Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-00500201
2 . C CZE: v0 mo z 0 O TOO 40\ ^' V—_ -q mfD G * 1 '>/:4,/' m—' 4. �o a ,4.. ::;. < o do :'1 : - Nil /// v_::: X O N A 1601 /6'j Z O / p 'bps / 1600 /601 9 -?p' / -::::::::J,,..• a cm A <E, „, .... ,., AF9O °-- G� 1 0 0,./ ,z-3.,' ti e ..?Ili! 1\) 'ilk'.6/6 00,-- ,.. Fp�% � <P: '� . ♦ o 'p6 ti\t i 440fr o bpd '>09cq `�`y • ` / iea 4, . V G,/ , • 40,5' x ,11 � o k 40 s ,?' o • m � • ti °o 4�, D b �y d 0W 'p c0., ti ora �, '� �, titioo ti 111 ,p c -p ®= () o0 11B may, `" Le c� ''.� _ 0 X — 16rIk' ,t,, . cz, 40 U--7111 7N, Cis ® O y : V J �l %14„,,,„.2 .QO ' /p �pj e fps --,00, --- ,' " - C $> Z � ® � s � , ,., � dp � ;, .6. .." ` p ��9 Wig' ., e y gt Irtilli 4 1111146 sooliv . ‘G7 -' -e'- '-c,--/'<„,„,1/;...;:, /Jp ,, , ✓p. /T P. ----. .:,,,,,, ..4ca? ." Oy5 �'9 N 7*---- 1 ii m 111‘. - I "..:::.!..,..„1 •v �\ -38 ! \ 0> 0\'•\ . A - O '$ OW 1, v �b �\V ,>° � rn Iv ofrkt, �,`fi1`^ ti TL, `p, G. File Copy Agenda Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS RECEIVED LEGAL DEPARTMENT College Station City Hall OCT 1 6 Council Chambers 2002 CITY OF 1101 Texas Avenue COLLEGE STATION October 1, 2002 6:00 P.M. 1. Call to order—Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence request from meeting. 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action on a rear setback at 611 Harvest, lot 12, block 9, Westfield Phase III. Applicant is John Rhodes for Stylecraft Builders (02-192). 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on a drainage variance at 1400 Texas Avenue (currently known as Redmond Terrace). Applicant is Height Venture Architects LLP. (02-201). 5. Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items 6. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.071); possible action. The Zoning Board of Adjustments may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Zoning Board of Adjustments meeting, an executive session will be held. This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretation services must be made before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979-764-3517 or(TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agenda Item No. 1 Explanation of the Board The Zoning Board of Adjustment hears requests for variances and special exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance, appeals of Zoning Official decisions, variances to the Drainage Ordinance, special exceptions to the Parking in the Yard Ordinance and variances to the Animal Control Ordinance. The ZBA is a fact finding body and to grant variances it must determine the existence of special conditions, other than solely financial, which create an undue hardship for the applicant. Positive action requires and affirmative vote by at least four of the five members. ZBA decisions become final at noon, Thursday after the meeting and recourse from ZBA decisions is to a court of law. . ,.. .. Agenda Item No. 2 Absence Requests No applications turned in as of packet preparation 9/25/02 Agenda Item No. 3 Rear Setback Variance 611 Harvest STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: September 9, 2002 Email: mhitchcock@ci.college-station.tx.us ZBA Meeting Date: October 1, 2002 APPLICANT: John Rhodes REQUEST: Rear setback variance LOCATION: 611 Harvest Drive PURPOSE: To receive a variance for an error made during construction. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Architectural Designer for builder/owner Property Owner: Stylecraft Builders, Inc. Applicable Ordinance Section: Section 7: District Use Schedule—Table A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: The subject property and property to the north, west, and south are developed R-1 Single Family Residential. Property to the east is undeveloped R-1. Frontage: Approximately 65 ft. of frontage on Harvest Drive and approximately 112.5 ft,ort Meadow View Drive. Access: Access is via a front driveway onto Harvest Drive. Topography & Vegetation: The house sits slightly above the street level. A portion of the yard is sodded. Flood Plain: Not within a floodplain. VARIANCE INFORMATION Setback Required: A rear setback of 25 feet is required for R-1 Single Family homes. Setback Requested: A rear setback of 22 ft. 4 in. Variance Requested: A rear setback variance of 2 ft. 8 in. o: roupbeve serNstfrpt\a►gst&pcwonda.doc VARIANCE INFORMATION Special Conditions: The applicant has stated that the special condition in this case is electronic and human error. Hardships: The applicant has stated that the city inspector also missing the encroachment in the field is a hardship. Alternatives: Staff has identified that removal of the encroachment is the only alternative to a variance for the house to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements usually allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of the protection of property values. Similar Requests: The residential area (Westfield Addition) is relatively new and still under development. There have been no other requests for variances in this subdivision. Number of Property Owners Notified: 1 Responses Received: None as of date of staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Application 3. Survey 4. Survey of abutting property to the rear O:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc 06/29/02 08:48 $979 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS _ a001 `,•� tr FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ` CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: COLLEGE STATION — - . 30 Alvh ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT{NT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAIL,REQUIREMENTS; EMENTS; Filing Fee of$150.00. —._Application completed in full. Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings,Sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION(Primary Contact for the Project): Name ! hn 2 Mailing AddressOdlO c M,,,_y 6 ,SQv 411 City CO et e- T�, Zip Code 7 7g96-- I I � 4-0.----7/7--- State g� E Mail Address ' v hod e S _ Phone Number. �I O 'l Z C�� O 6j Ca— 0 3 4 1J-���%<<, Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION. Name 5-1 k CrA i� -I-- evil t:(e's ZnG, Mailing Address 1+0 Oj 0 SA i-4w a so T�( Ciiii ity co_ „ e ,Z k..JL . State Zip Code 77 84 E-Mail Address _ Phone Number — Fax Number LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address Co I 1 1-1p,. t/CS l� Dr. Lot I a Block Subdivision keve s 4 i'e Id ph Description if there is no Lot,Block and Subdivision Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Varian Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation Parking Variance Special Exception Sign Variance Other Current Zoning of Subject Property ___________________IcacLcirdil I Applicable Ordinance Section QBNSRAL VARIANCE REQUEST Oenar.doc 12/10/2001 1of2 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: • tVccd ci –A" vMr,ance- t-Or +'he reqs se1-bhck This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions: Special Condition Definition: To justify a variance, the difficulty must be due to unique circumstances involving the particular property, The unique circumstances must be related to a physical characteristic of the property itself, not to the owner's personal situation.This is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land. Example: A creek bisecting