HomeMy WebLinkAbout180 Zoning Board of Adjustments June 15, 1982A G E N D A
Zoning Board of Adjus tme nt
City of College Station, Texas
June 15, 1982
7:00 P.M.
l. Approval of Minutes from May 18, 1982.
~econsideration of Conditional Varianc e Approved 7-21-81 for an Arcade
~· at 315 University in the name of Mike Walsh.
3. Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordinance 850 -
Parking Requirements for a sandwich sho p at 411 University Drive in
the name of Centex Subway, Inc.
4. Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Setback Requirements for a convenience store at 301 University
in the name of Southland Corporation.
5. Re consid e ration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordi n anc e 850 -
Minimum Setback Requirements for a co mm ercial project at 700 University _
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph.
6. Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Rear Setback Requirements for a carport at Lot 20, Block C
Lincoln Place Subdivision (714 A-B Vassar Court) in the name of
Rob e rt H. Hensarl ing.
7. Adjourn.
(
(
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
MINUTES
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 18, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Board Chairman Cook, Members Wagner, Upham, Donahue
and Alternate Member Lindsay
D. MacGilvray and Council Liaison P. Boughton
Mayor Halter (for administering Oath of Office) ,Zoning
Official Kee, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Assistant Director
of Planning Callaway, and Planning Technician Volk
Swearing in of new me mbe rs.
Mayor Halter administered the oath of office to new members Mary Kaye Donahue
and Hugh Lindsay, and to re-appointed memb e rs Jack Upham and Gale Wagner.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of Minutes fro m April 20, 1982.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes, Mrs. Cook seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3:. Consideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordi-
nance 850 -Parking Requirements for a san dwich shop at 411 University Drive
in the name of Centex Subway, Inc.
Mrs. Cook recommended that this item and item #6 be tabled until staff, City
Council and ZBA members have a chance to do a thorough study of the Northgate
area. Discussion followed with Jack Boyet t , who spoke from the floor, indica-
ting that he had made the trip to gain infor mation concerning what had been
proposed in the Northgate area. Mrs. Cook indicated that she was aware of this,
and that the City appreciated his concern, b u t that the ZBA with the .new mem-
bers was not in a position to discuss th e matter at hand until further study
could be made.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to table both It e ms 3 and 6 on the Agenda. Mrs.
Donahue seconded the motion. Motion carri ed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a Vari an ce Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Mini mum Setback Require me nts for a r es idence at 305 Pershing in the na me
of Michael Murphy.
Mrs. Cook pointed out that this item ha d be e n tabled during the me eting on
April 20, 1982. Jack Upham then mov e d to r emo ve this item from its tabled state;
Mr. Lindsay seconded the motion. Motion t o remove item from tabled stated
carried unanimously.
(
(
pag ~ 2
ZBA Minutes -May 18 , 1982
Mrs. Kee then explained the item, and Mr. Murphy asked to be heard from the floor.
Michael Murphy was sworn in and stated that he was amending his original request
from consideration of a var ia nce, to requesting that the setback to his propo sed
addition to his house be established by measurement from the centerline of the
alley rather than from the property 1 ine.
Mr. Upham stated that the ZBA could not establish pol icy, and that alleys do
exist even though they might ·be practically abandoned, and that they can always
be reactivated.
Mr . Murphy indicated that in the course of the informal conversation concerning
his request during the last meeting, it was suggested that a precedent for this
type of measuring for setbacks had been established at an earlier date, but he
did no t know where this had been done . He further indicated that if measure-
ment was made from the centerline of the alley, his addition would be no further
back than any of his neighbors because deed restrictions had indicated that
setbacks would be 10 feet from the alley, and his garage had been removed at an
earlie r date, but his neighbors still had the original garages or utility sheds
on their properties.
Mr. Lindsay asked about utilities being located in the alley, and Mr. Murphy
indicated that some are on the right-of-way, with water and sewer probably being
in the alley. Mr. Upham indicated that the sewer 1 ine was probably in the alley
and the water 1 ine was probably located on the property line .
Mr. Callaway explained that on September 10, 1979 the Board did justify a variance
requested by C.E.Olsen by using the center] ine of the alley to measure a rear
setbac k , the result still being a 50 foot separation between property owners .
Mr. Wagner and Mr. Upham agreed that a measurement of 25 feet from the center] ine
of the alley would be agreeable to them. A motion was made by Mrs. Cook to the
effect that she moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirement
indicated in Table .A, Ordinance 850 as it wil 1 not be contrary to the public
interest, due to following unique and special conditions of the land not normally
found in 1 ike districts: location of the 10 foot alley. And because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship,
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, with the following special condition : The 25 foot setback shoul d
be measured from the centerline of the alley. Mr . Wagner seconded the motion.
Motion carried l unanimously.
AGENDA ITE M NO. 5: Consideration of a Variance Reques t t o Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Steback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 University
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph .
Mr s . Cook ca ll e d for som eone in th e audience to present this requ est, but there
was no on e present. Mr. Call away indicated that a similar requ est in a similar
situation, but at a differe nt locati o n and with different people involved, had
be en approved.
Mr s. Donahu e made a motion to table thi s r e quest due to the fact that th ere was
no on e pr esent at th e meet ing to represe nt the owner . Mr . Wa gner seconded the
motion to table the request. Motion carried unan imous ly, and this request was
tabled until the ne xt meeting.
AGENDA ITE M NO. 6: Consid e r at ion of a Variance Request to Tabl e A -Ordin ance
850 -Mini mum Se tback Re quir e me nts for a conveni e nce store at 301 Univ e r s it~
(
(
page 3
ZBA Minutes -May 18, 1982
in the name of Southland Corporation.
This agenda item was tabled at the same ti me Agenda Item No. 3 was tabled due
to the need for further study of conditions in the Northgate area by staff, City
Council and ZBA. Motion was made by Mr. Wagner and seconded by Mrs. Donahue,
and carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of an Appeal Alleging an error in interpre-
tation of Section 8-D. 10 -Ordinance 850 -Fuel Price Signs for a commercial
project at 2200 Longmire in the name of Automotive Service World.
Steve Parker, owner of the property in question was sworn in and presented a
site plan covering the location in question. He stated that he had received
a letter from Jane Kee on 5-4-82 which was delivered by Joan Keigley at 2:25 p.m.
and it stated that he had a deadline of 3:45 p.m. to comply with Ordinance 1183
concerning his fuel sign which is portable. He addressed Section 8 D.10 of Ordi-
nance 850 which states filling stations will be allowed one sign per site ad-
vertising the current price of fuel only, the area of which will not be included
in the allowable area of their detached sign. He gave the background of his
business and said that at the time of opening this business in 1980 he vowed
to comply with the City Ordinances, and presented pictures of his site which
showed signs which had comp! ied at the time he opened for business. He indicated
that he had talked with Mr. Ash and Mrs. Kee and had proposed to make his portable
fuel sign permanent by putting it, at the same location, in concrete footing~. ·
Mrs. Kee had interpreted that this would not bring the fuel sign in compliance
because the fuel price sign must meet the regulation of Section 8 and therefore
could not be a separate d e tached sign.
Mr. Parker stated that there are no w other businesses in College Station which
are out of compliance on this date, and presented 3 photos of businesses which
were displaying fu~l price signs that he had taken today, and furnished the
names and addresses of these businesses.
Mr. Wagner asked why Mr. Parker did not want to affix his fuel price sign to
his detached sign, to which Mr. Parker replied that because his detached sign
was so far back from the curb because of the layout of his site, it would not
serve the purpose of the fuel price sign, which is information to the consumer,
and also because it would be an inconvenience and possible hazardous condition
because of the height involved for an employee to change the sign so .often.
Mrs. Kee presented the staff's view and indicated that since creation of the
position of Zoning Inspector, th e department had concentrated on bringing
businesses in compliance with sign regulations, and that putting the fuel price
sign in concrete footings would create two detached signs on the site. She
also refer enced the memo from the Traffic Engineer concerning portable signs
in which Mr. Black stated ''Portabl e signs do not convey information to drivers
as well as permanent 1 ighted signs placed at heights above eight feet. These
signs (portable signs) also create sight distance hazards for driv er s exiting
driveways and adjacent city streets. For these r easo ns, portable signs should
be discouraged."
Mr. Parker rebutted with the statement th at portable type fuel s~gns had been
used for many years. Mrs. Cook reaffirmed that there had been a great deal of
difficulty in managing all situations prior to the establishment of the position
of Zoning Inspector due to th e lack of staff, and now that we hav e the p e rsonnel
(
pa ge 4
ZBA Minut es -May 18, 1982
to handl e inspections, the aim is to get a consistent i nterpretation of the Ordinance.
Mr . Upha m ind i cated that a law wi thou t effec t is in ef fe ct no l a w. Mr. Parke r then
brought up the photos of the businesses he had furnish e d that appeared to be out of
compliance , and Mr. Upham assured him that these would be taken c a re of immediately.
Mrs. Cook pointed out that there were old businesses which may not conform be-
cau s e they had been established p r ior to enactment of the Ordinance, but that
in the event they ever wanted to change the sign, they would have to comply with
current Or d i nances.
Mrs . Donah ue asked why fuel price signs came under the sam e regulations of other
signs when they were addressed separately in the Ordinance. Mr . Lindsay asked
why the section 8-D.10 entitled Special Proviso -Fuel Price Signs had been
established if it had not been intended that these particular signs be handled
differently from other detached signs. Mrs. Kee indicated that as she interpreted
the Ordinance, fuel price signs must comply with all sections of the ordinance
dealing with signs, in addition to section 8-D.10. Mr. Lindsay said that in his
interpreta t ion, section 8-D.10 would indicate that there could be two detached
signs -one regular and one detached but that Section 8-D. 11 pertaining to
Portable/Trailer Signs would not apply, except to define portable/trailer signs.
Mrs . Cook indicated tha t she beli e ves that the Special Proviso would allow a
permanent fuel price sign on the property in addition to the allowed detached
s ign. Mr . Upham said that he believe d that fuel price signs would not have been
ment i on e d separately at all unle s s the mention was made with Mr s. Cook's inter
pretation in mind. He further indicated that fuel price signs are e s sential -to
this busin e ss, but tha t they must not be a hazard. He also indicated that what
the Ordinance says and what was meant for it to say might be two different things.
Mrs . Cook proposed that the ZBA interpret the Ordinance as it re a ds, and then go
back to City Council for clarification or an Amend me nt. She furth e r reiterated
that there could be no portable/trail e r signs used as fuel price signs. Mr.
Lindsay indicated that he interpreted the Special Proviso to cov e r the accepta-
bi 1 ity of portable signs for fu e l price signs as well. Mrs . Coo k recalled that
there would be no portable signs except for those permitted on a temporary basis.
Mr . Upham concurred.
Mr. Upham made a motion as follows : "I move to interpret Section s 8-D.6,
8-D.9, 8-D . 10, 8-D. 11 and such other paragraphs as are applicable of Ordinance
850 as pertains to fuel price signs only, that the intent is that a fuel price
sign separate from the one allowed detached sign is permissible and that since
there is a prohibition against portable signs, such intent would have been that
it be permanent, so long as it meets all other requirements of Section 8-D .6,
8-D.9 and 8-D. JO. There f ore I mov e that Mr. Parke r be allowe d to make this
sign pe rmanent and that all o t her s i milar business e s be appris e d of this, and
further r e comm e nd that all oth e r fu e l pric e signs be inv e stig a t e d and ev e n
further r e comme nd that th e Coun c il r e vi ew this opini o n and d ete r min e whe th er
in fact it is acceptabl e to th em, and if not, to r em e dy it th roug h a n Amendm e nt ."
Mr. Wagn e r s e cond e d th e motion . Motion carri e d un a nim o u s ly.
AGENDA ITE M NO. 8: Oth e r bu s in ess.
Th e re wa s non e.
page 5
~.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn .
Mr. Lindsay moved to adjourn, Mr. Upham s e co nd e d. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
Vi Burke Cook, Chairman
(
<Y1/0
ryVW
<"Y\/V
City o f College S tatio n
POST OFFI CE BOX 9960 I I 0 I TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEG E STATION. T EXAS 77840
June 7, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
r--ROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
SUBJECT: Agenda Items, June 15, 1982
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Reconsideration of Conditional Variance approved 7-21-81
for an Arcade at 315 University in the nam e of Mike Walsh.
Mr. Walsh will be present to ask the Board for ~he extension of a Conditional
Variance to parking requirements granted on 7-21-81 for an Arcade in North-
gate. Enclosed please find copies of the minutes from the 7-21-81 meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Reconsideration of a Variance Re quest to Sec t ion 8 -Ordi-
nance 850 -Parking Re uirements for a sandwich shop at 411 Universit Drive
in the name of Centex Subway, Inc. Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant is requesting a variance to 10 parking spaces for a sandwich
shop proposed to be located at 411 University Drive. The operation will have
30 seats but no cooking · will be done on the premises. Under -Ordinance 850,
restaurants have a parking requirement of 1 space per 3 seats, and no employee
requirement. These spaces are to be loca t ed on the property or on property
under the same ownership within 200 feet.
There have been 5 applications for parking variances in the Northgate area
over the last 2 years. The following is intended to help the members recall
each request and the ultimate decisions:
Date Decision
1=15-80 Denied-6 spaces
1-20-81 Approved-13 spaces
(4-21-81 Approved-20 spaces
5-19-81 De nied-6 spaces
7-21-81 Approved-6 spaces
Type Activity Applicant
Arcade-4 0 5 Univ.Dr. J.P.Jones
Restaurant-403 U.Dr.Flowers &
Larson
Restaurant-501 U.Dr.J.R.Lamp
Arcad e 315 U.Dr. Ed Wal s h
II II
Comments
Never Bui 1 t
w/stipulation
that parking be
provided for employe
w/condition of
l yr.to improv e
parking.
