction of district R-lA as an alternative.
I have reques t ed that Mr. Mayo be present at the meeting to further
explain this policy.
AGE~"'TIA ITEM NO. 3: Considerat ~on of a n Ap peal alleg ing an error in
interpretati on regarding a screen fence in the nam e of Arthur Wright at
601 Turner Str e et.
In 1975 Mr. :Wright received a building p erm it to construct an ap a rt-
ment project on Turner Street. The prop e rty abutt e d some sing l e family
hou ses fronting on Pasler and Gilbert Street s . At tha t time the property
on which the houses sat was zoned for Hi gh Density Ap a rtments. Th e
Bu i lding Of ficial (who at that time al s o interpret e d the Zoning Ordinance)
made an interpretation that a 6' s o lid c ont i nuou s scree n fence wa s not
1
,.t'ir' /\~)
required. The r e fore, Mr. Wrigh t complied with the City 's requir em ent ~~~
. ~
Zoning Board of Adjustment
MEMORANDUM -April 13 , 1982
page 2
imposed at the time. The following is the relevant section of Ordinance
850 which addresses screen fences:
"6-J. SCREENING FENCES REQUIRED: (1) Where there is
a common side or rear lot line or lot lines between busi-
ness, commercial or industrial land and developed resi-
dential areas, the owner of said business, commercial
or 'industrial land shall erect a fence that properly
screens adjacent residential lots fro.m adverse influences
such as noise, vehicular lights, trespass, and other
adverse influences as part of the normal construction
of buildings dedicated to said non-residential usage.
· (2) Where there is a common side or rear lot line or
lot lines between apartment land and developed single
family residential land, the .owner of the apartment land
ct a fence that will roperly screen ad·acen
single family resi en ia land from adverse influences
such as noise, vehicular lights, trespass, and other
adverse influences as 1part of the normal construction
+: the apartmen;t project.
l1 -> -Such screening fences may be made of any material but shall ~ · e at lea$t six (6) feet in height and shall form a solid ~ontinuous screen between -the residential and non-resi-
dential land uses. In the case of rear lot lines such
creening fence shall be continued from one .side lot
line along the rear lot line to the other side lot line •
.In the case of side lot lines, such screening fence shall
be continued from the rear lot line along the side lot
line to the front setback line but no farther than a
poi~t fifteen (15).feet from the street right-of-way
lin.e~ Each such screening fence shall be maintained in
good condition by the owner of said business, commercial
· or_industrial project, for as long a time period as may
be needed to protect adjacent residential land uses."
~ In 1980 Hr. Wright applied for a building permit to expand the existing
~,apartment project by adding 3 more buildings on the north end of the lot.
(See site Plan). At that time the Zoning Official required that a screen ~ ~ fence replace the chain-link fence which had been put up along one-half
~ of the eastern .boundary and along the southern boundary of the property
~ (these ·are the property lines abutting the developed single family area).
The-single.family.area had also -been rezoned to R-1 in 1976.
The Project Rev..iew Committee included this requirement in its memo to the
Planning and Zoning Commission dated July 10, 1980 (See enclosed Memorandum).
The P & Z met on July 20, 1980 to discuss the project. (See ~ncl osed minutes).
The Zoning Official felt that the origin a l interpretation was n o longer
valid and that any expansion to the project should correct any existing
inadequacies. (This is norma l procedure today. When projects wish to
expand, the staff attempts to bring the entire project up to code as much
as possibl e ).
Zoning Board of Adjustment
MEMORANDUM -April 13, 1982
page 3
As the third Zoning Official involved in this project, I do feel that a ~
screen fence is clearly required by the Ordinance. The Ordinance further ~
calls for a solid-continuous 6' fence. ~T o one is a lowe a c ain-in A"at,,
7
-z::::e_ "'
~with a l uminum slats to meet this requirement. However, the Board
:
may feel some relief is due Mr. Wright due to the original interpreta-:!
tion made in 1976. If this is the case, perhaps slats inserted in the
fence or some type of vegetation cover1ng the · fence might be acceptable.
Mr. -Wright will be present at the meeting to present his side. / tj?.l" -r
. ;97l
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider~tion of a Variance to the rear setback for
a room addition in the name of Michael Murphy at 305 Pershing.
Mr. Murphy wishes to add a family room to his existing house. (See site
plan). The site plan and Mr. Murphy's application clearly outline the
s ·ituation. The only problem I ·perceive is the fact that there is actually
no unique · and special condition of the land, unless the Board would con-
sider the location of the 10' alley separating Mr. Murphy's lot from his
rear neighbor as a unique condition. Alleys are typically not located
in this manner any longer, but are actually parts of the lots they serve et u/..
