Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2004 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustmentsa MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 2004 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, John Richards, Graham Sheffy, Ward Wells & John Fedora. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Jay Goss (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Stacey Smith, Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka City Attorney Roxanne Nemcik, Action Center Representative Regina Kelly. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider any absence request forms. • No requests were submitted. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from June 1, 2004. Mr. Richards made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Wells seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (S-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to rehear the variance for 2100 Texas Avenue South, lot 2, Kapchinski Hill Subdivision. Applicant is Boyd Hippenstiel, Federal Heath Sign Company for Target Corporation. If the Board votes to rehear the case it will be reheard at the Board's regular meeting August 3, 2004. (04-105) Mr. Wells stated that as he read the information requesting a rehear, there were two items that he found. First, the proposed sign is a national trend to re-brand Target. Therefore, in essence we would not be allowing them to properly display the new trademark for the corporation. Second, it is implied that the image was not of significant clarification for the Board to understand. Mr. Richards made the motion to approve the request for rehear. Mr. Fedora seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes July 6, 200bf Page I of 7 Chairman Hill asked Mr. Wells in his opinion what new evidence is being presented. Mr. Wells stated that he does not think it was stressed at the previous meeting that what they were dealing with was a change of a national trade-mark. On that basis he is willing to say that is new information. • Chairman Hill stated that he concurred with Mr. Wells. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (S-0) to rehear the variance request. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance to the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13 Flood Hazard Protection, Section 5- G., Special Provisions for Floodways. The variance request affects the following two properties: 1501 Emerald Parkway and 1501 Emerald Plaza, being lot 1, block 1, and lot 5, block 1, Emerald Park Plaza Subdivision. Applicant is Joe Schultz, P.E., with TXCON, as agent for the property owner. (04-139) Spencer Thompson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Mr. Thompson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow encroachment into the floodway as depicted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The applicant is contending that the FIRM is incorrect as to floodplain and floodway location. Information has been provided to the City to support the Applicant's premise. The subject tracts are currently undeveloped. The tract adjacent to Lot 1 has developed as a professional building. The tract adjacent to Lot 2 is currently being developed as a dental office and future professional building. • TxDOT secured a drainage easement on Lot 2 during construction of State Highway 6 Bypass. A drainage channel was constructed in the easement. Lot 2 was issued a Development Permit by the City for fill in the floodplain per the 1992 FIRM. Fill was placed on the lot. Lot 2 is mostly grass land along the front and heavily wooded to the rear. The City of College Station has adopted floodplain ordinances and associated regulations as required by FEMA in order for its citizens to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Enforcement of adopted ordinances is a requirement of participation in the insurance program. The above referenced ordinance prohibits encroachment into the floodway. The ordinance defines these two floodplain related terms as follows: Floodplain: any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. Floodway: the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Section G.5 further describes the floodway and prohibits encroachment as follows: • ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Puge 2 of 7 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 flood waters which • carry debris, potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion; therefore, the following provisions shall be required: (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 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. The Applicant has provided to the City a flood study for this area of Bee Creek. The study was initially produced to submit to FEMA as a request for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). City staff reviewed the study and felt it was not comprehensive enough to warrant an actual change to the adopted map without looking at the floodplain more extensively upstream and down stream. It must first be noted that this area of Bee Creek includes several