HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/1997 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments•
MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
November 4, 1997
6:00 P.M.
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hollas and Members Alexander, Blackwelder and
Alternate Members Pyrtle and Hill.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Warren, Taggart and Alternate Member Happ.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Senior Planner
McCully, Staff Planner Battle, Planning Technician Ruiz, Staff
Assistant Deborah Grace and Assistant City Attorney Reynolds.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Hollas called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consideration of a Drainage Ordinance variance request to the
required concrete liner in the bottom of the proposed channel of the Carter Creek
Relocation Project. The subject property includes sections of Carter Creek and Burton
Creek from State Highway 6, under State Highway 60 and through to State Highway 30.
The applicant is Mike Davis.
Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that the purpose of the
variance request is to allow the developer to construct a trapezoid channel which is the relocated
portion of Burton and Carter Creeks without a concrete inert (pilot channel) and without the
protections of impermeable materials (concrete, granite, etc.) where the velocities would require.
The applicant plans to relocate both creeks, reclaim the floodplain and the corner tracts at the
SH6/SH60 intersection. This relocation project will also reduce the floodplain areas on the
remainder of the property. The variance is being requested to satisfy conditions placed on the
applicant by the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers and their Section 404 permitting requirements.
The Corp 404 permit is the wetlands mitigation that is required of a project of this magnitude. In
that permitting scheme, the Corp tries, for environmental purposes, to reduce the amount of
concrete that is used. The Corp 404 permit does not review the hydrology or hydraulics or
associated maintenance concerns of a project. This review is the responsibility of the municipality
and FEMA. According to the Drainage Ordinance, the applicant must show that the variance
being requested is:
1) The minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief
2) it will not be detrimental to public health and safety
3) the variance will not increase the water surface elevations, velocities, etc., to the
• extent that there will be any threat to public safety
4) the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision o of land upstream or
downstream
5) no variance shall be allowed within a floodway if any increase in water surface
elevation occurs during the base flood discharge
• Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated that the applicant, in their engineering report, has shown
that in several areas along the relocated sections of the creeks the velocities exceed 6 feet per
second (maximum for vegetative lined channels). These areas would need the protection of an
impermeable surface, to avoid erosion and maintenance problems. Alternatives to the applicant
are a redesign of the channel to reduce velocities to those applicable for a vegetative or earthen
channel, in an effort to minimize the amount of concrete used. The applicant can also look at
alternative methods of stabilizing the bottom of the creek that may be more appealing to the
requirements of the Corp 404 permit. There are perhaps a number of alternatives that could
satisfy both agencies requirements. The intent of the Drainage Ordinance is to assure protection
to the subject property and all adjacent property owners from potential flooding risk. It is also the
intent of the ordinance to prevent or minimize erosion and maintenance problems due to excessive
velocities that would erode vegetation or earthen channels. A similar request was made in 1991 by
the developer of Emerald Forest. The request was to delete the concrete channel liner required by
the ordinance. The request was denied. Approximately sixty surrounding property owners were
notified of the request with several responses.
Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing.
Applicant Mike Davis approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He gave a
brief overview of the relocation project. The proposed clay lining works with the overall design
and he can provide information from a structural engineer to verify that it will hold up at the
proposed velocities. Mr. Davis stated that they can met the grass lined section of the ordinance
with the required velocities; however, he is requesting to use a alternate stable liner in the bottom
of the channel. The proposed creek is a very low slope channel and is designed so that it is easy
to maintain. He stated that he currently has a Corp 404 permit and he is applying for a nationwide
• permit. The initial Corp permit was issued without a concrete liner; however, the local drainage
ordinance requires the concrete liner. Mr. Davis stated that his main concern is that other
reviewing agencies will not approve the project given a concrete liner. The proposed design with
a clay bottom will provide a more aesthetically pleasing and natural look. The pilot channel is
proposed at 40' wide, 3' deep, concrete sides and a clay bottom that wraps around. Mr. Davis
stated that he will be willing to work with staff to address the structural concerns expressed in the
staff report.
Mr. Pyrtle questioned staff about the clay material as an alternative in this situation.
Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated that staff has several concerns about the clay bottom.
Staff is concerned about the undermining of the concrete sides and potential "tipping over"
without some kind of protection on the bottom. Staffs experience with some of the clay bottoms
is that they do not stay in place and tend to erode away. Since the variance request was
submitted, staff has reviewed some literature and visited other cities to look at alternatives to the
concrete liner. Such agencies as the Harris County Flood Control have told us that the clay has
not been effective. There is flexibility in the ordinance for staff to work with the applicant on an
alternate impermeable surface. Staff has also worked with the Corp to make sure that the
alternatives satisfy both agencies. Staff is looking at the long term maintenance of the channel,
minimizing the public's concerns, while achieving the natural aesthetics in conjunction with the
cooperation of the Corp.