~ ()..,()('_C,.,. '7~ _.,.,._a.~
In fact on September 10, 1979, (variance request in the name of C. E. Olsen,
409 Dexter), the Board did justify a variance by ·using the center line of
tha alley to measure a rear setback. (The result is still a 50' separa-
tion between property owners). If the Board wishes to do this in Mr.
Murphy's case, a ·variance might be granted up to 5', but not 6'. If a
variance for 6' is granted, the structure will measure only 24' from
the centerline -0f the alley.
••.• ::-... : ·--~-=:.:.
iO~I~G BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT FILE NO.
Name of Applicant Enloe Construction Inc.
Nailing Address ~~4_0_4_._U_n_i_v_e_r_s_i~ty,__D_r_i~v~e'---~~C=o~l~le~o~e~S~t=a~t~i~o~n~,__._I~e=xa~s...__~7~7~8~4~0~~~~~
Phone 693-7003
Location: Lot 3, 4 Block N Subdivision University Park
Action reque sted: Variation to ordinance in Table A
NAME ADDRESS
. (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
. '-· -. '·-~ · .... •.
I -.-· .. --· -~·· ,.....:;._ .:.-• ---;;=-._;;,_
7Q':'-... I
0 ~l,1G BO .. .\RD OF ADJUS'C·lENT ,, ~~ FILE NO.
~---
Present zoning of land in question R3 --------------------=------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought Table A
--~-------------
The follo~rrng specific v2riation from the ordinance is reguested: It is requested
that the minimu m size of a duplex lot (60 x JOO) be revised only on lots 3 and ·4 of
Block N at University Park for a distance equal to the overhanging oortion indicated
on the drawing.
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
These drawings were a rep.lat of University Park for the purpose of making all lots
buildable. These lots being the largest in area, are wide enough but lack about
4 to 6 inches in depth, of whi ch is not part of the property in question . .. . :,:...:;.
The following alternatives to the requ es ted variance are possible:
1.) Reduce a duple x re~uired 100' depth to a distance equal to the overhanging
portion indicated by th e enclosed plats.
2.) Run a su rvey to see -if the land di r.ien sions correspond to the ruled drawings.
If an error exists wheth er it is in our favor .
. This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
f~ct~: ) The overhang is very-i>-H+G-++...----------------------
2 The la t s hav e considerable size at the sides and rear ar ea
3.) We will mainta in all side and rear setbacks as specified in Table A
of the ordinance in quest ion.
The fact3 stated by me in this application are t r u e and correct. a/ ~fa,_v1: __ / __ . 2~/ _/~9_8_2~------
~-JDate
UNIVERSITY PARK
Bk M, N, P
Galindo-Wood
4103 Texas Ave. #204
Bryan, Texas 77801
R. CARTER
Tr. 8
Jacob Luza
1801 E. 29th St.
Bryan, Texas 77801
.... ._. . -... --
-r*--· ..
·.
. . •
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I ·10 I TE>V\S AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
MEMORAl.'IDUM
Jffia,1: Al Ma yo, Director of Pl:mnin.s~
SUBJEC:r; Minimum Lot Width
. Due to problems c:iC0;..mte:t.·Ad h~· t23 City wit~ the policy of
measuring the mi nirmlm lot \dd-ch a-c the front setback ~i!le, ·
notice· is herein given th&.t t;iis ;x:ilicy is non clmnged.
·The rnin:i.mum lot width a..Dd depth '.':ill be the r e quired
· ~nsion m?asui·ed anyi.vll8Y8 c~ t::.£! lot, but e s pecially at
the -front and rear pr0pert-y lL.--ie:s. If yo:i have any
· ·-que3tiOrt5F pl2ase co:r:act rr:-e. Tcr;...llc you.
. ...
. -.. ·-
:r. :r.
UJ "-= < <
I ::J ::J
::J c
I <./) "';
' _.., ... ..,
I ti) ~ ~
UJ i.!J
"' w
'fl <./)
8 8
"'
I ~ ,.._
I ~ '"' ~ "" "' 0 0
I M <"'>
>
UJ
~
0
..J
0
~
\
' ..SC!-.LE z_o
·/
C\3 . 47
1
--
.. -
so
·#-.Po,t
c c
r-
U)
-...!\
l\l
t ...
[<.
I
I
(f)
6"' :....
<5', T --1'(! ,s2
<: I
IQ ; Ui
~I ~ -~l
.!:>
!fl I
I
I
.,
I
l
.........
'-
'-
-
('II ,, \, ,-V \7 obL C'I
'v,I
I
O')
------
I -(J
5
--,-----
~
()!
