Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2004 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsAgenda College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment City Hall Council Chambers Tuesday, July 6, 2004 College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future 6:00 p.m. Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. 2. Consideration, discussion and possible action of absence requests. 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from June 1, 2004. 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 JR). 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 Texcon, as agent for the property owner. (04 -139 ST). 6. Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by city staff. — 2420 Texas Avenue South 7. Consideration and possible action on future agenda items — A Zoning Board 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. 8. 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. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764 -3517 or (TDD) 1- 800 - 735 -2989. MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment June 1, 2004 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, John Richards, Rodger Lewis, Graham Sheffy & Ward Wells MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternates Jay Goss & John Fedora (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planner's Jennifer Prochazka, Molly Hitchcock, Jennifer Reeves & Sven Griffin, City Attorney Carla Robinson, 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 NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. No requests were submitted. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from May 4, 2004. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve variances for block 2, Richards Subdivision (corner of Sterling Street and Crest Street). Applicant is Shabeer Jaffar. (04 -77). Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variances for the construction of a new single- family home. The requested variances are a 3.5 -ft side setback and a 9 -ft side street setback. Because of the right -of -way acquisition for Crest Street in 1981, the property does not meet the minimum lot width of 50 -feet for an R -1 Single Family lot; but is allowed to pursue single family development: Any lot made non - conforming solely by means of area dedicated, condemned, sold, or otherwise conveyed for public right -of -way shall be allowed use as if such area were a part of the remaining lot, except that all applicable setbacks shall be adhered to. As is true for any property in the City, variances based upon a special condition and resulting in a hardship may be requested and considered for the property. The applicant is requesting a variance of 4 -feet to the side setback and 6 -feet to the side street setback to allow for the construction of the new single family home. The applicant offers a small lot size as a special condition. The property was platted in Richards Subdivision in 1948. It was replatted in 1977, establishing the southwest property line. In 1981, the northeast property line was pushed back when the new right -of -way line for Crest Street was set; thus reducing the width of the lot. With the reduced buildable area, the applicant has stated that it is too small for a house to be built with current setback requirements. An alternative to the setback variances is to build a house that would be 17.54- 19.08 -feet wide. Ms. Hitchcock ended by telling the Board that owner of the surrounding properties is in opposition to granting the variances. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the variances. Shabeer Jaffar, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Jaffar spoke in favor of the variances. Mr. Jaffar explained that the narrow lot width makes it very difficult to build a reasonable size home. He explained that this property was foreclosed for taxes and that is how he came to purchase it. At the time he purchased the property he did not know what the dimensions of the lot were. If he had known at the time of purchase that the lot was so small he would have reconsidered buying it. He later found out the dimensions when he received the deed. Greg Taggert, Municipal Development Group, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Taggert spoke in favor of the variance. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor of the variance requests, Chairman Hill called for anyone wanting to speak in opposition to the requests. Doug Peterson, Owner of Twin City Properties, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Peterson handed the Board a plat showing all the properties he owned around the lot in question. He explained that he bought the neighborhood and he thought that the lot in question came with the purchase. He went on to tell the Board that he served on the Ad Hoc Committee concerning rental registration, unrelated occupants and in fill development. The one thing that the 28 members agreed on was that in -fill was a sensitive subject. Lots like this that were not big enough to build on were being inundated by builders. Mr. Peterson stated that after all the years of him thinking he owned the lot, if he felt it was appropriate to build on he would have built on it. Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes June 1, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Sheffy made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Lewis stated that he does feel that there may be a little special condition with the city taking some of the lot for Crest Street, but it does not warrant what a variance would do to the neighborhood. Mr. Wells stated that he disagreed. He described the area as being fairly high density. He added that he does believe the lot size is too small, but he also believes it can be designed so it is an attribute to the neighborhood. There is no reason why with a minimal setback you can not get the same 1000 to 1100 sq ft house that would match the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Wells ended by saying that it does not serve the property owner or the neighborhood any benefit by leaving it vacant. Mr. Sheffy stated that the lot looks like a pretty playable park and to cram a house in that small of an area it is going to look like a crammed in house. Mr. Richards stated that it will create an in -fill problem. This is a problem through out the city. Chairman Hill stated that it is a risk you take when you buy something site unseen. He ended by saying he does not support granting the variances. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (4 -1). The variances were denied. Mr. Wells voting to grant the variances. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance for 2100 Texas Avenue South, lot 2, Kapchinski Hill Subdivision. Applicant is Wakefield Sign Service for Target Corporation. (04 -105) Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the proposed attached "Target" sign to extend 5 -feet away from the building fagade, thus the applicant is requesting a 4 -foot variance. There is also a 1 -foot 8" variance in height for the "Target" letters to exceed more than one foot above the top of the structure. The applicant did not state a special condition. The applicant states as a hardship: due to architectural elements on the building, the "Target" letters project more than 12- inches from the building. As an alternative the applicant states that the sign can be placed on an alternative location on the wall. Chairman Hill asked what the intent of the ordinance is. Ms. Reeves responded for signs not to stick out more than a foot away from the structure above it, to prevent clutter and to project a more uniform look. ZBA Minutes June 1, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Zachary McFarland, Wakefield Sign Services, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. McFarland spoke in favor of the variance. Chairman Hill asked Mr. McFarland if the variance is not granted what would they do with the sign. Mr. McFarland responded that it would be placed back on to the actual surface or placed on the side of the bull's eye. Mr. Wells made clarification for the Board members that the Target letters are setting on top of the I- beam and the I -beam sets on top of structural members that are coming out from the porch cover, but recess back from the front surface of the edge of the canopy. Mr. Wells asked if the letters were not on top of the I -beam, but were setting actually in front of the canopy, would that meet the ordinance. Ms. Reeves stated that it would come a lot closer to meeting the ordinance. Ms. Reeves went on the explain that right now the I -beam is making the sign stick up 2 -feet 8" above that structure which is not allowed. However, if they do put the sign on the front curbed surface they may could take 8" off of it and attach it to the front and it may meet the ordinance. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Lewis made the motion to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Chairman Hill stated that he opposed the variance. He explained that basically you have a canopy and they want to put the sign on the canopy. This is what the sign ordinance is trying to prevent. The letters can be moved back against the main building or they can be placed on the front edge of the canopy. Either one of the solutions would work and comply with the ordinance. Mr. Lewis stated that he agreed and there are other workable options. Mr. Wells stated that he agreed as well. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (5-0). The variance is denied. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. No adjustments given. ZBA Minutes June 1, 2005 Page 4 of 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 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. There were no items discussed. Mr. Richards wanted to Thank Mr. Lewis for his service to the Board. Chairman Hill thanked Mr. Lewis for his service and stated that his in put will be missed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZBA Minutes June 1, 2003 Page 5 of 5 06/10/2004 16:13 8138543037 HEATH PAGE 02 4 FEDERAL HEATH SIGN COMPANY City of College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment i 101 'Texas Ave College Station TX 77840 Re: Target Corp./ Sign Variance Dear Board Members of the Board, 6/10/04 On belialf of Target stores, we respectfully request you consideration in allowing a re. visitation of the case heard in your June 1 s`, 2004 ZETA Meeting regarding the request of variance to Section 7.4.1.6.d of the Unified Development Code in order to allow For Target to display signage on an entry canopy specifically designed for