The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-25-1992 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 25, 1992 Members Present: Deborah Bernay, Charles Christensen, Sidney Grant (alternate), Willie Walker, Steve Hines Members Absent: All Present City StatT Present: Director of Planning Chuck Harrington, Chief Building Official Ervin Griffith, City Inspector Mark Lewis, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee Note: Due to a malfunction with either the cassette tape or the recording equipment, there will be testimony throughout these minutes which could not be transcribed. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Deborah Bernay at 7:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 22, 1992 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. With no corrections or additions necessary, Chairman Bernay declared the minutes approved as presented. At this point, Chairman Bernay suspended the agenda to address Item Numbers V and VI first. V. TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY REGARDING VARIANCE REQUESTV92-001. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7-600, ORDINANCE 1501 IN ORDER TO ALWW CONSTRUCTION OF A 40 FOOT BY 200 FOOT BUILDING ADDITION TO BE LOCATED AT 2221 SENS ROAD Page 3 of 9 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 25, 1992 VI. CONSIDER APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST V92-001 A motion was made by Charles Christensen to approve Variance Request V92-001 and was seconded by Steve Hinds. John Armstrong reminded the Board that it takes a concurring vote of four (4) members of the affirmative to grant the variance. The vote was unanimous and the motion passed. III. TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY REGARDING APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A92-001. APPLICANT IS APPEALING CITY'S DETERMINATION THAT MATLACK, INC. IS OPERATING A TRUCK TERMINAL, WCATED AT 11230 WEST MAIN, WITHIN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 6-401 OF ZONING ORDINANCE 1501. Mr. Harrington briefed the Board regarding the appeal of the enforcement officer's decision #A92-001. The location of the property is 11230 West Main. The appeal is being requested by John B. and Jana Steeland the property owners on behalf of Matlack, Inc. The decision under appeal is the City's determination that Matlack, Inc. is operating a truck terminal in a GC zone in violation of Section 6-401 of Zoning Ordinance 1501 and contrary to the zoning permit #90-058. The property in question is located across from the airport and nearby the Fairmont Park East Subdivision. Matlack, Inc. is a trucking company which occupies the facility located at 11230 West Main Street. On June 20, 1990, Matlack, Inc. was granted a zoning permit #90-058 for 3210 Boyette, a neighboring facility. The zoning permit allows a truck repair service to be operated at this address. The City does not dispute the points presented by the applicants. However, from that point on, there is a considerable amount of dispute between the City's position and that of the applicant. Mr. Harrington referred to an aerial map of the location which was taken in 1986 and at that time there was a trucking terminal operated by another company. That company ceased operation in 1984. The rest of the tract was undeveloped except for a building at the rear of the property which is 3210 Boyette and now operating as a service facility. In November, 1986, Matlack occupied the property at 11230 West Main Street. It is the staffs contention that at that time they occupied the facility but used it as a service facility for their operation. In 1987, the City of La Porte adopted Zoning Ordinance 1501 which restricted trucking terminals to the BI classification and allowed truck servicing businesses as a by-right use in a GC zone, which is Page 4 of 9 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 25, 1992 what the property is. January 13, 1989, the property was purchased by the current owners, John and J ana Steeland and according to what was submitted in the applicant's paperwork the current owners constructed a private road connecting 11230 West Main and 3210 Boyette without a permit. At some point in time a truck and trailer staging area surfaced. In addition, concrete trailer pads were constructed. Matlack also operated a trucking terminal in Channelview, ceased that operation and relocated the terminal to 11230 West