~
":t
I
<:
'"" 0
'1:)1
~
" ~
'
.......
(J)
' -t ~ t I
---1
\
"<:_
i}\
<>
NI
~
\i\
-.J
0 lh
c:
0 r-
0
;;-:
m
-<
I 'fl c,.> <..>
0 0 0
""' ...., "
'I
<..> (..: ~ ..., C"l
8 8 15
~ Ul -
m rr r;.
r.i rr.
-1 _.
Ul (/~ './~
<--.
02. --\
/" I'
(.., (.., !.,.;9'
Ul Ul C.":.
0 0 ~
c c
> > > ::: ::: .-J .,, m rn
Vl Ul Ul
NOTES ON CO~SIDE RATI ON DF A VARIANCE REQ u EST
Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing April 20, , 19 82
~~~--~~------------
Request by __ E_n_l_o_e_C_o_n_s_t_r_u_c_t_i_· o_n ___________________ , Applicant
Board Members Participating:
Nature of Request:
The Applicant is requesting a Variance to the required lot· depth f or a
duplex in the name of Enloe Construction, Lots 3 & 4, Block N, University
Park.
.Ordinance 850 This request is for an exemption from literal requirement of
-------------------------~---' Section ~-T~a~h...._._l=e_..,A~-~
What _is the Public _interest or interes ~s which are involved?
How is the public interest affected?
List the special conditions existing:
The following are the special conditions ur ged by the applicant:
What unnecessary bardships are involved?
How are any hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public
faced with the enforcement of this same provision?
Ho w will the spirit of the or~in ance be obs erved if this r equest is granted?
Wh at is th e justice of this request?
ZbNH;G BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT FILE NO. ----
Name of Applicant Arthur L. Wright
--------=------------------------~
~·failing Address 1008 Holt, College Station, Texas 77840
Phone 696-2784; Business--845-2082
Location: Lot N/A Block N/A Subdivision ----
Description, If applicable 601 Turner Street
----------------------------~
Action requested: to uphold the decision of building officials who originally approved the
project in 1975 and again in 1976.
ADDRESS
(Fro;n. c urr:en t t a}: rel.ls, Coll2g2 Station Ta;~ .\ssessor)
(See Attachment)
------------~----------------------------~~---
-.:-.:::=::~=-.:.;~ ..... ~;:_-· -·--~-. -·
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.
R-6 Present zoning of land in ques tion
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section of ordinance in Qu e sti on: 6-J(2) p. 35
The following specific i ~t e r_pretation of. ' ordinance is requested: Paragraph 2, p. 35
states that there shall be a solid 6' fence between residential and non-residential
land uses. Paragraph 1 states that the owner shall "erect a fence thatwill 1 properly
screen' adjacent single family residential land"; it says nothing about the fence _
between apartments and single family residential having to be solid qr 6' tall.
interpretation This~~ is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the ~and not found in like districts: .
An interpretation of the or~inance is necessary t~ avoid penalties _on the property
·owner which result from subjective and inconsistent interpretations made by different
bui l ding officials.
The following alternative s to the requ e st · are possible:
1~ Allow the existing fence to remain as is;
2. plant honeysuckle vine. al l along the fence;
3. insert alllininum .slats through the chain links;
4. rip out the exist-ing fence and replace it uith a 6' board fence at a--tet;al-ee-s-E-of
more .than $4500.
interpretation
This ~oca will not_be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
f~ct~: -Neither the fence nor the ordinance has changed since the installation> yet
the interpretation has changed. Both my tenants and the occupants of the single family
residences approve of the existing fence. There would be no benefit to the corrununity,
aqd a severe penalty would be impos e d on the owner if a different interpretation of
the ordinance is now imposed.
The facts sta ted by me in this applica tion are tr ue a n d correct .
d~~&.J~j;D
Applicant
_!j_/ 7 /rt2-
Date
P. A. SMITH
Bk 14 Lt 1
J. D. McQuerrin
515 -Banks
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk 14 Lt 2
Mary E. Burre 11
% E. Burrell
2625 Stovall Cr.
Dallas, Texas 75215
Bk 14 Lt 4
R. W. Woodard
3513 Spring Lane
Bryan, Texas 77801
FOUR --0 -FOUR
• 404 Univer.sity Cntr Ltd.
2855 Magnum #300
Houston, Texas 77092
COLLEGE VISTA
Bk A Lt 4-7
Ed . Pilqer Inc.
