HomeMy WebLinkAbout228 Zoning Board of Adjustments December 7, 1982AGENDA
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustments
December 7, 1982
7:00 P.M.
l. Approval of Minutes from November 2, 1982.
2. Consideration of a request for a variance concerning business closing
hours previously established as a result of action taken by Board when
considering a variance. Request is in the name of L&R Foods, Inc.
3. Consideration of a request for a variance to Parking Requirements (Section 7)
at 108 Walton which is located next to Wilson's Plumbing Supply. Request
is in the name of J. F. & T. M. Sousares.
4. Other business.
5. Adjourn.
•
•
•
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
MINUTES
City of College Station, Texas
Zoning Board of Adjustment
November 2, 1982
7:00 P.M.
Me mbers 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 mad e 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.
Hr. Wagner referred to Agend a 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 Hr . HacG i 1 vray seconded
the motion; mo t ion carried unanimously" be added.
With the above corrections and additions, Mr. Wagner moved that the minutes be approved
wit~ Mr. HacGi l vray seconding. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM NO . 2: Reconsid e ration of a variance to Table A, Rear Se tback 11 E11 requirement s
of Ordinance 850, at a proposed Village Square Office Par k located in a neighborhood
commercial zon i ng 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 "location of
dumpster" was also in the request.
John Lofgren, a neighbor to the proposed project, was s worn in and stated the plan
presented tonight had changed since it was shown to th e 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 t h is 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 ho me s 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 pub] icly apologized
•
•
ZBA 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 gift of the easement 11
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 oth e r 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 like 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
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 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 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 City would
was amenable to blocking that end of this drive but could not.
Mr. Miller to approach the City Council with his request.
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 11 do you want 10 ft. clear space or not 11 , and
the question regarding the dumpster is that it could be relocated easily,but the Director
of Public Serv i ce has agreed to this location, and if this question is addressed, it
should be to the City Council. Mr. Lindsay said the question is 11 is there 10 ft. clear 11
and that he be l ieves 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 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, w i th 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 pert a ining 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
Coll~ge Panhellenic Association of College Station.
Penny Ditton and Joy Howze we r e sworn in and read the amendment to their request for
variance: Requested one sign per lot in addition to permanent ldentification, 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 (arid 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.
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 moving parts to be allowed occasionally, and then mentioned said sign would
be lit 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 as ked if this request for variance
had been discussed with the neighbors and Miss Ditton and Miss Howze indicated that
it had only been discussed wi t h 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 how the granting of this variance would affect other associations in the City and
was informed that this reques t 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 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
the building code and this ordinance, and said that this variance would not exempt them
•
•
ZBA 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 t~rms 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: 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 (1) sign
per lot 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 1 ights, 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 1 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 1 ine is an original REA 1 ine 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 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 1 imit 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. Lindsay requested a workshop with the City Attorney to cover obligations and duties
of this Board. Monday, December l, 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
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 .
-----·~--
•
•
Lb/-\ 11 1n u[e S
ll-2-82
page 5
Mrs. Donahue made a motion to adjourn.
ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
Mr. Wagner seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
Jack Upham, Acting Chairman
---~----~~---------
•
December 1, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 0 1 TEXAS AVENUE
COL LEGE S T ATION, TEXAS 77840-2499
Zoning Board of Adjustments )
/ j
Jane R. Kee, Zoning Off icial ~;1'\__
I
SUBJECT: Agenda I terns, December 7, 1982 Mee "t i ng
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration of a request for a variance concerning
business closing hours previously established as a result of action taken
by Board when considering a variance. Request is in the name of L&R Foods, Inc.
The Applicant is requesting extension to the hours of operation for the Pizza
restaurant on University (formerly 11 The Answer 11 ). A variance was granted on
April 21, 1981 (see enclosed minutes) and the hours of operation as offered
by the Applicant (9 to 9) were a prime consideration in the granting of the
variance (see enclosed correspondence between the Zoning Official and Mr.