Mr. Phil Callihan will be present at the mee ting to answer any qu e stions .
'
Memo -ZBA
June 7, 1982
page 2
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a convenience store at 301 University
in the name of Southland Corporation. (Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear setback for a convenience
store in Northgate where the 12th Man Bar was located. The side property line
of the Alamo Bar adjoins the rear property 1 ine of this lot. The staff is not
opposed to this variance if the applicant constructs a 4 hour fire wall. This
variance is preferable to any reduction in parking or landscaping requirements
which would be necessary if the structure cannot be expanded to the rear pro-
perty line. This variance is also preferable to the possibility of another
nightclub or restaurant locating in this area.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a comm ercial project at 700 University
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph. (Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant has an existing office buil d ing which encroaches the front set-
back by 1 .24 ft. This has been the case for approximately 5 years. Now a site
plan has been submitted to re-use the existing slab and expand the ·office build-
ing. The site plan has been approved by the Project Review Committee and the
Planning and Zoning Commission pending ap proval by the ZBA.
The existing building is on a corner lot but poses no visual problem for traffic.
The Board must consider this as a varianc e request and not as an expansion to
a non-conforming structure, as the expansion far exceeds 25 percent.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Rear Setback Re uirements for a Carport at Lot 20, Block C, Lincoln
Place Subdivision 714 A-B Vassar Court in the name of Robert H. Hensarling.
The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear setback in a duplex zone
which abuts a single family zone for an existing carport which was constructed
earlier this year without a building permit. The carport encroaches the set-
back by approximately 5 feet and also encroaches a utility easement. Mr. Hensarling
is in the process of going to the City Co un cil to request abandonment of the
utility easement. Upon noticing the carpo rt the staff notified Mr. Hensarl ing
that it must be taken down,at which point a hearing was requested before the
Board.
As a staff member I have two conc e rn s . The first is the lack of unique and
special conditions in this case and th e s e cond involves the builder of the
single family resid e nces which shar e the r ea r access with this duplex. The
staff spent considerable time working with this build e r, who is from out of
town, to insure that each singl e fa mily re s idence would mee t all setbacks and
other City codes and stil 1 have a carport. This was achi e ved and all the
single family residences acro s s from Mr. He n s arling's have carports which
meet setb a c k s.
Enclosed in your packet is a copy of the Lincoln Place pfat indicating the
lot in question and the location of the e asement and rear setback.
-----------~
' Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 3.
Mr. Spearman expressed his appreciation for the granting o f t he variance and
stated they had completed many buildings in the College Station area and this
was the first time they had needed to request a variance.
G. Wagner stated the design of the whole project is a credit to the area; if
it had the appearance of some other projects, he would not have been in favor
of the variance.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4, Consideration of a request for a variance to the off-street
parking requirements to allow the operation of an arcade at 315 University
Drive, College Station, Texas. Application is in the name of Edward J. Walsh.
Ed Walsh, applicant, reminded the board he had been before them at the May
meeting requesting a variance to parking requirements at 315 University
Drive for the purpose of operating an arcade at that location which would
not sell food or beverages, and this request had been denied.
He stated he has a variance to y parking spaces which applied to his retail
business, Budget Tapes and Records, which had been closed .·.in March of this
year and has been informed by the Zoning Official that the change of use
and the type of business requires 7 spaces. He stated he has one parking
space in the front of the business and his landlady has designated six parking
spaces on the rear parking lot for his specific use.
He further pointed out he had been in business in that location for ten years
and has a remaining eight years on the e x isting lease at a sum of $80o+ per
month. Costs, due to interest rates, are such that opening a retail business
in the location is impossible, and the retail business would generate greater
traffic than the proposed arcade.
He outlined Charlie's Grocers, University Bookstore and the Bactstage Restaurant
as being the businesses which share the parking area with him. He stated he had
observed Charlie's grocery and it does not have drive-in traffic; the bookstore
closes at 5:00 p.m. which releases their parking spaces after that time. He
also stated that part of the parking problems in the Northgate area arr.e caused by
university personnel and students parking in the available spaces.
D. MacGilvray asked if any of the stores could be entered from the rear.
Mr. Walsh stated they all have rear acce s s but it is not used> the doors are
kept locked probably for security reasons.
Mr. Don Ganter, owner of Dixie Chicken, stated the ones who violate the parking
are the students.
Board member Vi Burke entered the me e ting at 7:45 p.m.
Chairman Harper off e red to bring her up to d a t e and she stated she was familiar
with the case.
Mr. Walsh stated the ordinance require s 7 sp a ces and he h a s 7 spaces.
( Zoning Official Kee called the attention of the board to Sec. 7 and Section
3.A.2 of the zoning ordinance. Sec. 7 of the ordinance outlines minimum parking
requirements, dimensions and access, off-pr em ises locations, development and
maintenance, surfacing and other requir eme nts for parking.
(
(
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 4.
She explained Sec . 3-A.2. as not allowing for designation of parking spaces to
one business when the same spaces are necessary to the support of adjacent busi-
nesses.
D. ~racGilvray stated he could not visualize anyone parking at the rear of the
building and walking around to the front.
Mr. Walsh stated they cut through Dixie Chicken or Dudley's .
D. HacGilvray stated it appeared the square footage of each of these businesses
is needed in order to determine exactly what the total parking requirements are
in this iarea.
Chairman Harper stated the ordinance is not intended to provide parking on the
basis of present use in the area. Any of the businesses involved can change
the use of their operation, so long as it is allowed by the ordinance within
their zoning classification, and develop a greater need for parking which is
already at variance and shared.
Mr. Walsh stated what this comes down to is that the landlord has the right
to designate her own parking as she sees fit, and she has made this designation
of 6 spaces for his benefit.
Chairman Harper stated the landlord does have that right, however, petitioners
mak e a presentation with as many factors in their favor as possible, just as
this board must review the case based on the negative side and what is the
intent of the ordinance.
D. HacGilvray asked the parking requirements for the Backstage Restaurant.
Zoning Official Kee stated it is 14 spaces; Charlie's Grocery is 8 plus em-
ployee parking and the bookstore is 8 plus employee varking.
Mr. Walsh inserted that Charlie's is open until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.· and does
not have drive-in traffic and the bookstore closes at 5:00 p.m. He further
pointed out the designation has only been made to him; the others have not
been to the board for a change in operation.
Chairman Harp er replied that whether the others use the parking or not, the
requirements of the ordinance are not changed.
Mr. Walsh stated the point is the parking is not used b y others, and he has
8 years to go on his lease and he is stuck with that.
Mr. Ganter stated that he and two other business operators in the northgate
area have leas ed a parking lot. They plan sometime this year to have a person
on duty to mak e certain that no one other than customer s of the busines ses is
allowed to park there.
Mr. Walsh stat ed he would be willing to do the same thing for the 6 spaces
desi gnated for his use. He stated he would be happy to have the cars towed
awa y.
(
'
,(
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 5.
Vi Burke stated this problem in Northgate is a conuiriuing one. The board
has heard the same justifications over and over. Each time a variance is
granted, the problem is compounded that much more.
P. Boughton informed the board that City Council had knocked off a large
bond issue because the City was unable to get the cooperation of businesses
in that area.
G. Wagner suggested one solution might be for the business operators in that
area to petition the City Council to develop and approve an Ordinance which speci-
fically addresses the problems in Northgate and provides a different set of
requirements for that area.
V. Burk stated perhaps it was time for the board to deny variance requests
until such time the business operators forced the property owners and landlords
to meet with the City and begin to seek solutions to the problem
Mr. Walsh stated if that was going to be the position the board assumed, it
should begin with new business operators in the area, not with those who
have had their business there for many years.
V. Burk stated there are disasters which occur throughout the nation; fires,
floods and collapsed buildings. No one ever reacts until there is a disaster
and then everyone is in error. She stated ther e is definit ely a safety hazard
because of the automobile traffic and pedestrian traffic in that area. It
appears the problem will never be addressed until a disaster occurs.
She asked Mr. Walsh, "where for instance is your landlord?" She stated that
the operators of the businesses are always here, and there is no solution or
relief for their problems, but the own er s of the property never appear nor offer
any assistance in developing a solution to the problem. She remarked that the
ZBA has the right of subpoena and suggested perhaps this is the time for that
process to begin.
Mr. Walsh replied the board could take that action, but in any event he, the
operator, would be the looser. If his variance is not granted, he will be forced
into bankruptcy and he still is stuck with a lease in excess of $800+ per month.
V. Burke stated he would not have to pay the lease if he filed bankruptcy and she
also stated she strongly felt if the parking to support a business operation can-
not be provided by the property owners ·to the tenants as required by :the zo:r;i:ing '.
ordinance, without variance, the lease surely can be broken.
Chairman Harper formed the following mot ion which was given second by D. MacGilvray.
Move to authorize a variance bas e d on the off-street parking provided by the
own e r of the building in the adjacent parking lot (6 spaces) and including one
on-site space; the 6 de s ignated parking spaces will be for the sole use of the
business at 315 University and the operator of the business will control the
parking to make certain it is for his use; this variance is authorized specifically
for the use of an arcade business, not selling food or beverag es ; said parking
lot to be brought up to the standards and requirements of Ordinance 850 for
parking lots.
Vote -motion failed.
For: MacGilvray
Against: Harper, Wagner, Burke and Boughton.
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 6.
Chairman Harper then formed the following motion which was given second by
G. Wagner.
Move to authorize a variance based on the off-street parking provided by
the owner of the building in the adjacent parking lot (6 spaces) and including
one on-site space; the 6 designated parking spaces will be for the sole use
of an arcade operation at 315 University Drive, not selling food and beverages;
said parking lot to be brought up to the standards and requirements of Ordinance
850 for parking lots; the owner of the property to submit to the Zoning Board
of Adjustment a plan for the parking lot which is in compliance with Ordinance
850 and showing how many businesses can be served by the lot and further, the
variance is authorized for a period of one (1) year from this date and becomes
open for review by this board for parking requirement compliance.
Jane Kee pointed out this could place Mr. Walsh into the position of having
made a monetary investment which could become a considerable loss if the variance
is not extended after the one year period.
After a brief discussion, Chairman Harper called for the question and the
motion was approved by the unanimous vote of the board.
APPROVED:
Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
F
NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARIAH C~ REQUEST
Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing
Request by ----------------------------, Appl icarit
Board Members Participating:
This request is for a variance of ~----------~-~--~~~~
Describe Nature of Request:
What public interest or interests are involved?
How is the public interest affect e d?
Identify any existing special conditions.associated with this property.
Special conditions identified by the applicant include:
Id:entify any unnecessary hardships .relating to this property.
Identify any hardships unique to this property.
If this request is granted, how will the "spirit of the ordinance"
be observed?
Describe the rational you have u sed i o come to your decision in this
matter.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 11-8.S
I move to (authorize or deny) a variance to the
yard (6-G) -------
lot width (Table A) -------
lot depth (Table A) -------
sign regulations (Section 8) -------
minimum setback (Table A) -------
parking requirements (Section 7) ______ __,
from the terms of this ordinance as it (will not, will) be contrary to the public
interest, due to the (lack of, following) unique and special conditions of the
land not normally found in 1 ike districts:
l. s.
2. 6.
--------------------------------~
3. 7. ------------------'----------------~
4. 8.
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
(would, would not) result in unnecessar y hardship, and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance shal 1 be obs e rved and substantial justice done,
and with the following special conditio ns:
1. 4.
2. s.
3. 6.
.J FlI.L
."<:ime of Applicant Centex Subway, lru:_._j)LB /A/ S11hway (Pres Phi 1 Cal lah;;m.L-.----
?l.ai ling AdJre ss 1701 Southwest Parkway, Suite #204, College Station, Texas 77.1.Hul
Phone 713-693-393 8
Location: Lots 3 and 9 Block ---=-2-Subdivision W. C. Boyett's
Description, If applicable 411 University Drive, College Station, Texas
(Approximately 1 ,100 square feet of l ease space next door to the llniversity Book Stor~
at Northgate)
A variance to the parking requirements for a fast food sandwich
Action requested: shop with seating for 30 customers and no cooking on the premisis.
NAHE ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, Colle ge Station Tax Assessor )
l 'IU : l:t i. J ,
Pre sent zoninr: of la :1d .in qu c :;t i.un -----'C-'--,-~Jo.--____________________ _
Section of ordinance froai wl1ich v.:1r ianc e is sout;h t Sever,
The following s pe cific variation from the ordin a n~r is reqt1estcd:
Request a variance for 10 cu s tomer parking spac es . Emp loyee parking spaces will h r·
provi d ed b y tilt.: .i Jt1dlorJ in th e parking lot b e 11ind t 11e buildin&.-a-------
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and speci~l conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
Th e Northgate district is compl..c..t.ely cleveloped. The only opportnnit~r for a new
busines s in this area is to remodel an existing structure or lease space with
n o o ppo rt unity to crea te ad di t io1hll. c: .... u...,•..:is.J..t.J..owmll:e::.Jr~p1La~r_,,.k .... i...1.n4g,,_., ~------------------
The following a l ternatives to th e r e q ues t ed V2.rianc e are possible:
Not to locate at Northgate
This variance wi ll not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
f~ci::s: The nature of the busine ss i s a fas t food sanclpjcb shop that will cater to
pedestrians who alr e a dy live and work nearb y . Since there will be no
cookin g or game machin es in t he s tore, cu_s_tmnLes wi 11 he served qui c l:J ¥---
and h ave no rea so n to lin ge r i n th e store after eating. Therefore , any
customer who wa s dr iv:!:_J~g ;m a u to and __ .§.1QQD~t.Q...pur_c.h.as e a _sa.ntlwi..ch_w o11 ld __
__________ n_o_t .. ne ed a p ar kin g place very lon g . Sub way will h e lp improve th e app earance
of th e North g a tc are~1 b y provi d ing a n alL£._l,a ss front and a bright, c ~'
decor.