400 University Dr.
College Station, Texas .77840
I
Bk D Lt 1, 20' of 2
Stewart McConnell
408 Poplar
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk D Lt SW 30' of 2
30 ·· of 3
A. R. Davi s , Jr .
406 Poplar
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk D Lt 20' of 3,
40' of 4
Howard C. Nelson
4709 Harring Ct.
Metaire, LA. 70003
Bk D Lt 10' of 4, 5
B. H. Nelson Jr.
607 E. 27th
Bryan, Texas 77801
Bk D Lt 11, NE 35' of 10
Jimmie G. Hawley
405 Live Oak St.
College Station, Texas 77840
COLLEGE VISTA
Bk D Lt 12, 10' of 13
Eusebio G. Martinez
409 Live Oak St.
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk D Lt 14, 40' of 13
Edwin A. Shwerman
411 Live Oak
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk E Lt 1, 40' of 2
Joseph H. Konecny
2109 Pnatera
Bryan, Texas 77801
Bk E Lt 3, 10' of 2
5' of 4
Eddie L. Wilson
408 Live Oak
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk E Lt 45' of 4, 30 ' of 5
Richard C. Ryan
404 Live Oak St.
College Station, Texas 77840
PASLER
Bk 2 Lt 19-22
Herman Davis Holmes
511 Banks
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk 2 Lt 23, 24
Gertrude Love
Rt. 2 Box 178
Bryan, Texas 77801
Bk 2 Lt 25, 26
A. G. Searcy
106 Southland
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk 2 Lt 28, 29
Bernice Thomas
620 Pasler St.
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk 2 Lt 27, 38, 39
Bettie Lee Banks EST.
% Richard Warren
1217 Bruce St.
Bryan, Texas 77801
Cir .t n f Co11·eg e S tation
POST O FHCE OOX 906 0 I I 0 I T EX:\S r\ \'E '.\:L'E
C OLL EGE ST.·\T IO :--:. T EX.·\S 7 7 8 4.0
July 10, 1980
M E M 0 R A N D U M
. TO: Planning and Zoning Co mm ission
Arthur Wright
FRO M: Project Review Ca mmi ttee: ~ /
l
,r::;-r./ Al Mayo, Director of Planning
Elrey Ash, City Engin eer
Richard Maher, Ch a irfi!a n, P&Z
SU BJ ECT: Revi ~w of Multi Family Project -Turner Street
The P.R.C. me t on We dnesday, July 9, 1980, with Dr . Wright to review
th e proposed pl an, which is to add th re e four-ple xe s to a on e acre
:. site \·lith three ex isting four-ple xe s. The P.R.C. recom me nd s a re-
des ign of the pl a n including th e exi s ting area to make the whole
site functio n -bett e r. The existing park ing he ad-in off Turn e r Street
·shotild be r e loca ted a nd a screen fenc e should replace the ch a in-link
-f enc e adjac e nt to -:the single-fam ily residences. Th e se we re both
·mi s takes on t he ' origin a l permit and a re violatinns of th e Zoning
Ord in a nce . Tne' P:R.C. does not reco m;:;e n·d approv a l \'tithout correcting ·.
thes e mista k es ~ This is not a ."g ra ndfather clau s e" type situation.
He discuss e d several modification s to the plan including so me minor
lan dscaping to try to improve th e 1 i vi ng environ ment of the project .
AM:clg
. .. . . . . . =..--~ -:-~-;-.;;;..;..-__ ; .
-.
'.
• l T~t2-l--!~!2-STp.;-::::T
L__.....___ ... -
r
1
,, 1
SCALE: -:= 6C?D
DA TE : 7 -17 -bO
~
.I
i
' I
I
I
I
,
/
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
I
11-1 EM
--~---------· --
,.
!!
'
'.! ..
NO. I PBZ CAS E NO.
9o-b2
(
MI tJUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
SPECiAL PLANNING AND ZONI NG COMMISSION t1EETING
July 30, 1980
3:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Maher; Commissioners Behling, Bailey, Gardner, Sears,
Wat~on; City Counicl Liaison Boughton.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Hazen
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Callaway, City Engineer Ash, Planning Assistant
Longley
AGENDA .ITEM NO. 1 --Approval of minutes -Meeting of July 3, 1980.
Commissioner Bailey pointed out that on page 2, the word 11 involved 11 had been
mi s s p e 11 ed .
Commiss 'ion-er Watson noted that on page 5, It em 8, he was recorded as both making
•and seconding the motion on the }tern and asked that this be changed.
Comrnisstoner Bailey -moved that the minutes be approved as amended.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Behling and unanimously approved.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 --Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 --tonsideration of a requ es t for a Site Plan Permit for the
construction of 'a 12 unit apartment project to be located on the east side of
Turner Street -between Pop 1 ar Street and Live Oak Street.
•.