Lampo, the City Attorney and Mr. Lampo, and the minutes of April 20, 1982).
The Applicant requests now to stay open beyond the hours of 9 P.H .
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a re uest for a variance to Parkin
Requirements Section 7 of Ordinance 850 at 108 Walton which is located
next to Wilson's Plumbing Supply. Request is in the name of J.F. & T.M.
Sousa res.
The Applicant is requesting a variance to the parking requirements for a
medical office building to be located at 108 Walton Drive. The requirement
for a medical office is 1 space per 150 sq. ft. The site plan submitted is
inadequate and there should be additional information available at the meeting.
sjv
.. ; t
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Name of Applicant L & .R Foods, Inc. d/b/a ·(Farmer's Market)
FILE NO. ----
Mailing Address 2700 Tex as Avenue, Bry an, Texas 77801
---------------=--'---------------~--~
Phone
Location: Lot 1 Block 5 Subdivision Tauber -------
Description, If applicable __ T_h_e __ a_n_s_w_e_r __ o_n_3 ___ ,=3_3~0~s_q.,.......~f~e~e_t~~a~f___.l~a~n~d...._~a~r~e~a....._ __ ~
Action requested: Modification of conditions of variance granted
previously Re: Business Closing hours
NAME ADDRESS
. -
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
See Schedule: Attached. .•
.,
FII.E NO. ----
C-I-Comrnercial Present zoning of land in question
~~~~~~-------------------
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought Not applicable
~~-----"--"-------------'-~
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
Eliminate business honr closing d~iilali.no of 9PM.
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
Not applicable.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
Not : applicable.
,I ,
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
., ., ~ '
facts: Operation of this business beyond 9 PM will not create
par k ing probl e ms as other businesses in this imm@die.to a r ea are
clos e d and there f ore many park i ng spaces are available.
The facts stated by me in this application are true and correct.
I/ 17_;3 /t v
Date
Blk. 2, Lots 10 & 11 Boyett
A & M Methodi.st Church .
417 University
College Station, Tx. 7784Q
Blk. 5, Lots Pt. 1 Tauber
Wyatt, Ted
505 University
College Statton, Tx. 77840
Blk. 5, Lots: 2 TauD:e.r
Coo 1 ey, B i'll J .
503 Glade.
College Statiun, Tx. 7784IT
Bl k. 5, Lot E /2 of 3 Tqufo:r
Stubblefteld, C. l:L,
P. 0. Box 2740.
College Statfon, Tx .. 77840:.
Blk. 5, Lot W/'2 of 3 Tau6e.r
Wes 1 ey Founda ti.'on
P. 0. Drqwe.r K
College Statton, Tx . 77841
Texas A&M Untversi.ty·
Fi.sea 1 Offi.'Ce ·
_ Coke .Bldg.
College Statton~ Tx. 77840.
Attn; James Bond
_. _,, .. ·Jr
MINUT ES
_ ::.C_~_~y ___ <?. L C_()ll ~ge _~S ~a t i c:>n _ ~ ·~:
Zoni n g Boar<l of Adjus t me nt
April 21, 19 8 1
7:00 p.m.
MEMBE RS PRESENT: Harper, Upham, Wa g n e r, Bou g hton
~lEMBERS ABSENT: Ma thewson, Burke
. -..
-¥ ·:.-7 --· ::;"":.~----~--~·
STAFF PRESENT: Ass 't. Director of Planning , Jim Callaway ; Zoning Official,
Jane Kee; Planning Technician, Joan Kei g ley
AGENDA I TE:f NO. 1 -Approva l of Minutes of Janu a ry 20, 19 8 1 and March 24, 1981.
-Upon motion by Boughton, s e cond by Harp e r and a unanimous vote, the minutes of
January 20, 1981 and Mar ch 24, 1981 were approve d.