Main Street, subsequent to our Zoning Ordinance. June 20, 1990, zoning permit #90-058 was issued to Matlack, Inc. which allowed a truck repair service to operate at 3210 Boyette. During this time, the servicing operation was moved to the rear and the front part of the business became a trucking terminal. June 5, 1991, a Matlack truck hauling Toluene overturned at the driveway entrance on West Main Street. With many questions unanswered regarding the operation and intentions of this facility and based on the information available, staff recommends denial of this request. Chairman Bernay asks the Board for questions. Sidney Grant asks why it took the City so long to discover the activity which was taking place. Mr. Harrington replied, the City relies on citizens acquiring a building permit. In this case, none of the improvements made were done with a building permit. Mr. Harrington admitted lack of enforcement by the City, since the City did not follow-up after the toluene incident. Mark Lewis stated that the zoning issue should be settled before trying to determine what possible violations may exist. Chairman Bernay reminds the Board that the decision before them was to determine whether or not the code enforcement officer was making the right interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance not whether or not this business could be made to conform. A. PROPONENTS Larry Wilson, attorney for the owners addressed the Board ... (tape malfunction)... Mr. Wilson calls Mr. Jeff Phelts as a witness. Chairman Bernay swears in Mr. Phelts. Conversation went as follows: Larry Wilson Did you own the property in question at some point in the past? Yes. When did you buy this property? My daddy bought it years ago and he gave it to me, back in the 70's. What was the very first truckline operation in this facility? Jeff Phelts Larry Wilson Jeff Phelts Larry Wilson Page 5 of 9 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 25, 1992 Jeff Phelts Larry Wilson Jeff Phelts Larry Wilson Jeff Phelts Larry Wilson Jeff Phelts Steve Hinds Jeff Phelts Steve Hinds Jeff Phelts Sidney Grant Jeff Phelts Sidney Grant Jeff Phelts Sidney Grant Jeff Phelts Sidney Grant Jeff Phelts Sidney Grant Jeff Phelts Larry Wilson Jeff Phelts Larry Wilson Jeff Phelts Steve Hinds Jeff Phelts Steve Hinds Jeff Phelts C. Christensen Steve Hinds H.S. Anderson. When did H.S. Anderson use the facility as a truck terminal? About 73, 74, or 75. Was there a later truck terminal there? Right, it was D.P. Bonham. How long was D.P. Bonham there? Approximately 5 years. How long was H.S. Anderson there? Approximately 5 years. Was there a gap between them and D.P. Bonham? 30 days. The first trucking company, what did they haul? Freight, oil Tanker trucks? Yes sir. ... (tape malfunction)... You say you lived there in front of where the terminal was? Right behind it. In your opinion has this thing been in continuous service since the early 70's as a truck repair facility and a terminal? The front part facing Spencer Highway has always been a truck terminal. Since the early 70's? Right. I just want to clarify that Anthony Crane was in there for a 2 year period. Right. Otherwise from the early 70's all the way through the current it has been a truck terminal? That's it. What were the dates of the Anthony Crane? I knew you were going to ask that. D.P. Bonham was there for how long? They started in 1979, if that will help. D.P. Bonham was there 3-4 years. It's very important we know the dates. That would put Anthony Crane coming in around 1981. Page 6 of 9 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 25, 1992 C. Christensen Depending on when the Zoning Ordinance went into effect, if we don't know the dates we can't tell if Anthony Crane was there at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. ... (tape malfunction) ... Mr. Wilson's next witness to call is W.E. Miller. Chairman Bemay swears in Mr. Wilson. Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson Mr. Miller, how are you employed? I am terminal manager for Matlack Truck tines. How long have you been with Matlack? I've been with Matlack approximately 12 years. Were you with Matlack in La Porte December 1, 1986? No sir, I was not. Were you somewhere else with Matlack? Yes sir, I was. Do you know by personal knowledge what Matlack was doing over here at that time? We were opening up a truck terminal. How do you know it was operating as a truck terminal? I was working in Lake Charles, Louisiana and we talked to that terminal asking for trucks for help on different occasions to help haul products. So you're telling the Board that you know as soon as they went in there, they were operating as a full fledge truck terminal? Yes sir. What does a truck terminal do? A truck terminal is a carrier for different businesses to haul their products from one place to another, safely. Approximately, when did you move in there to Matlack? I moved to this location February 1987. At that time you knew it had been operating as a full fledge truck terminal? Yes sir. On about 6-20-90, are you the person who went to City Hall to ask for a zoning permit for a mechanical shop? Yes I was. Why did you ask for this? Page 7 of 9 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 25, 1992 W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry. Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller Larry Wilson W.E. Miller I was instructed by our people because we were wanting to open a mechanical shop. Did you use the location of 3210 Boyette? Yes sir I did. At the time you asked for this permit, were you intending in any way to use the front section, which is 11230 Spencer Highway as a mechanical shop? No sir. What had you been operating there? We had been operating as a truck terminal. Did you continue with that up until this day? Yes sir. Were you surprised when the City came out and asked y'all to shut down? Yes sir I was. Were you the manager of the terminal here at the time Mr. Steeland bought this? Yes sir I was. Did you deal at all with Mr. Phelts as a landlord? I had met Mr. Phelts. At the time, what did you rent from back here? Did you rent this whole building? No sir, we rented the one bay garage. Did you request that Mr. Steeland put this road here? No sir I did not. Do you know why Mr. Steeland put the road in? Because he was having trouble with his trucks coming In loading his diesel parts and having to back out. Where were you fixing trucks? We were doing most of our repair work in Channelview. Mr. Wilson finishes questioning Mr. Miller and the following is a brief summation of conversation that continued. The concrete pads were poured in 1990. Mr. Steeland was responsible for obtaining permits, though none were obtained. The road was constructed prior to the lease being bought from Mr. Phelts. General chemicals are stored on site. Toluene is a general (hazardous) chemical and is not the only hazardous chemical stored on site. Page 8 of 9 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 25, 1992 Matlack makes pick-ups from plants and 95% of the pick-ups are delivered. The remaining 5% sets at the yard for no longer than 24 hours. Spill recovery is available on site. Matlack's trucks are permitted by the Texas Water Commission. The terminal manager is not aware if Matlack meets La Porte's City Ordinance requirements for their truck terminal facilities. The Channelview facility was closed in April of 91 due to a disagreement with the union. The road to the facility is approximately 1/2 block from residential property. Mr. Steeland addressed the Board. Chairman Bemay swears in Mr. Steeland. In December, 1980, he operated Johnny's Diesel Service. Mr. Steeland agrees that this location has always been a truck terminal. It was Mr. Steeland's belief that the contractor he hired to build the road and the contractor he hired to pour the concrete pads was suppose to obtain a permit, however, they did not. The tape messes up. John Armstrong read from Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance which in part refers to non-conforming uses. B. OPPONENTS There were none. IV. CONSIDER APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION A92-001 John Armstrong noted that it seemed that staff was withdrawing their determination that the use was not continuous. He stated that if the Board chooses, they have the authority to rule on the expansion issue but warned that it might not be appropriate in light of the applicant indicating he has not had time to prepare a defense on that issue. He then recommended adjournment of the meeting. Mr. Harrington stated since we're withdrawing our determination of the occupancy, rather than setting it up for a hearing, we would recommend that this business submit site plans, etc. to begin the process just as any other non-conforming business would have to do. Sidney Grant asks Chairman Bemay if this leaves things open for this issue to come back to us. Mr. Harrington answered that we now have on record that this is a non-conforming use, therefore, no vote is needed from the Board. Page 9 of 9 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of June 25, 1992 VII. STAFF REPORTS There were none. VIII. ADJOURN A motion was made by Steve Hinds to adjourn and was seconded by Charles Christensen. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the 27th day of August . 1992. Deborah Bernay, Chairperson Board of Adjustment SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST SE92-002 CITY OF LA PORTE .... ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST ----~-------------------------------------------------------------.----- Appl ica t ion No.: q ~_.= DOL. OFFI~i:___US~_._OJH~J: f_~~;_ _"_,J.?_~. 00 Date Rece i ved: ()"{ -2.'-1 -qz., R ec e i p t No.: ___.9.s=[j-:".)-e, --"- -" N"OT&: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. ----------------------------------------------------------~----_.._------- Applicant: ~~-.h~-mU/'..l/2yL.-"--.-.--------. 9 _J - /" _ ~ N~. _'.6_Q'::(2-LC1/~/J2k:J.L. L v7 Address PH: (/nlJ.2b-S7./Z I am~h~J9~ner f t~he herein describ.ed property. I have authorized ____.__..jJJtAL/L__ UJ..,7>.___.__.jJto ac~n my behalf in this matter. Owner*: ___-.:.\:_.__ __~~fL~~~_ ___~. (\ ~ II J~ '/1 ~me:=):--22.5.-2~-L-":'-" PH: .JLZ.Z.~/ 6/ t-~.Il..V~S1 I am requesting Zoning Ordinance property located a Special Exception to Sect. ItJ -50 I of the City No. 15Q.l. I am requesting this Special Except~on f~r. at 1?:a.6 c-aL1J.aktL L Y) SL>>nwiCI, /3(&/ 1J)07 Address Legal Description (~Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is "attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. .. If applicant is NOT the owner, he m!.:!Jll. provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. ___?- ,9-/ - 9 ~ Date A-~~ Ap lic t Signature ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: PAGE 2 A Special Exception is a deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Before they grant a special exception, The Board of Adjustments must determine that the exception is not contrary to the best public interest and will not adversely affect the value or use of adjoining property. Special exceptions may be granted for the following items only: (1) The reconstruction of or addition to a building occupied by a non-c~nforming use. Additions cannot extend past the lot occupied by the original structure or use. The r-econstruction or use cannot prevent the property from returning to a conforming use. (2) Deviation of yard requirements under the following cir- cumstances: (a) Exceptions ~o front yard requirements if front yard setbacks are not met on abutting pieces of property. (b) Exception to rear yard setbacks if any four (4) lots within a block do not meet setback requirements. {c) Exceptions to yard requirements on corner lots. (d) Exceptions to front yard requirements if existing front yard setbacks on a block are not uniform. (3) Waiving or reduction of off street parking and loading requirements if the Board feels they are unnecessary for the proposed use of a building or piece of property. Please remember it is the Applicant's responsiblity to prove that a Special Exception will meet the above conditions. If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: I) ~PI f!!!.Ce_~AS fiEFJJ (/1 fez !l!1j~ lKL][('ftlTs._fJJJt..CZjJ).~L2~~~_._ ~ J ~_~_-mIJ_ j~flliJJ_ J!-fl3J:t:lL_]/i___ft2l1;ZP~j'iI:lf2___Al~lJ._2:,tjJ) OJ/L Cf Z1??!!!TY t /;JV& {"cx-tD IVLL;-J.B"l.1:11;L..____.-- 3 j 1rf71!l_~j.} ~IIL~:JSSV&> 11iJS?n1--_S1!J.._{J((f/~ftOT.L(c(/l2 1(J~_.l>..r~~!JlZ._k1.J1/7& / /kJ 0 .;rr;e-h lTS_ff cP1...I!IfLfrfvft[_~~_.l{t!11T~_.______________.______ _ ___.__.__..______._____._.__ Lf) /-IOlL~_fJE_Cz~f.~ ~___1}!~.Sl!!l..L./JLA<<---::.fiJJD tr fi-tP(.y~j; /tl.)) __~1!1: V /1'fl:> Fe/JCJ' jJ ~ . .... PAGE 3 TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: /) JiJ23 geVAffI) /JUCIf&J"{jlE) ~ C:lQt25?fJ/ ~ Jg-vrmBS:r-1IIt1-lIJCf Iff /!bitE Ct.-rJJIf /lfl1) fJjllv Ci.:J;JJg re/./<.fF-j-:<)J!t0T CC0-S Ijr ~OCJ-JS-1-tI2._M_!l~7:> _7i!...hJv /(rX:{ 1fT lr;C ->--Jd1tJC!I Ot/56 7J/eJ7 1J}__)/l!!;_IIi-}) :1X.~7.!!!-jJlIJl <-( TO l1JT6"" C /i:142 :eeA/ · CJ/5l0R&) ALSo J:JgiR__.f~e:._.!t/ig~~ 4{j~l_.tlt_.!A;J:JJ!J.!;.r{_.~~~_!:f_~ JS A~vtu~ 2>00. -1T bJj;!1)jlfJ/J F4._:1Jfft p"L/_!lA~_2~.qE_71Itj-m lJoc.-S C()UD__llJX_._~:e_;ji/1L_17I..tr/i.