this purpose. We are requesting that this case be reheard, as the original case was denied based upon evidence presented that was insufficient to demonstrate the hardship posed by the applicable section of the Unified Development Code. The new storefront, which in fact was reviewed and approved through the Planning and Zoning Division, is now complete. Actual photo's of the canopy feature as well as a visit to the site may very well better demonstrate the restriction the applicable section of the ordinance imposes on Target by not allowing the sign to be mounted on the architectural canopy feature. The proposed signage, which is a new national brand image and trademarked sign, when, mounted on any other location on the building, would not allow Target to display the maximum sign area permitted by the Uniform Development Code which places an undue hardship on Target that is not commonly imposed on other properties. We ask that you reconsider your original decision of denial of the variance request and allow for this case to be re- presented with new information and exhibits to better demonstrate our case. Should you have any questions in this matter, please feel free to contact me at 800 -284- 3284 ext 232 and I will be glad to discuss any information that may .help to clarify this issue. Respectfully submitted for your consideration. Sincerely, Boyd Hippenstiel SR. Accowit .Representative radprgl Htwh SIM Company. LLC 3985 Tgmpa RQV. Oldsmar, FL 3467; 8 13.85,1.4415 , phone 813.854,3037... Fax www.1@d01 alhaaih.00m STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Spencer Thompson Email: shompson@cstx.gov Date: June 25, 2004 Date: June 25, 2004 APPLICANT: Joe Schultz P.E. ZBA Meeting Date: July 6, 2004 REQUEST: Variance to the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13, Flood Hazard Protection. Section 5: Special Provisions, G. Special Provisions for Floodways LOCATION: 1501 Emerald Parkway and 1501 Emerald Plaza being Lot 1 Block 1 and Lot 5 Block 1 Emerald Park Plaza Subdivision respectively. PURPOSE: Allow encroachment into the floodway as depicted on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). GENERAL INFORMATION: 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. Status of Applicant: Joe Schultz, P.E., Engineering Consultant for Owner Property Owner: Allen Swoboda, Developer of Emerald Forest Applicable Ordinance Section: Chapter 13, Flood Hazard Protection. Section 5: Special Provisions, G. Special Provisions for Floodways PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use: 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. Subject Property: Commercial, A -P North: R -1 and A -O West: N /A, Freeway East: Commercial, A -P. South: M -1 Frontage: Lot 1 has frontage on the feeder road, Emerald Parkway and Emerald Plaza. Lot 2 has frontage on the feeder road and Emerald Plaza Access: Lot 1 will take access from Emerald Parkway and /or Emerald Plaza. Lot 2 will take access from Emerald Plaza. Topography & Vegetation: 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. Floodplain: As shown of the FIRM. See attachment VARIANCE INFORMATION ANALYSIS 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: G. SPECIAL PROVIS IONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5 -8 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 a single - 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 a four - 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. (1) 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. (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. Special Conditions: 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. Hardships: 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. Alternatives: Possible alternative options to requested encroachment: • Option 1: 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. SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: The intent of the ordinance is to preserve the floodway. See Floodway definition. Similar Requests: A similar request went before the ZBA to consider encroachment into the floodway along Wolf Pen Creek behind Texas Avenue Crossing (Bed, Bath and Beyond). Number of Property Owners Notified: 10 Responses Received: 2 ATTACHMENTS Application Small Area Map Aerial and Topo Exhibit B: Limits of Fill Acronyms and Definitions City staff will have applicable information for reference purposes and provide additional exhibits during the presentation. The Applicant may wish to present additional information, as well. `R 1 COLLEGE STATION ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: x Filing Fee of $150.00. x Application completed in full. x 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. Date of Preapplication Conference: May 13, 2004 APPLICANT /PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Joe Schultz P.E. - Texcon Street Address 1707 Graham Road City College Station State TX Zip Code 77845 E -Mail Address loeschultz(a)_texcon.net Phone Number (979) 764 -7743 Fax Number (979) 764 -7759 :OPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name Allen Swoboda Street Address 8300 Shadow Oaks City College Station State TX Zip Code 77845 E -Mail Address - -- Phone Number (979) 694 -8010 Fax Number - -- LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Address 1501 Emerald Plaza and 1501 Emerald Parkway Lots 5 & 1 Block 1 Subdivision Emerald Park Plaza FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: 0-4 /'��I � DATE SUBMITTED: V W (A Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Variance Parking Variance Sign Variance A -P Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation Current Zoning of Subject Property: Special Exception Other Chapter 13 - Flood Hazard Protection Applicable Ordinance Section: Code of Ordinances -Chapter 13 Flood Hazard Protection Section 5.G. 6/13/03 Page 1 of 2 GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST — he following specific variation from the ordinance is requested: Encroachment into the FEMA FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map ) 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 0.42 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 shows the dimensions of the proposed floodway encroachment areas 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 lot, 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 floodway limit shown on the current FIRM for this property is not based on a detailed engineering study of the immediate area where this property is located. An engineering study has been completed and submitted to the City of College Station The results of this study show that the floodway is within the limits of the TxDOT drainage easement on Lot 5 and the TxDOT right -of -way adjacent to Lot 1, except for the west corner of the lot. The current location of the floodway area shown on the FIRM which is not correct, prevents development of the property. The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship is /are: irdship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal equirements 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 lot, when compared to neighboring properties. 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. The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) has been prepared for this site and this LOMR would move the floodway area limit to the location shown on Exhibit A thereby allowing the development of the property. The LOMB process may require a significant amount of time to complete and the City of College Station is also preparing a LOMR application which would include this area. It might be prudent to not submit the LOMR for this small area, and wait until the City's LOMR is submitted. Since this could take up to 18 months to complete, this variance would allow the development of this property to proceed before the LOMR is approved. This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: The current flood map is incorrect. An engineering /hydrology study has been completed, which establishes this fact. The area which is the subject of this variance request will not be in the floodway once the flood map has been revised. The process of revising the flood map will take 18 months or lonqer, and the outcome is virtually assured given the engineering study that has been completed. Since the property will no longer be in the floodwav, it is not contrary to the public interest to allow development in the area which is the subject of this variance request. , e applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached Preto are true, correct and complete. V%-4 1 F, 5 . w Signat e an Title 6,1 04 Date 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 m x an On u o K F v FRO 0 Z n (n s `^ m : o M7 v a rr z N n x N � � m � � D M $ n v V 9 1MH 31Y 15 �Hlt\OS AV M33Uf U3OO�n �a031 on= mm lw* yy N ` N m � Na z ` S D v Z vO Ap e m• y u oil _ $ a m RO SEWOOD DR .s MM _ - Do m o s' _ y " �s.*g E �oe� y µA W�u a q �r�M33a��k 7�CrnD 00 o b `_ s st' F tio �' •� 40 _ , N Ro � w � t " MO %011YrvoddY _ _ u e�o O 14 N S9 y y 8 1 ~ 0 t q e a p 1 f � OD y o A 0 DDDM xao D - m C bl $ N � Z �D L d1 t 77 j •" � t t• , s � , it yr '. pp .rrrr+��.• •�.r'trn.i+rw�r �rAM� ... , \ \. � ).� .o+' • ` e++" '°a'- :..""`�� *^` c F k `..i 3 _ •i ft � � �� g� l` ! °� ►� f " � � � re �~\ _ n` " y ! � a Q 4 1 a� r . �+�.,. ` tj ,., A ,.. - 3 q .. �; �_:`' t 3 t rr � T �V � �w Y Y ' r9�'`� ��� r . ,� & b.y `� �, ,, ' tt_ t � t' .�• ,,,,� t 3 � \ - . -, ., IV r yt �.. '�'.` ��� r . `1 a .. r ' - • y. +�. � ` a l . r ' 1 �t k .c ' 7_ 4%� - 1 � o`�: , `t x „�'1. 4 }..� ."; ,. �� �r i f j,•' �'��'�xrt� ..�, s J� Y / � � f : ', a t•� yi j y 1� i . � ? y y s. e , b. i -: 5 n � p Y' , tr ,�Y [ . _. r � 1r " � � ' �J r Y 1 a ^ � � <'' rF . �' _ ^� * pY ,3 a . ,,'✓Aye a �'r�' td '(4�'� + a , y w �, i � w r 'o.�. -i �':i7f tl Qt'�e f, a r ?'.rr.• ; y �� * 40 , < 4 , s � -, .�i��� *\ � ♦��; ��, � ��,`� A��j, �'. _ � Ii � � 'sn,. IE C• y �Y.. st `,�'�,'!� � �„ �' �w fit. �i .� l�• F � m _ � .. - ,r � �Z� :� s ��V 8 '"trt rt Y f � ',�r�' �j T�� � �f 1 � ' s . � �� r ��' �\ �a� �y� `' � � �' *''� .,r ; y !7� f " ` i P • .. , � n ?� ��<�a �.- xfs'������ r :. P a � �` t�IE� ���' `�+ ,���:� �� �� • " 7 r 5'�� ' � 3..,�,�. ���;` � $+`• � d ;t�1` ,�� NN Iir'' ="� ,'°- -^� • .f �°'' :,.r.. ,. �+r'�if�s,.,� �_a,% 7t' �W r fi yr �►\ J 1 d ! ♦ 'e .��.y II r ' F e y " q q . Orr = s • � °.� f e .. �' ,,��.�, �"°� • � s/:.��„ v` r A °- w� y., i��' e��`,. ' 'y*' ���;\ �� E � ':�"`�' /M� J � s �' b' �� ��•* day < .�� y�r g.. -t w` a �T'� ��-.. � " `e.<`. -<�. �� �. l � r. F•!"�s � i4 a��a .