HomeMy WebLinkAbout211 Zoning Board of Adjustments November 2, 1982,.
•
•
•
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
MINUTES
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
November 2, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Members Upham, Donahue, Wagner, MacGilvray, Alternate Member
Lindsay and Council Liaison Boughton
Chairman Cook
Zoning Official Kee, Director of Planning Mayo and Planning
Technician Volk
Mr. Wagner made a motion for Upham to be acting chairman in the absence of Mrs. Cook.
Mr. MacGilvray seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -meeting of October 19, 1982.
Mr. Wagner referred to Agenda Item #3, page 5, and requested that it be corrected to
show that he (Wagner) had abstained, and that the motion carried 4-0 with one abstention.
Mr. MacGilvray referred to Agenda Item #5 page 6 and asked that 11 Mr. MacGilvray seconded
the motion; motion carried unanimously" be added.
With the above corrections and additions, Mr. Wagner moved that the minutes be approved
with Mr. MacGilvray seconding. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Reconsideration of a variance to Table A, Rear Setback 11 E11 requirement s
of Ordinance 850, at a proposed Village Square Office Park located in a neighborhood
commercial zoning district in Southwood Valley Sec. 5-A. Application is in the name of
G. Philip Mor l ey & William E. Loveless.
Mr. Wagner asked to be excused from participation in this item due to a conflict of
interest. He was excused and took a seat in the audience. Phil Morley was sworn in
and read a prepared statement concerning the proposed project. Mr. Upham then stated that
Mr. Morley had stated some germane facts about the project which had not been stated
previously. He cited the 1 imiting of uses to professional only which was mentioned
and stated the Board had not known this previously and had been thinking of commercial
or retail uses in this neighborhood at the previous meeting. Mr. Lindsay reiterated that
the required 15 ft. setback has been provided, and that this variance request only
concerns the 10 ft. clear space requirement. Mr. Upham pointed out that "location of
dumpster" was also in the request.
John Lofgren, a neighbor to the proposed project, was sworn in and stated the plan
presented tonight had changed since it was shown to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
He also as ked where the 10 ft. 1 ine was, then talked about C-N zoning districts as being
special districts, and that this one in particular was special because it was the last
C-N district to be developed. He spoke of Mr. Morely gaining more than access, then
referred to the beautiful homes in that neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood
would not be getting much. He then offered to present to the Board an alternative pro-
ject design he had had drawn.
Mr. MacGilvray quickly pointed out that in offering an alternative site plan Mr. Lofgren
was straying from the jurisdiction of this Board. Mr. MacGilvray then publicly apologized
•
•
•
Lt:SA Minutes
11-2-82
page 2
to the Board and the public for bringing up the subject of sit e plans at the previous
meeting, and stated that he is now aware that by doing that, he was acting outside the
jurisdiction of the Board. Mr. Lindsay offered the same apology in regard to the amend-
ment which he had proposed and then withdrew at the previous meeting.
Mr. Upham then referred to what Mr. Lofgren had referred to as the "gift of the easement''
from the City. He pointed out the City no longer accepts this type of easement, and then
stated that if there was indeed a gift, it is double barreled, that is, the land in this
easement is a useless piece of property which the City would, under other circumstances,
have to maintain, and besides this, the City is gaining the equivalent of a paved street
almost the full length (but not quite) of this drainage area for use in maintenance and
fire fighting. Mr. Upham then indicated that who maintained the area could be addressed
in .the motion.
Paul Beckingham, another neighbor was sworn in and asked if this paved road would go
through to Deacon, and Mr. Upham said it would not, but there must be access for fire
control, and the plan had been referred to the Fire Marshal who has approved the plan.
Mr. MacGilvray said that the 10 ft. free and clear access referred to in the Ordinance
was for the purpose of fire control, as near as can be ascertained. Mr. Beckingham said
the location of the parking spaces in front of the project had been reversed originally
because of fire control and now what had not been allowed in front is being allowed .
in the rear. Mr. Upham asked Mrs. Kee if this was a matter of Ordinance requirement,
and she said no, but the Fire Marshal had approved this because a maximum of 2 spaces
would be affected in the rear, simply because of the location of a fire hydrant the
developer will be adding on site. Mr. Beckingham questioned this again, and Mr. Upham
said he could only assume that this was perfectly acceptable since it had the approval
of the Fire Marshal as attested to by a letter which was included in the packet the
Board members had received.
Al Mayo, Director of Planning was sworn in and stated the Fire Marshal checks projects
to make sure that every building is within 150 feet of a fire lane, and the buildings
in front of this project fall within this distance so do not require fire lanes, and the
addition of the fire hydrant provides that coverage in the rear, then he pointed out
on the site plan how fire control would work. He then addressed the 10 ft. clear require-
ment in the Ordinance and pointed out that the 15 ft. setback is provided for, and that
the 10 ft. clear requirement is the only variance requested in the variance. He reported
that the meeting he had with Mr. Lofgren had resulted in even a stronger feeling that
a C-N district is a special zone and that staff would 1 ike to point out to any opponents
of this project that if they still have questions regarding the site plan, they should
address these questions to the City Council in the form of an appeal of a decision made
by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that staff would 1 ike to inform the Board
and the public that all departments within the City have been heavily involved in the
approval of this site plan, and that staff would 1 ike to thank the Board for reconsidera-
tion being given the project tonight and would 1 ike to ask for a granting of this variance
request.
Mr. Lindsay asked if there was 29 ft. from the property 1 ine to the building 1 ine, and
after Mr. Mayo explained, Mr. Lindsay again pointed out that he does not want to get
into a site plan d e cision. Mr. Upham asked about the dumpster location and Mr. Morley
pointed it out and informed the Board that it had been included in the request for
variance because it would be located in this required 10 ft. clear area.
Marl in Miller came forward and was sworn in and stated that he is concerned about this
access road and the possibility of it extending to Deacon and requested that this be
included in the variance request. Mr. Mayo and Mr. Lindsay pointed out that this is not
within the jurisdiction of this Board. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that everything out
of a particular 1 ine on the site plan is out of their jurisdiction. Mr. Morley was
•
•
•
Lt:SA Minutes
l l -2-82
pa.ge 3
asked if curbing was to be included and he said the City would
was amenable to blocking that end of this drive but could not.
Mr. Mill e r to approach the City Council with his request.
control that, but that he
Mr. Lindsay advised
Mr . Lofgren ask e d a question regarding the dumpster and whether it was considered storage
and also pointed out that a fence is considered an obstruction. Mr. Mayo pointed out
that the only qu e stion before the Board is 11 do you want 10 ft. clear space or not'', and
the qu e stion r e garding the dumpster is that it could be relocated easily,but the Director
of Public Servic e has agreed to this location, and if this question is addressed, it
should be to th e City Council. Mr. Lindsay said the question is "is there 10 ft. clear 11
and that he believes there actually is because of the City land which is being used.
Mr. Lindsa y made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) Rear
Setbac k 11 E11 requirements bf Ordinance 850 from the terms of this ordinance as it will not
be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions
of the land not normally found in like districts: that 10 ft. clear is provided off the
property, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done. Mrs. Donahue seconded the motion; motion carried
unanimously, with Mr. Wagner not voting or taking part in the discussion.
Mr. Wagner then made a statement and asked ·Mr. Mayo to define right-of-way, and went on
to say that a street in front of a property is a right-of-way and this rear right-of-way
can be handled in any way the City wants. Mr. Mayo repl led that right-of-way grants
s pecific public use of land, although the City does not own it under most instances.
This particular right-of-way is for access and drainage. The City owns the right to
use a ri gh t-of-way, but the people on each side of a right-of-way actually own that
area. He gav e as an example oil rights, and the City has none, but would if it owned
right-of-way by virtue of location of streets in virtually every area.
AGENDA ITEM NO . 3: Reconsideration of a request for a variance of Section 8-D.3 Ordi-
na nce 85 0 pertaining to signs; the request is for additional sign(s) at each of 9
s o rority houses in the Greek Village Subdivision. Application is in the name of the
College Panhellenic Association of College Station.
Penny Ditton and Joy Howze were sworn in and read the amendment to their request for
variance: Requested one sign per lot in addition to permanent identification, either
attached or detached, no larger than 100 sq. ft. to be located in the front yard no
closer than 25 ft. from the curb (and nothing within the site distance triangle on
corner lots), a detached sign not to exceed 10 ft. in height and an attached sign not
to extend above the roof overhang. No sign is to have flashing lights or moving parts.
Sign s should be displayed only for a reasonable length of time to cover an event and
will not require individual permits. They verbally added that they would like for one
sign with moving parts to be allowed occasionally, and then mentioned said sign would
be lit with spot lights.
The Board discussed this request, suggested several changes, and conferred with Mrs.Kee
regarding what th e Ordinance would allow . Mr. Lindsay asked if this request for variance
had be e n discuss e d with the neighbors and Miss Ditton and Miss Howze indicated that
it had onl y been discussed with them at the last regular ZBA meeting. Mr. Lindsay and
Mr. Upham both indicated they did not like the moving parts addition. Mrs. Donahue
asked ho w the granting of this variance would affect other associations in the City and
was informe d that this request only appl led to the sorority houses in the platted sub-
division called Greek Village, in which there were 10 lots, and that any association
outside this subdivision would have to apply for any variance they wished to be granted.
Mr. Lindsay read the part of the Ordinance which refers to all signs having to comply with
th e building code and this ordinance, and said that this variance would not exempt them
•
•
•
ZBA Minutes
11-2-82
p~ge 4
from complying wit h the building code and that dangers, etc. would be covered by the
building code. Mr. Upham point ed out that what the Board could do is to allow a second
sign with certain conditions.
Mr. Lindsay said he would make a motion, but still had reservations about moving parts
on these signs. After discussion, Mr. Lindsay did make a motion to authorize a variance
to the sign regulations of Section 8, from the terms of this ordinance as it will not
be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions
of the land not normally found in like districts: This is a platted Greek Village, and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnec-
essary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and sub-
stantial justice done and with the fol lowi ng special conditions: granting one (l) sign
per lot in addition to the permanent identification, either attached or detached, no
larger than 100 sq. ft., to be locat~d in the front yard no closer than 25 ft. to the
curb (and nothing within the site distance triangle on corner lots), a detached sign
not to exceed 10 ft. in height or an attached sign not to extend above the roof overhang.
No sign is to have flashing lights, sound or mechanical moving parts. Signs shall be
displayed only for a reasonable length of time to cover an event. Mr. Wagner seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business
Mrs. Kee informed the Board that Mr. Searcy and Mr . Guidry were here to discuss the
power 1 ine across Mr. Searcy 1 s property, as requested by the Board. Mr. Upham explained
to Mrs. Donahue who was absent from the meeting at which this was discussed previously.
(See Minutes from August 17, 1982).
Mr. Guidry came forward to explain that 6 or 8 months ago Mr. Searcy came by his office
to ask him to remove a power line between 106 and 108 Southland. He showed a map to the
Board and Mr. Searcy, then explained how utility service is carried to the south side
of Southland and further explained that this 1 ine is an original REA line which the City
purchased when this area was annexed. Mr. Searcy said that he didn't recall it being
there then, but that he believes it has been moved to its present location. Mr. Guidry
then explained that the City doesn't have another route to use no w, but if Mr. Searcy
could help acquire an easement, the possibility of servicing the area from Southwest
Parkway could be explored. He also indicated there is no way to estimate a time lapse
on this, and Mr. Searcy expressed his confidence that Mr. Guidry will do everything
possible to help eliminate this worry.
Mr. Upham brought up the subject of Home Occupations and discussion by all Board Members
followed concerning definitions, specific and general. Mrs. Kee told the Board that
what she was after was direction from the Board concerning the limit of traffic a home
occupation could generate, and that the staff itself is working toward reviewing the
current Zoning Ordinance, and this subject will then be studied in depth.
Mr. Lindsa y requested a workshop with the City Attorney to cover obligations and duties
of this Board. Monday, Dece mbe r l, 1982 was chosen as the date to aim for.
Mr. Upha m requested the Cit y Attorney be consulted about what can be done to change the
requirement of separate paperwork for each day of a violation.
Mr. MacGilvray announced that the first meeting of the Northgate Committee would be at
9:00 A.M. Thursday, November 4th .
L.Ur\ lllllULt:::::>
11-2-82
... ' p ~ge 5
Mrs. Donahue mad e a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
• APPROVED:
Jack Upham, Acting Chairman
ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
•
•
•
•
•
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
MINUTES
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
November 2, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Members Upham, Donahue, Wagner, MacGilvray, Alternate Member
Lindsay and Council Liaison Boughton
Chairman Cook
Zoning Official Kee, Director of Planning Mayo and Planning
Technician Volk
Mr. Wagner made a motion for Upham to be acting chairman in the absence of Mrs. Cook.
Mr. MacGilvray seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -meeting of October 19, 1982.
Mr. Wagner referred to Agenda Item #3, page 5, and requested that it be corrected to
show that he (Wagner) had abstained, and that the motion carried 4-0 with one abstention.
Mr. MacG i 1 vray referred to Agenda I tern #5 page 6 and asked that 11 Mr. MacG i 1 vray seconded
the motion; motion carried unanimousli 1 be added.
With the above corrections and additions, Mr. Wagner moved that the minutes be approved
with Mr. MacGilvray seconding. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Reconsideration of a variance to Table A, Rear Setback 11 E11 requirements
of Ordinance 850, at a proposed Village Square Office Park located in a neighborhood
commercial zoning district in Southwood Valley Sec. 5-A. Application is in the name of
G. Philip Morley & William E. Loveless.
Mr. Wagner asked to be excused from participation in this item due to a conflict of
interest. He was excused and took a seat in the audience. Phil Morley was sworn in
and read a prepared statement concerning the proposed project. Mr. Upham then stated that
Mr. Morley had stated some germane facts about the project which had not been stated
previously. He cited the 1 imiting of uses to professional only which was mentioned
and stated the Board had not known this previously and had been thinking of commercial
or retail uses in this neighborhood at the previous meeting. Mr. Lindsay reiterated that
the required 15 ft. setback has been provided, and that this variance request only
concerns the 10 ft. clear space requirement. Mr. Upham pointed out that 11 location of
dumpster•• was also in the request.
John Lofgren, a neighbor to the proposed project, was sworn in and stated the plan
presented tonight had changed since it was shown to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
He also asked where the 10 ft. 1 ine was, then talked about C-N zoning districts as being
special districts, and that this one in particular was special because it was the last
C-N district to be developed. He spoke of Mr. Morely gaining more than access, then
referred to the beautiful homes in that neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood
would not be getting much. He then offered to present to the Board an alternative pro-
ject design he had drawn.