a Jot,a smaller buildable area than is seen on surrounding lots,specimen trees. Note: A cul-de-sac is a standard street layout in College Station. The shape of standard cul-de-sac lots are generally not special conditions. The house w41s sc�- Lop ,�y G pro Pcss1‘n/la j surveyv✓', Some/io ,1hcce IA.as ,a lcc f.0.1 " G.LITCN"he-I-t, -een Side plata Icier proC/ec/ surveyor a,.i baT +. - s ,Se4410, The rrSe. olL'C I-a human 2r�o✓� — (c+vSed elle encreac/1men f; The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is/are: Hardship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requirements of the law.The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition. Example:A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction of the buildable area on the Iot, when compared to neighboring properties. The horse c-t.v S se - an for1 ;en proper I)/ dye �o I-?je cihot,e, C�`�y lis r/i au dco�: AI So double c4cckc +o be s're F/cr..e are pc. en ccO AGA meti , 00k/ever -/-hey m isscr,t T'he en era ren /-. gls Tine following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: Th6re, are nes r-eg -i-ble tatl -4-errlq.fi'veS 'vactHnce- re� �•S�r This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: The. lrlfert-F' of to t.Hiia'ice Is f-o al/vim a 5-1)� mf'41'en d;s /o„dcehem-ern f�le rear of ad 'ol ',r ho .e 14 h ' c P e i . 36 ,'- . /'oe , 1 D , . 10 – , --�._ e . sst+'hts. 4he 5a' .e m Der,rt D� wt•evI hots is plain Inc. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true,// correct and complete. 1-24-1/ A h ec�'vra i UCSi r/er- 9- 6- OoZ ignature and Title Date GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST 2 0(2 Genvar doc 12/10/2001 00/20/2002 15:15 9796918904 KERRSUV PAGE 05 I S - ,: ciir ,„. AX§121, A g FlN Egi :,R FA 2!i gP1 $zK _ or ` mil- II g- g rii ,,° • \ o 0 Nly"Flz OE ,s-� \ \ c0 o 2 Gmp f�� \ � Eu, GGG�1' m y \ \ R - N '' oS \ \ /mrss m \ �o / . \r- rtl 16 z / s ' \ It \ h / \, 0. �,i / m5 ,�a t �, �T N / \ 4 \ ,a0� ep Nerl\uSs \ s-14,' Ne., r ,9 "b‘' 44* 0 AZ' _A• % ••:.:..l.::-N: 1: . 47, N /.'ACY`• `'•(O:so,.'1) •�ji`,* T-jay 1,'4 • %. // 15, e )? .V •-•:-N. 412 V Fig �s 6,,,,„ • moiligail i ' IN El �� -n O y .� vi i 1 A Ga imp et pi r NumN ob1:9�� ouo"ioo zoi• C° ce. u �S y • N gm o s I iii IR 01 0 86,4EN 6 La/to z m« 7 \ {� c _�_ p§o�� gA = >P, 0 § f B01, . § __I 2 7 �' �� 22 § ■E § 144r-111-7lboP -'"VP 2K�§o mo-1 - § � a � J (��_ #�� • -. mow ti7§j �f§rng /V Q _ g� \\ /�� m\ � ' �� �$�o�g■ 2• _ �/ �> & . � I:--i T8,0\ F, a v_ - • f�± o G o E E 2 & C �- * :Pit . o n ./bcoSo� o@ n < \% \ k§r=», . Z o2E9 ® gam ■ -- © '� �Ak §�$§ ���2§� q R E ' ,(0 22| o� \k■ 2-& r _c § n z w )•;,.•44| ; % _ �2 F $w 7 k \ \. � -. | s� ' 2��%§ £ - �. . . »$ % §R 2J .,a ++ ....... ••a..✓ vv•./J a 7., u 1 . vov vaty J111.... 1-1 Dl.1LLGAJ 10%. LJ UUJ/UUJ d7/25/2602 08: e0 9796918904 KERRSUV• PAGE 03 roan '7Q �flC r`1j mL. OC bi�xy ODI ora z$-4a 4o tlrrIc.' -or-- c z Z;� o ds Ac'Ho -Z9 \ s°hyo m � " F :A Ngo 9 . c A i . . . L4o IIa _ A- \omob N 0 �f OOf 0 �Opy o coo o-',. °., . U Z to O 1�$ n • •' , CO a cu-r1 ° II m • d0z �' • iib• �` 7 n03 `�`+, r o a °• f tp 0—1,, Z m ,� u!II II IMI Gj H . • —.trtNCA8N / Co N Vp+cD .,tri 44 13, 0 c3 G �64,? G 1? 4,9 ;# �`\ j — a sG 22 t q �* �'��� ��' to a �� 7o> 8 \ CDIN?'%.../ / 45, g�17:1 % / / Fi `O // / 7i i // Ps E '' z al \ / // ti co, • • • K Fi -v'° ' z `L o O� �h ` / $ ;=�\ ss ley\ \ .6b6°' m \ fid' �R / �4�' '� m m s rn \ A�l 12\ \ -V/ 0���5 r T 7 O \ . 0.'4 \ �N /�F4CD s Pc / i 1 1 0,11/4 ¢_ gal 71yn es 1.4 / zr pill/ 1 i...; 7 .,EP prZ1R0 - C721020 le rrc"r". * 2 co tligl A =p r" ° ' .- 1 Or 2§PEg NI Mgliig 21-1/1:)9 =I rn It N ziti !MI5— co f: g TO np •C�e • D�, Q7�c." V Q z � ; M1 +$ A %8 v 0 A fv r' xi rn ,(, r ''rte i'._lYr\a \ PI 2 a TAPn IP o ma' o N� �d ,> • Q 3 a• :+`+ . in NI cs -•$ cl C N A� '•v 't Re8.sp v�f La >> �L=.4i W y *^� G1 b 6 ag rrnn• � a�`8 ?lam wa -. I N • • -- Agenda Item No. 4 Drainage Variance 1400 Texas Avenue STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Brett McCully, P.E. Date: September 24, 2002 Email: bmccully@ci.college-station.tx.us Date: September 24, 2002 ZBA Meeting Date:October 1, 2002 APPLICANT: Jerry Tipps, Heights Venture Architects, LLP REQUEST: Variance from Section G(1) of the Flood Protection Ordinance prohibiting encroachment into designated floodways. LOCATION: Proposed Texas Avenue Crossing Redevelopment on southwest corner of Texas Avenue and George Bush Drive. (Currently Redmond Terrace) PURPOSE: Applicant wishes to construct parking, access and loading facilities over the designated floodway to maximize site utilization. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Floodplain Administrator recommends approval of the variance to allow the applicant to construct within the regulatory floodway with the condition that the lowest part of any element installed within the floodway be constructed above the elevation of the 0.2% rainfall event (500 year storm), or 12 inches above the 1% rainfall event (100 year storm), whichever is greater. GENERAL INFORMATION Status of Applicant: Jerry Tipps of Heights Venture LLP is the Architect working on this project on behalf of the property owner. Property Owner.: ... - The property is currently owned by Brad Sondock of Sontor Realty, Inc Applicable Ordinance Section: Ordinance Chapter 13, Section G (1). G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas designated as floodwaays. The floodwayis an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waers which carry debris potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion; therefore, the following provisions shall be required: (1) Encroachments shall be prohibited, includingfill, new construction, substantial improvements oexisting construction, structures, manufactured homes, or other development. Variances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete engineering reportfully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any OAgroup\dove_serkstfrpAzngstftpdhonda.doc increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard up- stream, within, or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineering report shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Policy and Design Standards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer; (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: Subject Property: Currently zoned C-1 and shown as Regional Retail on the land use plan North: Currently zoned C-U and shown as TAMU West: Currently zoned R-6 and shown as being included within the floodplain/greenway limits on the land use plan. East: Currently zoned C-1 and shown as Redevelopment on the land use plan. South: Currently zoned C-1 and shown as Regional Retail on the land use plan. Frontage and Access: The site has frontage on George Bush Drive to the north, Texas Avenue to the east, and Millif Drive to the south. The site has drive access to each of the fronting streets Topography & Vegetation: The site is currently developed as the Redmond Terrace shopping center. The majority of the site is used for structures and parking, with a small strip along the back occupied by Tributary C of Wolf Pen Creek. Flood Plain: The site is significantly impacted by regulatory floodplain. The area including and surrounding Tributary C of Wolf Pen Creek is affected by regulatory floodway