The thi ~ ;1p p l i ca ti o n :ire tr u e and corr cc t.
J\pplic.:i.nt Date
{!_~G7 V Ti.::.7 J'.... hJ: <..VA-// .T vrc__ .
•
•
r:OTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARIA NC~ REQUEST
Zo n ing Board o f Adjustment Hearing
R e qu est by--·-------------------------' Applicant
Board Members Participating:
This request is for a variance of ----~---~-~-----~~---
Describe Nature of Request:
What public interest or interests are involved?
How is the public interest affect ed?
.-
I den tify any existing special condi ti ons.associated with this property.
Special conditions identified by the applicant include:
Id·entify any unnecessary hardships . relating to this property.
Identify any hardships· unique to this property.
I f this request is granted , ho w vrill the "spirit of the ordinance"
b e observe d?
Describe the r a tiona l you h ave u sed t o come t o your d ec ision in thi s
ma t ter .
\
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 11-8.5
I move to (authorize or deny) a vari a nc e to the
yard (6-G) -------
lot width (Table A) -------
lot depth (Table A) -------
sign regulations (Section 8) -------
minimum setbac k (Table A) -------
/ parking requir eme nts (S e ction 7) ----'------'
from th e terms of this ordinance as i t (will not, wi ll) be contrary t o t he public
interest, due to the (lack of, followin g) unique and special conditions o f the
land not normally found in 1 ike distric ts :
L s.
2. 6.
-------------------------~~-----~
3. 7,
--------------------------------~
4. 8.
--------------------------------~
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
(would, would not) result in unnecessar y hardship, and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance shal 1 be obs erved and substantial justice done,
and with the following special conditions :
I. 4.
2. 5 .
3. 6.
-4"
\
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUS T(-!E NT
Name of Applicant ~~~-S_o_u~t_h_l_a_n_d~C_o_r~p~o_r_a_t_1_·_o_n~-c~/_o~J_a_c_k~O_r_t~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Hailing Adclress 8871 Tallwood, Austin, Tex as 78759 ~~~~~~~~~~~-~~-<-~~~~~-=-.:----~--~---~~-~
Phone 512-346-4190
Location: Lot __ 1_3 __ Block ---=1-Subdivision W. C. Boyett Addition
Description, If applicable ~----=A~t~t~a~ch~e~d'--------~--~-----~-~--~~~
Action ~equested: Variance to rear setback
NAHE ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
_Attached
. ING BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN T FILE NO.
Present zoning of land in que stion C-1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,----~~~~
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought Table A
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: A variance to
reduce the rear set back require~ent for building is requested in order to develop a
7-Eleven convenience food store and gasoline island as shown on the attached site plan.
This variance is necessary due to the following Ui.!iq ue and special conditions of
the ~and not found in like districts: .
The narrow dimensions and resulting size of the subject nroperty prohibit the
development of a 7-Eleven convenience store which will include adequate parking and
landscaping in conjunction with adequate accessibility and w~neuverability on the
property.
The following alternative s to the requested v a r~ance are po s sible: A 7-Eleven
can be developed on the subject property if the park ing and landscane requirements
are reduced. However, assessibility to the store and the gasoline island will be
impared in .this situation.
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
f~ct~: A 7 Eleven convenience food store and gasoline insta]]atiou will he 9eveloped
with adequate parking and landscaping in place of what was preyiousJy The 12th Man Bar.
Th e existing structure is a converted service station which bas been vacated.
The f ac t s stated by me i n this application are
Southland i&I!loration Q ,_ I! (hf
Applicant 1.
:~~~ and corre c t.
April 20, ]982
Date
'
'
NOT ES ON CO NSID ERATIO N OF A VARIA N C ~ REQUE ST
Zoning Board o f Adju s t me nt Hearing
Requ e st by----------------------------' Applicant
Board Members Participating :
This request is for a variance of ----------------------
Section
Describe Nature of Request:
What public interest or int e rests are involved?
How is the public interest affect e d?
Identify any existing special conditions.associated with this property.
Special conditions identifi e d by the applicant include:
Id-entify any unnecessary hard s hips .relating to this property·.
Identify any hardship s uniqu e to this property.
If this request is grant e d, how will the "spirit of the ordinance"
be ob s erved?
Descr i b e th e r a tiona l you h ave u s e d t o come to your d ec ision in thi s
ma t t e r .
• '
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 11-8.S
I move to (authorize or deny) a variance to the
yard (6-G) -------·
1ot width (Table A) -------
• 1ot depth (Table A) -------
sign regulations (Section 8) ------f?ij~/L
minimum /s~ck (Table A)-~ -------
parking requirements (Section 7) -------'
from the terms of this ordinance as it (will not , will) be contrary to the public
interest, due to the (lack of, following) unique and special condftions o~ the
land not normally found in 1 ike districts:
l. 5. -----------------'-----------------
2. 6.
3. 7. ---------------------------------
4. 8. ---------------------------------
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
(would, would not) result in unnecessar y hardship, and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done,
and with the following special conditions:
1. 4.
2. 5.
3. 6.
·---ZONING HOARD Of A DJUST~IB~T FILE ~O .
Name of Applicant tle.c Randolph
Hailing Ad d re ss 700 University Drive East
~~~~~~~~~-"--~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phone 696141 41
Location: Lot
Action reques ted:
A Block 700 Subdivision University Par:< East
Allow 1' -2~" partial intrusion into 25' building set back line
for a distance of 11' Approx .
NAME ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
.. C ~O ARD 0? /,D JUSTNENT FILE NO.
Section of ord inance from ~h ic h variance is so ~g ht Ord # 850 Sec 5 Tabl€l A
The follm-ling specific v2.r ia ti on from the ordi na:i.ce is requested:
1' -2t 11 variance on front set back line.
This variance is necessary due to the followin g unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
We arEre ":'~sirg the existing slab for a new b1ii !ding modification. The origil(lf<!,)I
slab had this 1' -2t 11 discre;:>ancy.
The following alterna tives to the requested variance are possible:
1. Distort the front elevation of th e new bui I ding to conform to the 25' set back
I ine.
2. Rer.ove the 1' -2t 11 slab intrusion and rewor~ structure.
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
facts: 1. The variance now exist and has existed for about 5 ye3rs.
2. Sit e visi~ility for traffic on Tarrow Drive i s not irm a.red.
s aµp licaUon ar e tr-ue and cor-r.::ct.
::ac ~andol .::>h
r
I
l
I
__ _j
-
7
)
_/
. I ~
' . ·~ ·--"" --•· -. ..,_ ·-..;..-..
IZ
!
I
I
i
!
i
I ()! -, I ~l
----~ ~----=========-------=.:::.---
10-.
>
-----··--~--. -
-----------"
I
I
I r
I
I
I
I
i
I
______ ___.,,
I
I
-·
---------
•
\
>-,__ -Cf)
0::: w > -2
::::>
I r
4j • •• • DON BOCKMAN SURVEYS
BRYAN . TCXAS
UNIVERSITY PA RK EAST
TRACT "s"
I --
TRACT
.... 0.4881 ACRES
4°CONC . WALK
-0
0
0
I() 1-z w
~ w
~ ~ I f g ~ i '* -~ I ~~
,_
en <r w
:I<:: c:: <r
£L:
al >-:
t: t;
U) <i a: c:: w I-
?: z
::>
•
\
NOT E S ON CO NSIDERATION OF A VARIA f!C:2: RE QU E ST
Zoning Board of Adju s t me nt Hearin g
Requ e st by--··------------------------' Applicant
Board Members Participating:
This request is for a variance of
------~------~-·-~~--
~~----------~~--------' Section
Describe Nature of Request:
What public interest or interests are involved?
How is the public interest affect e d?
-Identify any existing special cond itions.associated with this property.
Special conditions identified by the applicant include :
Id:entify any unnecessary hard s hips .relating to this property.
Identify any hardships unique to this property.
If this reque s t is g ranted, ho w will the "spirit of th e ordinance"
b e ob se rved?
De scr i b e the rationa l you h ave u s e d t o come to yo u r d e cision in th is
ma tter .
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR MAT FOR MOTIONS
Variances : From Section 11-8.5
I move to (authorize or deny) a variance to the
yard (6-G) -------
lot width (Table A) -------
lot depth (Table A) -------
sign regulations (Section 8) -------
minimum setback (Table A) -------
parking requirements (Section 7)
------~
from th e te r ms of this ordinance as it (will not , will) be con t ra ry to the public
interest, due to the (lack of, followin g ) unique and special conditions of the
land not normally found in 1 ike districts: -
l. 5.
2. 6. ---------------------------------
3. 7. -----------------'------------------
4. 8.
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
(would, would not) result in unnecessar y hardship, and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance sh a ll be observed and substantial justice done,
and with the following s pe c ial conditio ns:
1. 4.
2. 5.
3. 6.
•
'
ZOi-llNG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.
Name of App 1 i cant __ ,_/2_0"'--"Q"--[;=.:-"'lj=--'-"-!1-'.'---H_B'.=._..._,&~· -"'~_,_/!"--=£"-'L=-/,__,/..=(../-"(;,'+--1 ____________ _
J
Phone --=--9_,_LJ~fv_-~/~R~{J~ff_· __ _
Location: Lot 210 Block C-.
Description, If applicable
L-{J T s.:l ()
·: 7
I Sd
NAME ADDRESS -· -
(From current tax rolls, Colle ge Station Tax Assessor)
•
ZONnJG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO~ r ---
Pres e nt zoning of land in quest ion --':1--=--0"'--_,_f_)_,_-f ..... ,_....:..,e~c-'a~e=-' -'S~e'""T-'13:.;;z-'-"-19.J-""~CL'K_,,__,,'-----:-------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
----~---~
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the ~and not found in like districts:
The following alt~rnatives to the requested variance are possible:
I) /J11t)t :; C!t9R .. PDI' T !LP .. s= F-ec T a.J/-/ J{!J/ /,(_}/! t/Ot.Z.S
-, l
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
f.,;_cts:
Th e f a cts st a t e d by me in th is applica t i on a re true and corr e ct.
~M?.iM<>--.6_~.,,,__, --
Arr1:i.ca nt: / Date
'
R. Carter , Woodland Acres
Tr. 23 Lt 27
E. L. Putz
815 Ashburn
College Station , Te xas
R. Cart e r Addn
Tr. 3
James W. Sims
1409 CAudi 11
College Staion , Texas
Linco l n Place II
Bk B Lt 5-13
Dwayne Rhea Const . Co.
2751 Longmire
College Station,
Bk B Lt 14
Bart M. Toomey
708 We ll es l y
Texas
77 840
77840
I nc.
77 840
College Station, Te xas 77840
Bk C Lt 8-17
NPC Realty
Bk C. Lt 21
Scott W. Barnhart
Bk C. Lt 22
J ohn W. Galloway
Bk C Lt 23
Alfred B. Nichols
Woodland Acres
Lt pt of 8
-Luther M. Cobb
900 Ashburn
Co 11 eg e Station , Texas 77840
.......... _ Lt Pt of 8
, Lu cille Cobb
900 Ashburn
Co 1 1 eg e Station , Texas 77840
Lt 9
Ar chie Bane
22 92 Los Robles
Gr apevine Texas 76501
-
NOTES ON CO N SIDERATION OF A VAR I A rre~ REQ UEST
Zoning Board of Adjustme nt He aring
Requ e st by--··-----------------,---------' .Applicant
Board Members Participating:
This request is for a variance of ~------------,-..---·-~---
Describe Nature of Request:
What public interest or interests are involve d?
How is the public interest affect e d?
Identify any existing special cond i tions.associated with this property.
Special conditions identified by the applic a nt include:
Id:entify any unnecessary hardships .relating to this property.
Identify any hardship s unique to this property.
If this request is g ranted, how will the "spirit of the ordinance"
b e ob s erv ed?
De s c rib e t h e rat i ona l you h ave u s e d t o come t o yo ur d e ci s ion in thi s
mat ter .
•
i \
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 11-8.5
I move to (authorize or deny) a variance to the
yard (6-G) -------·
lot width (Table A) -------
-------lot depth (Table A)
sign regulations (Section 8) -------
minimum setback (Table A) -------
parking requirements (Section 7)
------~
from the terms of this ordinance as it (will not , wil l) be contrary to the public
interest, due to the (lack of, following) unique and special conditions o t_ the
land not normally found in like distric t s:
1. 5. ________________ _:_ _______________ _
2. 6.
3. 7. -----------------'-----------------~
4. 8.
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance
(would, would not) result in unnecessar y hardship, and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice don e ,
and with the following sp e cial condition s:
1. 4.
2. 5.
3. 6.
AMENDED
A G E N D A
Zoning Board of Adjustment
City of Colleg e Station, Texas
June 15, 19 82
7:00 P.M.