Hr. Callaway explained that a new plan had be e n submitted which showed the
changes as recommended · by the P.R. C. He ask e d that the pl an be amended to show
parking area dimensions -of an 18 foot parking space, a 23 foot driving lane>
a 20 foot parking space, a 23 foot driving lane and an 18 foot parking parking
space. -He also advised that the location of the dumpster should be determined
by the Public Works Department.
Chairman Maher asked what the implication of the need for a screen fence was-
Hr. Callaway explained the fence between the existing four-plexes and adjacent
houses did not comply with the ordinance and that this fence would have to be
brou~ht into comp liance before building p e rmits could be issued for new con-
struction on th e .site. He continued that the P.R.C. had suggested that wood
slats might be placed in the existing fence or that honeysuckle be placed
along it as an alternative, but that this variance could be granted only by
the Zoning Board of Adjustment arid that the fence did not need to enter the
Commission's discussion.
Mr. Art Wright, applicant, asked that he be a llowed to use 21 foot wide driving
lanes in the parking area rather than 23 fo ot. He stated that 23 foot wide lanes
would crowd his stairways and air conditioning units.
•wr .... ~~-..;-·~ -
~-.... --·---........ --"" -
•
I <
(
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 1980
3:00 P.M.
• -;;>--
City Engineer Ash stated .that a 21 foot isle width would no~ allow a car to
back out of a space in one motion. He suggested that the minimum requirement
of 23 foot isle width be maintained.
Commissioner Gardner asked how access control could be maintained without curbs
along the street.
Mr. Wright pointed out that there were no curbs on the street.
Commissioner Bailey stated that he thought the 23 foot m1n1mum width in the
parking isles should be maintained. He asked if Mr. Wright intended to paint
the parking spaces.
Mr. Wright said ~hat he did intend to paint the spaces.
Commissioner Bailey -moved that the plan be approved with the prov1s1ons that
the parkin~ lot be dimensioned as recommended by staff and that the final dump-
ster location be determined by the Department of Public Works.
The motion was -seconded by Commissioner Behling and unanimously approved .
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 --Consideration of a final plat -Resubdivision of Brentwood
Section 4.
Mr. Callaway explained the purpose of the plat.
Commf~sioner Bailey sai d that .he was concerned that it would be understoo4 that
the access easement shown on the plat would be the only access point to the
property.
Mr. Ash -explain e d that -he had talked to everyone involved and that tl1is was
understood and agreed to. He added that Brazos Savings understood that their
existing curb cut on 'Texas Avenue was a temporary opening and would be closed
and relocated when South\-1est Parkway was complete.
Commissioner Sears moved that the plat be approved.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bailey and unanimousfy approved.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 --Consideration of a prelininary plat -Southwood Terrace 3.
<
Mr. Callaway informed the Commission that the drainage· easements should be removed
from the plat and that a note should be required on the final plat which would
limit access fro m corner lots to the lesser streets.
Commissioner Gardner asked if any determination had be e n made regarding the con-
struction of Research Road.
Mr . Ash siated that he had be en me eting with Mr. Fitch and his engineer on the
question of Res ea rch Road and whether 6r not the City wanted to commit itself to
a 120 foot right-of-way and divided street section. He added that the road was,
a t one ti~e. to be built . by the County which required 120 feet of right-of-way
for Farm to Market designation.•.
I
NOTES ON" CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUES i
Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing ~A~p_r_1_·1~·_2_0~~~~~~~~~~~~, 19~2~
Arthur Wright Applicant
Board Me:!lbers Participating:
Nature of .Request:
The Applicant is appealing an interpretation made by the Zoning Official
regarding a screen .fence requirement for an apartment project located
at 601 Turner Street.
This request is for an exemption from literal requirement of Ordinance 850
~~~~~~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' Section ~6_-~J~~~~~~-
, What is the Public interest or interests which are involved?
How is the public interest affected?
List t h e spe""cial conditions existing: ..
:~ ' ;
The following Ere_ the special conditions urge~ by the applicant:
· What unnecessary hardships are involved?
How are any hardships different from thos e affecting the rest of the public
faced wi t h t h e enforc em ent of this same proYision?
How will the spirit of the ordinance be obs e rved if this request is granted?
What is the justice of this requ e st?
:
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTI-tENT FILE NO.
2 -I
Present zoning of land in question ____ &.___._-__,,,J=--------~---
. -f ,,_;/E /-' . tz/i
Section of ordinance fro~ which variance is sought "?l3!~ C:,, d
The following specific ve.riation from the ordinance is requested: I !?fZlce>Se r J
-lo add a tz2001 fo flllj r.ehldel!1ce ±hat u211/ encrcach c;rn fh e, re-a r 0cfhc:t ck a£ -±he-. /a± up frJ -'-o ,,
This variance is necessary due to the following unique ancl special conditions of
the ~and not found in like districts: .