as well. A copy of the FEMA map showing the graphic impact of the floodplain and floodway on the site is attached for reference. VARIANCE INFORMATION An important factor in evaluating this request is how a floodway is defined. In laymen's terms, it is the horizontal limits where fill being placed equally from both sides of a creek would cause an increase in the 1% rainfall event water surface elevation of one foot. This limit extends vertically so the air above the increased water surface and between the floodway limits is technically in the floodway. This vertical aspect is included to recognize that while we usually regulate development and design our infrastructure systems for a storm having a 1% chance of occurring in any given year, larger flood events can and do occur. The variance requested at this time is to encroach solely into the air above the flood level, and not into the anticipated storm flows at all. O:\groupldeve_set1stfrptVngstfrpt\honda.doc ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The rear area of the shopping center currently used for access, deliveries, employee parking and storage is within the regulatory floodway. This area was surfaced many years ago but has fallen into disrepair resembling a gravel or base driving and parking surface. This site is also limited in the area available between the existing buildings and the area occupied by the creek. By being within the floodway, the use of this area is subject to flooding. Hardships: In redeveloping the property, it is highly desirable to remediate any known potentially hazardous situations. Because the existing area at the rear is in the floodway, this area could not be protected and still be utilized as support area for the building. Therefore this site is in the situation that prevention of all encroachment into the floodway would not allow the elimination of a known hazard. Alternatives: Option A would be to not redevelop the site (Status Quo). This would allow only limited redevelopment of the site and not allow the owner to address the potential flood hazard at the rear of the site. Option B would be to simply resurface the area at the rear of the buildings at the existing grades and elevations. In addition to retaining difficult delivery access to the lease spaces, the parking and access areas would remain subject to significant flood hazard. This option would not require a drainage variance. Option C would be to enclose the creek in a concrete channel or underground storm drain. After obtaining the necessary approvals from FEMA, the floodplain and floodway limits would be relocated allowing additional construction behind the buildings. This would require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA, as well as permits from the U.S. Corps of Engineers and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly TNRCC). Option D would be to allow construction over the flood discharge area by means of structural components. This option would have to show that the structural improvements did not increase the flood levels not only onsite but on all adjacent properties including up and down stream. This option is presently preferred by the applicant and would require the variance presently before the Board. O:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Chapter 13, Section B states: "Itis the purpose of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse impacts associated with the increased storm water flows generated by development. It is also the purpose of this chapter to enhance the public health, safety and welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements." Unmitigated encroachments into designated floodways are known to cause increases in flood levels and the potential for damage from flooding events. As such they are specifically prohibited. It is clearly the intent of the Ordinance to prohibit encroachments into the areas reserved for flood waters. It does not appear that the intent was to prohibit encroachment into areas that may be above a reasonable flood event, even though the encroachment would be within the regulatory limits of the floodway. Similar Requests: Staff is not aware of any applications made for a similar variance, although a development is being considered for the southeast corner of Texas Avenue and Harvey Road which would utilize a similar approach. There exist other areas within the City where viable use of the property necessitated the full enclosure of drainage ways. These instanced were required to obtain all related permit approval processes as described in Option C above. The most commonly known is next to the fuel station on the northeast corner of Harvey Road (SH30) and the East Bypass (SH6). Number of Property Owners Notified: Seventeen (17) adjacent property owners were notified. Responses Received: None at preparation of this report. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Application Site Plan `s Lc ccs FIRM Enlargement Proposed o���ee, Proposed Cross Sections O:\group\deve_serlstfrpt\zngstfrpt\honda.doc ea; m> Z et. C*) Set-1.001 0.1 .40X I DC) Z ri‘.7 M 0 ie. 0 r- 0 ") H / 2 C2 —: <n . _. . •.rs -<i----7, 160:%' At., 0 ID 461—.,...... :II ‘,./ (n A Z 0 rn ‹Ea#W# — 0 / g . 0 1600 4,1? 14, —..--1-- . „A."-- . c''. / / 0 N, 627 el ....5.0 , . ,,,,,„_, ..,.. -0 ,J, p / _ , ‘,,„ r.) 4b, (N (e.• ' rVi '' 4,.., ..'I Alt .-{1.,., *"."-• -i --' \_,,,'-. .1;3:-. , e i, +‘ :A:. . ' % .„m4: .......... •.••.••••• / / (,,,../L., ,,,, ,0:<: •-• 40.40‹qe ,.. c.,..., ..... , , ,se• :.,, . . .............................. .•...••...:...•...•••....,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,•,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:. 418 .... ....................... ........ ....................... ........ .. ..................... ........ ....................... ... ...................... > k .,, ,.:„, , ,i,,i, ,i,,i,i,i,,i,,i,,,.,:: L416. •- ri 10-> - --.();i:i:iiii;:iiiiiiii;i;i;i;1;i;i;i;;E;i;!;'. Oa 4 „diglii!iiiiik:;:iiniW:iPiii!iiiiiiii'. >•.,.. 1\1 ,Cs .iiiiMi]AiMiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiii:. WIP Cs0#0 4 ,tvel 4r •.••..•••..•.••.•••.............................. 0 c2t, +4.1,0,0,A 40010 ,c)o x p eQ il 4tk ..:,„,;„„,„„„„„,,„„,„„,„„„,„„„„„„,„„„„,:. ,..) („)) e ,„„,„„„„„,„„,„„„,, . 66 W4011110i2e,'5'01.A4, 1C-'3.3,ifiri t, , A*- .::*iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;IiE'. () 411 ,---41112 D, 40'.'iiiiii!iiiiifir:. ..,iiiiii:iiii:• '': : 13, ,,3 ip•%,*(`‘W k 4?. zol z,, ii, 4w0 ,,, • .4-$ c2 7" 4•AS> Ni 0,.' , ....,_.?, .4,11 ,,c__, co w,c) q-71.., if- le .,.7"-1 s r;) # c,::) g,,,,---id , r\fl -4 1 _. NAIL T LI'...,0 ?.. s :i'... - -?.,.. .-.61 71114 10100... , _ lir cz, ,(.2J • i-s---' - 1 1 . crn CI) i .c.,, -,,)\ . , Fd , c --b c c) 03 ..... i. • „ 4Y 'b 4 t> -,.. s' (•`' # co \ ts3 sz, .. .,>, 'N,>„..,.. • d. 47 -.• f • ' , Ss- -2O-02 o9:30A Collftge Station City Sec 9797646377 P.02 `,1 DATE&unaI m'--- ` • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION AMY - MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: -Ealing Fee of$150.00. AppHeatkan completed in flt1L -Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans,elevation drawings,sign details and floor plans. The Zonis. g shall inform tlxe ap,itcant of any extra materials required. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S LNFORMATIC\ (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Heights Venture Architects L.L.e. Attns Jerry Tipps Mang Address 1111 North Looi West, Ste. 800 city Houston State Texas 24,Code 77008 E-Mail Address Phone Number 713469-1103 713-869-5573 Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name Son1Ior Realty; Inc. Attu: Brad Bentinck Mailing Address 720 N,, post Oak, Ste_300 City Houston _ state Texas ZipCode 77024 fiMailAddress bson.dock?retailpropertiesgroup,c •Phone Number 713-784-6404 _ Fax Number 713-J84-1631 _ LOCATION OP PROPERTY: Addition 1400 through 1422 Texas Avenue Lot Block Subdivision • Description if there is no Lot,Block and Subdivision 1.e . in J.E. Scott Lea.ue, Abstract #50 Recorded in Volume 188, Page 295, Deed Records of Brazos ounty, ens, Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Variance Appeal of Zoning Officials Interpretation Parking Variance S•+.r:_ • •. on Sign Variance other Fl,00dway Encroachment Current Zoning of Subject Property - C1 Applicable a Ordinance Section Chapter 13, Section 5 G ONIUMALYARIAOMMAKAnin I of 2 Cenvartoc I1/7tDr2ccI ,-n•a CiI:,'i ,-nn,' n,- d2<. I=9Ib2,1ct.1: .ed S3IldTd0dd 1I7.113d e, . . Se--=0-0 09:30A College Station City Sec 9797646377 P.0 Ural=MS ONLY' (ff Dara ems, ' ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION KENIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Filing Pee ofS150.00. • Application completed ib fulL Additional mataeials may be required of the applicant such as site plans,elevation drawings,sign devils and Soar • Tlse Official shall inform the of any eta materials APPLICAN'I7PBOs3BCT MANil ''$1 RMA (Primary Contact for the Project): Name H t rchitests L L. . . Attn�, Jerry Tipps Mailing Address 111 North Looest, Ste. 800 city Houston . State Texas zlig Code - 77008 E-Mail Address :Phone Number 713-869-1103 ..pax Number 713-869-5573 1 ' PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: • L 'Name . Sontor Realty; Inc. Attn: Brad 5onddck !Mailing Address 720 �( post Oak_ Ste_ _300 City Neils ton_ jute TexasCode 77024 ?gyp Bai+tsil Address Dsfle:doz`klftetai 1properti esgroup:c,• ;Phone Number 713-784-6404 _ Fax Number 713..784-1531 . LOCATION OP PROPERTY: th 1422 Texas Avenue Lot , Block Subdivision • Daaaipdoe if there is no Lot,Block and Subdivision i _,0601 Acres in J.E. Scott League, Abstract #50 Recorded in Volume 188, Page 295, Deed Records of $razos County, -Texas f ` Asdion INCI heeled. (clime One) Setback ValOfficial's • Appeal of Zoning Itmerpretation Patting Vida= S.+ • . an Sign Variance Other Fl,>lodway Encroachment -r Current Zoning of Subject.Property Cl Applicable Otdinanoe Section Chapter 13, Section 5 G CRINNIAL VARIAN=MOUNT Colvar kse 12114t2C01 I of 2 7n•J C .7T 7nn7 !17 rion rnnrr.n inr .wn i n.-nr, •e,._• • ,r•••-.. 4 xr-GO-Cax 111ZU rKlyt'Mt1w15 Vtrvruct HMu-i r1411b`777rj iu; 0.Jrcr+1ba1 r.CM'ill= Sap-2O-02 O9t26A College Station City Sea 9797046377 P.03 GENERAL VALANCE REQUEST The following speclllc"Madan from the ordlneeee is requested: • i - • error .._w ' This variance h neeas aty due to the fdlo log spedal ooadtdona: ' : Special Coudblies Mold=To jasdfy a minx*dm tillgeulty matt be due to unique circumstances involving the particular papctl:it:The taaatt111C'citatotsturees must be ttaWed b e physical characteristic of the property itself.sot to the owuWa personal stataadeos.This is bate ee eddies of ownership.the variance will run with the lad. . Eiaaampier A croon bisecting a lot a meter buildable area than is man as satroultding lots.speehose tam. Note:A esterase is a'tended stmt layout in Colley Station.The sh*e of sanderd cal-loser lou us madly not ION red atea.tG Aae�ss. TO TV a ¢f=`ir_ V iLt5 i ,._1___._ r. r The uusecemay ftp(a)involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance abs than financial hardship ulnae: Datdi ip Dellottion:The Inability to ansate resaeatablo use of the pcepecy in accord with the Scent requirements of the law.The hardship mos be a direct melt of the spacial coulee. li u$ple:A _meek ltwting a lot could be the reduction of dic buildable area on the lot,when compered to apertiec k. _ , _ _.._ s_ : _ _ .obesity...._.. _ - _ . .. _ . I .. . - _ • - . _ . _ ►. - _ - ' . ♦ -.4. 71. I + _ _ / Il • i■ -' l -4_ (s. - r 4. 's --'.;-_-. 0/4 RV ' �t f!'3tl�Ft,,dr . pll�t The �� ?r.. .--IV"` to i. _ " " 1' borne r atter IS ti Cana ' ..'p d.Cl fel C T VA2 red 4 fm IN Llea I L.ti AT 4 u .Q n&1_`f` rLEV n - - . 1. ., . P _. _ L 46 -,. Oh, r 007 Ai ._ tom , _ a, .. .r . ,� . . ..r ■— -1• 1r • — . • Mar •�f � r. 4� r •.- • C. L _ • • . - ... _ > . AIL • ,.., ! - _ A . The applicant hes ptspardd Mid appy and ecrtiirs that the facts:Wei hereto:and exhibits aftechwi . hard.are ' _ , ,. ..iijvolv , i , :0 k,k__C i- '..4- 4.4.iN... ii."' Iiir 9 g4.-0 °2-- ---- aipirbno sad Ti sANg '- c4 r- Deo tat,vAazmeaSomme! lets Oolowles YMe1tla c.11.-1 )()!7T 7ITI7 n7 da c TCQThc2J0TJ!XP T I A1Afl U 1TH 1 Ii TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 09/26/2002 67:15 NAME : COCS DEVELOPMENT SER FAX : 9797643496 TEL : 9797643570 SER.# : BROE2J341673 DATE,TIME 09/26 07:13 FAX NO. /NAME 9-17138695573-152 N 00:02:28 PAGE(S) 06 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD FACSIMILE COVER SHEET CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1I01 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 COLLEGE STATION College Station, Texas 77842 842 Phone (979)764-3570 / Fax (979)764-349e Date: CA ":;k1?.--0 # of pages including cover:�Q Ifyrur did not it crave 4 cimpleIe AI;pk 5e Call our offr:.c irrrmcdl fe vA i- /law/i rrsralW TO: r 'G 1. \ l FAX: k0C cow, Y: '■ - vs. \-9:3 A. cL 1. c'Ngl•Q_ G\Ck Oh( c3\-- 'ROM: C PHONE: (979j 764-3570 COMPANY: Ci of Colle e Station REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Replay ASAP ❑ FYI September 24, 2002 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Variance request for1400 Texas Avenue NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This is to notify you that the City of College Station is considering a variance request for the following property: Applicant: Jerry Tipps, Heights Venture Architects, LLP Subject Property: 1400 Texas Avenue (See attached location map.) Proposed Variance: Drainage The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Council Room located at 1101 Texas Avenue South, College Station, Texas. All owners of the subject property and property owners within 200 feet of the subject property have received notification of this request. Any request for sign interpretive services for the hearing impaired must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3547 or (TDD) 1-800-735- 2989. For additional information, contact the City Planning Office, (979) 764-3570. Brett McCully, P.E. City Engineer " Mr, Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special condition: the requested variance is slightly over 10%; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inadvertent field construction error resulted in foundation being constructed 2-feet 8-inches too close to the rear line. This results in possible title problems; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance of 2-feet 8-inces on the rear setback. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that there was another solution but it is more complicated. Both lots could be replatted and the rear line moved. Mr. Birdwell stated the Board is on record as suggesting that the ordinance be changed so that variances larger than 10% are determined by staff. Mr. Birdwell ended by saying that this variance is slightly over that and he could not imagine that staff would deny it. Mr. Lewis stated that he agreed with Mr. Birdwell. Mr. Lewis ended by saying that the city's interests are being considered because there is more than 50-feet between both houses. Chairman Hill stated that he is opposed the granting of the variance for several reasons. There is nothing to prevent the 50-feet between the two houses being closed by the remaining building area. The home behind the house in question could be added on to and it would close the distance. Chairman Hill added that mistakes were made and he is sympathetic but he does not feel this case meets the criteria that the Board is required to satisfy in order to grant the variance. Chairman Hill ended by saying that a hardship has not been presented that meets the requirements needed to legally grant the variance. Mr. Richards stated that he was in favor of the variance simply because of the multitude of circumstances involved do not point to the applicant as being the reason for the encroachment Chairman Hill called for the vote from Mr. Birdwetls'motion. The Board voted (4-1). Chairman Hill voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a drainage variance at 1400 Texas Avenue (currently known as Redmond Terrace). Applicant is Height Venture Architects LLP. (-2-201) Brett McCully, Assistant City Engineer, stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Mr. McCully told the Board that the applicant wishes to construct parking, access and loading facilities over the designated floodway to maximize site utilization. The Floodplain Administrator recommends approval of the variance to allow the applicant to construct within the regulatory floodway with the condition that the lowest part of any element installed within the floodway be constructed above the elevation of the 0.2% rainfall event (500 year storm), or 12 inches above the 1% rainfall event(l 00year storm), which ever is greater. G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas designated as floodways. The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters which carry.debris, potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion;therefore,the following provisions shall be required: ZBA Minutes October 1,2002 Page 3 of 10 (1) Encroachments shall be prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements of existing construction, structures manufactured homes, or other development. Variances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream, within or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineeringreport shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Policy and Design tandards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer; An important factor in evaluating this request is how a floodway is defined. In laymen's terms it is the horizontal limits where fill being placed equally from both sides of a creek would cause an increase in the 1-% rainfall event water surface elevation of one foot. This limit extends vertically so the air above the increased water surface and between the floodway limits is technically in the floodway. This vertical aspect is included to recognize that while we usually regulate development and design our infrastructure systems for a storm having a 1% chance of occurring in any given year, larger flood events can and do occur. The variance requested at this time is to encroach solely into the air above the flood level, and not into the anticipated storm flows at all. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The rear area of the shopping center currently used for access, deliveries, employee parking and storage is within the regulatory floodway. This area was surfaced many years ago but has fallen into disrepair resembling a gravel or base driving and parking surface. This site is also limited in the area available between the existing buildings and the area occupied by the creek. By being within the floodway, the use of this area is subject to flooding. Hardships: In redeveloping the property, it is highly desirable to remediate any known potentially hazardous situations. Because the existing area at the rear is in the floodway, this area could not be protected and still be utilized as support area for the building. Therefore this site is in the situation that prevention of all encroachment into the floodway would not allow the elimination of a known hazard. Alternatives: Option A would be to not redevelop the site (Status Quo). This would allow only limited redevelopment of the site and not allow the owner to address the potential flood hazard at the rear of the site. Option B would be to simply resurface the area at the rear of the buildings at the existing grades and elevations. In addition to retaining difficult delivery access to the lease spaces, the parking and access areas would remain subject to significant flood hazard. This option would not require a drainage variance. Option C would be to enclose the creek in a concrete channel or underground storm drain. After obtaining the necessary approvals from FEMA, the floodplain and floodway limits would be relocated allowing additional construction behind the buildings. This would require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA, as well as permits from the U.S. Corps of Engineers and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly TNRCC). ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 4 of 10 Option D would be to allow construction over the flood discharge area by means of structural components. This option would have to show that the structural improvements did not increase the flood levels not only onsite but on all adjacent properties including up and down stream. This option is presently preferred by the applicant and would require the variance presently before the Board. Ordinance Intent: Chapter 13, Section B states: "It is the purpose of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse impacts associated with the increased stormwater flows generated by development. It is also the purpose of this chapter to enhance the public health, safety and welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements." Unmitigated encroachments into designated floodways are known to cause increases in flood levels and the potential for damage from flooding events. As such they are specifically prohibited. It is clearly the intent of the Ordinance to prohibit encroachments into the areas reserved for floodwaters. It does not appear that the intent was to prohibit encroachment into areas that may be above a reasonable flood event, even though the encroachment would be within the regulatory limits of the floodway. Similar Requests: Staff is not aware of any applications made for a similar variance, although a development is being considered for the southeast corner of Texas Avenue and Harvey Road which would utilize a similar approach. There exist other areas within the City where viable use of the property necessitated the full enclosure of drainage ways. These instanced were required to obtain all related permit approval processes as