1. Approval of Minutes from May 18, 1982.
2. Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordinance 850 -
-Parking Requirements for a sand ~·lich s hop at,_411 Universi~ Drive in .
the name of Centex SubV1ay, Inc.,.\"'~ b~\ f!A.e .. t~-14 -..;,,;~ ~
3. Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Setback Requirements for a co nvenience store at .301 1 University
in the name of Southland Corporation. v---
4. Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Setback Requirements for a co Gm ercial project at 700 University
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph.
5. Consideration of a Variance Requ e st to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Rear Setback Requirem e nts for a carport at Lot 20, Block C
Lincoln Place Subdivision (714 A-B Va s sar Court) in the name of
Robert H. Hensarling.
6. Reconsideration of Conditional Variance Approved 7-21-81 for an Arcade
at 315 University in the name of Mike Walsh.
7. Adjourn.
•
1.
2.
6.
7.
A G E N D A
Zoning Board of Adjustment
City of College Station, Texas
June 15, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Approval of Minutes from May 18, 1982.
Reconsideration of Conditional Variance Approved 7-21-81 for an Arcade
at 315 University in the name of Mike Walsh.
Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordinance 850 -
. Parking Requirements for a sandwich shop at 411 University Drive in
the name of Centex Subway, Inc.
Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Setback Requirements for a convenience store at 301 University
in the name of Southland Corporation.
Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Setback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 University _
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph.
Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Rear Setback Requirements for a carport at Lot 20, Block C
Lincoln Place Subdivision (714 A-B Vassar Court) in the name of
Robert H. Hensarl ing.
Adjourn.
(
(
(
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
MINUTES
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 18, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Board Chairman Cook, Members Wagner, Upham, Donahue
and Alternate Member Lindsay
D. MacGilvray and Council Liaison P. Boughton
Mayor Halter (for administering Oath of Office) ,Zoning
Official Kee, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Assistant Director
of Planning Callaway, and Planning Technician Volk
Swearing in of new members.
Mayor Halter administered the oath of office to new members Mary Kaye Donahue
and Hugh Lindsay, and to re-appointed members Jack Upham and Gale Wagner.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of Minutes from April 20, 1982.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes, Mrs. Cook seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3:. Consideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordi-
nance 850 -Parking Requirements for a sandwich shop at 411 University Drive
in the name of Centex Subway, Inc.
Mrs. Cook recommended that this item and item #6 be tabled until staff, City
Council and ZBA members have a chance to do a thorough study of the Northgate
area. Discussion followed with Jack Boyett, who spoke from the floor, indica-
ting that he had made the trip to gain information concerning what had been
proposed in the Northgate area. Mrs. Cook indicated that she was aware of this,
and that the City appreciated his concern, but that the ZBA with the .new mem-
bers was not in a position to discuss the matter at hand until further study
could be made.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to table both Items 3 and 6 on the Agenda. Mrs.
Donahu e seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a residence at 305 Pershing in the name
of Michael Murphy.
Mrs. Cook pointed out that this item had been tabled during the meeting on
April 20, 1982. Jack Upham then moved to remove this item from its tabled state;
Mr. Lindsay seconded the motion. Motion to remove item from tabled stated
carried unanimously.
(
(
ZBA Minutes -May 18, 1982
page 2
• •
Mrs. Kee then explained the item, and Mr. Murphy asked to be heard from the floor.
Michael Murphy was sworn in and stated that he was amending his original request
from consideration of a variance, to requesting that the setback to his proposed
addition to his house be established by measurement from the centerline of the
alley rather than from the property 1 ine.
Mr. Upham stated that the ZBA could not establish policy, and that alleys do
exist even though they might be practically abandoned, and that they can always
be reactivated.
Mr . Murphy indicated that in the course of the informal conversation concerning
his request during the last meeting, it was suggested that a precedent for this
type of measuring for setbacks had been established at an earlier date, but he
did not know where this had been done. He further indicated that if measure-
ment was made from the centerline of the alley, his addition would be no further
back than any of his neighbors because deed restrictions had indicated that
setbacks would be 10 feet from the alley, and his garage had been removed at an
earlier date, but his neighbors still had the original garages or utility sheds
on their properties.
Mr. Lindsay asked about utilities being located in the alley, and Mr. Murphy
indicated that some are on the right-of-way, with water and sewer probably being
in the alley. Mr. Upham indicated that the sewer line was probably in the alley
and the water 1 ine was probably located on the property line.
Mr , Callaway explained that on September 10, 1979 the Board did justify a var.Janee
requested by C.E.Olsen by using the centerline of the alley to measure a rear
setback, the result still being a 50 foot separation between property owners.
Mr. Wagner and Mr. Upham agreed that a measurement of 25 feet from the centerline
of the alley would be agreeable to them. A motion was made by Mrs. Cook to the
effect that she moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirement
indicated in Table .A, Ordinance 850 as it will not be contrary to the public
interest, due to following unique and special conditions of the land not normally
found in 1 ike districts: location of the 10 foot alley. And because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship,
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, with the following special condition: The 25 foot setback should
be measured from the centerline of the alley. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion.
Motion carried l unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Cons i deration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Steback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 University
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph.
Mrs. Cook called for someone in the audience to present this request, but there
was no one present. Mr. Callaway indicat e d that a similar request in a similar
situation, but at a different location and with different people involved, had
been approved.
Mrs . Donahue made a motion to table this r e quest due to the fact that there was
no one present at the meeting to represen t th e owner. Mr . Wagner seconded the
motion to table the request. Motion carried unanimou s ly, and this request was
tabled until the next meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a Va riance Requ e st to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a convenience store at :01 u · · _ _ 2 n1vers1t~
(
(
page 3
ZBA Minutes -May 18, 1982
in the name of Southland Corporation.
This agenda item was tabled at the same time Agenda Item No. 3 was tabled due
to the need for further study of conditions in the Northgate area by staff, City
Council and ZBA. Motion was made by Mr. Wagner and seconded by Mrs. Donahue,
and carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of an Appeal Alleging an error in interpre-
tation of Section 8-D. 10 -Ordinance 850 -Fuel Price Signs for a commercial
project at 2200 Longmire in the name of Automotive Service World.
Steve Parker, owner of the property in question was sworn in and presented a
site plan covering the location in question. He stated that he had received
a letter from Jane Kee on 5-4-82 which was delivered by Joan Keigley at 2:25 p.m.
and it stated that he had a deadline of 3:45 p.m. to comply with Ordinance 1183
concerning his fuel sign which is portable. He addressed Section 8 D.10 of Ordi-
nance 850 which states filling stations will be allowed one sign per site ad-
vertising the current price of fuel only, the area of which will not be included
in the allowable area of their detached sign. He gave the background of his
business and said that at the time of opening this business fn 1980 he vowed
to comply ~lith the City Ordinances, and presented pictures of his site which
showed signs which had complied at the time he opened for business. He indicated
that he had talked with Mr. Ash and Mrs. Kee and had proposed to make his portable
fuel sign permanent by putting it, at the sam e location, in concrete footings.
Mrs. Kee had interpreted that this would not bring the fuel sign in compliance
because the fuel price sign must meet the regulation of Section 8 and therefore
could not be a separate detached sign.
Mr. Parker stated that there are now other businesses in College Station which
are out of compliance on this date, and presented 3 photos of businesses which
were displaying fuel price signs that he had taken today, and furnished the
names and addresses of these businesses.
Mr. Wagner asked why Mr. Parker did not want to affix ·his fuel price sign to
his detached sign, to which Mr. Parker replied that because his detached sign.
was so far back from the curb because of the layout of his site, it would not
serve the purpose of the fuel price sign, which is information to the consumer,
and also because it would be an inconvenience and possible hazardous condition
because of the height involved for an employee to change the sign so often.
Mrs. Kee presented the staff's view and indicated that since creation of the
position of Zoning Inspector, the department had conc e ntrated on bringing
busin esses in compliance with sign regulations, and that putting the fuel price
sign in concrete footings would create two detached signs on the site. She
also referenced the memo from the Traffic Engineer concerning portable signs
in which Mr. Black stated ''Portabl e signs do not convey information to drivers
as well as permanent 1 ighted signs plac e d at he ights above eight feet. These
signs (portable signs) also cr ea te sight distance hazards for drivers exiting
driv eways and adjacent city streets. For these reasons, portable signs should
be discouraged. 11
Mr. Parker rebutted with the statement that portable type fuel signs had been
used for many years. Mrs. Cook reaffirmed that th ere had be en a great deal of
difficulty in managing all situations prior to the establishment of the position
of Zoning Inspector du e to th e lack of staff, and no w that we hav e the personnel
r (
(
page 4
ZBA Minutes -May 18, 1982 ,
,.
to handle inspections, the aim is to get a consistent interpretation of the Ordinance .
Mr . Upham i ndicated that a law without effect is in effect no lav-1. Mr. Parker then
brought up the photos of the businesses he had furnished that appeared to be out of
compliance, and Mr. Upham assured him that these would be taken care of immediately.
Mrs. Cook pointed out that there were old businesses which may not conform be-
cause t hey had been established prior to enactment of the Ordinance, but that
in the event they ever wanted to change the sign, they would have to comply with
curren t Ordinances.
Mrs . Donahue asked why fuel price signs came under the same regulations of other
signs when they were addressed separately in the Ordinance. Mr. Lindsay asked
why the section 8-D.10 entitled Special Proviso -Fuel Price Signs had been
established if it had not been intended that these particular signs be handled
differently from other detached signs. Mrs. Kee indicated that as she interpreted
the Ordinance, fuel price signs must comply with all sections of the ordinance
dealing with signs, in addition to section 8-D. 10 . Mr. Lindsay said that in his
interpretation, section 8-D .10 would indicate that there could be two detached
signs -one regular and one detached but that Section 8-D .ll pertaining to
Portable/Trailer Signs would not apply, except to define portable/trailer signs.
Mrs. Cook indicated that she believes that the Special Proviso would allow a
permanent fuel price sign on the property in addition to the allowed detached
sign. Mr . Upham said that he believed that fuel p rice signs would not have been
mentioned separately a t all unless the mention was mad e with Mrs . Cook's inter-
pretation in mind. He fu r ther indicated that fuel price signs are essential :to
this business , but that they must not be a hazard . He also indicated that what
the Ordinance says and what was meant for it to say might be two different things.
Mrs. Cook proposed that the ZBA interpret the Ordinance as it reads, and then go
back to City Council for clarification or an Amendment . She further reiterated
that there could be no po r table/trailer signs used as fuel price signs. Mr.
Lindsay ind i cated that he interpreted the Special Proviso to cover the accepta-
bility of portable signs for fu e l price signs as well. Mrs . Coo k recalled that
there would be no portable signs except for those permitted on a temporary basis.
Mr. Upham concurred .
Mr. Upham made a motion as follows: 11 1 move to interpret Sections 8-D.·6,
8-D.9, 8-D .10, 8-D. 11 and such other paragraphs as are applicable of Ordinance
850 as pertains to fuel p r ice signs only, that the intent is that a fuel price
sign separate from the one allowed detached sign is permissible and that since
there is a prohibition against portable signs, such intent would have been that
it be permanen t, so long as it meets all other require me nts of Se ction 8-D.6,
8-D.9 and 8-D.10. Th ere fore I move that Mr. Parker be allowed to make this
sign pe rman ent and tha t all oth e r similar businesses be appris e d of this, and
further recommend that all other fuel pric e signs be investigated and even
further r ecomme nd that th e Council r e vi ew this opinion and d eterm ine whether
in fact it is acceptabl e to th em , and if not, to remedy it thro ugh an Am en dment .''
Mr . Wagn er seconded th e motion. Motion c ar ried un animo usly.
AGENDA ITE M NO. 8: Oth er business.
There was none.
page 5
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn.
Mr . Lindsay moved to adjourn, Mr. Upham seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
Vi Burke Cook, Chairman
(
C ity of C ollege S tation
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I I 0 I TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE ST,-\TION, TEXAS 7 7 840
June 7, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
SUBJECT: Agenda Items, June 15, 1982
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Reconsideration of Conditional Variance approved 7-21-81
for an Arcade at 315 University in the na me of Mike Walsh.
Mr. Walsh will be present to ask the Board for ~he extension of a Conditional
Variance to parking requirements granted on 7-21-81 for an Arcade in North-
gate. Enclosed please find copies of the minutes from the 7 -21-81 meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordi-
nance 850 -Parking Re uirements for a sandwich shop at 411 Universit Drive
in the name of Centex Subway, Inc. Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant is requesting a variance to 10 parking spaces for a sandwich
shop proposed to be located at 411 University Drive. The operation will have
30 seats but no cooking· will be done on the premises. Under -Ordinance 850,
restaurants have a parking requirement of l space per 3 seats, and no employee
requirement. These spaces are to be located on the property or on property
under the same ownership within 200 feet.
There have be~n 5 applications for parking variances in the Northgate area
over the l~st 2 years. The following is intended to help the members recall
each request and the ultimate decisions:
Date
T=TS-80
1-20-81
4-21-81
5-19-81
7-21 -81
Decision
Denied-6 spaces
Approved-13 spaces
Approved-20 spaces
De nied-6 spaces
App r ov e d-6 spac es
Type Act i vity Applicant .
Arcad e ~405 Univ.Dr. J.P.Jones
Restaurant-403 U.Dr.Flowers &
Larson
'Re s tau ra nt -50 l U.Dr.J.R.Lamp
Arcad e 3 15 U.Dr. Ed Wa l s h
II II
Comments
Never Built
w/stipulation
that parking be
provid e d for e mploye
w/condition of
1 yr.to improv e
parking.
