HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 Zoning Board of Adjustment February 21, 1984TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City of College Station
l 'OST OFFICE B O X 9!)()0 I I O I TE>V\S 1\VENLJ l ::
COLLEGE STi \TION , TUv\S 77840 -~499
M E M 0 R A N D U M
Zoning Official
Planning a n d Zoning Commission Members
Zoning Board of justment Members
Lowell 1
February 17, 9i4
Opinion Requests
I
Spencer Wendt r e cently inquired of me whether or not a
Ce rtificate o f Occupancy would be issued for a lot and
structure within a subdivision when the public improve-
me nts (sewer, water, streets, etc.) were not completed,
s u bj e ct to an acceptable guarantee to the City.
Af ter considering the provisions of the · ordinance which
h e r e l a ted to me , and without independent study, I told
h im that it was my understanding that Certificates of
Occupancy were issuable in such an instance, and that to
the extent of my knowledge, their issuance was consistent
with current practice.
Also, before Dan Dupies left the tity he asked my opinion
on whether appeals under the landscaping ordinance would
go to the P&Z or only to the ZBA. I have not rendered
my opinion on this question to date.
LFD:jls
!
(·.
MEMBERS ATTENDING:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF ATTENDING :
MINUTES
CITY OF C0LLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adj us-tment
February 21, 1984
7:00 P.M.
Chairman Cook, Members MacGilvray, Upham, Wendt and Alternate Member
McGuirk
Member Wagner & Alternate Member Meyer
Zoning Official Kee, City Attorney Denton, Planning Assistant Longley,
Planning Technician Volk, and Ass't. City Attorney Locke '(present for
-a portion of the meeting).
Chairman Cook opened the meeting and explained the functions and 1 imitations of the Zoning
Board of Adjustment.
AGENDA ITEM NO. l: Approval of Minutes -meeting of January 17, 1984
Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes, Mr. Upham seconded. Motion carried
4-0-1 (Cook abstained).
AGENDA ITEM NO . 2: Hear Visitors
No one spoke.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of variance to parking, front and side
setback requirements as set forth in Ordinance Section 7 and Table A for a business
at 509 Universi t y Drive. Request is in the name of Al Gutierrez. This request was tabled
on 10-l -3.
Chairman Cook explained that this request was tabled in October of 1983 pending a revised
site plan. Mrs Kee then explained that the plan being considered on this date is one
which the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved, but pointed out that it is signi-
ficantly different from the one which the applicant initially presented following the
tabling action of the ZBA. She .then e-xplained just what the applicant intends to do and
then explained the exact variantes he is requesting,
Al Guitierrez came forward and was sworn in, Mr. MacGilvray expressed surprise at the site
plan proposed, stating he recalled the last hearing and the ideas expressed by the appl i-
cant at the time which did not include a proposal of a'. two story building in addition to
an expansion at ground level. Mr. Guitierrez explained what. had previously been proposed,
stating that after studies of the area, he felt htat plan did not fully utilize the
possfbil ities of this business, ~herefore, he has decided .to expand to include both a
restaurant and retail businesses. He went on to say that if all the cars which currently
park i".i n front of his business were moved to the rear parking lot, he would still have
amp1¢ parking. Mrs. Kee explained how the required parking figure had been arrived at
indi·cating that any variance beyond what is being considered tonight would have to come
back before this Board. General discussion followed concerning the number of variances
being requested, how much ·time the architect had spent st•1dying local codes after which
Mr. Upham speculated that the person who drew this p~an seemed to have tried to present
a p1~n wh.lch would require as· many variances as possible. Mr. Upham went on to explain
that ~any of the problems In Northgate have been there for many years,· and that this Board
ZBA Minutes
2-21-84
page 2
has been trying to find ways to 1 ive with the problems, but a plan of this magnitude would
in all probability proliferate this already existing problem. Mr. MacGilvray agreed,
stating that an expansion of this type would intensify the problem in the Northgate area.
He specualted that a plan could be made which would meet all setback requirements by
miniting the square footage to a specific size, thus the only variance would would then
be required would be a parking variance, but one of less magnitude than this request.
After discussion it was agreed that both setback variancew involved substantial variance
requests, and the plan could quite easily be revised to meet at least some of the require-
ments. Mr. MacGilvray said he would not offer any more ideas to the applicant as to plan-
ning the site, but said he believed it is up to the applicant to present a plan which
would incorporate a compromrse which this Board could then consider.
Mr. Upham then made a motion to table this item until the appl leant is ready to present
a compromise plan which would not involve so many variance requests. Mr. MacGilvray
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for variance to rear setback requirements
as set forth in Ordinance 850 District Use Schedule (Table A) at the residence at 804
Welsh. Request is in the name of John M. Brown.
Mrs. Kee explained the request concerns a 14x40 portable building which has been located
on the lot at 804 Welsh and currently encroaches the required rear setback by approxi-
mately 4 feet. She outlined alternatives the applicant could turn to in lieu of receiv-
ing a variance from this Board which include removing the building from the lot, cutting
down the size of the building or r e locating the building which would entail losing a
tree in the yard to accommodate the building. In answer to questions from the Board
about how this building was placed at this location, Mrs. Kee offered the information
that she had advised the appl leant prior to locating the building on this lot that he
would have to have a building permit and also that he would have to meet the setbacks
as required by ordinance, but after that she found out that the building had been moved
onto the lot without a permit and the rear setback had been encroached.
John Brown, 804 Welsh was sworn in . Mr, MacGilvray announced to the Board and public
that he rs acquainted with the applicant, but that he has not discussed this request with
him. Mr. Brown told of his plans for using the bu~lding as a storage, workshop and play
area for his children; that th~-building will be electrically wired to the house; that the
building is not set on a foundation, but rather on skids under which concrete pads have
been used to level the building. Mr. MacGilvray asked about his moving the building onto
the lot without .a permit, and Mr. Brown explained that the building had been loaded onto
a trailer and he had called City Hall, and "Dan" (Dan .Dupies, a former Assistant Zoning
Official) advised him to go ahead and unload it until the ZBA could hear the request,
even though he had no permit and would encroach the setback. He said that after the
building was placed, he applied for the building permit which could not be issued until
a vartance was granted. Mr. Brown went on to explain that the residence on the lot had
been a duplex but that he had opened it up, and now the entire structure is a single ~
fami.ly residence. He further explained that his plans are to sell this building when he
leaves this area. Mr. Upham said that in his opinion, a building of this size is over-
whelming. Mr. Wendt a s ked Mr. Brown to point out something unique about his situation
and Mr _ Brown stated that .if the butlding is placed in another direction, it will be over
sewer 1 tnes and existing trees will have to be destroyed. He went on to tell the Board
that no one will be living in the building, and if he is allowed to keep the building,
other out buildings on the lot wtll be moved. Discussion of the neighborhood, non-conform-
i~ies which were grandfathered In at the time of this ordinance, upgrading of th~ neighbor-
hood followed, after which proponents and opponents to this variance were invited to speak.
/
ZBA Minutes
2-21-84
page 3
Mrs. Lambert Wilkes, .501 Welsh Avenue, and the owner of 902 Welsh Avenue, was sworn in
and stated she .has concern over the affect a building of . this size has on the neighbor-
hood. She further stated that the fact that the building was bought and moved in with-
out a permit and with full knowledge that a permit was necessary goes against the grain.
She summarized by stating that she objects to the building on the basis of the size of
the building and the fear that the City will have to watch it continually because it does
have air conditioners and could easily become another rental unit,
Mr. Brown assured her that since Mr. Brown has converted what was a duplex to a single
family dwelling by opening the wall between the 2 units, the land can never again be used
for a duplex again, as the lot is in an R-1 zoning district. Mr. McGuirk informed Mrs.
Wilkes that this Board is not discussing the legalties of the existence of this building
except as it applies to the variance requested tonight, that being the required 25 foot
rear setback.
St:< (',... fi _ •
Mr, McGulrk then made a motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback (Table A) from
the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due ·to the
lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in 1 ike districts
and there are alternatives; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and ~uch that the
spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.· Motion seconded
by Mr. Upham and carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a request for variance to the Sign Re ulations as
set forth in Ordinance 50 Section for an office building at 1408 University Drive.
Request is in the name of Larry Landry Company.
Mrs. Kee explained that this request is for a variance to the ordinance regulations that
there can be no detached signs in A-P zoning districts. She went on to explain that the
staff's policy is to allow small, detached address only signs, and the applicant had been
advised of this rule at the time of the Project Review Committee review of the sJte plan,
but since the building was erected, staff noticed this sign and notified the applicant
that it . is in violation of ordinance regulations, She then referred to another variance
request by the Texana National Bank, which had been dropped when the applicant learned
he could have an address or a directional sign but ,that he could not hav~ the name of the
bank on that sign in an A-P dis~rict ." .
Larr.,y _La _ndr_y, 1!_018 ~a .lnval le·y Drive, Bryan, was sworn In and passed around a photo of
the building and -the :sign, stating that the wing walls are attached to ~he burlding and '
were built with the building, but agreed that the cent~r of the wall is detached, ~s
staf.f. has implied . ._ Mrs. Kee said she made her interpretation because she does ·not ·think
the wal.l ~s attached just because it has a common foundation with the bui .lding. Mr. Landry
$ald ~t~.his mind the walls a~d the building are all one structure; Mr. Landry said th~t
tie .does -not ·con~J der this a detached sign, and further informed the Board that he has
received Information to the effec~r that the new sign ·ordinance may allow this type of
sign~ Mr. ~pham informed the applicant that th~ prqposeq new sign ordinance is not rele-
~ar:it;; Cn t hLs ,:e;a_s~. ·rt1r .. LLandry,;-?,i ked , fo r; -c1a·ri t~c:;atLon,. :st.ating' .. ~hat it..Ls ·riow hrs under-·
~tan,d .h:ig tha~ he coulq_ bl_ock out,, the. w0r<;ls ."F:.rench ~Arbor" and leave "1408 :University Drive"
a1:1.c! ~rs.-_fS.eJe .s<!.id that;_r,is _ _c:qrr~i;:t, .• 1,<i•,,;1 ;!'" 0 ~cPr' ·-: -""r '-'"' it ("r.
