HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/2004 - Regular Agenda Packet - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsAgenda
College Station Zoning Board of Adjustment
City Hall Council Chambers
Tuesday, August 3, 2004
1101 Texas Avenue
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
. July 6, 2004.
4. Public Hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance for
4742 Stonebriar Circle, lot 22, block 15, Pebble Creek Phase 2-A. Applicant is Mike
Lane for Jana Schweitzer Lane. (03-227 JR)
5. Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance for
• 1604 Rock Prairie Road, lot 1R, block 3, Belmont Place Subdivision. Applicant is David
Watkins, PWCRA Architects for College Station Medical Center. (04-156 MH).
6. Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by city staff.
-No adjustments to report.
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
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 NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms.
is 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. Ward seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 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, 2005
Page 1 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 (5-0) to rehear the variance request.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to
approve a variance to the Code o 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:
Ll
ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 2 of 7
G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS
Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-13 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
water demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in s ace 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.
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 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.
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 survey we know where the elevation that designates the floodplain is.
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
caund that the property in question really is not within the oo way. Mt. Thompson replied that some o
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 5 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 cames 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 (5-0). The variance was approved
***See amendment to this motion on agenda item No. 8
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.
shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
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
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 (5-0). The motion was
approved to amend
APPROVED:
Leslie Hill, Chairman
•
ATTEST:
Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant
ZBA Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 7 of 7
t
E
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Date: 07-28-04
Email: jreeves@cstx.gov
ZBA Meeting Date: August 3, 2004
Applicant: Mike Lane
Request: Variance to the rear setback
Location: 4742 Stonebriar Circle
Purpose: To allow the builder to construct a house on this lot.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant: Builder
Property Owner: Jana Schweitzer Lane
Applicable
Ordinance Section: Section 5.2 of the (Unified Development Ordinance), Residential
Dimensional Standards.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Subject Property: The following dimensions are from the submitted site plan.
60' of frontage along Stonebriar Circle
122.09' west (side property line)
60.26' north (rear property line)
127.69' east (side property line)
Access: The subject property will have access off Stonebriar Circle.
Topography S
Vegetation: Relatively flat with no trees
Flood Plain: N/A
VARIANCE INFORMATION
Special Conditions: The applicant has stated for the special condition: "A smaller
buildable area than what is seen on adjacent lots. This approval
allows this home to be built on the same size buildable area as
the home next door".
Hardships: The applicant has stated for a hardship: "The rear lot line being
square to the front yields an impractical buildable area as platted'.
9 Alternatives: None were offered.
•
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Setback Required:
Setback Requested:
A rear setback of 20 feet is required for R-1 Single
Family homes.
A rear setback 19 feet to14 feet 4 inches
Case Overview: This case involves a lot that does not
have the buildable area as the neighboring lots due to
size and shape of the lot. The rear setback line
decreases the buildable area as the neighboring lots.
Thus the applicant is requesting a rear setback
variance 5 feet 8 inches.
Ordinance Intent: Building setback requirements usually allow for some degree of
control over population density, access to light and air, and fire
protection. These standards are typically justified on the basis of
the protection of property values.
Number of Property
Owners Notified: 10
Responses
Received: None at time of the staff report
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Application
Survey
Site Plans
Straw Pole (provided by the applicant)
<~x
O1
W
a
a
S
%
- ~ a
a is ~ R ~ f
1
to ~ y ~ ti ~
v ~ a
U ~ -
m
a '
1 MUIRFIEL VILLAGE C!
V
tIXX
° b a Mp _
FEES p~ c
~ b A r y y O ti t
O
ti
m ~v _ •
Y •
~ S - :•v~ i5 i
/V m = it'
D k S v N b y
s~ 4
~ a 'S° . .r • d ~
^ tx _ ~ ~A~o $ 4 r
Sc w
a $ 12
L~ ,r
o
iL.