Mr. MacGilvray quickly pointed out that in offering an alternative site plan Mr. Lofgren
was straying from the jurisdiction of this Board. Mr. MacGilvray then publicly apologized
•
•
•
Lt:SA Minutes
11-2-82
page 2
to the Board and the public
meeting, and stated that he
jurisdiction of the Board.
ment which he had proposed
for bringing up the subject of site plans at the previous
is now aware that by doing that, he was acting outside the
Mr. Lindsay offered the same apology in regard to the amend-
and then withdrew at the previous meeting.
Mr. Upham then referred to what Mr. Lofgren had referred to as the 11 g i ft of the easement''
from the City. He pointed out the City no longer accepts this type of easement, and then
stated that if there was indeed a gift, it is double barreled, that is, the land in this
easement is a useless piece of property which the City would, under other circumstances,
have to maintain, and besides this, the City is gaining the equivalent of a paved street
almost the full length (but not quite) of this drainage area for use in maintenance and
fire fighting. Mr. Upham then indicated that who maintained the area could be addressed
in the motion.
Paul Beckingham, another neighbor was sworn in and asked if this paved road would go
through to Deacon, and Mr. Upham said it would not, but there must be access for fire
control, and the plan had been referred to the Fire Marshal who has approved the plan.
Mr. MacGilvray said that the 10 ft. free and clear access referred to in the Ordinance
was for the purpose of fire control, as near as can be ascertained. Mr. Beckingham said
the location of the parking spaces in front of the project had been reversed originally
because of fire control and now what had not been allowed in front is being allowed
in the rear. Mr. Upham asked Mrs. Kee if this was a matter of Ordinance requirement,
and she said no, but the Fire Marshal had approved this because a maximum of 2 spaces
would be affected in the rear, simply because of the location of a fire hydrant the
developer will be adding on site. Mr. Beckingham questioned this again, and Mr. Upham
said he could only assume that this was perfectly acceptable since it had the approval
of the Fire Marshal as attested to by a letter which was included in the packet the
Board members had received.
Al Mayo, Director of Planning was sworn in and stated the Fire Marshal checks projects
to make sure that every building is within 150 feet of a fire lane, and the buildings
in front of this project fall within this distance so do not require fire lanes, and the
addition of the fire hydrant provides that coverage in the rear, then he pointed out
on the site plan how fire control would work. He then addressed the 10 ft. clear require-
ment in the Ordinance and pointed out that the 15 ft. setback is provided for, and that
the 10 ft. clear requirement is the only variance requested in the variance. He reported
that the meeting he had with Mr. Lofgren had resulted in even a stronger feeling that
a C-N district is a special zone and that staff would 1 ike to point out to any opponents
of this project that if they still have questions regarding the site plan, they should
address these questions to the City Council in the form of an appeal of a decision made
by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that staff would like to inform the Board
and the public that all departments within the City have been heavily involved in the
review of this site plan, and that staff would 1 ike to thank the Board for reconsidera-
tion being given the project tonight and would 1 ike to ask for a granting of this variance
request.
Mr. Lindsay asked if there was 29 ft. from the property line to the building 1 ine, and
after Mr. Mayo explained, Mr. Lindsay again pointed out that he does not want to get
into a site plan decision. Mr. Upham asked about the dumpster location and Mr. Morley
pointed it out and informed the Board that it had been included in the request for
variance because it would be located in this required 10 ft. clear area.
Marvin Miller came forward and was sworn in and stated that he is concerned about this
access road and the possibility of it extending to Deacon and requested that this be
included in the variance request. Mr. Mayo and Mr. Lindsay pointed out that this is not
within the jurisdiction of this Board. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that everything out
of a particular 1 ine on the site plan is out of their jurisdiction. Mr. Morley was
-,
•
•
•
ZBA Minutes
11-2-82
page 3
asked if curbing was to be included and he said the Cit y would
was amenable to b loc king that end of this drive but could not .
Mr. Miller to approach the City Council wi th his r e quest.
control that, but that he
Mr. Lindsay advised
Mr. Lofgren asked a question regarding the dumpster and whether it was considered storage
and also pointed out that a fence is considered an obstruction. Mr. Mayo pointed out
that the only question before the Board is "do you want 10 ft. clear space or not", and
the question regarding the dumpster is that it could be relocated easily,but the Director
of Public Service has agreed to this location, and if this question is addressed, it
should be to the City Council. Mr . Lindsay said the question is "is there 10 ft. clear"
and that he believes there actually is because of the City land which is being used.
Mr. Lindsay made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) Rear
Setback 11 E11 requirements of Ordinance 850 from the terms of this ordinance as it will not
be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions
of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts: that 10 ft. clear is provided off the
property, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done. Mrs. Donahue seconded the motion; motion carried
unanimously , with Mr. Wagner not voting or taking part in the discussion.
Mr. Wagner then made a statement and asked Mr. Mayo to define right-of-way, and went on
to say that a street in front of a property is a right-of-way and this rear right-of-way
can be handled in any way the City wants. Mr. Mayo replied that right-of-way grants
specific public use of land, although the City does not own it under most instances.
This particular right-of-way is for access and drainage. The City owns the right to
use a right-of-way, but the people on each side of a right-of-way actually own that
area . He gave as an example oil rights, and the City has none, but would if it owned
right-of-way by virtue of location of streets in virtually every area.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Reconsideration of a request for a variance of Section 8-D.3 Ordi-
nance 850 pertaining to signs; the request is for additional sign(s) at each of 9
sorority houses in the Greek Villa ge Subdivision. Application is in the name of the
Coll~ge Panhellenic Association of College Station.
Penny Ditton and Joy Howz e were sworn in and read the amendment to their request for
variance: Requested one sign per lot in addition to permanent identification, eithe r
attached or detached, no larger than 100 sq. ft. to be located in the front yard no
closer than 25 ft. from the curb (and nothing within the site distance triang l e on
corner lots), a detached sign not to exceed 10 ft. in height and an attached sign not
to extend above the roof overhang. No sign is to have flashing 1 ights or moving parts.
Signs should be displayed only for a reasonable length of time to cover an event and
will not require individual permits. They verbally added that they would like for one
sign with mov ing parts to be allowed occasionally, and then mentioned said sign would
be 1 it with spot l ·ights.
The Board discussed this request, suggested several changes, and conferred with Mrs.Kee
regarding what the Ordinance would allow. Mr. Lindsay asked if this request for variance
had been discussed with the neighbors and Miss Ditton and Miss Ho wze indicated that
it had only been discussed with them at the last regu lar ZBA meeting. Mr. Lindsay and
Mr. Upham both indicated they did not 1 ike the moving parts addition. Mrs. Donahue
asked how the granting of this variance would affect other associations in the City and
was informed that this request only applied to the sorority houses in the platted sub-
division called Greek Village, in which there were 10 lots, and that any association
outside this subdivision wou ld have to apply for any variance they wished to be granted.
Mr. Lindsay read the part of the Ordinance which refers to al l signs having to comply with
the building code and this ordinance, and said that this variance wo uld not exempt them
•
•
•
LtlA Minutes
11-2-82
page 4
from complying with the building code and that dangers, etc. would be covered by the
building code. Mr. Upham pointed out that what the Board could do is to allow a second
sign with certain conditions.
Mr. Lindsay said he would make a motion, but still had reservations about moving parts
on these signs. After discussion, Mr. Lindsay did make a motion to authorize a variance
to the sign regulations of Section 8, from the terms of this ordinance as it will not
be contrary to the pub I ic interest, due to the following unique and special conditions
of the land not normally found in like districts: This is a platted Greek Village, and
because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnec-
essary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and sub-
stantial justice done and with the following special conditions: granting one (l) sign
per Jot in addition to the permanent identification, either attached or detached, no
larger than 100 sq. ft., to be located in the front yard no closer than 25 ft. to the
curb (and nothing within the site distance triangle on corner lots), a detached sign
not to exceed 10 ft. in height or an attached sign not to extend above the roof overhang.
No sign is to have flashing lights, sound or mechanical moving parts. Signs shall be
displayed only for a reasonable length of time to cover an event. Mr. Wagner seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other business
Mrs. Kee informed the Board that Mr. Searcy and Mr. Guidry were here to discuss the
power line across Mr. Searcy's property, as requested by the Board. Mr. Upham explained
to Mrs. Donahue who was absent from the meeting at which this was discussed previously.
(See Minutes from August 17, 1982).
Mr. Guidry came forward to explain that 6 or 8 months ago Mr. Searcy came by his office
to ask him to remove a power I ine between 106 and 108 Southland. He showed a map to the
Board and Mr. Searcy, then explained how utility service is carried to the south side
of Southland and further explained that this I ine is an original REA line which the City
purchased when this area was annexed. Mr. Searcy said that he didn't recall it being
there then, but that he believes it has been moved to its present location. Mr. Guidry
then explained that the City doesn't have another route to use now, but if Mr. Searcy
could help acquire an easement, the possibility of servicing the area from Southwest
Parkway could be explored. He also indicated there is no way to estimate a time lapse
on this, and Mr. Searcy expressed his confidence that Mr. Guidry will do everything
possible to help eliminate this worry.
Mr. Upham brought up the subject of Home Occupations and discussion by al I Board Members
followed concerning definitions, specific and general. Mrs. Kee told the Board that
what she was after was direction from the Board concerning the I imit of traffic a home
occupation could generate, and that the staff itself is working toward reviewing the
current Zoning Ordinance, and this subject wi ll then be studied in depth.
Mr. Lindsay requested a workshop with the City Attorney to cover obi igations and duties
of this Board. Monday, December I, 1982 was chosen as the date to aim for.
Mr. Upham requested the City Attorney be consulted about what can be done to change the
requ i rement of separate paperwork for each day of a violation.
Mr. MacGilvray announced that the first meeting of the Northgate Committee would be at
9:00 A.M. Thursday, November 4th .
L.Uf'\ l"llllUl.t::::>
• 11-2-82
page 5
Mrs. Donahue made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carried unanimously .
• APPROVED:
Jack Upham, Acting Chairman
ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
•
•
V ,
I
•
AGENDA
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustments
November 2, 1982
7:00 P.M.
1. Approval of Minutes from October 19, 1982.
2. Reconsideration of a variance to Table A, Rear Setback "E" requirements
of Ordinance 850, at a proposed Village Square Office Park located in a
neighborhood commercial zoning district in Southwood Valley Sec. 5-A.
Application is in the name of G. Philip Morley & William E. Loveless.
3. Reconsideration of a request for a variance of Section 8-D.3 Ordinance
850 pertaining to signs; the request is for additional sign(s) at each
of 9 sorority houses in the Greek Village Subdivision. Application is
in the name of the College Panhellenic Association of College Station.
4. Other business.
5. Adjourn.
t
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. l:
MINUTES
City of College Sta tion
Zoning Board of Adjustment
October 19, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Chairman Cook, Members MacGilvray, Wagner, Upham, Alternate
Member Lindsay, Council Liaison Lynn Nemec
Mary Kay Donahue
Zoning Official Kee, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Director of
Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, Planning
Assistant Longley & Planning Technician Volk
Approval of Minutes from September 21, 1982 meeting.
Mr. Upham referred to the last paragraph of page 3 concerning Mrs. Cook 1 s statement
concerning 11 a pizza restaurant had been opened in a building where the ZBA had at a
previous meeting established hours during which a business could be in operation ... 11
and wanted to amend this statement to reflect that the ZBA had not established the
hours, but rather that the applicant had informed the Board this restaurant would be
in operation from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and the Board had included this in the approval
of the variance requested. In other words, the applicant established his own hours
and approval of the variance was given based on the specifics ·of his request, plus
the one granted of parking.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to accept the amendment to the minutes. Mr. Upham seconded.
Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Upham then made a motion to approve the minutes with
the addition of the above amendment; Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carri ed unani mo usly.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a request for a variance to Table A, Rear Set-
back 11 E11 requirement of Ordinance 850, at a propos e d Village Squar e Office Park located
in a neighborhood commercial zoning district in Southwood Valley Sec. 5-A. _Application
is in the name of G. Philip Morley & William E. Loveless.
Mr. Wagner asked to be excused from participation in this request; Mrs. Cook excused
him from the Board at which time he took a seat in the audience. Mrs. Kee explained
the request, and further explained that the Ordinance requirement of 10 ft. of required
15 ft. setback being clear had been researched, and it was discovered the purpose of this
10 ft. clear area had been established to guarantee that there would be clear space
for emergency vehicles, and because there was more than enough clear area to meet that
requirement in this setback, and becau se access was provided in the adjacent access
right-of-way, staff had no problem with this requ es t.
Philip Morley, a registered architect and developer of this proposed project was sworn
in and informed the Board his group had me t with all City departments, and all had indi-
cated they have no problem with this project or the encroachment for which this variance
has been filed. Mr. Lindsay asked about access right-of-way being given by the owner,
and Mr. Morley indicated that this had been granted. Mr. MacGilvray asked who would
maintain this city-owned access area and Mr. Morley answered that the project owner
would, and that he would be happy to put this in writing. Mr. MacGilvray further asked
about the amount of setback and Mr. Morley said that in most cases there is 25-30 ft.
betw ee n the rear of a building and the property line. Mr. Lindsay asked if ther e is a
power line across the rear of this property lin e, and Mr. Morley answered that there
, ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 2
will be, and that the power poles will be in the islands. Mr. Lindsay asked if the
Fire Department had seen this plan and Mrs. Kee answered that the Fire Department has
given their approval of the plan.
John Lofgren, a neighbor of this project was sworn in and told the Board that this
paving of this easement was creating a street. He quoted the Ordinance concerning
location of parking and the setbacks required, then spoke at length concerning this
11 street 11 which he believes will be created. He also referred to the Ordinance which
allows parking to be located within 200 feet of this property, and then offered the
opinion that the whole project could be moved back which would allow parking in front
of the buildings.
Mr. MacGilvray asked how this right-of-way came about and who had approved it, and
Mrs. Kee explained that this had been done in the platting process and had come before
the P&Z. Mrs. Cook asked what the vote was when this plan was approved by P&Z and
was told that it was 4-3 in favor.
Jack Weitsman, a neighbor was sworn in, then showed a sketch concerning the drainage
problem which could be created by the establishment of this drive and expressed his
concern. Mr. MacGilvray asked if this was his sketch, and he said that it was, but
that it was not drawn with exacting equipment. Mr. MacGilvray referred to a wall in
the sketch and Mr. Weitsman replied that this was his interpretation of what would be
done. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Morley if he had done a crossection of the road, and
Mr. Morley replied that he had not, but further said that the water would be carried on
to Longmire Drive and handed out a topographical study which had been done by a profes-
sional engineering firm. Small group discussion followed and Mrs. Cook then asked
who would be responsible for maintenance of that drainage area during construction and
after occupancy, and voiced concern about the debris which often accumulates from
construction which could block drainage here. She wondered if perhaps the owners of
the adjacent properties should be required to help with the maintenance of this area.