~ ~ ... -.,..;;. • ~ ... r • ~ _ --;D ~~
Discussion fqllowed concerning the looks of the wall, the way .the wall is built and ··
Mr. Wendt asked for a clarification of the definition of a detached sign. Mr. Upham ~
~~a ed .tf'\a t ~he ,_sigQ.. is not an advertisement of ·a ·_business,.but rather 'identifies .a ·l'.:
~R.eclflc piece of ·geogra_phy. ~r_s Cook ,ask.~q City Attorney Denton if a .Narianc.e d s ej.n.g
requested or if an appeal of an interpretation is being requested. Mr. ·oenton replied
I
ZBA Minutes
2-21-84
page 4
that the question of the definition of a detached sign must be resolved, and pointed out
that the current ordinance does not make a clear definition of attached or detached signs.
Assistant City Attorney Locke asked how this sign would differ from the tower at the
Chimney Hill Retail Center and Mrs. Kee said she has the understanding that the tower is
considered part of the building. Mr : Denton said the tower has four sides.
Mr. Upham then made a motion to deny the variance to the sign regulations (Section 8)
from the terms of this ordinance on the basis of precedence, i.e., Texana National Bank
sign. This motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. McGuirk made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations (Section 8)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due
to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like
districts: (1) Although possibly not legally within the strictures of attached signs,
the location of the sign on the land renders it indistinguishable from an attached sign,
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in un-
necessary hardship to this applicant being: a strictly legally attached sign would not
enhance the architecture of the structure, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance
shall be observed and substantial justice done. This motion was second e d by Mr. Wendt,
and carried by a vote of 4-1 (Upham) .
Mrs. Cook requested that staff review thi s case, as she is not comfortable voting for
something which is not necessarily considered a detached sign, and requested clarification
of the definition of a detached sign,
Lowell Denton, 4218 Willow Oak, Bryan (City Attorney for College Station) was sworn in
and stated the action taken by this Board tonight is not inappropriate and the Board has
not id e ntified a need, He stated that the Board took action on the request as presented
by the appl leant and by the action ta ken, has implied that the Zoning Official 1 s inter-
pretation is correct and this sign is a detached sign. He reminded the Board that the
object of Interpretation of ·the ordinance is consistency.
AGENDA ITEM NO, 6: Other Business
Discussion followed concerning action the Legal department has taken following Board
action, with Mr . Denton requestipg that a legal discussion be placed as an agenda item
on the next meeting. Further general discussion regarding the request followed, with
Mr. Wendt making a motion to adjourn this meeting and Mr. McGuirk seconding the motion
which carried unanimously (S-0).
APPROVED:
Chairman, Violetta Cook
ATTEST:
City Secretary, Dian Jones
AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
City of College Station, Texas
February 21, 1984
7:00 P.M.
l. Approval of Minutes -meeting of January 17, 1984.
2. Hear Visitors.
3. Consideration of a request for variance to parking, front and side setback
requirements as set forth in Ordinance 850 Section 7 and Table A for a
business at 509 University Drive. Request is in the name of Al Gutierrez.
This request was tabled on 10-18-83.
4. Consideration of a request for variance to rear setback requirements as set
forth in Ordinance 850 District Use Schedule (Table A) at the residence
at 804 Welsh. Request is in the name of John M. Brown.
5. Consideration of a request for variance to the Sign Regulations as set forth
in Ordinance 850 Section 8 for an office building at 1408 University Drive.
Request is in the name of Larry Landry Company.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjourn.
i.
•
•ty of Co ege Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 I 10 I TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATl01 . TEXAS 77840
November 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
Recording Equipment
This is a reminder to be sure and speak directly into the microphones
whenever you are talking. This is extremely important as these are
recording microphones. It has been very difficult, if not impossible, for
Shirley to hear your comments when she is preparing minutes . This is
especially critical when the need arises for a transcript of the proceedings.
.
•
r
r
i
-...__
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1:
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustments
January 17, 1984
7:00 P.M.
Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Wendt, Wagner, Upham and Alternate
Member McGuirk
Chairman Cook and Alternate Member Meyer
Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk
Approval of Minutes -meeting of October 18, 1983
Mr. Upham made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Wagner seconding. Mr. Wendt
asked if the signage had been worked out for the Ashford Square Subdivision, and Mrs.
Ke e explained that the Legal Department has gotten involved in the decision, and has
det e rmined that the Wendy's lot and the BrazosBanc lot are separate building plots,
and therefore, are entitled to each have its own detached sign. She further explained
that the BrazosBanc already has its _sign.
Mr. Upham asked if the Legal Department had provided this Board with an explanation,
and Mrs. Kee indicated that to date, it had not. Mr. Upham then stated emphatically
that he is very upset with the Jack of either a written explanation or an explanation
in person by the City Attorney after the Legal Department has made a complete reversal
of a decision made by this Board. He went on to say this has happened more than once and
he is tired of having this Board 1 s rulings reversed without any kind of explanation for
th e decision, or any additional guidelines being given to the Board for consideration in
the future.
Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Wagner each agreed that guidel tnes are needed, and if explanations
are not provided, this Board feels it is being ignored and has become completely useless.
Mr. Wendt indicated that even with the type of transcript provided, it would be hard to
make a decision without even a telephone call to the Board members for their thoughts
concerning the action the Board has -taken.
i -
Mr. Upham said he would 1 ike to pass a Resolution to condemn the City Attorney for incon-
sideration. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he believed this should be handled under other
business, and then called for votes on the motion to approve the minutes. Motion carried
4-0-1 (McGu irk abstained).
Mr. Upham then made a motion to pass a resolution to condemn the City Attorney for lack
of consideration of Board's action regarding Agenda Item · #4 on the October 18, 1983
agenda. Mr. Wagner suggested that perhaps this type of action would put the Board on the
same level as the City Attorney. Mr. Upham agreed this might be so, and then withdrew
his motion.
Mr. MacGllvray asked if the Board would accept an amended resolution, and the Board
agreed. He offered the motion to request that the City Attorney provide this Board
a full explanation of his unilateral action concerning Agenda Item #4 of the October 18,
1983 meeting, and that he meet with this Board at the earliest possible time, so that
reoccurrance of this 11 undo i ng 1 ' can be prevented' and he further requests that this meeting
be held prior to the next regular meeting of this Board .. Mr. Wendt seconded this motion .
Mr. McGuirk asked Mrs. Kee if staff c3n ma ke decisions which are opposite from the de-
cisions of this Board and Mrs. Kee ex~lained that in this case, after lengthy converso-
tions with th~ Legal Department, she had felt comfortable is:uing the Building Permit
(
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 2
for the BrazosBanc sign. She further explained that the Legal Department felt that the
action of this Board concerning that agenda item was above and beyond the legal authority
of this Board. Mr. MacGilvray said he would enjoy hearing that explanation. Mr. Upham
suggested that perhaps this Board should be disbanded and then Mr. Denton can sit here
alone and make decisions. Mr. Wendt said that if there is a problem, the Legal Department
should be represented at the meetings and also, the attorneys should intervlew the Board
members before overruling a decision given. Mr. MacGilvray agreed that if this Board is
going astray, it should be made aware of it. Mr. Upham said that part of the City Attorney'
job description is to aid and assist various Boards and Commissions. Mrs. Kee said that
prior to the meeting, staff did not perceive a legal question and from that point forward,
staff has been keeping in better contact before meetings. Motion carried 5-0 (unanimously).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors
No one spoke, but Mr. MacGllvray thanked staff for including this item on the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a request for variance to the parking requirements
as set forth in Ordinance No. 850, Section 7-C. for the construction of an office building
on Lot 5 Block V University Park Section 2. Application is in the name of Wood Associates .
Mrs. Kee explained the request Is for a parking variance as required by Section 7 in the
Zoning Ordinance, but that it also applies to Section 3-A.2. of the Zoning Ordinance, and
then read Section 3-A.2. aloud as follows: 11 No part of a yard, or other open space, or
off-street parking or loading space required about or In connection with any building or
use for the purpose of complying wi th this ordinance, shall be included as part of a yard,
open space, or off-street parking or loading space similarly required for any other build-
ing or use.11 She further explained that this office building project provides 384 parking
spaces, 360 of which are needed to meet the parking requirements based on square footage
figured at 1 space per 300 sq. ft., and would al low parking for only 24 employees. She
stated that the parking lot a t the hotel site provides 47 spaces over and above that re-
quired for a hotel and the owners of both projects are proposing a cross-over parking
agreement between the two projects. She informed the Board that staff believes that due
to the different hours of peak operation of the two projects, it can recommend approval
of a variance to the parking requirements of the office project with the provision that a
cross-over parking agreement I s provided. She said that the Legal Department is research-
ing this proposal now, but that there is a strong possibility that this might be acceptable
since the two projects are under the same ownership and are being developed together.
Mr. Upham pointed out that the proposed hotel is being advertised as a hotel for conven-
tions, and would have an extremely large dining room. He stated that conventions are held
during the day and during the week, and contends that many of the attendees of the con-
ventions wi ll be staying at other locations and not necessarily housed at this hotel,
therefore they will be driving in and will require a parking space. He said that he can-
not see how this cross-parking agreement will work because this hotel may be full (with
conventions) 5 days per week, which would be the peak hours of operation of the adjacent
office building. Mrs. Kee said that according to her information, there will be some meet-
ing rooms available in this hotel, plus restaurants for seating approximately 500 people,
and she is unaole to project just how many people at meetings will be driving to the hotel
and how many will be staying there. Mr. Upham stated that he Is only pointing out that
this project is advertising Itself as a cenvention center rather than just a hotel, and
this must be taken into consideration.