___1drf..J,l-,!C)2fl rGUc~ m C / r /1 J!.f?E7> J' c/lJl2)lEf. WI1 S-O:f;J}.L.i:tY2.ilJl:1>:_~L1l1lJL H!e r~~E_JQ~g- 1/1 1~{2 (d(/0 Jr[:td Olz HL r;q- ~fl ~'Cg- 7lftY #10- /-1m: s..L!~.Jg_fl2_._.f;1J57 Oc /J[cLJJi(: melt- ~A-(,JS /fa 0~D@f1}JJC-1JIr YR~l> /I1J(~ ~/lJo}.J~/}Lq;t)j/1 AS 100/lh .flJ 1lI~ 11r5f.;.. ~lrl\)D AS LIr1e A-~ //00 PH !Jr. JJiZ2m-J.1 )}LtJIJ~ '/lIe ?6J.Jcer J 1 f1 <J 13W"b>o!-1/ L,j/hCl-f CI/{/sg- /-14 ?Jcx::-5 7D JIr:eK. APi) [x:(:Si?JR/B Mi.-; SLetr?, THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: 01JfrJt..__..lJ!.;~1 :OJ SlYr;-,{}!Jid:. 117iJ;1J/)JJ JYl{fr_.!PPZ_._~) rEj/~ 1lI1Jr leYfS J}.JS-mLLf]J_$lP~_r:t C:fT&( tJr iff J>oP6 Al~'/trK8?J _1lIfL_S~/5;:- f.t!Sn)), 5:!).Jcr;- !1Y ~PI i1lJ2_fC?}.J{B_JJ1J2 :f, ElJ1v1 llI&e_r /1 f#.,S; [(.)t)VLO ~_._.,.e68? )1~ r~~_IJL/;(). 1./6JZ..lI8o?:) ~f/i)) hfJ' /fLL j#rl-g- ~~ ~_._~pr Y/f)l)S /JM) /11 rmS7~~ k.~ffl5 1JI8 CI/:1Z~:MlJ : ~ /11 Jo~S _0IJ?e ~f; __f!E(I-_~.._. _.___._.__.___.___.___._____.___._._._._ ____ _'_'___'_'._ _.... _.. __O._._._._O_._._.____..n_.__.___._.____________ .. CED/l-'87 .. .. t ~ ;; " I . ~ ~;~ ~~~~~~~~H~~~~j: 6 F-f<J)/VT' 6-A-TJ! t~ 'j~ ~ "TI~ 1> \,\) \ "' \ I ~,,- ~ ~~ )~ )' ~ ~ -~ U ~ ~ 1- ~ ~ :tl ~ ~\' ..:::Y - 11 ~[' ~~ - - - -- - - - -~=!;I ';,,~ --- ;hflB-t - _.:- ---. .,,- -- - .. ~ ~ -b~ ,- vi ~?J 'V to ~Vj - t: x ct> -- " .... ..... I .;' r; I ,FPlJOS !?)/CLoS:W? If/ffj) o~ 0'1 X/X \ ReQuested For: Zonin~: ReQuested By: Puroose of ReQuest: Bacqround: ~i~~~I[li~liljl~~ill~il $,~9~t;1)~)>> 9626 Carlow Lane which is further described as Lot 310; Block 18; Spenwick Place II. (See Exhibit A) R-l, Low Density Residential Ms. Dana Kay Murphy, resident on behalf of Ms. Shirley Trowbridge, property owner. Special Exception is requested to allow the height of an existing front yard fence to be increased to 6 feet, 9 inches. This request concerns a fence that was either modified or reconstructed without a building permit. The matter was brought to staffs attention by a complaint. Staff has received conflicting information regarding this matter. The information in this report reflects staffs best understanding of the facts. There is an existing chainlink front yard fence located on the applicant's property. The height of this fence is approximately 5 feet, 6 inches. An aerial photograph of the Spenwick area (taken in 1984) indicates that some form of front yard fence has been located on this property for a least 8 years. Sometime before January 31 of this year, the applicants constructed a wooden fence along the west face of their property. It is located immediately adjacent to the original chainlink fence which is still in place. The new fence is between 6 feet, 9 inches and 7 feet in height. In February, 1992, the applicants were given notice (by certified mail) that they were in violation of City Ordinance for failing to obtain a building permit prior to erecting the fence and for erecting a fence that is taller than the 6 feet, 6 inch maximum height allowed by Section 10-503. (See Exhibit B) Page 2 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment SE92-002 After failing to take action to correct the violation, the applicants were issued a municipal court citation. The court arraignment was held on July 15. This request was filed subsequent to the arraignment. Further court action will be based on the outcome of the Special Exception Hearing. Analysis: Section 11-605 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a Special Exception as a specifically enumerated deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The exception requested by the applicants is addressed by Ordinance Section 4-201.2 which states that a non-conforming structure (in this case, the front yard fence) can only be enlarged or extended in accordance with the provisions established for structures in the district which the non-conforming structure is located. This section also requires a Special Exception for the enlargement or extension of a non-conforming structure. The issue in this case is the enlargement (increase in height) of a non-conforming fence. Staff concurs with the applicant that the front yard fence is a legally pre-existing non-conforming structure and has no objection to an increase of fence height of up to 6 feet, 6 inches. To grant an exception for a taller fence would, however, be inappropriate. The maximum height allowed for any residential fence is 6 feet, 6 inches. To allow a taller fence