Mr. Upham said that the City no longer accepts drainage easements, and that this one
had been platted before the newer pol icy became effective. Mr. Weitsman reiterated
that the road was being built for access to parking rather than maintenance, and
asked what will happen in later years when this 11 road 11 crumbles and is repaired and
debris accumulates.
A head count for those in attendance who were in opposition to this variance request
was taken, and results tallied 8 in opposition in the audience.
Al Mayo, Director of Planning was sworn in and stated that he would like to answer
some of the questions which had been raised. He addressed the drainage easement
and said work currently was being done to prepare a master drainage plan and mainte-
nance policy both for future areas and areas which have already been developed, and
that this drive would be a public right-of-way which would give both access to this
project and for maintenance vehicles working on the drainage area. The construction
of this driveway and the maintenance agreement, as well as the impact on drainage
will have to be cleared through the City Engineer 1 s office. The Fire Department has
been consulted and has stated that it does not need the 10 ft. clear easement because
this driveway will be there, and the Public Works Department will be provided with
a paved surface to get to an area they must maintain and has stated they will be happy
to see it.
Paul Bec k ingham, a neighbor was sworn in and asked about the location of 3 of the
buildings in regard to setback and said there was not a 25 ft. setback for them. Smal 1
ZBA Minutes
-10-19-82
page 3
group discussion followed. Mrs. Cook called the meeting back to order and asked if
the City is creating another 11 front 11 entrance with the use of this driveway. Mr. Mayo
answered that the street address would be on the actual street in front of the project.
Mr. Uph am asked if any buildings would be facing the drive in the rear, as well as some
facing the street. Mr. Morley answered that some buildings would be facing the drainage
ditch. Mr. MacGilvray said that in his opinion, Mr. Morley was trying to do the right
thing and develop a nice project, and gave examples of ware house projects, the type of
whic h this developer is trying to avoid, but that he also believes the City has missed
an opportunity in the past to utilize this type of drainage area as a 11 people place.11
Mr. Lofgr en spoke again and said that as Mr. Mayo had pointed out, the City is being
foresighted in not running this driveway through to Deacon Street, but he fears that
this situation will be changed in the future, and that this drive would become a high
traffic generator. He said that he thinks this is a good project which has been rea-
sonable wel l thought out, but he still hopes a compromise can be reached, and further
asked if speed bumps could be included in the driv e. Mrs. Cook remind ed him that this
Board is not in a position to function as a Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Upham
referred to this particular request for a particular variance, and reminded the Board
that the request is for granting parking variance and the placement of a dumpster
adjacent to the rear property line only, and then pointed out that because this project
is for office space, it would generate less traffic than one for retail use.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from
the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the
lack of special conditions of the land not nor mally found in li ke districts and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinanc e would not result in unnecessar y
hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordin ace shall be observed and substantial
justice done. This motion died for lack of second.
Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a varianc e to the m1n1mum setback (Table A, note E)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due
to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like
districts and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done and with the following special conditions: That
all debris from the original construction and future debris following opening must
be pol iced by the owners and the road maintained to City Standards ~n perpetuity.
Lindsay seconded the motion, then amended the motion to include restricting the access
to the rear buildings to employees only. Mr. Lindsay then withdrew this amendment.
Mr. MacGilvray stated that he believed this right-of-way should not be paved at all.
Chairman called for voting. Motion to approve was defeated unani mously. Mr. Upham
reiterated that only the variance which had been ~e quested had 1 been denied.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a request for expansion of a non-conforming structure
and also a request for varianc e to the rear setback requirements of Table A -Ordinance
850 at a residence at 203 Fairview Street. Application is in the name of Johnny A.Martinez.
Mrs. Kee presented the request, referr ed to attachments in packets concerning this request
and gave the history of this non-conforming structure. Sh e also reported that all
but one of the adjacent property owners who had contacted here were against this project.
Johnny Martinez, owner of the non-conforming residence was sworn in and explained the
project. He said that he had made num erous cal ls to City Hall for a final inspection
at the time the last remod el] ing had taken place, but that this inspection was never done.
ZBA Minutes
• 10-19-82
page 4
He said that he had gone through all the steps necessary for each inspection, and that
his wife had called three times for this final inspection of the area to be inspected
which was a porch which he had enclosed. He further stated that he specializes in
three areas, namely electrical, plumbing (also air conditioning) and solar energy, so
he had done this wiring himself, but had left out some accoustical ceiling so the electri-
cal inspection could be done, and that tile is still missing. He said that he thinks
that he should be able to enlarge his structure more than the 25 % allowable in the
Zoning Ordinance because his house is so small compared to others which would be
al lowed more square footage expansion at the 25 % rate.
Mr. MacGilvray interrupted and asked what the nature of the non-conformity is, and
was told that this is a duplex in a Single Family Residential zoning district. Mrs.
Kee said that the original house had been a single family home, to which a bedroom and
bathroom were added with rear access. In 1981 a covered porch was enclosed. Mrs.
Cook asked if Mr. Cal ]away had been the Zoning Official at the time the porch was
covered and he replied that he had been, also had visited the residence, and the enclosure
of the porch would not have exceeded the 25 % maximum. Mr. Martinez answered Mr. Upham's
question concerning the size of lot by saying his lot is 50xl25; then Upham asked for
the size of neighbor's lot, to which Frank Coulter, after being sworn in answered that
his lot is 94xl25. Mrs. Cook pointed out that single family residences can be expanded
as much as anyone wanted, as long as setbacks are met, but pointed out that this is
no longer a single family residence, but rather a non-conforming duplex in an R-1
zoning district. Mr. Martinez said that he was planning to give the residence to his
daughter (who lives there now) and then it would be a single family residence. Mr.
Upham referred to the original building permit dated in 1981 which requested repair,
including enclosing an existing porch, but which also included a note stating that
"no change in the floor plan as it existed prior to construction will be allowed by
order of the Zoning Board of Adjustment -March 24, 1981 11 • He stated further that
he did not know anything about a final inspection, but that he does know that the
ruling indicated that there could be no change to the floor plan, but the actual
cosntruction which took place did not comply with this directive. Mr. Martinez
said that only screen doors were changed, and that City Hall has always had a negative
attitude toward this piece of property. Mr. Wagner interrupted and said that what
Mr. Martinez had begun to talk about had no bearing on this request, and that the
Board wants to discuss the request. Mr.· Martinez hahded out revised drawings, and
explained them, then Mr. Wagner asked the Chairman to excuse this witness, and the
Chairman agreed and did so. Mrs. Kee then reviewed these revised pTaffs with the Board.
The Chairman repeated the request before the Board, reiterated that the zoning in
this district is R-l and the present structure is a non-conforming duplex, which would
not now be allowed in this zoning district. She spoke of how the interior of this
building had been designed prior to the 1981 request for variance, how it is now
designed and states t~at this current request creates a new structure, not only
creating a duplex (which is now there) but a tri-plex. Mr. Wagner agreed to her
observations and then asked the applicant why the proposed addition is so far away
from the existing structure. Mr. Martinez denied that plans would create a tri-plex
and said the reason for the distance between the structures is that after this addi-
tion is completed, he plans to tear down the existing original structure and build
a 2 story residence.
Elizabeth Martinez, daughter of the applicant was sworn in and stated that she had
been at the last meeting during which the Board had discussed this building, and said
that when her family purchased the residence, it was listed as a duplex, and that they
now wanted to pull the kitchen out of the existing structure and make it larger.
The Chairman again explained R-l zoning and how this duplex is now a non-conforming
ZBA Minutes
• 10-19-82
page 5
structure because of the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance, and further
explained the restrictions this building now falls under. Mr. Upham explained
11 grandfathering 11 and how, when the current use is over it will revert back to,
or be replaced with a single family dwelling or a structure which conforms with the 1
Ordinance. Mr. Martinez asked if limiting the building to 2 bedrooms and a kitchen
rather than 3 bedrooms and a kitchen would be of help. Mr. Upham said that he
could only approve a structure which contained no kitchen or bath, and could not
accommodate a separate family.
Wayne Allen of Wharton, Texas was sworn in and said he opposed these variances
because of par king and sewer capacities, and wondered if there were some way to go
back in history and pinpoint when the nonconformity occurred in this R-1 district. He
then voiced appreciation to the Board for their public service in serving on the
Board and stated that he was a former resident of 302 Fairview, and that his daughter
had resided there last summer.
Frank Coulter (previously sworn in) spoke about the City having refused a permit to
a former owner, and also to another resident on Montclair for an additional non-con-
formity in this district.
Mrs. Cook asked staff if long range plans for this area were for this area to be single
family residential, and this was confirmed.
Billie Hefti was sworn in and expressed concern for fires because of the age of the
homes in the area.
Mr. Martinez then asked to be given permission to build this new structure and to
tear down the old structure later. Mr. Lindsay pointed out t~at the Board cannot
legislate future use except through zoning restrictions.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to deny the enlargement of a building devoted to a
non-conforming use where such extension is not necessary and incid ental to the
existing use and does increase the area of the building devoted to a non-conforming
use more than 25 % and does prolong the life of the non-conforming use and prevent
a return of such property to a conforming use. Mr. Upham seconded the motion to deny.
Motion carried 11 s•r:1 i"'u 11lr ,~~t.J~ ~· .
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to the location of the
required parking spaces at 321 University Drive (Northgate). Application is in the name
of J. E. Robbins, Sr. dba Chari ie's Grocery.
Mrs. Cook informed the Board and the public that the City Council had ruled sometime
in September that no parking variances wou ld be granted for a period of 12 months in
the Northgate area. She also said that she had spoken with the Mayor and the attend-
ing Council Liaison (Nemec) prior to this meeting, to clarify the intent of the ruling.
Then she advised that this matter should be given no consideration until this 12 month
moratorium has exp ired. Mr. MacGilvray read from the minutes which were included in
the packet, quoting Councilman Pat Boughton on this matter. Mr. Upham said this item
had been placed on the agenda at the request of the applicant and city staff. Mrs. Kee
explained that the staff knew that the moratorium affected the number of parking spaces,
but was unsure whet her it also included the loc ation of spaces.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a requ est for a variance to the rear setback
requir ement s of Table A -Ordin a nce 850, at th e residence at 1026 Rose Circle. Appl i-
cation is in the name of Sun Scree ns of Houston.
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 6
Mrs. Kee explained the request for variance to setback requirements, and advised
the Board that the 10 ft. utility easement had been abandoned by action of City
Council at their October 14th meeting just the previous week.
Richard Nored of Sun Screens of Houston, applicant for variance was sworn in and
answered questions of the Board and a photo of what was planned was passed arou nd .
Mr. MacGilvray spoke of personal knowldege of this particular bac kya rd and wondered
if he should vote on this matter, and further stated that in his opinion this proposed
screening fence would not be detrimental. Mr. Lindsay asked if this man has the
authority to represent the owners of this property, and was informed that he in fact,
had applied for the variance.
Mr. Lindsay made a motion to authorize a variance to the m1n1mum setback (Table A) from
the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to
the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like
districts: The use proposed will not significantly detract from the area, and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinanci would. result in unnecessary
hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, and with the following special exception: That this ~a r.sti_~is a proving ~
only the erection of a scr ~en enclosure within this setback I ine. -r~rv'r ' ~.
'7">J ~~,,(, ~~~~~ . ,,,.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a request for a variance of Section 8-D.3
Ordin ance 850 pertaining to signs; the request is for additional sign(s) at each
of 9 sorority houses in the Greek Vil I age Subdivi s ion. Application is in the name of
the Col lege Panh el lenic Association of College Station.
Jean McDermott and Joy Howze we re sworn in and further explained their request for
additional signs to be 11 information 11 type signs rather than identification signs.
They said the signs would be 11 tasteful 11 and would be monitored by advisors. Mr.
MacGilvray asked if the subdivision was really named 11 Greek Village 11 to which he
was answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Cook pointed out that future expansion should
probably be included in this request. Mrs. McDermott stated that only this land in
11 Greek Village 11 subdivision, which totalled 10 lots, was included in this request.
Mr. Upham asked questions and referred to the discussion held earlier this summer con-
cerning signs, then asked what type of sign, what size, how many days would be specified
for the sign, etc. He received no concrete answer, so he then askeaTf the sororities
were purposing that the Board give blanket approval for any size, type,duration,etc.
to which Mrs. McDermott gave a general answer that they were requesting perhaps
one extra sign per lot of an uncertain size, with perhaps a time limit of one week for
each time the sign was put out. Mr. Upham then expressed his wish that they co me back
before the Board with a proposal the Board could deal with. Mrs. McDermott said that
this was a unique dormitory area and they really did not know exactly what to request,
and would generally like to see a 11 lessening of restrictions 11 to show support for
one of the largest industries in the City (that of the University). Mr. MacGilvray
read fro m the Zoning Ordinance the size of some signs al lowed in certain zoning districts,
and Mrs. Cook stated that she thought perhaps generalities could be in the proposal.
Mrs. Kee said that if a variance was not somewhat specific, enforcement by the staff
would be a problem. Mr. Lindsay said the sign regulations are listed in the Zoning
Ordinance and advised the witnesses they should sit down with the staff and work out
some specifics the Board could deal with.
Santos Ramirez of 1000 Dominik was sworn in and stated that he thinks the Board should
give specific rules to be followed by sororities.
Tim Coppinger, 1003 Domini k was sworn in and stated that in his opinion, a blan ke t
type variance would be a mistake.
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 7
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to table this agenda item until such time the applicant
of the request can present a proposal the Board can deal with. Mr. Wagner seconded
the motion. Motion to table carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business.
Mr. Upham referred to the Committee studying the Northgate area and stated that to his
knowl~dge this committee has not yet met, and reminded Mr. MacGilvray & Mrs. Cook, who
are both serving on this committee that time is passing quickly, and something needs to
be done. He referred to an article which he passed around to be referred to when making
plans. Mrs. Cook asked if anyone had been appointed Chairman of this committee, and
Mr. MacGilvray stated that he had not been apprised of one. Lynn Nemec said she would
check on this with the Mayor's secretary.
Mrs. Kee indicated the definitions of home occupations, and excerpts from Zoning Ordinances
from other cities had been handed out to the Board for study, and suggested that due to the
lateness of the hour, this be put off until the next Board meeting.