/antfed {12f u2tdtf.< .. · requrrec/ fo ackueue P@per OQeuizgfro/1. ~ JJ e r ' r / . ===t-7Vl
rzrt>/22~ ~ i b 9. I/\ b _loet1 I 0@ VI nd r re\h 1 lm er b v~
covidt_MJl(s {ov erce:;iy ·~c .1 ~tJCLJ i 11~Y1J fv pro Vlq_c .
alu~f%!:~Je-o~t1ffcfx~1»q E')(~:itt~j/;~ ~~tff7!:t 1fr-
. T ~'following alternatives to the tequested variance are possible;
---~-
Fv-or~:eJ" :i-z<lbo0 1 pvoir c1r0u/a ho!!i ca11n ecftoM
. This variance will no~ be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
i~ct~: _/i_Jol Alfr4 CA10fs c<t fhf V-tZI, /C of the lot;
pifl -(acepf Ov1e) <3djC1Cet1f rvoperbes hzve s-fru_ctuV---EY
het\YeV-:\;o 'f~V: lor \1V\e thc\Y\ l'V\at p'Ca\J~ed 11'\
:W,10 '[e-que::"'t 1 e11e~14 c-tf1c1evic'11 1wirove F°Fht
The facts stated by we in this application are true and correct.
J~~ 6 .~Ji/ /18 2-
Date
. . -. ---. --~ -..... -
ZONI NG BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN T FILE NO.
~ame of Applicant ~~~~6~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~·~~~·~~~~~~~~
~~iling Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~·~~~~~·~~~~~·~~·~~
Phone {izg & -27 2 /
Location: Lot Block Subdivision ----
Description, If applicable
------------------------~
•.
NAME ADDRESS
(From c u rren t tax rolls, College Statio n Tax Assessor)
Fred Garner
Betty Woods
Clyde Blum
B.J.Kling
P.G.Baines
Sidney Loveless
C. B. Godbey
C. D. Clay Camp
MICHAEL D. MU RPHY
V A t:v.JCC~ ·--
B-4 Lots 24,25, 301 Pershing , Colleg e Station, Texas 77840
B-4 23 part 22 213 Pershing , College Station, Texas 77840
B-4 21 part 22 2tt Pershing , College Station, Te x as 77840
B-4 part 27,28 309 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840
B-4 part 29,30 313 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840
B-4 part 3,4,5 206 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840
B-4 6,7 210 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840
B-4 8,9 300 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840
Robert C. Potts, Jr. B-4 10,11, part 12 306 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840
John E. Van Domelan B-4 part 12,13,14 310 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840
R. B. Hic.kerson B-5 Lots 9,10 218 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840
C. C. Doak B-5 12,13,14 part 15 300 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840
Robert Meier B-5 part 15,16, part 17 30 8 A Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840
,Caroline Mitchell B-5 part 17, 18 216 Suffolk, College Station, Texas 77840
•
NOTES O~i cm:srDERATION OF A VARI AN CE REQU EST
Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing ~~A_p_r_i_l~2_0_,~~~~~~~~~~~' l9~
Request by ~~-M_i_c_h_a_e __ l~M_u_r~p_h_y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-Applicant
Board He.::ibers Participating:
Nature of Request:
The Applicant is requesting a Variance to the 25' rear setback in order
to expand his existing house at 305 Pershing.
This request is for an e x emption from literal requirement of Ordinance No.850
Table A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-' Section ~~~~~~~~-
What i s the Public int e rest or interests which are invo.lved?
How is the public interest affected?
List t he sp e cial con ditions existing:
The following are the special conditions urged by the applicant:
What unnecessary bardships are involved?
How are any hardships different from those a :fecting the rest of the public
faced \.:ith t he enforceme nt of thi~ same pr ov ision?
How will the spirit of the or~i na nce be ob served if this requ e st is granted?
What is the justice of this requ e st?
(
-"'-.. -....
---. . .
--MIN UTES
:· _C_ity ~of _Co_l~~ge~Stai:ton:,~-
Zoning Board of Adjustme nt
April 21, 19 8 1
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Harper, Upham, Wagner, Boughton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mathewson, Burke
. -..
STAFF PRESENT : Ass 't. Director of Planning, Jim Callaway; Zoning Official,
Jane Kee; Planning Techn ician, Joan Keigley
AGENDA I TEM NO. 1 -Approval of Minutes of Janua r y 20, 1981 and March 24, 1981.
Upon motion by Boughton, second by Harper and a unanimous vote, the minutes of
January 20, 1981 and March 24, 1981 were approved .