hydraulic irregularities. The subject area is the point of confluence for Bee Creek Main and Bee Creek Tributary A. Just before the two streams converge, Bee Creek Main "proper" passes through asingle-barrel culvert under Earl Rudder Freeway while additional flow passes through a 3-acre pond and then through an eleven-barrel culvert under the freeway. Trib. A winds behind Crystal Park Plaza and flows through afour-barrel culvert "catty corner" under the intersection of the freeway, Emerald Parkway and Harvey Mitchell Parkway. • During flooding events, floodwaters back up behind the aforementioned culverts. During such flooding events flow also passes over Harvey Mitchell Pkwy and under the freeway overpass. It is my understanding that flooding events have not caused water to pass over the freeway, itself. As mentioned previously, the Applicant submitted a flood study addressing the subject property and the floodplain/ floodway locations. Due to the hydraulic complexities associated with this area of the floodplain, the City retained the professional services of Mitchell and Morgan, LLP to further evaluate the submitted flood study. Several key issues were identified in the review of the flood study and are enumerated below. (I) A map revision was issued in 2000 that changed the floodplain on the subject property. The floodplain changes depicted on the map were a direct result of the construction of both Appomattox across Bee Creek and the associated overflow channel for development of the Emerald Forest Subdivision. (2) The revised FIRM dated 2/9/00 and floodplain data provided in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) also dated 2/09/00 do not correspond to on-the-ground information. This includes river stations, floodplain and floodway widths, cross sections, etc. (3) Fill was placed on the subject property that was not considered in the map revision. The placement of said fill occurred before the map was revised to show the subject area as floodway. (4) In order for the City to approve a revision to the FIRM a study of the creek will need to be • performed that incorporates additional topographic information and extends the model further upstream and downstream. ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 3 of 7 (5) The City plans a study of Bee Creek in this area in the near future. (6) The flood study was sufficient information to present to the ZBA to consider a variance request to the ordinance. A few additional items: ^ Please note, "development" does not necessarily refer to a building or structure but to "any man made change". ^ The TxDOT Drainage Easement preserves the easement area for the drainage channel. Any encroachment into the area will have to be permitted by TxDOT. Any encroachment into the area is subject to future channel needs. ^ Approval of a variance does not make the floodplain/ floodway "go away". Development and insurance requirements are all still applicable. ^ FEMA and City regulations both allow minor encroachments and fill of the flood fringe. ^ Fill in the floodplain is required to be performed according to Technical Bulletin 10-01 Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe from Flooding in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program. ^ Should the variance be granted and the fill be placed on the lots, the new topo information may be included in the study when the floodplain is re-studied and possibly re-mapped. As a special condition the applicant states that the FIRM depicts the floodway as being located on the subject properties. Per the flood study provided by the applicant, the floodway is still being preserved if requested encroachment is approved. As a hardship the applicant states that the Development of the subject property in areas shown as floodway is precluded by City ordinance. It is the Applicant's opinion that the FIRM is in error and • that there is no floodway on the subject site. Possible alternative options to requested encroachment: ^ Option l: Prohibit encroachment into the floodway as shown on the adopted FIRM. Fill/ development will be limited to the flood fringe boundary. ^ Option 2: Allow encroachment into the floodway except not into TxDOT Drainage Easement. ^ Option 3: Allow encroachment as requested but Owner agrees to preserve forested areas or a portion thereof. As an inclusion to the Boards packets by Mr. Chuck Ellison he states: In 1992, the City of College Station issued a development for Allen and Patty Swoboda to fill a portion of the floodplain on lots 1 and 5 of Emerald Park Plaza, which they did. In 2000, the FEMA reissued the FIRM that covers that land. The FIRM widely expanded the floodway and failed to consider the fill that was added following the 1992 development permit. Allen and Patty contracted with Joe Harle, RPE and Joe Schultz, RPE to perform an engineering study in accordance with the City's Drainage Policy and Design Standards as required by the Code. The study was performed and submitted to the City for review which clearly indicates that the portion of the land to be developed in not the floodway. Mr. Wells stated that he is used to the idea that floodplains are designated by elevations. Mr. Thompson explained that when you do a flood study you get elevations and then you map those on a working map. That is then turned into FEMA. ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 4 of 7 What your doing is producing a map showing the elevation of the floodplain, showing where that elevation goes on a working map and then a map is produced form that. Mr. Thompson ended by saying the map is the legal document that says where the floodplain and floodway are. Mr. Wells stated from a current surve we know where the elevation that designates the floodplain is. Y Mr. Thompson replied yes. Again, if it was just floodplain it would not be much an issue. You're allowed to fill-in the floodplain today in the fringe. The big issue is the floodway. Chairman Hill stated for clarification that the current map shows the designated floodway is incorrect and that the property in question really is not within the floodway. Mr. Thompson replied that some of the property is but the area that they are wishing to encroach into is not. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Chuck Ellison, attorney for the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Ellison was speaking if favor of the variance request. A.D. Patton, Vice President of the Emerald Forest Home Owners Association, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Patton spoke in favor of the variance request. Joe Schultz, agent for the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Schultz spoke in favor of the variance request. Chairman Hill asked why did they just not go to FEMA and submit a LOMR and get the map • corrected. Mr. Schultz responded that that is a very lengthy process and the City is also doing their own study of the complete Bee Creek Basin which is a huge undertaking. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Thompson if there was anyway to shorten the process and have FEMA correct the map. Mr. Thompson replied no. That is a lengthy process to get the map fully changed. Joe Harle, P.E., stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Harle spoke in favor of the variance request. Mr. Harle stated that in his professional opinion when the city progresses with it's LOMR they will not have any trouble convincing FEMA that there is an error in the map. Dennis Cole stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Cole stated he was not necessarily speaking in opposition to the variance. He would like to see some concerns addressed before it moves forward. His parents own property on the North side of the creek and his concern is what is re-designating of the map going to do to the North side. With no one else stepping forward to speak Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Thompson to step back before the Board. Chairman Hill asked him to share any comments concerning Mr. Cole's concerns that he has expressed. Mr. Thompson replied that the map is not being changed at this time so it is still the official map. It looks to be that the creek channel is the property line separating his parent's property from the city property so the floodway is applicable today on that property. If the floodplain changes then everyone would be notified and they would be • able to see what the changes are. ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page S of 7 Joe Harle stepped back before the Board and stated that the current floodway boundary on the north side of the creek is near the north bank of Bee Creek. That is as far south that that boundary can move. By definition the floodway includes the stream channel and adjacent over bank areas that are needed to pass the 100 year flood without more than 1-foot rise. You can not encroach into the stream channel. Mr. Harle referred to the map showing that the floodway boundary is very close to the stream channel line for Bee Creek. The floodway boundary is at or near the north bank of Bee Creek. Mr. Harle stated that in his model he did not change that. There has been no shifting of the line. It is still as far south as it can be. He expected that would be what would be eventually approved in a LMOR to FEMA. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Harle based on his knowledge of that area did he see much likelihood that would shift northward. Mr. Harle replied he did not think it would. By definition the floodway allows to what is referred to as "equal convenience reduction" on both sides of the stream channel. That means if there are two different property owners you are treating both the same. Mr. Wells made the motion to authorize a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: the floodway area limit bisects lot 1 and lot 5 and the portion not within the floodway is not developable due to its shape and size. The floodway area requested for encroachment was approved for fill placement in the mid 1990's. Fill material was placed so the area could be developed. Approval of this variance request would allow development on