She then referred to the City Attorney's memo which had been handed out concerning the
variance the Board had granted to the D.R.Cain setback encroachment. Mrs. Cook wondered
if there were no automatic penalties for this type of encroachment and Mr. MacGilVray
read the last part of the letter aloud. Mrs. Kee explained the procedure to be followed
if a violation is found. Mr. Upham said that he believed that a fine of perhaps 30 % of
the value of the structure should be imposed. Mr. Callaway explained that the $200 per
day fine for a violation was established by state law.
Mrs. Kee explained why Mr. Guidry and Mr. Searcy had not been 1 invited to attend this meet-
ing to discuss the utility 1 ine running across Mr. Searcy's property. She was directed
to invite them and the City Attorney to the next meeting of the Board.
Mrs. Kee also informed the Board that the next meeting date will have to be changed because
the City Council has rescheduled their meeting for that night. (November 30th was chosen
by the Board for the next meeting).
Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Upham secorided. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
Vi Cook, Chairman
. ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENU E
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
October 25, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
SUBJECT: Agenda Items -ZBA Meeting November 2' 1982
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 -RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE TO REAR SETBACK 11 E11 REQUIRE-
MENTS OF TABLE A -ORDINANCE 850 -Phil Morley
The staff is requesting the Board to reconsider the variance request made by
Philip Morley at the last meeting. The staff supports this variance request
as there is adequate access to the rear of this project because of the adja-
cent right-of-way . Therefore, there is no need for the ten feet of clear
area in the rear setback. The minutes of of the P&Z meeting at which the
site plan was considered are included in your packets also.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 -VARIANCE TO NUMBER OF ALLOWED SIGNS -SECTION 8-D.3 of
ORD. 850 -College Panhellenic Assn. of College Station.
This request was tabled at the last meeting. Information concern i ng the
requested sign variance will be presented at the meeting.
sjv
. •,
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.
Name of Applicant G. PHILIP IYlORLEY & IAJILLIAIYI E. LOVELESS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mailing Address 1701 SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, SUITE 109, COLLEGE STATION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.;._~~~~~~~~
SiSXSi~S 693-9925
Location: Lots 113-120Block 9 Subdivision SWV SEC. 5-A ---
Action requested: GRA NT VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE REQUIREIYIENT FOR 10 •
CLEAR AREA WITH NO PARKING AT REAR OF SITE.
N~1E ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
SE£ ATTACHED LIST
.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO. ----
Present zonin~ of land in question C-N
----~----------------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought DISTRICT USE SCHEDULE, TABLE
A, REAR SETBACK 'E'
The following · specific v<.>.riation from the ordinance is requested: -------
TO GRANT PARKING AND PLACEMENT OF DUMPSTER ADJACENT TO REAR
PROPERTY LI NE
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
THE SITE IS PLATTED IN 50' LOTS, NECESSITATING A STRIP CENTER APPROACH
OR A PARK SITUATION AS WE ARE PROPOSING, UTILITIZING THE ENTIRE SITE.
CITY OFFICIALS INDICATE THE 10' CLEARANCE REQUmREIYlENT WAS TO PROVIDE
.. ~.:....;,
ACCESS TO THE REAR OF A STRIP CENTER OR OTHER COMMERCIAL USE OF A-
C-N ZONE. DIRECTLY BEHIND THm SITE IS A 70' ACCESS & UTILITY ROW
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: -------
A VARIETY OF SITE PLANS WERE STUDIED PRIOR TO THE SELECTION OF THIS
ONE, AND THIS WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT ALLOWED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK, SINCE THE LAND ALONE IS MORE
THAN 100,000 DOLLARS AN ACRE. OUR ALTERNATIVES ARE TO REDUCE THE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OR GO TO TWO STORIES OR ABANDON THE PROJECT, ALL
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
fact~: ACCESS IS NOT IMPEDED BUT IN FACT CONSIDERABLY IIYIPROVED BY
OUR DESIGN. IN ADDITION, DUE TO THE EXTREMELY CLEAN USE OF THE
SITE FOR OFFICE SPACE, A LOSS OF 10' OF BUFFER IS INSIGNIFICANT
WHEN THERE IS ALREADY 70' BETWEEN PROPERTY LINES.
The fac~s stated by me in this application are true and correct.
//'/-: 1/1 1 (/ / 'V.. , .. · ///.:. .,n \ />>1 4 ! /J_,; « /~f [/,I t// K,,t:'A.-/_---
App '.licant /
Blk 9 Lot 94 southwood Valley 5-A
Robert Sta1cup
2735 Sandy Circle
Co1le ge Station, Texas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 95 Southwood Va 11 ey 5-A
Joseph A. Patter son
2731 Sandy Circle
College Stat ion, Texas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 96 Southwood Val1ey 5-A
Da vid A. Brooks
2727 Sandy Circle
Colle ge Station, Te xas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 97 Southwood Va 11 ey 5-A
Lonnie L. Jones
2723 Sandy Circle
College Station, Texas 77 8!',0
Blk 9 Lot 98 Southwo od Valley 5-A
Gordon P. Ho pki ns et ux
2719 Sandy Circle
College Sta t ion, Texas 77 340
Blk 9 Lot 99 Southwood Valley 5-A
Kenneth W. Durh am
3531 Hawthorne Dr i ve
(2715 Sandy Circ le)
Dover, Del . 1990 1
Blk 9 Lot 100 South wood Valley 5-A
Wayne M Ahr
2711 Sandy Circle
College Sta tion, Texas 77 84 0
Blk 9 Lot 101 Southwood Valley 5-A
tesareo A. Domin quez
2707 Sandy Circle
Colle ge Station, Texas 77 84 0
Blk 9 Lot 102 Southwood Val ley 5-A
Daniel Neil McQuay
2703 Sandy Circl e
College Sta t ion , Texas 77 340
Blk 9 Lot 103 Southwood Valley 5-A
James F. McNamara
2700 Sandy Circle
Colle ge Sta tion, Texa s 77 84 0
Bl k 9 Lot 104 So uth1t1 ood V.t l 1 nv r)-f\
Jesus H. Hi ndjo sa et ux
2704 Sandy Ci r cle
Co ll e ')e St a t io n, T (';.'.(\'. n:~!J_f )
Blk 9 Lot 105 Southwood Valley 5-A
Yechiel Weitsman
270 8 Sandy Circle
College Station , Texas 77 84 0
Blk 9 Lot 106 Southwood Valley 5-a
Gerald G. Waaner
2712 Sandy eircle
College Statio n, Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 107 Sou thwood Valley 5-A
Donald W. Bug h et ux
2716 Sandy Ci rc le
Col!ege Station, Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 108 Southwood Valley 5-A
Paul d . Beckingha m
2720 Sandy Cir c l e
Co!lege Statio n, Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 109 Sou t hwoo d Valley 5-A
Jon [. Po rt er
2724 Sandy Circle
Coi 1 c g e St ation , Texas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 110 Southwood Valley 5-A
J ohn C. Loforen
2723 San dy Circl e
College Station, Texas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 111 Southv!ood Valley 5-A
Mar vi n C. Miller et ux
2732 Sandy Circle
Co l lege Station, Texas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 112 Sout~wood Valley #58
Blk 16, Lots 1,2,3,4,5 SWV #3
Rhea D1t1ayne
2751 Lon gm ire
Co l lege Stati on, Texa s 77840
Blk 16 Lot 24 Southwood Valley #3
Peopertree ~pts, Ltd.
Don R. Tu r linqton and Assoc ia tes, I nc.
3000 Par k Hill Dr.
Fort !·!orth , Tx . 7610 9
Bldg . D Uni t 28 Woods man Condos
Hen ry C. Orte 9a
2800 Lon gm:re #28
Co l leqe Station , Texas 77840
Bld g . D ~n i t 2S Wo ods man Con do s
'~ay11 1 o nd T . Srni th
2800 ~on g~ir e #29
Co .l ege Stat io n , Texas 77 340
Bldg. D Unit 30 ~ioods111an Condos
Harold M. Tann e r
2800 Longmire #30
Colle ge Station, Texas 77 840
Bld g . E Unit 31 Woodsman Condos
Lel and A. Seidl
2800 Longmire #3 1
College Station, Texas 77840
Bld g . E Unit 32 Woodsman Condos
J ames e. Patterson
2800 Long mire #32
College Stat i on, Texa s 77 840
Blk 23 Lot 55 Southwood Valley 7-A
Southwood Valley, Inc.
P.O. Drawer AF
Col lege Station, Texas 77840
lR Dragon's Nest
Edwards, R. Wayn e
2801 Longmi r e Dr.
Colle ge Sta tio n , Texas 77840
2R Dr agon's Nest
George E. Echerd
2801; Longrni re
Col 'lege Station, Texas 77 840
Bldg . E Unit 33 Woodsma n Condos
Cha 1·les L. Ada111 s
· 28 00 Longmi r e ~J '!i'-'
College Sta tion, Tex as 77 840
C i ty of C olle g e S tation
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 0 1 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
October 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
Al Mayo, Di rector of Planning ~ FROM:
SUBJECT: Variance request, Village Square Office Park
I have met with Mr. Lofgren, the neighborhood spokesman from Sandy Circle .
I have recommended to him that the proper and legal course of action that he
should follow is to request that the City Council consider the site plan
approval on appeal from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The questions
raised by the area residents concerning orientation of front entrances, flooding,
vehicular lights, aesthetics, etc. were discussed by the P&Z at the site plan
review. If the area residents still have problems with these subjects they
should appeal to the Council. The Zoning Board is not the place for the appeal,
since the Board is only reviewing the variance request that the ten feet in
the rear be obstructed. You have a memo from the Fire Marshall clearly stating
that the ten feet is totally unnecessary in this case. I have also checked with
the other City departments. No one has expressed any need for this requirement.
To not allow Mr. Morley to utilize the access right-of-way, which was platted
before any of the Sandy Circle residents purchased houses there, would be
placing an unnecessary hardship on him. The staff has given this request
very serious and careful consideration, and we have not been able to find
even one reason not to grant the va·riance. We would strongly urge and re-
commend that the----SOard grant the requested variance, and let the City Council
hear the site plan appeal if they so desire.
AM/sjv
City of Colle g e Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I I 0 I TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77840
October 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Harry Davis, Fire Marshall
SUBJECT: Variance request, Village Square Office Park
I have reviewed the request by Mr. Philip Morley to grant a variance to the
Zoning Ordinance requirement that ten feet of the rear setback 11 must remain
unobstructed by above ground utility installations, street areas, fences,
storage or parking 11 •
I understand that the only reason for this requirement is to insure that an
open rear access area be maintained. According to the existing plat and
approved site plan, better access is being provided by and for this project
in the access right-of-way. There is, then, no need whatsoever for the re-
quirement of the ten foot clear area; therefore, I would recommend approval
of the variance request.
~outbltloob V allep, inc.
R eside ntial
S ubdivisions
Planning Department
The Future o f College Station
•••
October 25, 1982
City of College Station
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Mayo :
Comme rc ial
Prope rties
In order to resolve some questions regarding the development of Lots
112 to 120, in Southwood Valley, Section 5-A, which is zoned neighborhood
commercial, I would like to review the intent of the plat even though it
ma y not be clear from the plat itself what this intent was.
1. Rear Access Easement. The 70 foot access and drainage easement across
the rear or southwest side of this strip of lots was intended to be 40
foot for drainage and 30 foot for access easement. This came about as a
result of a ruling that at one time was in fact e xec uted b y the Planning
Department that commercial lots similar to those discussed here should have
access across the back of the lots for garbage and emergency vehicle use.
Developers would not be required to plat and build alleys but were required
to provide access easements across the back of the lots. In -e-~~-ha~~
persons building on the lots would be assured of continuity of access
throughout the tract, the access easement would enable future developers
to provide rear parking for employe es and others, and I am in full agreeme nt
with the use of the property as proposed by Phil Morley and Bill Loveless.
2. Front Setb a ck Limitations. Regarding the front setback limitations
and side set back limitations, the parking and access easement across
the front of the lots in question was placed there to insure a continuity
of the parking area across the lots so as to avoid a curb cut at every
lot. Unfortunately the development of Ray's Country Store did not c onform
to the intent of the s e t back which was drawn in error as a straight line
instead of a curve parallel to Lon gmire Drive. Mr . Morley and Mr. Loveless,
·-developers of Village Square Office Park, are in full compliance with the
intent of the plat and I hereb y agree and request tha t the parking ac cess
easement be r e defined as being the front 25 feet a lon g Longmire Drive
21 OS S o u t /1wood Driv e, Post Office Box AF, College Station, T exas 7784 0 T elephone 713-693-9110
Planning Department
Page Two
October 25, 1982
and further that the 15 foot side building line adjacent to the drainage
and utility right-of-way can be eliminated or reduced to the 7.5 foot City
requirement.
WDF/pz
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT FILE NO. ----
Name of Applicant C olle.ise P a nhe l l en ic Assn . of Col l ege S t'.3. ti on
Mailing Address ___ P_._o_. __ o_x __ 1 _2 _2_1~,_C_o _l_l_e_~~e-~_J _t_~_t_i_·o~n-=-'---"T_e_x~a...:...;.:.s_~7~7_8~4~0 ____ _
Phone 693 -388 7 (Pennv Di tt on , Panhel . Adv i se r)
Lot 1 Tra ct 1 Rich ard Cart er Addition
Location: Lo t3 1 -4 Block --Subdivision Greek Villa g e 1
Lot s 1-6 Block 1 Subdivis io n Greek Village 2
Description, If applicable ---------------------------~
~reek · illa ~e Subd i v i s ion consi st i nz of e i ~ht s orority houses
co mp l eted , the n i nth to be bu ilt bv 1 984 ..
Action requested: ·rhat a dd i tional s i q:n ( s ) be '.3.llo wed for ea c h res id enc e
wh ic h wo u l d s u pp or t functions i n which the student re s idents
are invo l v e d .
NAME ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Ass e ssor)
~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTM ENT FILE NO.
Present zoning of land in question __ R_-_6 __ ~--~~---~·
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought __ S_e_c_t -'-._R_--"'D-'-._3.__ _______ _
The following specific ve.riation from the ordinance is requested: Th at add i tion8.l
s i qn (s ) per residence be allowed wh i ch wou l d supp ort functions i n
which the student residents are inv o l ved (ex .: Rush We e k , football
~ames , c harity drives , communit y serv ic e projects , Parents ¥eekend ... ).
This variance is necessary due to the follo~ing unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
Thi s area o f student boardin2: houses , each wi th close a l umn i
superv i sion and r es i dent a dv i ser (hou se rnother), is verv 1mlike
i n a npea rance and purpose the a pa rt men t com p l exes tha or d inance
W S,.
w a~ ori ~i nal l y written to cover ,
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible~ _{n ot ::rnnl t...c.ab l e)
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
f~ct~: The n i ne lo ts (8 h ou ses c amnl e ted hoJJSJiri~ j ust over 350 eo ll ee;c
women and one to be comp l eted in '8 3 or '84 ) are all to g eth er and
e i t h er f ace each other (7 ) or (2 ) f ace condom i n i ums nrimarilv
hous i ng students .