I Mr. MacGilvray asked just how many parking spaces short the office building will be and
Mrs. Kee said it would be approximately 95 spaces short, as near as she can figure the
r
1 .
r
{ -......_
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 3
number of employees who will be in the building, and 47 of these spaces can be provided
at the hotel site, which would leave the office 48 si:eces short. Mr. McGuirk asked if
our Zoning Ordinance has been drawn from other models and Mrs. Kee said that in all probabi-
1 ity, It was. Mr. McGuirk asked If she was aware of any problems in cities with similar
ordinances, and Mrs. Kee said that in reading publ I shed material recently pertaining to
this type of project, the trend seems to be leaning toward shared parking, as that better
util Jzes both land and facilities. She further pointed out that our Zoning Ordinance
should take into account the posslbil ity of mixtures of uses with different peak hours
of operation in the future.
Mr. McGuirk said that he simply had no feel for an adequate number of parking spaces for
a project of this nature, and the zoning ordinance in effect does not address the issue.
Mr. Mac Gilvray agreed that there are many grey areas in the ordinance, and these areas
primarily are the ones this Board ls required to address, and the Board's charge is to
either uphold the ordinance or to grant a variance; and the point here is that this project
is 95 spaces short, half of which can be provided next door, leaving a total shortage of
approximately 48 spaces. Mr. Upham said that in his opinion this is another example of
too much building on too little land. Mr. MacGilvray said the Board must consider any
unique or special conditions of the land, to which Mr. Wendt speculated that there is a
creek which runs between the two projects and would exemplify a unique condition of this
land as neither project can get any more land because of it.
J. W. Wood was sworn in and explained that the ordinance requires l parking space per
300 sq. ft. plus l for every 2 employees, and herein lies the problem. Jn an office build-
ing approximately 80 % of the people in the building are employees, so he questioned just
what the l space for each 300 sq. ft. is for. He stated that he believes this ordinance
requires double parking for office buildings. He then asked if he could provide informa-
tion concerning parking requirements in other cities, stating that Dallas requires l space
per 333 sq. ft. with a crossover parking agreement for 50 % of the required spaces, if
one of the projects is closed. Mr. Upham pointed out that he said "closed" and not '1during
a slow period". Mr. Wood continued saying that Ft. Worth requires 1 space per 400 sq. ft.,
Houston has no parking requirements and leaves the number up to the people who own the
building. He also pointed out that this is the extreme end of the spectrum, and that he
would not advocate this pol icy. Corpus requires l space per 250 sq. ft. up to 20,000
sq. ft., then 1 per 400 sq. ft. with shared parking allowed for up to 50 % of the required
parking if it is located within 300 feet of the property. He said the Hilton project has
431 spaces and this project has 360 spaces, giving a total of 791 spaces on this block.
He also said that Mr. Upham's point about attendees is well taken, and that the Hilton
plans some type of shuttle to and from other points. Mr. MacGilvray asked if capacity of
2000 people for the convention center is an accurate figure and Mr. Wood said he really
did not know now, but that he had done some of the initial work on the hotel and seemed
to remember that there would be approximately 500 restaurant seats. Mrs. Kee offered the
information that there would be 500 seats available in restaurants and clubs, with 5000
sq. ft. in meeting rooms. Mr. MacGilvray asked if there would be an additional banquet
room and Mrs. Kee said she did not know, but perhaps It would be lumped with the meeting
rooms. Mr. Upham speculated that there could be upwards to 1000 salesmen in a big room
for a meeting at one time. Mr. Wendt likened that possibility to the 100 Year Flood Plain,
stating that this type of convention would be one in 100, and would not be happening 5
days a week.
Mr. Wood stated that the shopping center he is involved with across the street has lots
of extra parking which might be used for overflow. Mr. Upham agreed that in that area,
there Is probably more parking available than would be needed for a long time in the
future, but that he is not sure this is a solution. Mr. Wendt said he thinks that staff
r
ZBA Minutes
1-17-84
page 4
has a good point concerning the different peak time uses but the Zoning Ordinance does
not address this. Mr. MacGilvray said that the current ordinance was written for smaller
projects and does not address this type of project, and this Board would have to make a
motion to approve on unique and special conditions of the land, and is forging new ground
and one~ again the City Attorney is not here to help. Mr. Upham said the Attorney had
given the Board general guidelines, but now it has to forge ahead without any legal help.
Mr. Wendt asked the exact location of the creek and Mr. Wood pointed it out. Mr. Mac-
Gi lvray asked if the creek prevents more parking spaces and Mr. Wood said yes, but for
the hotel lot more than this project, and then speculated that the unique characteristic
of this property is the proposed plan, crossover parking (also unique) and it can work.
Mr. Wendt said that in his opinion, with the increase in land value, the City will be
faced with more of this. Mr. MacGilvray agreed, but added that the ordinance should be
revised to allow this. Mr, Wood said lenders will govern requirements, and said that
Aurora, Colorado requires 1 space per 500 sq. ft., but lenders are trying to get 1 per
300 sq. ft, nationwide. Mrs. Kee said that in her opinion, 1 per 300 sq. ft. would be
ample. She then referred to Section 11 .B.l of the ordinance, and read, 11 ••• To hear and
d ec ide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision,
int e rpretation, or determination made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of this
ordinance 11 as being part of this Board's powers, further saying that Mr. Wood may be
approa ching this project under this section, adding that an ordinance cannot be all en-
compassing and must allow room for interpretation.
Mr. Wendt stated that the Board Is making an interpretation of 1 per 300 sq. ft., plus
employee parking, and that Mr . Wood ls contending that this is a double parking requiremen t
be cause 80 % of the people in the office building will be employees. Mr. Wood answered
various general questions about the uses of the building, offering the information that
the building will be 10 stories in height,
Mr. Wagner stated that this is the third time this Board has been fac ed with brand new
probl em s, therefore the case Is a unique and special condition, but if the Board votes
on this, it must carry forward the importance of getting the ordinance changed. He went
on to say t hat he attends a lot of conventions in his work and that most people fly in
and further that he rarely has seen 2000 cars at a 2000 person convention. Mr. MacGil-
vray said he would love to do a study; that he thinks there are more parking spaces in
this town than there are cars, and he thinks the current ordinance has led the City to
this position.
Mr. Wagner said he would 1 ike to make a motion to authorize a variance to the parking
requirement (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to
the public Interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not
normally found in like districts: That the development in itself represents a unique
and special condition, there being none other 1 ike it In · the City and therefore (2) no
ordinance covering parking requirements for this type of development exists, and because
a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hard-
ship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done, subject to the following 1 imitations: There be an enforceable,
shared parking agreement acceptable to the City. Motion was seconded by Mr. MacGilvray.
Votes were cast and the motion carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Other Business
( Mr. Upham made a motion that staff must address this issue and make the necessary prov1s1on s
to cover the Issue in the ordinance, and until that time no other similar variances will
!
ZBA Minutes
.1-17-84
page 5
be heard before this Board. Mr. MacGilvray seconded this motion and after general dis-
cussion concerning how this could be addressed in the ordinance, the motion carried
unanimously (5-0). Mr, Wood then offered from the floor, that a good source of informa-
tion concerning this is the hotel industry istelf, because they have their own standards.
No further business was discussed. Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn with Mr. McGuirk
seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
Acting Chairman, Dan MacGilvray
i -
STAFF REPORT
TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment DATE: February 10, 1984
FROM: Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
GENERAL INFOR MATION:
Applicant: Al Gutierrez
Status of Applicant: owner of Tacos Al Carbon
Location: (Address, Lot, Block, Subdivision) 509 University
Existing Zoning: C-1 General Commercial
Re quested Action: Variance to parking (variance for 70 spaces)
Variance to front and sid e setbacks; 21 ft. & 11 ft. respectively.
Pu r pose: To enlarge the existing structure to two stories of retail (10,636 sq. ft.)
and restaurant space (3,000 sq. ft .)
Appl i cable Ordinance Section: Section 7-C Table A
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Lot Dimensions: See site p 1 an : ~ · : ·
'
Access: will be from Stasney and an alley to the east
Flood Plain: n a
Other:
..
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Variance
Setbacks Required: Front 25 ft; side stre et 15 ft.
Adjacent Structures: Wyatt's Sporting goods is approximate l y 40 feet to the east.
Parking Required: 42 proposed; 112 required
Other:
Area of Non-Conforming Building
Area of Expansion
Use Permit
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Parking Required
~~~~~~~~-
Par king Required
Greater than 25 %
~~~~~~~~-
Appraised Value Cost of Recon structio n
ANALYSIS:
Alternatives:
Hardship: . : .
Ordinance Intent:
Previous Action on this Property: Tabled 10-18-83 pending P&Z Action on acceptable
ATTACHMENTS:
xApplication
site plan. P&Z action 1-19-84
xList of Property Owners within 200 ft.
Site Plan on wall
xLoca ti on Map
Other: P&Z Minutes (l-19-84) ZBA Minutes 10-18-83
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Mailing Address
Phone 8c./ ~
Location: Lot ------Block Subdivision -----
Description, If applicable
------------------------~
Action Requested: 'SET AcKS N
;·
v r-.-d..1 MJ c.. (.
Present Zoning of Land in question
Applicable ordinance section 7-C
NAME ADDRESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
-1-. .
,.,,,,z~*"'~~~..:-·T<t'~~rt~? ..... "'"'"""-'
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST.
The followin s ecific variation from the ordinance is requested: 5£7 'i'S~K f?(~u1~f~~
'5-r; -rt/JV ST.
I I I
DF 70
This variance is necessary due to the following unique and special conditions of the
land not found in like districts:
~ Mt><;/ or-1Su-s11\H;SS IS" W4Lf( /N -~us//v~s~ 14-t'JD
Lu l Ai:_ L N u-r Al ;k1:_5~AJ I Ft,,LL $--' . ()T!L/~/AJ6 out? frees~
XAr<_~1N~ .SPACE.$. ftif?-!CF:. f51 lf'i-t::.IJ f{J12. tVt6fZL i?K&L
~~~~ AatrA&ti.J--J, 1H-L LA--ND A;-JAt L-A~kf. ( $ ~-tTd-MELY L1M1/W.