in this case would be to grant a special privilege not available to other residential property owners in the City. Conclusion: The applicant is not eligible for a special exception to allow an increase in fence height in excess of 6 feet, 6 inches as measured from average adjacent ground. Recommendation: Based on the facts presented, staff recommends denial of any Special Exception which would allow a fence height in excess of 6 feet, 6 inches. Page 3 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment SE92-002 Note: 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 of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by Vemon's Texas Codes Annotated, 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 (10) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. 9609 9613 3ELFAST LANE '3 274 275 9621 9625 276 277 2 9630 (S"Re? : 279 EXHIBIT A '" - 9633 6.3 1/ /9722 /5 /4 9~ 350J 25./ -\ CITY OF LA' PORTE PHONE (713) 471-5020 . p, O. Box 1 1 15 . LA PORTE, TEXAS 77572 C I T Y o F LAP 0 R T E, T E X A S ORDINANCE NO. 1501 February 21, 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL #P 688 846 231 Shirley Ann Trowbridge 903 Hal Mc Clain Manvel, Tx 77578 VIOLATION LOCATION: Blk. 18i Lot 310; Spenwick Place, S. 2 (9626 Carlow) Dear Ms. Trowbridge, On the 20th of February, 1992, the Inspection Division of the City of La Porte inspected the above referenced property and found it to be in violation of City Ordinance No. 1501. ZoninG Ordinance No. 1501, Sect. 10-503 - Maximum fence heiqht of side and rear vard fences is six feet-six inches (6'-6" above averaGe adjacent qrade) for wooden fences with a rot board. Said violation can be abated bv obtainina the required fence permit from the City and bv reducinG the overall fence heiGht to the maximum heiGht shown above. As record owner of the property, you are given notice to abate the violation within 15 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to abate this violation within the specified time will result in further action to insure compliance with the City Ordinance. Further action could include formal citation being issued and subsequent prosecution in the MuniCipal Court of the City of La Porte. If you have any concerning this matter, writing to the City of 77572-1115. Thank you. questions or require any information please contact me at (713) 471-5020 or by La Porte, P. O. Box 1115, La Porte, Tx Sincerely, ~~ Inspector ~"H1BtT B .' /dsw VARIANCE REQUEST V92-003 CITY OF LD.. PORT~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTM~NT VARIANCE REQUEST --------------------------------------------A~~l~~~~~~~-~~~~~2-=6tl~-- OFF ICE USE 0 N L Y : Fee: $1 00 . 00 D ate R e c e i v e d : 1 /}o ,112- Receipt No.: tJI.j'CJ'1 NOTE: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I am the LA UAE" L /#.vi~T^/E"-S, Z/Vc:- " Name 7-...5' L) S <!' f..) TI-/ /6 /r';/.s 7/.: pC-;- Address owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. -7kC'~K lV/LL/?..s:, i1GC r9?E.~/L:>E:;yr ~F&:: / .L. *" pCJ;Q T.,L: PH: L/7/- / ? 3/ Applicant: Owner*: Name f? ([) )?C~z::: /-S. /'6 Address PH: l77/-/7J/ I am requesting a variance to Sect. Or d ion a n c e No. 1501. at' :S't) S c) /.,;'_. . Street Address PLA-,y of the City Zoning for property 10 ated cd' _~ Description ()o Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the owner, he on the Owner's behalf. 7- 2<1'-- 1'2- Date ./ Applicant's Signat, ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes (~) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: )j /z.I/q 2- Meeting Date: ~ / -z, ? /17--- ( " Applicant Notified of Date: rlft/erJ- Ye~ Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: PAGE 2 A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ". The City's Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following conditions: 1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest. 2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography con- stitutes the primary exampl~ of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot be granted. 3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 4) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not allow- able. Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a variance will meet the above conditions. If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: nOT ~kij 4TTkCH~ PAGE 3 TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: S- 15 , . c- r kC,K \?