HomeMy WebLinkAbout76 Regular Meeting 8.29.78AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF .ADJUSTMENT
August 29, 1978
7:30 p. m.
1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 20, 1978.
2. Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche at
315 University Drive.
3. Consideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Johnson
at 415 Thompson Street.
4. Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins
at 1102 Carolina Street.
5. Consideration· of a request for variance from Larry D. Hill at
1806 Sabine Conrt.
6. Consideration of an appeal ·from Dr. Alexander on 107 and 201
Dominik Drive.
7. Other Business
8 •. Adjourn
' . ' ...... 1
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
Augu st 1 0, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustmen ,
FROM: Building Official
SUBJECT: Meeting of August 29 , 1978
1. Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche :
There was no application turned in on this case.
2. Consideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Johnson:
The applicant seeks a permit to add to a non-conforming structure
at 415 Thompson Street and a variance to the front setback require-
ments of the Zo ning Ordinance.
3. Consideration of a request for variance from Arne sta Wiggins:
The applicant seeks a permit to add to a non-conforming structure
at 1102 Carolina Street and a variance to the front setback require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance •
• ~# Consideration of a request for variance from Larry D. Hill :
The applicant seeks a p ermit in order to add .to his re sidence
at 1806 Sabine Court.
MEMBERS PRE SENT :
MEMBERS ABSENT :
STAFF:
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 20 , 1978
Hawley , DuBois , Jones
Hu ghey , Harper, Council Liaison Ringer
Building Official Koehler , City Attorn ey Lewis
Ag enda Item Numbe r 1 --Election of Officers:
This item was deferred until a greater number of members could be present.
Ag enda Item Nu.mbe r 2 --Approval of the minutes of the meeting of Apr il 18, 1978:
DuBoi s moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Jones
and unanimously approved.
Age nda Item Numbe r 3 --Selection of preferred meeting dates:
This item was deferred until a greater numb er of memb ers could be present.
Agen da Item Number 4 --A briefing by the City Attorn ey:
Lewis discuss ed the functions·of the Board , functions of the Council Liai son
and prerogatives of the Chair .
He made the point that in each case the Bo ard i s to make findings concerning:
-the public interest
-unique and special circumstances
-hardships
and that these findings should be explicit in the motion on the question.
Th ese matters of technique taken care of , the Board is allowed the wide st
di scretion in determining the meaning of these t erms , case by c ase , based upon the
evidence presented to them . A court reviewing a deci s ion of the Board would
not be expe cted to substitute its judgement for that of the Board .
Ag enda Item Number 5 --Other Business :
Ther e was no other bus iness .
Age nda Item Numbe r 6 --Adjourn :
Th ere being no other business , the mee ting was adjourned.
/
• Pags 2 of 2 .l'.LLt: nu.
REQUE ST FOR VARIANCE
Prese nt z on ing of land in que s tion~>-'-----~
Section of ordinance from \./hich varianc e is sought_·._. ---------------
The f ollo~r:L~g spe cific variation from the ordinanc e is reque sted:~-~-
Th e r eo -..:es t to extend t he l engtl1 o f' t .'rie ex-i d .j n g struc h ire do PS not CoY1 sti t u t .p
a variat ion from the ordinance
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions .
of the land not found in li.lce districts:
The co n struction is no different froY'! t ~a t ;p li k e di ~tr;cts
.The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:~-------
" •\
This variance ·will not be contrary to the public interest by Virtue of the following
facts: (1) The extens;on will not extend beyond th e b ack co nstrnc t jon of the .. ·.
longest building next to it, (2) The addition is needed to provide additional spa ce
for the present tennant to increas e his stock.
The ' facts · stated by me in this application are true and correct.
Dr. Lo ui se B. Vance
. ApplicaJ1 t
R.t.--v.1EW AND C01111ENT:
_.AygUst 5, 1978
Date
Specifications 'f'o:r P.ccitio:r: to :2xisti1;.g Euilding
located at 315 University 2r., Coll ege Stati on~ Texa s
Wall constructio:"l -P x 16 ci·r..der c:i..oc '!{
Exterior ~·ralls -paiy-_tec
Electrical -meet or e~c ee~ b~ildi~;
Col lese Statio:J.
code -J:' Vl city of
3ee~ or exceed building co ~e
Coll ege Station
Slab -3~ 11 con c rete -;·:r: t'.'.': steel mesh reinforcement
Ea c k 3:Xi t I'oor -3/0 ;: 6/8 steel coor
Ceiling
Ceiling -• .L JOlSv -2 x 6 oc 16 11
Roof -'built up ta:~ ar-.c .;ravel
:Flu rc."bing
fiCarzlass Catt
seet or· exceed ~uil~ing cod e f or City of
Colle.g-e Station
'• I
Property survey \•Till "::>e dor.e prior to constru ction
by a licensee s urve:r.-yor .
PH 512 I 693-3152
FLOYD MAKSCHE .
Building Contractor
P.O. Box 613 MARBLE FALLS. TEXAS 706!54
..
l ~1PPL :!:'::;.A1·IT __ ~~L~'L-J . ______ PII ONE _l!_~~ll.~
~'1 ? s MAILH!G ADD~SS y/ _7 "° ~~,-~ (,, ~
------------------~--------
LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION --------··----------··-------------
STREET ADDRES2 f/,t) J/~
PLUHBEil E LECTRIC I AH
OHEW c o=T ~'..3.UCTIO N [BRES1D EnCE OC 0'1EERCIAL
TYPE : 0 DE!.·:OJ:,r:=.oil -USE : OffJi)L:SX .DOTHER ..
[B-REPAIR/ADDITION OHOVE Ql.I 0 .A?ARTHE NT
lnt~'ELLDIG ·UNITS:
.. ·4-J'o .;/i~,. lco s'.r _ $ 5/JD.
oo . .
TOTJJ., All.E A HEATED /..REA -
F O UNDAT.ION_~ 7 09_> P ARTI_TIGHS ~~~h FEE : ·-
I @5 .00 '~ 00
.... @J .00
E~TERI O R -/;v~ . . . WI NDOWS r:?~--n..! ·· · ...
.. . @2 .50 ...
@2 .00 . .. :::;-:. . -.. ' -
· (ex.cl, k:i tch~n . ·-
b ·ath) @1 .25 ROOF :~--NO . OF ROO%S -· &
@ .75
BATHS NO. OF BLDGS 0CARPORT 0SINGLE 0 ATTACHE D TOTAL $ Soo
OGJ1..RAGE ODOUB LE ODETACHED
CENTPt.AL HEAT/AIR: TONS GAS AIR RECIEPT NO
.-
BUILDIHG OFFICIAL DATE ISSUED
I,, the und~rsigned , hereby certify that the illformation stated h e rein. and in the
attached plans is true and correct and that the construction proposed complies with
I
the Zoning Ordinanc e , the Building Code a.-rid conditions of approval of the plat of the
land. I also c ert ify that I am familiar ir.ith the regulations above mentioned and "r.ith
the · conditions of issu::mce of this p e rmit and I understa.rid that I am p ersonally li.a ble
to the pena lties provided by law for each and every day 1 s violation of any of the above
regulations in addition to the co::;ts o f removing o r correcting all such violations
whethe r or not they are shm.m on this pe:rr.iit or the attached plans.
SIGNATURE OF APFLIC P.lTT : £)</>. =<-» 4cy' :z. U'?<1fo>--<
.
I
•~e 2 of 2 -o
REQUEST ?OR VARIANCE
Present zoning of land in question ;I ~ €-: / ...
which variance is ~ought_:<_~--D, lj {;;1t?,l J::: ';£''). Section of ordinance from
The folloiring specific variation from the ordinance is requested; /1-l ___ _MQ_
t;X/5 71,J./{c /2
t1 No1;-1?. -ntc · ... ,·. -.
~.-... , .•"': ·.-. ,'
This variance is necessary due to the following unique · and -special conditions .
of the land not found in like districts: I
• : • ~~ • :_~-::·· .;<" • -• -• -· ..... -~L; :~·i~:-;::.·.~ z .;
/Jj(::. R F.~1.Deo;de t.-" t d /JS e vn,.z B t.:-"Fh:.t -:: lllV:-P/?l 3 cWZ S'Fi)_J?c-/;-Rt =-czviKffJ Y/tid ls,'
· ...... ;:-:·.•.. ·':·· ...... .. . "·• . ~ ..... ,~.·jf..,,.-.r····. ,, ... -·~ :_:.,.~ ...... .;...:. • ...; •.r1. • ,;. '-' ~.-. .. ·~.;;~,,;.~',:...;.. :: -"~"' ~:~-.-~ ... ~~;.!:{'.~~~ .,_~·· /!, . . . . .
f?C.5.JJ.2t;7Vl t= Nt/W CL11$StR£.="0 IH .!Vt?N c:'tJNl--~'1'2MIAltc S/i?Vl.Zv/;?,(,~ ///c??tf(=i:?~c:;'
The follow:ing alternatives to the requested V-cJri a.n.ce are possible: ... ~ .. ·~-::. --..
'---~~~··""·"""'·--. -
1$
/t.1
'. .
.. ~ :, ~.:~;::.:~ .... .. .
. This variance will not be contrary to · the public interest by virtue cf the following
) ...
facts: ~· _5£?,[1.:;?2./J-L.-<.'?F T!lt.=::-£Xt£TIN0 S{i?_c/t" Tf/l{f;:S. l.d .. "22Lt£_ ~::_:_~:-.:. ":.~,.
1Jt:7cr11B"/2.litJ ~;;"~ .oo NtJ'f M~cz;:.-:··;;IL ;:-cedlt.·;;;;< ... i~~K ··};~·-:--->-:--·:··_
; 1· . ',,,:~tf i#~ ~~¥~~~ .:;~;~~~~-_·. ·,i:~;.i;~'~J~;,~~t~F.~;~;~i~~~;,~~iJ~}?·:,~;,
·# .~..:.·;i•~ .. :Y •. :,~,._ .• ,! .. ,.:.~~1_f ,' '--"'"""· ·-1·.:.,,::-~~~'"·"?:;: : .• , .... ~.'.· . .,. ... ,.. ... .:,,;:.;,· ..... i "I':..·:·
The-' facts "stated .by me in this -application are true and corre'ct •
_ _:, ..
-. "'":.: ;. ~
. ,
... ,.·'.
...
". ·,
-~: ~-~·~·;..,'":· .. J; .. l. •• ·J: --.. ~.:,
• i ~··i-.~"~r-_ .... _ •• · ... ·~~ -.. -:, -:._._: .... _.,
.-::::-~:·,~:~;·:{;:· !:..· ~< -~· :"·.';, , ......
· .. ·.'
,._· ... _... , ... , ...
· ...
....... ..• . . ·-" ...
" . ·· ..... . •; ~ .. ~~
. ··-'
_..
.:,,. ...
LOT ___ BLOCK. __ _.SUBDIVISION
STREET ADD RESS· ___ _.c_)_,__) O_[L=:...=--· __,__C~'(Ut...,~·C'--;lifv;_-~A__,c......) __
PLID·IBER'.=::==========================~E=L=EC~TRI=L-=-=.C=IA=~~r=~=·=, =·=~======~~t:::=;::;;::;:F=====~
ONEH C O~i .33UCTION . [dF.ESIDENCE OCOMHERCIAL
TYPE: UDEi1:0LI.:.: .. : .. :J H USE: ODUPLEX .DOTiIIill
OHOVE o~r OAPARTI1ENT [l}REPAIR/ ADDITioN -------4
ln t·IELLT?m .mn?s: ___ ._ .. _·'forAi-_AREA HE!,TED ... ARE.~_·_ . lcos T S~; '24--1 .
-Q t YW)JJj -1 . . . -if\ L A-.--+ . ·1 . A tJ FOTJ'~DATION•~<b_~t fl,, -. P ARTITIOIIS /,.w,g,e-J j, tek ·~ giili'LLl-TE~ . 7 . WIHDOW$ -~u ~
--~NO. OF BLDGS __ _
CENT?J\L HE.AT/ AIR: TONS GAS
CO NDITION S .OF ISSUAHCE:
0CARPORT 0 SINGLE 011.TTACHED
OGARA.GE DDOUBLE ODETACHE D
AIR RECIEPT NO ___ ___.
--------~----------~-----~---~
---------------------'------------·-----·~---
.. BUILDIUG OFFICIAL DATE ISSUE D
I,, the undersigned, hereby certify that the information stated here:Lri and in tha
att'.3.che d plans is true and correct a..YJ.d that the construction proposed com.plies w-lth
the Zo!ling Ordina...'1.ce, -the Building Code and conditions of approval of the plat of the
la.rid. I also c ertify that I ara familiar ·with the regulation s above me ntion.ed and i ri.th
the conditions of issuance of this permit and I understand that I am personally lia ble
to the pe!lalties provided by law for each and e very day's violation of any of tho above
regulations in acldi t:l..on to the costs of r emoving or correct:i.ng a.11 such violation s
whethe r or not they are shm.m on this p e rmit or the attached plans.
SIGHATIJF..E OF .APFLIC/llfi':-9-(i/yn y<l ~?:2__D~TE8~)?), /f?~y v ·( (, .· .
t.J ;-r>
~-:i
t•j
0 l::.J
•p tu
"d
1:1
H
0
!<>
1-)
H
0 z
......
\.
!:'..
~
l.XJ
Paae 2 of 2 Fl.E~UEST r,OR V ARI At'\J"CE
Present zoning of land in question /Sin gl e Unit Hou s ing
Section of ordinance from which variance is sought Section 5-D.4
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:~~~-
__Jo add to an exi s ting re s ide nce wbi ch is not the r e q11i red 2 5 ' $>etback from tho
_gopertly line . Existing residence fal l und er non -conformj ng vs
This variance is necessary due to the folloi.rl..ng unique and special conditions .
of the land not .found in l:L1ce districts:
. House is already on property . It has been t here for 32 years .