Mr. Davis stated that he is not opposed to something stable; however, he chose to pursue the
variance option in order to move the project along. Most of the alternatives that are totally
impervious will cause a redesign. He stated that he could provide a soils engineer to prove that
the proposed clay system under a channel like this is structurally sound because of the low
• velocities and the low sloped channel.
ZBA Minutes November 4, 1997 Page 2 oj7
The following people were sworn in by Chairman Hollas and spoke in opposition to the request:
• Mark Shavers Representative of the Brazos Greenways Council
Christian Turner Member of the Brazos Greenways Council
Sherry Ellison Representative of the Windwood Homeowners Association
The following comments were made in opposition to the variance request:
(1) There are still many unanswered questions concerning the project that should be
addressed before a variance is granted. Outstanding issues include the maximum
velocities in the channel, the water surface elevations for the 100 year flood, silting,
erosion control, etc. The developer says that he has done the hydraulic analysis of
the new channel; however, no one has been able to receive a copy.
(2) Concrete is not a preferred alternative and is not being advocated by opponents of
the variance request; however, the proposed clay bottom is not a sufficient solution
to the problem. Some sort of variance may be necessary; however, there are other
alternatives that should be explored before accepting the clay bottom.
(3) The community should not suffer the expense for maintenance of a channel that does
not meet the City's drainage ordinance. The variance is contrary to the public
interest.
(4) The City's drainage ordinance does not contemplate projects of this magnitude.
Staff, as well as the community, should have more time to examine this project.
(5) It is premature to make a decision on a variance request until the applicant obtains
• the necessary permits from the Corp and TNRCC. This is the first opportunity that
the City and the Corp have had the opportunity to work together on this project.
The potential for other variances is great.
(6) There are current drainage and erosion problems in the Windwood Subdivision that
could be exacerbated with the relocation project. If the project is not designed
correctly and variances are given to the minimum standards, flooding could be
caused upstream and downstream.
(7) What if something happens financially in the middle of the project and the developer
is unable to complete the improvements?
Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing.
Applicant Mike Davis stated that after working with the project engineer, the velocities in the
channel have been reduced to less than 6 feet per second.
City Engineer Morgan stated that since the applicant has stated that the velocities in the channel
are less than 6 feet per second, the Board can~ust consider the concrete liner variance request.
Mr. Pyrtle expressed concern that staff, as well as the Board, has not received any details or
additional information that clay will work in this particular case. No data has been presented that
can be compared to concrete. He moved to deny the variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance
Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance, because undue hardship on the owner will not result from
strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: it has not been proven that a suitable alternative
to the use of concrete in the pilot channel exists as outlined; and because the variance is not
• necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Mr.
Blackwelder seconded the motion.
ZBA Minutes November 4, 1997 Page 3 of 7
• Chairman Hollas clarified that if the Board approves the negative motion, it does not mean that
the applicant has to put concrete in the bottom of the channel. It does mean that the applicant
must work with staff and other reviewing agencies to find a solution such as the one utilized in the
city of Plano.
The motion to deny the variance request passed (4 - 1); Mr. Alexander voted against the motion.
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a setback variance request for a new home to be
constructed on a portion of tot 6 of the D.A. Smith Subdivision, 311 Lincoln Avenue.
Applicant is Sherman Click for Bill Harris.
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the subject property is
nonconforming in that it does not meet the minimum lot depth of 100' (it is 74.4 feet deep).
However, in 1976, the lots in this neighborhood were exempted from meeting minimum lot size
and dimension requirements, provided that the lot configuration does not change. Lot
reconfigurations (i.e. replatting) would not fall within the 1976 ordinance exemption and would
trigger either ordinance compliance or lot size/dimension variances. The subject lot is large and
wide enough that it may eventually fit two additional homes along Avenue A, provided that the
lot is first formally replatted. Should the owner choose to build the other two homes, the 1976 lot
size/dimension exemptions would no longer apply, and further variances will be required. The
City is aware of numerous problems associated with water and sewer service along Avenue A and
the surrounding area due to inadequate infrastructure. The Staff is currently working with the
applicant to ensure adequate water and sewer service to the proposed new home without
worsening these services to the existing homes along Avenue A. City Public Works Department
is currently working on an upgrade for the entire Avenue A area for water and sewer lines.