State the unnecessary hardship involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance
(other than financial). ( \
)> '\k :7D TH/r.--Al?() Ii {t_.£:-) fv1 t-rJ Tl ON !DJ> • w L. 4=°U:..L
-(\}{\--\ l 0 \:Ct\ 04 'T rH'i ~ t<-1 A.j h -st: % T '[;?~LI( L)A{2 l frrJ~
l>-->~ ·1 ~'--\ '-b ~0 1 ~);; -A-\5\..f. lo "E!JG:PA-N D A~(()
~~l-L'-t U--r1 L\~~ :A;Vt\\ L~ Lt. ~'* ~ (,l\()V\._LD tj Uf ~
The following alternatives to the r!=quested variance are P.OSsible:Ai3L€-. rod
v tJ ~ --. . : · -_-:-: ~il-~~Cf<_/
IM?ttov~~N/s 7Q 'fAH!ANc.~ --rN.L t¥\?'Yft.t°l(l-AAJC"~ oF rH-1s \P(l.o?~"TV.
W c ~? f To f..JAu ~ CIJ t:.. () F=-TH 'E.. /..)I c. t( IZ. l..oo ~ 1 ~ ~ Aµ}) A-7f ~A<r/t/JL
~~l.\1LbrAJ6$' QN ~D~rli c;ATL A~~. --rtf,s WtC..L Bl: G'oc)b f:uR.. es .. ~
· . . 6fl lfA."1:5 7£~r c///JlllfCTCll!. ...v1t.-L-The facts stated by me in this appl1cat1on are true and correct. f'E 1<>· f>~,4121 -rY •.. ,.
BK.-.2~-~LT 10, 11 -Boyett
BK ~:S~,:.LT .~ pt...of-3
A&M Methodist Church
417 University Dr.
College Station, TX 77840
BK 5, LT pt l
' Tauber Ted Wyatt _____ --
505 University Dr.
College Station, TX 77840
BK 5, LT pt _l __
Tauber
Northgate Pizza Hut Inc.
P.O. Box 3037
Bryan, TX 77801
BK 5, LT pt 3
Tauber
Kathleen Stubblefield
P.O. Box 2740
College Station, TX 77840
BK 6, LT 1 Tauber
Bobby L. Holliday
P.O. Box 4167
Bryan, TX _ 77801
BK 6, -LT -2,3,4,5
Tauber
St. Mary's Catholic
103 Nagle N.
College Station, TX
Church
77840
BK 6, LT 6
Tauber
Kelley s. Broach
P.O. Box 3819
Bryan,.TX 77801
:-... _. ..
BK 1, LT lOA Replat
Tauber
Phillip B. Goode
P.O. Drawer DT
College Station, TX
TAMU
James B. Bond
77840
. -{•
· ..• ,
319 Systems Bldg.
College Station, TX 77843-1116
-~--
...
/ .. _:.· -·
··:.•
{li
·._/
·,
·• ,'.:L ._:
·I ; .-~"'h·
·.:.:._;::. .-
. ....
,:· ... · ..
' ;. ~~~~:',
.. ·· ' <i[ '~!Jtf~:
.• . • -! .. : .. :. · ...
. ···--....:...:..,._;_~-.. _,.
~ ~~:.:.~.: :
-~ -~~ ~~:: .. ··:.
·" ·,;·; · ..... .....
:.-· ..
~ ~--~ ·: .. -
,. .. -'!'·/·.·"
.. --.-1.:J~.;;;::~i,i~~lt;~t~~~~::,i,;~-.{:i\,~~~J&~~~:.
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 15
Mr. Nabors said that renovating thJs business would not be a sound economic venture if
he was granted only a one-year conditional variance, but Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that
economics cannot influence this Board's decision. Mr. Upham said the motion from the
Council Is general, and essentially the report had been accepted without instruction.
Mr. MacGllvray explained that staff is to present an Implementation Plan by 11-22-83.
Mrs. Meyer made a motion to authorize a variance to the lot width, lot depth, minimum
setback and parking requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be con-
trary to the public Interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the
land not normally found In 1 Ike districts: This business is in the Northgate area which
is unique and there are no like districts, and because a strict enforcement of the pro-
visions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
Prevention of any use of the property, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall
be observed and substantial justice done. Motion was seconded by Wagner, and carried
unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a request for variance to the parking requirement
for the expansion of the business at 509 University in the name of Al Gutierrez.
Mrs. Kee explained the request which is for 30 additional tables (120 seats). She in-
formed the Board the Fire Marshal has reported to her that the structure is 1 imited to
an occupancy of 85, and there are 99 seats existing which are covered by the required
number of parking spaces (33).
Al Gutierrez, 509 University Drive, applicant, was sworn In and repeated his request,
stating he wants to add 120 more seats, 30 tables, which would necessitate a variance
,,-for 40 parking spaces (1 per 3 seats). He said this would not adversely affect this
area, because he has, in the past, roped off this available parking in the rear of this
store and business had not been affected, which proves that most of his business is
walk-l n trade.
·,
Mr. Wagner asked If he would be willing to curb the area along University Drive to pre-
clude parking in front of his restaurant, and he (Mr. Gutierrez) said that it may all
J be enclosed, allowing only parallel parking in front. Mr. Gutierrez further stated that
he is not bothered by the head-In parking along University Drive, but reported that the
City planners are against It. ParkJng on University Drive was discussed, and Mr. Gutierrez
expressed a preference for head-In parking, Mr. Wagner pointed out that this is the only
head-Jn parking along University Drive and that abolishing this may help alleviate park-
ing and traffic problems on University. Mrs. Meyer disagreed because of the state of
! disrepair of the parking lot which is provided at this location.
·1
·)
Mr. MacGllvray asked the applicant to point out to the Bpard the unique si-tuation, and
Mr. Gutierrez offered financial hardship and making the site look better as unique,
Discussion of any possible hardship was discussed, Including 11 Northgate 11 , curb cuts,
parallel parking. Mr. Wagner stated that the City has been given a mandate for this appl ica ,
to come up with an acceptable plan by December 15th. Mrs. Kee explained that this Board
had reversed the decision of the P&Z which then allowed the existing canopy at this busi-
i: ness. Mr. MacGllvray said If the applicant could provide a plan with additional parking,
then perhap~ additional seating could be allowed, if an addition to the building ls made,
as suggested by the appl leant as being a possibll ity. Mr, Upham pointed out the appli-
cant ls asking to more than double his seating with no Increase In available parking.
Mr: MacGllvray said he bel !eves walk-in traffic ls a fact which should be considered in
this area, but It · ls not the law now and this Board has to decide what it will allow .;.f--..
this appl leant to do. Mr. Wagner asked If tabl Ing this Item would be in order at this
time until a more exact instructions are received. Mr. Wendt pointed out that business
In that area cuuld be dictated by seating c1pacity.
(,
J
.. 1
ZBA Minutes
10-18-83
page 16
Mr. Wendt then made a motion to table this item until an acceptable sit~ plan is
received from the applicant. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion which carried unanimously
(5-0). Mr. Wendt then suggested that a survey of walk-in traffic on this site might be
taken and presented at a later date. The applicant agreed to present a site plan to the
Planning Department for review.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Consideration of a request for variance to the front setback require-
ment for the reconstruction of the burned structure at 313 University in the name of
Herbert Affron.
Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the address shown (313 University) is a mistake, and
should be 313 College Main. Mrs. Kee gave the background of this building, leading up to
the necessity of requesting this variance which is for the front setback. She explained
that this applicant had an approved site plan but then the building burned and destruction
was more than 60 % of the building. Now, in order to rebuild this building, the applicant
must request a variance, as ordinance requires that any non-conformities must be brought
into compl lance when rebuilding. She pointed out that in order for the applicant to use
the portion which was not destroyed, this Board must legitimatize the front setback, which
appears to be approximately 11 ft. from the property line. She further informed the Board
that the original building had been larger, but available parking would limit the amount
which can be used, and the appl leant will reconstruct only that portion which would
comply with the available parking.
Lisa Affron was sworn in and gave the history of the approved site plan, and spoke of the
fire which destroyed the building. She stated that available parking would only allow a
building-of 2250 sq. ft., which is what they are planning. Discussion followed concern i ng
what is planned with suggestions offered by the Board. Mrs. Kee assured the Board that
the available parking in the rear would comply, but repeated the front setback is approxi-
mately 14 ft. short of compliance. Other setbacks were discussed, with the decision made
that this building sets back further than most other buildings i~ the area. Mr. Upham
said he could 1 Ive with a setback variance which would not contribute to the parking prob-
lem. Mr. MacGilvray said this building is not inconsistent with others in the area.
Mr. Wagner made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (front) in the
amount of 14 feet from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
pub] le Interest, due to the following .unique and .special conditions of the land not nor-
mally found In 1 Ike districts: Fire ~caused the need for this variance and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to
this applicant. Mrs. Meyer seconded the motion which carried unanim~usly (S-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Other Business
Mr. Upham announced that the City Attorney has gotten a summary judgement-against the
Shelton case, but It will probably be appealed to a higher court. Motion was made by Mr.
MacGllvray to adjourn, and seconded by Mr. Wagner. Motion carried unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
Dan MacGilvray, Acting Chairman
ATTEST:
Dian Jones, City Secretary
--
P&Z Minutes
·1-19-84
page 2
to this project, and the possible noise generated from vehicles.
motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit carried unanimously
Votes were cast, and the
( 6-0) .
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 84-300: Master Preliminary Plat -Southwood Valley Section 25.
Mr. Mayo explained this plat and located the land on a map. He stated all Presubmission
Conference recommendations have been met, but that staff still has some concern over the
large number of cul-de-sacs in the area. He explained the developer has indicated the
reason for inclusion of the cul-de-sacs is because the land backs up to a drainage area
at the rear. Mr, Mayo went on to inform the Commission that other than that concern,
staff would recommend approval, Depth of the cul-de-sacs was discussed with Mr. Mayo
pointing out that they are less than 600 feet in length, and are legal cul-de-sacs. Mr.