AGENDA ITEM NO . 2 -Consideration of a request for a variance to the parking
requirement s for a r estauran t in the name of L & R Foods, Inc., 2700 Texas Avenue.
Chairman Harper announced th e agenda item and opened the floor to discussion.
Mr. Johnny Lampo, Cha irman of L & R Foods, Inc. stated that he and his two sons
were interested in purchasing the prop erty located at 501 University Drive E.,
for the purpose of op e ning a restaurant. He further stated that in that area
there was not sufficient parking to me et th e z o ning requireme nts; but the nature
and typ e of their bu sine ss and the hours of op erat ion, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
should cause le ss problems than the pre sen~ busine ss in operation th e re . He
stated th at h e and his sons have a contra c t of purchase on the property at this
time, but have not closed the d e al, and do no t intend to d o so unless they have
a favorabl e ruling from the board to waive the parking requir ements in that area.
Wagner asked Mr. La mpo what seating cap acity was planned.
Mr. Lampo sta ted th e ir plans called for a s ea ting capacity of 66. He stated that the
present own e r is The Answer, which is a non-profit organization, and his feeling
is this new use as a r es taurant will actually decrease the amount cif parking re-
quired .
Chairman Harper asked ho w many employees t h ey planned to have.
Mr. Lampo stated a maximum of s e ven emplo yee s, and most of them would be students
and would probably wa lk to work .
Mr. Upham states his main concern wa s th ere ar e on ly 3 parking spaces available,
and he was n o t convinced that mo s t of th e em pl oyee s would walk to work, rath er ,
he fe l t most likely whatever parking was ava ilable would b e us ed by emp loyees and
not be availabl e for customers.
Chairman Harper stated it was hi s feeling tha t th e hour s of op e r ation proposed b y
Mr. Lampo wou ld not be exacerbating t he exis ting pa rking p robl em ; but th e lo ca l
chur c h es in th e area already complain ed of their parking lots b eing u sed by custom ers
of bu sinesse s in the are a which conflicted wit h evening mee tings .
. •
Minut es
Zoning Board of Adjustme nt
~April 21 , 1981
7:00 p.m .
Page two .
.-
Mr .-Up ha~ ~ske(f -wha t-~;~a-r{gem~~~s ~ or-gu ~r~nte e-for -a~~-a n g~m~rit-fo~ -p~~kf~g -~p ;~e f~-r~--~ __:_
( employees would :Mr . Lampo make .
(
Mr . Lampo stated th ey would have to n egotiate with oth er property owners in th e
area .
Mr . Wagn e r stated he felt most of the problems were u p th e street from this location
and the hours of operation proposed by Mr . Lamp o were a plus.
Chairman Harper pointed out to Mr. Lampo that only four b oa rd members were present
and it required four votes for a motion to be pa ssed.
Chairman Harper then presented the followin g mo tion for consideration:
That th e variance for minimum off -street parking requ irements on the property
in qu e stion be approved since it does not represent a sub s tantial change from
the present use in parking and it would be in the best interest of the community
to approve the variance . The motion was seconded by Mr . Wagner and failed with
the following vot e .
I
In Favor : Bought on, Wagner , Harper
Abst a ining : Upham r
Mr . Upham stated part o f his pDa·bl em wa s his p e rsona l acqu a intance with the applicants,
and prior convers a tions with reg ard to the pro perty with Mr . Lampo 's son; and he _
want ed to mak e it clear that Mr . Lampo 's son was no t aware that if any variance
was requir ed th ey would have to appear b efo r e a board upon which Mr. Uph am served .
Re stat ed if t here was a way it could b e h andled to assure th e othe r bo a rd memb e rs
ther e was indeed no confli ct of inter est , h e would vote o n a motion, if presented.
Chairman Harper asked Mr . Lampo would he g u a ra ntee t h ey would lease additional
parking sp aces for t heir employees?
Mr. Lampo stat ed he would be gl a d to make that guarantee , provided he h a d a sourc e
for s uch parking , but at this time, it was impossible to firmly guarant e e they
would be able to secure addi t ional parking . He assured the board they would mak e
every effort to comply with this request and would agree to report their arrangements
to the zoning dep artme nt .
Chai rman Harper t hen presented the following mo tion for co ns ideration.
That the v ariance r equest as pr esent e d be approved based on the assurance of
the ap pli can t that adequa t e parking will b e secured and provided for his employees,
and reporting to th e zon ing departm ent of the ar rangements that h a d b een mad e .
Seco nd was given by Mr. Up h am a nd r eceiv ed una nimo us appr ova l.
AGE NDA ITEM NO. 3 -Co nsideration of a reque s t f or a vari ance to th e r ea r s e t-
b ack requirement in the nam e o f Anth ony Hom e Builders , Inc .
