Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-13 Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting City of La Porte Zoning Board of AdjustmentMeetingAgenda RegularMeeting Notice is hereby given of a of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustmentto be held on March28, 20136:00 , at P.M. at City Hall Council Chambers, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, LaPorte, Texas, regarding the items of business according to the agenda listed below: 1.Call to order 2.Consider approval of January10, 2013, meeting minutes. 3.Consider Appeal of Enforcement Officer’s Decision#13-95000001 for the property located at 500West Main Street, further described as Lots 21-23,Block 56,Town of La Porte, Johnson Hunter Survey, Abstract No.35, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. The applicant appeals enforcementofficer decision to denypermit forObsolescence of Structure, the repaircosts of which exceed 50% of replacement cost of the structure. This appeal is being sought under the terms of Section 106-89 (3) of the City’s Code of Ordinances. A.Staff Presentation B.Proponents C.Opponents D.Proponents Rebuttal 4.Administrative Reports 5.BoardCommentson matters appearing on agendaor inquiry of staff regardingspecific factual information or existing policy 6.Adjourn A quorum of City Council members may be present and participate in discussions during this meeting;however, no action will be taken by Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of La Porte will provide for reasonable accommodations for persons attending public meetings. To better serve attendees,requests should be received 24 hours prior to themeetings. Please contact Patrice Fogarty, City Secretary, at 281.470.5019. CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the March28, 2013, agenda of item to be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustmentwas posted on the City Hall bulletin board on the____day of_________ 2013. Title: ______________________________ ____________________________________________________ Out of consideration for all attendees of the meeting, please turn off all cell phones and pagers, or place on inaudible signal. Thank you for your consideration. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of January 10, 2013 Board Members Present: Chester Pool, Charles Schoppe, T.J. Walker, Rod Rothermel, Lawrence McNeal (Alt 1), and Sherman Moore (Alt 2) Board Members Absent: George Maltsberger (Chairman) City Staff Present: City Planner, Masood Malik; Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askin Office Coordinator, Peggy Lee 1.Call to Order. Vice Chairman Rod Rothermel called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. Consider approval of the November 29, 2012, meeting minutes. Motion by Charles Schoppe to approve the November 29, 2012, meeting minutes. Second by T.J. Walker. Motion carried. Ayes: Chester Pool, Charles Schoppe, T.J. Walker, Rod Rothermel, and Lawrence McNeal (Alt 1) Nays: None 3.A public hearing to consider Variance Request #12-93000009 for the property located at 711 Fairway Drive, further described as Lot 69, Block 2, Lakes at Fa Code No. 620028, M.R.H.C., La Porte, Harris County, Texas. The allow a one-foot encroachment into the rear 15 building setback line, contr provisions of Section 106-333 of the Code of Ordinances. The variance is being sought und the terms of Section 106-192 (b) (2) of the Citys Code of Ordinances. A.Staff Presentation City Planner Masood Malik presented the staff report for Variance Request #12-93000009 and Variance Request #12-93000010 simultaneously as both properties are located within the same block of the Fairmont Greens Subdivision. The applicant, D.R. Horton Homes (Builder) and 92 Fairmont Lakes, Inc. (Owner) seeks a waiver of one-foot from the Citys rear building setback requirement. Public hearing notices were mailed to three property owners within 200 of the subject property. The City received one response in favor of granting the variance. B.Proponents Jeff Hyland, of Pasadena, TX, 77503, was sworn in by Vice Chairman Rothermel. Mr. Hyland, affiliated with D.R. Horton Homes, spoke in favor of the variance. C.Opponents There were no opponents. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of January 10, 2013 Page 2 of 3 D.Proponents Rebuttal There were no rebuttals. Motion by Chester Pool to approve Variance Request #12-93000009, for the property located at 711 Fairway Drive allowing a one-foot (1) encroachment into the rear 15 building setback line. Second by Charles Schoppe. Motion carried. Ayes: Chester Pool, Charles Schoppe, T.J. Walker, Rod Rothermel, and Lawrence McNeal (Alt 1) Nays: None Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read from Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances: Appeals from the Board of Adjustment. 4.A public hearing to consider Variance Request #12-93000010 for the property located at 615 Fairway Drive, further described as Lot 72, Block 2, Lakes at Fairmont Greens, Section 1, Film Code No. 620028, M.R.H.C., La Porte, Harris County, Texas. The applicant seeks a variance to allow a one-foot encroachment into the rear setback line, contrary to the pr 106-333 of the Code of Ordinances. The variance is being sought und 106-192 (b) (2) (b) of the Citys Code of Ordinances. A.Staff Presentation City Planner Masood Malik presented the staff report for Variance Request #12-93000010 and Variance Request #12-93000009 simultaneously as both properties are located within the same block of the Fairmont Greens Subdivision. The applicant, D.R. Horton Homes (Builder) and 92 Fairmont Lakes, Inc. (Owner) seeks a waiver of -foot from the Citys rear building setback requirement. Public hearing notices were mailed to three property owners within 200 of the subject property. The City received one response in favor of granting the variance. B.Proponents Jeff Hyland, of Pasadena, TX, 77503, was sworn in by Vice Chairm affiliated with D.R. Horton Homes, spoke in favor of the varianc C.Opponents There were no opponents. D.Proponents Rebuttal There were no rebuttals. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of January 10, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Motion by Chester Pool to approve Variance Request #12-93000010, for the property located at 615 Fairway Drive allowing a one-foot (1) encroachment into the rear 15 building setback line. Second by T.J. Walker. Motion carried. Ayes: Chester Pool, Charles Schoppe, T.J. Walker, Rod Rothermel, and Lawrence McNeal (Alt 1) Nays: None Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read from Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances: Appeals from the Board of Adjustment. 5.Administrative Reports Mr. Malik reported there will soon be a builder for the vacant 12-lot residential subdivision along S. Broadway. 6. Board comments on matters appearing on agenda or inquiry of staff regarding spe factual information or existing policy. There were no Board comments. 7. Adjourn Vice Chairman Rod Rothermel adjourned the meeting at 6:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peggy Lee Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment Passed and Approved on ___________________________, 2013. George Maltsberger Chairman, Zoning Board of Adjustment Appeal of the Enforcement Officer’s Decision#13-95000001 500 W. Main Street Exhibits: Staff Report Application Appraisal & other documents A.Area Map B.Survey Map C.Section 106-262, Code of Ordinances Staff Report March 28, 2013 Appeal of the Enforcement Officer’s Decision #13-95000001 Requested by :Gilbert Diaz, Property owner Business Name: Formerly Speedy Taco & Kings BBQ Restaurants Requested for :Remodeling of aSubstandard,Obsolete Non-Conforming Structure Location :500 W. Main (Blk. 56; Lots21-23; Town of La Porte) Zoning: Main Street Overlay District(MSO) Land Use Plan: Commercial Background :The subject property is located in the City’s “Old Downtown” area.Most of the structures located on this portion of West Main Street, between North/South Broadway Street and State Highway 146, were typically built without building setbacks from the property lines. Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) records show this building was constructed in 1955 with an overall building area of 1,479 square feeton a land area of 9,125 square feet. The applicant is appealing the Enforcement Officer’s decision to apply Sec. 106-262 Nonconforming Structures Code of Ordinances ona proposed remodelof a substandard structure. Under DIVISION 9 NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES of the Zoning Ordinance, the City has been mandated to review all nonconforming structures, uses, and lots. Section 106-261 states, “the general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment have been directed to take note that nonconformities in the use and development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing, wherever and whenever possible”… As per City’s Code of Ordinances, the property in question currently contains several nonconforming items that include: Side building setback of 10’ adjacent to public right-of-way Rear building setback of 20’ adjacent to alley Substandardand dilapidatedstructure ZBOA 03/28/13 #13-95000001 Page 2of 6 Nonconforming Issues: On pre-existing & non-conforming structure issues, Section 106-262(d) of the City’s Code of Ordinances states: “Obsolescence of Structure”. The right to operate and maintain any non-conforming structure shallterminate and shall cease to exist whenever the non-conforming structure becomes substandard under the codes and ordinances of the City, and the cost of placing such structure in lawful compliance with the applicable ordinances exceeds 50 percent of the replacement cost of such structure, as determined bya licensed appraiser, on the date that the enforcing officer determines that such structure is obsolete or substandard. In addition, the enforcement officer of the City shall notify the owner of such nonconforming structure, as shown on the certified tax rolls of the City, as to the date of termination of the right to operate and maintain such nonconforming structure, and as to the procedure to be followed to bring such structure into compliance with the codes and ordinances of the City. The burden of proof in showing that the structure’s repair cost does not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of such structure rests upon the owner of such structure. Present development regulations require the structure to be built with some building setbacks to allow for traffic visibilityand landscaping. There are several aspects of the existing development that are considered nonconforming when compared to current City’sdevelopment standards. These issues are as follows: Building Setbacks: The City’s Zoning Ordinance stipulates minimum setbacks for a Main Street Overlay Districtas: Front -0’; Rear –20’; Side- 0’; 10’ on Side when a corner lot.Propertysurvey shows anexisting primary structure has no 10’ side setback when adjacent to public right-of- way and accessory structure is encroaching upon the rear setback. Substandard Structure & Notification:In accordance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 106-262(d), a letter dated January 30, 2012, served as a notification that the right to operate and maintain the “substandard non- conforming structure(s) is terminated. An owner or his representative seeking to provide proof that the structure’s repair cost does not exceed 50 percent of the replacementcost of such structure may appeal the enforcement officer’s decision to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. ZBOA 03/28/13 #13-95000001 Page 3of 6 Discussion :It is assumed that the structures along this portion of West Main Street were constructed in accordance with the development standards and ordinances that were in effect at that time. Thereafter, any changes or modifications in City development standards create a situation commonly referred to as “pre- existing, nonconforming”. At this time, the applicant is seeking a permitto remodel a substandard structure.The City has determined that the primary structure is substandard and the cost of bringing it into a lawful compliancewith the City’s Code of Ordinanceswill exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of such structure. The facts and considerations are as follows: 03/08/11 City’s receipt of remodel permit application shows a remodel valuation of $5,000. 