AGEND A ITEM NO. 2 -Co nside ration of a reque s t for a var ia nc e to th e pa r king
requir emen ts for a r es t aur an t in th e nam e of L & R Foods, Inc., 2700 Texas Avenu e .
Chairman Harper ann ounced th e ag e nda it em-and op e n e d th e flo o r to discussion.
Mr. Johnny Lampo, Ch a i rman of L & R Foods, Inc. stated th a t he and his two sons
were int e r e sted in purcha sing the prop e rty loc a t e d at 501 University Drive E.,
for the purpos e of o pen ing a restaurant. He further stat e d that in tha t area
there was not sufficient pa rking to me e t the z o ning requir e me nts; but the natur e
and t y p e of their bu s ine ss and the hours of op e ration, 9:00 a .m . to 9:00 p.m.
should cau se le s s pro blems than the pr e s e nt bu s ine ss in o pe r a tion th e re. He
stated t ha t he a n d his s ons have a contra ct of purchas e on th e pro p e rty at this
time, bu t h a ve not clos e d the deal, and do not intend to do so unl e ss they have
a fav o r a bl e ruling from t he board to waive the p a rking requirements in that area.
Wa gn e r a s k e d Mr. Lam po wh a t seating capacity wa s planne d .
Mr. Lampo stated th e ir plans called for a seating capacity of 66. He stated that the
present o~mer is The Answ e r, which is a non-pr o fit o rganization, and his feeling
is this new use as a restaurant will actually decrease th e amount of parking re-
quir e d.
Chairman Harper ask e d how ma ny employee s they planned to h a ve .
Mr. La mpo state d a max imum of seven e mp l o yees, and most of th e m would b e student s
and wo ul d prob a b ly walk to work.
Mr. Up h am stat es h i s main c o nc e rn wa s ther e a r e only 3 pa r k ing sp a c e s avail a ble ,
a nd h e was not co nvi n c ed tha t most of th e e mp l oyees wou ld wa lk to work, rath er ,
h e f e lt mos t like l y wh a t e v e r parking was ava ilab l e would b e used by e mploy e es and
n o t b e a va ilabl e fo r custome rs.
Ch a irma n Ha rp e r s tat e d it was his fe e ling th a t th e hour s of op er a t i on propos e d by
Mr . Lampo wo uld n o t b e e x ac e rb a ting th e ex is t i ng pa rking prob lem; but th e lo ca l
churches in th e area alr ea d y compla ine d of th e ir p a rkin g l ot s b ein g u sed by cu s t o mers
o f bu sinesses in th e ar ea wh ich c o n f l i c ted wi t h e v e ni ng meeti n gs .
f'li.n uc es
Zoning Board of Adjus tm e nt
\pril 21, 1981
7 _:00 p .m.
·:-· -. .6.-. ~-.. -: 4 ··, .
.t'age cwo .
.:....·_:..~;;.: __ ---· •• ·-·· --•• ¥ -• • • __ :_ ·.:.: __ -_::_ '-_-_:-;_
·----=~-Mr .· Upham-ask_e_d -~vh at~-a.rr-a ngeme ;ts ·-or -g~a~a;te-~-io~. arrang eme nt f'~~-p ~r king . ~pa~~ for
empl oyees would Mr. Lampo make.
Mr . Lampo stated they would h ave to negotiate with other property owners in the
area.
Mr. Wagner stated he felt most of the problems were up the street from this location
and the hours of operation proposed by Mr. Lampo were a plus.
·chairman Harper pointed out to Mr . Lampo that only four board members were present
and it required four votes for a motion to be passed.
Chairman Harper then presented the following motion for consid eration:
That the variance for minimum off-street parking requirements on the property
in question be approved since it does not represent a substantial change from
the present use in parking and it would be in the best interest of the community
to approve the varianc e . The motion was seconded by Mr . Wagner and failed with
the following vote .