Mr. Phil Callihan will be present at th e me eting to answ e r any questions.
Memo -ZBA
June 7, 1982
page 2
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a convenience store at 301 University
in the name of Southland Corporation. (Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear setback for a convenience
store in Northgate where the 12th Man Bar was located. The side property line
of the Alamo Bar adjoins the rear property line of this Jot. The staff is not
opposed to this variance if the applicant constructs a 4 hour fire wall. This
variance is preferable to any reduction in parking or landscaping requirements
which would be necessary if the structure cannot be expanded to the rear pro-
perty line. This variance is also preferable to the possibility of another
nightclub or restaurant locating in this area.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 University
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph. (Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant has an existing office building which encroaches the front set-
back by 1 .24 ft . This has been the case for approx im ately 5 y e ar s. Now a site
plan has been submitted to re-use the existing slab and expand t he office build -
ing. The site plan has been approved by the Project Review Co mmittee and the
Planning and Zoning Commission pending approval by the ZBA.
The existing building is on a corner lot but poses no visual problem for traffic.
The Board must consider this as a variance request and not as an expansion to
a non-conforming structure, as the expansion far exceeds 25 percent.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Rear Setback Requir eme nts for a Car ort at Lot 20, Block C, Lincoln
Place Subdivision 714 A-B Vassar Court in the name of Robert H. Hensarling.
The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear setback in a duplex zone
which abuts a single family zone for an existing carport which was constructed
earlier this year without a building permit. The carport encroaches the set-
back by approximately 5 feet and also encroaches a utility easement. Mr. Hensarling
is in the process of going to the City Council to request abandonment of the
utility easement. Upon noticing th e carport the staff notified Mr. Hensarling
that it must be taken down,at which point a hearing was requested before the
Board.
As a staff me mber I have two concerns. Th e first is th e lack of unique and
special conditions in this cas e an d th e s e cond involves th e builder of the
single family resid e nces which shar e th e rear access with this duplex. The
staff spent considerable time working with this build e r, who is from out of
town, to insur e that each single fa mily r e sidence would me e t a ll s etbacks and
other City code s and still have a carport. This was achieved and all the
single family r e sidences across fro m Mr. He nsarl ing's have carports which
meet setbacks.
Enclosed in your packe t is a copy of the Lincoln Place plat indicating the
lot in question and the location of the easem e nt and rear setb3 ck.
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Pag e 3.
Mr. Sp earman e x pr e ssed his appr e ciation for the grant ing of t h e v ar i a nce a nd
stated they had completed many buildings in the Colleg e Station area and this
was the first time they had needed to request a variance.
G. Wagner stated the design of the whole project is a credit to the area; if
it had the appearance of some other projects, he would not have been in favor
of the variance.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4, Consideration of a request for a variance to the off-street
parking requirements to allow the operation of an aroade at 315 University
Drive, College Station, Texas. Application is in the name of Edward J. Walsh.
Ed Walsh, applicant, reminded the board he had been before them at the May
meeting requesting a variance to parking requirements at 315 University
Drive for the purpose of operating an arcade at that location which would
not sell food or beverages, and this request had been denied.
He stated he has a varianc e to y parking spaces which applied to his retail
business, Budget Tapes and Records, which had b e en clos e d .'in March of this
year and has been informed by the Zoning Official that the change of use
and the type of business requir e s 7 spaces. He stated he has one park ing
space in the front of the business and his landlady has designa ted six parking
spaces o n the rear parking lot for his specific use .
He further pointed out he had been in business in that location for ten years
and has a remaining eight years on the e x isting lease at a sum of $80o+ p e r
month. Costs, due t & interest rates, are such that opening a retail business
in the location is impossible, and the retail business would generate greater
traffic than the proposed arcade.
He outlined Charlie's Grocers, University Boo k store and the Bactstage Restaurant
as being the businesses which share the parking area with him. He sta ted he h a d
observed Charlie's grocery and it does not have drive-in traffic; the bookstor e
closes at 5:00 p.m. which releases their parking spaces after that time . He
also stated that part of .the parking problems in the Northg ate area ane caused by
university personnel and students parking in the available spaces.
D. MacGilvray asked if any of the stores could be entered from the rear.
Mr. Walsh stated they all hav e rear acc e ss but it is not used, the doors are
kept locked probably for security reasons.
Mr. Don Ganter, owner of Dixi e Chicke n, stated th e ones who violate tne parking
are the students.
Board me mber Vi Burke entered the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Chairman Harper off e r e d to bring h e r up to dat e and she st a t e d s h e was fami l i ar
with the case.
Mr. Wal s h s tat e d th e ordina n ce requir es 7 sp a c es and h e h as 7 spac e s.
( Zoning Offic ial Ke e called the att e ntion of the board to Sec. 7 and S e ction
3.A.2 of the zoning ord i n a nc e . S e c. 7 of the ordina nc e outlin es minimum par k ing
requir em ents, dimen s ion s and a cc e ss, off-premis e s loca tion s , d e v e lopme nt and
maintenance, surfacing and oth e r r e quir eme nts for parking.
(
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 4.
She explained Sec. 3-A.2 . as not allowing for designation of parking spaces to
one business when the same spaces are necessary to the support of adjacent busi-
nesses.
D. MacGilvray stated he could not visualize anyone parking at the rear of the
building and walking around to the front.
Mr. Walsh stated they cut through Dixie Chicken or Dudley's.
D. MacGilvray stated it appeared the square footage of each of these businesses
is needed in order to determine exactly what the total parking requirements are
in this ·1.area.
Chairman Harper stated the ordinance is not intended to provide parking on the
basis of present use in the area. Any of the businesses involved can change
the use of their operation, so long as it is allowed by the ordinance within
their zoning classification, and develop a greater need for parking which is
already at variance and shared.
Mr. Walsh stated what this comes down to is that the landlord has the right
to designate her own parking as she sees fit, and she has made this designation
of 6 spaces for his benefit.
Chairman Harper stated the landlord does have that right, however, petitioners
make a presentation with as many factors in their favor as possible, just as
this board must review the case based on the negative side and what is the
intent of the ordinance.
D. MacGilvray asked the parking requirements for the Backstage Restaurant.
Zoning Official Kee stated it is 14 spaces; Charlie's Grocery is 8 plus em-
ployee parking and the bookstore is 8 plus employee parking.
Mr. Walsh inserted that Charlie's is open until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.· and does
not have drive-in traffic and the bookstore closes at 5:00 p.m. He further
pointed out the designation has only been made to him; the others have not
been to the board for a change in operation.
Chairman Harper replied that whether the others use the parking or not, the
requirements of the ordinance are not changed.
Mr. Walsh stated the point is the parking is not used by others, and he has
8 years to go on his lease and h e is stuck with that.
Mr. Ganter stated that he and two other business operators in the northgate
area have leased a parking lot. They plan sometime this year to have a person
on duty to make certain that no one other than customers of the businesses is
allowe d to park there.
Mr. Walsh stated he would be willing to do th e same thing for the 6 spaces
designated for his use. He stated he would be happy to have the cars towed
away.
(
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 5.
Vi Burke stated this problem in Northgate is a coribinuing one. The board
has heard the same justifications over and over. Each time a variance is
granted, the problem is compounded that much more.
P. Boughton informed the board that City Council had knocked off a large
bond issue because the City was unable to get the cooperation of businesses
in that area.
G. Wagner suggested one solution might be for the business operators in that
area to petition the City Council to develop and approve an Ordinance which speci-
fically addresses the problems in Northgate and provides a different set of
requirements for that area.
V. Burk stated perhaps it was time for the board to deny variance requests
until such time the business operators forced the property owners and landlords
to meet with the City and begin to seek solutions to the problem
Mr. Walsh stated if that was going to be the position the board assumed, it
should begin with new business operators in the area, not with those who
have had their business there for many years.
V. Burk stated there are disasters which occur throughout the nation; fires,
floods and collapsed buildings. No one ever reacts until there is a disaster
and then everyone is in error. She stated there is definitely a safety hazard
because of the automobile traffic and pedestrian traffic in that area. It
appears the problem will never be addressed until a disaster occurs.
She. aske.d Mr. Walsh, "whe.re. for instance is your landlord?" She stated that
the operators of the businesses are always here, and there is no solution or
relief for their problems, but the owners of the property never appear nor offer
any assistance in developing a solution to the problem. She remarked that the
ZBA has the right of subpoena and suggested perhaps this is the time for that
process to begin.
Mr. Walsh replied the board could take that action, but in any event he, the
operator, would be the looser. If his variance is not granted, he will be forced
into bankruptcy and he still is stuck with a lease in excess of $800+ per month.
V. Burke stated he would not have to pay the lease if he filed bankruptcy and she
also stated she strongly felt if the parking to support a business operation can-
not be provided by the property owners ·to the tenants ·as required by the zot;i.ing ~
ordinance, without variance, the lease surely can be broken.
Chairman Harper formed the following motion which was given second by D. MacGilvray.
Move to authorize a variance based on the off-street parking provided by the
owner of the building in the adjacent parking lot (6 spaces) and including one
on-site space; the 6 designated parking spaces will be for the sole use of the
business at 315 University and the operator of the business will control the
parking to make certain it is for his use; this variance is authorized specifically
for the use of an arcade business, not selling food or beverages; said parking
lot to be brought up to the standards and requirements of Ordinance 850 for
parking lots.
Vote -motion failed.
For: MacGilvray
Against: Harper, Wagner, Burke and Boughton.
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 6.
Chairman Harper then formed the following motion which was given second by
G. Wagner.
Move to authorize a variance based on the off-street parking provided by
the owner of the building in the adjacent parking lot (6 spaces) and including
one on-site space; the 6 designated parking spaces will be for the sole use
of an arcade operation at 315 University Drive, not selling food and beverages;
said parking lot to be brought up to the standards and requirements of Ordinance
850 for parking lots; the owner of the property to submit to the Zoning Board
of Adjustment a plan for the parking lot which is in compliance with Ordinance
850 and showing how many businesses can be served by the lot and further, the
variance is authorized for a period of one (1) year from this date and becomes
open for review by this board for parking requirement compliance.
Jane Kee pointed out this could place Mr. Walsh into the position of having
made a monetary investment which could become a considerable loss if the variance
is no.t extended after the one year period.
After a brief discussion, Chairman Harper called for the question and the
motion was approved by the unanimous vote of the board.
APPROVED:
Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
•
Fll.L r~t •.
Nnmc of Applicant Cente x Subway, 1 nc. D/B/A/ S11bway (Pr e s Phil C'al J ah~m-L ____ _
Hailing Ad<lress 1701 Southwest Parkway, Suite {/204, College Station, Te~.l3..ftil
Phone 713-693-393 8
Location: Lots 3 and 9 Block ------=2-Subdivision W. C. Boyett's
Description, If applicable 411 University Drive, College Station, Tex a s
(Approximately 1.100 square feet of lease space next door to the I~iversity Book Stor ~
at Northgate)
A variance to the parkin g requirements for a fast food sandwich
Action requested: shop with seating for 30 customers and no cooking on the premisi s .
NANE ADDRESS
(From current tax roll s , Colle ge Station Tax Assessor)
EASE SEE THE LIST ATTAC ·
FllJ: 1:0.
Present zonin~: of la!td in qu c::;t i.un C 1 -i
Section of ordinance froai wl1ich vari;rnce is s ou6 ht Sever,
The following specific var iation from the ordin encr is requested:
Request a variance for l.Q_cus.~o rn o.:I parking spaces . Emp loyee parking spaces Fi J J Jw
provicku b y thL'. L ~rndlorJ in the parking lot bellino t11 e build in ;,;.
This variance is neces sary du e to the following unique and speciil conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
The Northgate district is cornpJ..ct-ely developed. The anl y opportunit y for a ne w
business in this area is to r emo del an existin g structure or lease space with
no opportunity to create additional customer parking
The followin g alternatives to tl1 e requ es t ed varia nce are possibJ_c:
Not to locate at North g ate
This variance will not he contr<lry to th e public interest by virtue of the following
faces: The nature of the bu siness is a fas t food sandwich shop that wiJJ cater to
pedestrians who alr eady live and work nearby. Since there will be no
cooking or game machin es in th e stor e , CLlS_tmnres wi J l he served qui cl:J y
and have no reason to lin ger in th e store _aft er eat in g . Therefore, any
__________ c _u _s~-~ who was dri v ~~g_ ;in au to and stopped t __Q__ --llliLC:.hase a .san.illilib_woultl _
not n ee d a p a rkin g place ve ry long . Subwa y will help improve the appe a r a n ce
of the Hort h ga tc a_re3 L)\· providin g o.n a ll ~ front and a bri g ht, cl-ie.e.q:.
decor. Tl•e:Jt;&t,::t~: /i~~pplication m t ru e and correct~-t-BZ-
, /lpplJ.c.:i.nt Date
(( ::;?V T 1:.;-: K J~.(;; (,l_,''/1 I/ _I;,.,r L .
...___________________ --
..
ZO~I N G BO ARD OF ADJUST(-!F.NT FILE NO.
Name of Applicant ____ s_o_u_t_h_l_a_n_d_C_o_r_p_o_r_a_ti_·o_n __ c_/_o_J_a_c_k_O_r_t ____________ _
Hailing Address 8871 Tallwood, Austin, Texas 78759
---------~----~---------------------
Phone 512-346-4190
Location: 13 1 Block ---Subdivision W. C. Boyett Addition Lot ----
Description, If appli~able ----"-A~t~t~a~c=h=e=d=------------------------
Action ~equested: Variance to rear setback
V V c lC'~-,/ ,"' ~ I ~ •~' j ) ~.
