Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/1991 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustmentsr~ M I NUT E S Zoning Board of Adjustment Special Meeting CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 19, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Henry, Vice Chairperson Baker, Members Lane and Yarbrough, and Alternate Member Kennady. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Cronan and Alternate Members Webb, Gaston, Phinney and DeOtte. STAFF PRESENT: Development Services Director Ash, Project Engineer Keating, Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan, Development Coordinator Volk, and Planning Technician Thomas. Call to Order - explanation of functions and U C] limitations of the Board. Chairman Henry called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. A~FNnA TTFM Nn__2~ Reconsideration of a variance request to the Drainage Policy and Design Standards Ordinance No. 1728 in Emerald Forest Subdivision Phases 8, 9, 10 and 11. Application is in the name of Allen Swoboda. Vice Chairperson Baker moved to consider a previously tabled variance request by Allen Swoboda to the Drainage Policy and Design Standards Ordinance No. 1728 in Emerald Forest Subdivision Phases 8, 9, 10 and il. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the motion which passed unopposed t5 - 0). Project Engineer Keating presented the staff report and technical information submitted by the applicant and discussed the effects of the variances. As a part of the variance request, the applicant is required to submit information necessary to fully document the prerequisites required by ordinance. The applicant has submitted results that are in direct conflict with the variance prerequisites. The ordinance states that granting of variances shall be subject to and in conformance with the prerequisites The computer program the consultant used performs a back water analysis along the creek and determines both the water surface elevation and velocities. The user is required to input channel geometry, runoff flows, roughness coefficients, as well as a number of other variables. The program is based on a simple relationship between runoff volumes and cross- sectional area. There was an error in the input that caused the program to calculate a velocity of zero. The computations between each cross section are based on an iterative procedure, which can cause errors at additional cross-sections. • At the last ZBA meeting, the applicant also made the statement that the City would maintain the channel. On the contrary, the City will only maintain the portions of the bridge and channel that are located within the Appomattox right of way, and any concrete work that exists within the channel. The City will not maintain the vegetative cover in the channel itself. The maintenance liability of drainage facilities has moved from the City to the property owners of the subdivision. At the time of final plat, the developer is required to provide the City with documentation of a homeowners association or some other means acceptable to the City that will provide for maintenance of the facility in perpetuity. The City wants to make maintenance easier which translates into the ability for any homeowner or homeowners association to be able to maintain the structure without the need for specialized equipment. Mr. Kennady stated that because he lives in the Emerald Forest Subdivision, his decision will be influenced due to the maintenance responsibility shifting to the Homeowners Association, and he being financially effected if the variances were granted. The transfer of liability will effect his decision directly and adversely. Mr. Kennady removed himself from discussions and eventually left the public hearing. Mr. Swoboda expressed concern of the new policy and shifting the maintenance responsibility to the home owners. The City should not enforce a policy that has not been adopted and put in writing for the • general public to review. If the developer is to maintain the structure, the City should allow him to install the structure to his own specifications. Development Services Director Ash presented the Board with a memo previously written to the Planning and Zoning Commission explaining the new drainage polices. The objective of Council Issue number Eight concerning drainage is to, "Clearly identify City's role, maximize opportunities for prevention (maintenance and design), identify who is generating the demand for drainage maintenance service so that the appropriate entity bears those associated costs, and educate citizens". The City is establishing guidelines under which the City will accept both drainage easements and the facilities for public maintenance. Prior to the adoption of an ordinance setting out the guidelines for the City's acceptance of maintenance responsibility or the privatization of such, the City will change its policy on the acceptance of drainage easements. Assistant City Attorney Coats explained that the policy is already in place and is being applied consistently throughout the City in such new developments as Pebble Creek. If City standards are met, risks and maintenance costs are lowered. Liability should not be an issue, the Board must look at the structure itself and not the maintenance responsibility factor. • ZBA Workshop Minutes June 19, 1991 Page 2 • Chairman Henry informed Mr. Swoboda that he had the right to request that all five Board members hear his request. If the four members remaining considered his request, all would have to vote in favor of the item for the variances to be granted. Mr. Swoboda stated that he understood his right to have all five members present; however, he would prefer to continue the meeting and let the four members present consider his variance request. Project Engineer Keating continued her presentation stating that the City is responsible for protecting the citizens from