O
zt
- b
1 a
y ~ w
4
u
W
4
b
*p, t4
y v
M
W
- Y '
a
1
0
O
a
VW3.0tl O-1
ntf
%00" A
DATE MMMIMM-
4'3 0
0 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT R _ 1 C
APPLICATION PAPPLICATION rnQ,
MXIW*RW SUBMT.x'TAL REQVREMENTS:
Filing Fee of $150.00.
Application completed in full.
Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans. elevation drawings, sign details and
floor lane. The Zo Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials reauired.
APPLICANT/PROJBCT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name ----M t V-6 L-Art,r
Mailing Address
Sign Variance
State A4 Zip code 17 47-- E-Mail Address e- e- I
v Vrt / GK S`f"0tirr • cpti,.
(Phone Number . td `l G - /SDd Pax Number 614 - q 4 1
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name
Mailing Address P-0. q 0 City f~ b 1 ~t'(,~, r
State Zip Code IM7, Mail Address 1 A. YUt. A ✓k l cAt5 . ,
Phonic Number 690--7;-13 Fax Number ~ 7 el'el 1
• T.OrATION OF PROPERTY:
X7.1- 5'-/D A*&ZI 0- c t
(.rot Blocit 157 Subdivision _
Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision
city I
G
Action Requested: (Circle One) Setbac Vacianbe
Parking Variances
Current Zoning of Subject Property
Applicable Ordinance Section
APPOW of Zoning Official's Interpretation
Spcc:ial EAmptiun`
Other
• OWGRAL VARIANOI 190U8ST
0MYKA00 MOWN l e(2
vW.d ✓L V V V.VI V• 11 1 - - P_~R
GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
A V R rt 4.n e.f .,,tP 41 r~ .
This variance is necessary due to the following special conditions:
rfiut nai ntf
I
•~s
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
uwu eel praauttal sittuuiun. nis is because regardless of ownership, the variance will run with the land.
Ea pk-- A creek bisecting a lot. a smaller buildable arcs than is seen on surrounding lots. specimen ones.
We: A cul-de-sac is a standard street layout its College Station. The shape nf standard wl-dn-see: lots are generally not
special conditions.
Hardship Definidon: 'the inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal requir ment& of the
law. The hardship must be a direct result of the special condition.
lgxmple: A hardship of a creek bisecting a lot could be the reduction. of the buildable area on the lot, when compared to
neighboring properties.
eA N VAk. t -ei r'e..
r-e.a a
Ths following altsnesaws to the "gimted variaace are possible:
This varian wIII of be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the allowing facts: 11
etf i5 t~i►hUSc(a f1/ Ver~/ ('~yrtd~~:c Ta YlatA~b~`S.
- " 1 i.~e~.tr a r-e h n r-e:~ r c d t' vn ~n a c i a"f~ a. jP : " e a~J
The applicant h& Prepared this app1kadon and cerAftes
hereto e, eorre and complete.
Signature and Tide
* 06t MAt.VARL94MRSOMST
e7eavnlatee t?/1tY100t
the facts stated herein and erhtbftr attached
~-LfO -03
Date
20(2
The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other tha efmanclal hardship is/am:
Variance Request
Lot 22, Block 15
Pebble Creek, Phase 2A
'PE13SLE
k 'do I
GC
z
Variance Request
Lot 22, Block 15
Pebble Creek, Phase 2A
C(
~154 A
•
LI
t
a Notary Pubic for the State
of Texas, on this day pemonaHy appeared A.P.
Boyd. vice-den
n to `the -of rPs sa fiDce~rm who" nam js # mow subead to /
the fore Instrument and ackno
same was the Oct of the said Pebbles Crook Develooment
CWnPWW /
~°~°,rp°~°tion for th the Pw
that P~ and tconeiderntion thin sine
and in the capacity twain stated.