NAHE ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
_Attached
------------------------
. ING BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT FILE NO.
Pre sent zoning of l and in quest ion C-1
-----~--~------~-~-~-----~
Section of ordinance from wh i ch variance is sought Table A
~---=~==-=------------
The following specific v2.ria tion from the ordinance is requested: A variance to
reduce the rear set back requirement for building is requested in order to develop a
7-Eleven convenience food store and gasoline island as shown on the attached site plan.
This variance is necess a ry due to the follo wing u n ique and special conditions of
the ~and not found in like districts: .
The narrow dimensions and resulting size of the subject property prohibit the
development o.f a 7-Eleven convenience store which will include adequate parking and
landscap ing in conjunction with adequate accessibility and maneuverability on the
···~
property .
The following alternative s to th e reque s ted v a r iance are po s sible: A 7-Eleven
can be developed on the subject property i f the parking a nd landsca ne requireme nts
are reduced. Howev e r, assess i bili ty to the stor e and the gasoline island will be
impar ed in this situation.
This variance wiil not be contra ry to the public intere s t by virtu e of the followi n g
f~ct~: A 7-Eleven conyenjence food store and gasoline installation wi ll be <;Ieveloped
with adequate par king and land sca ping in place of what was pre viously The 12th Man Bar.
The e x isting structur e i s a conv e rt ed s e r v ice st a tion wh i c h has b e en vac a t e d.
Th e f ac t s stated by me in th is applica tion
Southland _f&i:poratjnn Q ,_ !:::' 6-1f
Ap plicant '
ar e true and c orre c t.
Apri 1 2.0..-....., _l ~9~8_2~-----
Da t e
•
• ZONING BO ARD Of ~D JUS T ~lli N T FILE ~O .
Name o f Applicant
Hailing Addre s s
Phone 69614141
Location: Lot
Action requested:
f\/ac Randolph
700 University Drive East
A Block 700 Subdi·:ision University Park East
Al low 1' -2~" pa rtial int rusion into 25' building set back line
for a di stance of 11' Approx .
NAHE ADD RESS
(From curren t tax roll s, Colle ge Station Tax Assessor)
-------------------------------------------------------
.<G BOARD OF ,\DJU S TH El'lT FILE NO.
Pres e nt zonin g of land in quest ion C-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,..-~~~~~~
Section of ordina nce from whic h variance i s so ~g ht Ord # 850 Sec 5 Tab I~ ,A
The follmring specific v2.riation from the ordina .-i c e is requested:
1' -2!" variance on front set back I ine.
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
We arE :re ~µs 'irg the existing slab far a new bid lding modif ication. The origir;:i~l1
slab had this 1' -21" discrepancy.
The following alternatives to the requ e sted vari a nce are possible:
1. Distort the front elevation of the new bui I ding to conform to the 25' set back
Ii ne.
2. Remove the 1' -2!" slab intrusion and rewori< structure.
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
f~cts: 1. The variance now exist and has e x isted for about 5 years.
2. Site visibi I ity for traffic on Tarrow Drive is not irrpa r ed .
Th e s a p p l ication are t ::-ue and c or rect.
•
==-f -__;_·;:o·-.'-'--"-'--"'-·'-'--=-====!
•
I
I __ J _
-
7
/
_/
10
II
3[.J ~O
IZ
1 11
I' \) !
I '
I ~
I -------
-------i --~
Ii
' 'I
:i
--... ---.:.:-..
i
i ()i
-I I ~l
10 .
--
----~ ~ ------~ ---=------
.•·
>
--·--------
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
----·· .• ____ _.,
--
----
.•
I=
I
I
,_
JN/VERSITY
. . . ~ ... .. ·:.:-,-.. :
0 .
~
CD
CD
)>
()
::a rn
(J)
-f
::0
)>
()
-I
)>_ -
150 .00'
DRIVE
RK EAS T Ut-ll V ER SI T~. ;,A
TR AC T · B
:'·• .... :·
,·· '.':·
l\J l\J ..,. 0 I I ~ ' _, I fT1
-I p I c:
(l fT1 _,
(l
fT1 r
(.11
=-· (.11 -<
fT1 fT1 l> I ~ l> (.11
(.11 fT1 fT1 3: 3: fT1 (JI
z fT1
l" I -z
' _,
I
i
I.
I ,
3oo d· J ---r
:0
---
---,
0
0 z
c CP z 0 <
() _, fT1
Ill ::0 ::0
:Jl :A·~ l> ~ < 3: •• () _, > _, -< .z
-I • -"O
)> •• -l> !:! CD_ ::0
> z -"' • fT1
(/) l>
c (.11 _,
;;o
< m
-<
(/)
/ /!
"' 0
..
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT FILE NO. ----
Phone --"'-;J_,_Lj-"(p'----_,_/_.....R-=-C-"'f ___ _
Location: Lot '2...-Q Block G Subdivision U.IJt:o/n Pf rtce..,
Description, If applicable
P&l?T O f='
I Sa
Action requested: ()/Jf?,/19,()Cti' TtJ !ZclJ..12,, S€T6.19<?/v
V O-' . -<:> /,Y,--1 , ,_, +-[,/'-
ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, Colle ge Station Tax Assessor)
ZO~UiG BOARD OF ADJUSTMl:.l'lT FILE NO. ,
Present zoni ng of land in question __ ,;J.,_o_~+_.,_f~, __ e_c~f1~£~· _S~c~T_A~:J~/J~-~(~~~K~~~-----c-------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
The following alternatives to the requested v 2riance are possible:
7
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the follo~-ri.ng
facts:
The facts st a ted by me in this application are true and correct.
Date
.,
R. Carter, Woodland Acres
Tr. 23 Lt 27
E. L. Putz
815 Ashburn
College Station, Texas 77840
R. Carter Addn
Tr. 3
James W. Sims
1409 CAudill
College Staion, Texas 77840
Lincoln Place II
Bk B Lt 5-13
Dwayne Rhea Const. Co. Inc.
2751 Longmire
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk B Lt 14
Bart M. Toomey
708 We 11 es ly
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk C Lt 8-17
NPC Realty
Bk C. Lt 21
Scott W. Barnhart
Bk C. Lt 22
John W. Galloway
Bk C Lt 23
Alfred B. Nichols
Woodland Acres
Lt pt of 8
·Luther M. Cobb
900 Ashburn
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt Pt of 8
... Luci 11 e Cobb
900 Ashburn
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt 9
Archie Bane
2292 Los Robles
Grapevine Texas 76501
A G E N D A
Zoning Board of Adju stme nt
City of College Station, Texas
June 15, 1982
7:00 P.M.
1. Approval of Minutes from May 18, 1982.
2. Reconsideration of Conditional Variance Approved 7-21-81 for an Arcade
at 315 University in the name of Mike Walsh.
3. Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordinance 850 -
Parking Requirements for a sandwich sho p at 411 University Drive in
the name of Centex Subway, Inc.
4. Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Setback Requirements for a convenience store at 301 University
in the name of Southland Corporation.
S. Reconsideration of a Variance Request t o Ta ble A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Setback Requirements for a co mm ercial project at 700 University
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph.
6. Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -
Minimum Rear Setback Requirements for a carport at Lot 20, Block C
Lincoln Place Subdivision (714 A-B Vassar Court) in the name of
Robert H. Hens~rl ing.
7. Adjourn.
..
(
(
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABS ENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
MINUTES
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 18, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Board Chairman Cook, Members Wagner, Upham, Donahue
and Alternate Member Lindsay
D. MacGilvray and Council Liaison P. Boughton
Mayor Halter (for administering Oath of Office) ,Zoning
Official Kee, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Assistant Director
of Planning Callaway, and Planning Technician Volk
Swearing in of new members.
Mayor Halter administered the oath of office to new members Mary Kaye Donahue
and Hugh Lindsay, and to re-appointed members Jack Upham and Gale Wagner.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of Minutes from April 20, 1982.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes, Mrs. Cook seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3:. Consideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordi-
nance 850 -Parking Requirements for a sandwich shop at 411 Univer s ity Drive
in the name of Centex Subway, Inc.
Mrs. Cook recommended that this item and item #6 be tabled until staff, City
Council and ZBA members have a chance to do a thorough study of th e Northgate
area. Discussion followed with Jack Boyett, who spoke from the floor, indica-
ting that he had made the trip to gain information concerning what had been
proposed in the Northgate area. Mrs. Cook indicated that she was a ware of this,
and that the City appreciated his concern, but that the ZBA with the .new mem-
bers was not in a position to discuss the matter at hand until further study
could be made.
Mr. Wagn e r made a motion to table both Items 3 and 6 on the Agenda. Mrs.
Donahue s e conded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
AGE NDA ITEM NO. 4: Consid e ration of a Vari a nce Re qu e st to Tabl e A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a r e sidence at 305 Per s hing in the name
of Michael Murphy.
Mrs. Cook pointed out that this item had be en tabled during the mee ting on
April 20, 1982. Jack Upham then mov e d to remove this item from its tabled state;
Mr. Lindsay seconded the motion. Motion to remove item f r om tabled stated
carried unanimously.
(
(
page 2
ZBA Minut es -May 18, 1982 , . ,
Mrs . Kee then explain ed the item, and Mr. Murphy asked to be heard from the floor.
Michael Murphy was sworn in and stated that he was amending his original request
from con side ration of a variance, to requesting tha t the setback to his proposed
addition to his house be established by measurement from the centerline of the
alley rather than from the property line.
Mr . Upham stated that the ZBA could not establish pol icy, and that alleys do
exist even though they might be practically abandoned, and that they can always
be reactivated.
Mr . Murphy indicated tha t in the course of the informal conversation concerning
his request during the last meeting, it was suggested that a precedent for this
type of measuring for setbacks had been established at an earlier date, but he
did not know where this had been done. He further indicated that if measure-
ment was made from the centerline of the alley, his addition would be no further
back than any of his neighbors because deed restrictions had indicated that
setbacks wou ld be 10 feet from the alley, and his garage had been removed at an
earlier date, but his neighbors still had the original garages or utility sheds
on their p r operties.
Mr . Lindsay asked about u t ilities being located in the alley , and Mr. Murphy
indicated t hat some are on the right-of-way, with water and sewer probably being
in the alley. Mr. Upham indicat ed that the sewer line was probably in the alley
and the wa t er 1 ine was probably located on the property line .
Mr , Cal !away explained that on September 10, 1979 the Board did justify a variance
requested by C.E.Olsen by using the center! ine of the alley to measure a rear
setback, the result still being a 50 foot separation between property owners.
Mr. Wagner and Mr. Upham agreed that a measurement of 25 feet from the centerline
,
of the alley would be agreeable to them . A motion was made by Mrs. Cook to the
effect tha t she moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirement
indicated in Table .A, Ordinance 850 as it will not be contrary to the public
interest, due to following unique and special conditions of the land not normally
found in 1 ike districts: location of the 10 foot alley. And because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship,
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, with the following special condition: The 25 foot setback should
be measure d from the centerline of the alley. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion.
Motion carried l unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Mini mum Steback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 U ~i v ersity
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph.
Mrs . Cook called for som eo ne in the audience to pres e nt this request, but there
was no on e present. Mr. Cal I away indicat ed that a sim ilar requ est in a similar
situation, but at a different location and with diff erent people involved, had
been approved.
Mrs . Donahu e made a motion to table this r eques t due to the fact that there was
no one present at the meeting to represent the own er. Mr. Wagn er seconded the
motion to table the request. Motion carried unanimously, and this request was
tabled until the next meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consid e ration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Mini mum Setback Req uirements for a convenienc e store at 301 Universitx
, .
(
(
page 3
ZBA Minutes -May 18, 1982
in the name of Southland Corporation.
This agenda item was tabled at the same time Agenda Item No. 3 was tabled due
to the need for further study of conditions in the Northgate area by staff, City
Council and ZBA. Motion was made by Mr. Wagner and seconded by Mrs. Donahue,
and carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of an Appeal Alleging an error in interpre-
tation of Section 8-D. 10 -Ordinance 850 -Fuel Price Signs for a commercial
project at 2200 Longmire in the name of Automotive Service World.
Steve Parker, owner of the property in question was sworn in and presented a
site plan covering the location in question. He stated that he had received
a letter from Jane Kee on 5-4-82 which was delivered by Joan Keigley at 2:25 p.m.
and it stated that he had a deadline of 3:45 p.m. to comply with Ordinance 1183
concerning his fuel sign which is portable. He addressed Section 8 D. 10 of Ordi-
nance 850 which states filling stations will be allowed one sign per site ad-
vertising the current price of fuel only, the area of which will not be included
in the allowable area of their detached sign. He gave the background of his
business and said that at the time of opening this business in 1980 he vowed
to comply with the City Ordinances, and presented pictures of his site which
showed signs which had complied at the time he opened for business. He indicated
that he had talked with Mr. Ash and Mrs. Kee and had proposed to make his portable
fuel sign permanent by putting it, at the same location, in concrete footin~s.
Mrs. Kee had interpreted that this would not bring the fuel sign in compliance
because the fuel price sign must meet the regulation of Section 8 and therefore
could not be a separate detached sign.