Must have variance to add to an existing non-conforming u se •
The .following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: --------
None possible
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the follow:ing
facts:~-~T=h~e-=ma~i~o~r=i~ty..._,9~f=-t=h~e.._.h~o~1-1s~e~s.._.i~n._.t~b~e~n~e~i~g~h~h~o~r~h~o~o~d~d~o......,...n~o~~~. ~m~e~e~t,__.twh~o-..c~ur1±:±r~o~n~t.---
s e tback requir emen ts.
The facts .stated by me in this application are true and correct.
Applicant Date
REVIEW AND COMMENT : Building Official: ___________________ _
-\,
I
'-
.;
~
I
"
·~
' '-
LUTHER GOODRICH JONES
900 Hereford • P. 0. Drawer J
College Stati on , Texas 77840
?~~4': .-vt e 2-_i _t?: __ _l:u4j ·~ vt5
/?~::/ tf/ >:ecf . _ (~~~~ ., -ta---4"--~JJ.,~E..l-
Jl0ttovt1 ~ ,__!,_? e cl -I;µ. 4 ::tu -/ 9-"7 r
fF'V.61 f"ll(r I.A-IN.!) f)l.t/
~ --------·----··------------
p1€t1-
J)t.OG-1~
( r ,.
\
I flt PW a . .
r f1rl • , er-~~ l . ---:'~ ~
:~ I ~
~
; t I
~ tJ •
•
,';-f __ ....._!
0
~
I '::l ;~ k
• •.
-----------------------·-------------
... . ~
· ... •Page 2 of 2 File No~ ------'---. REQUEST FOR V ARIA!IJCE
Present zoning of land in question/ {?-l -e..
Section of ordinance fro!:l which varianc e is sought_· ___ {;._-_b_.-"-/ _______ _
The fallowing specific variation from the ordinance is requested: T ~ Go~
e\. CA.c-ro~i-o"' ~'tr.sfl.-\j clr-1-,,e.w'o/ w!.~kh woLl(l"' e.y.fe.. ..... cl
_b_~1 o...__J ±-ke ;LS' bu 1 tJ141 1 /;.-..e.. C~ee e~J,,~r-e -u:i....), I _
· ht\.V~ .e\lljo....f-eJ Cow./tt1t.c:fur 6ee:{7e McDoltt.a..ld . lo h1L1'!LfJ..~.eA,..far1-.
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions .
of the land not found in like districts:
I of6.~ -l-o . I
{'t2D~ .(A,"'J
··-··:: '. ~ ... .. ' .. :-.. -.: ~~-:.. : •-. .. . · .. •, ... :._ .-:_: -... --
I . I. I · · · · · . · .
. A rr r--o ~· 1 Cl£--o. ~ "'M~ la. t= ,_,o..t i«.t Ii\ c. :e-o YI J t.t V\-e i1, 1q 2, . sQ.-e
--e:V\ cl o.s"' re # 3. ·
The· ts · stated 7.a in this application are true and correct •
• i . fb~+-13,. 19 )J
Nate
REVIEW .AN"D CO.i"i:MEN T: Building Official: ---------~---'-------~
i
<·------··-------:------~
IIITIIILL j_I.J Ll_IT[O ___ --'
Gv.;f.;.-t,.1f C~ra vel)
f31;clt
'(" 1 /..J-+'Ls) W o;;c.l p .1;;1r.1•·.:t I~ ('\&I C:Yt n~f.) e
").~I ,\( ;J.. DI X gt
August 9, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
' _I
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Building Official
·Meeting of August 29, 1978
Dr. Alexander has filed a complaint of violation of the Zoning Ordinance
at 107 and 201 Dominik Drive alleging the following specific applications:
(Section 6-J --Screening Fences): The plaintiff alleges that the
screening fence is insufficient because of a gap left at the bottom
which allows trash to blow beneath it and collect against the fence on
the property line. A photograph of the condition is attached.
We have no t yet begun any formal action on this matter .
(Section 6-M .l --Environme ntal Regulations): Th e complaint in question
is of emission of noxious odors detectable beyond the property line, and
of noise above the ambient level beyond the property line.
We have de termined that the cooking odors beyond the property line are
the result of normal, common practice operations of an eating establishment.
The Health Depa rtment sanitarians tell me that both businesses have their
cooking facilities properly vented and filtered, and that the filters are
regularly and properly cleaned.
While it may be technically possible to add precipitators which could totally
eliminate odors , it would be highly unusual to install this equipment in
this type of establishment. Conditions which result from the common practice
of activities specifically permitted in the district are the ambient conditions
in the di strict , and the environmental regulations cannot be so construed
as to prohib it that which has been specifically permitted by the establishment
of the di strict .
Memorandum/Pago 2
Much the same reasoning applies to the noise levels resulting from the
businesses . Ambient conditions in the c ommercial district are those which
result from normal operations of permitted uses and are not those conditions
extant before development or in an adjoining district of dissimilar permitted
uses .
The specific problems to adjoining properties resulting from any misuse
of otherwise permissable equipment or processes may well be nuisances and
should be dealt with by the regulations of other ordinances prohibiting
them . There the question is narrowed to whether or not a person did create
a nuisance which could reasonably have been avoided by proper use of his
facility or process . Any action under the zoning ordinance must begin by
enJoining the offending facility or process itself , and this is not indicated
under the circumstances of this case .
The plaintiff points out that this case is unique in that residences exist
in close proximity to eating places . This is generally correct , and there
c an be little doubt of the plaintiff 's legitimate concerns here ; but we are
compelled to apply district regulations uniformil y (Section J-A) and this
seems to us an overriding expression of intent of the ordinance . To do
otherwise would be to effectively usurp the prerogatives of the City Council
in establishing land use districts and district r egulations in the City.
The conflict in interests and needs of the occupants of commercial and resi-
dential properties are inherent in the physical j uxtaposition of the districts .
We must assume that the Council weighed this factor against all of the concerns
brought forth in the original action which established the district boundaries .
If there is to be any adjustm~nt on the part of the City , it must be made by
the Council's either adjusting the district boundary or changing some district
regulations throughout the City .
(Section 7-B.J .2 --Lighting): A copy of the letter commencing action on this
matter is attached .
Mr. William Koehler
Building Official
City of College Station
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
June 13, 1978
By now you may have seen a copy of the letter I wrote Mr. Bravenec last
week. I intended to write you a more detailed letter at the time but became
busy with the beginning of school and failed to do so. The letter was sent
for precisely the reason stated, that is, to bring the matter to the attention
of the Mayor and the City Council. There was no intention to circumvent your
authority nor to imply that you do not adequately fulfill the duties of your
position.
The specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance that we feel are being
violated and our reasons for feeling that they can and should be corrected
are as follows:
6 J Screening Fences Required:
A fence has now been built behind the Danver's Restaurant
and parking lot. However, there is a gap at the bottom
which I hope will be filled in.
6-M Environmental Regulations
6-M 1 prohibiting "noxious gases detectable beyond the perimeter
of the property." I know something of the probable chemical
and physical, as well as physiological, properties of the
materials giving rise to cooking odors. I simply cannot
accept your statement that odor is a natural consequence of
cooking and that nothing can be done about it. Open sewers
smell bad and dogs bite people but that doesn't mean I will
live by an open sewer or let a dog bite me without any pro-
test. Odors can be eliminated at their source in a number
of different ways. I am enclosing a description of one such
unit. Joe Krolczyk at Kesco Supply Inc. in Bryan would be
happy to talk to Mr. Martin and Mr. Miller about their problem.
Of course, they are going to do only what they are forced to do
and will protest that they are being discriminated against.
That may be but this is a special case. Look around College
Station and if you can find eight other houses in an established
residential area back to back with three fast food places, I
would like to know about it.
(e) Relating to "noise above the ambient noise level dis-
cernable beyond the property line."
Even at best we're going to get plenty of noise from
delivery trucks, garbage trucks, customer noise, etc. That is
Mr. Koehler
June 13, 1978
Page 2
to be expected and, unpleasant as it is, must be tolerated.
However, the loudspeaker noise is not necessary. Both Pepe's
and Danver's are actually really very efficient operations.
The ordering, however, frequently takes longer than the wait
at the window.
After receiving appropriate greetings and "May I take your
order," the customer, who almost always feels the nee<l to shout
into the microphone and usually has to stop to consult the other
passengers, finally gives the order. The person at the pick up
window then inquires as to the individual preferences having to
do with such things as whether chili sauce or mustard is wanted.
That settled, the girl repeats the order. I leave it to your
imagination as to how it goes when a mistake is made somewhere
along the line. After this comes a maximum ten second trip to
the window. The stay there ranges from thirty seconds to a few
minutes. Why not just drive to the window in the first place?
The supervisor at Pepe's gave me some kind of vague expla-
nation involving "holding patterns" so I decided that if these
people thought they were running an airport, I would just ask
the manager at Danver's to lower the volume a little. He did
but in a few days, it was back up.
If the foregoing gives the impression that I think it's
funny, nothing could be further from the truth. Both Danver's
and Pepe's could operate very well without the amplifiers. And
this neighborhood would be a lot quieter place.
The cleaning of metal containers behind Danver's with water
hoses is also pointless. It's done late at night or early in
the morning. Most of the water, with a layer of grease or oil
on top, runs across the parking lot. Surely this should be done
inside the building.
J-B 3.2 Lighting
Both places have unshielded lights on the backs of the
buildings which are annoying and distracting. These could
easily be changed to shine down rather than out.
The two large high intensity lights near the entrance to
Pepe's must be designed to light the parking lot but they also
effectively light the Danver's lot and also our backyards. The
lights on the Danver's lot are bright but, in all fairness, I
must say that they are tastefully made and _do not give the
direct glare of those on the Pepe's lot.
I see this whole thing as a very clear cut case, that is, will or will not
a city enforce its own ordinances? I don't pretend to understand legal language
but I can read and in every case cited, there seems to be a violation.
..
Mr. Koehler
June 13, 1978
Page 3
I honestly feel that this letter deserves a point-by-point statement of
your position on each of these matters. In case I need to pursue this matter
further, such a letter will be absolutely vital to my purpose.
I sincerely hope that this affair, which should never have come about in
the first place, can be resolved without any development of resentment. Both
Mr. Martin and Mr. Miller are businessmen and, if they choose to make money in
this way, that is their right. However, I feel that my neighbors and I have
our rights too and that they are being infringed upon by these two men and their
willful and unfeeling conduct of their businesses.
Very truly yours,
'J< o ~W C"
Robert Alexander
RA/ks
Enclosure
··--
. ' " ____ .,.,,. \...
f"'·· '. I ~ i,1
j1,l
\,. r l~ Ii.
I v,~~~~~~~~
Jil 1u Ii
r
I
l "
I 11
: I I
11 I
"ic-'
~
! I I I , , l 1 v J t ... . . ; 11 I i
I I .,, I t l
.. I
1 11
I ' J
L; I i
j Alr dla!lfhu:lcn µl "'1um I
: I
I I: Elcctroi;tellc ~*'°' "'1C>bl ·• w~ ooual r>g
houalng I' I \1 1~ I
! lllld c~nlr1fu\jol l ti.J'Maualw I
~
u
0 0 '-.. ·~---~~~+--~~_.__lij:~_-_-_-__ -~---------. 0 1 -
E~::. (E nvl ron .T.E:n~ Pro ~l3c t l o:1) Ven ti la to r Syst ems
... c :vc tr-:0 prob~e~n o r s sve:-e smoke po llutio n ra-
•. J : i:r.cJ i rcm c harbroilero.)oration. EP sys t e ms in -
.:.~: ... -..:0 ~rrie cap z.ci~y . hiQh p 0rfo rmc.n c 0 ele c :ro .1;c
~recip;'i.;t ors in contrast to li ght du..:y prncip it<lt o rs
0 :. :.1 · . .-:.::.rr-et.
~P Ventilator Sys t.;;ms a ~e ava ·lable as a conso li -
c..::.:.::d spec i f!cc:.tion w i'L h o ne-source res;;onsib il-
i ty . Each syste m integrates th rea areas of
.::r::;n~8r;n g: (";) aii Alr Syst.::ms iistc d g r0 as e ex-
ra ~wr v.1nt i l at or designad for the layot.:t of cook-
in g e q ui;:>ment , (2) exhaust duct design, if
raq uin~d . and (3) an Environmental Con t rol Unit
eilgine.3 red and manufactured by the American Air
Fi lter Company, Inc.
cL;.-.N :..m
A ir Systems exhaust ven tilator_, are available in a
c ort1 ;:>l c t o ra:"IQS o f models each prov i d i n g t-.l gh
ra~Gs o~ grea::>e ext ractioil · at point of o ric in.
o~·ions c an include built-in fire extingll i shing ar.d
rn ~l·;e-up a ;r systoms.
EC U eq uipmer.~ by AAF, as shown in t he
sc.1cmatic FiQ.. 2, is a com;J letel y engin ee red elec-
ro s t.:.:.c p.-o~ipitator p ac)<ag & includin ::; exhaust
b:0, . .:~ w:~l1 motor and drl vcs scl0ct cc for tl-:e
2.;:i ::,:ica ;on. Collector c el l s are th o r0su l t of 35
yc.:::.rs ,.. • e:e ctrostat :c e x per ie nce and h ave wid or
;:i:.::..l0 spacing to.h and l e he avy srr.0ke lo<ldi nQs en-
cot..:nte:ed durinc ch i:'4r broi:i ng. T hi s low vo ltaa o
G~\J:,xr.-.nt is industrial duty, fu:ly ;:eld-provG."l,
<..i-: o.-1g ine8red for a i r volume capaciti 0s ranging
f ;o;,-., 2 ,50:J CFM.