Balley asked about the street names, and Mr. Mayo said that both the Post Office and the
Fire Department have indicated they prefer that each end of a cul-de-sac have the same
name. He went on to explain that staff 1s recommendation was to loop some of the streets
in the development, but the developer has chosen to have cul-de-sacs. Mr. Hansen made
a motion to approve the plat with Presubmission Conference recommendations with Mr. Kelly
seconding. Motion carried 6-0 (unanimously).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 83-448: Reconsideration of a Parking Lot P~n for Alfredo's Tacos
Al Carbon. (Tabled 11/17/83).
Mr. Martyn made a motion to take this item off its tabled position with Mr. Kelly second-
ing. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
Mr. Mayo explained the site plan, pointing out that several variances wil 1 be requ e sted
at the next Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, including setback and parking vari a nces.
He went on to say that staff would recommend that an island on either end of a parallel
parking space on the west side of the project be included, each of approximately 4 ft.
in width, explaining that these I slands would serve to protect cars on either side of this
parking space. He stated that staff would recommend approval of this site plan, reminding
the Commission that if it approves the plan, it will still have to go before the ZBA regard-
ing variances to setback and parking requirements. Mr. Bailey asked about the location of
the dumpster and the number of dumpsters proposed, and Mr. Mayo said that the location and
numbers have been approved by the Assistant Director of Public Services, Bob Epps. Mr.
Mayo then stated that staff will begin preparing an ordinance for the Northgate area in
which fewer required parking spaces wil 1 be recommended, so at this time staff does not
know exactly what variances will have to be requested, but that staff is not especially
concerned about that as it perceives that the applicant is making great efforts to upgrade
this business and make the best use of this property which is what the City would 1 ike to
see more of. Discussion followed concerning the area available to tack out of the parking
spaces on the west side of the project, the location of the fire hydrants, which Mr. Mayo
said the Fire Department has no problems with, the inclusion of a sprin k ler system in the
building (which Is based on size of building and governed by ordinance) and the type of
groundcover propsoed. Mr. Kelly then made a motion to approve with PRC recommendations
due to the fact that the appl leant will still have to go before the ZBA to request variances
to this project, and also with the i~clusion of 2-4 ft , islands on either end of the
parallel parking space on the west side of the project, and the deletion of the land-
scaping note on the plan which lndicat~s "Red Bud trees of at least 8'-0 11 in height and a
trunk approximating 2-t 11 diameter", leaving ;'<note #2 11 all trees shown are ·6 1-8 1 hi g h red
bud with at least 2t 11 diameter." Mr. B.ail e y seconded the motion. Mr. Martyn said he has
problems with the nu mber of variances which will be requested and disagr e es with the
pol Icy of approving a project which obviously has so many probl e ms. Mr. Bailey said that
the Northgate committee has recommend e d that the ordinance regarding s etbacks and parking
t't..L M1nut:e s
1-19-84
page 3
requirements for the Northgate area only be changed, and therefore it is his belief that
Mr. Guitierrez' request for varian ces has been tabled by the ZBA pending action by this
body, and he Is In l lmbo at this time. Mr. Martyn stated that he believes problems in
the Northgate area will be intensified by this type of enlargement of a business. Mr.
Bailey said that this project is unique as it is one of the few which has any on-site
parking provided and this body should give the applicant a chance to upgrade his business.
Motion to approve carried 5-1 (Martyn against).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 83-453: Reconsideration of a Parking Lot Plan -The Omni Center
(formerly 11 Columbia Par k11 ; considered and denied 1/5/84).
Mr. Mayo explained this revised site plan represents replacement of one which was denied
because of illegible landscaping plans, and that this one has been coded and numbered,
staff has reviewed It and has no problem. He also pointed out the proposed phasing of
this project, the second phase being shown in red. He stated that staff recommends approval
of this plan as shown. Mr. Ke lly asked if the whole plan is being considered tonight, and
Mr. Mayo said that if approved, the entire project wil 1 be approved, including all phasing
shown, and the plan will not have to come back before this Commission. General discussion
fol lowed concerning the location of the water line and the trees along the front of the
project, which had been conce r ns at the previous review of this project. Mr. Mayo pointed
out that the water 1 ine is in the right-of-way and is not on this property, and the pro-
posed trees should not pose a problem for it or the maintenance crews. Size of the pro-
posed trees on the project was discussed, with Mr. Miller asking the applicant for clari-
fication. He stated that the cal I per size indicated will be the planting size. Mr. Mar-
tyn queseioned the appropriateness of a project of that magnitude in that area and Mr.
Bailey pointed out that should not be this Commission~ concern at this time as the area is
currently zoned C-1 for General Commercial development. Mr. Martyn said that perhaps
this particular piece of property has not been correctly zoned as it is surrounded by
resident i al development, and that he thinks th is Planning Commission has the right to
discuss rezoning of this land. Mr. Bai1ey said that it is his personal opinion that a
high rise development should not be next to a residential area, but because this property
has been zoned C-1, the City is l ocked into a commercial development of this land. Mr.
Miller pointed out that most of the land around this project is currently vacant, but
concurred that the Comprehensive Plan shows that it should be low density residential
development. Mr, Hansen pointed out that there is a major commercial area directly across
the Bypass from this project. Mr. Miller said that because the area is less than fully
developed and the land is currently zoned C-1, he does not oppose this project. Mr. Mar-
tyn asked if the City had ever received any requests for rezoning of this property and Mr.
Mayo indicated It had not. Mr. Martyn then asked if the City has any plans of its own
to rezone this land and Mr. Mayo replied that it does not. Mr. Miller pointed out that
the land is being used commercially now and this project is commercial, so he thinks a
change would be difficult. Mr. Martyn asked what would happen if the area residents
appl led for rezoning. Mr. Mayo pointed out that unless the residents own the land, they
cannot request rezoning, but can only petition the City to initiate rezoning. Mrs. Locke
spoke then referring to Article 101 lF for clarification of Mr. Martyn's question and Mr.
Mayo's statement. Mr. Kelly asked for further clarification, and Mrs. Locke explained.
Following this discussion, Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve this revised site plan with
PRC recommendations and Mr. Ha n sen seconded. Motion carried 5-0-1 (Marcyn abstained).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion of a previously presented Land Use/Zoning Plan for, and
initiation of zonin within the 11 Golden Triangle 11 , an area bou nded by Texas Avenue, SH 6
East Bypass and SH 30 Harvey Road . ·
Mr. Callaway stated that in June and July of 1982 a study had been
made by a committee wh ich included Mr. Fleming, Mr. Balley and Mr. Miller, as well as n~m
bers of the ?Janning ~taff, and the report h3d been made at a Commission m~eting in July.
. I 1. . -.-.::.-~ y~ ~ . ... , K> . ··: .. ~.
· ..... :.~_,,~·-._:_· .. ··_.·,_:. ' ' .. ·. ·'·' _: .... ?J~~-
· ..... _. •·.· ... ··_ ·... . : -.. -... ~.:.~-· .. :': ' .•.
. . ·.
: : .·• ··. -.
~ ~ VJ
~
. ::--.... ~ .. \>( \.ii
•• • •••• •; i _
. -~ .. ~~ ::_··-.. ~ -~·. ···~_:. :_: ·. . ' ,.-'.~:
.~ft . . -~ :. .. ' -·'. . ·.~ · .. · .. . ~ ~ . . . _: . . ~ ·.
.· .·.-
~ ~ ""
0 l:J
727 72~
CJ .
. -)3;.
~-.. -'.:·.r
I . . J t j~·~···
: -~ . . . / · . _· ~ ·: !'.
. . ..
·I; ·.: / :·l
'.~-.~t;;J=n ·s;
[ ITEM N·o 3 J FEBRUARY 21, 1984
'-. ___ ._. ---~----( SCALE:1":20Q' )
TYPE OF CASE: VARIANCE
PARKING, SETBACKS (Front &Side)
. -·J~ ~ ., -. -• ~.
' .·
·.•
"
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 11-B.5
move to deny a variance to the
yard (6-G) ------
lot width (Table A) ------
l~t dep t h (Table A) ------
sign regulations (Section 8) ------
minimum setback (Table A) ------
parking requirements (Section 7)
-----~
from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest,
due to the lack of unique and special conditions of the land not normally found
i n 1 i ke districts:
1.
-------------------------------------~
2.
-------------------------------------~
3.
-------------------------------------~
4.
-------------------------------------~
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not
result in unnecessar·y hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of
this Ordinance shall be observed /and substantial justice done.
This motion was made by
Seconded by
..
·i.
The variance was denied by the following vote:
Cha r r_ Signature .. .. ... Date
.. .• _:o:
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances: From Section 11-B.5
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (6-G) -----
lot width (Table A) -----
lot depth (Table A) -----
sign regulations (Section 8) -----
minimum setback (Table A) -----
parking requirements (Section 7)
----~
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public
interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land
not normally found in 1 ike districts:
1.
---------------------------------~
2.
---------------------------------~
3.
~---------------"------------------~
4.
~--------------------------------~
5. : ;; 1
~----------~-----------------'-------~
6.
~----------------~-<-----------------~
and because a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, subject to the following 1 imitations:
1.
~--------------------------------~
2.~-----------------------------------~
3.
~--------------------------------~
4.
~--------------------------------~
(Date)
This motion was made by
~----------------~ Seconded by
The variance was granted by the fJll~wing vote:
----chair Signature
STAFF REPORT
TO: Zonin g Board of Adjustm e nt DATE: February 13, 1984
FROM : Jane R. Kee, Zoning Official
GENERA L INFOR MA TIO N:
App lic ant : John M. Brown
Stat us of App licant: Own e r
Location: (Address, Lot, Block, Subdivision) 804 Welsh -Breezy Heights Subdivi s ion
Ex i st in g Zoning: R-1 Singl e Family
Requested Act i on : Varianc e to rear setba~k of approximately 3 ft. 3 inch es
Purpose: To l e ave in place a portabl e building (14'x40') in t he rear yard to be
used for storage, a tool shop and a playhouse.