Mr . Callaway stated that this l o t is located in the Emerald Forest Subdivision .
The applican t has made this request because of topogr aphical problems with th e lot
a nd th e constructi on of th e h o u se on that lot.
Anth o ny R. Boatca llie, applican t f or
squar e footage r eq ui rement in Eme r a ld
construction i s a split level house.
th e vari ance r e qu est, explained that th e min im um
Forest is 1,800 sq. ft . The hou se proposed for
Th e re is a 7 ft . dr o p in the lot which do es not
::_,
NOTES ON CO ~SI D ERAT ION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST
Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing April 20 , 19 82
~~---------------~
Request by ___ A_r_t_h_u_r_W_r_i_g_h_t __ ~--i'--~-------------~~' Applic a nt
Board >l=bers Participating: W ~
Nature of Request:
The Applicant is appealing an interpretation made by the Zoning Official
regarding a screen fence requirement for an apartment project located
at 601 Turner Street.
This request is for an exemption from literal requirement of Ordinance 850
, Section 6-J
~~~~-------~--------~ ~--~---~
.. ------
interest or
List. t he special cor:-di t i ons existing: ...
-~~ ~·s;-'J_,;__£.Ji. .•. '
How are any ·ha rd ships different from thos e affecting the rest of th e public
face~15ie:pis ame pr :sio~ ~ ~) ~ ~ ~
Ho w w ~~i~t ~in a n X,servcequest iS grant e d ?
What ~~e qu est ~ ~
. ~,,M ((~
. : . ·-·-:--··~~-·---::-----~··-... ··--..._ ..... --. . -.. ~---
NOTES ON CONSI DERATIO N OF A VARI ANCE REQUEST
Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing
Request by ~~E_n_l_o_e~C_o_n_s_t_r_u_c_t_i_·o_n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' Applicant
Board Members Participating:
Natura of Request:
The Applicant is requesting a Variance to the required lot depth ~or a
duplex in the name of Enloe Construction, Lots 3 & 4, Block N, University
Park.
"Ordinance 850 This request is for an e xemp tion from literal requirement of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-' Section ~---T~a~b~l~e__.A~~~
What is the Public interest or interests which are involved? / ~o-(~-~~-~
How is the public interest affected?
~~
The ~~J s~on itio ~~ by the applicant:
Wha ~~ ;;? ~ ~ ~ <1~/)
. How ar~ any hardships different from those affecting the rest of the public
face;;t~ "i~a ~r (~~)
How will the spirit of the orf:1in ance be ob served i£ this request is granted?
. ~ q_o ~"d.MJ ~·1 -
. ,,..
NOTES O~ CONSIDE RA TION OF A VARIANCE REQ UES T
Zonin g Board of Adjustment Hearing ~A_p_r_i_l~2_0~~~~~~~~~~~~' 19_§_2~
Request by ~~A_r_t_h_u_r~W_r_i_g_h_t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , Applicant
Board He~bers Participating:
~'/vflj
Nature of Request:
The Applicant is appealing an interpretation made by the Zoning Official
regarding a screen fence requirement for an apartment project located
at 601 Turner Street.
This request is for 'a n exemption from literal requirement of Ordinance 850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• Section __;;.6_-~J~~~~~-
• What
Wh at unnecessary hards
t.,-tH+-~
yt..
How ar e any ·h ardships different from thos e aff ecting the rest of the public
faced wi t h th e e nfo rc e me nt of this same prov ision?
V'\b ~"C~
NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARI ANCE RE QUE ST
-.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing __ A_,,p_r_i_l_2_0~''------------' 19~
Request by ~-E_n_l_o_e_C_o_n_s_t_r_u_c_t_i_o_n ________________ ~• Applicant
Board Members Participating:
~'Iv~
Nature of Request:
The Applicant is requesting a Variance to the required lot depth ~or a
duplex in the name of Enloe Construction, Lots 3 & 4, Block N, University
Park.
This request is for an exemption from literal requirement of .Ordinance 850
~------------------------~' Section -~T~a~h~l~e~A __ _
what is are involved?
How is the ;r ;ccxr •d?
List the
The following _are the special conditions urged by the applicant: ~f1tr lofr ~""-~uf~ 1
ve~ ) IV/,OV ;,
How are any hardships different from thos e affecting the r es t of the public faced w; t h(t~fZ~f,!.t thi ~;ame~~·s~o n? j-4 i( ~~ +
How will{J,t~r:r;~Oin;f;e o rs·~ if ;~ s:qu i:t itd';nted?
What is the jus tic e of this requ est ?
-.=: -:;; . .:.-...