Fi~. 2 American Air rlUer ECU oqulpment .
Exhoual duct
f
I
I
~
Fig . 1 Air Syutems conlri1u;:;oi 11ir, wo:o r w oiah
ki&chon v•mtllalor, Slmµt'l" s»nea.
CO N VEN I ENT M AIN TE NANCE
Bot h t he Air Systems ventil ator in t er ior and E:lec-
tro static cells in the Amer ican Air F :l ter l:CU
package are se l f-wast1ing with autom ari c or s em,-
c;.utomatic convenience. The se · feature s a s.0,ure
proper ventila tor sanitation i n th e kitchen aroo,
a;id rnlinble, hloh performance smo~e el i mination
at the oxhaust terminal.
The ECU is d es·gned t o m i n i m i ze o pera~ir.u r.;~in
t en ance by us i ng h:gh co ilection c apacit y electrc -
. static o i e;-:rnnts, heavy duty constructi on, anc.
' '•· ....
.l. ~··"' -.
<
--~-· . -,,,,.;, ~ ........ ~<..-."'.!!,.. ..... "'.'~...-::-:-. ·_-:-:'. .. -
~ .. -.. _..
4
j
l "'·----.~~~--~---·--------_.......-~
large size contacts and insulators which are lo-
cat e·d outs i de the smoke-laden airstream . Routine
r.:ai•1tenance requires cold water detergent wash
o i the collector cells at regular intervals activated
oy push button or automatic timer . Side doors in
tn e C:CJ provide convenient access to the wash
cissembty and collectorcells for visual inspection.
O ro.nary maintenance skills are suffic ie nt to
re tai n the original high performance of this
equip ment.
SP EC I FiCATION
Dc:~:u !s of grease extractor ventilators are listed in
Air Sys:ems catalog . Specit:cation of an EP V.anti-
:;.;t c: Sys~ern to Air Systems D i v. Doane Mfg . Co .
wi i . i ntegrate all sub-specificatior.s , inciuding
C:CL; p~e cipitator, job quotat i on and complete job
drawi ngs .
Typical ECU equ i pment .
'' •V :_.. •\)••I,. I . f 1 I >~I t 'I
ECU Ut ili ty Requirements:
Electrical -
Powei pack 115/60/1, 500 watts, 6.5 amps
Washer Motor 115/60/1, 1/6 hp. 5.9 amps
Fan Motor230/460/60/3, hp . varies .
Water Supply -
Min. 40 psig cold water. Consumpt ion range
depending on ECU capacity is 36 gal. to 108
gal. per cleaning cycle.
ECU access doors for conven i ent inspection or removal of
in du strial type smoke collector cells .
I
_.I
June 14, 1978
· Dr. Robert Alexander
200 Kyle St.
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Dr. Alexander:
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
The gap at the bottom of the screening fence behind Danver's is
to be filled in the process of landscaping the site.
The information that you have furnished concerning smoke and odor
control is being forwarded to our sanitarians along with our request
for specific recommendations from them as to how best to solve the
problem and to what extent we may reasonably control it. As we have
discussed previously, there will remain a question as to what regu-
lation may be appropriate.in consideration of customary operations
of permitted uses in the General Commercial district. We are not
in a position to make a definitive statement on this question until
we have the sanitarian's recommendations.
As you have mentioned in your letter of June 13, a certain amount of
noise is inevitable in General Commercial permitted uses. We agree
that the operation of the speakers is unreasonable and should cease, but
an attempt to apply the Zoning Ordinance provision in this matter would
be both circuitous and cumbersome. Ordinance Number 124 (enclosed)
specifically prohibits amplification of the human voice 11 to the annoy-
ance or inconvenience •••••• of persons in neighboring premises". We
believe that your proper and surer remedy is to file a complaint of
this violation each ti.me that it happens. Personnel on duty at the
Police Department during working hours can assist you in this process.
· ..
We are asking our sanitarians to investigate the "Washing process outside
of the building. Until we receive their reply we will not be able to
comment on this matter.
The shielding of lights behind Pepe's is definitely required by this
ordinance. The ewers will be notified to correct the condition. We
need to evaluate Danver's lights. to see if they should also be corrected.
Sincerely,
. j;J .. //_ /~0/ ![{!'/ltt~ ·74~//2--
/
William F. Koehler
Building Official
Mr. William Koehler
Building Official
June 19, 1978
City of College Station
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
Thank you for your prompt and responsive letter of June 14, 1978.
I will definitely follow your advice with regard to the sound systems
at Pepe's and Danver's.
I would appreciate it if you would let me know of any developments
which may result from the investigations of your sanitarian.
RA/ks
Sincerely yours,
·K~~ ~~L__
Robert Alexander
200 Kyle
' ,•
BRAZOS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
COU RTH OU SE ANNEX
202 Eas t 27th St., 1st Fl oor Tel e ph one 822 -7373 Ext. 24 1
BRYAN, TEXAS 77 8 01
Sponsored by :
County of Bro%os
City of Bryon
City of College Stotion
Texas A&M University
Texas State Deportment
of Health
Mr. William F. Koehler
Building Official
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
Post Office Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
August 9, 1978
A recent visit was made, August 2, 1978, with Mr. Henry G. Miller, one of
the owners of Danvers Restaurant at 201 Dominik Drive, College Station,
Texas, and during this visit his operation was observed. The ventilation
hood above the stove and grill area had the filters in place and readily
removable for cleaning. Mr. Miller stated the se hood filters are cleaned
each night. The filters looked clean for one half day use at the time
of this visit.
Mr. Miller did state that the e~ployees had been clean ing the hood filter,
nightly, just outside the back door where a high pressure hose is provided,
with a raised concrete slab and drain which is connected to sanitary s ewer .
This area is being kept clean. Mr. Miller said this policy will be changed
and has been changed so that the employees will clean the hood filters in
the three compartment vats inside the building. This quite probably could
be the pots and pans alleg ation. The high pressure hose was originally
installed for cleaning garbage and rubbish containers when needed as is a
common practice in Food Service establishments. The garbage and rubbish
containers, that are used inside the building, are of a plastic mat eri al.
A visit was made on the same date, August 2, 1978, with the manager of
Pepe's Mexican Food at 107 Dominik Drive, College Station, Texas, and his
operation was observed, especially in the area of the cooking vats where the
taco meat is cooked. The hood, vented to the outside, had the filt e rs in
place and readily removable for cleaning. The hood filters looked clean
with half day of operation. The area was observed back of the building at
Pepe's Mexican Food and was neat and clean.
..
Mr. William F. Koehler Page 2
With due respect to Pepe's Mexican Food, the ventilation hood, with
readily removable filters for cleaning, is a piece of equipment used
as a common practice in Food Service establishments.
Sincerely,
~~-~c5.
William C. Lewis , R.S.
Sanitarian II
aw
Approved:
~~.~~~-
George R. Mcilhaney, M.D.
Acting Director
1 -'
June 19, 1978
Hr. Alex Allen
Health Unit
Brazos Cou_~ty Courthouse
202 East 27th St.
Bryan, TX 77801
Dear Hr. Allen:
CITY OF COLLEGE S'l,A'I'ION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
We .have received a complaint of cooking oG.ors at "Pepe Taco"
at 107 D o~Qnik Drive.
We need your advice concerning w~at preven-cive measures can
be take:'! by the oimers a.nd your opinion of. what we may reason-
ably require of these people in light of common practice in
su~h est~blishm.ents and considering the proxilnity of residences.
We would also appr e ciate your investigating the allegations
that pots and pans are being iiashed outdoors at the close of
business at 11 Danver s 11 , 201 Do:rnin.ik Drive. He need to know if
this is acceptable practice or if theY: have any reasonable
alternative.
,, . /·~F' .. ,--;& Sincerely,, ~ /11~~;1/L---
William F. Koehler
Building Official
enclosure
WFK/rm
1 -'
Aug-..:st 3, 1978
Mr. Ken Martin
Pepe's Taco
107 Dominik Drive
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Martin:
CIT .Y O :F COLLEGE STATION
POST . OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
The Zoning Ordinance requires that outside lights be shielded or
directed away from adjacent residential properties.
The floodlight on the west (rear) corner of your building at 107
Dominik points tov;ard the r ear of your property and should be
"deactivated in order to · c omply with the ordinance~ Itdoes not
appear to be feasible to aim or shield this light so as not to inter-
fere wi th adjacent propertY,. The diffuse light fixtures on the ~~lls
of the building are not a proble~ in my opinion.
This letter serves as the notice required by Section 9-E of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Sincerely,
$·//· ~#Y.~/' i[m-&$ ~~~//
William F. oehler
Building Official
·wFK/rm
,. l _I
C T ......... / o· .P co ··~ E e ·-, .A i. ..:... ........ . ..!:. 'JL.J .. .... . ~
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
;._·..l~.J.s t 3, 1978
Mr . Henry Miller
Danver 1 s Restaurant
201 Dominik Drive
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Miller:
c 0 L L E G E ·s TA T I 0 N ' T E x A s 7 7 e 4 0
Th e Zoning Ordinance requires that outside lights be shielded or
directed away from adjacent residential properties .
The two high intensity lights a t the rear of your building at
201 Dominik ·Drive point toward t he r e ar of your property and
should be deactivated in order to comply with the ordinance·~ It
does not appear to be feas ible to aim or shield these lights so
as not to interfere with ~djace nt :property. Th e diffuse light
fixtur es on the i.,a lls of the builc; ng are not a problem in my
opinion .
This l etter serves as the notic e requir ed by Section 9-E of the
Zonine Ordinance .
Sinc erely ,
-"~~ Wi lliam ~~ler
Building Official
WFK/rm
..
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POS T OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
C O LL EGE STATION , TEXAS 77840
August 1 0, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO : Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM : Building Official
SUBJECT : Meeting of August 29, 1978
1 . Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche :
There was no application turned in on this case .
2 . Consideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Johnson :
The applicant seeks a permit to add to a non -conforming structure
at 415 Thompson Street and a variance to the front setback require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance .
3 . Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins :
The applicant seeks a permit to add to a non -conforming structure
at 1102 Carolina Street and a variance to the front setback require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance .
4~ Consideration of a request for variance from Larry D. Hill :
The applicant seeks a permit in order to add to his residence
at 1806 Sabine Court .
AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 29 , 1978
7 :30 p . m.
1 . Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 20 , 1978 .
2 . Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche at
315 University Drive .
3 . Consideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Johnson
at 415 Thompson Street .
4. Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins
at 1102 Carolina Street .
5. Consideration of a request for variance from Larry D. Hill at
1806 Sabine Co1rr t..
6 . Considerati on of an appeal from Dr . Alexander 0n 107 and 201
Dominik Drive .
7. Other Business
8 . Adjourn
L
-.
-.
--.
AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 15 , 1978
7 :30 p . m.
1 . Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 20 , 1978 .
2 . Consideration of a request for var i ance from Floyd Maksche at
315 University Drive .
3 . Consideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Johnson
at 415 Thomp s on Street.
4. Consideration of a request for vari ance from Arnesta Wiggins
at 1102 Carolina St .
5 . Consideration of an appeal from Dr . Alexander on 107 and 201
Dominik Driv e .
6 . Other Business
7 . Ad j ourn
-~.
• . ~.
. . .
•
~,./f~· (! ~ 1 ~pa -
?Ii. ·-k. 4--J.. . ,A/"'::""7. ~,, a... d~. A. tl.z -~ /A41!, cl~ ~. tJ. ... ~~-, M~
-~ .-.----
----.. /11-~ ~ ~···--'-a.«_
~ ~~~~¢!/~
. . ..
•
~· w·~ ,------------, ------------,
I
I
MI<. Wl~IN5 o~~$: ~TH !..OT~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_'Ne~
AOC t TIO 1-l --~-+"!'7'"~
I 'ft)RC.H I • ... -~
I =\l ::J'
I I -• ~
I 0-' -~ L------------~----------; ~--4
"I "''
J
AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 15, 1978
7:30 p. m.
1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 20, 1978.
2.. Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche at
315 University Drive.
3. Consideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee John son
at 415 Thompson Street.
4. Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins
at 1102 Carolina St .
5. Consideration of an appeal from Dr. Alexander. on 107 and 201
Dominik Drive.
6. Other Business
7. Adjourn
(
(
(
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS .ABSENT:
STAFF:
MI NUTES
ZO NING BOARD OF ADJ1JS1MENT
June 20, 1978
Hawley, DuBois , Jones
Hughey, Harper , Council Liaison Ringer
Building Official Koehler, City Attorn ey Lewis
Agenda Item Number 1 --Election of Officers:
This item was deferred until a greater number of members could be present.
Ag enda Item Number 2 --Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 18, 1978 :
DuBois moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Jones
and unanimously approved.
Agenda Item Number 3 --Selection of preferred meeting dates:
This item was deferred until a greater number of members could be present.
Agenda Item Number 4 --A briefing by the City Attorney:
Lewis discussed the functions of the Board, functions of the Council Liaison
and prerogatives of the Chair.
He made the point that in each c ase the Board i s to make finding s concerning:
-the public interest
-unique and special circumstances
-hardships
and that these findings should be explicit in the motion on the qu es tion~
These matters of technique taken care of, the Board is allowed the wide s t
discretion in determining the meaning of these terms , case by case , based upon the
evidence presented to them . A court reviewing a deci s ion of the Board would
not be expected to s ubstitute its judgeme nt for that of the Board.