/
/
o~ ~ HAND AND SEAL OF FILE THM:Iday /
D. 199a
rY for the State of Texas
cgj~p /0 -q,7 A d6 Co
j , A. d6
Oo R,s 49.21
/ by ~ y1
Common Area
40. ~ y
x /
dL
IPO /8
•
.
t
Buildable Length - 88'-6'
1 1
1 1
■ - - - - - - vide Setback ■
1 Front Setback--j
1 I
Lot 25
Buildable Area - 3809 s f. ■
Stonebriar
Urcle
3
c
u
IL
C
i
•
ance Request
22, Block 15
Pebble Creek, Phase 2A
Common Area
Lot 21. Block 15
+ SITE PLAN
MIKE LANE
ead&m aka
DESIGN * BUILD
PA. ■ow "05, COBW.lotion. T.. "so
•
I
stonebriar uunuavic r%r ca - aov-1 MT. ~
~
Circle I
I~--Front setback i
1 51de Setback---~G - _ _ - J
Buildable Length - 88--2-
I ~
I I
~ 1 I
I I ~
I LOt 24
i
1 (Buildable Area - 4062 6.fJ i
i
g I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I i
Common Area
Whance Request
Lot 22, Block 15
Pebble Creek, Phase 2A
SITE PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
a
.
.
a
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MIKE LANE
e4d4m &W44et
DESIGN * BUILD
P.O. Box 9905, College Station, Tax" 77942
Common Area
•
•
Stonebriar
Circle
d~`Olh
eC
von I- I
' i Lot 23 i
I Buildable Area - 8804 s.f. I
I ~
~---Front Setback
I Side SetbackL _ _ _
I Lj
j ~B~ tle Le n- 88' 2`
dance Request
Lot 22, Block 15
Pebble Creek, Phase 2A
SITE PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
.
.
.
MIKE LANE
ead4m MAGI
DESIGN * BUILD
P.O. Box 9905, college ft uon, Tax" 77942
•
ance Request
22, Block 15
Pebble Creek, Phase 2A
SITE PLAN WITH HOUSE
MIKE LANE
ead&m MAGI
DESIGN * BUILD
►.O. Im "03. CenW 9t&dm Tap r/M
Common Area
•
.
s
'ance Request
Lot 22, Block 15
Pebble Creek, Phase 2A
I
I Bulldable
BUILDABLE AREA PLAN
WITH APPROVED VARIANCE
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MIKE LANE
e&10 4w w4em
DESIGN * BUILD
P.O. Box 9905, College RAUM Tex" 77$42
GOmmon Area
u
u:
L'
o'
.
SAN
a.~
.
3 .
Buildable Length - 8.2'-8'
Request BUILVABLE AMMA PLAN
t 22, Block 15 Y41TH APPROVED VARIANCE
Pebble Creek, Phase 2A TO MATCH ADJACENT LOT
MIKE LANE
&WOM &aft
DESIGN * BUILD
1.0. am "a' C" w ffi.tloo, Taw "M
Common Area
•
6
0
o
o
m
c
~ N
O
V D
s
o
~
E
'
42
8.
42
0 CL
m
0)
o
a N
c
t 0
CC
>
N
N
V
n~ E
t0
X E 'O
m
O
E
N
O
t
•
v
CL
c
7
N
~a
E a~
>
> E
m _
o
E-
cu)pc
C
C
t N
c3io
J a
N
N
) N
~s m
r..
2 U
~ O
C
N ~
3 L ~
o y
~O 4),0-
,4)
.
o c
~ E
c
C N
•
C
T
~>a
0
03
E
o.
a
a
C
\
\
a
c
\
a
0
r
~
•
~
1
~
C
~
U
s
ti
Y C
o _
~
W
•
,g
m
m
m
m
W
m
m
m
m
m
a
a~
U
U
CU
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
CU
U
U
~ V O
c
U
W
•c
•c
W
W
•c
W
•c
r
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
•~c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
W
•c
a ffi
E
a
m
c
m
c
m
c
0
m
c
0
I
m
c
0
t
m
c
0
7
m
c
0
i
m
c
m
c
0
m
c
0
m
c
m
c
0
m
c
0
m
c
0
m
c
0
m
c
0
m
c
0
m
c
0
m
c
0
m
c
0
7 m
O
n
M
o
M
n
M
ii
M
o
~
n
~
n
CO
n
M
~n
~
~7pn
M
n
~
in
~
c75
~
~
~
~
1n
tly
iii
Ip
IN '
m
m
>
m
y
m
E
C
c
~
O
W
W
m
~
.O
N
W
m
Qa
3
W
C
W
7
~
O
r
J
o
Y
A
l~Q
YW
c
O
c
e
C
W
f
m
m
m
-
ca
Z
>
W
o
W
_
_
m
w
m
m
a
Q
Q
i
a
0
i
4
OVA
JOHN W. ALLEN, PH.D.
CONSULTING ECONOMIST
44M FA~Y NW T*. 20 4n-31*
PA_ BOX 1475 Fate 20541M133
SUN VALLEY, 10 SM-1471
TELEFAX COVER LETTER
Date: July 18, 2004
To: Mike Lane
Fox No: 979-690-7991
From: John W. Allen
Re: Variance
Number of Pages Tranamitted (Including this Cover Page): 2
It all pages are not received, please contact JOHN at 208422-3135.
Looks okay to us. Good Luck. Jahn
Nob Of OD"rdkodwy
the h9bnwom cadakod M and VansmMbd wNh NO heaimtk k w Mdad1sL B k hAwwW 6* ter ttw tnd[Mduel or
erftdwpnasd-'tells.YouanthenbynetiAedthatavdksemkutto%dhMlluOaL npl +sormorornNanaagm
iwWbrrnatiatoorKdrred Nandaatterotttedwbhthk4cslndla 4 arManpetteotlnrfhanlhendplldaNpnWdabpwt
by tw aattder k anad mbodaedsste/yproN bikdN you hsrs meatwd the bclkftN after, Pkm nodgr JdM W.
Allan by tekphofte 20kf22-a12i hmmodisky. Arty lbcakOb VI R "not §wNmNWd ib Yon shawl be' nrnsdia011y
mbanMd to tw swwW by U.B. NW. or W =Awrh*fi= k pranged by tw sender. wftyad.
Original wiu not rolbw_M_ unless requested.
Original will follow
nu.A .
•
•
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: August 3, 2004
Email: mhitchcock@cstx.gov
APPLICANT: David Watkins of Perkins & Will/CRA
REQUEST: Sign Variances
LOCATION: 1604 Rock Prairie Road (College Station Medical Center)
PURPOSE: For one additional freestanding sign.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Status of Applicant:
Property Owner:
Applicable
Ordinance Section:
Architect
College Station Medical Center
UDO Section 7.41 Sign Standards
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning and Land Use:
Subject Property: C-1 General Commercial developed as a hospital and medical offices
West: R-1 Single Family Residential developed as park and undeveloped R-1
East: C-1 developed as a shopping center and vehicle inspection facility and
undeveloped C-1
South: A-O Agricultural Open developed as a municipal facility and
undeveloped A-O
Frontage: Rock Prairie Road (major arterial) and Birmingham Road (minor
collector)
Access: Via Rock Prairie Road
Via Birmingham has been approved and is being built
Topography & Relatively flat and landscaped. The hospital site is at a greater elevation
Vegetation: than Rock Prairie Road.
Flood Plain: N/A
0 VARIANCE INFORMATION
Background The College Station Medical Center facility began development in
1983. The Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time reflected the sign
regulations of today that each commercial building plot is allowed
• one freestanding sign or any number of low profile signs as long as
they are a minimum of 150 feet apart along the frontage.
In 1986, the ZBA granted the hospital's land a sign variance to allow
three freestanding signs. There is one freestanding sign located at
each entrance from Rock Prairie Road. The applicant is requesting
an additional freestanding sign for a new entrance off of Birmingham
Road.
ANALYSIS
Special Conditions: The special condition stated in the motion for a variance in the
previous ZBA hearing was that "a Conditional Use permit was
granted to construct the hospital facility in this area requiring
directional signs for access to the property".
Hardships: The applicant has stated that a need exists to identify the hospital
entrance along Birmingham for patients seeking medical attention.