App licable Ordinance Sect i on: Table A
PHYSICAL CH ARA CTERISTICS:
Lo t Dimensions: 80xl22 ,
Util i ties: Electrical along rear, water along Welsh
Access: Welsh Street
Topography: N/A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Existing Vegetation: Sparse
Flood Plain : N/A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other:
x
x
x
x
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Variance
Setbacks Required: Rear - 2 ft.
Adjacent Structures: See site plan in your packet and aerial photo on the wall at
the meeting.
Existing Parking: ~N!..L...!:CA'-----------------------------~
Parking Required: -'.!NJ___UA ____________________________ _
Other: Portable building was moved on to lot without a permit. Applicant had been
advised be could not have permission to move this building without a permit
and a permit could not be issued as proposed without ZBA action.
Use Permit
Parking Required
--------~
Proposed Use ------------Parking Required ________ _ ,.
Area of Non-Conforming Building -------------
Area of Expansion Greater than 25 %
~---------------------
Appraised Value Cost of Reconstruction ------
ANALYSIS:
Alternatives: 1 .)Remove building 2.)Cut down size of building 3 Relocate
building and lose a tree.
Hardship:
Ordinance Intent:
Previous Action on this Property: No -'-""'-'-""'---------------------~
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
List of Property Owners within 200 ft.
Site Pl an
Location Ma~
Other:
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUST MENT
Name of Applicant J '.)E;r J.i . B::to 1 r~
.~.----------------------------~
Mailing Address B o L~ '·1P-lsh St . Coll e 2_.e Sta t i on
Phone
Location: Lot Block J ------Subdivision 33..22::c:.Y
tl~.!..·.3-.:-i ·;s
Description, If applicable The lo t i s abo ut 8 0x 1 2 8 fee t i'r i th. a s i ni:_l e
fa mi l y d we lling . (Se e attached d r aw i n g )
Action Requ ested: Va r i a nce to rear sethack
Pre s ent Zoning of Land in question H-1 S i ng le ?am i l y
App licable ordinance section T ab l e A
NAME ADD RESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Ta x As s essor )
-. I
i -
-1-
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUST MENT
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST.
The following sp ecific va ri ati on from the ordinance i s requested: To posit i on
a p or table bu ild ins onl y ~2 feet from the back p ro perty line .
Th e porta11le hn il d i ns 's d imc:i.sions arr:; 1 i ~ x l1 .o ft .
This va ri a nc e is nec essary due to the fo l lowing uniqu e and spe ci a l conditions of th e
land not found in li ke di s tricts:
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
St a te the unn ecessa ry ha rd s hip involv e d by meeting th e pro vi sio ns of the ordi na nce
(oth e r than fina ncial).
1. I 1-rould have to cut t~is prefab ri cated building down to f i t the spec i fil
ordinance of a 25 ft . setback . 2 . I wo uld have to cut down a large tree
in t~e back ya r d pl11s pos iti on the buildi n3 over water and sewe r lines
to fit it along the back line . My yard wou ld also be drast ica lly reduced .
The following alternatives to the r~quested vari an ce are possible:
1 . Cut the bu ilding d own , but :·thi ,s would r u in a reall.v n i ce looking ho r gan
' building . 2 . Purchase l and adjacerit to n~ lot if possible .3 .aemov~ t~e
buildins fro n1 the lot . A i~ • .?lace the port.a.hle b uil d i ns alon f' tl:.e ba (~k
hou nrl.ar.'f 1 i ;1P.,
This varianc e will not be con tra ry to the pu blic inte rest by virtue of the followin g
facts:
1. I am l ocatPrl next so ~'n !1-2 z onin2 :::1 r ~a 1·rl:.ere a 20 ft . set ba ck is
app rov ed i n t .. e ordinance rules , therefore a 2art. ~:;e t ba ck may n ot
int erfP.r 1 ·rith the sur ro1 mcli n.'::· community . 2 . 'i'h is o uil d in r~. 1 1 ~ a str on ~
we l l! hu il t , a ttractive portab le huildinc mad e by ~or ~an , and ~ould not
T['h,esft1 ct~a ll~y t rl;tr a ct .I'roI'.'4 anx f :ther structt_ures din tl}~t nei!.:hborhootl . e ac s SLa eu oy me in thi s a~p i cat 1on are rue an c orr e~ . ~
r'.JDate G
-2-
/L lci_itional po.:::e fo r J .I-t .Dro r.rn variance r eq u est .
-c:.e un i que and ::;pecial c:ondi t ions of the lar1d ~ot found i n
like rli t ri cts i s such :
1 . To pos itio n the b u il d i ne, s o that it wu ul d confo r m to the
city orrl i nance woul d drast i cal l y r edu ce my back yard area ,.
I Nou l d o n l y ~ave about 24 fee t betwe en my house anrt the
bu ild in2 . I 'have onl y t".ro t r "~es in my ba c l ~ ya_rcl and o ne
of the8 ~ould have to be c1t d own . hy sewer line wou l d be
direct l y under tbe bui l d i ng . Th is is anold h ous e t hat I liv:..
i n and the sewer li ne i s also ol d . ~w o yea rs aB O ±~E a plJn~er
fr o m S.oto -11.ooter had to c l ean the li ne o.nd said that ;_ t 1-ras
old and in bad shaue ~ecause ti-i f; t r e'3 roots invaded the line .
f the line has to be re placed or worked on t the bu il d i n[ ~ould
be i n the r.ray and have to be mov ed . S i nce the bu ildin 6 is
larg e It vo ul d pose a la r e.e har dship to n a ve it , _,Al so my
-.mte r line rv-oul d r un uncl.e r the buildine'.. a nd if r,r ork had to
b e d one o n it the bu il d i ng wou l d al s o have to be mov ed .
USE 0/ BU ILDI NG.
7~e bu il ding is to be used f or three purposes .
1 ..
1 . a work shop 2 . st orag e J . a p l ayh o use for my two chi l d ren
P&Z CP1SE rHr. ZB/J . ..
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION a:;-;;J-6'~
' .. , .. PUBLIC .HEARING NOTIFICATION FORM .
·-~~~:r=~~~:~:~~:~~:~~:~:~,~:f~~~~~,~1~·:,~:.·:~ ..... ·;·':·; . .. . .. ·'·' ...
·-~·':"';".'."'TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TAX OFFICE ONLY AND CERTIFIED BY TAX ''·'
.... ..,;.;,n.wASSESSOR 1 S OFFICE.·._.,.,,.,,...ALLOW 48 HOURS FOR THE TAX OFFICE TO COMPILE THIS LIST. :
·,~;-~~'@rfJ¢t,-:~:S~!~~~~~;;(!~~;:;(~r-=T~'=~~~"r ';.'.>:: ·' · ·.:. ;~ .. /::·:;" : , · ,_; :_. '·'.
~~~'!°~~-~\:'.N..~R_S ,2r:.~~~f.~.~r:C.VJ.J~.1~ .. ._,?_00 _,.fEET .. .OF.. ALL .PROPERTY ' LINES OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: -·"":~m ~~~~~~;'~-=~ft·:s--~·~~ ..t"_r: ......... --;~::: .. ~'-":iV:~-·.t;r.: ......... •· ...... r~ .. ~~·-· · ~·~----·.-·· ...... •· · .. ,. ·· -·· · · -~ ·. --: ... :;_ .... : ........ · ~-;. ~..:. -:~---. ,,··r ·-· · . .. · .. · · ·
·:: .. . . "
· ..... -,_
-......... ~ ....... . . --:·-. -· ..
"°'l't~~Wf"ji;~~~.~~~NAME '·:"fi,"~~-·.;,. . ._._.".,,., ....... '·''· .-.. : ..... ·;· '·" ... •· · •. "•> · .. ADDRESS
Lambert H. Wilkes 501 Park Place, Coll ege Station , TX 77 8
Ronald C. Griffin 90 4 Welch Ave.;College Station, Tx 7784 (
Boyd G. Hall %M ichael Callih am 303 E. Univ ersity , Coll ege Station, Tx
Lorenzo A. Martinez 901 Fairvi ew , Coll ege Station, Tx 778 4 0
Lesli e V. Hawkins 100 4..-S.Dexter St., Co-lle ge Station, T x
Charl es Mund ay P.O. Box 9195, Coll ege St a tion, Tx
Judythe C. Rile y P.O. Box 3036, Coll ege Station , T x 778 4 (
Mattie Kaechele % Gl adys Koerth 806 Fairvi e w , Coll ege Station,Tx 778 40
D. O. Wiersig 1107 Sul Ross, Br yan , T ex as 77 8 01
Larry M. Peck 1812 Southwood Driv e , C .S .,TX 77840
Charl es Mat e jka 802 FAirview, Coll ege Station , TX 778 40
... L . G. ·Jones Dr awer J, College Station, Tx 77840
Andres Barona i -802 Hereford, Coll eg e Station , Tx 77 840
Dwayne D. Simpson 800 Hereford, Colleg e Station, Tx 77840
Leslie V. Hawkins 100 4 S . Dexte r, Colle ge ..Station, Tx 77 8 4
Dennis an d Francis Maloney 803 Wels h, Coll ege Station, Tx 77840
R. D. Slack 1211 Lanc el ot Cr~, College St at ion, TX
William H. Kettl e r, Jr. 708 We lch St . Colle ge Station, Tx 77 840
Mrs . Ernest F . Sebesta Rt. 4, Bo x 4 07, Coll ege Station, T x 77 8 L
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY. /) /) C--I
CERTIFIC ATIOM OF TAX ASSESSOR OR CL ERK C-. Pt(.(,,µ /l
~~~-7----~~~~~-
f-13 :_ff
APi-'LICATION FEE
·:.· ! -.-: . '• ..... --.. -
r iv " , ·.~ -i:..