�'. � r . ., ORA At F,F-�m O N.ON7A0�W z 0 0000 O 00 (O W N ' N V N O m m zzzwwwz 0 �ly�y�l� mm m CT A -+ OU W J A W 00 W C O m m ' ' Z � :e r4 4 :e :e Acronyms and Definitions Acronyms FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate map NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program FIS: Flood Insurance Study SFHA: Special Flood Hazard Area BFE: Base Flood Elevation LOMR: Letter of Map Revision Definitions FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD -PRONE AREA - means any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. FLOODWAY - means 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. DEVELOPMENT - means any man -made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, clearing, or drilling operations. ENCROACHMENT - means an intrusion, obstruction, or other infringement on an area reserved for a specific purpose such as an easement or floodway. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) - means an official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY - is the official report provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The report contains flood profiles, the water surface elevation of the base flood, as well as the Flood Hazard Boundary Floodway Map OLLLL STA IO N FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: 0 ` 1 DATE SUBMITTED: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION y ItCtla`- ►0 Filing Fee of $40.00. Application completed in full. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 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. Date of Preapplication Conference: APPLICANT /PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Andy Lee, K. Chen Engineering 'Weet Address 6161 Savoy, Suite 310 City Houston State TX Zip Code 77036 E -Mail Address halee(cD-kcunited.com Phone Number 713 - 952 -6888 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Fax Number 713 - 952 -9994 Name Jack Hoover, McDonald's Corporation Street Address 3707 FM 19.6.0 West, Suite 300 City Houston State TX Zip Code 77068 E -Mail Address iack.hooverOmcd.com Phone Number 281 - 587 -7341 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Fax Number 281 - 587 -7367 Address 2420 Texas Avenue Lot 1 Block Subdivision Parkway Plaza, Phase Seven Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision Current Zoning of Subject Property: C -1 Acable Ordinance Section: UDO 7.2 -1 hq 6/13/03 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT REQUEST The following specific adjustment (up to 10 %) from the ordinance requirements is requested: code requires 1 parking space per 100 s.f. gross building area for a restaurant with drive thru This would require 42 spaces (4,155 gross building /100 =41 55 =42 spaces) We are requesting the City to allow 39 spaces which is within the 10 %. This adjustment will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts: We believe that sufficient parking will be made available based on the existing usage of the site The current site has 42 spaces available, however they are not all utilized This is due to a lot of pedestrian traffic to this site The granting of the adjustment will not materially or adversely affect adjacent land uses or the physical character of the uses in the immediate vicinity because of the following: is an existing McDonald's currently on the site. We are proposing a complete reconstruction of the site that will bring it current with Citv College Station design standards and landscaping requirements The granting of the adjustment will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Unified Development Ordinance because of the following: Allowing 3 fewer spaces will not adversely affect the intent and purpose of the UDO due to the location of this project The enhanced landscape /streetscape will improve pedestrian traffic to this site. Therefore, the provided parking will be adequate The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and complete. a' Signature and Title Jume 5 2 oW Date 6/13/03 ` The Ci of e a Stati on Texas g Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 (979) 764 -3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us 23 June 2004 Andy Lee, K. Chen Engineering 6161 Savoy, Suite 310 Houston, Texas 77036 RE: 2420 Texas Avenue South College Station Texas Lot 1, Parkway Plaza Phase 7 Dear Mr. Lee, This letter is to inform you that the above referenced property has received an administrative adjustment of three parking spaces to the 42 spaces required for the proposed 4,155 square foot drive - thru restaurant, provided that a bicycle rack is sited in an approved location on the property (the number of parking spaces required is based on a parking ratio of one space per 100 square feet of drive -thru restaurant building area). According to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Section 3.15, the Administrator has the authority to authorize adjustment of up to 10 percent from any numerical zoning standard set forth in Articles 5, 6, or 7 of the UDO. To approve the application for an administrative adjustment, the Administrator shall make an affirmative finding that specific criteria, as outlined in Section 3.15.E of the UDO, have been met. The Administrator has found that: Granting the adjustment will ensure the same general level of land use compatibility as the otherwise applicable standards because the amount of the adjustment is negligible and will not significantly alter the intensity of the land use. Granting the adjustment will not materially or adversely affect adjacent land uses or the physical character of uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development because the existing McDonald's is redeveloping as the same use and with the same general site layout, and Granting the adjustment will be generally consistent with the purposes and intent of this UDO owing to the fact that a bicycle rack will be provided in lieu of the 3 required parking spaces. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (979) 764 -3570. Sincerely, YJ-Q-Q' an,�� Glenn Brown Assistant City Manager cc: Case File # 03 -14 Case File # 04 -146 Jack Hoover, McDonald's Corporation Home of Texas A &M University CHARLES A. ELLISON, P. Ce ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2501 ASHFORD DRIVE SUITE 100 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 -4698 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 10103 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 -0103 CHARLES A. ELLISON TELEPHONE: (979) 696 -9889 AMY L. CLOUGH• FACSIMILE: (979) 693 -8819 'also licensed in Wisconsin July 2, 2004 BY HAND DELIVERY City of College Station Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 ATTN: DEBORAH GRACE Re: Allen and Patty Swoboda Variance Request Dear Deborah: Thank you for agreeing to include this letter in the packet being sent to the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "ZBA ") for consideration of the Swoboda's request for variance in accordance with Chapter 13, Section 6 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of College Station (the "Code "). Facts In 1992, the City of College Station (the "City ") issued a development permit for Allen and Patty to fill a portion of the floodplain on Lots 1 and 5 of Emerald Park Plaza (the "Land ") , which they did. In 2000, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( "FEMA ") reissued the Flood Insurance Rate Map (the "FIRM ") that covers the 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 (the "Study ") 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 is not in the floodway. Attached to this letter is a copy of a letter prepared by Joe Harle along with his resume'. At the suggestion of the City personnel, Allen and Patty have submitted their variance request to this body. Authority The ZBA is authorized to grant a variance from the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Code if, "in their opinion, undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, and when ... (1) There are special circumstances or condition affecting 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...." In making their decision the ZBA must find that (paraphrased): (A) the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief to the applicant, considering the flood hazard or potential flood damage; (B) the effect of the variance will not be detrimental to public health or safety and will not injure other property; (C) the variance will not increase water surface elevations, flow velocities, or alter drainage pathways to the extent that there will be any threat to public safety, extraordinary public expense, increase in nuisance flooding or hurt drainage systems; (D) the effect will not prevent the orderly subdivision of other land; (E) the variance allowing development in the floodway will not cause an increase in the base flood elevation; (F) the variance must follow the procedures outlined in the Code and the development must minimize flood damage during the base flood and create no additional threats to public safety. Facts in Support of Authority to Grant Variance The ZBA is urged to consider the following matters it is required to take into account, numbered or lettered as outlined above: The special circumstance that affects the Land which, if the Code is strictly applied, will deprive Allen and Patty of the reasonable use of their Land is that, according to the Study, prepared in accordance with the Code, the Land is not in the floodway. A. The variance is the minimum necessary because without it, there can be no effective use of the Land. There is no lesser variance that would allow any use of the Land. B. The variance will only allow development that is already authorized for land similarly situated throughout the City. There will be no change whatsoever in the "actual floodway." C. The variance will not create any threat to public safety, extraordinary public expense, increase in nuisance flooding or hurt drainage systems because the Land is not in the floodway and the development that will occur is only what is already allowed by the Code. D. The granting of the variance on this particular tract of land will not prevent other tracts of land from being required to develop out of the floodway or meet the variance requirements, as the case may be. E. The Land should not be in the designated floodway and development that will occur will comply with the all other requirements of the Code regarding floodplain development and drainage. F. The procedure followed by Allen and Patty complies completely with the requirements of the Code and the development will in all respects comply with the Code. Conclusion The intent of the flood hazard regulations in Chapter 13 of the Code exist to protect the public from development