Alternatives: The only alternative to a freestanding sign on Birmingham is a
directional traffic control sign. The ordinance allows one per
driveway and they are limited to three square feet in area (50% or
less being copy or logo), four feet in height, and set back four feet
• from the right-of-way.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Intent: To establish clear and unambiguous regulations pertaining to signs in
the City of College Station and to promote an attractive community,
foster traffic safety, and enhance the effective communication and
exchange of ideas and communicate information.
Similar Requests: As previously stated, the subject property was previously granted
variances to place one freestanding sign at each of the three
driveways on Rock Prairie Road.
Number of Property
Owners Notified: 18
Responses Received: None as of date of staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
• 2. Application
3. Sign Proposals
4. Site Plan
COLLEGE STATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO.:
DATE SUBMITTED: Il
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATI
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
Filing Fee of $150.00.
Application completed in full.
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/PROJECTMANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name davlcv Pl KWA A1eV17*VX--
Street Address ~v2Q~ ~✓a~r7! G~,44, XttZrrtLA City A 4,,(,.4
State Zip Code 75j,CY, E-Mail Address.,,.w/,ir &,:fS tV_ wxza, c n
Phone Number "775,'G ZO Fax Number 014 -775 GZO/
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name
Street Address -AdIr dcre' RA W1,4- Z-V City :c"Off_ .5,;47MA/
State Zip Code` E-Mail Address~'/iha~~ ~~a~oDifAGs.crM
Phone Number 9W -9 92W/ Fax Number!77y 10~;- Q
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
Address
Lot -h Block 3 Subdivision ~ZlylyT IM66
Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision
Action Requested: (Circle One) Setback Variance
Parking Variance
Sign ariance
Appeal of Zoning Official's Interpretation
Special Exception
Other
Ourrent Zoning of Subject Property: G~
Applicable Ordinance Section: ~f-Z~70A)
5
1 of 3
•
GENERAL VARIANCE REQUEST
The following speck variation from the
-r-Z&-cµ
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.
Ve unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than financial hardship
is/are:
Hardship Definition: The inability to make reasonable use of the property in accord with the literal
requirements 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 following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
This variance will not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the following facts:
*The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached
hereto are true, correct and complete.
2of3
~?7 D~c1EAsl~rnv~cl9L ~j~~r~/,C~YJ✓C S/G~l A-Lac/C) t~/.t'il/N(f~Jr~ ~C,
T
Signature and Title
•
•
~ .~a 2oay
Date
3 of 3
Z0 ' d 71d101
•
P E R K I N S
& W J L L
• Architeowrs - Intariors • Planning
Perkins & Will CAA
6200 North Central Expressway
Dallas TX 73206 USA
214.775.6200 Fax 214.775.6201
www.pwcra.corn
AUanta - Bwlan • Claeto oWTP • CHOP - tteuew
Las AWee - W&W • Minneapolis- New York
•
Z0'd
July 26, 2004
Attention: Molly Hitcheock
Zoning Board of Adjustmdnt
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842
College Station Madical Center - Signage Variance
PWCRA Project #:142033.00
Dear Molly,
Please find the letter below delineating the hardships faced by the facility in eying to
comply with the latest signage requirements per the Unified Devclopm ent Code.
The hardship the Hospital faces is to clearly identify the entrance along Birmingham
Drive. The campus currently has one sign at each entrance. The facility would like to
stay with the same methodology with one sign per entrance. The new sign along
Birmingbam Drive would match the existing campus signage in size and style to help
define the edge of the hospital campus as well as convey the same level of direction for
those patients seeking medical attention.
Please feel free to call me directly if there arc any concerns or questions regarding this
application.
Sincerely,
PERKWS & WELL I CPA
David Watkins, Architect
Senior Associate
L1; :60 b00Z-9Z--nf
•
•
•
8
ItY
s
s
~ s
e ~
s
g P
S
S
0
s
x
O
G1
0
R'
L
L
IN C'
A
v L
1
oU O
= C~ ~ A N v ~ ~ V V
r
•
•
4F
C ceYe~xrro.✓~,rrvc G♦.w
~t a..J'~Zao4