The facts stated by me in this application ar e true and correct.
Bldg. A, Unit 1 Sutter's Mill
Bldg. A, Unit 3 Sutter's Mi 11
Bldg. A, Unit 4 Sutter 1 s Mill
Bldg. F, Unit 25 Sutter's Mill
Bldg. F, Unit 28 Sutter 1 s Mill
Bldg. G, Unit 33 Sutter 1 s Mill
Bldg. G, Unit 34 Sutter's Mill
Stanford Assn.
P. 0. Box 4106 Bryan, Tx. 77801
Bldg. A, Unit 2 Sutter's Mill
King, Ben R. Etux
1500 Olympia Way, No. 2
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. A, Unit 5 Sutter's Mill
Buncher, James, Mary, and
7102 Spanky Branch Dr.
Dallas, Tx. 75248
Bldg. B, Unit 6 Sutter's Mill
Lippman, L. F.
1500 Olympia Way, No. 6
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. B, Unit 7 Sutter's Mill
Livingston, Joel E.
1500 Olympia, No. 7
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. 8, Unit 8 Sutter's Mill
Homeyer, Howard C.
1500 Olympia, No. 8
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. B, Unit 9 Sutter's Mill
uwayne, Scott A.
·p. 0. Box 4106
Bryan, Tx. 77801
Bldg. C, Unit 10 Sutter's Mill
Columbia Properties
P. 0. Box 4106
Bryan, Tx. 77801
Bldg. C, Unit 11 Sutter's Mill
Glassell, Alfred C. Jr.
1500 Olympia Way, Unit 11
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 18 Sutter's Mill
Bldg. C, Unit 12 Sutter 1 s Mill
303 Anderson Company
3833 Texas Ave. Ste. 400
Bryan, Tx. 77801
8ldg. C, Unit 13 Sutter's Mil I
Marino, John C.
14703 Broadgreen
Houston, Tx. 77079
Bldg. D, Unit 14 Sutter 1 s Mi 11
L. F. Lippman Trust
1500 Olympia Unit 14
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. u, Unit 15 Sutter's Mill
Harris, Roy H.D.
1500 Oly~pia Unit 15
College Station, Tx. 77840
8ldg. D, Unit 16 Sutter 1 s Mill
Stein, Hugo H.
1500 Olympia Unit 16
College Station, Tx. /7840
Bldg. u, Unit 17 Sutter's Mill
Littman, Charles and Margi
3833 Texas Ave. Ste B
Bryan, Tx. 77801
8ldg. E, Unit l~ Sutter's Mil I
Ralph, Merry D, Barbara C
1500 Olympia Unit 19-E
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 20 Sutter's Mill
Trimble, James W.
1500 Olympia Unit 20
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 21 Sutter's Miil
Chapparel Minerals
1701 SW Parkway
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 22 Sutter's Mill
Green, uulcie K.
1500 Olympia Unit 22
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 23 Sutter's mill
Zingiry, Wilbur L.
1310 Augustine Ct,
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. F, Unit 24 Sutter's Mill
Nicholls, Bonnie C.
1500 Olympia Unit 24
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. F, Unit 26 Sutter's Mill
Judge, L. Keith Etux
1500 Olympia Way, No. 26
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. F, Unit 27 Sutter's Mil I
Schwarz Investment Co.
1500 Olympia Unit 27
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. G, Unit 29 Sutter's Mill
Rinker, Raymond D. Jr.
1221 Wright Dr.
Nacogdoches, Tx. 75961
Bldg. G, Unit 30 Sutter's Mill
1500 Olympia Unit 30
College Station, Tx. 77840
Abernathy, James M.
Bldg. G, Unit 31 Sutter's Mill
Hope, Henry W.
406 Regentwood
Houston, Tx.
Bldg. G, Unit 32 Sutterts Mill
Bishop, George H.
11999 Katy Frwy, Ste-450
Houston, Tx. 77079
Hldg. G, Unit 35 Sutter's Mil I
Grinstead, Mildred H.
1500 Olympia Way, Unit 35
College Station, Tx. 77840
Lot 66 C. H. Woodlands
Manning, Kirwin A. Etux
1217 Marstellar St.
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot 67 c. H. Woodlands
Sutherland, J. P. S.
1220 Munson
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot 86&87 C. H. Woodlands
Trost, Frederick J.
.1206 Ashburn Ave. E.
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot 88 C. H. Woodlands
Thurmand, Frank J.
3501 Pkwy Terrace
Bryan, Texas 77801
Lot 89 C. H. Woodlands
Ha 11, Wm S.
804 Gilchrist St.
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot pt 90, pt 91 C. H. Woodlands
Darnell, Rezneat M.
900 Gilchrist
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot pt 90 C. H. Woodlands
Gladden, James K.
806 Gilchrist
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt. pt 91, pt 92 C. H. Woodlands
Cox, Eleanor R.
906 Gilchrist
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk. Lt. pt 92, 93 C. H. Woodlands
Darron, M. D. Mrs.
910 Gilchrist
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 5, Lt. 20 University Oaks
Jarmek, Mary Anne
1728 Lake Shore Dr.
Ft. Worth, Texas 76103
Blk 5, Lot 21 University Oaks
Junek, Clifton J.
2913 Broadmoor
Bryan, Texas 77801
Blk 5, Lot 22 University Oaks
Strawser, Robert H.
919 Park Lane
Bryan, Texas 77801
Btk 5, Lot 23 University Oaks
Ruch, Carlton E.
4304 Maywood
Bryan, Texis 77801
Blk 5 Lot 24 University Oaks
A 11 en, John t~.
1406 Post Oak Circle
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 5, Lot 25 University Oaks
Cl ark, Roger
829 Dominik
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt 16-1 Woodland Estates
Almanza, Jesse
1001 Dominik Dr.
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt 15-2 Woodland Estates
Coppinger, John T.
1003 lJominik
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 13, Lot 6 Carter's Grove
James , \I/es l ey P.
754 S. Rosemary
Bryan, Texas 77801
Blk 13, Lot 7 Carter's Grove
Johnson, Jerral D.
1002 Dominik Dr.
College Station, Texas 77840
•
Blk 13, Lot 8 Carter's Grove
Ramirez, Santos A.
1000 Dominik Dr .
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 3 Timber Ridge
Blk 2, Lts 1,2,3,4 Timber Ridge
Blk 1, Lts 21,22,23,24 Timber Ridge
Mayfield, John C. Jr.
1700 Puryear #170
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 2, Lts 21,22,23,24 Timber Ridge
Timber Ridge Venture
1700 Puryear #170
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 4, Pt Reserve Tr. 6.82 University Oaks
Cripple Creek Partners Ltd.
Property Tax Service Co.
510 Colonial Savings Towe
Houston, Te xas 77036
Blk 4, Pt of Reserve Tr. C University Oaks
Ryan Interest Inc.
Property Tax Service Co.
510 Colonial Savings Towe
Houston, Texas 77036
Blk 4, Pt of Reserve Tr. 1.00. University Oaks
French's School Inc.
P.O. Box 4404
Bryan, Texas 77801
Sec. 2, Bk-2, Pt of R Greek Village
·Martel, Robert u.
P.O. Bo x 4106
Bryan, Texas 77801
Blk 13, Lot 13 ~A Carter's Grove
T. J. Kozik
1010 Dominik Dr.
College Station, Texas 77840
•
Coll e~e Panhel l en ic of Co lle ~e Stat io n re ~u e sts a varience to
the si ~n or d inan c e wh ic h will p erta i n to S ree k V illa ~e Sub -
d i visi on .
:K e ·1ue st ed:
One (1) si ~n pe r lo t in addi ti on to permanent i den ti -
f ication , e i the r atta c hed or d etache d , n o l ar ~e r than 1 00 s~. ft .,
·+t>
to be l o cat ed i n the f ro nt y ard n o clo ser t han 25 ft . ~ the
c ur b (and n o th i n ~ within the s i te d i stance triang le o n co rne r
lo ts), a d etac hed s i ~n n o t t o ex c eed 1 0 f t . i n hei <?.:ht ?~ an
atta c hed s i g n n ot
i s t o have
S i g ns d i sp layed on l y f or a rea s o nab l e l e n g th o f
ti me to cover an event .. ..a-R4--w±l l no L re 1 uh e i nd i v i dua l nermit.s...._
October 2 5 , 1 98 2
r
(
(
Jtes
,l_
pa~ 2
Greg Heff of the Travis House Apartments then spoke and asked what this was all about,
that he was completely in the dark, but was present because he had been informed by
a note on his desk that some kind of project was planned adjacent to the apartment
complex he was connected with, and that he was opposed to any more apartments being
developed in that area. Mr. Behling explained just what could be developed if this
rezoning request were approved.
No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Miller said that any development on Highway 30 would contribute to the already
heavy traffic. Mr. Hill said that he had difficulty with the staff's recommendation
that the Comprehensive Plan be followed in this particular instance when there really
is no problem for this type of development at this location. Bailey said that although
this tract is zoned R-6, the recommendation is for medium density development, and
R-6 zoning came about as a result of changing R-3 to R-6 when the Zoning Ordinance
was changed.
Bailey made a motion to approve the request with Hill seconding. Motion to rezone
this tract carried unanimously. (7-0)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 82-808: A public hearing on the question of granting
project plan approval for establishing an Office Park in a Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district located on Lots 113-120, Block 9, Southwood Valley Section 5-A.
Application is in the name of G. Philip Morley.
Mr.Callaway explained the requested project and pointed out that the only difficulty
was that the Ordinance requires a 15 foot setback with 10 feet of this free of any
obstructions, including parking. This plan does not provide for this, therefore it
would have to go before the ZBA for a variance before the project could be built.
Kelly asked about the lcoation of the fire hydrant and Bailey pointed it out on the
plan. Callaway pointed out that any drainage problems on site will have to be
handled by the City Engineer. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Morley spoke as
a co-developer of the project and read a prepared statement concerning the proposed
project. He then handed out renderings showing the type of building proposed and
said that he had met with area residents several times to keep them abreast on the
proposed plans. He also handed out a topographical study which showed drainage plans.
Mr. Kelly asked about the drainage flow and Mr. Morley explained. Mr. Hill referred
to the letter which 1 ists the proposed uses in the project and asked to what extent
the City can bind the owner to this 1 ist. Mr. Callaway explained that the 1 ist of
uses and the statement can be used as part of the project plan and can be referred
to at the time of issuance of building permits. Morley explained that this list
includes traditional office space usage and Miller. informed him that the City can
1 imit him to a particular rather than a general or 11 traditional 11 use. The term
11 financial institutions 11 was discussed and Behling expressed his opinion that
11 financial institutions 11 would include every type of fina 11cial office except 11 banks 11
and 11 savings & loan associations.11 Hill said he believed 11 professional office space 11
was too wide a category and left too much to the discretion of the staff. Fleming
said that the term 11 professional 11 meant to make money. Miller asked why elm trees
were proposed and Morley answered that the landscaping plan indicated the level of
landscaping proposed.
Opponents were called and John Loforen, an adjacent resident to the proposed project
came forward as a representative of a group of residents. He informed the Commission
that basically his group favors this kind of development but was concerned with
several things, primarily the problem of potential flooding and additional noise and
lights in the neighborhood.
(
ces
J
Don Bugh, another resident showed slides of flooding which has occurred in the past
in the southern part of College Station, but the slides were not of the particular
creek this specific project would directly affect, but rather of the larger creek
downstream.
Mr. Loforen spoke again stating this group believes the requested 39 foot variance
is more than should be granted (referring to rear setback requirement of 10 feet of
clear space). Commission asked him who did the topo studies, and Mr. Morley replied
that Meyer, Lytton & Allen, Registered Engineers had done the study.
Jack Weitsman, Professor of Civil Engineering and a Registered Professional Engineer
in the State of Texas came forward and indicated that he was concerned with the
elevated road and the accelerated flow of water which could cause the beginning of
erosion, the pattern of which is unpredictable in this type of soil. Kelly expressed
knowledge of and concern with flooding and erosion; Miller asked about the velocity
of water where it would hit the wall and the soil, then expressed his opinion.
Morley presented aerial photos of the site in question to the Commission.
Gale Wagner, a resident of the neighborhood addressed the Commission and said he
was a proponent of this proposed project and asked the Commission to consider
attaching a Rider to this project which would make it necessary to have any use of
this project be permitted, and then any tenant would have to be permitted individually.
He said the next best thing would be a restricted, approved list of uses.
Mr. Loforen spoke again stating that this was the best use of this property, but
expressed concern that the driveway behind the project would become another street
which would become dangerous and noisey. Mr. Behling said that a 611 raised curb r across the end of this drive would help solve the problem, but' Mr. Callaway pointed
out that this is a City easement and is used by maintenance and utility vehicles
and a curb would preclude their access from the street.
(
Jesus H. Hindjosa of 2704 Sandy Circle spoke and expressed concern about the drainage
and the driveway.
The public hearing was closed. Discussion followed concerning drainage and specific
or general uses for the buildings in the project. Commission discussed a list of
specific approved uses for the project as opposed to having each use of a building
in the project come back before P&Z for approval each time there was a change in
tenants. Mr. Hill read a list of uses taken from the list of approved uses in an
A-P zone which he believed would be appropriate uses to approve in this type of
project at this location, and this list was incorporated into the motion which
follows: Mr. Bailey made the following motion: (l) To grant project plan approval,
(2) To exclude those uses normally found permitted in a C-N zoned district, (3) To
limit the approved uses for this specific project to those listed under District A-P
zoning, but excluding business, music, dance or commercial schools, financial insti-
tutions of the bank/savings & loan variety (allowing other financial institutions),
photographer's studios, public parking lots for operating vehicles and other personal
service shops (which would include beauty shops, barber shops, shoe shops, and others
of this nature), (4)To approve this site plan with the deletion of the northern-most
curb cut, changing the word 11 elm 11 to "native trees" on the landscaping plans, and
recommending to the City staff that a 611 raised curb at the end of the easement be
installed (with final approval of this given to the City engineering and public works
departments).
Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-3 with Kelly, Fleming and Hall
opposing.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR MOTIONS
yard (6-G) -------
lot width (Table A) -------
lot depth (Table A) -------
sign regulations (Section 8) -------
__ .... / ____ minimum setback (Table A) ~ _;Z/~ ~,<-£-----...,
parking requirements (Section 7)
------~
from the terms of this ordinanc,.s;-~:=1..J.....i~
interest, due to the (lack of, followin
land not normally found in 1 ike districts:
will) be contrary to th e public
and special conditions of the
1.~f2:::----~~~~:::::::....,.L2._:_~~~'.'....._K~~~A~
2.-#:JH~~~-___,,L._____:::_.:___ ___ ..::::....:::..:::::::=::~::::::.._\
3. 7. _________ ___..,..~----------------------
4. 8.
strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance and because a
~would not) result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the
spirit of this Ordinance sha 11 be observed and @:anti a I ! us ti ce done\
...gA±ytrlrt-h@ f e 1..:WW:Lup pee I al crn 1d i t i ?As : I-u r-~ ~ ~ ..s
1. 4. ,4e?-~~
2. 5.
3. 6.
AGENDA
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustments
November 2, 1982
7:00 P.M.
1. Approval of Minutes from October 19, 1982.
2. Reconsideration of a variance to Table A, Rear Setback 11 E11 requirements
of Ordinance 850, at a proposed Village Square Office Park located in a
neighborhood commercial zoning district in Southwood Valley Sec. 5-A.
Application is in the name of G. Philip Morley & William E. Loveless.
3 . Reconsideration of a request for a variance of Section 8-D.3 Ordinance
850 pertaining to signs; the request is for additional sign(s) at each
of 9 sorority houses in the Greek Village Subdivision. Application is
in the name of the College Panhellenic Association of College Station.
4. Other business.
5. Adjourn .
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. l:
MINUTES
City of College Station
Zoning Board of Adjustment
October 19, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Chairman Cook, Members MacGilvray, Wagner, Upham, Alternate
Member Lindsay, Council Liaison Lynn Nemec
Mary Kay Donahue
Zoning Official Kee, Zoning Inspector Keigley, Director of
Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, Planning
Assistant Longley & Planning Technician Volk
Approval of Minutes from September 21, 1982 meeting.
Mr. Upha m referred to the last paragraph of page 3 conc erni ng Mrs. Cook's statement
concerning 11 a pizza restaurant had been opened in a building where the ZBA had at a
previous me eting established hours during which a business could be in operation ... 11
and wanted to amend this statement to reflect that the ZBA had not established the
hours, but rather that the applicant had informed the Board this restaurant would be
in operation from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and the Board had included this in the approval
of the variance requested. In other words, the applicant established his own hours
and approval of the variance was given based on the specifics of his request, plus
the one granted of parking.
Mr. Wagn er made a motion to accept the amendment to the minutes. Mr. Upham seconded.
Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Upham then made a motion to approve the minutes with
the addition of the above amendment; Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carri ed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a requ es t for a variance to Tabl e A, Rear Set-
back 11 E11 requirement of Ordinance 850, at a proposed Village Squar e Office Park located
in a nei ghb orhood commercial zoning district in Southwood Valley Sec..._5-A ~ppl ication
is in the name of G. Philip Morley & William E. Loveless.
Mr. Wagner asked to be excused from participation in this request; Mrs. Cook excused
him from the Board at which time he took a seat in the audience. Mrs. Kee explained
the request, and further explained that the Ordinance requirement of 10 ft. of required
15 ft. setback being cl e ar had been researched, and it was discovered the purpose of this
10 ft. cl ea r area had been established to guarantee that there would be clear space
for emergency vehicles, and because there was more than enough clear area to meet that
requirement in this setback, and because access was provided in the adjacent access
right-of-way, staff had no problem with this reque s t.
Philip Morley, a registered architect and developer of this proposed project was sworn
in and informed the Board his group had met with al 1 City departments, and all had indi-
cated they hav e no problem with this project or the encroachment for which this variance
has been filed. Mr. Lindsay asked about acce ss right-of-way being given by the owner,
and Mr. Morley indicated that this had been granted. Mr. MacGilvray asked who would
maintain th is city-owned access area and Mr. Morley an swered that the project owner
would, and that he wo uld be happy to put this in writing. Mr. MacGilvray further asked
about the amount of setback and Mr. Morley said that in most cases ther e is 25-30 ft.
between the rear of a building and the property line . Mr. Lindsay asked if there is a
power lin e across the rear of this property line, and Mr. Morley answered that there
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 2
will be, and that the power poles will be in the islands. Mr. Lindsay asked if the
Fire Department had seen this plan and Mrs. Kee answered that the Fire Department has
given their approval of the plan.
John Lofgren, a neighbor of this project was sworn in and told the Board that this
paving of this easement was creating a street. He quoted the Ordinance concerning
location of parking and the setbacks required, then spoke at length concerning this
11 street 11 which he believes will be created. He also referred to the Ordinance wh ich
allows parking to be located within 200 feet of this property, and then offered the
opinion that the whole project could be moved back which would allow parking in front
of the buildings.
Mr. MacGilvray asked how this right-of-way came about and who had approved it, and
Mrs. Kee explained that this had been done in the platting process and had come before
the P&Z. Mrs. Cook asked what the vote was when this plan was approved by P&Z and
was told that it was 4-3 in favor.
Jack Weitsman, a neighbor was sworn in, then showed a sketch concerning the drainage
problem whi ch could be created by the establishment of this drive and expressed his
concern. Mr. MacGilvray asked if this was his sketch, and he said that it was, but
that it was not drawn with exacting equipment. Mr. MacGilvray referred to a wall in
the sketch and Mr. Weitsman repli ed that this was his interpretation of what would be
done. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Morley if he had done a crossection of the road, and
Mr. Morley replied that he had not, but fu rth er said that the water would be carried on
to Longmire Dri ve and handed out a topographical study wh ich had been done by a profes-
sional engineering firm. Small group discussion fol lowed and Mrs. Coo k then asked
who would be responsible for maintenance of that drainage area during construction and
after occupancy, and voiced concern about the debris which often accumulates from
construction which could block drainage here. She wondered if perhaps the owners of
the adjacent properties should be required to help with the maintenance of this area.
Mr. Upha m said that the City no longer accepts drainage easeme nts, and that this one
had been platted before the newer pol icy became effective. Mr. Weitsman reiterated
that the road was being built for access to parking rath er than maintenance, and
asked what will happen in later years when this 11 road 11 crumbles and is repaired and
debris accumulates.
A head count for those in attendance who were in opposition to this variance request
was taken, and results tallied 8 in oppo siti on in the audience.
Al Mayo, Director of Planning was sworn in and stated that he would 1 ike to ans wer
some of the questions which had been raised. He addressed the drainage easement
and said work currently was being done to prepare a master drainage plan and mainte-
nance pol icy both for future areas and areas which have already been developed, and
that this drive would be a public right-of-way whic h would give both access to this
project and for maintenance vehicles working on the drainage area. Th e construction
of this driveway and the maintenance agre e ment, as well as the impact on drainage
will have to be cleared through the City Engineer's office. Th e Fire Department has
been consulted and has stated that it does not need the 10 ft. clear easement because
this driveway will be there, and the Public Wor ks Depart ment will be provided with
a paved surface to get to an area they must maintain and has stated they will be happy
to see it.
Paul Beckingham, a neighbor was sworn in and as ked about the location of 3 of the
building s in regard to setback and said there was not a 25 ft. setback for them. Small
ZBA Minutes
. 10-19-82
page 3
group discussion followed. Mrs. Cook called the meeting back to order and asked if
the City is creating another 11 front 11 entrance with the use of this driveway. Mr. Mayo
answered that the street address would be on the actual street in front of the project.
Mr. Upham asked if any buildings would be facing the drive in the rear, as well as some
facing the street. Mr. Morley answered that some buildings would be facing the drainage
ditch. Mr. MacGilvray said that in his opinion, Mr. Morley was trying to do the right
thing and develop a nice project, and gave examples of warehouse projects, the type of
which this developer is trying to avoid, but that he also believes the City has missed
an opportunity in the past to utilize this type of drainage area as a 11 people place."
Mr. Lofgren spoke again and said that as Mr. Mayo had pointed out, the City is being
foresighted in not running this driveway through to Deacon Street, but he fears that
this situation will be changed in the future, and that this drive would become a high
traffic generator. He said that he thinks this is a good project which has been rea-
sonable well thought out, but he still hopes a compromise can be reached, and further
asked if speed bumps could be included in the drive. Mrs. Cook reminded him that this
Board is not in a position to function as a Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Upham
referred to this particular request for a particular variance, and reminded the Board
that the request is for granting parking variance and the placement of a dumpster
adjacent to the rear property line only, and then pointed out that because this project
is for office space, it would generate Jess traffic than one for retail use.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from
the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the pub! ic interest, due to the
lack of special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in unnecessary
hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinace shall be observed and substantial
justice done. This motion died for Jack of second.
Mr. Upham made a motion to authorize a variance to the m1n1mum setback (Table A, note E)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due
to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike
districts and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done and with the following special conditions: That
all debris from the original construction and future debris followi_ng opening-!llust
be pol iced by the owners and the road maintained to City Standards -in perpetuity.
Lindsay seconded the motion, then amended the motion to include restricting the access
to the rear buildings to employees only. Mr. Lindsay then withdrew this amendment.
Mr. MacGilvray stated that he believed this right-of-way should not be paved at all.
Chairman called for voting. Motion to approve was defeated unanimously. Mr. Upham
reiterated that only the variance which had been requested had been denied.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a request for expansion of a non-conforming structure
and also a request for variance to the rear setback requirements of Table A -Ordinance
850 at a residence at 203 Fairview Street. Application is in the name of Johnny A.Martinez.
Mrs. Kee presented the request, referred to attachments in packets concerning this request
and gave the history of this non-conforming structure. She also reported that all
but one of the adjacent property owners who had contacted here were against this project.
Johnny Martinez, owner of the non-conforming residence was sworn in and explained the
project. He said that he had made numerous calls to City Hall for a final inspection
at the time the last remodelling had taken place, but that this inspection was never done.
v
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 4
He said that he had gone through all the steps necessary for each inspection, and that
his wife had called three times for this final inspection of the area to be inspected
which was a porch which he had enclosed. He fu rt her stated that he specializes in
three areas, namely electrical, plumbing (also air conditioning) and solar energy, so
he had done this wiring himself, but had left out some accoustical ceiling so the electri-
cal inspection could be done, and that t~le is still missing. He said that he thinks
that he should be able to enlarge his structure more than the 25 % allowable in the
Zoning Ordinance because his house is so small compared to others which would be
al lowed more square footage expansion at the 25 % rate.
Mr. MacGilvray interrupted and asked what the nature of the non-conformity is, and
was told that this is a duplex in a Single Family Resid ent ial zoning district. Mrs.
Kee said that the original house had been a single family home, to which a bedroom and
bathroom were added with rear access. In 1981 a covered porch was enclosed. Mrs.
Cook asked if Mr. Callaway had been the Zoning Official at the time the porch was
covered and he replied that he had been, also had visit ed the residence, and the enclosure
of the porch would not have exceeded the 25 % maxi mum . Mr. Martinez answered Mr. Upham 1 s
question concerning the size of lot by saying his lot is 50xl25; then Upham asked for
the size of neighbor 1 s lot, to which Frank Coulter, aft e r being sworn in answered that
his lot is 94xl25. Mrs. Cook pointed out that single family residences can be expanded
as much as anyon e wanted, as long as setbacks ar e met, but pointed out that this is
no longer a single family residence, but rather a non-conforming dupl,ex in an R-1
zoning district. Mr. Martinez said that he was planning to give the r esi dence to his
daughter (who 1 ives there now) and then it would be a single family residence. Mr.
Upham ref e rred to the original building permit dated in 1981 which requested repair,
including enclosing an existing porch, but which also included a note stating that
11 no chang e in the floor plan as it existed prior to construction wi ll be allowed by
order of the Zoning Board of Adjustment -March 24, 1981 11 • He stated further that
he did not know anything about a final inspection, but that he does kno w that the
ruling indicated that there could be no change to the floor plan, but the actual
cosntruction which took place did not comply with this directive. Mr. Martinez
said that only screen doors were changed, and that City Hall has always had a negative
attitude toward this piece of property. Mr. Wagner interrupted and said that what
Mr. Martinez had begun to talk about had no bearing on this request, and that the
Board wants to discuss the request. Mr:· Martinez handed out revised drawings, and
explained them, then Mr. Wagner asked the Chairman to excuse this witness, and the
Chairman agreed and did so. Mrs. Kee then reviewed these revised pTans with th e Board.
The Chairman repeated the request before the Board, reiterated that the zoning in
this district is R-1 and the present structure is a non-conforming duplex, which would
not now be allowed in this zoning district. She spoke of how the interior of this
building had been designed prior to the 1981 request for variance, how it is now
designed and states that this current request creates a new structure, not only
creating a duplex (which is now there) but a tri-plex. Mr. Wagner agr eed to her
observations and then asked the applicant why the proposed addition is so far away
from the existing structure. Mr. Martin ez denied that plans would cr eate a tri-plex
and said the reason for the distance between the s tructures is that after this addi-
tion is completed, he plans to tear down the existing original structure and build
a 2 story residence.
Elizabeth Martinez, daughter of the applicant was sworn in and stated that she had
been at the las t meeting during which the Board had discussed this building, and said
that when her family purchased the resid e nce, it was list ed as a duplex, and that they
now wanted to pull the kitchen out of the existing structure and make it larger.
The Chairman again explained R-1 zoning a nd ho w this duplex is now a non-confor ming
,.
t
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 5
structure because of the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance, and further
explained the restrictions this building now falls under. Mr. Upham explained
"grandfathering" and how, when the current use is over it will revert back to,
or be replaced with a single family dwelling or a structure which conforms with the
Ordinance. Mr. Martinez asked if 1 imiting the building to 2 bedrooms and a kitchen
rather than 3 bedrooms and a kitchen would be of help. Mr. Upham said that he
could only approve a structure which contained no kitchen or bath, and could not
accommodate a separate family.
Wayne Allen of Wharton, Texas was sworn in and said he opposed these variances
because of parking and sewer capacities, and wondered if there were some way to go
back in history and pinpoint when the nonconformity occurred in this R-1 district. He
then voiced appreciation to the Board for their public service in serving on the
Board and stated that he was a former resident of 302 Fairview, and that his daughter
had resided there last summer.
Frank Coulter (previously sworn in) spoke about the City having refused a permit to
a former owner, and also to another resident on Montclair for an additional non-con-
formity in this district.
Mrs. Cook asked staff if long range plans for this area we re for this area to be single
family residential, and this was confirmed.
Billie Hefti was sworn in and expressed concern for fires because of the age of the
homes in the area.
Mr. Martinez then asked to be given permission to build this new structure and to
tear do wn the old structure later. Mr. Lindsay pointed out t~at the Board cannot
legislate future use except through zoning restrictions.