Agenda Item Number 5 --Other Busine ss :
There was no other bus ine ss.
Agenda Item Number 6 --Ad journ:
There being no other bu sines s, the mee ting was adjourn e d.
·'
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
August 10, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO: · Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Building Official
SUBJECT: Meeting of Augu st 15, 197 8
1. Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche:
There was no application turned in on this case.
2. Co nsideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Johnson:
The applicant seeks a permit to a dd to a non-conforming structure
at 415 Thompson St re et and a variance to the front setback require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance.
J. Con s ideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins:
The applicant seeks a permit to add to a non-c on forming structure
at 1102 Carolina Street and a variance to the front setback require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance.
"t•
', . ~··
Page 2 of 2
REQUEST F OR VARI Al'I CE
Present z oning of land in question /Singl e Unit Housing
Section of ordinan ce .from whi ch varianc e is sought Section 5-D.4
The following s pecific varia tion from the ordinan ce is r e qu este d:~~~-
To add to an existing residence which is not the requ i red 2 5 ' se t back from tha
pr opertly line . Exist ing residence fall imder non -c onformin g us
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special condition s .
of the land not found in like districts:
House i s already on pr op erty . It ha s been t here for 32 years .
Mus t have varianc e to a dd to an exi sti ng no n-c onforming us e 9
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:~~~~~~~
None p o ssi ble
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
s e t back requirement s .
The facts .stated by me in this application are true and correct.
Applicant Da te
REVIEW AND COMMEN T: Building Official: ~~~~~~-'--~~~~~~~-'-~~~~~~
LOT BLOCK . SUBDIVISION ---··-----------~-----------STREE_•_T_AD-DRES3._-~_-_ _L_)J_.J 0:::__.::::::fL:::_· ~C..<lo..'.O~Vv~cl_:;:_~~-,1(;~A.._.,)'-
PLUHBER
ONEH C O~i 3-:3.UCTION .
TYPE: UDEI.1:0LI.:.·:...·JN
OHOVE 02 1
ELECTRICIAN
0f{ESIDEITCE ocorn.-;ERCIAL
USE: ODUPLEX OOTHER.~~~~...::J.£-1.<'.U.u....t-~---·-1
OAP ARTI1E HT filREP AIR/ ADDITION
~~--------1'
1nl,:S11nm mn'l'S: '· TOTAL-AREA HE ATE D AREA COST $ ___s:2 , ·2
----. . .. I
CiLrnllM fl 11 lh . . . -... --f/\ i __ · _J___1. _ ,;_ iA .. C'<j m ·-.. 11 F_~: @~.00 ·. o. oo -_ . FOU'~~A~ION :~.~(l~V(, ~ -: P A.~TI_TI_?US 'hJJUl_}~,rz tu( · 1' 1/-~-~ J @J . oo::,:==== TE.~ .0 1d ,(o/I . •. WilIDOllS (i.1LunU'. . ·. . ,--:==---· ::gg=-. ---=--=--==
_ 1RO .OF CiJ)2}.f-k :;.· \Jo . OF ROOMS . (excl,kitchen-& b·ath) __ @l .25 ___ --1
, __ @ .75
>ATHS HO. OF BLDGS "QC ARP ORT 0SINGLE 0.ATTACHED TOTAL $ -. .9 a .@
...
OGARAGE 0DOUBLE ODETACHED
AIR REC IE?T NO CENTRAL HE.AT/AIR: TONS GAS
cmmITIONS .OF ISSUANCE:
------------------------~---~
.·
_BUILDilJG OFFICIAL DATE ISSUED
Jr, the undersigned, hereby c e rtify that the information stated h erein and in the
atta che d plans is true ancl correct a11c1 that the construction proposed comp lies with
the Zoning Ord:i.Ju:L.""lce , the Buildi.-'1.g Coc1e and c onc1itions of . approYal of the plat of the
land . I also certify that I am farrri.liar with the r egulations above mention e d and with
the conditions of i ssuance of this perrtlt and I understa.11d that I am personally liable
to the pena lties provided by law for each and every day 1 s violation of any of the above
regulations in addition to the costs of remov-ing or correcting all such violations
whether or not they are sho'.m on. this permit or the attached plans.
SIGHA1'UEE OF APFLICftJ~q<J~ DATE~6{;)A/J'}'y
------------·~ -
tJ ;:c.
1--3 tz:I
0 >-.rj
i1d >-o
t-i
H
0 ;:c.
1-3
H
0 .z
....,
..
\.
~
~
~
-
"' ~ r-~
1--3
$
fJ
t:rJ ::u
~
I
'-
~
~
~
LUTHER GOODRICH JONES
900 Hereford • P. 0 . Dra we r J
College Station, Texas 77840
~~!)':..*.'Vt ~-s--~-::::__-~<::l.:/--1 ~L.vr5
A~~17~~e1 .-(~~~~"' ·~-4-~·2:£_E..l.-
J1.0r1ovt1 ~-· __ (_? e d -!>t. 4 ;t v -/ q,;y r
~1$1~(r ,_.,llV.J)Q,.I
~ ---·---· --------
p1ett-l)t.OG--1'-
c c ..
\
I f1.11JW
ti -. -
( &\ c-1' .. ~
I
I ~6-\
I ... --------------. ___ ..L
I
•.
~ --~
()
~
.
I
Pa.ge 2 of 2
REQUEST FOR V ARIAJ.'TCE
Present zoning of land in question Y. ~ /{-: / \; ~ . . r· ', ,,) .
Section of ordinance from which variance is sough~.----'~~-..5~~~-___..f2-..-~t/~-_,..,.. -.·~j~/9.~iV~t~;~t~_. ~!!<..;....~-
The follo:wing specific variation from the ordinance is requested: /?.' __ L9.£?Q_
'7/.1 . @S7Pl(r WJ1"t:f.//i/ ' 19
This varl.ance is necessary due to the following unique · and · special conditions .. ·
....
·; ,:: ~~~ ;:;~,~· .'_:: .: . ---::.;~l~,:,·~~!,~rf:::;:" ..
R ESiJJc=:-d(r ~ lll/JS (W11 • .z Bt.:-"Ftt1zt-:: tdl·-;-Pi?l-7Sc?{7 S'F&Jc--/( R.~c?vit?..GJ0 .. tid."zs,
of the land not found in like districts:
.·i:··.·---:· .. · -·.·"-~ ---·-· .. ·.,. · ..,,;.i.~·~.-~ ...... -....... ;r-.......... =.:.,,,,i~-~ .• ~ ... ·-•. ,;~:i.~ ·"'"-'~~,.;~U.:.!..!J~~.:;~·t,'.,.· .:;.:;..;..:..i,:..w:...~4 .. .-l~~--~_~:_.~:.~-·
lfJ.-JJ2t7Vti t: I~ Nr!W C L11$51r7L'='O &f HQ/I/ ,Cf«t-~~.1-/..1A1lc ST/?VC.[(//i~_;-~,.~ /11;.7;;{;,;;;;)-.
~ ::·. } ..
II V'llr214AllG
·-' .. ::.,~ .,. >}ll.;i:, :.,
is Rt:=c,'v1t2 l-=:o·. ·To-· 1111-Kr Lliv.'t . imp/TUA/« ·74 :~·~,J:Q" ~::~:· ·:~--.. ~" ·
·< ...... .::,_,:;~.~:;~~".21;·.~·C: :;~!" ~]·.;:....:·:-::~:~ -.~/;;,__,. .. ~ .•.. ,..J..· ... ·~-·-. • -., _ ;·.
.f/tlt1t -rri12.e 1 · :.-
·---"'-~..-··.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible::~. _ _,,__. ___ ._~::.~;~;:;·,·,-:·
//11"
· .. This variance will not be contrary to · the public interest by virtue of . ~he follow.trig
facts: 4 · 5E;'v/Li;JJ.IJ-L.~ c/F Tilt.?" E.if£T/N{c srgvcfc/f?t;-:;i ' Id.. ·itttr"~~-:s:-~.:}:-~,I·~.~-.
' · Nr::7~df)"Jd/2.lfc1111; ... F.J(J NtJ'/. Mn=:;;'>:·· ~fr.;:-:;.1./~~·,;;;;--: ... $"~if~k ··~::f~-~ ... -:::,.':~:·_:
; . ~ .. :.~:~t~~f:~~~~:_·,;.~~;f~~~; ~:-·,:~:~:l~ii::J~~,~~t~~~;;it~~~Lliltt-r~
' .. REVIEW AND COMMENT: Build:L'lg Official: ____________ __. ___ ........ ...___
APPLIC~'iT_ -~~~'":lJ ____________ PHO NE __££k _ _:_2___~~
MAILHJG ADD~SS f/7 ~~==~-,.__,~=1 ==-==(:=_~:=_-=--=S-=-=-=====-==~-=--=-=-=-============1
LOT BLOCK ___ SUBDIVISIO N _______________________________________ _
STREET ADDRES2~· _ ___::jl~/~,~2~--~~~'-::!2.~,.....,..,....,2:2:2:z-4-~~~~-~-:-~,~/-----------------J
//
PLUHBER ELEC TRIG If.JI
ONEW co:E:RUCTION [ID'lES.LDE n CE OCW1HERCIAL
TYPE; ODEEO:L.L :J...Gi-I -USE: 0 ffJ1)LEX . _ . , .DOTIIR.q. __________ ----{
0HOVE OlI 0.APAF.TI1E NT [BREPAIR/ADDI_T_I_O_N ______ -t
\ni\~1:LnrG ·mui's: -· · ,__ TOTAL _ Ju'.EA · -HEATE~ AREA -fj o .dl;J CosT $ 500. ·
0 0
FOurmATIOU~ Y ~ PlLllTITicus ~,,~;,;{;--•----~'-~:gg --so 0
EX~lt~OR;~ . ___ WIND~WS t:?~ -. __ ::. _·_ ::6g-.---~
.. .. .-..
ROOF . : ~ · NO . OF ROOlv!S -· . ( excl .. kitchen & bath) :1: ~; ____
1
B"AYtlS NO . OF BLDGS QCARPORT 0SINGLE 0ATTACHED TOTAL · $_-=5_-_o_o-+
[]GARAGE []DOUBLE [}DETACHED
CENTRAL HEAT/AIR: TONS GAS AIR RECIEPT NO
BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE ISSUED
Ir, the undersigned, hereby c e rtify that the information stated h erein and in the
attached plans is true and correct and that the construction proposed complies with
the Zoning Ordinance, the Building Code and conditions of approval of the plat of the
land . I also certify that I am farniliar with the regulations above mentioned and with
the conditions of is s uance of this p ennit and I understa.ri.d that I am personally liable
to the penalties provided by law for each a.ri.d every day• s violation of any of the above
regulations in addition to the co s ts of removing or correcting all such violations
whethe r or not they are shmm on _ this perr.d:t or the attachec1 plans.
DATE __ ~----
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 7 7840
August 9, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO : Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Building Official
SUBJECT : Meeting of August 15 , 1978
Dr. Alexander has file d a comp laint of violation of the Zoning Or dinance
at 107 and 201 Dominik Drive alleging the following spe cific applications:
(Section 6-J --Sc re ening Fences) : The plaintiff alleges that the
screening fence is insuff icient because of a gap left at the bottom
whi ch allows trash to blow beneath i t and collect agains t the fence on
the property line . A photograph of the condition is attached .
We have not yet begun any formal action on this matter .
(Section 6-M.l --Environmental Regulations): The complaint in question
is of emission of no xious odor s detectable beyond the property line, and
of noise above the ambient level beyond t he property line .
We have determined that the cooking odors beyond the property line are
the result of normal , c ommon practice operations of an eating establishment .
The Health Department sanitarians tell me that both businesse s have their
cooking facilities properl y vented and f i ltered, and that the filters are
re gularly and properly cleaned .
While it may be technically possible to add precipitators which could totally
-eliminate odors , it would be highly unusual to install this equipme nt in
this type of establishment . Conditions which result from the commo n practice
of activities spe cifically permitted in t he district are the amb i ent c onditions
i n the di strict , and the environmental regulations cannot be so c ons trued
a s to prohibit that which has been specifically permitted by the establishment
of the district .
Memorandum/Page 2
Much the same reasoning applies to the noise levels resulting from the
businesses. Ambient conditions in the commercial district are those which
result from normal operations of permitted uses and are not those conditions
extant before development or in an adjoining district of dissimilar permitted
u ses .
The specific problems to adjoining properties resulting from any misuse
of otherwise permissable equipment or processes may well be nuisances and
should be dealt with by the regulations of other ordinances prohibiting
them. There the question is narrowed to whether or not a person did create
a nuisance which could reasonably have been avoided by proper use of his
facility or process. Any action under the zoning ordinance must begin by
enJoining the offending facility or process itself, and this is not indicated
under the circumstances of this case.
The plaintiff points out that this case is unique in that residences exist
in close proximity to eating places. This is generally correct, and there
can be little doubt of the plaintiff's legitimate concerns here; but we are
compelled to apply district regulations uniformily (Section 3-A) and this
seems to us an overriding expression of intent of the ordinance. To do
otherwise would be to effectively usurp the prerogatives of the City Council
in establishing land use districts and district regulauons in the City.
The conflict in interests and needs of the occupants of comm ercial and resi-
dential properties are inherent in the physical juxtaposition of the districts.
We must assume that the Council weighed this factor against all of the con cerns
brought forth in the original action which established the district boundaries .
If there is to be any adjustment on the part of the City, it must be made by
the Council's either adjusting the district boundary or changing some district
regulations throughout the City.
(Section 7-B.J.2 --Lighting): A copy of the letter commencing action on this
matter is attached.