which is adverse to the public health, safety and welfare. It is generally considered that development in the floodway is potentially injurious to the public's health, safety or welfare. The granting of a variance in this circumstance will have no detrimental impact on the public's health, safety or welfare because the Land is not in the floodway. Through an unfortunate turn of events, FEMA redesignated the floodway without correct data. The Study, which the City concurs with, definitively establishes that the Land is not in the floodway. Application of the ordinance will serve to deprive Allen and Patty of any effective use of their Land. It would be disastrous to the Swoboda's for the City to ignore the benefit which will be gained by granting this variance, especially in view of the fact that there is no discernable harm caused by the granting of the variance. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, zq�41 t,9 Charles A. Ellison CAE: bg Enclosures cc: Allen and Patty Swoboda Joe Harle Joe Schultz J.ul 01 04 04:OOp STOKES a ASSOCIATES (903)657 -7864 p.2 EAST TEXAS ENGINEERS, INC. 3401 Sam Page Road Longview, Texas 75605 Voice/Fax 903.663.4509 Mobile 903.746.4357 July 1, 2004 City of College Station 1 Zoning Board of Adjustments City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 Re: Zoning Board of Adjustment Application 1501 Emerald Plaza 81501 Emerald Parkway Dear Board Members: East Texas Engineers, Inc. has conducted an engineering study of the floodplain and floodway of Bee Creek and Bee Creek Tributary A in the vicinity of the intersection of State Highway 6 Bypass and Emerald Parkway. The engineering study and report have been reviewed with City staff. The results of the engineering study show the FEMA floodway boundaries of Bee Creek and Bee Creek Tributary A to be in error at Lots 1 and 5 of Block 1 of the Emerald Park Plaza Subdivision. City staff is in agreement that the floodway boundaries are in error and recommended that we seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustments to allow proposed development of those portions of Lots 1 and 5 which are outside the corrected floodway boundaries. I have reviewed Chapter 13 (Flood Hazard Protection) of the City of College Station Code of Ordinances. In my professional opinion, the requested variance for Lots 1 and 5 is in accord with all provisions of Section 6 (Variances) of Chapter 13. A primary intent of Chapter 13 and Section 6 is to prohibit development within a floodway. Since proposed development of Lots 1 and 5 does not encroach on the corrected floodway of either Bee Creek or Bee Creek Tributary A, as established in the engineering study, the proposed development does not conflict with the intent of Chapter 13. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 903.746.4357. Very truly yours, EAST TEXAS ENGINEERS, INC. N. ante, P.E. Prince al JOE N. HARLE, P.E. PERSONAL Born January 25, 1950 in Port Arthur, Texas EDUCATION Graduate of Mineola High School in Mineola, Texas, 1968 B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1973 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Engineer - Texas No. 42972 Louisiana No. 18406 Oklahoma No. 11996 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1989 - Present East Texas Engineers, Inc., Longview, Texas - Principal 1980-1989 KSA Engineers, Inc., Longview, Texas Vice - President of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Engineering 1973-1980 Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc. Consulting Engineers, Houston, Texas Project Engineer, Planner, Project Administrator SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Thirty one years of consulting engineering experience on water, storm water, wastewater, paving, land development and other projects for public and private sectors. Special expertise in storm water drainage and erosion control, surface water hydrology and hydraulics, water supply planning and development and computer modeling. Responsibilities have included all levels of project involvement: problem identification, conceptual design, development and analysis of alternatives, preparation of preliminary engineering reports, project design, preparation of construction drawings and technical specifications, project management of project team consisting of engineers/ technicians /drafters /consultants, construction contract administration, client liaison, liaison with State and Federal agencies and expert witness testimony. Proficient in computer modeling using computer programs HEC -1, HEC -2, HEC -5, HMR52, HECRAS, HMS, TR -20, WSP2, DAMS2, THYSYS, DAMBRK, RESOP III, KYPIPE and others. Drainage and erosion control experience includes municipal master drainage plans, storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) for public and private sectors, planning and design of erosion control structures for the surface mining industry, planning and design of storm water drainage facilities for public and private sectors, FEMA flood studies and FEMA LOMR and CLOMR studies. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers (Past President of Northeast Texas Branch ASCE) Texas Society of Professional Engineers (Past President of East Texas Chapter TSPE) National Society of Professional Engineers American Water Works Association American Water Resources Association