Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies parking variance for 1441 Barrow redevelopment, citing insufficient employee parking and failed shared‑parking agreement
Summary
The Abilene Board of Adjustments denied a request to allow 1 parking space where 10 are required for redevelopment at 1441 Barrow (owner Kevin Patel). Staff said the variance would be "contrary to the public interest" because the proposal lacks adequate parking and a shared‑parking agreement with Walgreens fell through.
Get email alerts on the Parking And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Abilene Board of Adjustments voted to deny a requested parking variance for 1441 Barrow that would have allowed one parking space where 10 are required for the proposed redevelopment, owner Kevin Patel’s project.
Planner Kara Vilose presented the staff report, saying staff had determined "there are no apparent circumstances with the land which create an undue hardship" and that "granting the variance as presented would not allow for adequate parking, especially for employees." Notices were mailed to properties within a 200‑foot buffer; staff reported zero responses in favor and zero in opposition.
The submitted site plan shows demolition of the existing building and a new structure for a 7 Brew location with a dual drive‑through and a long stacking lane intended to accommodate up to 25 cars. Planner Vilose told the board the applicant sought to eliminate on‑site employee parking; staff had attempted to secure a shared‑parking agreement with an adjacent Walgreens, but that agreement did not go through.
Board members questioned how employees would park and whether the building could be redesigned to preserve some employee spaces. A member said parking, "especially for the employees," is important and suggested the applicant could reconfigure drive‑through lanes to add parking. After discussion, a board member moved to deny the request "based on the findings of the staff," a motion the panel seconded. The board’s roll call recorded Haver, Zintek, Rixey, Sparks and Loudermill voting to deny; the motion carried.
The denial was based on the staff report’s findings that the variance would be contrary to the public interest because it would not provide adequate parking for the proposed use. The board directed that the staff report findings serve as the basis for denial; no follow‑up conditions were adopted at the hearing.