Mr. William Koehler
Building Official
City of College Station
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
June 13, 1978
By now you may have seen a copy of the letter I wrote Mr. Bravenec last
week. I intended to write you a more detailed letter at the time but became
busy with the beginning of school and failed to do so. The letter was sent
for precisely the reason stated, that is, to bring the matter to the attention
of the Mayor and the City Council. There was no intention •to circumvent your
authority nor to imply that you do not adequately fulfill the duties of your
position.
The specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance that we feel are being
violated and our reasons for feeling that they can and should be corrected
are as follows:
6 J Screening Fences Required:
A fence has now been built behind the Danver's Restaurant
and parking lot. However, there is a gap at the bottom
which I hope will be filled in.
6-M Environmental Regulations
6-M 1 prohibiting "noxious gases detectable beyond the perimeter
of the property." I know some thing of the probable chemical
and physical, as well as physiological, properties of the
materials giving rise to cooking odors. I simply cannot
accept your statement that odor is a natural consequence of
cooking and that nothing can be done about it. Open sewers
smell bad and dogs bite people but that doesn't mean I will
live by an open sewer or let a dog bite me without any pro-
test. Odors can .be eliminated at their source in a number
of different ways. I am enclosing a description of one such
unit. Joe Krolczyk at Kesco Supply Inc. in Bryan would be
happy to talk to Mr. Martin and Mr. Miller about their problem.
Of course, they are going to do only what they are forced to do
and will protest that they are being discriminated against.
That may be but this is a special case. Look around College
Station and if you can find eight other houses in an established
residential area back to back with three fast food places, I
would like to know about it.
(e) Relating to "noise above the ambient noise level dis-
cernable beyond the property line."
Even at best we're going to get plenty of noise from
delivery trucks, garbage trucks, customer noise, etc. That is
OI I t
Mr. Koehler
June 13, 1978
Page 2
to be expected and, unpleasant as it is, must be tolerated.
However, the loudspeaker noise is not necessary. Both Pepe's
and Danver's are actually really very efficient operations.
The ordering, however, frequently takes longer than the wait
at the window.
After receiving appropriate greetings and "May I take your
order," the customer, who almost always feels the need to shout
into the microphone and usually has to stop to consult the other
passengers, finally gives the order. The person at the pick up
window then inquires as to the individual preferences having to
do with such things as whether chili sauce or mustard is wanted.
That settled, the girl repeats the order. I leave it to your
imagination as to how it goes when a mistake is made somewhere
along the line. After this comes a maximum ten second trip to
the window. The stay there ranges from thirty seconds to a few
minutes. Why not just drive to the window in the first place?
The supervisor at Pepe's gave me some kind of vague expla-
nation involving "holding patterns" so I decided that if these
people thought they were running an airport, I would just ask
the manager at Danver's to lower the volume a little. He did
but in a few days, it was back up.
If the foregoing gives the impression that I think it's
funny, nothing could be further from the truth. Both Danver's
and Pepe's could operate very well without the amplifiers .. And
this neighborhood would be a lot quieter place.
The cleaning of metal containers behind Danver's with water
hoses is also pointless. It's done late at night or early in
the morning. Most of the water, with a layer of grease or oil
on top, runs across the parking lot. Surely this should be done
inside the building.
J-B 3.2 Lighting
Both places have unshielded lights on the backs of the
buildings which are annoying and distracting. These could
easily be changed to shine down rather than out.
The bvo large high intensity lights near the entrance to
Pepe's must be designed to light the parking lot but they also
effectively light the Danver' s lot and also our backyards. The
lights on the Danver's lot are bright but, in all fairness, I
must say that they are tastefully made ·and do not give the
direct glare of those on the Pepe's lot.
I see this whole thing as a very clear cut case, that is, will or will not
a city enforce its own ordinances? I don't pretend to understand legal language
but I can read and in every case cited, there seems to be a violation.
Mr. Koehler
June 13, 1978
Page 3
I honestly feel that this letter deserves a point-by-point statement of
your position on each of these matters. In case I need to pursue this matter
further, such a letter will be absolutely vital to my purpose.
I sincerely hope that this affair, which should never have come about in
the first place, can be resolved without any development of resentment. Both
Mr. Martin and Mr. Miller are businessmen and, if they choose to make money in
this way, that is their right. However, I feel that my neighbors and I have
our rights too and that they are being infringed upon by these two men and their
willful and unfeeling conduct of their businesses.
Very truly yours,
'R~~~~
Robert Alexander
RA/ks
Enclosure
·• I
s n .uk e, d no o ... ro...,,.,
·:
·. ~.
... .. -.:.· ::·.:::.:~ :--~ .;.~~·~""°',....,....;<.r·~~•"''.-r:~-:;:7-·;~:;:.'.. •' ~
, ..... -· -I ' .. ... 1
(.-..... --... ...... --__._..-_._,..__;_..i.-... ~'-'----~-... ~ ......... ~-.-......... ~
large size contacts and insulators which are lo-
cat Ed outside the smoke-laden airstream. Routine
mai•1tenance requires cold water detergent wash
. of the collector cells at regular interva l s activated
by pushbutton or automatic timer. Side doors in
the ECU provide conven ie nt access to the wash
cissembly and collector cE:lls for visua ! insp ect i on.
Ord.na ry maintenance skills are sufficient to
;etai n the original high performance of this
equipment.
SPECifiCATION
De:ai ls of grease extractor ventilators are listed in
A ir Systems catalog . Specif i cation of an EP Vt:nti-
a'lor Sys ~e m to A i r Systems Div. Doane Mfg. Co .
wii i integrate all sub-specificatior.s, inciuding
C.CL; p~e cipitator, job quotation and complete job
drawi ngs.
Typical ECU equ i pment.
ECU Ut il ity Requirements:
Electrical -
Powe• pack 115/60/1, 500 watts, 6.5 amps
Washer Motor 115/ 60/1, 1 /6 hp. 5.9 amps
Fan Motor230/460/60/3, hp. varies .
Water Supply -
Min . 40 psig cold water. Consumption range
depending on ECU capacity is 36 gal. to 108.
gal. per cleaning cycle.
ECU access doors lor convenient inspection or removal of
industrial type smoke collector cells .
·-..._
. !
.. .. ;
' ' ~ j i
... J •
I I
; I
I
I
I I l !
11
I
I
Air dl3trfbu:ioo i;lonum
and c:ontnfu~I tJJ\.>uilW
EP (E nv:ronrnen~ Pro:13ct'on) Ventilator Syst ems
.:•o l ve t h o prob!e;n of severe smoke pollution re-
.:::u i tln o from ch a rbroi!er cl.)0ratlon. EP syste ms in-
,_.! •c0 3rga cap~city, hlQh pe:iormc;nce e!ec:ro 11 :c
µrnc i p ;ta.t ors in con~rast to light duty precipi atom
o ;~ :t e :l"'.a r f~e t.
::P V e ntilator Systams a~e available as a consoli-
c;.;o.:0d specif!ce>tion with one-source res;Jonsib il -
i :y. Eac·h sys tern integrates threa <lreas of
e r.c;i neer;ng: {1 } aii Ai r Systams listad grease ex-
tractor v.:m ti lator designed for the layoLlt of cook-
ing equi;:>ment, (2) exhaust duct design, if
re quired, and (3) an En v ironmental Contro l Unit
engine3red and manufactured by the American Air
Filte r Company, Inc.
CL ~A N ;.;.:;:;
· J\ir Systems exhaust ventilators are available in a
cor11ple t o ra:iQa of models each prov i d i ng h !gh
rates 0 ·; grec:.se extraction · at point of oricin.
Opt ions can include built-in fire extingu ·shing ar.d
make-up a i r systoms.
ECU equipment by AAF, as shown in the
schem atic FiQ.. 2, is a comple t ely engin eered elec-
ro s t.::t i c precipitator pac~age includin g exhaust
b lO\'Ja w ;u 1 motor and drive s s cl ect £d for the
~pl)li cat i on. Collector ce :ls are th·3 resul t of 35
'--~ y0,;.rs o f e:e ctrostat:c experience and have wid ,_;r
p:z.w s pac in g to.handle heavy smoke loadings en-
coun tc:cd dt:ring charbroiling. This low volta oo
cQu i~;n c:n t is industrial duty, ft,;:ly field-proven,
<.,;,1d e:ig ineered for air volume capacities ranging
i ro m 2,500 CFM.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.! µ,
~
. '
'--·--" I....
Fi~. 2 American Air Fll~er ECU uqulpmcmt.
Exhoual duct
..
Intake air elol
r: i
f I I ~
i " I ;~
l .;;
:
• j
Fig. 1 Air Sy11tem11 contrlfoJal alr, wa lor w"sh
ki~chan v~ntllator, Slmpt'lx &9 ri ea.
CONVENIENT f•/lAINTENAMCE
Both the Air Systems ventilator interior and elec-
trostatic cells in the American Air F i lter ECU
package are self-wast1ing. with autQmatic or sem1-
autornc::tic convenience. These feature!> as.<:Jum
proper ventilator sanitation in the kitchen aroa ,
and rnliable, high performance smoke elimination
at tho exhaust terminal.
The ECU is d f)signed to r11inim izo ope:-a t ir.o r..uin -
tenance by us i ng high collection capaci t y eiactrc -
. static elements, heavy duty construction, anc
Mr. William Koehler
Building Official
June 19, 1978
City of College Station
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
Thank you for your prompt and responsive letter of June 14, 1978.
I will definitely follow your advice with regard to the sound systems
at Pepe's and Danver's.
I would appreciate it if you would let me know of any developments
which may result from the investigations of your sanitarian.
RA/ks
Sincerely yours,
K~ ~°'---~
Robert Alexander
200 Kyle
...
I
l _I
.P:ci~u.st 3, 1978
Mr. Henry Miller
Danver' s Restaurant
201 Dominik Drive
l
.!
... '!
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Miller:
CIT Y OF CO LL EGE . S'.I'i\.,.I'ION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
C 0 l L E G E ·s TA T I 0 N , T E X A ,S 7 7 8 4 0
The Zoning Ordinance requires tha t outside lights be shielded or
directed away from adjacent residential properties.
The two high intensity lights at the rear of your building at
201 Dominik·Drive point towa rd the rear of your property and
should be deactivated in order to comply with the ordinance·: ·It
does not appea r to be feasible to aim or shield these lights so
as not to interfere wi t h adjacent property. The diffuse light
fixtures on the walls of the building are not a problem in my
opinion.
This letter serves as the notice required by Section 9-E of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Sincerely,
·-4p~
. William ~~ler
Building Official
WFK/rm
.
I
Aug-.!s t 3, 1978
Mr. Ken Martin
Pepe's Taco
107 Dominik Drive
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Martin:
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
The Zoning Ordinance requires that outside lights be shielded or
directed away from adjacent residential properties.
The floodlight on the west (rear) corner of your building at 107
Dominik point~ to~~r d the rear of your property and should be
·deactivated in order to · comply with the ordinance. Itdoes not
appear to be feasible to aim or shield this light so as not to inter-
fere with adjacent property. The diffuse light fixtures on the walls
of the building are not a problem irr my opinion.
This letter serves as the notice required by Section 9-E of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Sincerely,
lff~~
William F. {7.~er
Building Official
·WFK/rm
l
_I
June 19, 1978
Mr. Alex Allen
Health Unit
Brazos Cou.nty Courthouse
202 East Z?th St.
Bryan, TX 77 80 1
Dear Mr. Allen:
CITY OF COLLEGE. STA'J:'ION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 J J 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
We . have received a complaint of cooking oG.ors at "Pepe Taco"
at 107 Do~cinik Drive .
We need your advic e concerning w:i.at preven-cive measures can
be taken. by the 01,mers and your opinion of. what we may reason-
ably requl.I-e of these people in light of common practice in
su~h est~blishr.lents and considering the pro:x:imity of residences.
We would also appreciate your investigating the allegations
· that pots and pa.ns are being washed outdo ors at the close of
busine ss at "Danvers", 201 Domi.~ik Drive. We need to know if
this is acceptable practice or if they have any reasonable
alternative. ·
William F. Koehler
Building Offi cial
enclosure
lIFK/r11
. I
BRAZOS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
COU RTHOU S E ANNEX
202 Eas t 27th St., 1s t Fl oo r Teleph o ne 822-7373 Ext . 241
Sponsored by :
County of Brazos
City of Bryon
City of College Station
Texas A&M University
T exo s State Deportment
of Health
Mr. William F. Koehler
Building Official
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
Post Office Box 9960
BRYAN , TEXAS 77801
August 9, 1978
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
A recent visit was made, August 2, 1978, with Mr. Henry G. Miller, one of
the owners of Danvers Restaurant at 201 Dominik Drive, College Station,
Texas, and during this visit his operation was observed. The ventilation
hood above the stove and grill area had the filters in place and readily
removable for cleaning. Mr. Miller stated these hood filters are cleaned
each night. The filters looked clean for one half day use at the time
of this visit.
Mr. Miller did state that the employees had been cleaning the hood filter,
nightly, just outside the back door where a high pressure hose is provided,
with a raised concrete slab and drain which is connected to sanitary sewer.
This area is being kept clean. Mr. Miller said this policy will be changed
and has been changed so that the employees will clean the hood filters in
the three compartment vats inside the building. This quite probably could
be the pots and pans allegation. The high pressure hose was originally
installed for cleaning garbage and rubbish containers when needed as is a
common practice in Food Service establishments. The garbage and rubbish
containers, that are used inside the building, are of a plastic material.
A visit was made on the same date, August 2, 1978, with the manager of
Pepe's Mexican Food at 107 Dominik Drive, College Station, Texas, and his
operation was observed, especially in the area of the cooking vats where the
taco meat is cooked. The hood, vented to the outside, had the filters in
place and readily removable for cleaning. The hood filters looked clean
with half day of operation. The area was observed back of the building at
Pepe's Mexican Food and was neat and clean.