described in Option C above. The most commonly known is next to the fuel station on the northeast corner of Harvey Road(SH30) and the East Bypass (SH6). Chairman Hill asked if the variance is granted what level of scrutiny will be applied to it to make sure that everything is done in a sound engineering manner. Mr. McCully replied that the variance is part of the site plan review process for the site and there have been many discussions about the site plan. City staff has pointed out that the proposed work would require a variance of this nature. The applicant desires to obtain the variance before they go into the nitty gritty engineering work. There is not a lot of the detailed numbers yet. The variance is being sought to give the applicant some assurance that they can go forward with the calculations. Chairman Hill asked if this is something that would be very closely tracked and observed. Mr. McCully replied that it would just because of the location and history. Chairman Hill asked what mechanisms are in place to prevent it from undercutting the proposed construction. Mr. McCully replied that the details received to date were what was hanging on the wall behind the Board to review. Mr. McCully pointed out that there will be a retaining wall as well as drilled piers. ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Birdwell asked what was the proposed elevation of the new roadway relative to the existing roadway. Mr. McCully stated that he would estimate it at 4-5-feet above the existing road surface. Mr. Birdwell asked how an automobile would get onto the roof. Mr. McCully stated that the site plan shows connections to Millif and George Bush that connect further from the steam and it will actually ramp and include into that area. Mr. McCully stated that it would start from an area that is ground level. Mr. Birdwell asked if there was going to be parking on the roof. Mr. McCully replied that he believed that was correct. Mr. Birdwell stated that it was mentioned that there would be fill involved to the limit of the ordinance, which is a 1-foot increase in flood level. Mr. McCully replied that fill would extend out horizontally to the floodway limit line. That is the point where the piers would be. The rest of the structure would have to be above the flood level. Mr. Birdwell asked if that line will be set assuming fill in the floodplain that will result in a 1-foot increase in a 100-year storm. Mr. McCully replied yes. In fact that is actually set and mapped at this time. Mr. Birdwell asked what effect does that have on the adjoining property. Mr. McCully clarified that there are apartments on the other side and that they are also based on allowing the 12-inch increase. The apartments are higher right now from the floods and they did not sustain damage. Mr. Birdwell stated they were built before rules like these existed. Mr. McCully replied that was true. Mr. McCully said the apartments were built a little higher based on their frontage on the adjacent street. A lot of the overflow in this case is taking a more direct course from George Bush culvert over towards Millif. There was a lot more water inundation on Redmond Terrace side. Mr. Birdwell asked if this project would be limited to increase in the flood level of 6-inches. Mr. McCully replied that would be tough to say whether that is the effect of that right now. A study was done and adopted and Mr. McCully believed the most recent flood study in this case was in the early 90's. That study identified a proposed fill from both directions and then set the line assuming the 12- inch increase. That is the line that is being proposed. Therefore, if this project continues as planned now, and the apartment site was to redevelop, they could actually fill up to that line as well and that would still give the 12-inch increase. Mr. Birdwell stated that means the Redmond Terrace project can only increase the flood level 6-inches. Mr. McCully replied that would be approximate because the flood carrying can be different on one side of the creek. Mr. Birdwell stated that there is also a state law that limits the modification of narrow streams where you do not raise the flood level even more. Mr. Birdwell stated that what ever is done here needs to be limited to 6-inch increase. Mr. Birdwell told Mr. McCully he did not know what he meant by the fill limit. Mr. McCully stated at this point if the applicant decided to fill out to the floodway line and stop, and not project anything over the floodway, they are permitted to do that now. That would allow the same increase. Mr. Birdwell stated that he does not have any problem with canterleving over the floodway if it is going to be a foot above a storm level. It won't affect flooding at all but he stated it is an expensive solution. Mr. Birdwell added that his concern is what effect does the fill in the floodplain out to the floodway have. Chairman Hill added that he understood that if the same fill was done on both sides that would increase it by 1-foot. Mr. McCully replied that was correct. Chairman Hill made the clarification that by adding the fill to one side to the effective point it would have the effect of increasing it 6-inches. Mr. McCully replied that was approximate. Mr. McCully stated that the effect of both sides is less than 12-inches. Mr. Birdwell stated that he was not satisfied with that answer. Mr. Birdwell stated that what ever variance is granted it has to be limited to this project not causing a floodplain increase of more than 6- inches by a competent hydraulic analysis. Mr. McCully stated that the present ordinance as adopted now accepts the FEMA studies as that calculation and allowance of fill. ZBA Minutes October 1,2002 Page 6 of 10 Mr. McCully added that presently that permission exists. There is no limitation on the applicant to make the same impact now without this variance. That is based on using that as the limit for fill, for both sides, on the 12-inch rule. In those cases were detailed studies have been performed the state has deferred to those studies rather than holding specifically with the 6-inch rule because that tends to apply to the adjacent sides when you do encroachments yourself Chairman Hill made clarification that the applicant can build out into the floodway right now without the variance. Mr. McCully made the correction that they can construct in the floodplain at this time. Chairman Hill asked what practical effects would this have on the property on the other side of the creek. Mr. McCully replied that given the depth he does not see effects such as increased velocity. He does see some rise in water surface. The exact height he could not say other than it is approximately half of the 12-inch rise. Chairman Hill asked in the study and analysis of this area was it marked what the high water point was in the 1994 storm. Chairman Hill stated that he is wondering if that level was a foot deeper in 1994, what effect would it have had on the other side of the property. Mr. McCully replied that he has no numbers from the reporting. He was on the property shortly after the peak of the storm. The flooding observed behind Academy was significant and it did damage to the culvert at Millif. At the apartments their parking is in the rear. They did not have nearly the depth of water there. The buildings were not