- ~Cr C.cVE/2k?E THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: i-E- rr-G i~ A-r'T )tc,r/,G...D CED/1-'87 LaUlel Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 1516. 7805. 16th 51. La Porte, Texas 77571 Phone: (713) 471-1731 Fax: (713) 471-9175 Laurel Industries July 29, 1992 PURPOSE OF VARIANCE REQUEST Laurel Industries business has grown during the nine years of it's existence to become the largest US producer of antimony oxide products. The company continues to grow, and in order to remain a world-wide leader in this business, must expand it's operations to include additional manufacturing, warehousing, and laboratory space to provide value-added services to our customers. Our plan is to construct one building of approximately 11,200 square feet to be used for manufacturing and warehousing; and to construct another building of approximately 3700 square feet to include administrative offices, conference room, and laboratory. The administrative building will improve the appearance of our site by permitting us to remove trailers that are currently being used for offices and lab, and will present a more professional appearance to our customers and to the public. This expansion will also require us to hire additional employees to supplement our existing workforce, and the total expenditure is estimated at $4,000,000. Antimony oxide is a fine white inorganic chemical powder that is mainly used to make plastics fire retardant, and in the man made fiber industry as a catalyst. Both the proposed manufacturing and office building set backs and lot coverage will blend in with the existing buildings on our street. We will have adequate space for parking and truck movement. 100180 \NTER.OFF1CE MEMO - ..,... ..., OATE.~ TO- L-PrUf<{;J- hIP(/$.rfi,I/3~ I//c. ~;hh-l \ I t ~ah~l \ I r \ h7l~ t-- .. J \ \ -- ~\ \ ~ ~Cl~\~. ..-:;. ~ ' ci.'^ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ "- -..! ~ ~ ~ " ~ '-\ "'i l'.(), , ~ * ~ ~ -r ~ <i \ ~ \ ~ i { \ I \ ..... \ ~ \ \ -'l -----------~------- CITY OF LAPORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMENDED VARIANCE REQUEST OWNER: LAUREL INDUSTRIES, INC. This Amended Variance Request is submitted to specifically set out the variances which are requested. We desire to build a manufacturing building costing approximately $200,000.00 and an office building costing approximately $350,000.00. After equipment is added the improvements will total approximately $4,000,000.00 to be added to the tax rolls. 1. We request a variance of the rear set back line on the west side of the proposed manufacturing building (northwest corner of the lot) to allow a building set back line of 5 feet. The building needs to be this size and to push the building forward would defeat the purpose by cutting into the drive way which is necessary for transporting of goods from other ~uildings. 2. We request a variance of the side set back line on the north side of the manufacturing building (northwest corner of the lot) to allow a building set back line of 5 feet. The building needs to be 140 feet long to accomplish its goal. To move the building any farther to the south would place it too close to the high voltage lines which go through the property. 3. We request a variance of the front set back line on the east side of the office building (northeast corner of the lot) to allow a building set back line of 30 feet 6 inches instead of 50. To move the building back farther would require it to be in the current truck turning area which will continue to be utilized with the expansion. 4. We request a variance of the side set back line on the north side of the office building (northeast corner of the lot) to allow a building set back line of 5 feet. To move the building any farther to the south would require it to be in the current truck turning area which will continue to be utilized with the expansion. Upon completion of the office building, we plan to move to portable trailers currently being used from the premises known as the locker and lunch room trailer and the office and labratory trailer. 1 5. We request a variance on the percentage of lot capacity which may be covered by buildings. Our expansion will cover approximately 46% of the lot rather than 30%. There will still be sufficient parking for all vehicles and equipment. Attached hereto is a drawing setting out the proposed expansions and the variance request by number, and letters from our neighboring business showing no opposition to the variances. LAUREL INDUSTRIES, INC. 2 VAt. rA.N C," ~~. 