.
.. I ' "'
Mr. William F. Koehler Page 2
With due respect to Pepe's Mexican Food, the ventilation hood, with
readily removable filters for cleaning, is a piece of equipment used
as a common practice in Food Service establishments.
Sincerely,
~~-Le5.
William C. Lewis, R.S.
Sanitarian II
aw
Approved:
~~-\k~~·
George R. Mcilhaney, M.D.
Acting Director
•' \
AGE NDA
ZONI NG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 29, 1978
7:30 p. m.
1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 20, 1978.
2. Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche at
315 University Drive.
3. Consideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Jo~-~son
at 425 Thompson Street.
4. Consideration of a request for variance from .Arnesta WiggL~s
at ll02 Carolina Street.
5. Consideration: of a request for variance from Larry D. Hill at
·1806 Sabine Conrt..
6. Con sideration of a.I~ appeal ·frcm Dr. Alexander on 107 and 201
Domriik Drive.
7. Other Business ·
8 •. Adjourn
. .
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
Au gust 10, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Building Official
SUBJECT: Meeting of August 29, 1978
1. Con sideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche:
There was no application turned in on this case.
2. Co nsideration of a r equest for variance from Henry Lee Johnson:
The applicant seeks a permit to add to a non-conformi ng structure
at 41 5 Thompson St reet and a variance to the front setback require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance. ·
3. Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins:
The applicant seeks a permit to add to a non-conforming struct ure
at 1102 Carolina Street and a variance to the front setback require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance.
_· .4~. Con sideration of a request f"or variance from Larry D. Hill:
The applicant seeks a permit in order to add .to his residence
at 1806 Sabine Court.
MEMBERS PRESE NT :
MEMBERS ABSENT :
STAFF:
MHIUTES
ZO NING BOARD OF J..DJUSTMEtJT
June 20 , 1978
Hawley, DuBo is, Jones
Hughey, Harper , Council Liaison Ringer
Building Official Koehler, City Attorney Lewis
Agenda Item Number 1 --Election of Officers:
This item was deferred u.ritil a greater number of members could be present.
Agenda Item Number 2 --Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 18, 1978:
DuBois moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Jones
and unanimously approved.
Agen da Item Number 3 --Selection of pref erred meeting dates:
This item was deferred until a greater number of mamb ers could be present.
Agenda Item Number 4 --A briefing by the City Attorn ev:
Lewi s discussed the functions·of the Board, functions of the Council Liaison
and prerogatives of the Chair.
He made the point that in each cas e the Board is to make findings concerning:
~ the public interest
-unique and special circu..u.stances
-hardships
and that these finding s should be explicit in the motion on the question.
These matters of technique taken care of , the Board is allowed the widest
discretion in determining the meaning of these terms , case by cas e, based upon the
evidence presented to them. A court reviewing a decision of the Board would
not be expected to substitute its judge~ent for that of the Board.
Ag enda .Item Number 5 --Oth er Busines s :
There was no other business.
Ag enda Item Number 6 --Adjourn:
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned.
Page 2 of 2
.8.L QUEST FOR VARIJU.rCE
Present zoning of land in que stio!l )' -'---------
Section of ordinance from vhich variance is sou r-ht ·
0 -----------------
The following specific variation from the ordinanc e is requested:~~~-·
The reo"J.est to exte nd the len g t'b 0f' ,,,.,P ex5 "'-!-jng structure doAs not CCcYJst.jt.nt.P
a variation from the ordinance
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions .
of the land not found in li.l\:e districts:
The construction is no different fro'.:'! t'1at -in Jj'k-e distr-icts
. The follo·wing alternatives to the requested. variance are possible: _______ _
. . . -,,
This variance t-r.ill not be contra.ry to the public interest by :Virtue of the following
longest building next to it, (2) The addition is needed to provide additional space
for the present tennant to increase his sto~k.
The · facts· stated by me in this application are true and correct •
.... ·.
Dr. Louise B. Vance _Allg'list 5 1 1978
.Applicant Date
REVIEW AND CO:Vil'lENT: Building Official: _______________ _,_ ___ _..,.. __ _
·'
Sp ec~fi catio ns -:'o!' ).ccitio::. to 2xistiii.g :euilding
locat e d at 315 U~iversity :r., Coll ese Station, Texas
Wall co nstrl.l ctio ~ -P x 16 ' -, C.LOC«
Exterior ~-ra .lls -p.s.~~ .. tee~
Electrical -n eet or s~cee~ ~~ildi~z
Col leE:e S~a~io:-:
cod e _ ....
V.!. city of
Air Conditionin g /~e~t -sest or exce ed building coce
of C ~ty o~ Co~lege Stati o n
Slao 3 ~" concr -:te -:;.;::_ t !: stee~ mesh reinforcement
Eac1c ~it I'oor -J/O ::-: 6/8 steel coor
Ceiling -· t:" sheet:-oc":< '::.10 1·:-.:..
Ceiling Joist - 2 x 6 OC 16"
Roof -built up ta:.~ a:--.d gr&.vcl
:Flurrbing
-6·· fi'cz:-g la.ss 1-.;att
Geet or ezceea ~uil~ing code for City of
Colle.g-e 3ta tio:'l ..
Property survey K~.ll "::ie. dor..e prior to construction
by a licensee su::-ve:ryor.
PH 5t2 I 693-3152
FLOYD MAKSCHE
Building Contractor
P.O. Bo)( 613 MARBLE FALLS. TEXAS 706'54
LOT BLOCK __ SUBDIVISIO]. ________________________________________ _
STREET ADDRES2;·--~1L.Lf......:.,>L2'.__~~~-:::::2~, .J...a~"'~--,.,...,~4~~--;:::::::~· ~:._-·-------------~
./ -
PLill·IB~R=================================::_E~~~~::J~]TR~1~I~C~I~J~Ul~~::::::==::::::::::::::::=.:===================!
OlIBH co:i ~'l.3.UCTION [ftRESJ.D:2:~iCE OCO?~{ERCIAL
TYPE: ODE!.·:OI.:I:;:-:::T·i -USE: OD"I?L.SX .OOTIIE.1:c._.,__ __________ -1
01.:ovE m~ OP.?A.HTI·iK J'I' BR.EPAIR/ADDI_"'_1I_o_1_1 ______ __.
lnkELLTIIG .IB!ITS:· __ ·_· __ ·TOTAL /J!.EA..__·._: ____ EEATE~ AREA . ffo i 46JcosT oo c -....... . ,., 5uO ..
Fomm.~TIOIJ_~ 7 ~--·:-.P&tl~I_Ti_cr~s cd!G if£-rh
EXTERIOR ·/4;~__, · wrnno~s eL~ · ..
. . . . :;:::;: ---. . . .. ~ ...
ROOF : ~--NO. OF ROmlS ___ -_·~_ .. (ex.cl# ki tch~n · & b·at.h)
BATHS ___ l!O. OF BLDGS __ _
jCENTR.4L HEAT/ AIR: 'fONS GAS
COHDITIOHS OF ISSUAHCE:
QC..A..RPORT
0 GJ..R.l\GE
AIR
0SIHGLE
ODOUBLE
0ATTACHED
ODETACHED
FEE: ---
' @5. oo _ _c:;:s.;._._o_o-1
-~-@3.00~----t
___ @2.50_~---1
__ ._@2.00 ____ -I
•~~-®l.25 ___ --1
, ___ @ • 75 _____ ,
TOTAL $_~.!J.~-o __ o_
RECIEPT NO
----------·------·~------~-----~--~-~
'
.• ·.
BUILDIHG OFFICIAL DATE ISSUED
. .
I,, the undersigned, hereby certify that -the information stated herej_11 and L~ the
attached plans is true and correct and that the construction proposed complies ir.it~
the Zoning Ordinance, the Building Coje and co::lditions of approval of the plat of the
land. I also certify that I run familiar wit!'l the regu.lations above mentio!led and irith
the · conditions of issuance of this perrrd. t and I underst.a.11d that I am personally liable
. to the pen.alties provided by lm.J for each and every day's violation of any of the above
rcgulation3 in eddition to the co3ts of removjng or correct:ing all such violations
uhcthe r or not they are sho~m on this pe:!'T.}_it or the attached plans.
'e>
I Ll
'Ll t-•
H
0
;~
H
0 z
.
I
~ .-ge 2 of 2
.tillQTJEST ?OR V.ARI.Al."'ICE
Present zoning of land in question '/ ~ f{: / .. ) . . . --. ,. ,,
.5 -l2 l I _(;-;w..,i..::-II .. '' Section of ordinance fro!:l which varia..YJ.ce is sought .\
The f ollo"l-f..1 .. ng specific variation from the ordinance is requested; /(1 ~...2~
t;;XIS7J1/(r Lv 1 ·, CLL/t/ . 19
(/NrJi/f2. /!IC NtJ;iC(}Jf£l!>'MLdl-
This variance is necessary due to the following unique · and · special conditions . ·
of the land not found in like districts:
·-
.: .•
//{1~ RF~1P~&t ~ ll'/15 rwn .z J?c-rh:!t~ tdl--=-eR~-~c:.NZ s;p!>J/ ·.-i_~c;~;~0~:;/;;::s~:
·• ·':"' •• ·-:·. •• ._ .... _-. ·--·-.... ·, •• .__ ...... ':,·~;.~, .. ·;. .... ·-•• J.:.t ... .;....:., .,..._ .. ;;p;.,.... . ,,, .. ., ... -,.~~ u~ -~:.;:~ :. _.. .:, .~ ........ '~--"": ... , .. ,. ... '°_ · •. ·· -... -
/itL~ ,fr--3;J.1/frtt1t: /f,N@-' CL~i~51F!el2 A-5° /VIJ/'/ 0PN,:~1a/-A.JAl{c SZi?LlCZt//5~-/·· /;/;?;<d;;;;;:.-,
: . ::-is R1::C11u2C?2 . T?I ' f<'ltrKl~ ·/JN':' iJk!pj;-U4/( . 7.41 . ;-:·:~;hz~ <· ~-<·.:
·-: .. !·~·-~;:t .... ~?~·-.:, .. ·:.·~·: <-~-.:_~_;...._._.;..:.,,.:~ i~J:: .......... __ .... ____ ·,. .. ' ...... · ···' ·-:--'· ... -·· .... . .. :·· .
The f ollouing alternatives to the requested variauce are possible:~~~~~---~·
. . ..... . ·.·· -·
··-~-~-;"' . ; -.
--· / _..... • ,...,, C-I r r /;r .-.<..;; ?(°" c ?PKK
.. This variance ID.ll not be contrary to · the public interest by . virtue cf . the following
'·
• .: . :v .. : ,.·
. -, -·'!'-.: .:.. · .. .-:.
.• :{• .:.'.~;·." .• · ·., .·I • ::· ... =-; ·: •
. ·.-~:· ··: -~:~-~:: !.• .
• .... •• ·.·:~--~:·.·.; __ • .. ··~ ~··.~:·-:_.. .. .... -l .-'llo,;-~ ... -••• . -. '. -. ' ... ;-'. ........ _~ ..• ·:::~ ' .. : .. -~-:.·-.·~--.-:. ~-•" ............. . .. · ·.·~···. . ... -; .. -.. . ... ._ .. ·-=:·:..::-~· ~~~--"-'------~----............. ...-. .... .-!I
! ~ , • • • • • ·, ""·
:·' '· ...... .
.; .· .......... .
.......
Page 2 of 2
• !IBQUEST FOR VARik\f CE
Present zoning of land in question ;.'Sin g::!.e Unit Hou s ing
Se c ti on of ordina.Ylce from ·which varianc e is sought __ S_e_c_t..:.:i :.::o..:.:n'--'5'--'""'D'"".c.:::L,,,_k ----=----
The following spe cific variation from the ordinance is requested:_~~-
To add to an existing res;de n c e which i:::: not the r e qu;r ed 25' setb6l"k from tho
_E_'op ertly line . Existing residence fal 1 nnder nan-conform i na us u
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions .
of the land not found in like districts:
House is already on property. It has been there for 32 years.
Must .have varian ce to add to an existing non-conforming use.:
The follo\tlng alternatives to the requested variance are possible:~------~
None po ssible
This variance will not be co!ltrary to the public interest by virtue of the follo1-r.i.ng
setback requir em ents.
The facts · stated by me in this application are true and correct.
Applicant Date
P.EVIEH MTD COMMEJ.IJ'T:. BuildLYlg Official: _________________ ~---
( \, /J j . ~V "-' I l. l ':) I.' v . . . 1U"P L1c101 T_'F ,11 uJ:J.JJrrnfok2nJJ--~~gi:._fLl;~--r:ro NE_ 7 '19 --13!.iO
t·fAI LI :r G ADDFESS . I r ~.] I ~ A 111,(11 tl t..L\:llf"J( ( ~~~l,,+"'f (i'--l'"''--1L_J --------i __ ...::.____________________________________ ---~r -----------·-----.
LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISI0?-1
-----' ------,,-----
STREET ADD H.E S3 ___ _,_) "--) (_' -=-:Q_;=-· _("'-'~_,___(v~\..;::....[=-j l_,-----':/__,1(_,,_-{ --"-) __
PLUNB E.il.
01m:-r CO J 33U0Timr .
TYPE: i..J DEEOLI .;. . .:..·J I-I
0HOVE O~i
ELECTRIC I AH
GF2SIDENCE
US E : ODD"PLEX
0APARTHE HT
I ..