property that was previously approved for development by the City of College Station; and because either of the following criteria are met: 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: enforcement into the FEMA FIRM designated floodway area with fill material and new construction, such as parking lots and buildings. The encroachment into the floodway area is proposed for 1.68 acres of lot 5, block 1 and 0.43 acres of lot 1, block 1, Emerald Park Plaza Subdivision. The property for which the variance is requested is shown on the attached Exhibits A & B. Exhibit B (attached) the dimensions of the proposed floodway encroachment areas. (Exhibit A can be reviewed upon request through the Development Services Office); the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Mr. Fedora seconded the motion. Chairman Hill noted a discrepancy. In the application it states .42 acres of lot 1, block 1 and exhibit B states .43 acres. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Thompson for clarification. Mr. Thompson replied that what he is looking at is the exhibit. It was suggested to the applicant to do a metes and bounds of the area of what they are requesting to encroach into and that is what they would be held to when development Games in. Chairman Hill stated personally that this is not the body for this to be dealt with. He feels the proper way it should be handled would be to go to FEMA and get the map corrected. He added that he feels they are being asked to give a variance to incorrect data. Chairman Hill did state that the time it would take for the applicant to go to FEMA is an undue hardship and therefore the reality is this is where it needs to be dealt with at this time. He ended by saying he would be in favor of granting the variance. Chairman Hill told Mr. Cole that he does not feel that they are putting his parents at risk by granting the variance. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (S-0). The variance was approved. ***See amendment to this motion on a enda item No. 8 g ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 6 of 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. .,, 2420 Texas Avenue South There were no discussions. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items - A Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. *** The meeting was reopened. The motion for agenda item no 5 had a discrepancy concerning the acreage on the application and the acreage on the exhibit. Mr. Wells made an amendment to his motion to approve. The acreage should read 0.43 acres of lot 1, block 1. Mr. Richards seconded the motion to amend. The Board voted (S-0). The motion was approved to amend • _` ATTEST: _._ _ _.~ i ri, ._ -_-. ...,. _, - ~~ ~ , Deborah Grace, S aff Assistant r~ APPROVED: Leslie Hill Leslie Hill, Chairman ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 7 of 7 . 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 owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: ~• The floodwav area limit bisects Lot 1 and Lof 5 and the portion not within the floodwav is not developable due to its shape and size. The floodwav area requested for encroachment was approved for fill t~lacement in the mid 1990's. '~ Fill material was placed so the area could be developed. Approval of this variance request would allow development on property that was previously approved for development by the City of College Station. 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: • Encroachment into the FEMA FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) designated floodwav area with fill material and ew construction, such as parking lots and buildings The encroachment into the floodwav area is proposed for 1.68 acres of Lot 5. Block 1s and 0.4~ acres of Lot 1 Block 1 Emerald Park Plaza Subdivision The property for '~wh~ch the variance is requested is shown on the attached Exhibits A & B. Exhibit B shows the ~imensinn.c of tha 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the applicant, to wit: or Motion made by ~ ~ FLi~ S _ CDate ~ ~ ~,po~.~ , Seconded by Voting Results ~ ~ (~ _ _ _,,~-- • Chair Signature DOPlT28.DOC Z4S~~96 LE 3„L 4,9 Lo ~ N w. U, ps' v 60~ ~ ~ Z ~bse` n? m ~~ O ~ r~ W ~f:rL+lI7 D O~ co ~i ~tp~ ~ O ~ .ONO A ,OAS W ~ Z ~ Z nD;j ~ V~ ~)~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~O O~0 cep W N W cn (V)i ~ m m~ ~ ~ ~ m Y, ,~`'~~ 2 ~ 990 ~ ~ ', m 00 ~ `j ~' ~ O ~ ~ N A ~' N m , ti°~ ~ T J`6 ~ w y w ~ y W u. o; W _ 0, \ ~S, S ~ W J O 1 O Oo W A S~ 3 O +C N OS A ~ A A N 47 ~8 ~ \ ' £6 ~ Rl ITI ~ J 2 ~ 1'*i ; \ ~ V 07 v 89 \ ?6 W \ 9 4 m m W~ On~ N ~ ~~ OA A ~ Z ~~~=~ ~~mczizczi ON~~ ogo~nczi cvm m p~~=~3 Z ~ N O<Z~O ~~O-az ~ z mz- rn ~ ~ m ~m ~ o=° vo z m X __ --~ W On Nz Z 6? 6~ m In N N O ~ ~ n O D r m Z° m N O \ ?. ado \ '~, \\ ~ \ ` ~, l Ar \ ~~ ~~~DO \ tD7~~y \\\\ \ my N ~~ \ N O \ ~ ~mA a' J // O~~A \ rn / \ J f*1 N~~ ~ ' ~~ o Og~ \ 5 \ N ~~ W ZGNING B0~4RD O~F ~DJUSTI-~IENT GUEST REGISTER MEETING DATE ~O NAME ADD SS 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. i 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.