• In Favor: Bou g hton, Wagner, Harper
Abstaining: Uph a m
Mr. Upham stat e d p a rt of his pDablem was his p e rsonal acquaintance with the applicants,
and prior conversations with regard to the pro pe rty with Mr. Lampo's son; and he
wanted .to make it clear that Mr. Lampo's son was not aware that if any variance
was required t hey would h ave to appear bef o re a board upon which Mr. Upham served.
He stated if th e r e was a way it could be handl e d to assure the other board members
there was inde e d no conflict of interest, he would vote on a motion, if presented.
Chairma n Harper asked Mr. Lampo would he g uarantee they would lease additional
parking spaces for their employees?
Mr. Lampo stated ne would be glad to make that guarantee, provided he had a source
for such parking , bu t at this time, it was i mpossible to firmly guarantee they
would be able to secure additional parki ng. He assured the board they would make
every effort to comply -with t h is request and would agree to report their arrangements
to the zoning department.
Chairman Harper th e n presented the followi ng motion for consideration.
That the varian ce request as presented be approved based on the assurance of
the applicant that adequate parking will b e s e cured and provided for his employees,
and reporting to the zonin g dep a rtm ent of the a rrang emen ts that had been made.
Second was given b y Mr. Uph a m and re ce ived unan i mous approval.
AGEND A ITEM NO. 3 -Consid eratio n of a r eq u est for a varianc e to th e rear s e t-
b ack r eq uir ement in the n ame of Anthony Home Builders, Inc .
Mr. Call away st a ted that this lot is locat ed in th e Emer a ld Forest Subdivision.
The applicant has made this request b ecau se of t opogr aphica l probl ems with the lot
and t he con s truction of th e hous e on tha t lot.
Anthony R. Boatcallie, applicant for the va rian ce requ es t, explained that the minimum
squar e footage requir ement in Em e rald Forest is 1,800 sq. ft. The hou se proposed for
construction is a split level house. There is a 7 ft. d ro p in th e lot which does not
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes, April 20, 1982
page 5
that the only difference between paragraphs in Section 6-J would be concerning
who was responsible for putting up the fence .
Mayo then indicated that previously,Publ ic Hearings had been held for apartment
site plan review and the biggest single question by single family residents was
that of the screen fence between their property and that of adjoining apartments.
Vie Cook made a motion that any variance to the screen fence requirements be denied
and that the decision of the Zoning Official requiring a 6 ft. high continuous sol id
fence to be located along the southern property 1 ine and 100 ft. of the eastern
property 1 ine separating the apartment project ,from the developed Single Family
houses be upheld. MacGilvray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Harper indicated to Mr. Wright that he had a right to appeal to the County Corut
and that the County Court is out of the Board's jurisdiction. Harper further
indicated that if Mr. Wright now wanted an option to the screen fence, he must
go back through the Zoning Official and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
AGENDA ITEM #4: Consideration of a Variance to the rear setback for a room
addition in the name of Michael Murphy at 305 Pershing.
Michael Murphy was identified and sworn in, and agreed to reschedule this item
on the agenda at a later date. He indicated that he would 1 ike to have an informal
discussion which perhaps would clarify questions he had. Then he asked about the
time 1 imit on a Variance.
Kee referred to Section 10 as coverage of Use Permits, and indicated that the
City Attorney should be consulted, but that her interpretation was that the
Variance would continue as long as the Building Permit was alive.
Harper thought the period of time could be extended on specific projects.
Callaway reiterated that consultation with the City Attorney should take place
about a "delayed variance" on a particular building.
Murphy indicated that on the original Deed Restrictions indicated a 10 ft. set-
back was required, but that current Zoning Ordinancemade it 25 ft. He also asked
if a porch could extend into the setback and was answered that if the porch was
open on 3 sides it could extend up to 6 feet into the rear setback 1 ine, but not
the 12 ft. his drawing indicated.
Harper moved to table this item until the next regular meeting of the Board.