threatened that he could see. He believes that a 1-foot rise would not flood the buildings. He believes there would still be water in the parking lot and in that type of storm event that is to be expected. Mr. Lewis stated that in the staff report it states the recommendation includes a condition that the lowest part of any element installed within the floodway be constructed above the elevation of the 500 year storm level, or 12-inches above the 100 year storm, whichever is greater. Mr. Lewis asked if those were different. Mr. McCully replied that the 100 year base flood that is used and then the 12-inch rise over that which is the projected ultimate condition of the flood. FEMA also studies a 500-year event and does not consider any rise or other issues. It tends to be in some cases a little higher than the 12- inch mandate. Based on the studies they are saying that the water is going to hit the 12-inch high limit at some point when both sides encroach into the floodway limit. The idea that we get an excess of a 100-year event, which we did, is going to raise the surface some. It is kind of a decreasing curve where the difference between the 1% and the 0.2% in this case is in the 18-inch range compared with the whole depth of the channel. Mr. McCully stated that in addition to that 12-inch rise, there maybe another couple of inches, in that greater than a 100 year event, that water will then start to touch the structure. The 500-year event is the largest that FEMA utilizes for this type of structure. There are some calculated numbers right now for that in this area that they did include in the study. Mr. McCully stated that he saw it to be 1.4-feet above the current base flood. So we are looking at another 0.4-feet. Mr. Lewis asked could they grant a variance and say that the structure needs to be above the 500-year flood level. Mr. McCully replied yes. Mr. McCully added that he is also trying to be a little conservative. There are cases where the 500-year storm is less than 1-foot above the 100-year storm. Mr. Birdwell referred to the site sections showing the flood level of 296-feet for the full length of the building. Mr. McCully responded that the exhibits were prepared as part of the variance request. The elevation shown on the structures do not match the requirement that he asked for. The flood elevation does vary by approximately a foot across the site. The condition would allow them to lower the structure as they got closer to Millif. This is what the architect proposes. Mr. Birdwell asked if he knew the floor elevations of the apartment complex across the channel. Mr. McCully replied that he does not have that information. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. ZBA Minutes October 1,2002 Page 7 of 10 • Chuck Ellison stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Ellison told the Board that he is there to representative the applicant. Mr. Ellison stated that he understands the variance to be an ordinance that governs how we can fill in the floodplain and what the limits are. Mr. Ellison stated that that is not what they are there to ask for. That is already regulated. What they are there to ask for is the ability to cantilever in the air over the base flood elevation plus some. Mr. Ellison stated that there would be no damage to the adjoining properties by putting a structure in the air. Mr. Ellison called the structure a bridge. Mr. Ellison ended by saying that they were not going to take out any trees or disturb any buffers. It is believed that the project will be an ultimate improvement to the existing condition of the site. Chairman Hill asked how far above the elevation is the bottom of the cantilever structure going to be. Mr. Ellison referred the question to the architect. Jerry Tipps, project manager for Heights Venture Architecture, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Tipps told the Board that they are trying to reach a compromise that meets everyone's interests in a manner that does not hurt anyone and it achieves the financial objectives of the owner. Mr. Tipps told Chairman Hill that he could not answer his question yet. The City of College Station will tell them what the bottom elevation of the structure will be. The engineering work is being held off until the variance is granted. The plan presented is the 16th plan that has been developed. They don't want to engineer plan 16 and then have to change and there be a plan 17. Mr. Tipps stated that they made a commitment to the city to work with the Engineering Department and come up with a solution that satisfies all existing ordinances both locally and at the FEMA level. With no on else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to defer consideration at this meeting and ask the applicant to provide the elevation of the slabs of the adjoining properties that are affected by this project. Mr. Birdwell also asked for at least a preliminary analysis that shows exactly what will be the increase of the flood level from this project only. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that we are dealing with an area of town that is known for flooding. To raise the flood level a foot is significant. Mr. Birdwell stated they need to be careful. Not knowing what the floor elevations in the apartments are he does not feel comfortable making any decisions. Mr. Birdwell added that it is stated that all they are being asked for is the air rights over the flood. There has to be foundations to hold up the cantilever and the foundations will be built in the floodway. That will effect the flood surface elevation. Mr. Birdwell ended by saying that is appropriate for them to look at the effect of that although it is not a part of the variance. Mr. Birdwell stated that he does not have a problem granting the variance as long as he is satisfied that they have properly looked at what the flooding is going to be on other properties. Chairman Hill stated that he does not feel that there is anything to be gained by deferring this because the construction of the structure is designed to fall within current regulations and it is not within their jurisdiction. All they are being asked to grant is a variance, which will allow the construction of the cantilever portion. ZBA Minutes October 1,2002 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Birdwell stated that he feels the Board has adequate authority to place a limit of the increase in the flood level as a result of the project. It is a condition of the variance. Mr. Birdwell added that at this point he does not have enough information to pass judgement. Mr. Lewis stated that his biggest concern also is the effect on the neighboring properties. But it is not clear to him whether that is under their purview. Mr. Birdwell stated that everything maybe just fine but there is information that he wants that they can not give him now. Ms. Robinson reminded the Board the information that they are requesting is information that they can not consider in their decision on whether to grant the variance or not. They have to base their decision what staff has given them. Mr. Birdwell questioned that he cannot consider the slabs adjacent to the subject property when he votes to grant or deny the variance. Ms. Robinson replied that it is her understanding because that is not what the variance