Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/2002 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES n Zoning Board of Adjustment October 1, 2002 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Sheffy, Richards, Birdwell & Rodgers. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternates Goss, Allison & Whisenant (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Reeves & Hitchcock, City Engineer McCully, City Attorney Robinson, Action Center Representative Kelly, Plans Examiner Warren, Customer Service Representative Messarra. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. There were no requests to consider. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a rear setback at 611 Harvest, lot 12, block 9, Westfield Phase III. Applicant is John Rhodes for Stylecraft Builders. (02 -192). Staff Planner Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to correct an error made during construction. The variance requested is 2 -feet 8- inches. The applicant has stated that the special condition in this case is electronic and human error. The applicant has stated that the city inspector also missing the encroachment in the field is a hardship. Staff has identified that removal of the encroachment is the only alternative to a variance for the house to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Hitchcock ended the staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property. Mr. Richards states that the application indicated that the city inspector missed the error in the field. Carl Warren, plans examiner, stepped before the Board. Mr. Warren told the Board that it is noted on each permit that the string lines need to be in place when the inspector comes to make his inspection. It is at that time that the setbacks are checked. The inspector measures from the forms to the strings. Mr. Warren told the Board that he has visited with the inspector and he can not remember if the strings were in place or not when he went to do the inspection. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. kw ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page I of 10 Randy French, President Sytlecraft Builders, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. French told the Board that they are the largest builders in the area and they build on small lots. Mr. French stated that Mr. Warren was accurate but Stylecraft Builders wants to take personal accountability too. Stylecraft Builders does not want the city to make it their sole responsibility that the slabs fit on the lot properly. Mr. French explained that they use an AutoCAD file and one of the great things about that is the files can be electronically sent to a surveyor to do the layout of the home onto the lot. Mr. French stated that he did not think the whole file got transferred and the form boards were sent up incorrectly. Mr. French went on to explain that the intent of the ordinance is to keep buildings from being too crowded to each other. Mr. French explained that fortunately he built the home directly behind the house in question as well. Mr. French presented the Board a letter from the rear homeowner and it stated that there is no hardship for him with the encroachment. That home is 29 -feet 6 -inces from the subject property line. With both rear setbacks you get 52 -feet between structures. Mr. French went on to explain that if on the subject property and the property to the rear had abided to the 25 -feet there would have been 50 -feet between the structures. Chairman Hill asked how long they have been transferring plans to the surveyor electronically. Mr. French replied they used to do it on everything but since this problem has come up they have discontinued. Chairman Hill asked how long have they done it that way. Mr. French replied several months. Chairman Hill stated that the hardship listed as the inspector missed the encroachment is not something the Board can consider as a hardship. Chairman Hill asked if there was another hardship that can be offered. Mr. French replied that if 2 -foot 8- inches were taken off of the structure it would literally destroy the bedroom and bathroom. The home is only 1200 sq. feet. Mr. Birdwell told Mr. French that there is another solution to the variance and that would be to replat both lots. This would move the lot line between the home in question and the home to the rear and t ho there would not be an encroachment. The Board continued discussions with Mr. French concerning the strings for the slab and what may have happened. John Rhodes, the applicant, stepped before the Board. Mr. Rhodes told the Board that he has laid out every site plan for Stylecraft Builders for the past 5 years. He continued to tell the Board that he is involved in every aspect of a new home being built in College Station. Mr. Rhodes explained the procedure from beginning to end. Mr. Rhodes stated that each site plan goes through 3 checks to make sure there are no errors. Mr. Rhodes added that he has no idea what happened in this case. It was correct on paper and in the field it was not. Mr. Rhodes ended by saying that they are triple checking every site plan since this error and they are looking to prevent this from happening again. Mr. Richards told Mr. Rhodes that he appreciates what is being done to prevent this from happening in the future. Mr. Richards ended by saying that this is the 3 rd time in 14 months that Stylecraft Builders has been before that Board asking for variances. So it was very important to get the procedures in place. ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Birdwell made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special condition: the requested variance is slightly over 10 %; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inadvertent field construction error resulted in foundation being constructed 2 -feet 8- inches too close to the rear line. This results in possible title problems; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance of 2 -feet 8 -inces on the rear setback. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that there was another solution but it is more complicated. Both lots could be replatted and the rear line moved. Mr. Birdwell stated the Board is on record as suggesting that the ordinance be changed so that variances smaller than 10% are determined by staff. Mr. Birdwell ended by saying that this variance is slightly over that and he could not imagine that staff would deny it. Mr. Lewis stated that he agreed with Mr. Birdwell. Mr. Lewis ended by saying that the city's interests are being considered because there is more than 50 -feet between both houses. Chairman Hill stated that he is opposed the granting of the variance for several reasons. There is nothing to prevent the 50 -feet between the two houses being closed by the remaining building area. The home behind the house in question could be added on to and it would close the distance. Chairman Hill added that mistakes were made and he is sympathetic but he does not feel this case meets the criteria that the Board is required to satisfy in order to grant the variance. Chairman Hill ended by saying that a hardship has not been presented that meets the requirements needed to legally grant the variance. 4 ' Mr. Richards stated that he was in favor of the variance simply because of the multitude of circumstances involved do not point to the applicant as being the reason for the encroachment Chairman Hill called for the vote from Mr. Birdwells I motion. The Board voted (4 -1). Chairman Hill voting against granting the variance. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action on a drainage variance at 1400 Texas Avenue (currently known as Redmond Terrace). Applicant is Height Venture Architects LLP. ( -2 -201) Brett McCully, Assistant City Engineer, stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Mr. McCully told the Board that the applicant wishes to construct parking, access and loading facilities over the designated floodway to maximize site utilization. The Floodplain Administrator recommends approval of the variance to allow the applicant to construct within the regulatory floodway with the condition that the lowest part of any element installed within the floodway be constructed above the elevation of the 0.2% rainfall event (500 year storm), or 12 inches above the 1% rainfall event (100year storm), which ever is greater. G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5 -B are areas designated as floodways. The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters, which carry potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion; therefore, the following provisions shall be required: ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 3 of 10 (1) Encroachments shall be prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements of existing construction, structures, manufactured homes, or other development. Variances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream, within, or downstream of the encroachment location. The 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; An important factor in evaluating this request is how a floodway is defined. In laymen's terms it is the horizontal limits where fill being placed equally from both sides of a creek would cause an increase in the 1 -% rainfall event water surface elevation of one foot. This limit extends vertically so the air above the increased water surface and between the floodway limits is technically in the floodway. This vertical aspect is included to recognize that while we usually regulate development and design our infrastructure systems for a storm having a I% chance of occurring in any given year, larger flood events can and do occur. The variance requested at this time is to encroach solely into the air above the flood level, and not into the anticipated storm flows at all. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: The rear area of the shopping center currently used for access, deliveries, employee parking and storage is within the regulatory floodway. This area was surfaced many years ago but has fallen into disrepair resembling a gravel or base driving and parking surface. This site is also limited in the area available between the existing buildings and the area occupied by the creek. By being within the floodway, the use of this area is subject to flooding. Hardships: In redeveloping the property, it is highly desirable to remediate any known potentially hazardous situations. Because the existing area at the rear is in the floodway, this area could not be protected and still be utilized as support area for the building. Therefore this site is in the situation that prevention of all encroachment into the floodway would not allow the elimination of a known hazard. Alternatives: Option A would be to not redevelop the site (Status Quo). This would allow only limited redevelopment of the site and not allow the owner to address the potential flood hazard at the rear of the site. Option B would be to simply resurface the area at the rear of the buildings at the existing grades and elevations. In addition to retaining difficult delivery access to the lease spaces, the parking and access areas would remain subject to significant flood hazard. This option would not require a drainage variance. Option C would be to enclose the creek in a concrete channel or underground storm drain. After obtaining the necessary approvals from FEMA, the floodplain and floodway limits would be relocated allowing additional construction behind the buildings. This would require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA, as well as permits from the U.S. Corps of Engineers and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly TNRCC). ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 4 of 10 Option D would be to allow construction over the flood discharge area by means of structural components. This option would have to show that the structural improvements did not increase the flood levels not only onsite but on all adjacent properties including up and down stream. This option is presently preferred by the applicant and would require the variance presently before the Board. Ordinance Intent: Chapter 13, Section B states: "It is the purpose of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse impacts associated with the increased stormwater flows generated by development. It is also the purpose of this chapter to enhance the public health, safety and welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements." Unmitigated encroachments into designated floodways are known to cause increases in flood levels and the potential for damage from flooding events. As such they are