an excessively expensive maintenance situation as proposed by the applicant. She continued to discuss each variance individually and asked that the Board vote at the end of each discussion. Ms. Keating explained that the elimination of the pilot channel would cause ponding in and along the channel, and constitutes an unstable cross-section. The proposed channel has been designed at the minimum grade allowable, thus a constant grade will not be provided without the channel liner. Excessive velocities in the channel without the liner will cause erosion. An additional $79,000 in annual maintenance costs could be avoided if the structure was built to City standards. These costs should not be paid by the public to afford relief to the applicant. The applicant does not meet the prerequisite due to the • increase water surface elevations and flow velocities, and due to the extraordinary public expense. Mr. Swoboda informed the Board that the drainage policy and design standards does not fit this large of a project exactly. In this situation the drainage structure is already in the floodplain and is designed to handle flood waters from over 5500 acres being most of the developed parts of College Station. If-the City is not going to maintain this structure, the City should not impose such stringent restrictions. Since the upstream watershed is so large, a half-inch to one-inch rainfall during anytime, would cause sufficient runoff for Bee Creek to overflow its banks, thus covering the pilot channel and making it ineffective. The placement of a small concrete pilot channel in such a large drainage structure exposes the pilot channel to potential erosion along its edges and the accumulation of water which the structure is proposed to prevent. The pilot channel would cause more problems than it would solve. The presence of small pools of water in the drainage structure for short periods of time will not cause a nuisance to the public and local residences because of its remoteness and location with respect to Bee Creek. Vice Chairperson Baker moved to deny the variance request from the terms of Chapter 13 Ordinance No. 1728, because undue hardship on the owner will not result from strict compliance with those requirements, as they will be contrary to public interest; and because special circumstances or conditions do not affect the land involved such that • ZBA Workshop Minutes June 19, 1991 Page 3 • strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land and the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the motion which passed (3 - 1). (Chairman Henry voted in opposition to the motion.) Project Engineer Keating explained that the shortening of the channel and not tying into existing Bee Creek would cause the water to enter the channel from other points further downstream. This encourages erosion at the other points, as they were not designed for the entry of flood flows. The most likely point for the entry of water would be near the bridge where the existing Bee Creek approaches the proposed channel. Erosion again would cause a build up of silt further downstream and decrease the capacity of the channel. The additional maintenance and repair of the structures would be an extraordinary public expense. The applicant does not meet the prerequisites due to the increase water surface elevations, flaw velocities and the extraordinary public expense. Mr. Swoboda explained that the computer program analysis showed that the 2200 foot drainage structure had better drainage characteristics and presents less potential problems for maintenance than the extended version. The 2800 foot structure would be more expensive, require • more maintenance, require more land, and cause the unnecessary loss of trees. Strict compliance with the Drainage Ordinance would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of his land because the quantity of water flowing in the floodplain from major storms is not the result of the development in question. Vice Chairperson Baker moved to deny a variance for the shortening of the channel from Chapter 13, Ordinance No. 1728 because undue hardship on the owner will not result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: and the effect of the variance may be detrimental to other portions of the major or minor drainage system and because neither of the following criteria are met: special circumstances or conditions do not 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 and the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). Project Engineer Keating explained that the rip rap is necessary at sections where there is a change in surface treatment to provide a transition between the concrete apron and the vegetative channel. The elimination of the concrete rip rap at the bridge sections would cause erosion at these points. The erosion would not only cause build up of L~ ZBA Workshop Minutes June 19, 1991 Page 4 • silt further downstream, but possibly undermine threatening the structural integrity of the facility. and repair would be an extraordinary public expense. damage to the structure could be a threat to the safety, and welfare. The applicant clearly does prerequisite. • • the structure The maintenance The possible public health, not meet the Mr. Swoboda informed the Board that the calculated flow velocities indicate concrete rip rap is required under the bridge structure and up to 30 feet either side of structure and that grass surface treatment is adequate beyond 30 feet of the bridge structure. Strict compliance with the Drainage Ordinance would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of his land because the quantity of water which flows in the floodplain from major storms is not the result of the development in question. Mr. Lane stated that rock rip rap seems to be necessary upstream and downstream of the bridge structure. Rock will settle unlike concrete and thus reduce maintenance costs. Vice