I
s-~ -----·-------·--· --· ---. ---..
--·-·--··-··· ··-··-----;--,-· •~r-~-=-"---I , I <'-Ci ...,"-r:
' I ! ~
j "" f'.;:,
.:..• ......... :;
.i::. r·o :r ) ';:,
I ' ~
~ l:
I :
i . I
j L / ..!-'1 -)i
-~r --·
-~-r) ~ .~-
(f c' f "' "'t /,; .P
/')} f:' (" u.1 I l
( :J (I {J I:' , ': ' I
C //ry .,.
.. ':f .... 7,.,.., ; .. ,,y ... f
r
'' 11
J
Bk OR 'I "i '/ /J ;oa
~. /:JS I' t13J
ef =
'5Q'i-!.O .""'
L OT 8 LOT 9
~\SD:TIGi~
B LOCK I
VO L .12 5 , PG .4 33 D I R
WELCH AVENUE
BLOCK 3
L OT 10 LO T 11
\'OL 12'.., PG 433 DIR
L OT l 2
' , ..
L OT 13
t .. ~1 •: .. ·.· ...
(. J .-
/ .
LOT I L OT 2
. ·..: I
-1.
-t .l-I .~\. \ -t lo C'-,
BLOCK 3
L OT 14 L OT 15
IJJ \'l> I u:: UI"
J::VERD T K. c;J _.\l.,_~1.1< 0 . (;IJ~!, ,1.;K I. ·11 :.1 ,: I
Bl.OU: J , HKEEZ Y llLIL!rJ> .'d 1!1 1T Ju:.
CKMIFOIU> HCR::u ·1 l.E.\(;L·I., ,\-7
C(Jl.J.Et::·. s r xr1 0~. BR-\1) .. 1S (Ul 1·:11 , 'I I X..\:-.
I . I
~ i
! 1 ~~~--~ H LI K E E ~: ~:"i-ij I
. I :
' -1 j
~ L-------
1 \ '~I -+++-+-+T"l•~++++++-++-l
~ ~ '
~ UJ~~
' ~ ~ ~~ ...............
~ ~ t--r.r--~~~~'-+-'r-1 hL.-+....--.-L. ~.--J...........-c~~~--t-1
. (ITEM N o. ] (CASE No • J (scALE ,,",600' J
TYPE OF CASE: SETBACK VARIANCE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Varian ces: Fro m Se ction 11-B.5
I move to authorize a vari ance to the
yard (6-G) ------·
lot width (T a bl e A) -----
lot depth (Table A) ------
sign regulations (S ecti on 8) -----
minimum setback (Tabl e fa) -----
parking require ~e nts (Section 7) -----
fro m the terms of thi s ordinance as it will not be contr ary to the public
in teres t, due to the following uniqu e and special conditions of the land
no t nor ma ll y found in 1 ik e districts:
l.
2.
3.
------------------"'"-------------------~
4.
s.
----------------'----'-------------------~
6. .·
and because a strict enforcement of the prov 1s 1ons of the Ordinanc e
would result in unnec e ssary hardship to this applicant being:
and s uch that the spirit of this Ordinanc e shall be observed and substant ial
justice don e, subject to the followi n g limi tat i o ns:
1 ·---------------------------------~
2. _________________________________ ~
3. _______________________________ _
4. _______________________________ _
This motion was mad e by
Second ed by
Th e varianc e was gr~~ted by th e fol lowing v ote :
~Date)
Chair Signature
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS
Variances: From Section 11-B.5
I move to deny a variance to the
yard (6-G) ------
lot wid t h (Table A) ------
lot depth (Table A) ------
sign regulations (Section 8) ------
minimum setback (Table A) ------
parking requirements (Section 7) ------
from the t~rms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public inter e st,
due to the lack of uniq ue and special conditions of the land not normally found
in 1 i ke districts:
1.
2.
3. ----------------------------------------
4.
and becau s e a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance would not
result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of
this Ordinance shall be observed ,and substantial justice done .
This motion was made by
Seconded by
. 1
The variance was denied by the following vote:
Cha i r Signature Date
STAFF REPORT
TO: Zoning Board of Adjus tment DATE: February 9, 1984
FROM: J ane R. Ke e , Zon i ng Offici a l
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Larry Landry Company
Sta tus of Applicant: Owner
Loc ation: 1408 University Drive
Existing Zoning: A-P Admini s trative Professional
Requested Action : Varianc e
Purpos e : To allow a detach e d s ign adverti s ing the French Arbor building
App licabl e Ordinance Section: 8-D.5.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Utilities: Alon g rear
Access: University Driv e
Flood Plain: N/A
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Variance
Set back s Re quir ed: NIA
Adjacent Structur es : Singl e Fa mily Residences to rear; Office building to side
Existin g Park i ng: N/A
Parkin~ Reguired: N/A
Oth e r: No detached s i gns are allowed in C-N or A-P zo nin g districts
ANALYSIS:
HardshiF: Se lf-i mposed. At the initial P .R.C. meeti~g to re vi ew t~i s project Mr . La nd r y
was advise d of the regulation reg ar d in g detached s i gns in A-P zones . He was
told sta ff would allow a sma ll a ddr ess s i g n to be detached if necessary. On
Janu ary 18, 19 84 I noticed the exis ti ng s i gn in place and notified Mr. La ndr y.
Ordinanc e Int e n t: A-P z one s are considered as good buffer zo nes between residential and
mo r e in te n se commerc ial u ses . Therefore, detached signs may not be
ap~ropri ate near or adjacent to residential uses. Typical uses i n
A-P zones are off i ce b uildin gs wh ich rare ly re~uire detached s ignage
for ad ve rti s in g purposes as do retail sa l es acti viti es.
Staff Report -ZBA
Larry Landry Co. -Var. to Sign Reg.
page 2
AlternatiYes: The appl le ant should have designed attached signage into the project.
The detached sign should be changed to read 11 1408 University1 1 and then
a sign could be placed on the building inside the courtyard perhaps with
tenant name s and numbers,
Previous Action on this Property: None -Recall action on Texana National Bank; minutes
are attached.
Recommendations: Although this particular sign may be attractive and not offensive, there
is no special or unique condition and the staff is concerned with any
precedent set allowing detached signs in A-P zones. Curr ently the
entire sign ordinance is being studied for revision and this particular
requirement may or may not remain.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
List of Property Owners within 200 ft,
Site Plan -will be on the wall at the meeting
Location Map
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Name of Applicant LARRY LA NDRY CoMPANY
Mailing Address P.O .Box 3752 8R YA N 1 TX 77805
Phone 846 -8104
Location : Lot -------Bl oc k s , REsERvrn Subdivision PosT CA K FoREs T
Description, If appl i cable 1408 UNtvERS ITY DR 1 vE , COLLEGE ST~T10N
Action Req uested: A PP L I CA TI ON F OR A VARIA NCE ON THE SI GN FCR OU R BU ILOl ~G
Present Zoning of Land in quest i on
Applicab l e ordinance section 5-R. 6 . 8-D. •
NAME AD DR ESS
(From current tax rolls, College Station Tax Assessor)
SEE A T T AC HED SHEET
.. : .
i.
-1-
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST.
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
TO ALL OW US TO MAINTAIN OUR STREET ANO BUILDI NG NAME SIGN WHERE IT IS
PR E SENTLY ATTACHED TO THE COURTYARD WAL L WH I CH IS ATTACHE D TO THE
B U ILDING.
This variance is necessary due to the following uniqu e and special conditions of the
land not found in like districts:
THE SIGN PLACED IN ANY OT HE R LOCATION WO ULD BE (j } OUT OF SIGHT TO PASSI NG
TRAFFIC I E LOCATED ON THE MAIN BOPY OF THE BUl~PING AND (2.) hF PLACED ON
EITHER FR O NT 1.t !NG OE THE BIJ I ! DING WOl!I D THROW OEE THE SYMMETRY WHICH IS
State the unnecessary hardship involved by meeting the pro vision s of the ordinance
(other than financial).
BY RELOCATING THE SIGN 1 THE ESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING ANO SETTI NG WOULD BE
JEOPARDIZED AS WELL AS MAKI NG IT DIFFICU LT FOR CLIENTS TO FI NO THE TENANTS
THE RE I N o
The following alternatives to the r~quested variance are possible:
AL T ERNATIVES WOULD BE OIFFIC~(T.
i .
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following
facts:
THE OFFICE NAME S I GN HAS BEEN TAST EFUL LY CREATED TO BLEND WITH THE STYLE ANO
TRADITI O NAL I S M OF THE BUILDING. LIKEWISE, IT ~ILL BE MAINTAINED AS PART OF
THE BUILDI NG AND COURTYARD ITSELFo
The facts stated by me in this application are true an d correct.
~ ~~~~
/ -/l/,,-.& a / L /.c:.-..--?" / /' / // ~
• .n:::'P l i cant/ " "'~"'
,,,.. /,,. .. ·
,/ -2-
-\ \I \ \ '·. \.' \ •\ A..__.1 •
CITY OF COLLEGE STA TI ON
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION FORM
TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TAX OFFICE ONLY AND CERTIFIED BY TAX
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. ALLOW 48 HOURS FOR THE TA X OF FICE TO COMPILE THI S LIST.
OWNE RS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF ALL PROPERTY LINES OF SUBJECT PROPE RT Y:
NAME ADDRESS
Bill Carll 1700 Pur year Dr. College Station, Texas 77840
fred L. Patton P.O. Box 3021 Bryan, Texas 77801
'•
Lela H. Edwards 302 Tim ber St. Co l lege Station, Tx 77840
Raymond Reiser 4 Fores t Dr. College Station, Tx 77 84 0
Charles Plum 5 Forest Dr . College Station, Tx 77840
Warren Kirpactrick 6 Forest Dr. College STation, Tx 77 840
Olga Deanda 7 Forest Dr. College Station, Tx 77 84 0
John M. Prescott 31 Forest Dr. College Station, Tx 77840
Al ice Miller 1109 Elenore St . New Orleans, La 70115
Jane Grizz l e 33 Forest Dr. College Station, Tx 77 840
Adrian MeDonald 1500 Un iv erstiy Dr. College Station, Tx 77840
Jacob Luza Jr. 1801 E. 29th St. Bryan, Tx 77801
Burl McAl i ster
tf P.O. Box 2996 Abiline, Tx 79604
Bert Whee l er P.O. Box 20027 Houston, Tx 77025
Home Owners Associa t ion #25 Forest Dr. Col lege Station, Tx 77840
•. .