specifically prohibited. It is clearly the intent of the Ordinance to prohibit encroachments into the areas reserved for floodwaters. It does not appear that the intent was to prohibit encroachment into areas that may be above a reasonable flood event, even though the encroachment would be within the regulatory limits of the floodway. Similar Requests: Staff is not aware of any applications made for a similar variance, although a development is being considered for the southeast corner of Texas Avenue and Harvey Road which would utilize a similar approach. There exist other areas within the City where viable use of the property necessitated the full enclosure of drainage ways. These instanced were required to obtain all related permit approval processes as described in Option C above. The most commonly known is next to the fuel station on the northeast corner of Harvey Road (SH30) and the East Bypass (SH6). Chairman Hill asked if the variance is granted what level of scrutiny will be applied to it to make sure that everything is done in a sound engineering manner. Mr. McCully replied that the variance is part of the site plan review process for the site and there have been many discussions about the site plan. City staff has pointed out that the proposed work would require a variance of this nature. The applicant desires to obtain the variance before they go into the nitty gritty engineering work. There is not a lot of the detailed numbers yet. The variance is being sought to give the applicant some assurance that they can go forward with the calculations. Chairman Hill asked if this is something that would be very closely tracked and observed. Mr. McCully replied that it would just because of the location and history. Chairman Hill asked what mechanisms are in place to prevent it from undercutting the proposed construction. Mr. McCully replied that the details received to date were what was hanging on the wall behind the Board to review. Mr. McCully pointed out that there will be a retaining wall as well as #. drilled piers. ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Birdwell asked what was the proposed elevation of the new roadway relative to the existing roadway. Mr. McCully stated that he would estimate it at 4 -5 -feet above the existing road surface. Mr. Birdwell asked how an automobile would get onto the roof. Mr. McCully stated that the site plan shows connections to Millif and George Bush that connect further from the steam and it will actually ramp and include into that area. Mr. McCully stated that it would start from an area that is ground level. Mr. Birdwell asked if there was going to be parking on the roof. Mr. McCully replied that he believed that was correct. Mr. Birdwell stated that it was mentioned that there would be fill involved to the limit of the ordinance, which is a 1 -foot increase in flood level. Mr. McCully replied that fill would extend out horizontally to the floodway limit line. That is the point where the piers would be. The rest of the structure would have to be above the flood level. Mr. Birdwell asked if that line will be set assuming fill in the floodplain that will result in a 1 -foot increase in a 100 -year storm. Mr. McCully replied yes. In fact that is actually set and mapped at this time. Mr. Birdwell asked what effect does that have on the adjoining property. Mr. McCully clarified that there are apartments on the other side and that they are also based on allowing the 12 -inch increase. The apartments are higher right now from the floods and they did not sustain damage. Mr. Birdwell stated they were built before rules like these existed. Mr. McCully replied that was true. Mr. McCully said the apartments were built a little higher based on their frontage on the adjacent street. A lot of the overflow in this case is taking a more direct course from George Bush culvert over towards Millif. There was a lot more water inundation on Redmond Terrace side. Mr. Birdwell asked if this project would be limited to increase in the flood level of 6- inches. Mr. McCully replied that would be tough to say whether that is the effect of that right now. A study was done and adopted and Mr. McCully believed the most recent flood study in this case was in the early 90's. That study identified a proposed fill from both directions and then set the line assuming the 12 -inch increase. That is the line that is being proposed. Therefore, if this project continues as planned now, and the apartment site was to redevelop, they could actually fill up to that line as well and that would still give the 12 -inch increase. Mr. Birdwell stated that means the Redmond Terrace project can only increase the flood level 6- inches. Mr. McCully replied that would be approximate because the flood carrying can be different on one side of the creek. Mr. Birdwell stated that there is also a state law that limits the modification of narrow streams where you do not raise the flood level even more. Mr. Birdwell stated that what ever is done here needs to be limited to 6 -inch increase. Mr. Birdwell told Mr. McCully he did not know what he meant by the fill limit. Mr. McCully stated at this point if the applicant decided to fill out to the floodway line and stop, and not project anything over the floodway, they are permitted to do that now. That would allow the same increase. Mr. Birdwell stated that he does not have any problem with canterleving over the floodway if it is going to be a foot above a storm level. It won't affect flooding at all but he stated it is an expensive solution. Mr. Birdwell added that his concern is what effect does the fill in the floodplain out to the floodway have. Chairman Hill added that he understood that if the same fill was done on both sides that would increase it by 1 -foot. Mr. McCully replied that was correct. Chairman Hill made the clarification that by adding the fill to one side to the effective point it would have the effect of increasing it 6- inches. Mr. McCully replied that was approximate. Mr. McCully stated that the effect of both sides is less than 12- inches. Mr. Birdwell stated that he was not satisfied with that answer. Mr. Birdwell stated that what ever variance is granted it has to be limited to this project not causing a floodplain increase of more than 6- inches by a competent hydraulic analysis. Mr. McCully stated that the present ordinance as adopted now accepts the FEMA studies as that calculation and allowance of fill. ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 6 of 10 Mr. McCully added that presently that permission exists. There is no limitation on the applicant to make the same impact now without this variance. That is based on using that as the limit for fill, for both sides, on the 12 -inch rule. In those cases were detailed studies have been performed the state has deferred to those studies rather than holding specifically with the 6 -inch rule because that tends to apply to the adjacent sides when you do encroachments yourself. Chairman Hill made clarification that the applicant can build out into the floodway right now without the variance. Mr. McCully made the correction that they can construct in the floodplain at this time. Chairman Hill asked what practical effects would this have on the property on the other side of the creek. Mr. McCully replied that given the depth he does not see effects such as increased velocity. He does see some rise in water surface. The exact height he could not say other than it is approximately half of the 12 -inch rise. Chairman Hill asked in the study and analysis of this area was it marked what the high water point was in the 1994 storm. Chairman Hill stated that he is wondering if that level was a foot deeper in 1994, what effect would it have had on the other side of the property. Mr. McCully replied that he has no numbers from the reporting. He was on the property shortly after the peak of the storm. The flooding observed behind Academy was significant and it did damage to the culvert at Millif. At the apartments their parking is in the rear. They did not have nearly the depth of water there. The buildings were not threatened that he could see. He believes that a 1 -foot rise would not flood the buildings. He believes there would still be water in the parking lot and in that type of storm event that is to be expected. Mr. Lewis stated that in the staff report it states the recommendation includes a condition that the lowest part of any element installed within the floodway be constructed above the elevation of the 500 year storm level, or 12- inches above the 100 year storm, whichever is greater. Mr. Lewis asked if those were different. Mr. McCully replied that the 100 year base flood that is used and then the 12 -inch rise over that which is the projected ultimate condition of the flood. FEMA also studies a 500 -year event and does not consider any rise or other issues. It tends to be in some cases a little higher than the 12- inch mandate. Based on the studies they are saying that the water is going to hit the 12 -inch high limit at some point when both sides encroach into the floodway limit. The idea that we get an excess of a 100 -year event, which we did, is going to raise the surface some. It is kind of a decreasing curve where the difference between the 1% and the 0.2% in this case is in the 18 -inch range compared with the whole depth of the channel. Mr. McCully stated that in addition to that 12 -inch rise, there maybe another couple of inches, in that greater than a 100 year event, that water will then start to touch the structure. The 500 -year event is the largest that FEMA utilizes for this type of structure. There are some calculated numbers right now for that in this area that they did include in the study. Mr. McCully stated that he saw it to be 1.4 -feet above the current base flood. So we are looking at another 0.4 -feet. Mr. Lewis asked could they grant a variance and say that the structure needs to be above the 500 -year flood level. Mr. McCully replied yes. Mr. McCully added that he is also trying to be a little conservative. There are cases where the 500 -year storm is less than 1 -foot above the 100 -year storm. Mr. Birdwell referred to the site sections showing the flood level of 296 -feet for the full length of the building. Mr. McCully responded that the exhibits were prepared as part of the variance request. The elevation shown on the structures do not match the requirement that he asked for. The flood elevation does vary by approximately a foot across the site. The condition would allow them to lower the structure as they got closer to Millif. This is what the architect proposes. Mr. Birdwell asked if he knew the floor elevations of the apartment complex across the channel. Mr. McCully replied that he does not have that information. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 7 of 10 Chuck Ellison stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Ellison told the Board that he is there to representative the applicant. Mr. Ellison stated that he understands the variance to be an ordinance that governs how we can fill in the floodplain and what the limits are. Mr. Ellison stated that that is not what they are there to ask for. That is already regulated. What they are there to ask for is the ability to cantilever in the air over the base flood elevation plus some. Mr. Ellison stated that there would be no damage to the adjoining properties by putting a structure in the air. Mr. Ellison called the structure a bridge. Mr. Ellison ended by saying that they were not going to take out any trees or disturb any buffers. It is believed that the project will be an ultimate improvement to the existing condition of the site. Chairman Hill asked how far above the elevation is the bottom of the cantilever structure going to be. Mr. Ellison referred the question to the architect. Jerry Tipps, project manager for Heights Venture Architecture, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Tipps told the Board that they are trying to reach a compromise that meets everyone's interests in a manner that does not hurt anyone and it achieves the financial objectives of the owner. Mr. Tipps told Chairman Hill that he could not answer his question yet. The City of College Station will tell them what the bottom elevation of the structure will be. The engineering work is being held off until the variance is granted. The plan presented is the 16` plan that has been developed. They don't want to engineer plan 16 and then have to change and there be a plan 17. Mr. Tipps stated that they made a commitment to the city to work with the Engineering Department and come up with a solution that satisfies all existing ordinances both locally and at the FEMA level. With no on else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to defer consideration at this meeting and ask the applicant to provide the elevation of the slabs of the adjoining properties that are affected by this project. Mr. Birdwell also asked for at least a preliminary analysis that shows exactly what will be the increase of the flood level from this project only. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that we are dealing with an area of town that is known for flooding. To raise the flood level a foot is significant. Mr. Birdwell stated they need to be careful. Not knowing what the floor elevations in the apartments are he does not feel comfortable making any decisions. Mr. Birdwell added that it is stated that all they are being asked for is the air rights over the flood. There has to be foundations to hold up the cantilever and the foundations will be built in the floodway. That will effect the flood surface elevation. Mr. Birdwell ended by saying that is appropriate for them to look at the effect of that although it is not a part of the variance. Mr. Birdwell stated that he does not have a problem granting the variance as long as he is satisfied that they have properly looked at what the flooding is going to be on other properties. Chairman Hill stated that he does not feel that there is anything to be gained by deferring this because the construction of the structure is designed to fall within current regulations and it is not within their jurisdiction. All they are being asked to grant is a variance, which will allow the construction of the cantilever portion. k ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 8 of 10 Mr. Birdwell stated that he feels the Board has adequate authority to place a limit of the increase in the flood level as a result of the project. It is a condition of the variance. Mr. Birdwell added that at this point he does not have enough information to pass judgement. Mr. Lewis stated that his biggest concern also is the effect on the neighboring properties. But it is not clear to him whether that is under their purview. Mr. Birdwell stated that everything maybe just fine but there is information that he wants that they can not give him now. Ms. Robinson reminded the Board the information that they are requesting is information that they can not consider in their decision on whether to grant the variance or not. They have to base their decision what staff has given them. Mr. Birdwell questioned that he cannot consider the slabs adjacent to the subject property when he votes to grant or deny the variance. Ms. Robinson replied that it is her understanding because that is not what the variance request covers. Ms. Robinson told the Board that at this point they have two options. The first is to grant the variance based on the information provided or deny it and make the findings on the record. Chairman Hill stated that there then is no action that they can take that would allow them to influence the construction portion that Mr. Birdwell is concerned with. Ms. Robinson replied that it is her understanding up to that point they are meeting the requirements of the ordinance. The applicant is here to obtain a variance. Mr. Birdwell stated that as a Board member he has the right to make a motion to defer action until he is provided such additional information. Chairman Hill added that he agrees with Mr. Birdwell on that point unless Legal Council specifically says that is not the case. Ms. Robinson told the Board that they may defer action but they can not defer it for the information that they are seeking to obtain. Chairman Hill told Mr. Birdwell that he understands his concerns and his desires to have those concerns addressed. Again Chairman Hill stated that he does not see that anything is to be gained by deferring action. Mr. Lewis stated that on a typical variance case the Board is looking for a hardship and special condition. Mr. Lewis asked if that was true in this case as well. Ms. Robinson told the Board that under a drainage variance in order to grant a variance the Board has to determine that in their opinion undue hardship on the owner would result from strict compliance, special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land or that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Mr. Richards asked Mr. Birdwell if he had read Option D in the Staff Report. Mr. Birdwell replied that Option D is if you do not increase flood levels and the flood levels will be increased. Chairman Hill asked Mr. McCully if the proposed construction would or would not increase the flood level. Mr. McCully replied that as proposed right now, the flood level would increase as it is currently permitted by the drainage ordinance. Mr. McCully added for clarification that the piers and the support structures that would support the cantilever would be located outside of the floodway. Chairman Hill called for a vote on Mr. Birdwell's motion to defer the item until additional information can be given. The Board voted (3 -2). Chairman Hill and Mr. Lewis voting against deferring the item. to ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 9 of 10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration, discussion and possible action on future agenda items. No items were discussed. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Birdwell to clarify the additional information he would like to have provided at the next meeting concerning the drainage variance. Mr. Birdwell stated that he takes exception to Legal Council's advice. Mr. Birdwell stated that he thinks this Board has the authority to ask for elevations of slabs when they are considering a drainage issue. Mr. Birdwell stated that if the applicant does not come back with that information he will defer it again. Drainage in that area of town is too critical for the variance to be granted without knowing the relative levels. Mr. Birdwell ended by saying it is not an unreasonable request. The additional information Mr. Birdwell requested is floor elevations of all surrounding properties and preliminary hydraulic analysis that determines the increase in the floodplain. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting. APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant VftW ZBA Minutes October 1, 2002 Page 10 of 10