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to deny the enlargement of a building devoted to a
non-conforming use where such extension is not necessary and incidental to the
existing use and does increase the area of the building devoted to a non-conforming
use more than 25 % and does prolong the 1 ife of the non-conforming use and prevent
a return of such property to a conforming use. Mr. Upham seconded the motion to deny.
Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for a variance to the location of the
required parking spaces at 321 University Drive (Northgate). Application is in the name
of J. E. Robbins, Sr. dba Chari ie 1 s Grocery.
Mrs. Cook informed the Board and the public that the City Council had ruled sometime
in September that no parking variances would be granted for a period of 12 months in
the Northgate area. She also said that she had spoken with the Mayor and the attend-
ing Council Liaison (Nemec) prior to this meeting, to clarify the intent of the ruling.
Then she advised that this matter should be given no consideration until this 12 month
moratorium has expired. Mr. MacGilvray read from the minutes which were included in
the packet, quoting Councilman Pat Boughton on this matter. Mr. Upham said this item
had been placed on the agenda at the request of the applicant and city staff. Mrs. Kee
explained that the staff knew that the moratorium affected the number of parking spaces,
but was unsure whether it also included the location of spaces.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Con s ideration of a requ est for a variance to the rear setback
requirements of Table A -Ordinance 850, at th e residence at 1026 Rose Circle. Appl i-
cation is in the name of Sun Scree ns of Houston.
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 6
Mrs. Kee explained the request for variance to setback requirements, and advised
the Board that the 10 ft. utility easement had been abandoned by action of City
Council at their October 14th meeting just the previous week.
Richard Nored of Sun Screens of Houston, applicant for variance was sworn in and
answered questions of the Board and a photo of what was planned was passed around.
Mr. MacGilvray spoke of personal knowldege of this particular bac kyard and wondered
if he should vote on this matter, and further stated that in his opinion this proposed
screening fence would not be detrimental. Mr. Lindsay asked if this man has the
authority to represent the owners of this property, and was informed that he in fact,
had applied for the variance.
Mr. Lindsay made a motion to authorize a variance to the m1n1mum setback (Table A) from
the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to
the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like
districts: The use proposed will not significantly detract from the area, and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would ~result in unnecessary
hardship, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, and with the fol lowing special exception: That this Board is approving
only the erection of a screen enclosure within this setback line.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a request for a variance of Section 8-D.3
Ordinance 850 pertaining to signs; the request is for additional sign(s) at each
of 9 sorority houses in the Greek Village Subdivision. Application is in the name of
the College Panhellenic Association of College Station.
Jean McDermott and Joy Howze were sworn in and further explained their request for
additional signs to be 11 information 11 type signs rather than identification signs.
They said the signs would be 11 tasteful 11 and would be monitored by advisors. Mr.
MacGilvray asked if the subdivision was really named 11 Greek Village 11 to which he
was answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Cook pointed out that future expansion should
probably be included in this request. Mrs. McDermott stated that only this land in
11 Greek Village 11 subdivision, which totalled 10 lots, was included in this request.
Mr. Upham asked questions and referred to the discussion held earlier this summer con-
cerning signs, then asked what type of sign, what size, how many d?ys would be specified
for the sign, etc. He received no concrete answer, so he then askecf-rf the sororities
were purposing that the Board give blanket approval for any size, type,duration,etc.
to which Mrs. McDermott gave a general answer that they were requesting perhaps
one extra sign per lot of an uncertain size, with perhaps a time limit of one week for
each time the sign was put out. Mr. Upham then expressed his wish that they come back
before the Board with a proposal the Board could deal with. Mrs. McDermott said that
this was a unique dormitory area and they really did not know exactly what to request,
and would generally like to see a 11 lessening of restrictions 11 to show support for
one of the largest industries in the City (that of the University). Mr. MacGilvray
read from the Zoning Ordinance the size of some signs al lowed in certain zoning districts,
and Mrs. Cook stated that she thought perhaps generalities could be in the proposal.
Mrs. Kee said that if a variance was not somewhat specific, enforcement by the staff
would be a problem. Mr. Lindsay said the sign regulations are listed in the Zoning
Ordinance and advised the witnesses they should sit down with the staff and work out
some specifics the Board could deal with.
Santos Ramirez of 1000 Dominik was sworn in and stated that he thinks the Board should
give specific rules to be followed by sororities.
Tim Coppinger, 1003 Dominik was sworn in and stated that in his opinion, a blanket
type variance would be a mistake.
ZBA Minutes
10-19-82
page 7
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to table this agenda item until such time the applicant
of the request can present a proposal the Board can deal with. Mr. Wagner seconded
the motion. Motion to table carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business.
Mr. Upham referred to the Committee studying the Northgate area and stated that to his
knowledge this committee has not yet met, and reminded Mr. MacGilvray & Mrs. Cook, who
are both serving on this committee that time is passing quickly, and something needs to
be done. He referred to an article which he passed around to be referred to when making
plans. Mrs. Cook asked if anyone had been appointed Chairman of this committee, and
Mr. MacGilvray stated that he had not been apprised of one. Lynn Nemec said she would
check on this with the Mayor's secretary.
Mrs. Kee indicated the definitions of home occupations, and excerpts from Zoning Ordinances
from other cities had been handed out to the Board for study, and suggested that due to the
lateness of the hour, this be put off until the next Board meeting.
She then referred to the City Attorney's memo which had been handed out concerning the
variance the Board had granted to the D.R.Cain setback encroachment. Mrs. Cook wondered
if there were no automatic penalties for this type of encroachment and Mr. MacGilVray
read the last part of the letter aloud. Mrs. Kee explained the procedure to be followed
if a violation is found. Mr. Upham said that he believed that a fine of perhaps 30 % of
the value of the structure should be imposed. Mr. Callaway explained that the $200 per
day fine for a violation was established by state law.
Mrs. Kee explained why Mr. Guidry and Mr. Searcy had not been \invited to attend this meet-
ing to discuss the utility 1 ine running across Mr. Searcy's property. She was directed
to invite them and the City Attorney to the next meeting of the Board.
Mrs. Kee also informed the Board that the next meeting date will have to be changed because
the City Council has rescheduled their meeting for that night. (November 30th was chosen
by the Board for the next meeting).
Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Upham seco~ded. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
Vi Cook, Chairman
. ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
City of Colle g e S tation
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I I O I TEXAS AVE U E
COLLEGE STATION, T EXAS 7 7 840
October 25, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
SUBJECT: Agenda Items -ZBA Meeting November 2' 1982
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 -RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE TO REAR SETBACK 11 E11 REQUIRE-
MENTS OF TABLE A -ORDINANCE 850 -Phil Morley
The staff is requesting the Board to reconsider the variance request made by
Philip Morley at the last meeting. The staff supports this variance request
as there is adequate access to the rear of this project because of the adja-
cent right-of-way. Therefore, there is no need for the ten feet of clear
area in the rear setback. The minutes of of the P&Z meeting at which the
site plan was considered are included in your packets also .
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 -VARIANCE TO NUMBER OF ALLOWED SIGNS.-SECTION 8-D.3 of
ORD. 850 -College Panhellenic Assn. of College Station.
This request was tabled at the last meeting. Information concerning the
requested sign variance will be presented at the meeting.
sjv
ZONrnG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.
Name of Applicant ___ G_._P_H_I _L _I P __ IYl_O_R_L_E_Y_&_W_I_L_L_I_A_fYl_E_._L_O_V_E_L...:...E_S-=-S-=---------
Mailing Address 1701 SOUTHWEST PARKWAY, SUITE 109, COLLEGE STATION
---------------------"'----------~
SiSXSi~H 693-9925
Location: Lots 113-120Block 9 Subdivision SWV SEC. 5-A ---
Action requested: GRANT VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE REQUIREfYlENT FOR 10 1
CLEAR AREA WITH NO PARKING AT REAR OF SITE.
Nl0fE ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
SEE ATTACHED LIST
.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FI.LE NO. ----
Present zoning of land in question C-N
----~----------------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought DISTRICT USE SCHEDULE, TABLE
A, REAR SETBACK 'E'
The following · specific ·ve.riation from the ordinance is requested: -------
TO GRANT PARKING AND PLACEMENT OF DUMPSTER ADJACENT TO REAR
PROPERTY LINE
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
THE SITE IS PLATTED IN 50' LOTS, NECESSITATING A STRIP CENTER APPROACH
OR A PARK SITUATION AS WE ARE PROPOSING, UTILITIZING THE ENTIRE SITE.
CITY OFFICIALS INDICATE THE 10' CLEARANCE REQUmREMENT WAS TO ·PROVIDE
.. ~.:..;.
ACCESS TO THE REAR OF A STRIP CENTER OR OTHER COMMERCIAL USE OF .A-
C-N ZONE. DIRECTLY BEHIND THW SITE IS A 70' ACCESS & UTILITY ROW
The following alternatives to the requested var iance are possible: -------
A VARIETY OF SI~E PLANS WERE STUDIED PRIOR TO THE SELECTION OF THIS
ONE, AND THIS WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT ALLOWED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK, SINCE THE LAND ALONE IS MORE
THAN 100,000 DOLLARS AN ACRE. OUR ALTERNATIVES ARE TO REDUCE THE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OR GO TO TWO STORIES OR ABANDON THE PROJECT, ALL
This variance wiil not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
fact~: __ A_C_C_E_S_S_I_S_N_O_T_I_M_PE_D_E_D_B_U_T_I_N_F_A_CT_C_O_N_S_I_D_E_R_A_B_L_Y_I_MP_R_O_V_E_D_B_Y~
OUR DESIGN. IN ADDITION, DUE TO THE EXTREMELY CLEAN USE OF THE
SITE FOR OFFICE SPACE, A LOSS Of 10' OF BUFFER IS INSIGNIFICANT
WHEN THERE IS ALREADY 70' BETWEEN PROPERTY LINES.
The fac ts stated by me in this application are true and correct.
/ 17. I · : . 1/1/1 } // 4 ;,t ~~~--· I /'/ ,fJ/ ).f.:u--t .----·
App;l icant /
Blk 9 Lot 94 southwood Va 11 ey 5-A
Ro be r t Stalc up
2735 Sa ndy Circle
Col lege Station, Texas 77840
Bl k 9 Lot 95 Southwood Va 11 ey 5-A
Josep h A. Patterson
2731 Sandy Circle
College Stat i on , Texas 77 840
Bl k 9 Lot 96 Southwood Va 11 ey 5-A
Da vi d A. Br oo ks
272 7 Sa ndy Circ le
College Sta tio n, Texas 77840
Bl k 9 Lo t 97 Southwood Va 11 ey 5-A
Lonnie L. Jo nes
2723 Sandy Circle
College Station, Texas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 98 Southwood Valley 5-A
Go r do n P. Hopkins et ux
271 9 Sandy Circle
College Sta t ion, Texas 77 34 0
Blk 9 Lot 99 Southwood Valley 5-A
Ke nn eth W. Durham
35 31 Hawtho rn e Drive
(2 715 Sandy Circ le)
Do ver , Del . 1990 1
Blk 9 Lo t 10 0 Southwood Valley 5-A
Wa yri e M Ah r
2711 Sandy Cir cle
Col l ege Sta t io n , Texas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 101 Southwood Valley 5-A
(e s are o A. Dom inquez
270 7 Sandy Circ le
Col lege Stat io n , Texas 7784 0
Blk 9 Lo t 102 Southwood Valley 5-A
Dani e l Ne i l McQuay
2703 Sandy Ci rc le
Co ll ege Station, Texas 77 340
Blk 9 Lot 103 Southwood Valley 5-A
James F. Mc Namara
2700 Sandy Circle
Co l lege Sta t ion, Texas 77 840
Blk 9 Lot 104 So ut hwood Vrl 'Py 5-A
Jesus H. Hindjo sa et ux
2704 Sandy Ci r cle
Collel)e Station, Tf'xac; i'7~t1))
Blk 9 Lot 105 Southwood Va lley 5-A
Yec hi e l Weitsman
2708 Sandy Circle
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 106 Southwood Valley 5-a
Gerald G. Waaner
2712 Sandy C1rcle
Co l lege Station , Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 107 Southwo od Vall ey 5-A
Donald W. Bugh et ux
2716 Sandy Circle
College Station , Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 108 Southwood Vall ey 5-A
Paul d. Beckingha m
2720 Sandy Circle
Co:lege Stati on , Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 109 Southwood Valley 5-A
Jon [. Porter
2724 Sandy Circle
Coilcge Station , Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 110.Southwood Valley 5-A
John C. Loforen
2728 Sandy ·ci rel e
College Station , Texas 77840
Blk 9 Lot 111 South~oo d Va l ley 5-A
Mar vin C. Miller et ux
2732 Sandy Ci r cle
College Station, Texa s 77840
Blk 9 Lot 112 Southwood Vall ey #58
Blk 16 , Lots 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 SWV #3
Rhea D1>1ayne
2751 Lon gm i r e
College Statio n, Te xas 77840
Blk 16 Lot 24 Southwood Valley #3
Peo~e r tree ~pts , Ltd .
Don R. Tu rl i nqton and Associat e s , Inc.
3000 Park Hill Dr .
Fort !·!orth , Tx . 76109
Bldg. D Unit 28 Woodsman Condos
Hen ry C. Orte ga
280 0 Lon gmi re #28
Co:leqe S_a tion , Texas 77840
Bldg . D ~ni t ZS Woodsma n Condos
rJ.ay1n und T . Srni th
2800 ~ong;i1 ·re ;=:zg
Coll ege St at io n , Texas 77 840
Bldg . D Unit 30 \.Joodsman Condos
Ha r old M. Tann er
2800 Longmire #30
Col l ege Station, Texas 77 840
Bldg . E Unit 31 Woods man Condos
Leland A. Sei dl
2800 Long mire #31
Co l le ge Station, Texas 77840
Bld g . E Unit 32 Woodsman Condo s
James e . Patterson
2800 Lon gm ire #32
College Stat i on, Texas 77 84 0
Blk 23 Lot 55 Southwood Valley 7-A
Southwood Valley, Inc.
P.O. Drawer AF
Co l le ge Station , Tex as 77 840
lR Dragon's Ne st
Edw ards , R. Wayne
2801 Lon gmi re Dr.
Colle ge Station, Texas 77 340
2R Dragon's Nest
Geor ge E. Echerd
280.1. Lor.gr.ii re
Co llege Station, Texas 77 840
Bldg . E Unit 33 Woods man Condos
Charles L. Ada ms
· 2800 Lon gm ire ~\ 1!/1.J
College Station, Texas 77 840
C i ty of Colle g e S tation
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I I O I TEXAS AVENU E
COL LEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
October 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Al Mayo, Director of Planning F
SUBJECT: Variance request, Village Square Office Park
I have met with Mr. Lofgren, the neighborhood spokesman from Sandy Circle.