DWELLH!G mu7s: '· ·101AL. AR3A HEJ,TED AREA Cos'.r $. ------.. "---------'--! -..><-.>-+-......... '--+-->
-=-c-.cn_{,_([:,_..tl-+;&.-/)11-. · 1 .·. · . . -· ·' · -:-+--_ . -l -_ · . 1 17 FEE: · ro
FOUNDATIOI-h ,j,;:.f;!)(1_/)? /1_; ~-p.fuqTITICl{S !1hv:J.'7 ,t Ct( -'f rfl}J(_,t.,/~ --~2 @5 .00_ . (J. _-
lJ rr~7 . . . = . . . ' . . . J .. _. _. -/ @3. oo _' 0 <P
EXTEf._TaR :)_-.' _(-,;, . WiiIDOllS ·f.LUC/rzu, -_ ._ · r . @2 . 50 ___ -f
J --@2 .oo ·
ROO; (!_;JJ.2t-·.~ ·;. ~TO. OF ROC>:t'JS ____ -_-(e~l,kitchen .& b·ath) @l.25-----1
I : @ .75
• ATHS lJO. OF BLDGS 0CJ..RPORT 0SINGLE 0ATTACHED TOTAL $ -. .9 ~ @
CENTRAL HEAT/AIR: TONS GAS
OGA..R..AGE 0DOUBLE ODETACHED
AIR RECIE?T NO
....
-.
_BUILDIHG OFFICIAL DATE ISSUED
I, the undersign e d, hereby c e rtify tha t the information stated herein and in ~na
atb.ched plans is true ancl correct an.cl that the construction proposed com.plies irlt.h
the Zo:n ·ing Ordin~"'lce, the Buildi:.'lg Code and conditions of appro•:al of the plat of the
land. I also certify that I ara fa.railia.r id.th the regulations above mentio!led and 1.rith
the conditions of issuance of this pentlt and I understa.Yld that I run perso!lnlly liable
to the p enalties provided by l a w for each and every day 1 s violation of any of the above
regulations in addi t:ion to the costs of rmaoving or correcting all such violations
1·:he;ther or not t!le;'.r are shm-::i 0:-1 this pemit or the attache d plans.
sm1ATc'F.E OF APFLIGft1{791i/vi1 .xJ ,,.1,~r?J _DATE /j-"1512.tP. If' !'V .
~
I
LUTH ER GOOD R ICH JO NES
900 H erefo rd • P. 0 . Drawer J
Coll ege Sta t ion, T exas 77 840
?~~ 4: .. vi s..2._.1:_c:.: __ ~u_: 1 -~ ~'L ~t5,
A-:.~:j7 t/5ecf __ (?.~e~-~ 1~-·-_g_,~~E.l
fl~ov(j t ~ __ !_? e cl r 4 a v-/ q~ r
'7'\Cl$1 /.-{(r lA'1N!}()W
~ s ,., 11;.tl.r
"" t)t.O '-'l.
p1€t1-
c < ....
~
~
' "
·' . . -~
,
~ ; ;fl
' " :~
_;))
,. ' ~ ' t1 ,
··~
' ,
'°
/P l(J~t}t.j '-;.. --;...~(,, Plu9U!P
fl-. Jc1s1· -'l->C'-@I&'' .S /'1.t>J )>' '1 (? //,
svo ft &:C tt. -I t.t (, rt/ Cr c.J. :z. j( f.-~ /(,
f lP.. I/";;'' Pt yw1~ R-1~1trlls iyr; tP ''
--------------·--
•
I S' ,~ .k
• •.
---· -----~--
·•
. (
:Page 2 of 2 File No .. ----------RE QUEST FOR VARIANCE
Pre sent zoning of land in qu es tion~J-~{(~-__.l_~~~~.:-. __
Section of ordinanc·e fro!:l which varianc e i s sought · l.-~. /
-------~-------~-~~
The following spe cific variation from the ordinance is requested: Tt.. c.~-~
e\_ CA,,c-rot:i-D':\ <!y_t-.si#.-\J dt1vewo..y ~~~d, WotJ.f;;/ e:;fe..,..._ef
.l~yo..._J ±-he 2-S' bt.t I !d1h.l f,'V\e (s-ee e...._J~, .. ~_:,-e #:L..), I .
h.GL\lc! .e\ltj"'-f-e.J Cov..Jm,d12r-Gec:[/.P Mc.Do:Aa.ld. fo hrL1'!{-flr.t> .CA,..fcr-1-
This variance is necessa_ry due to the :follow.ing unique and special conditions .
of the land not found in like districts:
_Tb.:e . v~~'iq\.1.e--e.. 1' s h~c..~~S"-~/ i"v.. order fo h"!J/c/. t:\... ·,·~-'';al!~ .
. I oft..v.. io CoV!tlu-± e.:1.;s-f/"r.1 cq,r-ct.7P i'tlfo Cl. u.j.,·/,'f..y . · I . ' I
ND W\ · °'" J b edta o WI 1 iv ;·+J.,. b 4"-f= k ,
.. --.. ·· .. _: :: ··. -·-··-~-: .. ._ .. :·-. .i :·· '• ... •-' '· . -···. --··. --... -.·
: ::. · ::· ·The folloid.na-ait~niativ~s to · th~. ~"e"quested v~i~ce -~~ p~ssible:··: · ·:.:·
-· .. · ·=··· .. _ ... ,. .... _; ... ~~:;···-.··_.~ ... _o ·. ::::.:.. .... ·... . : · ... ; :·.:.-":.. .. ... "' -. . · ... : .-. -. ~ .. -. -.--~-'---... ,;._ .. -__ :
.. . . ·•· :;.._·-: _·. ----
. . :-: --: . ·-:..:·-·:-: . :·:; :· . · .. : . . , .. -. . . -~ :· . . . ·-· ... . .. ~ . . ._:. -:,:~ ._-:. .. :.. . .. . . . . . . .
. : ... ··-.
. ·. · .. :··
• • : __ •• , '.=' :_ •• -. •• .._. ... :._:::.; ~ ·_: -~~-·::~---• • -~.: • • ~ • •• --· ---• '• •. -~~ :-&. _:;;:~ ,~--. ~-·;_. ·-.:::··---·:'" -.• ·-·-.·;. -_ .. : .. -·. .. . . .-.. ·:.'· ·---
~"i).:":~~s71CTL?lt:{b:;±:.:t:1;:p:~1i:;;s~~;t;;· or~;~S;:t H'.:
. : ~1-e:...,. ~ ./. 'f?: j s f NA ie.. { ""'-r -e ~» . l y <;' \A, .£.0 ~ .. -v·-, ... I io s ;· ~· ; I°:' Y'
. ;;{yf-e:. . . f-'\.'t . \:\e ~1 . kt, ~r" I f1 r .. E r~~·.si:. c.~'"-f I --~~t_~ •i.1.e.·~-.
Ap~N>.,~f C).q_ (), 'S°i'M;la.t: ,_IO.ttP"'c.~ .. OY) Jc..iV\-e 2:i"/ 1'17t.. SQ.-e
-eY\ cJ os Ll re .j:f 3.. · . .
The,89ts · stated~"' in this application are true an.d correct.
~4-;!J · 1f!-.J-P.( · · · . (b.A*' I 3, / 9) J
Applic\tt · . t1 fiate
REVIEW AND COMMENT: Building Official: ____________ ~------
....... -··------~--·-·------------
.·
---·------------------)
_ (31.A ;u-v.f C~ruveO .
f31;dr:
. {)._h ;)) ( f1'J I dr.:/ "f"~
'2. fv I'"' ~ 0 I X gt
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
August 9, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROM: Building Official
SUBJECT: Meeting of August 29, 1978
Dr. Alexander has filed a complaint of violation of the Zoning Ordinance
at 107 and 201 Dominik Drive alleging the following specific applications:
(Section 6-J --Screening Fences): The plaintiff alleges that the
screening fence is insufficient because of a gap left at the bottom
which allows trash to blow beneath it and collect against the fence on
the property line. A photograph of the condition is attached.
We have not yet begun any formal action on this matter.
(Section 6-M.l --Environmental Regulations): The complaint in question
is of emission of noxious odors detectable beyond the property line, and
of noise above the ambient level beyond the property line.
We have determined that the cooking odors beyond the property line are
the result of normal, common practice operations of an eating establishment.
The Health Department sanitarians tell me that both businesses have their
cooking facilities properly vented and filtered , and that the filters are
regularly and properly cleaned.
While it may be technically possible to add precipitators which could totally
eliminate odors, it would be highly unusual to install this equipment in
this type of establishment. Conditions ~ihich result from the comm.on practice
of activities specifically permitted in the district are .the ambient conditions
in the district, and the environmental regulations cannot be so construed
as to prohibit that which has been spec ifically permitted by the establishment
of the district.
Memorandum/Fag~ 2
Huch the same reasoning applies to the noise levels resulting from the
businesses. Ambient conditions in the commercial district are those which
result from normal operations of permitted uses and are not those conditions
extant before development or in an adjoining district of dissimilar permitted
uses.
The specific problems to adjoining properties resulting from any misuse
of otherwise permissable equipment or processes may well be nuisances and
should be dealt with by the regulations of other ordinances prohibiting
them. There the question is narrowed to whether or not a person did create
a nuisance which could reasonably have been avoided by proper use of his
facility or process. Any action under the zoning ordinance must begin by
enjoining the offending facility or process itself, and this is not indicated
under the circumstances of this case.
The plaintiff points out that this case is unique in that residences exist ·
in close proximity to eating places. This is generally correct, and there .
can be little doubt of the plaintiff's legitimate concerns here; but we are
compelled to apply district regulations uniformily (Section 3-A) and this
seems to us an overriding expression of intent of the ordinance. To do
otherwise would be to effectively usurp the prerogatives of the City Council
in establishing land use districts and district regula-OOns in the City.
The conflict in interests and needs of the occupants of commercial and resi-
dential properties are i..l'L~erent in the physical juxtaposition of the districts.
We must assume that the Council weighed this factor against all of the ·concerns
brought forth in the original action \.IP..ich established the district boundaries.
If there is to be any adjustm~nt on the part of the City, it must be made by
the Council's either adjusting the district boundary or changing some district
regulations throughout the City.
(Section 7-B.3.2 --Lighting): A copy of the letter commencing action on this
matter is attached.
Mr. William Koehler
Building Official
City of College Station
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
June 13, 1978
By now you may have seen a copy of the letter I wrote Mr. Bravenec last
week. I intended to write you a more detailed letter at the time but became
busy with the beginning of school and failed to do so. The letter was sent
for precisely the reason stated, that is, to bring the matter to the attention
of the }fayer and the City Council. There was no intention to circumvent your
authority nor to imply that you do not adequately fulfill the duties of your
position.
The specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance that we feel are being
violated and our reasons for feeling that they can and should be corrected
are as follows:
6 J Screening Fences Required:
A fence has now been built behind the Danver's Restaurant
and parking lot. However, there is a gap at the bottom
which I hope will be filled in.
6-N Environmental Regulations
6-M 1 prohibiting "noxious gases detectable beyond the perimeter
of the property." I know something of the probable chemical
and physical, as well as physiological, properties of the
materials giving rise to cooking odors. I simply cannot
accept your statement that odor is a natural consequence of
cooking and that nothing can be done about it. Open sewers
smell bad and dogs bite people.but that doesn't mean I will
live by an open sewer or let a dog bite me without any pro-
test. Odors can be eliminated at their source in a number
of different ways. I am enclosing a description of one such
unit. Joe Krolczyk at Kesco Supply Inc. in Bryan would be
happy to talk to Nr. Martin and Mr. Hiller about their problem.
Of course, they are going to do only what they are forced to do
and will protest that they are being discriminated against.
That may be but this is a special case. Look around College
Station and if you can find eight other houses in an established
residential area back to back with three fast food places, I
would like to know about it.
(e) Relating to "noise above the ambient noise level dis-
cernable beyond the property line."
Even at best we're going to get plenty of noise from
delivery trucks, garbage trucks, customer noise, etc. That is
. "
Mr. Koehler
June 13, 1978
Page 2
to be expected and, unpleasant as it is, must be tolerated.
However, the loudspeaker noise is not necessary. Both Pepe's
and Danver's are actually really very efficient operations.
The ordering, however, frequently takes longer than the wait
at the window.
After receiving appropriate greetings and "May I take your
order," the customer, who almost always feels the neecl to shout
into the microphone and usually has to stop to consult the other
passengers, finally gives the order. The person at the pick up
window then inquires as to the individual preferences having to
do with such things as whether chili sauce or mustard is wanted.
That settled, the girl repeats the order. I leave it to your
imagination as to how it goes when a mistake is made somewhere
along the line. After this comes a maxi.mum ten second trip to
the window. The stay there ranges from thirty seconds to a few
minutes. Why not just drive to the window in the first place?
The supervisor at Pepe's gave me some kind of vague expla-
nation involving "holding patterns" so I decided that if these
people thought they were running an airport, I would just ask
the manager at Danver's to lower the volume a little. He did
but in a few days, it was back up.
If the foregoing gives the impression that I think it's
funny, nothing could be further from the truth. Both Danver's
and Pepe's could operate very well without the amplifiers. And
this neighborhood would be a lot quieter place.
The cleaning of metal containers behind Danver's with water
hoses is also pointless. It's done late at night or early in
the morning. Nost of the water, with a layer of grease or oil
on top, runs across the parking lot. ·surely this should be done
inside the building.
J-B -3.2 Lighting
Both places have unshielded lights on the backs of the
buildings which are annoying and distracting. These could
easily be changed to shine down rather than out.
The two large high intensity lights near the entrance to
Pepe's must be designed to light the parking lot but they also
effectively light the Danver's lot and al30 our backyards. The
lights on the Danver's.lot are bright but, in all fairness, I
must say that they are tastefully made and do not give the
direct glare of those on the Pepe's lot.