Cook seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
May 18, 1982 was identified as the next regular meeting date and Mr. Murphy was
instructed to contact Kee regarding this agenda item by May 7th.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 -Other Business.
Kee referred to the Minutes of the April 21, 1981 Zoning Board of Adjustment
meeting, Agenda Item No. 2: Consideration of a request for a variance to the parking
requirements for a restaurant in the name of L & R Foods, Inc., 2700 Texas Avenue.
Kee asked the Board how important were the hours of operation as stated by Mr.
Lampo in granting the Variance to parking. She pointed out that part of the request
to the Variance in 1981 that led the Board to approve the Variance was that the
hours of his proposed restaurant were to be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and that
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes, April 20, 1982
page 6
Mr. Lampo was now proposing to open some type of pizza parlor at that location, and
she speculated that the hours might extend beyond 9 p.m. She further explained
that Mr .. Lampo had indicated he might possibly close the restaurant to patrons
at 9 p.m., and only have late-night delivery service after that time.
Kee was advised by the Board to confer with the City Attorney to discover what
alternatives the Board has in reconsidering this matter.
Kee then referred to the update of Table A of Ordinance 850, and asked that the
Board study it and notes A & B, and be prepared to give an interpretation at the
next Board meeting. In the interim, she and Mayo would talk with the Fire Marshall
so the Staff could come to an agreement as to interpretation. The intent of A & B
is to have a fifteen (15) foot separation for a firebreak, as well as to allow lot
I ine construction with appropriate firewall construction.
Mayo pointed out that single family dwellings are usually 15 ft. apart, but that
there is only 7~ ft. of open space in which to work because of the fence on the
property 1 ine. He also indicated that he had talked wi th the Fire Marshall who stated
that the 7 ~ ft. did not matter if he had rear access to the unit.
MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn the meeting . Harper seconded the motion, which
then carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #6: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
YL /!fz,vc Le.,,
..
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STAT!0.'.\1 . TEXAS 77840
April 30, l 982
Sammie Lampo ·
Farmer's Market Sandwich Shop
329 University Drive
College Station, Texas 77840
RE: Hours of Operation of Restaurant to be located at 501 University
Drive East
Dear Mr. Lampo,
'.
At the ZBA meeting on April 20, 19 82 under "Other Business 11 I asked the
Board Members if the hours of operation as stated by the applicant at
th~ meeting on April 21, 1981, was a consideration in their granting
of the variance requested. Each member present at the meeting in 1981
was present at the above referenced meeting except Mr. Jack Upham.
Each indicated that the hours of operation was a pri me consideration
along with the limit of 66 seats and the location of the building.
Therefore, if you wish to operate the restaurant beyond the hour of
9:00 P.M. for other than "call-in-delivery service" only, you will be
in violation of the conditions of the variance granted unless you have
appeared before the ZBA again and had this condition removed.
If r !may be of any assistance please let me know.
. Sincerely, ~ ~
c_u/).~
Kee
Zoning Official
JRK: vw
i·Ir. Johnny La:rapo
L & R Foods
2700 Texas Avenue
Bryan, TX 77801
(
\
COLLEG ~:: ST.-\TIO:'-:. TE::·:,\S 778 -h">
fiay 11, 1932
RE: Parking Variance for Foo~ Service
Establishment at 501 Uni~ersity,
College 3t:ation
Dear I'1r. Lampo:
I have revie\·ied the circumsta!!.ces o f the above variance
•->'i th Hrs . l<ee.
As you are aware, the Zoning Board o~ Adjustment granted
a varianc e as to the parking requi~ements set forth in the
city zoning ordinance. That variance was based on several
special conditions, including the proposed hours of operation.
It was the sta£f's original feelin g that the hours of operation
\•le re Of prime im?Ortanc e in this C2Cision I and subsequent inquiry ·
b efore the Boaid at its last meeti~g confirms this impression.