I have recommended to him that the proper and legal course of action that he
should follow is to request that the City Council consider the site plan
approval on appeal from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The questions
raised by the area residents concerning orientation of front entrances, flooding,
vehicular lights, aesthetics, etc. were discussed by the P&Z at the site plan
review. If the area residents still have problems with these subjects they
should appeal to the Council. The Zoning Board is not the place for the appeal,
since the Board is only reviewing the variance request that the ten feet in
the rear be obstructed. You have a memo from the Fire Marshall clearly stating
that the ten feet is tota 11 y unnecessary · in this case. I, have a 1 so checked with
the other City departments. No one has expressed any need for this requirement.
To not allow Mr. Morley to utilize the access right-of-way, which was platted
before any of the Sandy Circle residents purchased houses there, would be
placing an unnecessary hardship on him. The staff has given this request
very serious and careful consideration, and we have not been able to find
even one reason not to grant the va·riance. We would strongly urge and re-
commend that the Board grant the requested variance, and let the City Council
hear the site plan appeal if they so desire.
AM/sjv
C i ty of Colle g e Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 0 1 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77840
October 28, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Harry Davis, Fire Marshall
SUBJECT: Variance request, Village Square Office Park
I have reviewed the request by Mr. Philip Morley to grant a variance to the
Zoning Ordinance requirement that ten feet of the rear setback "must remain
unobstructed by above ground utility installations, street areas, fences,
storage or parking".
I understand that the only reason for this requirement is to insure that an
open rear access area be maintained. According to the existing plat and
approved site plan, better access is being provided by and for this project
in the access right-of-way. There is, then , no need whatsoever for the re-
qu i rement of the ten foot clear area; therefore, I would recommend approval
of the variance request.
~outbtuoob Vallep, inc .
R es ide ntial
S ubdivision s
Planning Department
The Future of College Station
•••
October 25, 1982
City of College Station
College Station , Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Mayo:
Comme r cial
Propertie s
In order to resolve some questions regarding the development of Lots
112 to 120, in Southwood Valley, Section 5-A, which is zoned neighborhood
commercial, I would like to review the intent of the plat even though it
may not be clear from the plat itself what this intent ·was.
1. Rear Access Easement. The 70 foot access and drainage easement across
the rear or southwest side of this strip of lots was intended to be 40
foot for drainage and 30 foot for access easement. This came about as a
result of a ruling that at one time was in fact executed by the Planning
Department that commercial lots similar to those discussed here should have
access across the back of the lots for garbage and emergency vehicle use.
Developers would not be required to plat and build alleys but were required
to provide access easements across the back of the lots . In order that
persons building on the lots would be assured of continuity of access
throughout the tract, the access easement would enable future developers
to provide rear parking for employees and others, and I am in full agreeme nt
with the use of the property as proposed by Phil Morley and Bill Loveless.
2. Front Setback Limitations. Regarding the front setback limitations
and side set back limitations, the parking and access easement across
the front of the lots in question was placed there to insure a continuity
of the parking area across the lots so as to avoid a curb cut at every
lot. Unfortunately the development of Ra y 's Country Store did not c onform
to the intent of the set back which was drawn in error as a straight line
instead of a curve parallel to Longmire Drive. Mr. Morley and Mr. Loveless,
··--developers of Village Square Office Park, are in full compliance with the
intent of the plat and I hereby agree and request that the parking access
easement be redefined as being the front 25 feet along Longmire Drive
2 108 50 11 t l1woori Driv e, Pos t O ff ice Box A F, Coll ege Stntion, T ex ns 7784 0 T elephone 7 13-693-9110
Planning Department
Page Two
October 25, 1982
and further that the 15 foot side building line adjacent to the drainage
and utility right-of-way can be eliminated or reduced to the 7.5 foot City
requirement.
~
W. D. Pre sident
WDF/pz
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUST.MENT FILE NO. ----
Name of Applicant Colle .12;e P;:i.nhel l enic Assn . of College St::ltion
Mailing Address ~--P_._o_._B_o_x __ 1 _2 _2_1~,_C_o _l_l_e_~~~e __ S _t_q_t_i_·o_n~1 _T_e_x_q_s_~7_7_8_L_+_o ____ ~
Phone 693 -388 7 (Pennv Ditton , Panhel . Advise r)
Lot 1 Tract 1 ~ich qrd Carter Addition
Location: Lo t'.3 1 -4 Block --Subdivision Greek Villa.c;e 1
Lots 1-6 Bloc k 1 Subdivis io n Sreek Village 2
Description, If applicable ~--------------------------~
~reek V ill a~e Su b div i s ion con s i st in g o f e i ~h t sor o rity houses
co mp l eted , the ninth to be bu ilt bv 19 84 .· -=.___;___;_:__:::.-"----''---------------
Action requested: Th::i. t add i tional s i q:n ( s ) be ::i.l lo wed for ea c h res id enc e
wh ic h wo ul d supp ort fun ction s in which the student res i dents
are i nvo l ved .
NAME ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTME NT FILE NO.
Present zoning of l a nd in que stion R-6 --------------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sou,sht __ S_e;;_c~t_,_._8.;;__--=D_,._3'----------
The following specific ve.riation from the ordinance is requested: Th at add itio na l
s i qn (s ) per res i dence be allowed which wou l d sunp o r t funct io ns i n
wh ic h the student resi den t s are invol ved (ex .: Rush We e k , fo ot b 8.ll
~a m es , c harity dr i v e s , communit y service pro jects , P~rents f eekend ... ).
This variance is necessary due to the follmdn g unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
Th i s area o f stude n t board i n.g hou s es , e 8.ch wi th close 3 Ju mn;
superv i s io n and re s i dent advi s er (house rn other), is ve rv 1ml i ls:e ---
i n a pp earance and pu r p o s e the a par t me nt co mp l exes th a , or d i nan c e s __
wa ~ ori ~i na ll y wri t t en to co ve r .
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible~ __(not :::rnnl T...c.able)
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the followin3
f~ct~: The n i ne lot s (8 houses comnl etc d hollsin Q; ,just o"er 350 colls:.:;c
wo men and one to be co mp lete d in '8 3 or '84 ) are all together a nd
e it he r f ace e ac h other (7) or (2 ) f ace condomi iu , s nr i marilv
h o us i n~ students .
The fact s stated by me in this applica t i on ar e true and corre ct.
nl t e
Bldg. A, Unit 1 Sutter's Mi 11
Bldg. A, Unit 3 Sutter's Mi 11
Bldg. A, Unit 4 Sutter's Mill
Bldg. F, Unit 25 Sutter's Mill
Bldg. F, Unit 28 Sutter's Mill
Bldg. G, Unit 33 Sutter's Mill
Bldg. G, Unit 34 Sutter's Mill
Stanford Assn.
P. 0. Box 4106 Bryan, Tx. 77801
Bldg. A, Unit 2 Sutter's Mill
King, Ben R. Etux
1500 Olympia Way, No. 2
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. A, Unit 5 Sutter's Mill
Buncher, James, Mary, and
7102 Spanky Branch Dr.
Dallas, Tx. 75248
Bldg. B, Unit 6 Sutter's Mill
Lippman, L. F.
1500 Olympia Way, No. 6
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. B, Unit 7 Sutter's Mill
Livingston, Joel E.
1500 Olympia, No. 7
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. 8, Unit 8 Sutter's Mill
Homeyer, Howard C.
1500 Olympia, No. 8
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. B, Unit 9 Sutter's Mill
uwayne, Scott A.
P. 0. Box 4106
Bryan, Tx. 77801
Bldg. C, Unit 10 Sutter's Mill
Columbia Properties
P. 0. Box 4106
Bryan, Tx. 77801
Bldg. C, Unit 11 Sutter's Mill
Glassell, Alfred C. Jr.
1500 Olympia Way, Unit 11
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 18 Sutter's Mill Bldg. C, Unit 12 Sutter's Mill
303 Anderson Company
3833 Texas Ave. Ste. 400
Bryan, Tx. 77801
tildg. C, Unit 13 Sutter's Mil I
Marino, John C.
14703 Broadgreen
Houston, Tx. 77079
Bldg. D, Unit 14 Sutter's Mi 11
L. F. Lippman Trust
1500 Olympia Unit 14
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. u, Unit 15 Sutter's Mill
Harris, Roy H.D.
1500 Oly~pia Unit 15
College Station, Tx. 77840
tildg. D, Unit 16 Sutter's Mill
Stein, Hugo H.
1500 Olympia Unit 16
College Station, Tx. 17840
Bldg. u, Unit 17 Sutter's Mill
Littman, Charles and Margi
3833 Texas Ave. Ste B
Bryan, Tx. 77801
tildg. E, Unit lY Sutter's Mil I
Ralph, Merry D, Barbara C
1500 Olympia Unit ----19-E
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 20 Sutter's Mill
Trimble, James W.
1500 Olympia Unit 20
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 21 Sutter's ~Ill
Chapparel Minerals
1701 SW Parkway
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 22 Sutter's Mill
Green, Uulcie K.
1500 Olympia Unit 22
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. E, Unit 23 Sutter's mill
Zingiry, Wilbur L.
1310 Augustine Ct,
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. F, Unit 24 Sutter's Mill
Nicholls, Bonnie C.
1500 Olympia Unit 24
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. F, Unit 26 Sutter's Mill
Judge, L. Keith Etux
1500 Olympia Way, No. 26
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. F, Unit 27 Sutter's Mil I
Schwarz Investment Co.
1500 Olympia Unit 27
College Station, Tx. 77840
Bldg. G, Unit 29 Sutter's Mill
Rinker. Raymond D. Jr.
1221 Wright Dr.
Nacogdoches, Tx. 75961
Bldg. G, Unit 30 Sutter's Mill
1500 Olympia Unit 30
College Station, Tx. 77840
Abernathy, James M.
Bldg. G, Unit 31 Sutter's Mtll
Hope, Henry W.
406 Regentwood
Houston, Tx.
Bldg. G, Unit 32 Sutterts Mill
Bishop, George H.
11999 Katy Frwy, Ste-450
Houston, Tx. 77079
8ldg. G, Unit 35 Sutter's Mil I
Grinstead, Mildred H.
1500 Olympia Way, Unit 35
College Station, Tx. 77840
Lot 66 C. H. Woodlands
Manning, Kirwin A. Etux
1217 Marstellar St.
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot 67 c. H. Woodlands
Sutherland, J. P. S.
1220 Munson
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot 86&87 C. H. Woodlands
Trost, Frederick J.
1206 Ashburn Ave. E.
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot 88 C. H. Woodlands
Thurmand, Frank J.
3501 Pkwy Terrace
Bryan, Texas 77801
Lot 89 C. H. Woodlands
Ha 11, Wm S.
804 Gilchrist St.
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot pt 90, pt 91 C. H. Woodlands
Darnell, Rezneat M.
900 Gilchrist
College Station, Texas 77840
Lot pt 90 C. H. Woodlands
Gladden, James K.
806 Gilchrist
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt. pt 91, pt 92 C. H. Woodlands
Cox, Eleanor R.
906 Gilchrist
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk. Lt. pt 92, 93 C. H. Woodlands
Darron, M. D. Mrs.
910 Gilchrist
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 5, Lt. 20 University Oaks
Jarmek, Mary Anne
1728 Lake Shore Dr.
Ft. Worth, Texas 76103
Blk 5, Lot 21 University Oaks
Junek, Clifton J.
2913 Broadmoor
Bryan, Texas 77801
Blk 5, Lot 22 University Oaks
Strawser, Robert H.
919 Park Lane
Bryan, Texas 77801
Blk 5, Lot 23 University Oaks
Ruch, Carlton E.
4304 Maywood
Bryan, Texas 77801
Blk 5 Lot 24 University Oaks
Allen, John W.
1406 Post Oak Circle
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 5, Lot 25 University Oaks
Clark, Roger
829 Dominik
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt 16-1 Woodland Estates
A 1 manza , Jesse
1001 Dominik Dr.
College Station, Texas 77840
Lt 15-2 Woodland Estates
Coppinger, John T.
1003 lJominik
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 13, Lot 6 Carter's Grove
James, ~/es 1 ey P.
754 S. Rosemary
Bryan, Texas 77801
Blk 13, Lot 7 Carter's Grove
Johnson, Jerral D.
1002 Dominik Dr.
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 13, Lot 8 Carter's Grove
Ramirez, Santos A.
1000 Dominik Dr.
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 3 Timber Ridge
Blk 2, Lts 1,2,3,4 Timber Ridge
Blk 1, Lts 21,22,23,24 Timber Ridge
Mayfield, John C. Jr.
1700 Puryear #170
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 2, Lts 21,22,23,24 Timber Ridge
Timber Ridge Venture
1700 Puryear #170
College Station, Texas 77840
Blk 4, Pt Reserve Tr. 6.82 University Oaks
Cripple Creek Partners Ltd.
Property Tax Service Co.
510 Colonial Savings Towe
Houston, Texas 77036
Blk 4, Pt of Reserve Tr. C University Oaks
Ryan Interest Inc.
Property Tax Service Co.
510 Colonial Savings Towe
Houston, Texas 77036
Blk 4, Pt of Reserve Tr. 1.00 University Oaks
French's School Inc.
P.O. Box 4404
Bryan, Texas 77801
Sec. 2, Bk-2, Pt of R Greek Village
Martel, Robert U,
P.O. Box 4106
Bryan, Texas 77801
Blk 13, Lot 13~A Carter's Grove
T.J. Kozik
1010 Dominik Dr.
College Station, Texas 77840
•
Coll erre Panhe ll en ic of Co lle ~e Stat io n re 1 u e sts a varience to
t he si gn o rd inan c e wh ic h will p erta i n to ~reek Village Sub -
d i v i s io n .
One (1) s i ~n per lot in addition to pe r manent i dent i -
f ic at ion , e i the r atta c hed or detached , n o larg e r than 1 00 s~. ft .,
to be l o c ate d i n the f ro nt y ard no clo ser than 2 5 ft . fro m the
c urb (and n o th i n~ within the s i te d i st ance trian ~l e on co rne r
lo ts), a deta c hed s i ~n n o t to exc eed 1 0 ft , i n he i qh t 8n d an
atta c hed s i ~n not to extend a b ove the roof o verhan~. , o s i gn
i s to have f la sh i n~ li g hts or moving par ts .
Sig ns sh o u l d be d i sp l ayed on l y f or a r e a s o nab l e l e n ~th o f
ti me to cover an event and will n o t re 1 uire ind i v i du a l nerm i ts .
October 2 5 , 1 982