03/08/11 Exterior inspection by City staff –preliminary determination of structure obsolescence (per 2011 “Certified” Harris County Appraisal District Improvement Valuation of $41,742) 03/11/11 Set up 03/17/11 meeting with the owner –discussed issues 03/17/11 Met with the owner; questioned remodel valuation and raised structure obsolescence issue; owner agreed to weigh demolition verses cost to have engineer review building. 09/27/11 Survey identifies nonconforming structure locations 09/28/11 Engineering letter estimates repairs to the front of the primary building to be $25,800 plus additional costs. 10/07/11 Owner’s remodel permit application that reflects an estimated $80,000 for remodel valuation. 12/13/11 On-site walk-thru of the building 01/17/12 Report –Restricted Use Appraisal regarding the estimated replacement cost of the primary building between $43,000 and $58,000(see copy attached). 02/15/12 Permit application shows remodel valuation $20,000 03/02/12 Manning Engineering Corp. letter claimsthat the building can be repaired for less than 50% of the HCAD listed appraised value.It further claimsthatfirst letter dated 09/28/11 wasa summary to provide Mr. Diaz a budget number to secure funding and to compare the cost of a first class renovation versus new construction. However, necessary minimum structural repairs can be performed for less than 50% of the appraised value. ZBOA 03/28/13 #13-95000001 Page 4of 6 In addition, the City requested an appraisal for the purpose of estimating its replacement cost. Chris Chuoke of R.C. Chuoke & Associates, Inc., maintains the highest level of credentials the State of Texas offers for certified appraisers. Per appraisal report dated January 17, 2012, the estimated Replacement Cost of the subject property improvements after depreciation estimates was between $43,000 and$58,000. Analysis : In describing the action of appeal, the Code of Ordinances states: In exercising the powers set forth in Section 106-88, the Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the enforcement officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board must find the following in order to grant an appeal. a)That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the interpretation of the enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. Current regulations are written in a clear manner which allows the enforcement officer to understand the intent of City Council as it relates to the nonconforming structure. This regulation has been in effect since the January 26, 1987 adoption of Zoning Ordinance #1501 and the regulation has not been proven to be “unreasonable”. Noreasonable difference exists regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance intent. The renovation/remodeling of existing building clearly is classified as‘Obsolescence of Structure’that should proceed under Sec. 106-262(d). Remedies exist for the property owner therefore the zoning ordinance cannot be construed as unreasonable. b)That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated. Current regulations are written in a clear manner that enables individuals to understand City Council’s intent. This enables Staff to provide the information to others and be consistent in the enforcement of this ZBOA 03/28/13 #13-95000001 Page 5of 6 regulation. This consistency in the enforcement of the regulation ensures no “special privilege” to any one property. The zoning ordinance objective is to eliminate and/or ameliorate nonconformities. Typically, eliminating nonconformities is addressed when property owners decide to develop, renovate or remodeltheir properties. Granting this request would indeed grant a special privilege to this property owner. c)The decision of the Board must be in the best interest of the community and consistent with the spirit and interest of the city’s zoning laws and the comprehensive plan of the city. Staff believes reoccupying an unsafe structurewould conflict with the intent of the regulation and would not be in the best interest of the community or be consistent with the spirit of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. While the property owner has presented anestimated cost to renovate the building, which is allegedto be less than 50% of the appraised value ($41,742 Improvement value per HCAD), the Board may not grant permission to issue a permit for remodeling a nonconforming and obsolescence of structureunless the owner is able to prove that it can reasonably be done for that cost. The general intent and purpose behind the zoning ordinance is to promote public health, safety, and welfare. This is accomplished by providing a safe transportation system, providing sufficient open spaces and landscaped areas, and preventing the overcrowding of land as well as ensuring stable structures. The zoning ordinance clearly provides for these items. Upholding the enforcement officer’s decision in this case would certainly be in the best interest of the community and would be consistent with the spirit and interest of the City’s Code of Ordinances. Conclusion : Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the enforcement officer’s decision iscorrect. Staff recommends that the Board deny this appeal and uphold the ordinance provisions found in Sections 106-261 and 106-262of the City’s Code of Ordinances. ZBOA 03/28/13 #13-95000001 Page 6of 6 Appeals :As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Adjustment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the city may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by V.T.C.A., Local Government Code Section 211.011, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be presented to the court within ten days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment.