Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout195 Zoning Board of Adjustments May 18, 1982' A G E N D A Zoning Board of Adjustment City of College Station, Texas May 18, 1982 7:00 P.M. 1. Swearing in of new members. 2. Approval of Minutes from April 20, 1982. i.\J>J?.r. Consideration of a Variance Request to Section 8 -Ordinance 850 -~}/" Parking Requirements for a sandwich shop at 411 University Drive in d the name of Centex Subway, Inc. ~nsideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -~.)'Jf Minimum Setback Requirements for a residence at 305 Pershing in the ~~~. name of Michael Murphy. ~~p,;JJ Consideration 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. 1J · Consideration 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. 7. Consideration of an Appeal Alleging an error in interpretation of Section 8-D.10 -Ordfnance 850 -Fuel Price Signs for a commercial project at 2200 Longmire in the name of Automotive Service World. · 8. Other Business. 9. Adjourn I ' ( ( MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: MINUTES City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment Apri 1 20, 1982 7:00 p.m. Board Members W. Harper, D. MacGilvray, V.Cook, G. Wagner, and Council Liaison P. Boughton Jack Upham " Zoning Official Kee, Planning Director Mayo, Ass't. Planning Director Callaway, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Planning Technician Volk Approval of Minutes -February 15, 1982 Chairman Harper asked Council Liaison Boughton to serve as a voting member in the absence of Jack Upham. G. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15th meeting; P. Boughton seconded; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a Variance to required lot depth for a duplex in the name of Enloe Construction, Lots 3 & 4, Block N, University Park. J. W. Wood, developer of the entire tract was sworn in as a representative for Enloe Construction, the builder. Wood indicated there had been many changes in the plat between the preliminary plat and the final plat. He said this had been a particularly difficult tract of land to plat, and there had been problems with lot widths, lot depths, and zoning. Under R-3 zoning, duplexes could be built, but there is a 100 ft. minimum lot length for duplexes, and this is the problem on the 2 lots in question. Harper asked what is behind the lots, and Wood indicated there is an approximately 98 acre undeveloped tract of land, and the City has a 10 ft. easement off the adjoining side. Planning Director Mayo was sworn in and asked to clarify what had happened in the development of this tract. He explained that the main reason in the platting process we did not disallow the lots is that there is an R. 1-A zoning district which has no minimum lot size and is governed by square footage. Since the lots in question are adjacent, the 2 lots could be combined and then have enough square footage for several small units. The developer and the builder were both warned that there were some problems with the lot widths if they were intended for use for duplexes. All other lot problems have been resolved with exception of these 2 1 ots. Harper asked if there were any plans to ch a nge lot requirements or characteristics for other types of zoning (perhaps to square footage rather than minimum depths and widths), and Mayo said that at this ti me there are no plans to change R-1, R-2 or R-3 lot requirements. He said that R-1 .A gives the builder the optfon of using certain pieces of property for certain units. He indicated the difference between R-1 and R-1 .A is that R-1 spells out minimum lot lengths and widths, and R-1 .A requires a minimum square footage and is meant for smaller types of homes ( Zoning Board of Adjustme nts Minutes , April 20, 1982 ,) such as patio homes. He indicated the differenc e between duplexes and patio homes to be that duplexes share a wall and each side has living space on that wall , whereas a patio home shares a wall, but only one side has 1 iving space on the i n - side of that wall and the other side has outdoor space. The possibility of rear parking and minimum lot widths was brought up, and Zoning Official Kee indicated that there would still be problems on these lots even i f the parking were moved to the rear which would allow a minimu m lot width of 60 ft . rather than 70 ft . - Harper indicated that he believed this to be the first issue he had encountered concerning lot depth. Wood spoke again and gave background of the development of the tract of land . He said the entire tract is about 125 acres and that work began about a year ago. He described the land and the problems he had encountered in the development of it due to the topography and shape of the tract. He further indicated that Staff had worked closely with the developers and had pointed out some of the problems, which have since been changed . He asked if the small amount ~f footage involved on these lots was critical enough to cause major changes to be made . He indicated the footage to vary from 1 to l ~ feet on several spots only , and not across the entire width of the lots. Mr . Enloe of Enloe Construction was sworn in and identified himself as the owner of the lots in question, and said that he was getting ready to build duplexes , and the cost of building had already been covered in the closing wi th the Lendor, money had been invested, and a financial hardship was being exp e rienc e d by him concerning these lots. He further indicated that he re a lized tha t the problem · to be solved dealt with quality of 1 ifestyle rathe r than affect on his monetary interest. Harper stated the Board does not have the authority to simply waive th e m1n1mum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance unless there is a special condition of the land, there is no demonstrated da ~age to the public good, and e nforceme nt of the Ordinance would result in extreme hardship for the applicant. Harper then made a motion to grant the variance to minimum lot de pth for the rea- sons that there are multiple utility easements, the lots are adjacent to the Bryan City Sewer Plant, bot h lots are some what odd-shape d and that the portion of the required lot which lies outside of the available land is only a matter of a foot and not for the complete width of the lot, but only at the corner , and also because it is not contrary to public interest. Motion seconded by Wagner. Motion carried. In favor : Wagner,MacGilvray, Harper & Cook Opposed: Boughton Harper then addressed M.Murphy who has a consideration of a Variance on the Agenda (Item #4). Harper explained that the ZBA has 2 mem be rs plus him se lf who requested t o be excused from participating in this decision, and that Uph a m was absent; he nce, there would be no quo r um to rul e on this issu e. He asked Mur phy's indulg e nce in re- scheduling the consideration, a nd Murphy indicat e d this was agr eea bl e , but that he would 1 ike an informa l di s cussion of his r e qu es t tonight, th e re s ults of which wo uld help him ma ke a d e cis i o n for futu re plans for his p ro pe rty. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consid e ration of an App ea l all eg in g an e rror in inte r pr e t a ti o n regarding a screen f e nc e in th e name of Arthur Hr i g ht a t 601 Turn e r Str ee t. Mr. A. Wright was sworn in, and be gan giving ba c kg round to pr e vi o us ruling s con- cerning his prop e rty by l o cating th e prop e rty and s how ing a p l o t plan which loc a t e d ( ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes, April 20, 1982 page j the chain 1 ink fence in question. He read part of Zoning Official Kee's Memorandum and indicated that he disagreed with the last . paragraph on page 2, last sentence which states '~hen projects wish to expand, the staff attempts to bring the entire project up to code as much as possible", because he believed his chain 1 ink fence was "up to code'' at the time he built it, in fact believed it to be even more than had been required in that he fenced the entire eastern boundary, and had only been required to fence a little over 100 feet. He further indicated that 4 out of 5 property owners adjacent to his property, who owned single family dwellings had signed a statement to the effect that they did not want the fence to be changed. He presented the signed statement to the Chaiiman, and this statement will be attached to the end of these minutes. Herman Holmes, an adjacent property owner to the property in question was sworn in and Harper asked for his statment. Mr. Holmes said that he was the largest landowner adjacent to Mr. Wright's property and that he did not want the fence to be changed. Mr. Wright spoke again, and quoted portions of the Ordinance which he felt applied to his situation. The following 1 ist represents Sections of the Ordinance from which he quoted, however, Mr. Wright only used portions of these sections, and not the entire section: Section 11-A, Section 11-B.5 (Board of Adjustment); Section 4-A (Non-Conforming Uses); and paragraph 2 of Section 6-J (Screen Fence Requirements). He further indicated that while Kee had referred to paragraph 2 of Section 6-J in her Memorandum, that he believed this paragraph did not apply in this case .. Wright then addressed each "adverse influence" in Section 6-J as follows: Noise - hi?. apartment buildings are 2 story and set back 18 feet, so there is no nois~. Vehicular lights -His parking lot is 75 feet from the lot line and is separated by 3 buildings, so there is no problem with 1 ights. Trespass -The existing chain 1 ink fence prevents trespass, but besides that, allows the single family residences adjacent more open space and air flow than would a solid screen fence. Then he addressed"asthetic view" and indicated that his apartment yards are well cared for, perhaps even better than the single family dwellings adjacent. Mr. Wright said he believes .that he is still in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and that the only changes made since the fence was installed are the current officials and their interpretations of the Ordinance. At this point Harper interrupted Mr. Wright and indicated that he was getting away from the issue, and was spending more time criticizing the Staff than addressing the issue at hand. Harper then pointed out that when land has been developed, and then is re-developed, at the time of the re-development, anything that is not in compliance with Ordinances is brought into compliance. Mr. Wright indicated that all 6 buildings were plotted and approved originally. MacGilvray asked about the idea of "slats'' in the chain link fence, and Cook indi- cated the major issue was one of screening and a chain 1 ink fence does not screen anything, but simply puts up a barrier, and that in lieu of a sol id 6 ft. high fence that shrubbery or plantings are the only other way to scree n. Harper indicated that although the apartment property is extremely neat and well maintained that noise and lights are not screened by a chain 1 ink fence. He was concerned at this time, not with .current residents of the adjacent properties, but rather with future owners, and indicated further that he would not like to be a party to setting precedent by not requiring that a 6 ft. high scree n fence be installed. I ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes, April 20, 1982 page 4 , Wright indicated that he had acted in good faith and had put up a 5 ft. high chain 1 ink fence across even more land than was required at the time of the ruling, and that he had fully complied with previous official's ruling. MacGilvray requested com ments from Staff, and then realized this request was out of order and withdrew the request. Wright cited unnecessary hardship and expense involved, and stated that justice would not be done by making him tear down the existing fence and replacing it. Kee responded that Mr . Callaway would like to comment on the background of this issue. Callaway was sworn in and then indicated that in 1980 this development was reviewed for expansion. 4-plex was developed on half the lot and a chain 1 ink fence ~hi ch had been accepted by previous officials existed. Callaway stated that he assumed that the only reason the previous Building Official had accepted a chain link fence rather than a 6 ft. high sol id fence was perhaps because the adjacent single family houses were located on property zoned for high density apartments. Since that time Callaway stated the adjacent properties have been rezoned to R-1 Single Family. At the time of review in 1980, it was pointed out to Mr. Wright that if any changes were made to the property, the fence would have to be upgraded to current zoning ordinances, and that this is the question to be resolved tonight before any Certi- ficates of Occupancy will be issued. Callaway then referred to Section ~-J (2) of the Ordinance and indicated that this had been reviewed by the Staff and City Attorney and that the City Attorney advised the Staff to proceed with their i.nter- pretation. He further i ndicated that the only portion of the fence that the City was concerned with was the part that screened that portion of apartment units from residential dwellings. Mayo then addressed the Board and indicated that he was present at the time when Mr. Wright got the permit for the first project, and that he thinks Mr. Wright convinced the Building Official that the Ordinance did not apply to his project. He indicated that the present interpretation of Ordinances and upgrading commercial and multi-family projects shows more responsiveness to single family dwellings on the part of the Staff. He then referred to the Memorandum in the packet to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated July 10, 1980 which indicated that a screen fence should replace the chain link fence which was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The memo further indicates that the P.R.C. would not recommend approval of Mr. Wright's project without correction of the fence. Mayo strongly recommended that this case go back to P.R.C. and Planning and Zoning Commission if this chain 1 ink fence is allowed to remain in place. Wagner then questioned the original Ordinance and indicated that Mr. Wright is out of compliance on fence height regardless of the type of fence he has, because Ordinance requires a 6 ft. high fence, and Mr ·. Wright's fence is only 5 ft. high. Mr. Wright indicated that he had gone back through P.R.C. more recently than 1980, and Kee indicated that the more recent P1;R.C. did say the project would not have to go back through P & Z if compliance were made, then further indicated that the 6 ft. high continuous sol id screen fence should apply to both paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 6-J according to legal advice. MacGi l vray co~mented on his understanding of the Ordinance, and then pointed out ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, April 20, 1982 page 5 · that the only difference between paragraphs in Section 6-J would be concerning who was responsible for putting up the fence. Mayo then indicated that previously, Public Hearings had been held for apartment site plan review and the biggest single questi~n by single family residents was that of the screen fence between their property and that of adjoining apartments. Vie Cook made a motion that any variance to the screen fence requirements be denied and that the decision of the Zoning ·Offi~ial requiring a 6 ft. high continuous solid fence to be located along the southern property line and 100 ft. of the eastern property line separating the _apartme_nt proj_ect from the developed Single Family houses be upheld~·· MacGilvray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Harper indicated to Mr. Wright that he had a right to appeal to the County Corut and that the County Court is out of the Board's jurisdiction. Harper further indicated that if Mr. Wright now wanted an option to the screen fence, he must go back through the Zoning Official and the Planning and Zoning Commission. AGENDA ITEM #4: Consideration of a Variance to the rear setback for a room addition in the name of Michael Murphy at 305 Pershing. Michael Murphy was identified and sworn in, and agreed to reschedule this item on the agenda at a later date. He indicated that he would like to have an informal discussion which perhaps would clarify questions he had. Then he asked about the time limit on a Variance. Kee referred to Section 10 as coverage of Use Permits, and indicated that the City Attorney should be consulted, but that her interpretation was that the Variance would continue as long as the Building Permit was alive. Harper thought the .period of time could be extended on specific projects ~ Callaway reiterated that consultation with the City Attorney should take place about a "delayed variance" on a particular building. Murphy indicated that on the original Deed Restrictions indicated a 10 ft. set- back was required, but that current Zoning Ordinancemade it 25 "ft. He also asked if a porch could extend into the setback and was answered that if the porch was open on 3 sides it could extend up to 6 feet into the rear setback line, but not the 12 ft. his drawing indicated. Harper moved to table this item until the next regular meeting of the Board. Cook seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. May 18, 1982 was identified as the next regular meeting date and Mr. Murphy was instructed to contact Kee regarding this agenda item by May 7th. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 -Other Business. Kee referred to the Minutes of the April 21, 1981 Zoning Board of Adjustm e nt meeting, Agenda Item No. 2: Consideration of a requ es t for a variance to the parking requir e ments for a restaurant in the name of L & R Foods, Inc., 2700 Texas Avenue. Kee asked the Board how important were the hours of operation as stated by Mr. Lampo in granting the Variance to parking. She point e d out that part of the request to the Variance in 1981 that led the Board to approve the Variance was that the hours of his proposed restaurant were to be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and that L ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, April 20, 1982 page 6 , Mr. Lampo was now proposing to open some type of pizza parlor at that location, and she speculated that the hours might extend beyond 9 p.m . She further explained that Mr. Lampo had indicated he might possibly close the restaurant to patrons at 9 p.m., and only have late-night delivery service after that time. Kee was advised by the Board to confer with the City Attorney to discover what alternatives the Board has in reconsidering this matter . Kee then referred to the update of Table A of Ordinance 850, and asked that the Board study it and notes A & B, and be prepared to give an interpretation at the next Board meeting. In the interim, she and Mayo would talk with the Fire Marshall so the Staff could come to an agreement as to interpretation ~ The intent of A & B is to have a fifteen (15) foot separation for a firebreak, as well as to allow lot line construction with appropriate firewall construction . Mayo pointed out that single family dwellings are usually 15 ft. apart, but that there is only 7~ ft. of open space in which to work because of the fence on the property line. He also indicated that he had talked with the Fire Marshall who stat e d that the 7t ft . did not matter if he had rear access to the unit. MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn the meeting . Harper seconded the motion, which then car r ied unanimously . AGENDA ITEM #6: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned . APPROVED: City of College Station POST OFFI CE BOX 9960 I IOI TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 May 12, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment Members FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official SUBJECT: Agenda Items for May 18, 1982 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 -Approval of Minutes The City Attorney has asked that the Board members state their motions in a manner to reflect any and all special conditions and to refer to specific Sections of Ordinance 850. In an effort to help you do so, I have prepared a format for each type of possible motion (variance, non-conformities, or appeals). These formats are adaptable to positive or negative motions and are taken directly from ·the applicable sections of the Ordinance. You will find the applicable format in your packet after each agenda item. Please use this format in stating each and every motion. In this way the minutes will reflect word for word the motion and any conditions or reasons for it. Please continue to use your Standard Review Forms as a guide to help you make your final decisions and continue to turn these in to Shirley. After each meeting it is imperative that the Chairman sign the approved minutes from the previous meeting. The City Attorney feels that this effort will help in any potential litigation. It should also help all of us feel that we have a clear understanding of the reasons behind each decision. Thank you. Agenda Item No. 3 -Consideration 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. The applicant is requesting a variance to 10 parking spaces for a sandwfch 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 located on the prope.rty or on property under the same owners hip within 200 feet. There have been 5 applications for parking variance s in the Northgate area over the last 2 years. The following is intend e d to help the members recall each request and th e ultimate decisions: Memo ZBA -May 18, 1982 page 2 Date 1-15-80 1-20-81 4-21-81 5-19-81 7-21-81 Decision Denied-6 spaces Approved-13 spaces Approved-20 spaces Denied-6 spaces Approved-6 spaces Type Activity , Applicant Comments Arcade-405 Univ.Dr . J.P.Jones Restaurant-403 Univ. Flowers & Larson never buil Restaurant-SOI Univ. J .R.Lamp w/stipulat Arcade 315 Univ. Ed Walsh Arcade 315 Univ. Ed Walsh that parki be provide for employ w/conditi c of l year to improv e parking l l Mr. Phil Callihan wil l be present at the meeting to answer any questions. 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. Mr. Murphy wishes to add a family room to his existing house. (See site plan). The site plan and Mr. Murphy's application clearly outline the situation. The only problem I perceive is the fact that there is actually no unique and special condition of the land , unless the Board would consider the location of the 10 ft. alley separating Mr. Murphy's lot from his rear neighbor as a unique condition. Alleys are typically not located in this manner any longer, but are actually parts of the lots they serve, and are access easements. In fact, on September 10, 1979, (variance request in the name of C.E.Olsen, 409 Dexter), the Board did justify a variance by using the center line of the alley to measure a rear setback. (The result is still a 50 ft. separation bet- ween property owners). If the Board wishes to do this in Mr. Murphy's case, a variance might be granted up to 5 ft., but not 6 ft. If a variance for 6 ft. is granted, the structure will measure only 24 ft. from the centerline of the alley. Agenda Item No. 5 -Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 University in the name of Mac Randolph . The applicant has an existing office building which encroach e s the front setback by l .24 ft. This has been the case for approximately 5 years. Now a site plan has been submitted to re-use th e existing slab and expand the office building. The site plan has been approved by the Project Re view Committe e and the Planning and Zoning Commission pending approval by the ZBA. The existing building is on a corner lo t but poses no visual problem for traffic. The Board must consid e r this as a variance request and not as an expansion to Memo ZBA -May 18, 1982 page 3 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 Setback Requirements for a convenience store at 301 University in the name of Southland Corporation. 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 th~ 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 1 ine. This variance is also preferable to the possibility of another nightclub or restaurant locating in this area. 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. As you are aware the City Council approved the position of Zoning Inspector last July. This position was filled in September 1981. The purpose of having an inspector is to provide more organized, consistent and better enforcement of _the Zoning Ordinance. One of the areas the staff has paid special attention to (other than aaily inspections for Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy) is the Sign Regulations. In March portable fuel price signs were noticed at seven stations along Texas Avenue and University Drive. Prior to contacting these stations I read Section 8-D.10 and concluded that the intent was for every station to be allowed 1 fuel price sign which cannot exceed 15 sq. ft. or be in the right-of- way, but that this sign should also comply with the rest of the Sign Regulations. It cannot be ·portable or be a separate detached sign if the business already has an existing detached sign. It can be attached to the permanent detached sign, to the pump island, or the building, itself. We researched the records to find memorandums and minutes from P&Z and Council meetings when the amendment concerning fuel price signs was discussed (copies are in your packet) and no where is it clear that the intent was to allow fuel price signs to be portable. Once I had made an interpretation of Section 8-D.10, the stations in violation were notified. All were cooperative and have permanently attached their signs. On May 4, 1982, Mr. Parker's portable fuel price sign was noticed. He was con- tacted and was unwilling to move the sign and attach it somewhere. He requested a hearing before the Board. Mr. Parker says the sign has been there for two years. This may be true, but in any concerted effort to achieve better enforce- ment there will be situations that have perhaps gone un-noticed for a while. Mr. Parker further claims that an attached fuel pric e sign will be a traffic hazard due to people searching for the sign. I spoke with John Black, the Traffic Engineer concerning this issue. Please see his enclosed memo. l I l Memo ZBA -May 18, 1982 page 4 r Please keep in mind, whatever the Board's decision, that the staff's prime objective should be consistency. Over the last year the effort has been only to allow portable signs as per Section 8-D.11. The staff has treated everyone equally in this regard. If Mr. Parker's sign is allowed to be portable, then every service station in town should be allowed the same privilege. sjv .l FIL I: r:(l . Name of Applicant Centex Subway, lnc. D/B/A/ Subway (Pres Phil Ca~-w...<------ Hailing Ad c.l res s ---=1_7....::0.:..1:.__:S:....:. o_u_t~l.:..n_v.:...e.:...s-=t--=-P-=a:..::r-=k:.:..w:..::a~y,_,,__S=-=u-=i-=-t-=-e'---"l/-=2:..:0:.-4'-',L-CC:::co""'l=l=e.og=e'---"S'-'t~a~t~i~· o~n~• ~T~e~x~a~s~7~7~i~54~0 Phone _7_1_3_-_6_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 feet of lease space next door to the llniversity Book Store 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. NAME ADD RESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) PI.EASE SEE TllE LIST ATTl\C · · FI u : l-:0. Present zonin~ of la!1d in qu c !;t i.un C-l Section of ordinance from which variance is sou;ht Seven The following specific variation from the ordin a nc~ is requested: Request a variance for 10 customer parking spac e s. Employee parking spaces wi 11 Jw providl.!J uy th~ La n Jlor<l in the parking lot behind t11 e building , This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not found in like districts: The Northgate , district is compl.c...tely developed. The only opportunity for a m~w business in this area is to remodel an existin g structure or lease space with no op port unity to create add it io1J.>1;_i~JL. ~c..uu..::isu..t..i..oJJJmllle:::..rL.....~P.aa..Lr..1:1k..Ji~n.i.;g~, ~------------------ · ·-- The following alternatives to t11 e r e quested variance are possibl e : Not to locate at Northgate This variance will not be contr<!ry to the public interest by virtue of the followin g faces: The nature of the busin e ss is a fast fo o d sandwich shop that will cater _ta pedestrians who already live and work nearby. Since there will be no ______ co_o_k.,.-i_n g or game machin es in th e stor e , customres wi 11 he s e rved q11i cU ¥--- and have no reason to lin ge r in th e store after eating . Therefore, any __________ c _u _s~_o me r who was drivi1~g__a n aut o a n d s topp ed t .Q..p.ur.c.h a s e a .s.anillillh_would ._ not ne e d a parkin g pla ce very long . Subway will h e lp improve the appearan ce of the Northgat c ar e 0 b y p r ovidin g .::11~ a ll glas s front -and a~'.. decor. The frr.ct s__,r;.t ie.cl by me in th i ::; .1ppl i c<i ti o n ;i r e t r u e and corr e ct. __,_~··'-pf---lttirvb~ _J!_l,(; J ' S -b -8 J_ Appl:i.co.nt ~/V I T:? K Jr_.{;; cv,i-Y/ Date 200 Ft. Variance Boyett BK 2 LT 1,2,3,Pt 4 ( Fred B. Shelton Jr. % Shelton Studios Inc. 3107 N. Haskell Ave. Dallas, TX 75204 Boyett BK 2, LT Pt 4, Pt 5 Hornak .& Hornak Sorrels 7919 Braes Meadow Houston, TX 77071 Boyett BK 2, LT PT 5 Johnnie W. Holick 308 Tee Dr. Bryan, TX 77801 Boyett BK 2, LT 6, 7 J.B. Lauterstein % Glenda Alter 153 Rilla Vista Dr. San Antonio, TX 78216 Boyett BK 2, LT 10, 11, BK 3, LT 16 A&M United Methodist Church 417 University Dr. College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 2, LT 12, BK 3, LT 1 First Baptist Church P.O. Drawer EN College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 1, LT lA, 2A J.E. Loupot 1201 Walton College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 1, LT lB, 2B George H. Boyett 702 Lee College Station, TX 77840 (cont ... ) Boyett BK 1, LT 3,4,5 A. Mitchell Estate % H. Mitchell 107 Pershing College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK l, LT 6 Helen S. Martin P.O. Box 2 College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 1, LT 7,8 / 0.H. Boyett Estate . % L.B. Vance / Horseshoe Bay // Box 7807 ,' Marble Falls, TX 78654 . Boyett ""-. BK 1, LT 21, 2 2 "-Marie 0. Boyett Vance Horseshoe Bay Boy 7807 Marble Falls, TX 78654 Boyett BK 1, LT 23 R. A. Bryan 1813 Shadowwood College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 1, LT 24 Paula Jan Boyett 1809 Medina College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK l, LT 25 A.P. Boyett 315 Boyett St. College Station, TX 77840 Tauber BK 5, LT l Ted Wyatt 505 University Dr . College Station, TX 77 840 (cont. .. ) Tauber BK 5, LT 2 Bi 11 J . Coo 1 ey 503 Glade St. College Station, Tauber TX 77840 BK 5, LT PT 3 Kathleen Stubblefield P.O. Box 2740 College Station, TX 778 40 Tauber BK 5, LT 4 Wesley Foundation P.O. Dra we r K College Station, TX 778 40 NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARIA NCE REQUE ST Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing 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 affected? Identify any existing special conditions.associated with this pioperty. Special conditions identified by the applicant include: Ide ntify any unnecessary hardships .relating to this property. Identify any hardships unique to this property. If this requ est is granted, how v1ill the "spirit of the ordina nce" be ob s erved? Describe the rationa l you h ave u sed to come to your d e c i sion in thi s mat t er . 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, will) be contrary to the public interest, due to the (lack of, following) unique and special conditions of the _l and not normally found in like 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 unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be obs e rved and substantial justice done, and with th e following special con d itions : l. 4. 2. s. 3, 6. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Name of Applicant Mtc/Jae/ D. M!AfjCi;t; }failing Address 3Q6 Per£hff1 CJ · St, Phone <;zg& -272/ Location: Lot Block Subdivision FILE NO. ----.,.. c.0. Description, If applicable ------------------------~ NAME ADDRESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) ... l ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . FI.LE NO. , --'---- /.-I Present zoning of land in question ____ &....__~-__,,,J=---------.,.------ Section of ordinance from which variance is sought -r.,.:,/r ;./ lCjbje._,, d The following specific va.riation from the ordinance is requested: I f?flJ.l?OSe r I 1o add a rrom fo tMlj refb!C/eflce that u21!/ encrcach ~= ~ e, re-a r 0cfbr:t ck 0£ ±he~ fa= up +a . This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the ~and not found in like districts: · /antfed {of, uJtdti< / reqU1rd fo <Jchtelle ffl2l?eV' oneufcgfro11 cf fhe fYZ>/22~ a:Ld i +r o_ V\ fc _foca { 0WV\ t?l nd tp velb 1 lvn q b VOCZL.-- cov1d tdwJl!s {ov e~iy -~c"'-.~t"Clj i 11e~v1j fo pro Vtc/c __ aff,_fil tZy~te, CO{') YJC'-C-}ra11 fo EX 1f;,ft 14 <j;/'1ruc-/u re_ an cl Ma W-/zit vf C: { i.,~ 1 t I ~d c:u1r -1-n e,x:r&TJ nq rt:o/tH ?10 HJCJ/ C?S c1rcv/a f';a PJ Tqk' allowing alferrtatives to the tequested variance are possible: · Fv-or1eh :fzJbo0 , · vvov= c1r0u!a bo/11 Ca?1/IJ ecftov1 I I (CC?2 ~ff'Ce added ±o 0.r{i.rlJC-fvv-e This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following i~ct~: _A_Jo 1 A//c4 cx10fs . C\t fhf' V-eta r of ffie fot/ a Jl ·(except ol-1 e) vtdja ce//J t pwr2ev=b es ha ve s-{ruchtirt bOAV:eV-~ 're/AV' lot \ \.V\e thG\V\ {bat p'Ca\l kied l \!\ *1A.1"7 '{-eque4,t 1 E.h-e V?J '4 c(f 1cieV)c~1 t Wi pY"oVe~+zr The f a cts sta t e d by m 2 in thi s ap p l i c a tion a re t r u e and correct. 1~fo-Appl 1 cant Fred Garner Betty Woods Clyde Blum B.J.Kling P.G.Baines Sidney Loveless C. B. Godbey MICHAEL D. MURPHY VA I:' w cc.L. B-4 Lots 24,25, 301 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 23 part 22 213 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 21 part 22 2!! Pershing , College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 part 27,28 309 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 part 29,30 313 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 part 3,4,5 206 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 6,7 210 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 C. D. Clay Camp B-4 8,9 300 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 Robert C. Potts, Jr. B-4 10,11, part 12 306 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 John E. Van Domelan B-4 part 12,13,14 310 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 R. B. Hickerson B-5 Lots 9,10 218 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 C. C. Doak B-5 12,13,14 part 15 300 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 Robert Meier B-5 part 15,16, part 17 308 A Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 Caroline Mitchell B-5 part 17, 18 216 Suffolk, College Station, Texas 77840 NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARIAH C~ REQUEST Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing 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 affected? -· Tdentify any existing special conditions.associated with this property. Special conditions identified by the applicant include: ' .. IQentify any unnecessary hardships .relating to this property. Identify any hardships unique to this property. If this request is granted , how will the "sp irit of the ordinan~e" be observed? Describe the rational you h a v e us ed t o come to your d e cision in this matter. 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, will) be contrary to the public interest, due to the (lack of, fol lowing) unique and special conditions of the l-and not normally found in like districts: -·- l. 5. ----------------'----------------~ 2. 6. 3. 7. -----..,..------------'----------------~ 4. 8. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ord)nance (would, would not) resuli in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, and with the following special conditions: l. 4. 2. 5. 3. 6. .~ ZONING HOARD OF ADJUST~IBNT FILE NO ____ _ Name o f Applicant __ M:l._c_R_a_n_d_o_l~p_h ___________________________ _ Mailing Address 700 University Drive East Phone 69614141 Location: Lot -----A Block 700 Subdivision University Park Ea·st Description, If _ applicable _N~/_A ____________________________ _ Action requested: Allow 1' -2t11 partial intrusion into 25' building set bad< line for a distance of 11' Approx . NAME ADDRESS (Fro m current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) ·. _;G BO ARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Pre sent zoni ng of land in ques tion C- ~--'---~-------~-----------,--~-~-- Se ction of ordinan c e from wh ich variance is so ~gh t Ord # 850 Sec 5 Te.bl~ A The following specific v2.riat i on from the ordin ance is requested: 1' -2t11 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 for a new b1 ii I ding modification. The ori qi '?~)I slab had this 1' -2t" discrepancy. The fol~owing alternatives to the requ es ted var iance are pos sible: 1. Distort the front elevation of the new building to confonn to the 25' set Dack I ine. 2. Remove the 1' -2t 11 slab intrusion and rewori< 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 years. 2. Site visibility for t r affic on Tarrow Drive is not irma r ed. The facts state b me Jl.~lv''C /IS ----W App licant _, application are t r u e a nd corr e ct . M::ic Rando l .::>h University Park East Tr. B Norvill G. Ward Tr. 2007 Briar Oak Bryan, Texas 77801 Chimney Hi 11 Tr. A. 9.92 Acres John C. Mayfield Jr. 1700 Puryear College Station, Texas 77840 Fed-Mart Bk 1 Fed-Mart Stores Inc. % Harding & Eaves 4615 Southwest Fwy Houston, Texas 77027 Prairie View Heights ·Bk 4 Lt 1, 2, 20' of 3, Bk 5 Lt 1, 2 Mrs. Ethel Banks % Minnie Armstrong 773 N. Los Robles Pasadena, CA. 91104 Bk 4 Lt 22 Rober Carle 2216 Shadywood Court Arlington, Texas 76012 Bk 4 Lt 24, 30' of 25 John C. Watson P.O. Box 4544 Bryan, Texas 77801 Bk 5 Lt 3 Ja mes R. Williams 6400 N. Haven Rd. Dallas, Texas 75230 Bk 5 Lt 4 Ozden Okuruz Ochoa 615 Peyton College Station, Texas 77840 Bk 5 L 5 Leland A. Carlson 613 Peyton College Station, Texas 77840 -, . , I . I -- 111-----····---·-----·-··-· ." !+--------------·-··-·-·· ·--·-------.f I -----------·--··--·· ... ·-·----··· ---.. -·---------... ·-- ·I I ----------------·-·-~ ......____ ______ -------------- ,,._ _________ ---· -···- 11------·-. -·-... ---------·-----· < ·. ., J .. -~-· -- .:01 fl . I • (1 .-. '· ' ;-·· i i (' ·1 \ ~ i i ii H r: " L I " ii ,, !i l .. -:· . -- NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANC:S REQUEST Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing Request by----------------------------' ,Applicant Board Members Pa~ticipating: This request is for a variance of ---------------·-~--- Section Describe Nature of Request: What public interest or interests are involved? How is the public interest affected? --·.:~ Identify any existing special conditions.associated with this property. Special conditions identified by the applicant include: Identify 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 h ave us ed to come to your decision in this matter. 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, will) be contrary to the public interest, due to the (lack of, following) unique and special conditions of the l~nd not normally found in like districts: 1. s. ---------------~---------------~ 2. 6. ------------------~~-----------~ 3. 7. _____ ....,....... _________ _..:_ _________ ~-----~ 4. 8. -------------------------------~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance (would, would not) resuli in unnecessary 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. ... d ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT FILE NO. Name of Applicant Southland Corporation c/o Jack Ort Hailing Address 8871 Tallwood, Austin, Te xas 78759 Phone 512-346-4190 Location: Lot -----13 Block ---1 Subdivi sion W. C. Boyett Addition Description, If applicable Attached ---~~~~------------------------ Action :::-equested: Variance to rear setback NANE ADD RESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) Attached i ING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Present zoning of land in question C-1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--,~~~~~~ Section of o ·.rdinance from which variance is sought Table A The following specific va.riation 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 necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the ~and not found in like districts: . The narrow dimensions and resulting size of the subject property prohibit the development of a 7-Eleven convenience store which will include adequate parking and landscaping in conjunction with adequate accessibility and maneuverability on the property. The following alternatives to the requested var i ance are possible : A 7-Eleven can be developed on the subject property if the parking and landscape 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-Eleyen convenience food store and gasoline installation will .he 9eveloped with adequate parking and landscaping in place of what was previously The 12th Man Bar. The existing structure is a converted service station which has been vacated. The fact s st a t e d by me in thi s applica tion are Southland _i;ru:ppraH on Q.,_ /". 6Jf Applicant "- t ~ue and cor re c t. Apri 1 2 0 , 1 982 Date BOYETT Bk l Lt 13A, 12 A.P. Sr. & N.K. Boyett 315 Boyett College Station, TX 77840 Bk 1 Lt 13C, 14B, 14C, 15, 16 Mrs. Annie Seeger Est. % Jack Boyett P.O. Box 1424 College Station, TX 77840 Bk 1, Lt Pt 9, lOA, lOB A.P. Jr. & W.C. Boyett 107 Boyett College Station, TX 77840 Bk l l..:t 11 A Jack Boyett P.O. Box 1424 College Station, TX 77840 Bk 1 Lt 14A Boyett Investment Ltd. 107 Boyett College Station, TX 77840 1:5 . ~~tr Bk l Lt 17 City of College Station College Station, TX 77840 Bk l Lt 18, 28 W.C. Boyett Est. % Gary Boyett 4713 Gaston Ave. Dallas, TX 75246 Bk 6-7 LLl-13 Presbyterian Church 301 Church College Station, TX 77840 Bk 8, Lt 1,2,15A,15B Louie A. Walston % Nans Blosso m Shop 1105 S. Texas Ave Bryan, TX 77 801 ---1Jt:~ IV ~ U ~VI~· (cont ... ) Bk 9 Lt 1,2,3 Brazos Coin-Op, Inc. Rt.3, Box 255A Bryan, TX 77801 Bk 9, Lt 5, 6 Christian Science Society 201 Boyett College Station, TX 77840 I NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARI AI·;c~ REQUEST Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearin~ Request 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 affec-ted? -Identify any existing special conditions.associated with this property. Special conditions identified by the applicant include: : ! ' Identify 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 to come to your decision in this matter. • 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, 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: -- 1. 5. _______________ __:;: ___________ ~---~ 2. 6. ------------------------------~--~ 3. 7. ------,....-------------'----------------~ 4. 8. -------------------------------~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ord)nance (would, would not) resuli in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shal I be observed and substantial justice done, and with the following special conditions: 1. 4. 2. s. 3. 6. ZO~ING BO ,\RD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. ---- Name of Applicant Automotive Service v.,-orld ----"-''-=''-=-=-=--='-=..:.....=.-=-==-..!..:..==-'-'-=~'°----------------~ Nailing Address 2200 Longmire, College Station, Texas 77840 -----------------------------'-----~ Phone ___ 6_9_3_-_06_1_6 ____ _ Location: Lot __..N.,,__,__.I A_.___ Description, If applicable Part of Block 14 Subdivision Southwood Valley, Sectibn 6B ---------------------------~ Action requested: Appeal an interpretation by the zoning official regarding Section 8-D.10- Fue~ Price Signs. NAME ADDRESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) J~HNG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Present zoning of land in question C.-l ~--:.__-----~·---------------~ Section of ordinance from which variance is sought _....N~-A-'-'''---------------­ i"-+ufr'2fo..{; o..., o-f The following specific :!Vi!IS!if!E&l& _z ft cm the ordinance is requested: ~-------~ This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the ~and not found in like districts: . Th e followin ~ alternatives to th e requested v ariance are possible: This variance will not be cont rary to the public interest by virtue of ·the following f~ct~: The facts state d by me in th i s applica tion a r e true a nd correct. (I_. d. · ~h,,,. ~.L&C~ __ 5_/7_/_8 2 ____ _ -I Ap plicant Date .. · ... -··---. ·. e • e • • • • I &_ ~I Planning and Zonin9 1\germa I terns, Apri 1 (8). The ordinance presently allm·ts one detached si~n per buildin ci p1ot ~ii_S-,:?"~}~"~~­ regardless of the size of the plo t or the type of project. it \·iou1d ·· <~-~~~~:~~~;'_ certainly be advisable to allov1 r:ore than one for very large com rrier cia1 .. ··~\.%::~\~· projects with frontage and access on more than one arterial thorough-~, ~ ~ fare. Ite111s to consider mioht be: -~~~ (a). size of site ~ - (b). amount of frontage on each ~ajor street and total frontage (c). type of project .a nd zoning (d). minimum distance between proposed signs (e). adjacent development and zonin9 The ordinance does not specifically addr~ss portable and trailer signs. The Building Official has adopted a policy based on his interpretation which defines these signs and allows them. t~ feeling and that of Jim Callaway, who should be the Zoning Official soon, is that these sign~ should be treated as detached signs. Certainly the intention and spirit bf the ordinance are being violated OR such sites as Woodstone Shopping Center. We would propose that they be removed as soon as legally possible. (9). Ordinance 850 requires only one parking space per single family residence. Most actually have two to four spaces provided. Apparently more and more students are "grouping" to occupy single dwelling units and reduce individual housing exp enses . His tor ically, when a singl~ family residen- tial area begins the transition fro~ owner to renter-occupied units, th e area deteriorates. Lack of maintenance becomes evident and property values dedr~ase. Allowing as many as four unrelated persons to constitute a "family" was an acceptable provision when it was adopted but times have changed. T6 protect and preserve the single family residential ar~as, the definition should be lowered to three or even two. There are, how- ever, neighborhoods that have be en undergoing this transition for many years now and could re~ain if the or dinance allowed it. The single family zone could be split for two different definition~. Such areas are Northgate and Southgate. ' C . I ' : Planning an d Lon1ng Lom m1ss1on April 5, 1979 7:00 P.M. AGE NDA ITEM NO. 7 --Consideration of a landscape parking plan for Del Taco. The item was withdrawn from the agenda. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 --Discussion of the sign ordinance as it pertains to the number of detached signs per site, portable and trailer signs. The Commission discussed the existing sign ordinance and possible rev1s1ons to it which would set up a permit system for temporary and trailer signs. They suggested that a time limit might be set on such signs. It was suggested that the permit application for temporary signs include specific location, size and other necessary information. The Commission discussed the methods employed by the Ci.ty to investigate and handle violations of the sign ordinance. They advised Mr. Mayo to check with the City Attorney on this question. The Commission advised the staff to prepare an amending ordinance as discussed for consideration at the earliest possible date. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 --Discussion of number of unrelated persons constituting a family in Single Family zoned districts. The Commission discussed the problems caused by more than four unrelated persons _ living in a single family residence. They noted that, ~inte most residences pro~ided only two off-street parking spaces, one of the main problems was one of several cars parked on the streets. Exces s ive noise and waste disposal problems were also mentioned. The Commission also discussed the fact that a need existed in the City for the type of housing where more than four person lived in the single family residence. Ms. Vicky Rinkey, Gunsmith Street, stated that she was very concerned about the problem. She noted that traffic and parking were now a problem in her area that did not exist before the homes were occupie d by stadent '.renters. Mr. Gordon Echols, Lair Lane, stated that ·the townhomes in which he lived had begun to attract several students and that this had made his neighborhood less desirable for permanent residents. He stated that he 'felt the Zoning Ordinance gave the Commission the power to protect the character of single family areas and asked that this be done. A resident stated that he felt any change as discussed would be an economic hardship on owners of single family rental units. , Commissioners Watson and Etter agreed to work together to study the question and con- side r posssible ordin a nce revision s .addr e ssing the proble ms discussed and providing a means for enforcement. AGEND A ITEM NO. 10 --Oth er · bus in ess . Mr. Mayo remind ed th e Co mm i ss ion of th e joint mee ting bet we en the Planning Co mm issio ns and th e County Co mm i ss ioner s on Ap r il 10 at 7:0 0 P.M. Mr. Mayo propos e d that th e policy on zon e ch ange request s be ch a ng e d to .provid e tha t the ap plic a nt not be allow ed to publish notice for the City Council hearing until afte r th e Co mmi s sion had ma de a r eco mme ndation on the r e ques t . He noted that this would give ' ' ·--. i I - July 16, 1979 MEMORANDUM: TO: FROM: Planning and Zoning Cc wmissioners Al Mayo, Director _of Planning ~.,,..., Agenda Items, July 19, 1979 SUBJECT: 3. The addition of a fellowship hall does not require any additional parking .s~aces according to ·the Zoniny Ordinance. _The staff sees . no problems .. . . ':· .· ·.·. . . 4. · I ha_ve pre~ared two ordinances but at this time I can only · . . .. _present one of ~hem for consideration. This ordinance merely :-. . . ·defines portable and trailer signs as detached signs for enforce- ment purposes~ Obviously, this means that if a site already has a detached sign it could not have a po rtable sign unless it ·also meets ihe -requirements of the section included dealing ~ . . . .... . . . . . -with ~eta~hed signs for large sites. fThis accomplishes the obvious intent of the ordin an ce which is to allow only on e sign that is ·not attached to the building to pre~ent the visual ··.blight of ~nultipl_e · signs. Part of the reason f6r.·not propo~ing a ~e"rm~t__sYstem _Js :.that we failed to get a Zoning Inspector appro~~~(in this year's bud get. To add anoth~r ·p~nnit tg .. keep up wi .th ;:·~·~:-this time i~ just too much to handle efficiently~ - The other portion of the ordinance ~ets up requirements to allow very large commercial and i ndustrial projects to have more than one detached sign. 5. I frankly feel that the is la nds Mr. tulpepper is proposing in Phase I will be built any wa y, wheth er we approve this revision or not. Phase II is relativ ely well designed, and I see no reason to back off now. I thi_nk this revision is proposed to balance the app earance of t he whol e proj ect. If you recall I said almost two years ago that 0h en Phas e II is built th a t th e ( MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: City of College Sta tion Planning .and Zoning Co ~m ission Meet ing July 19, 1979 7:00 P.M . Vice Chairman Etter; Co ~m issioners Behling, Hazen, Sears, Stover; Council Liaison Boughton; Director of Planning Mayo, Zoning Official Callaway, Planning Assistant Longley. Commissioners Sweeney, Chairman Watson . AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 --Approval of minutes -raeeting of July 5, 1 979. Commissioner Sears moved that the minutes be approved . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Commissioner Stover abstaining. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 --Hear visitors. No one spoke . AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 --A pub l ic hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit to Our Savior's Lutheran Church lo cated at Cross and Tauber Street for the construction of a fellowsh i p hall and Sun day School rooms as an addition to its existing facility. Mr. Mayo showed the proposed pl a n and stated that the staff saw no problems with the proposal. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Blaezen, Chairman of the Chu rch 's Council, spoke in favor of the requested use permit. No one spoke in opposition . The public hearing was closed . Commissioner Sears moved that the pe rmit be granted .. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hazen and approved with Co mm issioner Stover voting against. Co mm i s sioner Stover stated that he was not opposed to the particular project, but felt that so me thing should be don e about th e overa ll problem of park ing and access in the Northgate area. AG ENDA ITEM NO . 4 --A pub l ic he aring on the question of adopting an ordinance amendi ng th e Zoning Or di nance No. 850 as i t app li es to detach ed signs, temporary s i gns and trailer signs. ( Mr. Mayo outli ned th e proposed ordin ance . He noted that the ordinance wou ld clas s ify trailer s ign s as detached signs thus allowing on l y on e sign per building site. He stated that the ordin ance also prov ided for more than one detached signs on very larg e sites havin g a t l east 1,000 feet of frontag e on more than on e major --7: 00 P. M. arterial street. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ron Cruse asked if any variance proc eedure to the requirements of the ordinance had been proposed. Mr. Mayo stated that .no variance proceedure was incl uded in the proposed amendment. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Mayo pointed out that a problem would exist with service station pr ~ce signs. Commissioner Behling suggested that a permi t system could be worked out for the trailer signs. Mr. Mayo noted that another ordinance had been prepared that included a permit system. He explained, however, that at the present time, the Planning Dep artment did not have enough staff to take on anothe r permit proceedure. He advised that a recent survey had shown between 35 and 40 existing trailer signs. Co mmissioner Stover suggested that a 11 purpose 11 section be added to the ordinance stating the intent of the amendment. The Commission discussed the question of se rv ice station price signs. ( Co mnfissioner Hazen suggested that a maximum size be set for the price signs _ Co mm issioner Behling suggested that service station si gn s should not be exempted from the ordinance. ( ' Mr . Mayo stated that; he \'/Oul d check with se r vice station owners and theilsi gn compa nies on the cost and usefulness of the price si gns . Co mm issioner Stover moved that the ordinanc e be tabl ed and reconsidered .aft e r a determination had been made on ho w to han dle the service station signs and the writting of a purpose statement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sea r s and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 --Consideration of a pro posed revision to the parkihg.'lot layout for Culpepper Plaza. Mr. Mayo pre s ented the proposed revision. He stated that he thought the revision would improve the circulation_and ap pea ra nce in th e entire par king lot, but that he felt the City should not give up what it had gai ned in phase 2. Th e Co mm ission di s cu ssed the proposed re vision with the develo per , Mr. Joh n Culp epper . Mr . Culpepper stated that he could not affo rd to build phase 2 as shown on the ap proved pl an plus th e propo sed additions to phase 1 . The Comm ission discuss ed th e need to work o ~t the ci rcu l ation probl em in th e area in fro nt of 3-C and Trudi e 's . Memo Paae 2 ,,. probably be a tract of land between the dam and the Holleman for lighter commercial use accessory to the mall. across Holleman, is the mall, although certainly ~n expanse of parking lot will separate the mall itself from Hollemari. I would submit that the mall is not "across the street" from Sutton Place. t'.7~: Aside from this, Sutton Place is not a oood tract for commercial --- development. _Richard Smith already has one flood plain C-1 tract at Harvey Road and Texas Avenue. How many projects has he built there? 8. The -pro bl em may be getting a site pl an approved for an apartment project on Tract B unless it is developed as part of _ the Courtyard Apartments on Tract A. The access should be on Stallings. The zoning is R-6, and I would certainly hope that the City would not consider commercial _ zoning fa~ a tract only 191 feet deep on this thoroughfare. :··· 9. -A survey of gas stations (including drive-in grocery stores \-Jith gas pumps) revealed 24 stations total, 10 of which had n~_gas price inf6r- -: i rriation advertised. Of the 14 with gas price infonnatfon, only seven had that infonrration on a portable sign~ We have not yet talked to any -station operaters. We recommend leaving the ordinance as it was at I the last ~eeting. One thought might be, however, to add to the ordinance \'/Ording to allow gas stations, speci-fically, to ·add price information to existing deta ched signs or lights within certain limitations.without the area being included in the allowable area of th e deta~hed sign. The .... exact location should be approved by the City. _ . . · .. ·. . . . ~ ·. . . 1 O. Since_ we approved _ the Landscaping and Safety Ordinance for parking lots we have had several inquiries from potential applicants (some of ~ho rn eventu a lly made application) \·t ho tried to circumv ent the ordinance by building 19 parking spac e s. It is my feeling th at all parking lots for the general public should r e ceiv e pr_oper revf ew and have some stand a rd. Small lots on .ma jor thorou ghf a res can ca use ma ny probl em s just as large lots can, and c ertainly a lot wi t h 18 or 19 spac es is vi~tually no differ ent fro m a _ lot wit h 20 sp aces . This ordin a nc e requires al} co m- mercial and industrial lot s to co me under th e juri s diction of the pa rking ordin anc e ; ho we ver, lo t s with l e ss th an 20 s pac e s can be r ev i ewe d by~ th e P.R.C. unless th e ap p1icant wi s he s to go t~ the P & Z. •,;; / l ( Augu s t 2, 1979 , 7:00 P.M. Co mm i s sioner Sweeney moved th at th e plat be de nied. The motion wa s seconded by Co mm issio ne r Haz en and unanimously approved. AGE NDA ITEM NO. 9 --Consid e ration of an or dinance ame nding the Zoning Ordin a nce No. 850 as it applies to detached signs, te ~p orarj signs and trailer signs. Commissioner Stover moved that the item be r emoved from the table. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Swe eney and unanimously approved . -: Mr. Mayo went over the results of a survey of gas stations and their price signs. Mr. Mayo suggested that the ordinance allow gas stations to affix their portable price signs to an existing detached sign or a light standard after obtaining a permit for the sign. He suggested that the area of the price sign not apply to the total sign area allowed. Mr. Mayo stated that he had written no sp e ci f ic wording for this section bµt that he could prepare it before presentation of the ordinance to Council. Chairman Watson stated that he felt if the portable sign did not create a traffic hazard or in some way damage the public -intrest that the City shbuld not be 1 ··~-!. allowed to regulate them. Mr. Mayo stated that a sign did not have to be a traffic hazard to damage the appearance of the City and that there were rea ny citizens who are :concerned with the appearance of the City. Com missioner Stover moved th a t the Co mmissio n recom mend adoption of the orainance with the inclusion of a state ment regulating gas station price signs. The motion was seconded by Co mmissioner Hazen and approved with Chairman Watson voting against. AGEND A ITEM N0.10 --A public hearing of th e question of adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850 to exp ~nd the jurisdiction of the land-_ scaping and safety requirements for parking c reas in co mmercial and industrial zones. Mr. Mayo explained that the a mendment would require all parking areas in commercial and industrial zones to be considered by the P.R.C. but that only those with 20 or more spaces would be submitted to the Co m~ission. He pointed out that the ordina nce now gave the City Engin e er the po we r to approve all parking lots with mor e than 5 spaces but that this often put the Engin ee r in a difficult position and it would be helpful to have th e P.R.C. t o back up his decisions. Chairma n i~tson sugg e sted th at th e proces s wou ld slow do wn the building permit pro ce ss on s ma ll co mme rci a l proj e cts. Mr . May o sta te d th a t P.R.C. meet ing s coul d be s et up ve ry 1quic kly and th at the pro pose d syst em would not slow down the process . Co mmiss ion e r Beh ling sug gested that th e City Engine er could ta ke ca re of the situation as s t ated in th e present ordina nce. Th e public hea ring was op e ned. City of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS .r\VEt'\UE COLLEGE ST ATI0:-.1. TEXAS 77840 August 20, 1979 MEMORArmur.1: TO: -FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Counci~men Al Mayo, Director of Planning · Agenda Items, August 23, 1979 ·Annexation of a J84.8 acre tract: The Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend this annexation. Part of this tract is in the flood plain, but some development could take place. Utility service is no problem. . Mr. Wheeler has .said that the development could be of a nature · to "support" the Wheeler Ridge and Texas Instruments projects. Annexation of a 250 acre tract: This is the Texas Instruments site. Utility service is no problem. The staff and P & Z recommend the annexation. Annexation of a 323.2 acre tract: This is an expansion of Southv1ood Valley to Wellborn Road. Utility service is no problem. ·The Staff and P & Z recommend the annexation . . I I Request for rezoning -Suttbn Place: The Planning and Zoning Commission -. recommends approval '.;of the rezoning. I cannot in any way, however, support this actfon. There is . absolutely no logic to rezoning a flood plain like this commercial use. Mr. Srnith already° owns a flood plain commercial tract at Texas Avenue and Harvey Road. Please take note cif the "activity" on that site! There is now and can always be more than adequate buffer between these larqe single-family lots and the regional ·~all. He will surely receive requests from many developers in the future for commercial zoning on the bypass. Proper planning would allow only the best of those requests to be .approved unless we want strip co mme rcial development on the bypass. This request could only rate as one of the worst. I might ref er you to the minutes of this item. Mr. Smith owns all of the street in Sutton Place, not ha lf of it, and should be responsible for improvfng the whole street, himself. Amend Zoning Ordinance -Siqns: This ordin .::nce will allow more th an one detached sign on very large sites und er prescribed conditio ns. It also treats portable and trailer signs just as detached signs beca use th e ir i mpac t is exactly the sa me as a det ac hed sign. The ordin an ce is inclu ded as recommended by the P & Z including spe cial wording ab out gas price signs at filling stations. This is added because we feel that this informat ion is Memo Page 2 needed by the public. Unlike the other portable signs, gas pr-Lee signs have been around for many years. Amend Zoning Ordinance -expand jurisdiction of parking review: The P & Z recommended approval of the ordinance as presented. The problem the Staff is having is applying similar requirements of the existing ordinance to small commercial projects with less than twenty (20) parking spaces. These small businesses can generate a substantial amount of traffic, especially when several are concentrated in a strip on a major thoroughfare. The small businesses would not need a P & Z review unless they request it. The P.R.C., includ-i°ng- the City Planner, City Engineer, and P & Z Commissioner;, can usually assemble for a review on very short notice. This should not cause any more delay to the building permit process. Amend Zoning Ordinance -filing fees Permit fees should not be set by ordinance. Council policy should be adequate action to change the fee for rezoning requests and . conditional use permits. The ordinance books are cluttered enough -now. The P & Z recommends approval. If passed we will · reque.st a fee for rezonings to cover the actual cost of rezonings at the next meeting. Final Plat Lakeview Acres At some time we will need to acquire additional right-of-way on .these lots on Miller's Lane for the extension of FM 2818; however, at this time we do not know just exactly how much we will need. The Highway Departme~t has not begun the construction plans sirice this fs not yet a high priority project. The P & Z approved the pl at adding a note requiring a 75-foot front setback which was agreeable to Mr. Bertrand, the owner. Policy on Driveway width: The P & Z considered this item and determined was very adequate and recommends no change. .·., .· ·:··: that the ordinance ·"' ·- '( ( REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Page 2 ,. August 23, 1979 7:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6--A public h ear ing on the question of rezoning the Sutton Place Addition from Single Family Resid e ntial District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1. The rezoning in initiated by the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission. City Planner Mayo presented and explained the proposal. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one spoke. Agenda Item No.7--Consideration of an ordinance rezoning the above tract. Councilman Dozier moved to table this item because no one was present to represent the area being considered. Councilman Jones seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Agenda Item No.8--Consideration of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance No.850 as it applies to detached signs, temporary signs and trailer signs. City Planner Mayo explained the proposed amendment. Councilman Adams asked if a trailer was defined. Councilman Dozier suggested adding a proviso stating that this ordinance does not apply to moving vans and such vehicles. The public bearing was open e d and closed when no one spoke. Agenda Item No.9~-Consid e ration of an ordinance amending Or dinance No.850. Councilman Adams moved to table this item. Councilman Jones ·!seconded the motion, which failed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Adams, Jones Against: Councilmen Dozier, Halter, Ringer The general opinion of the Council was the trouble with section 8.D.10. Councilman Ringer suggested that permits be issued for a short period of time for special sales allowing "trailer signs". Councilman Ringer moved that the propos e d amendment be passed, with the omission of 8.D.10. Section 8.D.11 would then be labeled 11 8.D.10, Special Proviso". Councilman Dozier . seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Ringer, Dozier, Halt e r, Jones Against: Councilman Ad ams . This motion hereby crea t ed Ordinance 1174. · Agenda Item No.10--A public hearing on the question of adopting an ord i n an c e amendin g the Zoning Ordinance No .850 to expand th e jurisdiction of th e land- scapin g and safety requir e me nts for parking areas in commercial and industrial zones. • ,. I. ( ORDINANCE NO. 1174 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 850. ~JHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing in the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. on August 23, 1979, on the question of amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850; AND WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to amend Ordinance No. 850; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION~ TEXAS:· The Zoning Ordinance No. 850 is hereby amended as follows: Section 8-0~6. delete the following: "No more than one (1) detached sign shall be allowed on any one building plot. 11 Section 8-D.9. add the following: No more than one (1) detached sign shall be allowed on any one building plot except when all of the following conditions are met: (a). the site (building plot) must be zoned General Commercial C-1, Commercial Industrial C-2, Planned Industrial M-1, or Heavy Industrial M-2. (b). the site must be a minimum size of twenty-five (25) acres. (c). the site must have a minimum of 1,000 feet of continuous, unsubdivided frontage on each major arterial on which a sign is requested; only one (1) sign will be permitted on each major arterial; the major arterials are designated on the Comprehensive Plan for the City of College Station. Add Section 8-D.10. as follows: Section 8-D.10. SPECIAL PROVISO -FUEL PRICE SIGNS: Filling stations :will be allowed one sign per site advertising the current price of fuel only, the area of which will not be included in the allow a ble area of their detached sign. These price signs shall have a maximum area of fifteen (15) square feet and cannot be located within the right-of-way. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of approval and publication. PASSED AND APPROVED this 23~ay of August, 1979. APPROVED . . · ATTEST:. " "/ " ;;L' . . ' ' I . • ./ .lj,,/l-c '-~~ City Secr e t a ry · . I . : ···-. ··.- ' Memo September lQ? 1979 . ~ . . Page 2 REZONING 2.47 ACRE TRACT C-l to R-5 -Southwood Valley: This tract is directly across Airline Drive from the townhous~ project just built by Larry Landry. Mr. Fitch and Mr. Landry intend to build more townhouses and possibly some four-plexes on this site. The P & Z recommends approval. PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS: This ordinance would establish a permit system for portable/trailer signs. Transport vehicles are excluded in Section 8-D. l l. l. ·· PermHs would be issued to shopping center ·tenants for special purposes only. This is to prevent signs advertising job applications, apartme nts for rent, etc. Everyone but a shopping center tenant has got exposure and should not need another sign. The rest of the ordinance deals with location, time 0 allowed, violation notification, etc. Please note Section 8-D.11.12. ·This would enable us to clear up the existing situation . We propose to notify everyone of the permit provision who now has a portable/trailer sign if this ordinance is approved. · : . :LANDSCAPING/SAFETY -Parking Areas: ~ ! . . . '· ... : ·:~~ .. ":. -- This ordinance is exactly as present~d at the last meeting except that .• · the staff will handle the smaller lot review instead of the Project Review C6m~ittee. · The only thing that this ordinance does is to m~ke the standards of ;the landscaping/safety ordinance apply to the parking lots with less than twenty (20} spaces. · · · · .. . . ~ . .. < MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT -Wi 11 iamsb erg Addition:· . ;-·: T~k staff, P ;& Z, and the proj~ct engineer, Don Ga~rett, alt agreed ai the P & Z meeting that -this is not actually" a preliminary plat review. I request th~t the Council make this clear also. This is a .proposed planne unit development. The project engineer is ~equesting approval/disapproval from the City for the basic concept and any problems seen before he and ·his client, Glen Williams, proceed with the expense and work of p~eparing _ the P.U.D. plans and data for presentation~< .. They; in fact, cannot get approvaLof .. a preliminary plat yet because they have not presented all · .·the information requ1red of a P.U.D. · : . FINAL PLAT .:.. Resubdivi sion Lots 13 and 14,. Block 28; Southwood Valley: The P & Z approved .the plat conditionally. They want the utility easement added back to the side lot line betwe en Lots 13 and 14. The plat merely takes property from Lot 14 and adds it to Lot 13. Both are still well over the minim um lot size. FINAL PLAT -R ~subdivision -Coll ege H ~i g ht s , Colle ge Vis ta~ and D. A. Smith Additions:· The developer propo se d to build a s hopping cent er on the tract mad e up of all these lots. The P & Z appro ve d the pl a t. .. ( ( Sept. 13, 1979 7:00 F.M . Councilman Dozier asked that P&Z lat e r rez one the tract R-4 when the ordinance is changed. Agenda Item No.10--Consideration of early repayment to Clyde Bickham for land. Assistant City Manager, Finance Van Dever explained the request and recommended repayment of around $20,000. Councilman Halter moved to repay Mr. Bickham out of the bond funds. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilman Ringer, Boughton, Halter, Jones, Adams Against: Councilman Dozier, Mayor Bravenec Agenda Item No. 11--Consideration of an ordinance rezoning the Sutton Place Addition from Single Familz Residential District R-1 to General Connnercial District C-1. Councilman Ringer moved to take this item off the table. Councilman Boughton seconded the motio~, which passed unanimously. City Planner Mayo presented and explained the plat. Richard Smith, owner, spoke in favor of the rezoning. Ci~y Engineer Ash pointed out that the street was not wide enough for a commercial street and would have to be widened b e fore a building permit could be issued. He -... asked whose responsibility this would b e . Richard Smith said he would upgrade his part of the street and stated that CBL said they would for their part of the street. Councilman Halter moved approval of the C-1 zoning, creating Ordinance 1182. Councilman Dozier seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Ringer, Dozier, Ha lter, Jones, Adams Against: Councilman Boughton, Mayor Brave n e c Councilman Halter moved that the staff not issue a building permit until the present street is curbed and guttered. Councilman Ringer seconded the motion, ·which passed unanimously. Agen da Item No.12--Consid e ration of an ordina nce am e ndin g the zoning ordinance as _it applies to portable s i gn s and tr a iler sign s. City Plann e r Ma yo pres ented and e xp laine d the propos ed ordinance . The Ma yor noted that the public h earing h ad already bee n h e ld for this item. Culle n Mancu s o s p ok e a g ain s t the p ro posal say.ing th a t people had ma d e considerable inves t me nts to b e told .th e y coµld no t u se the ir signs . Co unc ilman Ri nger mov e d to ad opt Ordinan c e 11 8 3 in c l udin g ame nd me nt s by the City Ma n age Cou nc ilma n Bo u ghton s eco n d e d the mot i on , which pas sed by th e followin g v ote : For: Councilme n Ringe r, Bo u ghton, Ha lt er , May or Braven e c Agains t: Cou nc ilme n Do z i er , Ad ams , J ones ( J _,~~ ; \. ;: ORDINANCE N0.1183 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 850 ESTABLISHING A PEP.MIT TO BE REQUIRED FOR PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS. WHEREAS, the City. Council held a public hearing in the College Station City Hall at 7:00 p.m. on Auqust 23 1979, on the ques t ion of amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850; AND WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to amend Ordinance No. 850; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: The Zoning Ordinance No. 850 is hereby amended as follows : Add Section 8-D.ll. as follows: 8-D.ll . PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS: 8-D.ll.l. Portable/trailer signs ~re defined as those signs · that are not permanently affixed to the ground, excluding trucks, trailers, and other vehicles whose principal use is for transport instead of adver- tisement. ~8-D.11.2. It shall be unlawful to locate a portable/trai l er sign on - any site within the City limits until the Zoning Official has determined that it is in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, and a building permit has been issued for said sign. 8-D.11.3. Permits for portable/trailer signs can only be issued for special purpose?, such as sales and grand openings, in General Commercial C-1 zones. 8-D.11.4. The maximum time allowed by permit shall be seven (7) days. 8-D.11.5. No more than one permit shall be issued for each business each ninety (90) days . 8-D:ll.6. An adequat~ site plan must be submitted with the applic~tion to locate the sign. 8-0.11 .7. The portable/trailer sign sh all be located only in a designated parking space on the site no closer th an eight (8) feet from the curb of the street and no closer than twenty (20) feet from any curb cut or . intersection. 8-0.11.8. The maximum size of the por tc ble/trailer sign fac e shall be five (5) feet high .and twelve (12) fee t vlide or sixty (60) square feet, with a maxumum he ight of six (6) feet. 8-D.11.9. No portable/trailer sign sh all be lighted or have any moving or flashing parts. • 8-0.11.10. If the Zoning Official shall find a violation of any provision of this ordinance, he shall notify the person responsible to cease such violation within a reasonable time to be determined by the Zoning Official. 8-D.11.11. If the violation is not remedied within the time prescribed by the Zoning Official, the said official may cancel the portable/trailer sigo permit, if any, and bring action against the party or parties in violation pursuant -to Section 14 of Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance. 8-D.11.12. All existing portable/trailer signs in use as of the effective date of this ordinance must comply with the provisions of this ordinance within ninety (90) days of the effective date or be found in violation thereof. This ordinance .shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of approval and publication. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13!.!:!. day of September, 1979. APPROVED , / ) \ 'I . 1 i In a mom e ntous deci s i on t hat greatly broade n ed the tort l i:i b i lity of municipal governm e nts , the Texas Supreme Court recently ruled th at citie s must ke ep tra ffic intersections cl e ar of visu a l obstru c- tions or p a y for th e accid ents that result. Th e immadi a te loser in th e s uit was th e City of Midla nd (p o p. 70,948) which will pay $975,0 00 in damag es. b ec a use of its a ll eged neglig e nce i 11 not correcting h aza rd - ous conditio ns at a blind inte r- section . The suit was brought by David Jezek on b ehalf o f his son, Ke it h, who was hurt in a 1977 motor vehicl e a cc id ent. J eze k h ad ecl ged his car iilto an i nter secti o n b ecause hi s view of traffi c w as blocked by brush and m esq u ite trees g r ov;in g along-sid e the ro a dw a y. J ezek 's auto was hit by a truck trave l i ng a t high sp eed; h e s uff e r e d s e v e r e injurie s, inclu d in g p e rm ane nt bra in d a m ag e . · The tri a l jury fou n d t ha t mesquit e a ild oth e r bru sh h a d grown up a t t he intersecti o n; th at such ob s truc te d th e vi ew; a nd t h at the City fail e d to m a intain the intersection in a rea s on a bly s a fe condition, wh i ch constitute d n eg li- gence and a p r ox im at e cause of the injuries su s t ai ned. D espite t he jury 's fi n d i n gs , t he trial judg e rend e r e d jud gme nt again s t J eze :<, h o ldin g th a t t he C it y was not li ab l e f o r acc id e nt s ca u sed by vi s u a l t raf fi c obst ru ctions. Th e Court of Civil ;\p pea l s aff i rm ed, citi ng Texas ' "cl os e p rox- imity rul e." Und e r th e cl os e pro x imity stand a rd, as it -.·1as previ ous l y in te r pre t ed by the co urt s , th e r e cov e ry of d3rnages aga i ns t citi es w as l im i t e d t o acciden t s ar i s ing o•.it of p hys i ca l d e f ec t s i n th e tra v el e d portion o f a municipa l s treet ; a nd citi e s we re n o t li able for accident s cau s-?.d b y visu a l obstr uc- tion s w ithi n the unimproved p o r t io n of a s tree t r ight-of-\r1 ay . Th e T exas Supr e rn a C our t rev ers e d th e Co u rt of Civil Ap peal s , s a y i ng th e l o w er court erred in its n a rrow interpret a tio n of the clo se proximity rul e . Th e Sup re me Court point e d out the "v:ell-e:ste.bli shs d nile th a t the m a intenance of streets in a safe condit io n i s a pr op ri etary fun c tion , and that a cit y is li a ble for its n eg!i g ::nce in t he p erform ance of this function." Moreover, the Court said, th e duty to main tai n s tree ts in a sa f e condition "is no t !imited to th e trav e l ed p o rtion o f th e s tree t al o n e , but ex tends to th e prev e ntion of d ef ects out s i de. ·th e trav e l e d or improv e d po r ti on of th e stree t if its prox imity th e r et o r e n ders it prob~ abl e th a t su c h d efect will res ult in inju r y to th ose usi n g th e improv ed port io n of th e st r eat." The Court's d ec i si o n in J eze !{ was stro ng ly i nflu e n ce d by th e fac t s t hat: • At l eas t o ne ot h~r wreck had occurr e d a t th e sarne int e r se ctia n; • Prior t o J eze k's a cci de nt, the City h ad been inform ed of the h azardous sit uati on; and • Th e Ci ty h ad t a!<e n no ac ti on to r ec tify th e h aza rdou s situ a tion. Thus, th e Court found, "the City of Mid l a nd k n e w or should h av e kno w n of th e obs truc ti o n of vi ew ; the City d id n o t m a intain th e int e r se cti on in a r easo n ab ly sa f e co ndi t ion; a n d t his w as n egli gence and a pro x i mate c ause of th e acci de n t." "We t herefo r e hold ," th e Cou rt sa id, "t ha t wh ere a c i t y kno wing l y maintai ns <:rn int e r sec ti o n rig h t -o f -i:1 a y in a manne r wh ir. r: d ang e rou sl y obstr u cts t he v i sio n o f m o tor i sts u s i ng the s tr ee t, i t i s u nd e r a d ut y t o w a rn of' th e dan9 8r o r, if n ecessary , m ake sa f e th e d e f ecti'1e cor.ditio n . W here , <.is h t:r e., th e city hcis b :!e ri g i v e n n oti ce o f th e d a ng e r arid d oes n o t ac t , li abi l it/ '.'ti ll attvch." 0 • City of College Station POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77840 May l 0, 1982 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee, Zoning Official FROM: ~-6. John Black, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Portable Signs Portable signs do not convey information to drivers as well as permanent lighted signs placed at heights above eight feet. These signs (portable signs) also create sight distance hazards for drivers exiting driveways and adjacent city streets. For these reasons, portable signs should be discouraged. Many owners place these signs just off the curb because the information on the sign is at or below eye level of the approaching driver. A driver with good vision can only decern 3 or 4 word messages from a sign using 6 inch letters and mounted at an 8-10 ft. height. Portable signs at ground level convey only 2 or 3 word messages effectively. Portable signs are useless in areas where on-street parking is permitted and at night because non-reflective materials are used for the sign background. Because of their poor visibility, property owners often place these signs in city or state right-of-way which causes blind intersections at adjacent driveways and intersecting streets. Attached is an article which outlines our municipal responsibility to remove visual obstructions in the right-of-way. Our city sign crew includes a sight distance check in their periodic sign maintenance and inspection schedule. If during an inspection or in response to a citizen call they find the right-of-way obstructed, our crev1 wi 11 remove the sight di stance pro bl em. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS Appeal of Zoning Officials Interpretation -From Section 11-B.1 I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. I move to interpret Section following manner: ~~~~~- of Ordinance 850 in the ~-_,,,_____,__ ____ ---~------~------ ---____________ ____.___~--\,Uvry-CA "Hom -· rj ~---t -,-,-ce-1°v ~ J ~-- - - - --------r7T~~ -7 ~--------· ----~-'-------- -----~--------/tn-o"'~J -f~:1 -,-(7 -I ---- ----~-~---~·~ ·~ n ·~-----~ . . . ~tov i--·--- -·- ___ --~ ---~ ---·-------~ ·(;~--~-----., --------------------. ~~-e-yvo0 7-ow J' ~ L!)1 -- -----------·· ------yrrvJ · ~-c;~ ~f_~--¥---'-- ----------, · 1 ' W J VO i' Qfl.--'-;Cf-L: - --l ---------------· -----. -. ' c>gto\J v----m -· - ---------· -- --- - ----~Jn -·? __ _ ~-----=-=~~=~-___ . ~~-rv 0 J~~0 ,~ -1 -r ~ ~·vv 0 J ~~v -l?-f--~--t ---· -. -. >o"Pr~-n-~ ---- __ ._ --~ --~--~-12-L -~ ~t'y\f'°CYi ~~+Yr\/~---± ~----- -------~ ~n--,:;;;:;-~--- - - - --------· --,?W'~ j['_ -'-----~ -'\?~iii 7 I -------·· -----·-______________ __c-_ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS Appeal of Zoning Officials Interpretation -From Section 11-B.1 I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretatton meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done . Ji)~ f ])JO -I: f J), II move to interpret Section f})~, of Ordinance 850 in . the following manner: ~ ~ di IJ:;1:;ef:& ~ ~ t.c_ , 4~~ 6 &_ t:f[_ ~__./ //Jf~-d--~ z 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) ------~ ]. 4. 8. will) be contrary to the public and special conditions of the and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ord)nance (wou 1 d, w result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice don e, and with the following special conditions: 1. 4. 2. 5. 3. 6. i i - I , affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of < MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE ZONING BOARD OF AD lllSTMEtH of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect. and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and l fur-_ thermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor .indirectly paid. offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money> or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God.11 -- • : i i ! • • ~ ' I , HUGH LINDSAY affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE .BOARD O~ THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, pro t ect. and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I fur-_ th~rmore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor .indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contr i bute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God.t' I ' MARY KAYE DONAHUE affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE ZONING BOARD DE AO ll!SIMEMT of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect. and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I fur- thermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor .indirectly paid. offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contr ibute any money. or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God." l ~1!, 1'1 /V I, GALE WAGNER do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State; and I fur-- th~rmore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly nor.indi~ectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God.11 ,, A G E N D A Zoning Board of Adjustment City of College Station, Texas May 18, 1982 7:00 P.M. 1. Swearing in of new members. 2. Approval of Minutes from April 20, 1982. 3. · Consideration 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. '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. 5. Consideration 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. 6. Consideration 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. 7. Consideration of an Appeal Alleging an error in interpretation of Section 8-D.10 -Ord(nance 850 -Fuel Price Signs for a comm e rcial project at 2200 Longmire in the name of Automotive Service World . 8. Other Business. 9. Adjourn --___________ __.., ( ( ( MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGE ND A ITEM NO. 1: MINUTES City of College Station, Texas Zoning Board of Adjustment Apri 1 20, 1982 7:00 p.m. Board Members W. Harper, D. MacGilvray, V.Cook, G. Wagner, and Council Liaison P. Boughton Jack Upham "' Zoning Official Kee, Planning Director Mayo, Ass't. Planning Director Callaway, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Planning Technician Volk Approval of Minutes -February 15, 1982 Chairman Harper asked Council Liaison Boughton to serve as a voting member in the absence of Jack Upham. G. Wagner made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15th meeting; P. Boughton seconded; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a Variance to required lot depth for a duplex in the nam e of Enloe Construction, Lots 3 & 4, Block N, Univ ers ity Park. J. W. Wood, developer of the entire tract was sworn in as a repr esen tative for Enloe Construction, the builder. Wood indicated there had been many changes in the plat between the preliminary plat and the final plat. He said this had been a particularly difficult tract of land to plat, and there had been problems wit h lot wid ths, lot depths, and zoning. Under R-3 zoning, duplexes could be built, but there is a 100 ft. minimum lot length for duplexes, and this is the problem on the 2 lots in question. Harper asked what is behind the lots, and Wood indicated there is an approximately 98 acre undeveloped tract of land, and the City has a 10 ft. easement off the adjoining side. Planning Director Mayo was sworn in and asked to clarify what had happened in the development of this tract. He explained that the main reason in th e platting process we did not disallow the lots is that there is an R. 1-A zoning district which has no minimum lot size .and is governed by square footage. Since the lots in question are adjac e nt, the 2 lots could be combined and then have enough square footage for several small units. Th e developer and the build er we re both warne d that there were some problems with the lot widths if they were intend ed for use for duplexes. Al 1 other lot problems hav e been resolv ed with except ion of th e se 2 lots. Harp er asked if there were any plans to change lot requir ements or charact e r istics for other types of zoning (p er haps to square footage rather than minimum d e pths and widt hs), and Mayo said that at this time there are no plans to change R-1, R-2 or R-3 lot r eq uir eme nts. He said that R-1 .A gives the builder the option of using certain pieces of property for certain units. He indic ated the diff erence be t ween R-1 and R-1 .A is that R-1 spe lls out minimum lot l engths and widths, and R-1 .A requires a minimum square footage and is meant for smaller types of homes ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes, April 20, 1982 such as patio homes. He indicated the difference between duplexes and patio homes to be that duplexes share a wall and each side has living space on that wall, whereas a patio home shares a wall, but only one side has 1 iving space on the in- side of that wall and the other side has outdoor space. The possibility of rear parking and minimum lot widths was brought up, and Zoning Official Kee indicated that there would still be problems on these lots even if the parking were moved to the rear which would allow a minimum lot width of 60 ft. rather than 70 ft . - Harper indicated that he believed this to be the first issue he had encountered concerning lot depth. Wood spoke again and gave background of the development of the tract of land . He said the entire tract is about 125 acres and that work began about a year ago. He describ~d the land and the problems he had encountered in the development of it due to the topography and shape of the tract. He further indicated that Staff had worked closely with the developers and had pointed out some of the problems, which have since been changed. He asked if the small amount of footage involved on these lots was critical enough to cause major changes to ~e made. He indicated the footage to vary from 1 to 1~ feet on several spots only, and not across the entire width of the lots . Mr. Enloe of Enloe Construction was sworn in and identified himself as the owner of the lots in question, and said that he was getting ready to build duplexes, and the cost of building had already been covered in the closing with the Lendor, money had been invested , and a financial hardship was being experienced by him concerning these lots. He further indicated that he realized that the problem : to be solved dealt with quality of lifestyle rather than affect on his monetary interest. Harper stated the Board does not have the authority to simply waive the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance unless there is a specia l condition of the land, there is no demonstrated damage to the public good, and enforcement of the Ordinance would result in extreme hardship for the applicant . Harper then made a motion to grant the variance to minimum lo t depth for the rea- sons that there are multiple utility easements, the lots are adjacent to the Bryan City Sewer Plant, both lots are somewhat odd-shaped and that t he portion of the required lot which I ies outside of the available land is only a matter of a foot and not for the complete width of the lot, but only at the corner, and also because it is not contrary to public interest. Motion seconded by Wagner. Motion carried. In favor: Wagner,MacGilvray, Harper & Cook Opposed: Boughton ' Harper then addressed M.Murphy who has a consideration of a Variance on the Agenda (Item #4). Harper explained that the ZBA has 2 members plus himself who requested to be excused from participa ting in this decision, and that Upham was absent; hence, there would be no quorum to rule on this issue. He asked Murp hy's indulgence in re- scheduling the consideration, and Murphy indicated this was agreeable, but that he would like an informal discussion of his request tonight, the results of which would help him make a decision for future plans for his property. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of an Appeal alleging an error in interpr etat ion regarding a screen fenc e in the na me of Arthur Wright at 601 Turner Street. Mr. A. Wright was sworn in, and began giving background to pre vious rulings con- cerning his prop e rty by l ocating the prop er ty and showing a plot plan which located ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes,. April 20, 1982 page 3 the chain 1 ink fence in question. He read part of Zoning Official Kee's Me mo randu m and indicated that he disagreed with the last paragraph on page 2, last sentence which states "When projects wish to expand, the staff attempts to bring the entire project up to code as much as possible'', because he be! ieved his chain link fence was "up to code" at the time he built it, in fact believed it to be even more than had been required in that he fenced the entire eastern boundary, and had only been required to fence a little over 100 feet. He further indicated that 4 out of 5 property owners adjacent to his property, who owned single family dwellings had signed a statement to the effect that they did not want the fence to be changed. He presented the signed statement to the Chairman, and this statement will be attached to the end of these minutes. Herman Holmes, an adjacent property owner to the property in question was sworn in and Harper asked for his statment. Mr. Holmes said that he was the largest landowner adjacent to Mr. Wright's property and that he did not want the fence to be changed. Mr. Wright spoke again, and quoted portions of the Ordinance which he felt applied to his situation. The following list represents Sections of the Ordinance from which he quoted, however, Mr. Wright only used portions of these sections, and not the entire section: Section ll-A, Section 11-B.5 (Board of Adjustment); Section 4-A (Non-Conforming Uses); and paragraph 2 of Section 6-J (Screen Fence Requirements). He further indicated that while Kee had referred to paragraph 2 of Section 6-J in her Memor _andum, that he believed this paragraph did not apply in this case. Wright then addressed each "adverse influence" in Section 6-J as follows: Noise - hi§ apartment buildings are 2 story and set back 18 feet, so there is no nois~. Vehicular lights -His parking lot is 75 f eet from the lot line and is separated by 3 buildings, so there is no probl em with I ights. Trespass -The existing chain I ink fence prevents trespass, but besid es that, allows the single family residences adjacent more open space and air flow than would a solid screen fence. Th en he addressed"asthetic view" and indicated that his apartment yards are well cared for, perhaps even bette~ than the single family dwellings adjacent. Mr. Wright said he believes that he is still in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and that the only changes made since the fence was installed are the current officials and their interpretations of the Ordinance. At this point Harper interrupted Mr. Wright and indicated that he was getting away from the issue, and was spending more time criticizing the Staff than addressing the issue at hand. Harper then pointed out that when land has been developed, and then is re-developed, at tbe time of the re-development, anything that is not in compliance with Ordinances is brought into compliance. Mr. Wright indicated that all 6 buildings were plotted and approved originally. MacGilvray asked about the idea of "s lats" in the chain I ink fence, and Cook indi- cated the major issu e was one of screening and a chain 1 ink fence does not screen anything, but simply puts up a barrier, and that in I i e u of a sol id 6 ft. high fenc e that shrubbery or plantings are th e only other way to scree n. Harper indicated that although the apartme nt property is extremely neat and we ll m~intained that noise and lights are not screened by a chain link fence. He was concerned at this time, not with current r es idents of th e adjacent properties, but rath e r with future owne rs, and indic ated further that he would not like to be a party to setting pr ecede nt by not requiring that a 6 ft. high screen fenc e be installed. ( I ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes, April 20, 1982 page 4 Wright indicated that he had acted in good faith and had put up a 5 ft. high chain 1 ink fence across even more land than was required at the time of the ruling, and that he had fully complied with previous official 1 s ruling. MacGilvray requested comments from Staff, and then realized this request was out of order and withdrew the request. Wright cited unnecessary ha rdship and expense involved, and stated that justice would not be done by making him tear down the existing fence and replacing it. Kee responded that Mr. Callaway would 1 ike to comment on the -background of this issue. Callaway was sworn in and then indicated that in 1980 this development was reviewed for expansion. 4-plex was developed on half the lot and a chain link fence which had been accepted by previous officials existed. Callaway stated that he assumed that the only reason the previous Building Official had accepted a chain link fence rather than a 6 ft . high solid fence was perhaps because the adjacent single family houses were located on property zoned for high density apartments. Since that time Callaway stated the adjacent properties have been rezoned to R-1 Single Family. At the time of review in 1980, it was pointed out to Mr. Wright that if any changes were made to the property, the fence would have to be upgraded to current zoning ordinances, and that this is the question to be resolved tonight before any Certi- ficates of Occupancy will be issued. Callaway then referred to Section 6-J (2) of the Ordinance and indicated that this had been reviewed by the Staff and City Attorney and that the City Attorney advised the Staff to proceed with their inter- pretation. He further indicated that the only portion of the fence that the City was concerned with was the part that screened that portion of apartment units from residential dwellings. Mayo then addressed the Board and indicated that he was present at the time when Mr. Wright got the permit for the first project, and that he thinks Mr. Wright convinced the Building Official that the Ordinance did not apply to his project. He indicated that the present interpretation of Ordinances and upgrading commercial and multi-family projects shows more responsiveness to single family dwellings on the part of the Staff. He then referred to the Memorandum in the packet to the Planning and Zoning Comm i ssion dated July 10, 1980 which indicated that a screen fence should replace the · chain link fence which was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The memo fur t her indicates that the P.R.C. would not recommend approval of Mr. Wright's project without correction of the fence. Mayo strongly recommended that this case go back to P.R.C. and Planning and Zoning Commission if this chain 1 ink fence is allowed to remain in place. Wagner then questioned the original Ordinance and indicated that Mr. Wright is out o f comp] iance on fence height regardless of the type of fence he has, because Ordinance requires a 6 ft. high fence, and Mr -. Wright's fence is only 5 ft. high. Mr. Wr ight indicated that he had gone back through P.R.C. more recently than 1980, and Kee indicated that the more recent p,;R.C. did say the project would not have to go back through P & Z if compliance were made, then further indicated that the 6 ft. high continuous solid screen fence should apply to both paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 6-J according to legal advice. MacGilvray commented on his understanding of the Ordinance, and then pointed out • ( ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, April 20, 1982 page 5 that the only difference between paragraphs in Section 6-J would be concerning who was responsible for putting up the fence. Mayo then indicated that previously, Pub I ic Hearings had been held for apartment site plan review and the biggest single question by single family residents was that of the screen fence between their property and that of adjoining apartments. Vie Cook made a motion that any variance to the screen fence requirements be denied and that the decision of the Zoning Offi~ial requiring -a 6 ft. high continuous sol id fence to be located along the southern property line and JOO ft. of the eastern property line separating the _apartme_nt proj _ect Jrom the developed Single Family houses be upheld~ MacGilvray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Harper indicated to Mr. Wright that he had a right to appeal to the County Corut and that the County Court is out of the Board's jurisdiction. Harper further indicated that if Mr. Wright now wanted an option to the screen fence, he must go back through the Zoning Official and the Planning and Zoning Commission. AGENDA ITEM #4: Consideration of a Variance to the rear setback for a room addition in the name of Michael Murphy at 305 Pershing. Michael Murphy was identified and sworn in, and agreed to reschedule this item on the agenda at a later date. He indicated that he would like to have an informal discussion which perhaps would clarify questions he had. Then he asked about the time limit on a Variance. Kee referred to Section 10 as coverage of Use Permits, and indicated that the City Attorney should be consulted> but that her interpretation was that the Variance would continue as long as the Building Permit was alive. Harper thought the period of time could be extended on specific projects. Callaway reiterated that consultation with the City Attorney should take place about a "delayed variance" on a particular building. Murphy indicated that on the original Deed Restrictions indicated a 10 ft. set- back was required, but that current Zoning Ordinancemade it 25 .ft. He also asked if a porch could extend into the setback and was answered that if the porch was open on 3 sides it could extend up to 6 feet into the rear setback line. but not the 12 ft. his drawing indicated. Harper moved to table this item until the next regular meeting of the Board. Cook seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. May 18, 1982 was identified as the ne x t regular meeting date and Mr. Murphy was instructed to contact Kee regarding this agenda item by May 7th. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 -Other Business. Kee referred to the Minutes of the Apri I 21, 1981 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, Agenda Item No. 2: Consideration of a request for a variance to the parking requirements for a restaurant in the na me of L & R Foods, Inc., 2700 Texas Avenue. Kee asked the Board how important were the hours of operation as stated by Mr. Lampo in granting the Variance to parking. She pointed out that part of the request to the Variance in 1981 that led the Board to approve the Variance was that the hours of his proposed restaurant were to be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and that . ( ( Zoning Board of Adjustmen t Minutes, April 20, 1982 page 6 Mr . Lampo was now proposing to open some type of pizza parlor at that location, and she speculated that the hours might extend beyond 9 p.m. She further explained that Mr . Lampo had indicated he might possibly close the restaurant to patrons at 9 p .m., and only have late-night delivery service after that time . Kee was advised by the Board to confer with the City Attorney to discover what alternatives the Board has in reconsidering this matter. Kee then referred to the update of Table A of Ordinance 850, and asked that the Board study it and notes A & B, and be prepared to give an interpretation at the next Board meeting. In the interim, she and Mayo would talk with the Fire Marshall so the Staff could come to an agreement as to interpretation : The intent of A & B is to have a fifteen (15) foot separation for a firebreak, as well as to allow lot 1 ine construction with appropriate firewall construction. Mayo pointed out that single family dwellings are usually 15 f t. apart, but that there is only 7t ft. of open space in which to work because o f the fence on the property line . He also indicated that he had talked with the Fire Marshall who stated that the 7t ft. did not matter if he had rear access to the unit. MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Harper seconded the motion, which then carried unanimously . AGENDA ITEM #6: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned . APPROVED: C ity o f C ollege Station POST OFFIC E BOX 9960 11 0 1 T EXAS A VENUE COL LEGE STATIO N . T EXAS 77840 May 12, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment Members FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official SUBJECT: Agenda Items for May 18, 1982 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 -Approval of Minutes The City Attorney has asked that the Board members state their motions in a manner to reflect any and all special conditions and to refer to specific Sections of Ordinance 850. In an effort to help you do so, I have prepared a format for each type of possible motion (variance, non-conformities, or appeals). These formats are adaptable to positive or negative motions and are taken directly from the applicable sections of the Ordinance. You will find the applicable format in your packet after each agenda item. Please use this format in stating each and every motion. In this way the minutes will reflect word for word the motion and any conditions or reasons for it. Please continue to use your Standard Review Forms as a guide to help you make your final decisions and continue to turn these in to Shirley. After each meeting it is imperative that the Chairman sign the approved minutes from the previous meeting. The City Attorney feels that this effort will help in any potential litigation. It should also help all of us feel that we have a clear understanding of the reasons behind each decision. Thank you. Agenda Item No. 3 -Consideration 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. The applicant is requesting a variance to 10 parking spaces for a sandwich shop proposed to be located at 411 Univ e rsity Drive. The operation will have 30 seats but no cooking will be don e on the premises. Under Ordinance 850, restaurants hav e a parking requirement of l space per 3 seats, and no employee requireme nt. These spaces are to be located on the property or on prope rty und er the same owner s hip within 200 feet. Ther e have bee n 5 applications for par k in g variances in the North gate area over the last 2 y ea rs. The following i s int ende d to he lp th e me mb e rs recall each request a nd th e ultimate d e cisions: Memo ZBA -May 18, 1982 page 2 Date 1-15-80 1-20-81 4-21-81 5-19-81 7-21-81 Decision Denied-6 spaces Approved-13 spaces Approved-20 spaces Denied-6 spaces Approved-6 spaces Type Activity . App l icant Comments Arcade-405 Univ.Dr. J.P .Jones Restaurant-403 Univ. Flowers & Larson never bui lt Restaurant-501 Univ. J.R.Lamp w/stipula ti Arcade 315 Univ. Ed Walsh Arcade 315 Univ . Ed Walsh that park in be provided for emplo ye w/condition of 1 year 8 to improve parking lot Mr. Phil Callihan wi ll be present at the meeting to answer any questions. 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. Mr. Murphy wishes to add a family room to his existing house. (See site plan). The site plan and Mr. Murphy's application clearly outline the situation. The only problem I perceive is the fact that there is actually no unique and special condition of the land, unless the Board would consider the location of the 10 ft. alley separating Mr. Murphy's lot from his rear neighbor as a unique condition. Alleys are typically not located in this manner any longer , but are actually parts of the lots they serve, and are access easements. In fact, on September 10, 1979, (variance request in the name of C.E.Olsen, 409 Dexter), the Board did justify a variance by using the center line of the alley to measure a rear setback. (The result is still a 50 ft. separation bet- ween property owners). If the Board wishes to do this in Mr. Murphy's case, a variance might be granted up to 5 ft., but not 6 ft. If a variance for 6 ft. is granted, the structure will measure only 24 ft. from the centerline of the alley. Agenda Item No. 5 -Consideration of a Variance Request to Table A -Ordinance 850 -Minimum Setback Requirements for a commercial project at 700 University in the name of Mac Randolph. The applicant has an existing office building which encroaches the front setback 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 building. The site plan has been approved by the Project Re view 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 consid e r this as a variance request and not as an expansion to Memo ZBA -May 18, 1982 page 3 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 Setback Requirements for a convenience store at 301 University in the name of Southland Corporation. 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 th~ 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 restau~ant locating in this area. 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 na me of Automotive Service World. As you are aware the City Council approved the position of Zoning Inspector last July. This position was filled in September 1981. The purpose of having an inspector is to provide more organized, consistent and better enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. One of the areas the staff has paid special attention to (other than daily inspections for Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy) is the Sign Regulations. In March portable fuel price signs were noticed at seven stations along Texas Avenue and University Drive. Prior to contacting these stations I read Section 8-D.10 and concluded that the intent was for every station to be allowed I fuel price sign which cannot exceed 15 sq. ft. or be in the right-of- way, but that this sign should also comply with the rest of the Sign Regulations. It cannot be portable or be a separate detached sign if the business already has an existing detached sign. It can be attached to the permanent detached sign, to the pump island, or the building, itself. We researched the records to find memorandums and minutes from P&Z and Council meetings when the amendment concerning fuel price signs was discussed (copies are in your packet) and no where is it clear that the intent was to allow fuel price signs to be portable. Once I had made an interpretation of Section 8-D. 10, the stations in violation we re notified. All were cooperative and have permanent ly attached their signs. On May 4, 1982, Mr. Parker's portable fuel price sign was noticed. He was con- tacted and was unwil I ing to move the sign and att ach it somewhere. He requested a hearing before the Board. Mr. Parker says the sign has been there for two years. This ma y be true, but in any concerted effort to achieve better enforce- ment ther e will be situations that have perhaps gone un-noticed for a while. Mr. Parker furth er claims that an attached fuel price sign will be a traffic hazard due to people searching for the sign. I spoke with John Black, the Traffic Engineer concerning this issue. Please see his enclosed memo. Memo ZBA -May 18, 1982 page 4 Please keep in mind, whateve~ the Board's decision, that the staff's prime objective should be consistency. Over the last year the effort has been only to allow portable signs as per Section 8-D.11. The staff has treated everyone equally in this regard. If Mr. Parker's sign is allowed to be portable, then every service station in town should be allowed the same pr i vilege . sjv , / 1.0 :-: L:·!G J;(J;\]\j ) O F /\IJ ,l l J'.i T ;·i ! .:: I F i l.I: r:P . Nam e of Applicant Cent ex Subwa y, lnc. U/B/A/ SJJbway (Pr e s Phi 1 Cal 1 ah 0:mL. ___ _ Hailing Addres s 1701 Southwest Pa rkway , Suite 11 204, College St a tion, Te xas 77B 0) Loc a ti o n: Lot s 3 a nd 9 Block 2 Sub d i v i s ion W. C, Boyett's De scription, If applicable 411 Univ e rsity Drive, Colle g e Station, Texas · (Appro x ima tely 1,100 square feet of leas e space next door to th e Unive rsit y Boo k Stor~ at Nort hga t e ) A varianc e to tl1 e p a rkin g requirements for a fast food s a nd wic h Action reque sted: shop with seatin g for 30 cu s tome rs and no cooking on the p remi si s . NANE ADD RESS (Fro m curre n t t ax r o ll s , Co l lege Statio n T ax Assessor ) PI.E AS E S EE T HE LIS T ATTA C · l'I LJ : lW. Present zon in~ of la !td in q u e !; t i.un ____ -....:C:.--~lo...-___________________ _ Section of ordinance fro;n which variance is sou6ht __ _,S~e=.v.!:..=:e"-'n'---------------- The following specific variation from the ordinancr is requested: Request a variance for 10 customer parking spaces. Employee parking spaces will h r• providl.!tl by tllL! :i and lortl in the parking lot bellind t11 e buildin i;. This variance is necessary due to the following unique and speci~l conditions of the land not found in like districts: The Northgate . dj Strict is com.pl..ct.ely developed. The only opportunity for a new business in this area is to remodel an existing structure or lease .space with no opp o rtunity to create additional customer parking The following alternatives to the requested variance are possibl e : Not to locate at Northgate This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following f~ccs: The nature of the business is a fast food sandwich shop that wiJJ cater to pedestrians who alr e ady live and work nearby. Since there will be no cooking or game machin e s in the store, cu__s_tmnr:.es wi 11 h e senLe.c:L .q.ui c]:l y and have no reason to linger in the store after eating . Therefore, any ___ cu_st:_o me r who wa s dri v i1~g_ :m a uto a1~d s topp e d t .Q.._j211Lcb a s e a .s.anillil.ch__wo 1.ild __ not ne e d a parking pla c e very long . Subway will help improve th e a p pea r a n ce of the Horth g atc ar ea by providin g a 1~ all gla ss front a nd a bri g ht, c he.e.J:},__ decor . Th e th i.s .1 p plica ti on .:ir e t ru e a n d corre c t. Applic;:int Dat e lDV7T.:i X.' J~fotVA-'f; 200 Ft. Variance Boyett BK 2 LT 1,2,3,Pt 4 ( Fred B. Shelton Jr. % Shelton Studios Inc. 3107 N. Haskell Ave. Dallas, TX 75204 Boyett BK 2, LT Pt 4, Pt 5 Hornak _& Hornak Sorrels 7919 Braes Meadow Houston, TX 77071 Boyett BK 2, LT PT 5 Johnnie W. Holick 308 Tee Dr. Bryan, TX 77801 Boyett BK 2, LT 6, 7 J.B. Lauterstein % Glenda Alter 153 Rilla Vista Dr. San Antonio, TX 78216 Boyett BK 2, LT 10, 11, BK 3, LT 16 A&M United Methodist Church 417 University Dr. College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 2, LT 12, BK 3, LT 1 First Baptist Church P.O. Drawer EN College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 1, LT lA, 2A J.E. Loupot 1201 Walton College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 1, LT 18, 2B George H. Boyett 702 Lee College Station, TX 77840 (cont ... ) Boyett BK 1, LT 3,4,5 A. Mitchell Estate % H. Mitchell 107 Pershing College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 1, LT 6 Helen S. Martin P.O. Box 2 College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK 1, LT 7,8 / O.H. Boyett Estate % L.B. Vance Horseshoe Bay / Box 7807 · Marble Falls, TX 78654 ·. \ Boyett BK 1, LT 21, 22 Marie 0. Boyett Vance Horseshoe Bay Boy 7807 Marble Falls, TX 78654 Boyett BK 1, LT 23 R. A. Bryan 1813 Shadowwood College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK l, LT 24 Paula Jan Boyett 1809 Medina College Station, TX 77840 Boyett BK l, LT 25 A.P. Boyett 315 Boyett St. College Station, TX 77 840 Tauber BK 5, LT l Ted Wyatt 505 University Dr. Colle ge Station, TX 77 840 (cont. .. ) Tauber BK 5, LT 2 Bi 11 J . Coo 1 ey 503 Glade St. College Station, Tauber TX 77840 BK 5, LT PT 3 Kathleen Stubblefield P.O. Box 2740 College Station, TX 77840 Tauber BK 5, LT 4 Wesley Foundation P.O. Drawer K College Station, TX 77840 ' HOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARIA NCE REQUEST Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing 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 affected? Identify any existing special conditions.associated with this property. Special conditions identified by the applicant include: Id~ntify any unnecessary hardships .relating to this property. Identify any hardships unique to this property. If this request is granted, how V1ill the "spirit of the ordinance" be observed? De scribe the rationa l you h ave u se d to come to your d e cision in this matt 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) ------- 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: 1. s. 2. 6. ------------------~-------------- 3. 7. --------------------------------- 4. 8. --------------------------------- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance (would, would not) result in unnecessary 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 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Name of Applicant tfdtc/JaeJ D. M~ Nailing Address 305 Pers/7/11 CJ Sf. Phone ~g{;:> -272/ Location: Lot Block Subdivision ---------- FILE NO. ---- c.0. Description,. If applicable ------------------------~ NAME ADDRESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) ZONI NG BOARD OF ADJUSU1ENT FILE NO. , ,,!-' Present zoning of land in question &-1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~----,..-~~~~ Section of ordinance fro~ which variance is sought --! ,!.Jc ./ 7Cjb/e,,, ;J The following specific va.riation from the ordina nce is requested: I !?fZlC:OSe I I 1o add a n20m fo f'lllj re01det11ce that u21(/ CTiCra:Jch c;rn ih e , rear ?cfPctck 0£ ±he. /a± up ±a . -'-o ,, This variance is necessary d u e to the following uniqu e and special conditions of the land not found in like districts: /Irmfed hf. uudft<. / req(}{rd fo ac1111eue f?@lzer on~fm11. of +he ffl>F??~ 4l i +r °. V\ fu /oca f 0UV\ er nd 1P re\b 1 lvn q b (~ COVldt_+w"'s {ov ~'J :ffc.J..t;J'Clj i fJ~Y-13 fo pro Vtc/c aff,YO!?Vl4f-e-ca1')Y1cr.M11 -/v ex 1vh11i0fmcfure an ol 10.aw fa1 ~i -c: { l! '11\-+-1 ~d o 11rr -1-n ex1&t! V)Cf rcoJM a 0 UJd / Cf~ arcu/a f-10 YJ ~A' followi ng allerd~iv es to ~he tequ es ted v aria nce are possible: · rmv-or1et'\ fZ3±ro0 I vvo v= c1r0u/a -hoti CQ[/1/ll ecftoM r I (CY-h t'bf11Ce. added ±o Y-rprcJc,-h;ve This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following i~ct:~: _/l__Jol Allclj c,x10fs c<t ±hf reza r of the (o±j et Jl · (excerd-o[!J e) cad 1a cePJ t !7VO percb es ha ve ~_cf-uv----e rJ I I oear-ev-±o 'ref}J[ \at \ \.V\ e l-{10V\ t\!\at pY'"'"_ffil\cleci. l V\ :t\A \'? '{e-qu e""'t / eM-eV?JILj c ['1c1eV\CLj 1 /It\!) pmve FFV'i-zt Th e facts stated by me in this application are true and correct. j~~, 6 .~ /'f8::L Date Fred Garner Betty Woods Clyde Blum B.J.Kling P.G.Baines Sidney Loveless C. B. Godbey MICHAEL D. MURPHY (!)At: w cof_, B-4 Lots 24,25, 301 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 23 part 22 213 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 21 part 22 2!! Pershing , College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 part 27,28 309 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 part 29,30 313 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 part 3,4,5 206 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 B-4 6,7 210 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 C. D. Clay Camp B-4 8,9 300 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 Robert C. Potts, Jr. B-4 10,11, part 12 306 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 John E. Van Domelan B-4 part 12,13,14 310 Lee, College Station, Texas 77840 R. B. Hickerson B-5 Lots 9,10 218 Pershing, College Station, Te xas 77840 C. C. Doak B-5 12,13,14 part 15 300 Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 Robert Meier B-5 part 15,16, part 17 308 A Pershing, College Station, Texas 77840 Caroline Mitchell B-5 part 17, 18 216 Suffolk , College Station, Te xa s 77840 NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARI.ANG::'.: REQUEST Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing Request 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 e d? .... . '-·:.:.. ... -Tdentify any existing special condi t ions.as s ociated with this property. Special conditions identified by the applicant include: Identify any unneces s ary 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 obse rved? Describ e the rational you have u sed t o come to your d ec ision in this matter. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS ~ariances: 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, will) be contrary to the public interest, due to the (lack of, following) unique and special conditions of the l~nd not normally found in I ike districts: - I. s. 3. 7. ~~~~~-.--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4. 8. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ord)nance (would, would not) resuli in unnecessary 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. s. 3. 6. ,_____., ZON[NG BOARD Of A D J US l ~IB~T FILE NO. Name of Applicant ~'ac Randolph ~-----~-------~-------------------~ Mailing Addre ss Phone 69614141 Location: Lot Action requested: 700 University Drive East A Block 700 Subdivision University Park East Al low 1' -2!" partial intrusion into 25' bui I ding set back I ine for a distance of 11' Approx. NAHE ADDRESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) ------------- ::C BO ARD OF AD JU STHENT FILE NO. Section of ccdinance from which variance is s o~ght Ord # 850 Sec 5 Table A The follo~-ling Si)ecific va.riation from the ord i n a a 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 ~and not found in like districts: We arEJ'e":'µs =irg the existing slab for a new b id I ding modification. The. oriqirpii!,:11 slab had this 1' -2t 11 d iscrepancy. The fol~owi ng alternatives to the reques ted varia nc e are possible: 1. Distort the front elevation of th e new bui I ding to conform to the 25' set ~ad< Ii ne. 2. Rerr:ove the 1' -2!" slab intrusion and rework 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 years. 2. Site visi b i I ity fo r traffic on Tarrow Drive is not irrnared. The fact s state (J Y\~vt~ l,'Yf Applicant :·,'Be Randol .:::>h s app l ication ;-ire t::-ue and correct. University Park East Tr. B Norvill G. Ward Tr. 2007 Briar Oak Bryan, Texas 77801 Chimney Hill Tr. A. 9.92 Acres John C. Mayfield Jr. 1700 Puryear College Station, Texas 77840 Fed-Mart Bk 1 Fed-Mart Stores Inc. % Harding & Eaves 4615 Southwest Fwy Houston, Texas 77027 Prairie View Heights -Bk 4 Lt 1, 2, 20 1 of 3, Bk 5 Lt l, 2 Mrs. Ethel Banks % Minnie Armstrong 773 N. Los Robles Pasadena, CA. 91104 Bk 4 Lt 22 Rober Carle 2216 Shadywood Court Arlington, Texas 76012 Bk 4 Lt 24, 30 1 of 25 John C. Watson P.O. Box 4544 Bryan, Texas 77801 Bk 5 Lt 3 James R. Williams 6400 N. Haven Rd. Dallas, Texas 75230 Bk 5 Lt 4 Ozden Okuruz Ocho a 615 Peyton College Sta tion, Texas 77840 Bk 5 L 5 Leland A. Carlson 613 Peyton College Station, Texas 77840 --------------I ----.. -. 0 I 1' I ~ l=.I QSl\C rGt?J ai3I Ol . ··?~0?~~ ~f19 1...___---· -- I I I_ ------------·-·· ·--·--' .-- ·. I 1') I ~1 :f~ 1· . "-~·Cd _f~ I I i l I I I I I I / ' ----~ ~---~ --=:.-· ---========-·· . - --_,,,.---- / 01 -- ~- !~= l l I l1 1: I !' I I I· !I !" --------. . -- = II -'t I . ·I NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing -----------· 19 __ Request by ---~--~--~------~-~--~-----' ~pplicant 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 affected? "·-· .. -, Identify any existing special conditions.associated with this property. Special conditions identified by the applicant include: ,. ; Identify 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 us e d to come to your d e cision in this matter. 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, will) be contrary to the public interest, due to the (lack of, following) unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: 1. 5. ----------------'----------------- 2. 6. 3. ]. ----------------'----------------- 4. 8. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ord)nance (would, would not) resuli in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observe d and substantial justice done, and with the following special conditions: 1. 4. 2. 5. 3. 6. • zo:;.;IN G BOARD OF ADJUS'L'-fENT FILE NO. Southland Corporation c/o Jack Ort Ha iling Addr e s s 8871 Tallwood, Austin, Te xas 73759 -----------"------=---------------------- Phone 512-346-4190 Location: Lot ----13 Block ---1 Subdivi sion W. C. Boyett Addition Description, If applicabl e Attached ----~~~---------------------~ .. . ·' Action ~equ e sted: Variance to rear setback NA.NE ADD RESS (From curr e n t tax rolls, Col lege Statio n Tax Assesso r ) Attache d i ING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. C-1 Present zoning of land in que stion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Section of o-.rdinance from which variance is sought Table A The following specific variation 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 necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the ~and not found in like districts: . The narrow dimensions and resulting size of the subject oroperty prohibit the development of a 7-Eleven convenience store which will include adequate parking and landscaping in conjunction with adequate accessibility and maneuverability on the property. The following alternatives to the requested v a riance are possible: A 7-Eleven can be developed on the subject property if the parking and landscape 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-Eleyen conyenjence food stare and gasoline installatjon will be 9eveloped with adequate parking and land scaping in place of what was previously The 12th Man Bar. The existing structure is a converted service station which has been vacated. Th e facts stated by me in this app lication are Southland ..(;ru:poratfon Q ,,_ t:' t"nf App licant 1.. true and correct . Apri 1 2 Q, 1982 Da te BOYETT Bk l Lt 13A, 12 A.P. Sr. & N.K . Boyett 315 Boyett College Station, TX 77840 Bk 1 Lt 13C, 14B, 14C, 15, 16 Mrs. Annie Seeger Est. % Jack Boyett P.O. Box 142 4 College Station, TX 77840 Bk 1, Lt Pt 9, lOA, lOB A.P. Jr. & W.C. Boyett 107 Boyett College Station, TX 77840 Bk l L'.t 11 A Jack Boyett P.O. Box 142 4 College Station, TX 77840 Bk 1. Lt 14A Boyett Inves tm ent Ltd. 107 Boyett College Station, TX 77840 · JS - ~., ts Bk l Lt 17 ;J_~ 1 (Y,~1 City of Co 11 ege Sta ti on --fl-Ci'~.-1'°,,,...,t'-'.1 L . College Station, TX 77840 O 'f-ir -~- Bk l Lt 18, 28 W.C. Boyett Est. % Gary Boyett 4713 Gaston Ave. Dallas, TX 75246 Bk 6-7 LL 1-13 Presbyterian Church 301 Church College Sta tion, TX 77840 Bk 8, Lt l,2,15A,15B Louie A. Wa l ston % Nans Blo s s om Shop 1105 S. Te xa s Ave Bryan, TX 77 801 (cont ... ) Bk 9 Lt 1,2,3 Brazos Coin-Op, Inc . Rt.3, Box 255A Bryan, TX 77801 Bk 9, Lt 5, 6 Christian Science Society 201 Boyett College Station, TX 77840 NOTES ON CONSIDERATION OF A VARI AfiC~ REQUEST Zoning Board of Adjustment Hearing 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 affected? .. ·. ·~::. .. Identify any existing special conditions.associated with this property. Special conditions identified by the applicant include: Identify 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 th e rational you h ave us ed to come to your d e cision in this matt e r. 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, will) be contrary to the public interest, due to the (lack of, following) unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: 1. 5. 2. 6. -------------------~-----------~ 3. 7. ------,....-------------'----------------~ 4. 8. and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ord~nance (would, would not) result in unnecessary 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. ZO N ING BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT FILE NO. Mailing Address 2200 Longmire, College Statiqn, Texas 77840 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 693-0616 Part of Location: Lot NI A Block 14 Subdivision Southwood Valley~ Sectibn 6B Action requested: Appeal an interpretation by the zoning official regarding Section 8-D. 10-- Fue 1 Price Signs. NAME ADDRESS (From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor) .JNING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. Present zoning of land in ques tion C.-\ ~~--"-------------------,,-------~ Section of ordinance from which variance is sought ~N~-A-'-'''---------------­ i"+erfr(2+o-.+; c.-. o-f. The following specific "'a uu t · _z fz 1 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 alternatives to the requested varian ce are possible; This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following f~ct~: Th e fact s state d b y me in th is application are t r u e and correct. (I_. d. g,k«,, ~c~ __ 5_/7_/_8 2 ____ _ I Applicant Date r ·- I .......... _ _. Planning and Zoning Agenda Items, April The ordinance presently all 0•;1s on2 detached si ~n per buil dinq plot ~£%th~;;: regardless of the size of the plot or the type of project. it \·iould · ---~lt§~}\~~­ certainly be advisable to all01.·1 r:cir2 than one for very large co mfl'l~rcia) .. ,."I~~~:;~ projects with frontage and access on more than one arterial thorough-· ·c ;·"~ fare.{ I)tems to consider might be: _";-.,; a . size of site {b). amount of frontage on each ~ajor street and total frontage {c). type of project .an d zoning {d). minimum distance between proposed signs {e). adjacent develop men t and zoning The ordinance does not specifically address portable and trailer signs. The Building Official has adopted a policy based on his interpretation which defines these signs and allo'.·is them. t1y feeling and that of Jim Callaway, who should be the Zoning Official soon, is that these signs should be treated as detached sign s. Certainly the intention and spirit . bf the ordinance are being violat ed on such sites as Hoodstone Shopping Center. We would propose that they be removed as soon as legally possible. (9). Ordinance 850 requires only one p~r!.ing space per single family residence. ~ost actually have two to four sp~ces provided. Apparently more and more students are 11 grouping 1 ' to occupy single d11Jelling units and reduce individual housing exp enses . Historically, when a single family residen- tial area begins the transition f ro~ owner to renter-occupied units, th e area deteriorates. Lack of maintenance beco mes evident and property values dec~~ase. Allowing as many 2s four unrelated persons to constitute a "family". \1as an acceptable provisio n \'/hen it \'/as adopted but times have changed. To protect and preserve the single family residential areas, the definition should be lowered to three or even two. There are, how- ever, neighborhoods that have been undergoing this transition for many years now and could remain if the ordinance allm1ed i.t. The single family zone could be split for b;o different defi niti on ·s. Such areas are Northgate and Southgate. ----------------' I ( . i I Planning and Lening Com mission Apri 1 5, 197 9 7:00 P.M . AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 --Consid e ration of a land s cape parking plan for Del Taco. The item was withdrawn from the agenda. AGENDA ITEM -Discussion of the si n ordinance as it ertains to the number of detached er site, ortable and trailer si ns. The Commission discussed the existing sign ordinance and possible revisions to it which would set up a permit system for temporary and trailer signs. They suggested that a time limit might be set on such signs. It was suggested that the permit application for temporary signs include specific location, size and other necessary information. The Commission discussed the methods employed by the City to investigate and handle violations of the sign ordinance. They advised Mr . Mayo to check with the City Attorney on this question. The Commjssion advised the staff to prepare an amending ordinance as discussed for consideration at the earliest possible date. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 --Discussion of number of unrelated persons constituting a family in Single Family zoned districts. The Commission discussed the problems caused by more than four unrelat~d persons _ living in a single family residence. They noted that, ~inte most residences pro~ided only two off-street parking spaces, one of th e main problems was one of several cars parked on the streets. Excessive noise and wa ste disposal problems we re also mentioned. The Com mission also discussed the fact that a need existed in the City for the type of housing where more than! four person lived in the single family resid e nce . ! Ms . Vicky Rinkey, Gunsm.ith Street, stated that she was very concerned about the problem . She noted that traffic and parking were now a problem in her area that did not exist before the homes were occupied by student •.rent e rs. Mr . Gordon Echols, Lair Lane, stated that ·the to wnhomes in which he lived had begun to attract several students and that this had ma de his neighborhood less desirable for permanent residents. He stated that he ·felt the Zoning Ordinance gave the Commission the power to protect the character of single family areas and asked that this be done. A resident stat e d that he fel t any ch a nge as dis cussed would be an econo mic ha rdship on owners of single family rental units. Co mmissioners Wat son and Ett er agr ee d to wor k t og ether to study th e qu estion a nd con- sid e r posssible ordinance revi s ion s addr es sin g t he probl ems discussed a nd providing a me a ns for enfo r ceme nt. AGE NDA ITEM NO. 10 --Oth er· busin ess. Mr . Mayo r emin ded th e Com mi ss io n of th e join t meet ing be t we en th e Plannin g Co mm i ss io ns and t he County Co mm i ss ion ers on Apr il 10 at 7 :00 P.M. Mr. Mayo propo sed t hat th e poli cy on zone change r e qu es t s be ch a nge d t o provid e th at the app licant not be allo wed to pub li sh not ic e fo r th e Ci ty Co uncil hear in g until after th e Co mm ission ha d mad e a r ecomme nda tion on t he r e qu est. He no te d t ha t thi s wo uld giv e '"-'-""'--..._..__ ........ ~ -................ - July 16, 1979 MEMORANDUM: TO: FROM: Planning and Zoning Cc mmissioners Al Mayo, Director of Planning ~.....,., Agenda Items, July 19, 1979 SUBJECT: 3. The addition of a fellowship hall does not require any additional parking s~aces according to ·the Zoniny Ordinance . . The staff sees no problems .. @ 1 have. p;·epared two .ordinances but at this time I can only present one of ~hem for consideration. This ordinance merely . . . . defines portable and trailer signs as detached signs for enforce- ment purposes. Obviously, this means that if a site already has a detached sign it could not h~ve a portable sign unless it also meetsihe,requirements of the sect-ion included dealing -with detached signs for large sites. (Tfris acco~plishes the obvious intent of the ord i na nce which is to allow only one sign that i.s not attached t o the buildin9 to prevent the visual ·blight of multiple signs. Part of the reason _f?<not propo~ing a pe.rmjt system is ·that we failed to get a Zoning Inspector . . ..... · .. :·· .. · . . . . . . approved ~in this year_' s budget. To add another permit tg .. keep up wi .th at this time is just too much to handle efficiently~ - The other portion of the ordinance sets up requirements to al low very large commercial and industrial projects to have more than one detached sign. 5. I frankly feel that the islands Mr. Culpepper is proposing in Phase I will be built any wa y, whether we approve this revision or not. Phase II is relat ive ly well designed, and I see no reason to back off now. I thi_nk thi s revision is proposed to . balance th e appearance of the whol e proj ect. If you rec a ll I said almost two years ago tha t 0h en Ph a s e II is built th a t the City of Coll e ge Sta tion Planning -and Zoning Co ~m i ss ion Mee ting ( July 19, 1979 ' 7:00 P.M. ( MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairm an Etter; Co ~m issioner s Behling, Ha zen, Sears, Stover; Council Liaison Boughton; Director of Plann i ng Mayo, Zoning Official Callaway, Planning Assistant Longley. MEMBERS ABSENT : Comm i ssioners Sweeney, Chairman Watson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 --Approval of minutes -meeting of July 5, 1979 . Commissioner Sears moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Haz en and approved with Commissioner Stover abstaining. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 --Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 --A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit to Our Savior's Luth e ran Church loc at ed at Cro s s and Tauber Street for the construction of a fellows hip hall and Sun day School rooms as an addition to its existing facility . Mr. Mayo sho wed the proposed plan an d sta te d that the staff saw no problems with the proposal . The public he aring was op ened. Mr. John Blaezen, Chairman of the Chu r ch's Council, spoke in favor of the requested use permit. No one spo ke in opposition. The public hearing was closed . Commissioner Sears moved th at the permit be granted .. The motion wa s seconded by Co mm ission er Haze n and approved with Commissioner Stov er voting against. Co mm iss i on e r Stov e r stat e d th at he was not oppo s ed t o the pa rtic ul a r pr oj ect, but felt th at s ome thing shoul d be don e abou t the ov e rall probl em of parking and acc ess in th e Nor h ate are a . Mr. Mayo ou t lin e d th e proposed or din ance . He not e d that th e ord in anc e would clas s ify tr a il e r s ig ns as detached signs thus all owing only on e s ign per buildi ng sit e . He sta t e d th at th e ordin a nce a l so prov ided f or more th a n one deta c hed si gn s on very l a r ge site s ha vi ng at l east 1,0 00 fee t of f ronta ge on more th a n on e ma j o r \ UUIJ ..LJ) .A.JIJ 7:00 P.M. arterial street. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ron Cruse asked if any variance proceedure to the requirements of the ordinarice had been proposed. Mr. Mayo stated that .no variance proceedure was included in the proposed amendment. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Mayo pointed out that a problem would exist with service station pr~;ce signs. Commissioner Behling suggested that a permit system could be worked out for the trailer signs. Mr. Mayo noted that another ordinance had been prepared that included a permit system. He explained, however, that at the present time, the Planning Department did not have enough staff to take on another permit proceedure. He advised that a recent survey had shown between 35 and 40 existing trailer signs. Commis~ioner Stover suggested that a "purpose'' section be added to the ordinance stating the intent of the amendment. The Commission discussed the question of service station price signs. (, Comnfissioner Hazen suggested that a maximum si.ze be set for the price signs. ( ' Commissioner Behling suggested that service station signs should not be exempted from the ordinance. Mr. Mayo stated that he would check \vith service station owners and tf.ie ;i si gn companies on the cost and usefulness of the price signs. Commissioner Stover moved that the ordinance be tabled and reconsidered .after a determination had been made on how to han dle the service station signs and the writting of a purpose statement. The motion ~1as seconded by Cammi ssioner Sears and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 --Consideration of a proposed revision to the parkihg.'lot layout for Culpepper Plaza. Mr. Mayo presented the proposed revision. He stated that he thought the revision would improve .the circulation.and appeara0ce in th~ ent1re parking lot, but that he felt the City should not give up what it had gain ed in phase 2. The Co mmission discussed the propo sed revisi on with the developer, Mr . John Culp epper . Mr. Culp epper stated that he could not afford to build phase 2 as shown on the approv ed plan plus the proposed additions to phase 1. The Co mm ission discuss ed th e need to work out the circu l at ion problem in th e area in front of 3-C and Trudie's. • •'\,..4--JU · · ·-1 1 tv •"' . Me m o ~ Page 2 (;~~~-,-~;:; probably be a tract of land be tween th e dam and the extension of 'io'."!.''z;~~i~{t~,;:/:~: •.:~~; ~ ~:~~!-· ~·J). Holleman for l ighter com mercial use accessory to the mall. Fin a ny ?;~if:{ii~it~ • . .... · .. ~.--... ~)~ :·· .~? across Hollem an, is the mall, although certafoly an expanse of _,·~7t_"'.:~t~;f: ·,:·:::_7:_~~,_::..·~, parking lot will separate .the r.iall itself from Holleman. I would ._. .. ;~·~· .. ~;:j~1 -. -··~1 · submit that the mall is not "across the street" from Sutton Place . .,.;~1~ . : 1 Aside from this, Sutton Place is not a oood tract for commercial --- development. Richard Smith already has one flood plain C-1 tract at Harvey Road and Texas Avenue. How many projects has he built there? 8. The problem may be getting a site plan approved for an apartment project on Tract B unless it is developed as part of the Courtyard Apartments on Tract A. The access should be on Stallings. The zoning is R-6> and I would certainly hope that the City would not consider commercial . zoning for. a tract only 191 feet deep on this thoroughfare. survey of gas stations {including drive-in grocery stores with gas pumps) revealed 24 stations total, 10 of which had n~~as price infor- ' ·ma tion advertised. Of th e 14 with gas price informatfon,. only seven had that infonnation on a portable sign. ~ie have not ye t talked _ to any . station operaters. · We recommend leaving the ordinance as it was at . i the last fjleeting. One thought might be, ho wever, to add to the ordina~e wording to allow gas station ·· · .y_, tQ _.add-pr"ce information to existin g ~ch~d signs. or s wfthi. ~ain 1 imita_tions . w~ the area being i ncluded in wable area of the deta~hed sign. The - - -------~_.;-;.-----=c~~ should be approved by the City. · -~ •.'· .·. -~ ·. . : ·~ ·. ·: ·:_ 10. Since. we approved _ the Landscaping and Safety Ordinance for parking-lots we have had several inquiries frcm potential applicants (some of ~horn ev e ntu a lly made applica t ion) who tried to ci r cumv ent th e or dinance by buildin g 19 pa rking spac es . It i s my fe e ling that all pa rking lots for th e ge ne ral public should r e ce i ve pr.ap er revi ew and have so me stand a rd . . sm a ll lots on .ma jor thorou ghf a r es can ca use ma ny pr obl em s just as l a r ge lo t s can, and c er t ainly a l ot wit h 18 or 19 s paces i s vi ~tu a lly no dif fe r ent fro m a .lot wi t h 20 spa ces . Thi s ordin a nc e r equires all co m- me rci a l and ind us trial lot s to co me unde r th e jurisd i ction of th e parki ng ordin anc e; how ever, lo ts with le ss th an 20 s paces can be r evi ewed by~ th e P.R.C. unl ess th e a pp licant wi s hes to go to th e P & Z. ·• ............... .:J ............. --·····.J 1979 Co mmissio ne r .Swe eney moved that th e pl a t be de nied. The motion wa s seconded by Co mm ission e r Ha z::n and unani mously approved . AGENDA IT E No. 850 as applies to detached signs, t e~~orarY signs and trailer signs. Commissioner Stover moved that the item be r em oved from the table. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sweeney and unanimously approved. ·: Mr. Mayo went over the results of a survey of gas stations and their price signs. Mr. Mayo suggested that the ordinance allow gas stations to affix their portable price signs to an existing detached sign or a light standard after obtaining a permit for the sign. He suggested that the area of the price sign not apply to the total sign area allowed. Mr. Mayo stated that he had written no sp e cific wording for this section but that he could prepare it before presentatio n of the ordinance to Council. Chairman Watson stated that he felt if th e po rtable sign did not create a traffic hazard or in some way damage the public ·in trest that the City sh6uld not be ~·· · • allowed to regulate them. Mr. Mayo stated that a sign did not have to be a traffic hazard to damage the i appearance of the City and that there wer e ca ny citizens who are :concerned with ! . the appearance of the City. Commissioner Stover moved that the Co mm is s i on recomme nd adoption of the ordinance with the inclusion of a statement regulatin g gas station price sign s. The motion was seconded by Co mmissioner Ha z en and approved with Chairman Watson voting against. AGENDA ITEM N0.10 --A public hea~ing of the question of adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850 to exp~n d the jurisdiction of the land- scaping and safety requirements for parki ng ar eas in co mm ercial and industrial zones. Mr. Mayo explained that the amendment would r e quire all parking areas in co mmercial and industrial zones to be considered by th e P.R.C. but that only those with 20 ' or more spaces would be submitted to the C o~~ission . He pointed out that the ordinance now gave the City Engineer the po~e r to appro ve all parking lots with more than 5 spaces but that this often pu t the Engin ee r in a difficult position and it would be helpful to have th e P.R.C. to back up his decisions. Chairman Llatson suggested th a t th e proc e s s wou ld slow dow n the building pe r mi t process on s ma ll commerci a l project s . Mr . Mayo st ate d th a t P.R.C. meet ings coul d b:: se t up very 'quic kly and tha t the propo s ed sys tem would not slo w down th e process . ( Co mm issioner Be hling sugge s t ed that th e Ci ty Engine er could take care of th e situation as stated in th e pr es ent ordin ance. The public hea ring wa s opened. POST OFFICE OOX 9960 1101 TEXAS r\VEl\'LJE COLLEGE STATJO:--r. TEXAS 77840 August 20, 1979 MEMO RAN our.1: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City CounciV"men Al Mayo, Director of Planning · Agenda Items, August 23, 1979 . Annexation of a 184.8 acre tract: The Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend this annexation. Part of this tract is in the flood plain, but some development co uld take place. Utility service is no problem. Mr. Wheeler has .said that the development could be of a nature · to 11 support11 the Wheeler Ridge and Texas .Instruments projects. Annexation of a 250 acre tract: This is the Texas Instrume nts site. Utility service is no problem. The staff and P & Z recommend the annexation. Annexation of a 323.2 acre tract: This is an expansion of South\·mo d Valley to Wellborn Road. Utility · · service is no problem. The Staff and P & Z recommend the annexation . . I i . Request for rezoning -Sutton Place: The Planning and Zoning Commission-.reco mmen ds approval '.:of the rezoning. I cannot in any way, however, support this action. There is . absolutely no logic to rezoning a flood plain like this commercial use. Mr. Smith already owns a flood plain commercial tract at Texas Avenue and Harvey Road. Please take note of the "activity" on that site! There i's now and can always be more than adequate buffer between these larqe single-family lots and t he regional ·~all. He will surely receive requests from many developers in the future foi commercial zonin g on the byp a ss. Proper pl annin g would allow only the best of -those requests to be approved unl ess we want strip co mme rcial development on the bypass. This requ est could only rate as on e of the worst. I might refer you to the minu tes of this item. Mr. Smith owns all of the street in Sutton Place, no t half of it, and should be -responsible for improving the \'1hole street, hims elf. Am end Zoning Ordin ance -Siqns: Th is ordin a nce \·Jill allow more than on e detached s ign on very l arge sites und er prescribed conditions. It also trea ts portable and trailer signs ju st as detached signs because th eir impact i s exa ctly the sa me as a de tached sign. The ordi nan c · d~d as reco mmended by th e J P & Z including sp ecial \·mrd 'ng ab o as nee s ·i ns at fi1ling s fa 1ons . Thi s ·is add ed because we feel that this informatio n ·i s Mem o Page 2 needed by the public. Ur.li ke t he o_tb..e r portable signs, gas price signs have been around ~rs. Amend Zoning Ordinance expand jurisdiction of parking review: The P & Z recommended approval of the ordinance as presented. The problem the Staff is having is applying similar requirements of the existing ordinance to small co m:ne rcial projects with less than twenty {20) parking spaces. Th ese small businesses can generate a substantial amount of traffic, especially when several are concentrated in a strip on a major thoroughfare. The small businesses would not need a P & Z review unless they request it. The P.R.C., includfn~J the City Planner, City Engineer, and P & Z Commissioner;, can usually assemble for a review on very short notice. This should not cause any more delay to the building permit process. Amend Zoning Ordinance -filing fees Permit fees should not be set by ordinance. Council policy should be .adequate action to change the fee for rezoning requests and conditional use permits. The ordinance books are cluttered enough -now.. The P & Z recommends approval. If passed \·/e will · reque.st a fee for rezonings to cover the actual cost of rezonings at the next meeting. Final Plat -Lakeview Acres At some time we \·Ii 11 need to acquire additional right-of-way on these lots on Miller's Lane for the extension of FM 2818; however, at this time we do not know just exac tly how much we will need. The Highway Departme~t has not begun the construction plans sirice thfs fs not yet a high priority project. The P & Z approved the plat adding a note requiring a 75-foot front setback which was agreeable to Mr. Bertrand, the owner. : . ·. Policy on Driveway width: The P & Z consid~red this ftem and determined was very adequate and reco mmends no change. . ' .... · . . . . . that the ordinance . ·-.' ( J ( REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Page 2 ~ August 23, 1979 7:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6--A public h earing on the question of rezoning the Sutton Place Addition from Single Family Residential District R-1 to General Commercial District C-1. The rezoning in initiated by the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission. City Planner Mayo presented and explained the proposal. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one spoke. Agenda Item No. 7--Consideration of an ordinance rezoning the above tract. Councilman Dozier moved to table this item because no one was present to represent the area being considered. Councilman Jones seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. A enda -Consideration of an ordinance the Zonin No.850 ies to detache d si and trailer City Planner Mayo explained the proposed amendment. Councilman Adams asked if a trailer was defined. s. Councilman Dozier suggested adding a proviso stating that this ordinance does not apply to moving vans and such vehicles. The public hearing was opened and clos e d when no one spoke. -Consideration of an ordinance amendin Ordinance No.850. Counc~lm an A ~ _moved to tabl e t~i s ite~. Councilman Jones .seconded the motion, which failed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Ad ams , Jones Aga i nst: Councilmen Dozier, Halter, Ringer The general opinion of the Council was the trouble with se c tion 8.D.10. Councilman Ringer sugges ted that permits be issued for a s h ort period of time for special sales allowing "trailer signs". Councilman Ringer mov ed tha t the propos e d amend ment b e passed, with the omission of 8.D.10. Sect ion 8.D.11 would then b e lab e led "8.D.10, Special Proviso". Councilma n Do zier . seconded the motion, which p assed by the following vote: For: Councilmen Ringer, Do zier , Halter, Jones Ag ainst: Coun cilm an Adams. This mot ion h ereby created Ordinance 1174. - Agenda Item_ No .10--A public h earing on the question of adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinan ce No .850 to expand the jurisdiction o f th e land- scaping and safety requirements for parking are as in commercia l and industria l zon es . .. ( ORDI NANCE NO. 1174 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI NANC E NO. 850. WHEREAS, the CitY Council held a public hearing in the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. on August 23, 1979, on the question of amending the Zoning Ordin ance No. 850; AND WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to amend Ordinance No. 850; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS:· The Zoning Ordinance Mo. 850 is hereby amended as follows: Section 8-0:6. delete the following: "No more than one (1) detached sign shall be allowed on any one building plot.11 Section 8-D.9. add the following: No more than one (1) detached sign shall be allowed on any one building plot except when all of the following conditions are met: (a). the site (building plot) must be zoned General Commercial C-1, Com mercial Industrial C-2, Planned Industrial M-1, or Heavy Industrial M-2. (b). the site must be a minimum size of twenty-five (25) acres. (c) .. the site must have a minimum of l,000 feet of continuous, ~nsubdivided frontage on each major arterial on which a sign is requested; only one (1) sign will be permitted on each major arterial; the major arterials are designated on the Comprehensive Plan for the City of College Station. Add Section 8-D.10. as follows: Section 8-0.10. SPECIAL PROVISO -FUEL PRICE SIGNS: Filling stations ;will be allowed one sign per site advertising the current price of fuel only, the area of which will not be included in the allowable area of their detached sign. These price signs shall have a maximum area of fifteen (15) square feet and cannot be located within the right-of-way. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of approval and publication. PASSED AND APPROVED this 23~ay of August, 1979. APPROVED . ' · ATTEST: " ,,. . L : ,/ .I . . . -. l . .l j,/ .l--. (;;/'~/,, Ci.ty Secretary , _ .... l ·.·.·: ._M ~ ~tember lo? 1979 ''·. Page 2 REZONING 2.47 ACRE TRACT C-1 to R-5 -Southwood Vallev: . . This tract is directly across Airline Drive from the townhouse project just built by Larry Landry. Mr. Fitch and Mr. Landry intend to build mor~ townhouses and possibly some four-plexes on this site. The P & Z recommends approval. ?I PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS: . . ' This ordinance would establish a permit system for portable/trailer signs. Transport vehicles are excluded in Section 8-D.ll.l. ·Permits would be issued to shopping center ·tenants for special purposes only. This is to prevent signs advertising job applications, apartments for rent, etc. Everyone but a shopping center tenant has got exposure and shouid not need another sign . The rest of the ordinance deals with location, time 0 allowed, violation notification, etc. Please note Section 8-D.11.12. ·This would enable us to clear up the existing situation. We propose to notify everyone of the permit provision \·rho now has a portable/trailer sign if this ordinance is approved. . . :LANDSCAPING/SAFETY -Parking Areas: t ' ... ··:·.: . This ordinance ii e~actly as present~d at the last meeting exc~pt that \ the staff will handle the smaller lot review instead of the Project Review Committee. The only thing that this ordinance does is to make the sta~dards ,.. _ of ;the landscaping/safety ordinance apply to the parking lots with less than t\'lenty (20) spaces. . · · . ,· . r MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT -Hi 11 iamsberg Addition: Th~ staff, p ::& Z, and the project engineer, Don Garrett, all agreed at the p & z meeting that -this is not actually° a preliminary plat review. I ~equest th~t the Council make this clear also. This is a proposed planned unit development. The project engineer is requesting approval/disapproval from the City for the basic concept and any problems seen before he and ·his client, Glen Williams, proceed with the expense and work of p~eparing _ the P.U.D. plans and data for presentation~:-:' They; in fact, cannot get approval. of a prelim_inary plat yet because they have not presented all 'the information required of a P.U.D. · · · FINAL PLAT~ Resubdivision Lots 13 and 14,· Block 28; Southwood Valley: The P & Z approved the pl at conditfona lly. They want the utility easement added back to the side lot line between Lots 13 and 14. The plat merely takes property from Lot 14 and adds it to Lot 13. Both are still well over the minimum lot size. FINAL PLAT -Resubdivision -Colleg e Heights, College Vista, and D. A. Smith Additions:· The developer proposed to build a shopping center on the tract made up of all these lots. The P & Z approv ed the plat. ( ( K.r,.lJULftl\. VJ.. .L .L vv '"""'' _...._ ........ Se t. 13 1979 :00 F.N. Councilman Dozier asked that P &Z lat er rezone the tract R-4 when the ordinance is change d. Agenda Item No.10--Consideration of early renayment to Clyde Bickham for land. Assistant City Manager, Finance Van Dever explained the request and recommended repayment of around $20,000. Councilman Halter moved to repay .Mr. Bickhaw out of the bond funds. Councilman 'Boughton seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilman Ringer, Boughton, Halter, Jones, Adams Against: Councilman Dozier, Mayor Bravenec Agenda Item No. 11--Consideration of an ord inance rezoning the Sutton Place Addition from Single Family Resid e ntial District R-1 to General Co mmer cial District C-1. Councilman Ringer moved to take this item off the table. Councilman Boughton seconded the motio~, which passed unanimously. City_ Planner Mayo presented and explained the plat. Richard Smith, owner, spoke in favor of the rezoning. City Engineer Ash pointed out that the street was not wide enough for a comme rcial street and would have to be widened before a building permit could be issued. He --.:'::>asked whose responsibility this would be. ' Richard Smith said he would upgrade hi s part of the street and stated that CBL said they would f -o:r their part of the street. Councilman Halter moved approval of the C-1 zoning, creating Ordinance 1182. Councilman Dozier seconde d the motion, which passed by the following vote: For: Councilme n Ringer, Dozier, Hal ter , Jones, Adams Against: Councilma n Boughton, Mayor Bravene c Councilman Halter moved that the staff not issue a building permit until the present street is curbed and guttered. Councilman Ringer seconded the motion, ·which passed unanimously. o f an ordinance amendin the zonin ordinance as City Planner :M ayo presen ted and explained the propo sed ordinan c e . The Nayar noted tha t the public hearing had already been h e ld for this item; Culle n :Mancuso spoke against the propo sa l saying that people had made con siderable investment s to b e told.they coµld not u se their signs. Councilman Ringer move d to adopt Ordinance 1183 including a me ndme nts by th e City Nah a6::! Councilman Boughton seconde d the motion , •--hich pas sed by the followin g vot e : For: Councilme n Ringe r, Bou ghton, Halt e r , }1ay or Bravene c Against : Cou ncilmen Do z i er, Adams, Jon es -l t ' \_ \ I ORDINANCE N0.11!]_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 850 ESTABLISHING A PEP.MIT TO BE REQUIRED FOR PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS. WHEREAS, the City_ Council held a public hearing in the College Station City Hall at 7:00 p.m. on Auqust 23 , 1979, on the question of amending the Zoning Ordinance No. 850; AND WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to amend Ordinance No. 850; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: The Zoning Ordinance No. 850 is hereby amended as follows: Aod Section 8-D .ll. as follows: 8-D.ll . PORTABLE/TRAILER SIGNS: 8-D.11.1. Portable/trailer signs ~re defined as those signs that are not permanently affixed to the ground, excluding trucks, trailers, and other vehicles whose principal use is for transport instead of adver- tisement. :8-D.11.2. It shall be unlawful to locate a portable/trailer sign on any site within the City limits until the Zoning Official has determined that it is in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, and a building permit has been issued for said sign. 8-0.11.3. Permits for portable/trailer signs can only be issued for special purpose?, such as sales and grand openings, in General Commercial C-1 zones. 8-D.11.4. The maximum time allowed by permit shall be seven (7) days. 8-D.11.5. No more than one permit shall be issued for each business each ninety (90) days. 8-D:ll.6. An adequate site plan must be submitted with the application to locate the sign. 8-D.11.7. The portable/trailer sign shall be located only in a designated parking space on the site no closer than eight (8) feet from the curb of the street and no closer than twenty (20) feet from any curb cut or intersection. 8-D.11.8. The maximum size of the portable/trailer sign face shall be five (5) feet high.and tv1elve (12) feet vlide or sixty (60) square feet, with a maxumum height of six (6) feet. 8-D.11.9. No portable/trailer sign shall be lighted or have any moving or flashing parts. .. , 8-D.11.10. If the Zoning Official shall find a violation of any prov1s1on of this ordinance, he shall notify th e pe rson responsible to cease such violation within a reasonable ti me to be determined by the Zoning Official. 8-D.11.11. If the violation is not reme died within the time pre s cribed by the Zoning Official, the said official may cancel the portable/trailer sigo permit, if any, and bring action against the party or parties in violation pursuant -to Section 14 of Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance. 8-D.11.12. All existing portable/trailer signs in use as of the effective date of this ordinance must comply with the provisions of this ordinance within ninety (90) days of the effective date or be found in violation thereof. This ordinance _shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of approval and publication. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13!!:!_ day of Sep tem ber, 1979. APPROVED ,' , I.; .. ,. -' -- \ \ r~~·;;.~~7:.~~.~~~J~ii~~~~;;~;x-)JI~;r:r.{-r;;~:~2:r:.;::~y:·r;::~:r~~:J~:~~~· In a mom e ntous d ecision th a t greatly broad ened the tort l ia bility of municipal governments, the Texas Supr e me Court recently rul ed that cities must ke ep traffic intersections clear of visual obstruc- tions or pay for thB acciclen ts that result. The imm edi a te loser in th e s uit was the Ci ty of Midl a nd (pop . 70,948) whic h will pay $975,000 in damages. b ec a use of its all eg ed negligen ce in not correcting h az a r d - ous co ndition s at a blind inter- s ection_ The suit w as brought by D av i d Jezek on behalf of his son, K eit h, who wa s hurt in a 1977 motor v ehicl e a cc id ent. Jezek h ad ed g ed his car i11to a n i n t er se cti o n b ecause his vi ew of traf f i c w as blocK ed by bru sh and m es quite trees growing along-sid e th e ro a d wa y . J ez e k's auto wa s hit b y a tru c k trave lin g a t high sp ee d; h e suffered s e v e re injuries , in c l ud in g p e rm ane nt b rai n damag e . · The tri a l j ury found th a t mesquit e a nd oth e r bru s h h a d grown up at th e inte r se ction; th at such ob s truct ed th e vi ew; and that the City fail e d to m a intain th e intersection· in a rea s on a bly sa f e condition, w h i ch constituted n eg li- gence a nd a prox im ate ca use of the injuri es s ust ained. Despite th e j ury's finctin gs , th e trial jud ge r e n de r e d ju dgm:::nt again s t J ezek, h ol din g th a t th e City w as not l iab l e fo r acc i den t s cause cl by vi su a l traffi c o bs tru c ti o n s. Th e Court of Civil Ap pea l s affirm e d, citi ng T exas ' "close p r ox- imity rul e ." Under th e cl os e pro x imi t y stan d u d, as it w as previ o u s l y int e r p r e ted by t h e courts , th e r e co v e ry of cf3rna9es age.ins t citi es W ctS li mit e d t o a c c i d e n t s ari s ing o •.i t o f p hysi ca l c!e f ec t s i n th e trav2 /e cl poriion o f a m uni cipe:I stre e t; "ncl citi es v1e re no t l i able for accid e nt s cau s~!d by v i su a l ob struc- tion s w ithin t h e unimproved por tion of a s tre::!t r ight-o f -w a y. Th e T exas S u p r e m e C o u rt Au gus t, 1 ~3 0 ----- rev ers e d th e Co u rt of Civil App ea ls, s a yin g the l ow er court erred in its n a rro w inte rpretation of the cl ose proxi mity rul e . Th e Supreme Court poi n ted out the "we lf-es te.blis hed rule that th e me.inte nance of streets in a saf e cond i tion i s a proprieta ry fun c tion, and that a ci ty is li a bl e for its n egl ig e nce in t h e perfo r m ance of this function." Moreov er, t h e Court said, the duty to main tai n s tre3 ts in a saf e conditi o n "is not !i rn it e d to th e trav el ed porti on of th e st r ee t a l one, but ex t e n ds to the pr ev en tio n of d e fects out s id e. ·the trav e l e d or impro'1e d porti on of th e s tree t it its pro xi mity th ereto r ende r s it prob- a bl e th a t su c h defect w ill r es ult in inj ury to t hose us ing th e i mproved p or tio n of th e st r eet." Th e Co urt's d eci si on in J eze k v1as s tron g ly i n flu e n ce d by th e f ac ts th a t: • At l eas t on e ot h er w reck h ad o cc ur re d at the sa m::i int e r se cti o n; • Prior t o Je ze k's acc i de nt, th e City h ad b ee n inform ed of th e h az<:r d ou s s i t u at io n; a nd .. Th e Ci ty h ad ta !{e n no ac ti on to r ec ti f y th e h az ardous s i t uat i on. Thus, th e Court fou n d, "th e City of Midl a nd kn e w or should h av e known of th e o bst r u cti o n of vi ew; t he C ity d id no t m a in t<l in th e int e r s e c t ion in a r ea so nab ly sa f e c ondit i on ; and thi s w as n eg li gence and a pr ox i m a t e c ause of t he a cc iden t .'' ''W e th erefo r e h o l d ,'' th e Co u rt sai d, "t ha t v1here a city kno •N!ng ly m ain t::!ins an in t e r sec t ion r igh ~-o f -\·1ay i n a m a nn er whi cr: d an£;e r ous l y ob s tructs t h e vis i on of m o tor i s t s u s i ng t h e stre e t, i t i s u ncl er a d uty to w a r n of· t h e d a n9 e r o r, if n e c essa ry , mak e saf e t h e d e f ec t i·1e co r:d ition . Wh e r e , as h !::r e, t he city h as b :;:~r 1 g i v e n n otice of t re d ~n ge r t:inc! d o e s n o t ac t, l iab i lity '.'till at ta ch ." lJ i ,. .. • City o f College S tation PO Sf OFFICE BOX 9960 I I 0 I TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, T EXAS 7 7 840 May 10, 1982 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee, Zoning Official FROM: ~-0. John Black, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Portable Signs Portable signs do not convey information to drivers as well as permanent lighted signs placed at heights above eight feet. These signs (portable signs) also create sight distance hazards for drivers exiting driveways and adjacent city streets. For these reasons, portable signs should be discouraged. Many owners place these signs just off the curb because the information on the sign is at or below eye level of the approaching driver. A driver with good vision can only decern 3 or 4 word messages from a sign using 6 inch letters and mounted at an 8-10 ft. height. Portable signs at ground level convey only 2 or 3 word messages effectively. Portable signs are useless in areas where on-street parking is permitted and at night because non-reflective materials are used for the sign background . Because of their poor visibility, property owners often place these signs in city or state right-of-way 1t1hich causes blind intersections at adjacent driveways and intersecting streets. Attached is an article which outlines our municipal responsibility to remove visual obstructions in the right-of-way. Our city sign crew includes a sight distance check in their periodic sig n maintenance and inspection schedule. If during an inspection or in re s ponse to a citizen call they find the right-of-way obstructed, our crew will remove the sight distance problem. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS Appeal of Zoning Officials Interpretation -From Section 11-B.l I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretatjon meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. I move to interpret Section following manner: ~~~~~- of Ordinance 850 in the A G E N D A Zoning Board of Adjustment City of College Station, Texas May 18, 1982 7:00 P.M. 1. Swearing in of new members. 2. Approval of Minutes from April 20, 1982. 3. · Consideration 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. 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. S. Consideration 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. 6. Consideration 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. 7. Consideration of an Appeal Alleging an error in interpretation of Section 8-D.10 -Ord(nance 850 -Fuel Price Signs for a commercial project at 2200 Longmire in the name of Automotive Service World . 8. Other Business. 9. Adjourn