Access must be taken off of Avenue A due to the potentially hazardous traffic situation that
• would be posed by small residential driveways off of Lincoln. Avenue A consists of a 16" gravel
road that dead ends into the northern-most lots on that street. The following table outlines the
requested variances:
SETBACK INFORMATION
Fr. Setback Required: 25'
Fr. Setback Proposed: 20'
Total variance: 5'
Rear Setback Required: 25'
Rear Setback Proposed: 10'
Total variance: 15'
Senior Planner McCully stated that the subject lots were originally platted around the time that
the City incorporated. They were included in a single lot, Lot 6 of the D.A. Smith Subdivision, at
that time. Lot 6 is a large narrow lot that extends from Ash to Lincoln and from Nimitz to the
rear lot lines of the western lots on Avenue A. Further divisions of Lot 6 occurred by deed before
the City adopted Subdivision Regulations. The divisions were therefore exempt from platting
requirements. The front and rear setback requirements, which would total 50', would leave the
property with a buildable house depth of 24.4'. Due to the restraint of the lot depth of the
original Lot 6 in conjunction with the grandfathered divisions that took place before the
• Subdivision Regulations were in place, Staff has not found any alternatives in this case.
ZBA Minutes November 4, 1997 Page 4 of 7
Senior Planner McCully stated that minimum lot size and building setback requirements usually
• allow for some degree of control over population density, access to light and air, and fire
protection. These standards aze typically justified on the basis of the protection of property
values. The applicant has pointed out that the existing houses in the azea have similar constraints
as the proposed lots, therefore the character of the area will be protected. There have been
several similar requests in the immediate area, most of them involving higher percentage variances
than in the case of the current request. Approximately fifteen surrounding property owners were
notified of the request with no response.
Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing.
Applicant Sherman Click approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He stated
that the owner is trying to upgrade this area of town. There have been several variances granted
in the area that are more severe than what is requested. There will be adequate parking provided
to the new home so that no parking problems will be created. Mr. Click stated that the new home
will be approximately 1674 square feet, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths with four head-in parking spaces
from Avenue A. He stated that he is currently working with the City on providing water and
sewer to the property. Eventually, the owner would like to divide the property into two more lots
to allow for a total of three new homes.
Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Blackwelder moved to authorize a variance from Ordinance Number 1638 to the minimum
setback requirements from the terms of this because undue hardship on the owner will result from
strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: no variance allowed in the front (Avenue A)
and a 15' setback variance in the rear. No side setback variances allowed. And, because 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: the lot depth is too shallow to build a house of usable size on the property and the
age of the subdivision. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, to wit: to permit the owner to develop the property as
a single fartuly residence. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion.
Mr. Blackwelder expressed concern of the future widening of Avenue A. The Board should grant
some relief while not exacerbating the existing problem. The variance proposed will still allow a
1500 square foot house which is lazger than most homes in the azea.
Mr. Click explained that lots 6 and 7 next door received setback variances and those lots are
much smaller than the subject property. There is no idea when Avenue A will expand and at that
time, the city will purchase the right-of--way. On lots 6 and 7, the measurement from the house to
the reaz property line is only 11'. The variance request before you tonight is much less than that.
The design plans have been prepazed and the additional 5' setback variance is needed in the front
to make the house work.
The motion to grant the variance request failed (3 - 2); Mr. Blackwelder and Mr. Pyrtle voted in
opposition to the motion.
AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration of a setback variance request for a new home to be
constructed at 3707 Chantal Circle, lot 4, block 6 of the Edelweiss Estates Subdivision
Phase 6-A. The applicant is Steve Arden for Arden's Home Construction.
Staff Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is wanting to build a
new house on this lot. Because the lot is triangulaz, there is only one 7. S' side setback and two
• 25' (front and reaz) setbacks. This shape has made it difficult for the builder to fit a house and
garage within the setbacks.
ZBA Minutes November 4, 1997 Page 4 of 7
• Staff Planner Battle stated that a home has been custom designed to fit this lot, however the
garage still encroaches into the front setback. The applicant is asking fora 15' setback in the
front in order to fit the garage and house on the lot. Therefore the applicant is asking fora 10'
variance to the required 25' front setback. The primary special condition stated is the triangular
shape of the lot which is not typical within this neighborhood. The lot does not have a fourth side
that could be considered a side street with a smaller setback. According to the applicant, it would
be impossible to construct a home that would be the same size and style as other houses in the
neighborhood. The following alternatives have been identified:
1. Alter the proposed floor plan to fit within the existing setbacks. The applicant is not
in favor of this due to the fact that a reduction would result in an unworkable layout.
The house would also be significantly smaller than other houses in the neighborhood.
2. Construct a three story house. It is felt that this would be out of character with the
neighborhood and incur significant extra regulations and costs.
3. Grant a smaller variance amount. The board may grant a variance amount less than
what is requested (0 - 10').
Staff Planner Battle stated that the Board has granted several setback variances in the past. The
conditions have included lot size and shape, existing vegetation or large easements, and a lack of
impact on surrounding properties. In July 1995 the board granted a 10' variance to the rear
setback for a home being constructed on a similar pie shaped lot on Bayou Woods. Certified
letters were sent to property owners located within 200 feet of the subject site. A couple of
inquiries were received, but no opposition expressed.
• Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing.
Representative of the applicant, Jim Edwards of Arden Homes approached the Board and was
sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He explained that the proposed home is comparable in size to the
other homes in the neighborhood, approximately 1600 square feet heated. The home has been
specifically designed for this triangular shaped lot. Mr. Edwards stated that the basic request is to
treat the garage side of the house like a side setback instead of a front setback since the lot is
three sided.
Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Blackwelder moved to authorize a variance to the minimum setback requirements to 15' from
the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following
special conditions: the unusual shape of the lot; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions
of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: cannot build a house
of similar size to others in the neighborhood; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: only the corner of the
garage extend in to the 25' setback and the garage may not be closed off to provide for living
area. Mr. Hill seconded the motion.
Chairman Hollas moved to amend the motion to include the floor plan submitted with the
application as an exhibit to the motion form showing the exact corner of the garage that will have
a 16' building setback. The floor plan should be attached as an exhibit to clarify what portion of
the garage is allowed to encroach. Mr. Pyrtle seconded the amendment which passed unopposed
(5 - 0).
• The motion as amended passed unopposed (5 - 0).
ZBA Minutes November 4, 1997 Page 6 of 7
• AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Adjourn.
Mr. Blackwelder moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr.
Alexander seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
APPROVOE_D: 'n'-
hairman, Stephen Hollas
ATTEST:
Tanning Technician, Nat a Ruiz
•
•
ZBA Minutes November 4, 1997 Page 7 oj7
i
I•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance.
I move to authorize a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue
hardship on the o er will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to
wit: °cS~
~Ot ~ Slit o c,/ ~ ~/v~-i~ ~iL~i^'N- ~ ~ P~-~-^~5
_ _ _
and because either of 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:
r
7
or
2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, to wit:
g~;,Y-,~Ce- ~,~,,~~l.~r-cat
Motion made by ~ ~ Date I ~ I ~ ~~
Seconded by ~ ~ Voting Results 3 "Z
Chair Signature
DOP1728.DOC
Y'
•
Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638.
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (Section 8.Z)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
minimum setback '~ (5 ~
parking requirements (Section 9)
•
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to
the following special conditions:
S~
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
Gau~~{~ ~~~ ld z G~-~~sti o~ 5~~~~~lv-~ S~~ w
O ~~Ci/~ Gti ~G 6CGi,(~- ~ JV ~--~~
Motion made by
Seconded by '
Chair Signature .
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Date ~ ~ ~~f'9~]
Voting Results S' d
YRRP1638.DOC
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done subject to the following limitations:
I•
t0
Grp ~~~
yo
Q
~~i
1
I I
/'~1YN }rby4
/' 1
/~ N e I
~' 1
i
~_ ~ o
r 1 ~ ~
3
--- --- I
a-• 1
~n
LIVINr~ O ~^ O
1
N
IF4= i
_ ~ O 1
• ~taMY •M/t I
\ I
I
~.
z
~.e
. `'„
5 rtc~ I
01~~ ~ 3
DH,
1~
_-,~
~f~-
~- ~
TWI4 isc~s - --~
P~Tt~~fi>>
~,/i '--
'v>
Sri
0
.-
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
•
•
•
FORMAT FOR NEGATIVE MOTION
Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1728, Drainage Ordinance.
~ ~~~ r I
Cc~ crrC-~. , ~x ~ 5-~5 r
circumstances ar conditions do not affe
ice with the provisions and requirements of
nable use of his land, s~wit: ~ ,_
~ ~ -~'e~rtr~~'l ~~
i ~-~
the land involved such that strict
chapter ill deprive the applicant of
~- P ~
or
2) The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant,
5~ - ~~
Motion made by ~r~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ Date ~~ ~ ~ ~ `~
Seconded by ~~/~e 6~a~,fcwe ~d.~r Voting Results `t
Chair Signature
fORhLS~DONt728DOC
19!91
I move to deny a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner
will not result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit:
•
t:
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Guest Register //
Date `~
Name
L `4
2.
r
4. ~~
5.
6. /Y
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Address
~ ,s~•so~
~ 3 _ 10.8i~e t~
r
~~
r+
~~
-v
.~ ~ a i
.\
~-
\ --u
•ern,~~„ I ~-
~~~ ~ ~ 0
~~ E
.~
~-
.~
~ ~
y
o~
i ~
~ d'
c-~
~ v
.~.~ -t
.~
,~` +,
\~'
.~
~\ ~:.
..
..
~:
.,
.~
~.
\~
N
-'11K OffT MNL
0.
I°
I~
,~
I
'~ ~
I~
I~ ~
~~ W
~~
3.
D
G
~Js
0
M
~~
• •