Mr. Parker stated that there are now other businesses in College Station which
are out of compliance on this date, and presented 3 photos of businesses which
were displaying fuel price signs that he had taken today, and furnished the
names and addresses of these businesses.
Mr. Wagner asked why Mr. Parker did not want to affix his fuel price sign to
his detached sign, to which Mr. Parker replied that because his detached sign
was so far back from the curb because of the layout of his site, it would not
serve the purpose of the fuel price sign, which is information to the consumer,
and also because it would be an inconvenience and possible hazardous condition
because of the height involved for an employee to change the sign so -often.
Mrs. Kee presented the staff's view and indicated that since creation of the
position of Zoning Inspector, the department had concentrated on bringing
businesses in compliance with sign regulations, and that putting the fuel price
sign in concrete footings would create two detached signs on the site. She
also referenced the memo from the Traffic Engineer concerning portable signs
in which Mr. Black stated ''Portable signs do not convey information to drivers
as well as permanent 1 ighted signs placed at heights above eight feet. These
signs (portable signs) also create sight distance hazards for drivers exiting
driveways and adjacent city stre e ts. For these reasons, portable signs should
be discouraged."
Mr. Parker rebutted with the stat e me nt that portable type fuel signs had been
used for many years. Mrs. Cook r e affirmed that there had been a great deal of
difficulty in managing all situations prior to the establishment of the position
of Zoning Inspector du e to the lack of staff, and now that we have the personnel
(
(
page 4
1 ZBA Minutes -May 18, 1982 .,
to handle inspections, the aim is to get a consistent interpretation of the Ordinance.
Mr. Upha m indicated that a law without effect is in effect no law. Hr. Parker then
brought up the photos of the businesses he had furnished that appeared to be out of
compl lance, and Mr. Upha m assured him that these would be taken care of immediately.
Mrs. Cook pointed out that there v1ere old businesses which may not conform be-
cause they had been established prior to enactment of the Ordinance, but that
in the event they ever wanted to change the sign, they would have to comply with
current Ordinances.
Mrs. Donahue asked why fuel price signs came under the same regulations of other
signs when they were addressed separately in the Ordinance. Mr. Lindsay asked
why the section 8-D. 10 entitled Special Proviso -Fuel Price Signs had been
established if it had not been intended that these particular signs be handled
differently from other detached signs. Mrs. Kee indicated that as she interpreted
the Ordinance, fuel price signs must comply with all sections ·of the ordinance
dealing with signs, in addition to section 8-D. 10. Mr. Lindsay said that in his
interpretation, section 8-D.10 would indicate that there could be two detached
signs -one regular and one detached but that Section 8 -D. 11 pertaining to
Portable/Trailer Signs would not apply, except to define portable/trailer signs.
Mrs. Cook indicated that she believes that the Special Proviso would allow a
permanent fuel price sign on the property in addition to the allowed detached
sign. Mr. Upham said that he believed that fuel price signs would not have been
mentioned separately at all unless the mention was made with Mrs. Cook's inter -
pretation in mind. He further indicated that fuel price signs are essential -~o
this business, but that they must not be a hazard. He also indicated that what
the Ordinance says and what was meant for it to say might be two different things.
Mrs. Cook proposed that the ZBA interpret the Ordinance as it reads, and then go
back to City Council for clarification or an Am endment. She further reiterated
that there could be no portable/trailer signs used as fuel price signs. Mr.
Lindsay indicated that he interpreted the Special Proviso to cover the accepta-
bility of portable signs for fuel price signs as well. Mrs. Cook recalled that
there would be no portable signs except for those permitted on a temporary basis.
Mr. Upham concurred.
Mr. Upham made a motion as follows: "I move to interpret Sections 8-D.6,
8-D.9, 8-D.10, 8-D.11 and such other paragraphs as are applicable of Ordinance
850 as pertain s to fuel price signs only, that the inteht is that a fuel price
sign separate from the one allowed detached sign is permissible and that since
there is a prohibition against portable signs; such intent would have been that
it be permanent, so long as it meets all other requirements of Section 8-D.6,
8-D.9 and 8-D. 10. Therefore I move that Mr. Par ker be allowed to make this
sign permanent and that all other similar businesses be apprised of this, and
further recommend that all other fuel price signs be investigated and even
further recommend that the Council review this opinion and determine whether
in fact it is acceptable to them, and if not, to remedy it through an Amendm ent."
Mr. Wagner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITE M NO. 8: Other business.
There was none.
page 5
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn.
Mr. Lindsay moved to adjourn, Mr. Upham seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
Vi Burke Cook, Chairman
(
(
..
C i ty of C ollege Station
POST OFFIC E BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVE 'U E
COLLEGE ST ATIO;\I, TEXAS 77840
June 7, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adj u stment
FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
SUBJECT: Agenda Items, June 15, 1982
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Reconsideration of Conditional Variance approved 7-21-81
for an Arcade at 315 University in the name of Mike Walsh.
Mr. Walsh will be present to ask the Board for the extension of a Conditional
Variance to parking requirements granted on 7-21-81 for an Arcade in North-
gate. Enclosed please find copies of the minutes from the 7-21-81 meeting.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Reconsideration of a Va ri ance Request to Section 8 -Ordi -
nance 850 -Parking Re uirements for a sandwich shop at 411 University Drive
in the name of Centex Subway, Inc. Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant is requesting a variance to 10 parking spaces for a sandwich
shop proposed to be located at 411 University Drive. The operation will have
30 seats but no cooking· will be done on the premises. Under -Ordinance 850,
restaurants have a parking requirement of l space per 3 seats, and no employee
requirement. These spaces are to be located on the property or on property
under the same ownership within 200 feet.
There have been 5 applications for parking variances in the Northgate area
over the l~st 2 years. The following is intended to help the members recall
each request and the ultimate decisions:
Date
T=TS-80
1-20-81
4-21-81
5-19-81
7-21-81
Decision
Denied-6 spaces
Approved-l 3 spaces
Approved-20 spaces
Denied -6 spaces
Approved-6 spaces
·Type Activity Applicant
Arcade-405 Univ.Dr. J.P.Jones
Restaurant-403 LI.Dr.Flowers &
Larson
'Restaurant-SOI U.Dr.J.R.Lamp
Arcad e 315 U.Dr. Ed Walsh
II "
Comments
Never Bui 1 t
w/stipul a tion
that parking be
provided for employe
w/condition of ·
1 yr. to improve
parking.
Mr. Phil Callihan will be present at the meet ing to answer any qu es tions.
.. Memo -ZBA
June 7, 1982
page 2
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requireme nts for a convenience store at 301 University
in the name of Southland Corporation. (Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear setback for a convenience
store in Northgate where the 12th Man Bar was located. The side property line
of the Alamo Bar adjoins the rear property line of this lot. The staff is not
opposed to this variance if the applicant constructs a 4 hour fire wall. This
variance is preferable to any reduction in parking or landscaping requirements
which would be necessary if the structure cannot be expanded to the rear pro-
perty line. This variance is also preferable to the possibility of another
nightclub or restaurant locating in this area.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Reconsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 Univ~rsity
Drive in the name of Mac Randolph. (Tabled at previous meeting)
The applicant has an existing office building which encroaches the front set-
back by 1 .24 ft. This has been the case for approximately 5 years . Now a s ite
plan has been submitted to re-use the existing slab and expand the offi ce build -
ing. The site plan has been approved by the Project Review Committee and the
Planning and Zoning Commission pending approval by the ZBA.
The existing building is on a corner lot but poses no visual problem for traffic.
The Board must consider this as a variance request and not as an expansion to
a non-conforming structure, as the expansion far exceeds 25 percent.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance
850 -Minimum Rear Setback Re uirements for a Car ort at Lot 20, Block C, Lincoln
Place Subdivision 714 A-B Vassar Court in the name of Robert H. Hensarl ing.
The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear setback in a duplex zone
which abuts a single family zone for an existing carport which was constructed
earlier this year without a building permit. The carport encroaches the set-
back by approximately 5 feet and also encroaches a utility easem e nt. Mr. Hensarling
is in the process of going to the City Council to request abandonm e nt of the
utility easeme nt. Upon noticing the carpo rt the staff notified Mr. Hensarl ing
that it must be taken down,at which point a hearing wa s requested before th e
Board.
As a staff mem ber I have two concerns. The first is th e lack of unique and
special conditions in this case and th e s econd involves the builder of the
single family r e sidences which shar e th e rear access with this duplex. The
staff spent considerabl e time working with this build e r, who is from out of
town, to insur e that each singl e fa mily r e sidence would me e t all setbacks and
other City code s and still hav e a carport. This was achieved and all the
single family r e sidenc e s across fro m Mr. He nsarling's have carports which
meet setbacks.
Enclosed in your packet is a copy of the Lincoln Place plat indicating th e
lot in question and the location of th e easement and rear setback.
..
(
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 3.
Mr. Spearman expressed his appreciation for the granting of the varia nce and
stated they had completed many buildings in the College Station area a nd this
was the first time they had needed to request a variance.
G. Wagner stated the design of the whole project is a credit to the area; if
it had the appearance of some other projects, he would not have been in favor
of the variance.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4, Consideration of a request for a variance to the off-street
parking requirements to allow the operation of an arcade at 315 University
Drive, College Station, Texas. Application is in the name of Edward J. Walsh.
Ed Walsh, applicant, reminded the board he had been before them at the May
meeting requesting a variance to parking requirements at 315 University
Drive for the purpose of operating an arcade at that location which would
not sell food or beverages, and this request had been denied.
He stated he has a variance to y parking spaces which applied to his retail
business, Budget Tapes and Records, which had been closed .·in March of this
year and has been informed by the Zoning Official that the change of use
and the type of business requires 7 sp a ces. He stated he has one parking
space in the front of the business and his landlady has d e signated six parking
spac e s on the rear parking lot for his specific us e.
He further pointed out he had bee n in business in that location for ten years
and has a remaining eight years on the e x isting lease at a sum of $80o+ per
month. Costs, due to interest rates, ar e such that opening a retail business
in the location is impossible, and th e retail business would generate greater
traffic tha n the proposed arcade.
He outlined Charlie's Grocers, University Book s tore and the Bactstage Restaurant
as being the businesses which share the parking area with him. He stated he had
observed Charlie 's grocery and it does not have drive-in traffic; the bookstore
clos e s at 5:00 p.m. which releases th e ir parking spaces after that time. He
also stated that part of the parking problems in the Northgate area au.e caused by
university personnel and students parking in the available spaces.
D. MacGilvray asked if any of the stores could be entered from the rear.
Mr. Walsh stated they all have rear acces s but it is not used, the doors are
kept locked prob a bly for security reasons .
Mr. Don Ganter, own e r of Dix ie Chic k e n, stated the one s who violat e the parking
are th e stud e nts.
Board mem b e r Vi Burke ent e red the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Ch a irman Harp e r off e red to bring h e r up to d a t e and sh e stat e d she wa s f a mil iar
wi th th e case.
Mr. Walsh stat e d th e ordina n ce requir e s 7 s pac e s and he h a s 7 spaces.
Zoning Of ficial Kee ca lled the attention of the board to Sec. 7 and S ec tion
3.A.2 of the z oning ordina nc e . Sec . 7 of the ordinance outlin e s mi n im um p a rking
requir em ents, dim e n s ions and ac cess, o f f-pr em i ses locations, developmen t and
maint e n ance, surfacing and othe r requir eme nt s for parking .
(
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 4.
She explained Sec . 3-A.2. as not allowing for designation of parking spaces to
one business when the same spaces are necessary to the support of adjacent busi-
nesses.
D. MacGilvray stated he could not visualize anyone parking at the rear of the
building and walking around to the front.
Mr. Walsh stated they cut through Dixie Chicken or Dudley's.
D. MacGilvray stated it appeared the square footage of each of these businesses
is needed in order to determine exactly what the total parking requirements are
in this ~area.
Chairman Harper stated the ordinance is not intended to provide parking on the
basis of present use in the area. Any of the businesses involved can change
the use of their operation, so long as it is allowed by the ordinance within
their zoning classification, and develop a greater need for parking which is
already at variance and shared.
Mr. Walsh stated what this comes down to is that the landlord has the right
to designate her own parking as she sees fit, and she has made this designation
of 6 spaces for his benefit.
Chairman Harper stated the landlord do e s have that right, however, petitioners
make a presentation with as many factors in their favor as possible, just as
this board must review the case based on the negative side and what is the
intent of the ordinance.
D. MacGilvray asked the parking requirements for the Backstage Restaurant.
Zoning Official Kee stated it is 14 spaces; Charlie's Grocery is 8 plus em-
ployee parking and the bookstore is 8 plus employee parking.
Mr. Walsh inserted that Charlie's is open until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. and does
not have drive-in traffic and the bookstore closes at 5:00 p.m. He further
pointed out the designation has only been made to him; the others have not
been to the board for a change in operation.
Chairman Harper replied tha t whether the others use the parking or not, the
requirements of the ordinance are not changed.
Mr. Wa lsh stated the point is the parking is not used by others, and he has
8 years to go on his lease and he is stu ck with that.
Mr. Ganter stated that he and two other business operators in the northgate
area have lea sed a parking lo t. They plan some time this year to have a person
on dut y to ma k e certain that no one other than customers of the businesses is
allowed to park there.
Mr. Walsh stated he would be willing to do the same thin g for the 6 spaces
desi gnated for his use. He stat e d he would b e happy to have the cars towed
away .
, ,
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustment July 21, 1981 Page 5.