ATTACH ADDIT I ONAL SHEETS IF NECESS AR Y.
c ERT I F I c AT ! 0 ~J () F TAX AS s Es s 0 R 0 R c LE R K _ _.:..i~t_,\~oc·=-=..:~\ ~-At__!.:)U~Q~;(\JJ..-=. _-_J) ___ _
1 40 .~D ~ /OJ;(\ 4i Q t 1 s ·Zi.1c;~ APP LI CATION FEE
v
'· ._j l
• ··,\i :J'tj
(_:
ZBA Mi nutes
8-16-83
page 3
had been analyzed prior to the current sign ordinance. Mr. Wendt asked about the Manor
House sign and Mrs. Kee explained how it had been approved at 85 ft. in height under the
old ordinance. Mrs. Meyer asked how the interim sign ordinance had come about and Mrs.
Kee explained that it was arrived at as a result of a survey of local signs and of other
ordinances from other cities. Mrs. Cook asked if Council had discussed signs on the
Bypass or the Frontage Roads and Mrs. Kee explained that she did not know if Council
had addressed this, but the committee working on the proposed ne w sign ordinance has
discussed lt.
Mrs. Meyer asked what kind of hardship would be created and Mr. Burke explained that this
is impossible to judge in terms of number of cl ientele lost. Mrs. Cook asked when the
sign committee would be making a recommendation and Mrs. Kee said hopefully a new ordi-
nance would be ready by this fall. Mrs. Cook asked Mr. Burke when this project would
be completed and Mr. Moore answered that it should be completed 9 months after begin-
ning of construction, and construction is scheduled to begin in one month. Mr. Burke
asked what would happen if this request is denied and the ordinance is changed in the
meantime, and Mrs. Kee said that in her opinion, when the Building Permit for the sign
is applied for, the current ordinance would apply, and if at that time, taller signs are
allowed, the applicant would follow the new, current ordinance.
Mr. Wendt made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations (Section 8) from
the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to
the following unique and special conditions of the land not nor ma lly found in li ke
districts: (l)the individual purchased the property prior to the ordinance chang e and
a penalty would now apply; (2)the elevation of the access road is not the natural grade
but rather has been built up and the sign would conform if the elevation had not been
changed; and (3)there would be no visibility of this sign to the Windwood Subdivision
to the south and no protrus i on above the Bypass; and because a strict enforcement of
the provisions of the ordinance would result in unn ecessary hardship to this applicant
being: Normal drive-in traffic would be diminished from th e Bypass in that this appl i-
cant is a retailer and derives much of his business from signage whic h he would not have
with at 35 ft. sign maximum ; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be ob-
served and substantial justice done, subject to the following li mitat ions: That the
sign will not exceed 35 ft. above the center! ine of the access road and the square
footage will be within the maximum of the current City Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wagner
seconded the motion.
After discussion concerning a set time 1 imit for the variance, Mr. Upham amended the
motion to include "as per the suggestion of the applicant, this variance is authorized
for 3 years, at which time th~ detached sign will be brought into compl lance of the
current ordinance at that time.11 Mrs. Meyer seconded the amendment to the motion; however,
Mr. Wendt objected to the amendment and asked to amend the amendment to include "as the
Ordinance reads as of 8/16/83 11 • Mr. Wagner seconded t~is amend ment to the amended motion.
Votes were cast on the second amendment (which includ ed the date 8-16-83) and carried
4-1 (Upham voting against).
Votes we re cast on the motion as amended and failed by a vote of 2-2 (chairman did not
vote) .
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance regu est to sign regulations prohibiting
d:tached signs in A-P and C-N zones as required by Ordinance 850 section 8-D.5 at the
site l ocat ion at the southeast corner' of State Highway 30 and Stallings Drive. Appli-
cation i s in the name of Texana National Bank 11 ln Or ganiza tion 11 •
'ti" •
·1; 'i'
~ • ..., .. ;, 'r 1
·'···
(_
-·"
ZBA Minutes
8-16-83
page 4
Mr. Upham was excused for a few minutes and Mrs. Kee explained that the zoning is A-P
at this location and detached signs are not al lowed by ordinance. Mr. Upham returned.
Mrs. Kee presented staff 1 s alternative which would allow small, detached 11 entrance/exit 11
signs with no name on the sign and serve as directional signs only.
Jim Jett again came forward (previously sworn in) and stated that although financial
institutions are allowed in A-P zones, they must offer more parking, and really should
be in a special zoning district. He went forward to the site plan on the wall and pointed
out exactly how the bank hopes traffic will flow and stated that this sign will help
insure how the traffic will flow. He stated that any other manuever would create a
hazardous traffic situation and this request would be in the pub] ic 1 s interest regarding
safety.
Mr. Wendt asked for explanation from staff concerning problems, and Mrs. Kee explained
that detached signs are not allowed in A-P zones because this zone is primarily used
as a buffer between residential and certain commercial projects. She stated again
that staff has no problem with small (appx. 2 1 x 3 1 ) entrance/exit signs but does have
a problem with detached signs with names of businesses.
Mrs. Cook spoke about traffic situations in late afternoon at this motor bank as being
hazardous at the point of ingress ~nd egress at the curb cut off Highway 30, and sug-
tested perhaps an 11 exit only 11 sign to help. Mr. Jett pointed out that this curb cut
will be serving both this project and one adjacent to this, so two-way traffic is imper-
ative. Mr. Jett continued discussion with the Board concerning a small directional
sign, and came to the conclusion that in the interest of public safety, the words
11 motor bank 11 and a directional arrow, as well as the address only would be acceptable,
and the words 11 Texana National Bank 11 could be eliminated, as direction of traffic is
the purpose of the sign. Mr. Upham suggested that perhaps 11 Motor Bank 11 could be in
larger letters than proposed, and Mr. Jett agreed that Mr. Upham might be right. Mr.
Upham asked Mr. Jett if he and the applicant could come up with something less com-
mercial than proposed originally, and Mr. Jett agreed that they could. Mrs. Kee offered
to make the decision on the suitabjl ity of the sign if the Board would so direct, and
also if they think that the words 11 Motor Bank 11 and a directional arrow are appropriate.
Mr, Wagner said in his opinion a detached sign is a detached sign, and if entrance/exit
signs are allowed, he has no problem with this new proposal, which deletes 11 Texana
National Bank 11 and adds an addres~~
The applicant then offered to wit~draw his request for variance if the Board gives
Mrs. Kee the authority to follow the direction of the Board regarding this detached
directional sign. Mr. Wendt made a motion to give Mrs. Kee this authority, and Mr.
Upham seconded the motion which carried unanimously (S-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of an appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision
concerning denial of issuance of a Building Permit for additions to the business opera-
ting under the name of Alfredo 1 s Tacos Al Carbon located at 509 University Drive.
Application is in the name of Alfred Gutierrez, Jr.
Mrs. Kee explained that the P&Z had denied a revision to the site plan primarily because
no revised site plan (which included the proposed parking in front of the business and
the addition of the awning and seating) had been presented by the applicant, and further
because the applicant was not in attendance at the meeting. She further explained that
the City Engineer has looked into the matter, and has set a time limit of December 15th
for the applicant to bring in a revised site plan which shows the parking proposed in
front of the business, and that tonight the Board is being asked to consider the canopy
I
I
I
• . ·~ I
I I
I ~i
I i
~ I 3 .
~ .1
5 I
I l
---,
) (--------
/.
/ .
/
I t
/
I
I
~408 UNIV. DR.
SIGN VARIANCE
O.___~ T_E_M_N_o _. __ __,.,) ( c. s E "o. J (scALE ' 1",600' )
TYPE OF CASE: SIGN VARIANCE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variances : From Section 11-B.5
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (6-G) -----
lot width (Table A) -----
lot depth (Tabl e A) -----
sign regulations (S ecti on 8) -----
minimum setback (Table A) -----
parking require me n ts (Section 7) --------'
from the t erms of this ordinance as it will no t be contrary to the public
int ere st, du e to the following unique and special condi t ion s of the land
not normally found in 1 ike districts:
1. ----------------------------------
2.
---------------------------------~
3.
---------------------------------~
4.
---------------------------------~
5. i.
---------------'--------------------~
6.
---------------------------------~
and because a strict enforcement of the prov1s1ons of the Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and s ubstantial
justice don e , subject to the following 1 imitations:
1.
---------------------------------~
2.
3.
---------------------------------~
4.
---------------------------------~
This mo tion was made by
-----------------~ Seco:id e d by (Date)
The vari~nce was gra~ted by the following v~te:
Chair Signature
. '
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTIONS
Varianc e s: From Section 11-B.5
I move to deny a variance to the
yard (6-G) ------
lot width (Table A) ------
lot depth (Table A) ------
sign regulations (Section 8) ------
minimum setback (Table A) ------
parking requ i rements (Section 7) ------
from the t e rms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public intere s t,
due to the lack of uniqu e and special conditions of the land not normall y f o u nd
1n 1 ike districts:
l.
2.
3.
---------------------------------------~
4.
and because a strict e nforcement of the prov1s 1ons of the Ordinance would no t
result in unnecessary hardship to thi s applicant, and such that th e s pirit of
this Ordinance shal 1 be observed and substantial justice don e .
This motion was made by
Seconded by
i -
The variance was denied by the fol lowing vote:
Chair Signature Dat e
..