I see this whole thing as a very clear cut case, that is, will or will not
a city enforce its own ordinances? I don't pretend to understand legal language
but I can read and in every case cited, there seems to be a violation~
Mr. Koehler
June 13, 1978
Page 3
I honestly feel that this letter deserves a point-by-point statement of
your position on each of these matters. In case I need to pursue this matter
further, such a letter will be absolutely vital to my purpose.
I sincerely hope that this affair, which should never have come about in
the first place, can be resolved without any development of resentment. Both
Mr. Martin and Mr. Miller are businessmen and, if they choose to make money in
this way, that is their right. However, I feel that my neighbors and I have
our rights too and that they are being infringed upon by these two men and their
willful and unfeeling conduct of their businesses.·
Very truly yours, r.. i +-
\.. o----'l~
RA/ks
Enclosure
. . -i..' • •
·------·-· ----------------
....... -
..
... . '
~=~ . ·. i ·-. ~ ;~\~1.~-=
-.. ·-··.,,, .... \.~. j,,_
r ·-·-· J ~.
·-. .:. : ~
r-I
! '
::c.. 1 ::~,.; .. or. ...... -· ... • oro·~c·•o-) Vent;:·-t,.,,. Sys·e ........ s '-• \_.1,,. ,, •. t:.... . ti.t::'. ... -' 'o .. v. " .. , '
,,;:,;"~ rr.0 p:ob:e;n of scivere smoke pollution ra-
:.: .... ;;:-<, f;cm ch.:.rbroilarv.)0ratlon. EP systsms in-
~;..;;::,:: :arga capc:ciw, hlQh performc.nce e!ec~roii i c
pr.;:.::i;);i.;.tors in con!rast to llght du•y prec i pita~vrs
c :-. ~t•e ~ar~e~.
r:? Ventila~or Systarns a:-a avaiiable as a consoli-
c..:-:.;;.:; spacificr.tion wl"l.h ona-source res;;onsibil-
;~y. Each system integrates threa c;.reas of
-~-:-"e''",,. ';) --'Ir S·1 s~~m-"s•--' ,, .. --s~ -·· C•·· ..... :iv ••••~· \• OI• I"\ J &.c.i;;,, it ~OU ~n:;;a c t::A-
tl2.G"i0( v.;ntilator designed for the 1a101.:t of cook-
:r.0 equi;lment, (2) exhaust duct design, if
i".::.qi.l;rad, and (3) an Environmental Controi Unit
e11gir.eared and manufactured by the American Air
Fii~&r Company, Inc.
CL:::AN AiW\
ldr Syste;ns exhaust venti!ators am c;.vai!able in a
cor,;;::ilcto ra:t!;3 of models each provid:ng :-.l gh
ia:;;s v: grec:.:>e extiaction · at point ot orictn .
O;:>tions can includa built-in fire extingu i shing and
rnc:.;·,e-up a;r systems.
ECU equipmen: by AAF, as shown in tha
sc.1cmatic Fi~. 2, is a com;:>letaly engineered e:ec-
<rv!::t.:.~ic p;e-~ipitator pacxage includ:n!:J exhaust
bl o \·i ..::; w:!ll motor and drlvos sclt:ctea for t~\j
r .p ::.:ication. Collector ceils <:.re the rnsult of 35
ye:::rs :i f e:ectrost;:.itic experience and have wid :Jr
;:i::.•.J s:;>.:lcing to.handle heavy smoke lo~dinQs en-
COt;r:!~:ed c~ring cht:lrbroi:ing. This low voltaoc
c.:;~:;:r:0nt is industrial duty, fu:ly ;ield-prov.::i,
c.:.--.d c::.-.gi;1ev!~d _for air volum& c~pacities ranging
..
, ____ .... l...
Fi~. 2. Am;,rican Air ;=a;er ECU OGulpm"nt .
f
I
... r
9 0 ~
I
I
t:
r !
I
I . ·-~
Fig. 1 Air Syntemll contrl1u-;;ol 11ir, wo:or w"'~!"l
kiichon veinlilator, Sim!)l""lA 1>~rie~.
CO~V~NH.::NT MAINTENANCE
Both the Air Systems ventilator interior and &lec-
trostatic cells in the American Air Filter ECU
package are self-washing with automatic or samj-
c:.utornatic convenience. Thuse features as.<;uro
proper ventilator sanitation in the kitchen aru.:i,
a;-id r.Jliable, high performance smoke elimination
at the exhaust terminal.
The ECU is desi~ned to minimize oµeratir..~ r.:~in
tenance by usir.g h:gh collection capacity ~iact:c-
-· -·~-_1 _____ ,,..., """-~ .................. -----""·•~:'I-.-:.....-._,,.J
. . ! . ~-.... --.
..
.L---~--_...~--·~·----
Jarg2 size contacts and insu!ators which are lo-
cat Ed outside the smoke-laden airstrec.m . Routine
mai·ne:"tance requires cold water detergent wash
. o f the coliector cells at regular intervals activated
by ;:-.ushbutton or automatic timer. Side doors in
the C:Cu provide convenient access to the wash
z:ssernbly and collector cHlls for visua! inspection .
O m.na;·y maintenance skil i s are sufiicien: to
re-ta:n the original high performance of this
equipment.
SPl':ClfiCATION
Dc:::: .. l s of grease extra ctor ventilators are listej in
Air Systems catalog. SpeciLcation of an EP v~nti
i"c cr S:;s~ern to Air Systems Div. Doane Mfg. Co.
wi i. i ntegrate all sub-specificatior.s, inciud i ng
i::CL.i p:-ecipitator, job quotation and complete job
drawings.
Typical ECU equ .pment .
,, ''"' ~· t\J• \. '· ••• ,:,; ••••
r;;:;;::;!. ..--., • ..,. .
,1(\: ·-!.--· • : ' r . ,
\• ·' ..
1i.;. .
. . .....
'./
ECU Uti ii ty Requirements :
Electrical -
Power pack 115/60/1, 500 watts, 6.5 amps
Washer Motor 115/60/1, 1 /6 hp. 5.9 amps
Fan Motor 230/ 460/ 60/3, hp . varies.
Water Supp!y -
M i n . 40 psig cold water. Consumptio·n range
depending on ECU capacity is 36 gal. to 108
gal. per cleaning cycle.
.~--... -,-,
' I
ECU access doors for convenient inspection or removal of
industrial type smoke collector cells.
' _1
June 14, 1978
Dr. Robert Alexander
200 Kyle St.
College Station, TX 7731,JJ
Dear Dr. Alexander:
CITY OF COLLEGE STA'"I'ION
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 OJ TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
The gap at the bottom of the screening fence behind Da.nv er 's i s
to be filled in the process of landscaping the site.
The information that you have furnished concerning smoke and odor
control is being for....arded to our sanitarians along with our request
for specific recommendations froni them as to how best to solve the
problem and to what extent we may reasonably control it. As we have
discussed previously, there will remain a question as to what regu-
lation may be appropriate.in consideration of customary operations
of permitted uses in the CTeneral Commercial district. We are not
in a position to make a definitive statement on this question until
we have the sanitarian's recommendations.
As you have mentioned in your letter of June 13, a certain amount of
noise is inevitable in General Commercial permitted uses. We agree·
that the operation of the speakers is unreasonable and should cease, but
~ attempt to apply the Zoning Ordinance provision in this matter would
·be _both circuitous and cumbersome. Ordll1ance Number 124 (enclosed)
specifically prohibits amplification of the human voice 11 to the annoy-
ance or ll1convenience. ~ •••• of' persons in neighboring premises11 • We
believe that your proper and surer remedy is to file a complaint of
this violation each time that it happens. Personnel on duty at the
Police Department during working hours can assist you in this process.
·· .• ·.
We are asking our sanitarians to investigate the -washing process outside
of' the building. Until -we receive their reply we will not be able to
comment on this matter ..
The shielding of' lights behind Pepe's is definitely required by this
ordinance. The O"l.ners will be notified to correct the condition. We
need to evaluate Danver's lights. to see if they should also be corrected.
William F. Koehler
Building Official
:U
Mr. William Koehler
Building Official
June 19, 1978
City of College Station
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
Thank you for your prompt and responsive letter of June 14, 1978.
I will definitely follow your advice with regard to the sound systems
at Pepe's and Danver's.
I would appreciate it if you would let me know of any developments
which may result from the investigations of your sanitarian .
RA/ks
Sincerely yours,
·--;<~~-~~
Robert Alexander
200 Kyle
•.•
BRAWS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
COURTHOU SE ANNEX
202 East 27th St., 1st Floor Telephon e 822-7373 Ext. 241
BRYAN, TEXAS 77801
Sponsored by:
County of Brazos
City of Bryon
City of Colleg• Station
Texas A&M University
Texas State Deportment
of Health
Mr. William F. Koehler
Building Official
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
Post Office Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Koehler:
August 9, 1978
·A recent visit was made, August 2, 1978, with Mr. Henry G. Miller, one of
the owners of Danvers Restaurant at 201 Dominik Drive, College Station,
Texas, and during this visit his operation was observed. The ventilation
hood above the stove and grill area had the filters in place and readily
removable for cleaning. Mr. Miller stated these hood filters are cleaned
each night. The filters looked clean for one half day use at the time
of this visit.
Mr. Miller did state that the e~ployees had been cleaning the hood filter,
nightly, just outside the back door where a high pressure hose is provided,
with a raised concrete slab'and drain which is connected to sanitary sewer.
This area is being kept clean. Mr. Miller said this policy will be changed
and has been changed so that the employees will clean the hood filters in
the three compartment vats inside the building. This quite probably could
be the pots and pans allegation. The high pressure hose was originally
installed for cleaning garbage and rubbish containers when needed as is a
common practice in Food Service establishments. The garbage and rubbish
containers, that are used inside the building, are of a plastic material.
A visit was made on the same date, August 2, 1978, with the manager of
Pepe's Mexican Food at 107 Dominik Drive, College Station, Texas, and his
operation was observed, especially in the area of the cooking vats where the
taco meat is cooked. The hood, vented to the outside, had the filters in
place and readily removable for cleaning. The hood filters looked clean .
with half day of operation. The area was observed back of the building at
Pepe's Mexican Food and. was neat and clean.
Mr. William F. Koehler Page 2
With due respect to Pepe's Mexican Food, the ventilation hood, with
readily removable filters for cleaning, is a piece of equipment used
as a common practice in Food Service establishments.
Sincerely,
~C:-~{:~.
William C. Lewis, R.S.
Sanitarian II
aw
.. ,. .. :
Approved:
~~-lk~io.
George R. Mcilhaney, M.D.
Acting Director
I -'
June 19, 1978
l1r. Alex Allen
Health Unit
Brazos ColLrity Courthouse
202 East Z7th St.
Bryan, TX 77801
Dear Hr. Allen:
CITY OF COLLEGE.
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 l l 0 l
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
l>'e . have received a complaint of cooking oG.ors at "Pepe Taco"
at 107 Drn:1inik Drive.
lTe need your advice concerning w~at preventive measures can
SrI'A ']_"'ION
TEXJ..5 AVENUE
77840
be take~ by the mmers a.nd your opinion of. what. we may reason-
ably require of these people in light of common practice in
su~h establishments a.~d considering the proximity of residences~
We would also appreciate your investigatLrig the allegations
that pots and pa.11.s are being ·washed outdoors at the close of
business at 11 Danvers'', 201 Dom:LYlik Drive. We· need to know if
this is acceptable practice or if they have any reasonable
alternative. ·
Sincerel~, ~ P/6~4:-
William F. Koehler
Building Official
enclosure
W?K/rm
.
I
CIT .Y o~~ COLLEGE STArl'ION ·
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 OJ TEXAS AVENUE
Aug:lst 3, 1978
l'ir ~ Ken Hartin
Pepe's Taco
107 Dominik Drive
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Martin:
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
The Zoning Ordinance requires that outside lights be shielded or
directed away from adjacent reside~tial properties.
The floodlight on the west (rear).corner of your building at 107
Dominik points-to"l-.'8.rd the ·rear of y our property antl should be
"deactivated in · order to· comply ID.th the ordina.l'l.ce~ It does not . ·.
appear to be feasible to aim or shield this light so as not to inter-
f'ere . wi tb. adjacent propertY.. The d--!f'fuse light fixtures on the walls
of' the building are not a problera i::i my opinion.
This letter serves as the notice required by Section 9-E of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Sincerely,
#1~~·
William F. g~er .
Building Official
·wFK/rm
..-
" l
-'
.:.:ii,ist J, 1978
}';r. Henry Miller
Da.ri.ver 1 s Restaura..'1t
201 Dominik Drive
'
.:i
College Station, Texas 7781.:fJ
Dear Mr. Miller:
~-
POST OFFICE SOX 99"60 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE
c 0 L L E G E ·s TA T I 0 N • T E x A s 7 7 e 4 0
The Zoning Ordinance requires that outside lights be shielded ·or
directed aviay from adjacent residential properties. .
The two high intensity lights at the rear of your building at
201 Dominik·Drive point toward the rear of your property and
should be deactivated in order to c omply ·with the ordin8....11ce·: . It
does not appear to be feasible to ~im or shield these lights so
as not to interfere 1-!ith ?-djacent property. The diffuse light
fll.-tures on the ·walls of the building are not a problem. in ray
opinion.
This letter serves as. the notice required by Section 9-E of the
Zoning Ordinance.
. Sincerely; .
~h~L_:___
. ·William ~~ler · .· ·
Building Official
lIF'i</rm
..... !
,_ ..
.. : .. ' .