Vi Burke stated this problem in Northgate is a ·conb.inuing one. The board
has heard the same justifications over and over. Each time a variance is
granted, the problem is compounded that much more.
P. Boughton informed the board that City Council had knocked off a large
bond issue because the City was unable to get the cooperation of businesses
in that area.
G. Wagner suggested one solution might be for the business operators in that
area to petition the City Council to develop and approve an Ordinance which speci-
fically addresses the problems in Northgate and provides a different set of
requirements for that area.
V. Burk stated perhaps it was time for the board to deny variance requests
until such time the business operators forced the property owners and landlords
to meet with the City and begin to seek solutions to the problem
Mr. Walsh stated if that was going to be the position the board assumed, it
should begin with new business operators in the area, not with those who
have had their business there for many years.
V. Burk stated there are disasters which occur throughout the nation; fires,
floods and collapsed buildings. No one ever reacts until there is a disaster
and then everyone is in error. She stated there is definitely a safety hazard
because of the automobile traffic and pedestrian traffic in that area. It
appears the problem will never be addressed until a disaster occurs.
She asked Mr. Walsh, "where fo.r instance is your landlord?" She stated that
the operators of the businesses are always here, and there is no solution or
relief for their problems, but the owners of the property never appear nor offer
any assistance in developing a solution to the problem. She remarked that the
ZBA has the right of subpoena and suggested perhaps this is the time for that
process to begin.
Mr. Walsh replied the board could take that action, but in any event he, the
operator, would be the looser. If his variance is not granted, he will be forced
into bankruptcy and he still is stuck with a lease in excess of $800+ per month.
V. Burke stated he would not have to pay the lease if he filed bankruptcy and she
also stated she strongly felt if the parking to support a business operation can-
not be provided by the property owners 1.to the tenants as required by the zor,Iing '.
ordinance, without variance, the lease surely can be broken.
Chairman Harper formed the following motion which was given second by D. MacGilvray.
Move to authorize . a variance based on the off-street parking provided by the
owner of the building in the adjacent parking lot (6 spaces) and including one
on-site space; the 6 designated parking spaces will be for the sole use of the
business at 315 University and the operator of the business will control the
parking to make certain it is for his use; this variance is authorized specifically
for the use of an arcade business, not selling food or beverages; said parking
lot to be brought up to the standards and requirements of Ordinance 850 for
parking lots.
Vote -motion failed.
For: MacGilvray
Against: Harper, Wagner, Burke and Boughton.
(
(
Minutes
Zoning Board of Adjustme nt July 21, 1981 Page 6.
Chairman Har p er then formed the following motion which was given second by
G. Wagner .
Move to authorize a variance based on the off-street parking provided by
the owner of the building i n the adjacent parking lot (6 spaces) and including
one on-site space; the 6 designated parking spaces will be for the sole use
of an arcade operation at 315 University Drive, not selling food and beverages;
said parking lot to be brought up to the standards and requirements of Ordinance
850 for parking lots; the owner of the property to submit to the Zoning Board
of Adjustment a plan for the parking lot which is in compliance with Ordinance
850 and showing how many businesses can be served by the lot and further, the
variance is authorized for a period of one (1) year from this date and becomes
open for review by this board for parking requirement compliance.
Jane Kee pointed out this could place Mr . Walsh into the position of having
made a monetary investment which could become a considerable loss if the variance
is not extended after the one year period.
After a brief discussion, Chairman Harper called for the question and the
motion was approved by the una nimous vote of the board .
APPROVED:
Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
FIL L;~.'-
Nn~e o f Applicant Centex Subway, lnc . D/B/A/ S11bway (Pr es Phil Ca~nL __ _
Ha iling Addre s s 1701 Southwest Parkway, Suite //204, College Station, Texas 77:i fLO
Phone _7:....:1::..:3=--_u::...:· 9:....:3"---'3:....:9:.....:3'-S_' _____ _
Location: Lots 3 and 9 Block 2 ---=-Subdivision W. C. Boyett's
Description, If applicable 411 University Drive, College Station, Texas
(Approximately 1,100 square fe et of lease space next door to th e Ilnivers i ty Book Stor_t:
at Northgate)
A variance to th e parking requirements for a fast food sandwich
Action requested: shop with seating for 30 customers and no cooking on the premisis.
NANE ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
Ei\SE SEE Tl!F LIS T ATTAC ·
.. ----
Present zoni.n~: of L1'.1 d in qu c :;l i.un C-1
Section of ord i nance fro;n wh ic h variance is sou6ht Scvc;-,
The following spe cific v 2riation from the ord i n a ncr is requested:
Request a vari ance for 10 customer parking spaces . Erno l ovee parking spaces will hf•
provick<.l \J y tltL: ·i.Q.n Jl orJ in th e parking lot b e1 1ino t11 e buildin;;.
This variance is necessary due to the followi ng unique and speciil conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
The Northga t e district is complc..t..ely develope d . The onl y opportunit;r for a n ew
business in this area is to remode l an existin g structur e or lease space with
n o o pp o rt unity to create add it io 1lill_c,_..,u..,sc.Lt_,_owrn.u;e:c.Jr'--pi=-a _._r..ok.Ji_..n4 p;.., ~------------------
The following al ternatives to th e requ es ted vc:riance are possibl e :
Not to locate a t Northgate
,,
This variance will not he contr2ry to the public int erest by virtue of the following
facr:s: The nature of the bu sine s s is a fast fo od sandwich shop that wiJJ cater to
p edestrians who already live a nd wor k n e arby. Since th e re will b e no
cooking or game machin e s in th e stor e_,__CJJ...s_to.mr..es i:d 11 b e serve d q1ii ck1 v
and have no r eason to linger in the sto re after eating . Therefore, a n y
__________ c _u _st:_o mer who was drivi1 ~~-;111 auto a n d s to pp e d t .Q__p_uLc.h as e a ..s.a.ru.U<l..cb_l.l!ollltl_
not need a p ar kin g pla ce very l o n g . Stiliwa y will h e lp improve the appe a ranc e
of th e Horthga t e areJ bv providin~n a ll _g.l.£.s..S front and a bd gl~h.e.e.r:..L
d ecor . -
Th e th :i s ;1p pl ica ti on a r e tr u e and corrcc t.
App l icant: Date
e,,~::::1 vr'=-'-x. j~.(/:t.l-'A-(/ .b /'
•
•
ZOXING BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT FILE NO. -----
Name of Applicant Southland Corporation c/o Jack Ort
----------~------------------------
Hailing Address ___ 8_8_7_l-_T_a_l_l_w_o_o_d--','-'-. A_u_s_t_i_n~,_T_e_x_a_s __ 7_8_7_5_9 ______________ _
Phone 512-346-4190
location: 13 Subdivision W. C. Boyett Addition Lot -----Block 1 ----
Description, If applicable Attached ----"======::::=------------------------
Action reque sted: Variance to rear setback
VV J..e;. ,l f'"l..I ~vr J ;(,..,,
NANE ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
_Attached
. ING BO.ARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.
P r e s e nt zoni ng o f land in que stion C-1
----------------------------------------,,----------~
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought Table A
------'~==-=-----------------------
The following specific ve.riation from the ordin a:ice is requ e sted: A variance to
reduce the rear set back requirement for building is requested in order to develop .a
7-Eleven convenience food store and gasoline island as shown on the attached site plan.
This variance is necessary due to the following uniqu e and special conditions of
the ~and not found in like districts : .
The narrow dimensions and result i ng size of the subject property prohibit the
development of a 7-Eleven conven i ence store which will include adequate parking and
landscaping in conjunction with adequate accessibility and maneuverability on the
property.
The following al t ernative s to th e reques ted v a r i ance are po s sible: A 7-Eleven
can be developed on the subject property if the parking and landscape reauirements
are reduced. However, assessibility to the store and the g asoline island will be
impared in .this situation.
This variance wiil not be contrary to the publ i c interest by vir tu e of the following
f~ct~: A 7-Eleyen conveni e nce food stare and gasoline instalJation wil1 he 9eveloped
with adequate parking and land scaping in place o f what wa s previously The 12th Man Bar.
The existing st r uctur e is a converted service s t a tion which has b een vacated .
Th e f a cts st ated by me i n this a pplication ar e
Southland J&I:poratinn ~·'L I-' C1f
App licant l
tru~ and c orrec t.
Apr il ?Q 1982
Da t e
.,
•
ZON[NG HOARil Of ADJUST~IB~T F ILE ~O.
Phone 69614141
Location: Lot A Block 700 Subdi·Jision University Park East
Action req ues ted: Allow 1' -2~" partial intru si on into 25' building set bad<:: line
for a distance of 11' Approx .
NAME ADD RESS
(Fro m current tax rolls, College Station Tax Ass essor)
-----·--------------·------·------------------------
:.G ~OARD O~ ,'\OJUSTMENT FILE NO.
~--
Present zoning of land in ques tion C-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Section of ordi nance from whi ch variance i s so~ght Ord # 850 Sec 5 Tab! g ,A
The follmring specific ve.riation from the ordin a:-tce is requested:
1' -2t 11 variance on front set back I ine.
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
We arE:re':'us'irg the existing slab far a new b1ii I ding modification. The origir,:ial1
slab had th i s 1' -2t 11 discrepancy.
·-
The following alternatives to the requested varia nce are possible:
1. Distort the front elevation of the new bui I ding to confonn to the 25' set ~ack
I ine.
2. Remove the 1' -2t 11 slab intrusion and rewori< structure.
This variance wi ll not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
facts: 1. The va r iance now exist and has existed for about 5 years.
2. Site visibi I ity for traffic on Tar row Drive is not irroared.
application are t r u e an d correct.
I
I
=I
--
~c~~oi
··?j'iO? ~ ~ ~ff7--r-t~~~
~ .
a."·J
11-----------· -
I
1
------·--------
--------· ---··------
1
··-----------------·
.....
11------------------· -____________ __, ~~/D
"!'~~t:-. • ...
---·--
--
\}_
I '
\)=
I i \)
II I "t I
i •
' :-
1
l.
. t--
1
I
_,,,,,.---
/
(
-·n -
-l:fr -
-
-1 --
1
l
' l
I
•
w > -er
0
>-,_ -C/) er w > -2
~
0
I])
I
' I
Aa a • .....
DON BOCKMAN SURVEYS
r
..... ··:_..:_..:· .,. · .. ~
.... \ .. _.:: .. ":'(
BR Y AN , TCX AS
UNIVERSITY PARK EAST
TRACT "B"
TRACT "Au
0.4881 ACRE S
/
/.".< }:~t y CO NCWALK ,.:·.·~·;,.'>1 ·/~·~:?<<SJ fDl
SCALE : 1"= 30'
-1
I-
0 Ul
<l: 0 w
0 :lie I() I-z 0:: <r w Cl..: ~ m w >-:. (/) 1-· I-3: <! -u
-\D w VJ <!
>-0:: a::
r<'l LLI I-1 -~ I-~
...J z
I ~ I-:::>
:::>
(/) 0
I/ N
ZONING BO ARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. ----
Name of Applicant __ ,_/2_,0""-16=v -={;"-'-L==--1--L-'Jl'-.'--;-f--'B"_""-~=t)_.,.' 2.c..' ;?'-'--'-£=-=L.:-/=.V_,' a"f-. ------------7
Phone --"'-~-L'-)-"(p'----~! ....... &'-=rJ-"'f_· __ _
Location: Lot '2zG Block C-Subdivision LJJ.Jea /n Place.,
·: /
o ~·I I Sd
Action requested: IJ/l/?.-1/9,VC.& /tJ ./2C/-J.J2, SET6h'CK-
\J cv. 4<=> N a • ,_,r-.J{(
NAME ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
zo:n~JG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. "'"
-~--
Present zoning of land in quest ion --'.;L~~-IJ _ _...f_)-'"--f~, --'-E'--=c__,_/)~£=--· -'S=-'-"'E'-'-T-'A..,-:.)'-'--19.L-:!:.(~J..-K,___,"'---~------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought -----------------
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
-.,.f"/ t
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the ~and not found in like districts:
The following alt~rnatives to the request e d v ar iance are possible:
1) 1}'7t;<JG r?t9£P o e1 t.1.P ...,s= Ee£T a//-/Jt!__I-/ 1.Uf!t/oe:.s UYJt.//.IU,3 £'£/J/Z. !="tf;-;u?'c
{_,/f..JG /Jt__,<;() /,(_/(-/-;(?;; W !l.L !3E eosru; /}-,(..{{) UMS"/q,!fTL.)I
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
·fci.cts:
----------------------~---------------------~-
Th e f a cts st ate d by me in th is ap pl ication are t rue and corr ect .
Date
R. Carter, Woodland Acres
Tr. 23 Lt 27
E. L. Putz
815 Ashburn
College Station, Texas 77840
R. Carter Addn
Tr. 3
James W. Sims
1409 CAudill
College Staion, Texas 77840
Lincoln Place II
Bk B Lt 5-13
Dwayne Rhea Const. Co. Inc.
2751 Longmire
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk B Lt 14
Bart M. Toomey
708 Wellesly
College Station, Texas 77840
Bk C Lt 8-17
NPC Realty
Bk C. Lt 21
Scott W. Barnhart
Bk C. Lt 22
John W. Galloway
Bk C Lt 23
Alfred B. Nichols
Woodland Acres
Lt pt of 8
Luther M. Cobb
900 Ashburn
College Station, Texas 77840
'-Lt Pt of 8
, Luci 11 e Cobb
900 Ashburn
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt 9
Archie Bane
2292 Los Robles
Grapevine Texas 76501