This letter v.ril l confirm Mrs:. !<ee' s recent correspondence
\lith you conc erning the per~itted time of operations. If
op erations are continuing , after the hour o f 9:00 P.M., the staff
>·1ill request the Board to .make an official ·interpret_ation of the
variance , and to authorize enforce~ent action.
If you do intend to operate a~tcr 9:00 P.M., I would suggest
the reconsideration of this ~at.:ter by t~18 3o.::i.r c1. Only in that
manner may we determine whether or not the remaining circumstuncc~
and special conditions will justify the variance as to parking,
under the proposed extended hours of operation .
Plea se let me knoH if you ha,1e any qu e:.:;ti on s conc0rning t!1is
m~ttcr, and I will ao my best to b~ cif assistance.
L?D:jls
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.
Location: Lot --'-1""'"1 __ Block 3B ~'"'----Subdivision COLLEGE HILLS
Action requested: Varia~~e To Parking Requirements Seetl~u.~7~~~~~~~~~~~~
NAME ADDR ESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.
Present zoning of land in question C-1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought Section 7
~..;::...;:=-:::;..::..:o.=--'-~~~~~~~~~~~
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
A1oob:XX-.eofteQnci:medc~llf5octx::&bldeood'3c~ To Allow 6 Parking Units
( 3 in Front imd 3 at rear) of Lot 11 Block 3B College Bills Subdivision of the
City of College Station;
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of
the land not found in like districts:
The Lot in Queation is only 25 feet wide in Front and less than 23 feet in Real!'i'
Parkin~ Spaces to meet Variance Request will be taken in Part from Land next door,
Owned by Same Party.
-·
The following 2lternatives to the requested variance are possible:
Recause of the Size of the Property, no Alternatives are availahle, The Entire
' •' Front and the Entire 'Rear of the Property will be used to Meet the Primary
Variation Request.
This variance wiil not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
Sufficient Parking will he Available, on Street or in Adjacent Areas
Without the Possib1:_ity of Going into Adjacent neighborhoods.
The facis stated by me in this
#~~!Jo
application are true and correct.
November 18. 1982
Date
Blk. 3-B, Lots l-9 College Hills
Fontana, Joseph
1216 Munson
College Station, Tx. 77840
Blk. 3-B, Lot 12,fl 3 College Hills
Pruitt, John H.
Drawer A B
College Station, Tx. 77840
Blk. 3-B, Lot 14,T5 ~-22 :Col'l e ge Hills
Morehead, Bruce & Leonard
116 Walton,
College Station, Tx. 77840
Blk. 3-B, Lot 16, 17 College Hills
Redmond, H. E.
Box 9965
College Station, Tx. 77840
Blk. 3-B, Lot 18, 19, lO'of 20 College Hills
Ganter, Don B.
307 University Dr.
College Station, Tx. 77840
Blk. 3-B, Lot 35 ' of 20, 21 College Hills
White, Robert C.
710 S. Rosemary Dr.
Bryan, Tx. 77801
Blk. 3, Lot 1 College Hills
Payne, Vestal S.
% J. B. Payne
217 Hird St.
Gainesville, Tx. 76240
Blk 3, Lot 2 College Hills
Scasta, W. C. Jr.
Rt. 1 Box 87
Bryan, Tx. 77840
BI k. l , Lot 5 Co 1 I ege Hills
Robinson, R. M. And Dorothy
103-A Walton Dr.
College Station, Tx. 77840
Blk.~l, Lot 6 College Hills
Destefano, Frank & Bessie
Trust % S. F. Destefano Grandchildren
Box 256
Mumford, Tx. 77867
Blk . 1, lot 7, 8, 9, 19 College Hills
Culpepper, J. C. Jr.
Drawer JC
College Station, Tx. 77840
TAMU
James Bond
319 Systems Bldg.
College Station, Tx. 77843
_J )..______
~
><.
~
lJ\ _,
~
~
~ ....
-~
ll\