Chairperson Baker moved to deny a variance for elimination of rip rap or rubble at the ends of the bridge from Chapter 13, Ordinance No. 1728 from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will not result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: and the effects of the variance do not provide adequate protection against erosion and because neither of the following criteria are met: special circumstances or conditions do not 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 and the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial' property right of the applicant. Mr. Lane moved to amend the motion to include that the maximum design velocity as taken from the applicant's computer generated model dictates that more protective treatment, other than the previously requested "seeded grass" will be necessary to provide the bridge structure adequate protection against erosion. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the amended motion which passed (3 - 1). (Chairman Henry voted in opposition to the motion.) Development Services Director Ash and applicant Mr. Swoboda agreed that the Board should not consider the variance request concerning the concrete rip rap at the ends of the channel; instead, the applicant will work with staff on an agreeable solution. Project Engineer Keating informed the Board that the elimination of the concrete rip rap under the utility crossings would cause scouring and undermining of the supports. The damage to, or the interrupted ZBA Workshop Minutes June 19, 1991 Page 5 • • service of these major sanitary sewer trunk lines would pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, as well as cause extraordinary public expense in the repair. Applicant does not meet the prerequisites. Mr. Swoboda explained that the piers supporting sewer lines reduce cross-sectional area of the drainage structure by less than 2$, and therefore have little effect on increasing turbulence and thus erosion. Aireal portions of sewer lines may have an effect on increasing velocities around the pipes, but are high enough above ground surface that grass treatment should prevent any erosion. Mr. Swoboda added that aireal sewer lines with piers in other parts of the City show no evidence of erosion. Vice Chairperson Baker moved to deny the variance request to eliminate the rip rap under utility crossings from Chapter 13, Ordinance No. 1728 from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will not result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: and the effects of the variance does not provide appropriate dissipating structures and because neither of the following criteria are met: special circumstances or conditions do not 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 and the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Mr. Lane moved to amend the motion to include that due to the velocity approaching 7 ft/sec (at the 10" pipe), it would seem in order to require protective rock rubble underneath both utility crossings. Ms. Yarbrough seconded the amended motion which passed unopposed (4 - 0). AnFNnA TTY Nn_ d~ Other business. There was no other business. BC;FNnA TTFM Nn _ ~, . Adjourn. Ms. Yarbrough moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Vice Chairperson Baker seconded the motion which passed (4 - 0). APPROVED Chai man, Brett Henry ATTEST: , • Plann'ng Technician, Natalie Thomas ZBA Workshop Minutes June 19, 1991 Page 6 r 1 U i• • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Num er 1728, Drainage Ordinance. ~ ~~~,~ I move to deny a varianc from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will esult from strict compliance with those requirements,_ to wit: ,!' , and because-ecetet-her~of the following criteria are met: \,~ nb~ 1) -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, to wit: "...~~ .~ ` ~~ 1 _,~-- ~- - ..~~. or n c 2) The variance is e essary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: .~~'~ ,' - ~~ r ~ ~ '~ Motion made by < ~ ~, Date Seconded by °-'~~ .~ Voting Results 3 - Chair Signature - • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance. ,~of ~ ~-~ I move to deny a variancel~from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: nD~` ~1 ~ ~ ~ C ~. (f'j'~PrYI~Q. t ~- and because either ofVthe following criteria are met: ~~~ ` `~1 C~'c"""~ ~ C'Q ~ r1G~ ~''~- ~y~:. ~~ . 1) 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, to wit: • or ~) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: Motion made b' Seconded by _ Chair Signature ~` - Date %a'~,,~~.~ Voting Results Y"'~ • • U ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1 T28, Drainage Ordinance. ~1 \MlYh0.~\L F~ C t~~' rah dr r~.b~~~ Ao~ I move to deny a variance~'from the terms of this ordinance because undu h s on the owner wil^~re~ult from strict compliance with those requirements, to wi . and u either _ f the following criteria are met: ,~ , ~, ~ 1) 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, to wit: or 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: /, Motion made by '~% / .. ,~. - , `~ ;~~ ~" Date r ~ '/ Seconded by ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~i..-~~t 4i° ~~~ f ~~' ~ ~ Voting Results 3 `~ Chair Signature "'' ' • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance. ~ ~ ,. ~~~i1; ~ as ~ ~ '` ~ ~:z ~~ d ~ i~ -~~ rC">~~,c" Ir~~~ r ~ ~=~ ~ '~`~~T' ~" I move to deny a variancfrom the terms of this ordinance b cause undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: 1) 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, to wit: [7 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: Motion made Seconded by _ • Chair Signature f ~;~ ~:~ Date ~ `~ Voting Results or and because either of the following criteria are met: ~~- ~~~~ ~~~~ _ _ _ . ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. 3• 4. 5. 6. 7• 8. 9• 10. il. L. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. ~24. 25.