request covers. Ms. Robinson told the Board that at this point they have two options. The first is to grant the variance based on the information provided or deny it and make the findings on the record. Chairman Hill stated that there then is no action that they can take that would allow them to influence the construction portion that Mr. Birdwell is concerned with. Ms. Robinson replied that it is her understanding up to that point they are meeting the requirements of the ordinance. The applicant is here to obtain a variance. Mr. Birdwell stated that as a Board member he has the right to make a motion to defer action until he is provided such additional information. Chairman Hill added that he agrees with Mr. Birdwell on that point unless Legal Council specifically says that is not the case. Ms. Robinson told the Board that they may defer action but they can not defer it for the information that they are seeking to obtain. Chairman Hill told Mr. Birdwell that he understands his concerns and his desires to have those concerns addressed. Again Chairman Hill stated that he does not see that anything is to be gained by deferring action. Mr. Lewis stated that on a typical variance case the Board is looking for a hardship and special condition. Mr. Lewis asked if that was true in this case as well. Ms. Robinson told the Board that under a drainage variance in order to grant a variance the Board has to determine that in their opinion undue hardship on the owner would result from strict compliance, special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land or that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Mr. Richards asked Mr. Birdwell if he had read Option D in the Staff Report. Mr. Birdwell replied that Option D is if you do not increase flood levels and the flood levels will be increased. Chairman Hill asked Mr. McCully if the proposed construction would or would not increase the flood level. Mr. McCully replied that as proposed right now, the flood level would increase as it is currently permitted by the drainage ordinance. Mr. McCully added for clarification that the piers and the support structures that would support the cantilever would be located outside of the floodway. Chairman Hill called for a vote on Mr. Birdwell's motion to defer the item until additional information can be given. The Board voted (3-2). Chairman Hill and Mr. Lewis voting against deferring the item. ZBA Minutes October 1,2002 Page 9 of 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. No items were discussed. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Birdwell to clarify the additional information he would like to have provided at the next meeting concerning the drainage variance. Mr. Birdwell stated that he takes exception to Legal Council's advice. Mr. Birdwell stated that he thinks this Board has the authority to ask for elevations of slabs when they are considering a drainage issue. Mr. Birdwell stated that if the applicant does not come back with that information he will defer it again. Drainage in that area of town is too critical for the variance to be granted without knowing the relative levels. Mr. Birdwell ended by saying it is not an unreasonable request. The additional information Mr. Birdwell requested is floor elevations of all surrounding properties and preliminary hydraulic analysis that determines the increase in the floodplain. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting. APPROVED: Dick Birdwell, Acting Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Sta • ssistant ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 10 of 10 r Z 5 u� v r:-.II Ui fD 3 1 0 o ac� n . tr.., N Q O n N OR 1.4 W W1,I O � �^ r�+ N r 0 CAC O0a iii > m �1I C) trip En � RF ~ 4P c w pw trrio � Z7 - N NII t2ivemU' � 39 � � � � o � � � o t�iiy O0 N cn -i t" ;) 1 ra� t" Ea 9r�2i opo on =ice o r N) — - =-11 PLH ,ego '3Mzr" �o xtO z k 9 ovo � yy -4 '" . , -33 —VI Cij - 0 (n �QII X 0 comet o X o r yw9C —1 J w � `II un 1 0 r Zi � o � Om O9C ,p � �oZ `~ m ''' o - I Go z oT15m. 00 x mII o. 10-mz o m I N K o 1'13 Oo Z 3 w i 3 m I N v SII ' M 0.1 A = n Q n I . 1 _ i❑ri] m Tmmx o tot OD-01 I 9 c o f a N momma c�i, v A m1 I I 3D `• m o p 'I i _— as J o' m I CO 0 .00w,6 -, .. j = -... .0.0 .- (�� � \ I V_ f/1 j m �1 • oox0c V3 , N v „. eo vii. g O mvg� �/" CD m m ,. �� - ��O/ o00�D o m • :Q3N> >� m jo3 `. . mm (n g:51'-139-1 cm mol t° `1 °Qm 2w 5 n o 3 0 ----- 7— I'0 N vi j y V d -dy I ~o.a _ d m 3 mvH In= w -2, --'s6-1 j � I iy al � � :-6. ecn ,00:2,c v_ c I� a, 3 co= 2§ a1 I -co l ymN mymol - -.-J mc,g c—233Ewdn , c...=,..., . m30x fi ` I m`m , m C ' _ w . — - t owmr - J' 6 j rr' 1 scrol„al my ?„ F• T. I � PIII ?� w 3 . � 1 — - y ” %.4 Ai a.��'yo-i i � I R N• a-IIA eD o'1i ' • _ i — —1- 4 —4 "*"3 tel\ n moi. _ ____ __1_a� vx�c_I �I •C 111 K-- -23"1"'''o0I. _ - ilQ 5 y o /- o K w o 3 m - ' T �.- — t._-.- t J- ani Q � h , d � o m fi.2.--,e10-0,1- - � 1 1 -4 --i ;. --.-72 ,,13. 1� mm1 II- T - - — l G7 il1 cn 1.11 I � .m�o,°mol I I 3�� Q"I I rtrtrtrtt+► rtrtrtrtrt* m _ o o o o O N T r- N m �o CD o a y N r g z 3 o �- N 1-m1 CD 3 w'� ;g n n I O y� (IF 14 m N En N `70 N 0 m , 0 0 a � ►r NCpb kywc.,2, rfl 14 8 e it 5 § ;g q c4--18c4 4 ,.-ti, 8 t i W � v-z 1-3 gA 0 gs x2 t 121 Q-3 �n � d ; kgto � � yrhi � ON �� `V' r ( OgN — WO � � zr AC/ �HI ;�, ,, yO i Z oo r oo Cri ooW'� $ vo� tr1 w o 5 r�.. 00 r ..i ❑LL _ 0 gd ��tom aCo �D��m mo- N.2 a CDn o w rt O a m � I Q f t 61 I a ❑O m a I m m m f� 0- i n c�. G n .e.2. F I i N mn° na o o 2. W I o m m o o m .3 3 0 n n m o omao al I T OCD r i - w .aym ' a LMr o w o ��33' _ �� U a� a �j y W,3yo poi po noo�D ',1=1,30-7,i , I I T fp m o y _ x e. aoci I I O� n' Nd % fn 3N �.�� _ I m °a m a w m3aSoc3 al � .Q UmN 2 2 Ll 1(05 s'imtol . o w J.2- 3 m d m 3 o m a o m - . 02,.25.—N I - i►t ° (Tr 05z-9.28-2I P•4 m w s � 03d 4a. I °' p�.(no mom.�_-. I — N L lr nOmwawm'i 7 �� -p .00114 �� 5_o w l n ��� ��dl 1iJ -s-2 '. -- ,,, -, % 0 = ,7,-i l I o g bp m - 9 t w1 111 mcyQ I T — m �ZZ w o- a,76,1 w roI-n 617. cn w "' i o 1 CO V co CTI i Z Co yo 1 cp II tmo a Z CD c W m m 1 1 tJ co Nn V03 ��•m Oa I 1. 111 ! t/] p �: a c N 1 w O N co N 1 I cn NO o H I 1 1 Or" c� p Oc) i o r' mrn a§I I I O X P.— I I I12° C4 O 1 N 0 m -I m 1 tri g g w 1 1 x r z 1 1 3 m y 1 I 1y X O O 0 o x I I D c v < O a a 'm mm m -o y a m Z a m o 0 i ! III 0 �1, d a N 1 III N tp 3 p .. Or 1 1 m 1 �_. i C m `= 1 m m. I 1 2 I 1 1 , 1 1 _ 1 0 1 c 1 1 LI-11-11L O CD m 1 fn 37 37 17 f 3. i p c m m m WI o D I 0, =yo ml m m g as 7 � 1 L : 1 : w n o p F o D. m mv O II 1 11 1 11 1 - m t � 1 To CO 1 v , Z < uCi 0 K O = — t, 1 - _ -- ._. - O m O1 0_ u.o m 1~ 11 n= n -13 O m D -0 K r 1 '��y D DC MN]J O N N n l 7�} � 5 J , m N N =_.o m0,50 ,305- o 0 0 D 3 0 m : 1 (may m m w V c3y = � p� 2On�D --- 3 .E. ' 2' LbC-' a.o�yX = o m < 1 m fp m Z. o a o ro m is n.. 1 m O y N c u=i(n y ,30E -. ,:qc 1 m N O Q Q n,3 r2 o c m o c '' k '__._. _.__ cn n Ib tn'j 'O o3'woy3n c - �' r0 (D dm m mo 'd ._ 1 wa n o n,0 0 cm y Dano ,3` 1 —' .-m c c_3 m m m 3 o m a n I _o c m - _.— — -- - - % /� m o = o m N n VI o. _ = 3 d I I u., m ° n� mmo - 1 I A y wnm m ..m 11 1 I �ti goyv'o = — No s`, N � i 1 3 N m °i o m c m 3 1 1 N= -� it ^.m 1 m Int n��oNm 3 I 1 -I MOM = MIIIIPWallit '' '',753 = 2 ' m n 1 m o'n� x n ��.. i _. _ _ _.1 1 to tit - � ' ° 0 TEwN a o 0 0-g21 1 m V _ w ,T, °_'- ama m. 1I 1 1