3 tI~~1 A'" e E tJO, Y VAllI_Wt:' YD. 2. -:1 -~, --I: I .s.~" .,-, ~ ,., N -0--- o -~ rt) ..&:_ ?p<o e::- .- Ul ct Iol , -s.. I tlA~/ANte No./~ .~~~~J. Ir-~-._:-' ~ .1 ll~_j 'l i I ~ I! I' ~I ~i '. I ~ II~ I . /"" 3.2153 ACRE TRACT ;; --~1 / J-'<r' L .'Y -~r-<-1=-=- - 11- :1 i Q.,.....c.\ ~~-t. .)., '>f. ~ . ~ ! I ~ --11--- I. L i'l ~ n I.! .: :'~ :t, ... l( t,~ ~ ' ~~; 1 "a~ ~ --:/;---- ~. ~... ~..~ " Ii' fTl l' ,< a..-..,-, ~ I' ~':: ~ ll.; --C ----~.,._.....,,.,..~ PJo-1/. I<,/'((,- L;.t> fl...., Ie$"' ,,' .:.:: '^ '" ~-< \- I -",-- "" S.,<.1T't-I 11."';; ~~ ---- 7-- . ("~.-,.;.r -'!-'-. +=_J L..._ ..s-.."'"?'~t:,.~::? SOUTH --. h..c~eJ.€J> : ~ r i -- ( f I'{(> f~o PCJ.e. Z> 'f:~. !v~ ---r- - ---' I -- I t 'f~C w PPG Industries, Inc. 1901 Avenue H & South 16th Street P.O. Box 995 La Porte, Texas 77572-0995 (713) 471-0943 Harry C. Hank Plant Manager Augusl 13, 1992 Mr. Mark Lewis City of La Porte Subject: J.al.lt"e] 1 ncluI': t.r ios I Expansion plans I have rev!ewed Laurel IndustFies' .plans for expanAion with their rlant Mnnagcr, Jack Phillips. This letter il': lo notify you that 1 have no objeclions to the construction of a new mnnufacturing building and a new office building in the plnnned location. Regards, !faJa-L-. Jake Harris & Sons, Inc. INDUSTRIAL FARRICA TlNG H S. 16TH STREET 77~72 1I0:-.iE (713) 471.0114 p. O. ROX 1117 LA rORn:. n:XAS 77572-1117 August ]2, 1992 Mr. Mark Lewis City of La Porte Subject: Laurel Industries Expansion Plans Arter reviewing Laurel's drawing on the captioned, 1 find no objections to them constructing their proposed manufacturing and office buildings. Jake Harris ?W~ Reauested For: Zonin~: Requested By: Purpose of Request: Bac~ound: 11~~Ii,llill~I~I!I;IIIII' 780 South 16th Street which is further described as portions of Blocks 833 and 860, Town of La Porte and the adjacent portions of the 17th Street and "G" Street rights-of-way. (See Exhibit A) Heavy Industrial (ill) Mr. Jack Phillips, Vice President, Laurel Industries A variance to the setback and lot coverage proVISIOns of the Zoning Ordinance Section 7-600, Table B. The variance is requested to permit construction of two (2) buildings. The first will require variance to the front and side setback requirements. The proposed front setback is 30 feet, 6 inches. The proposed side setback is 5 feet. The second building will require a variance to the side and rear setbacks. Side and rear setbacks of 5 feet are proposed for this structure. The final component of the request deals with lot coverage. A variance to allow 47% lot coverage is requested. (See Exhibit A) Laurel Industries occupies a 3.21 acre tract of property located at 780 South 16th Street. The facility which was originally constructed as part of the adjacent PPG plant, pre-dates the City's Current Zoning Ordinance by several years. Neither the business nor the property are now affiliated with PPG in any way. Laurel Industries manufactures antimony oxide, a chemical additive used in the production of finished plastic products. The production of this material is listed by the Standard Industrial Classification manual as business activity #2821. This is a ''Permitted'' ill use. Laurel Industries' business activities, therefore, conform with City zoning regulations. Laurel Industries, the applicant, is now proposing to expand it's production facilities by construction of an 11,200 square foot building (Building 1) which will be utilized to house process equipment. The company is also proposing to replace two (2) existing "office trailers" with a new 3,075 square foot building (Building 2). This second building will house offices, a laboratory and employee lunch and locker rooms. (See Exhibit B) Page 2 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Variance Request V92-003 Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 7-600, Table B establishes setback and lot coverage requirements for facilities located in ill zones. This table specifies the following building setbacks: Front, 50 feet; Side, 30 feet; Rear, 50 feet. The table also caps lot coverage at a maximum of 30%. It should be noted that lot coverage is essentially based on roofed structure. Driveways and open parking/staging areas are not included in lot coverage calculations. As proposed, Building 1 would require a setback variance of 45 feet at the rear and 25 feet to the side. Front setback is not an issue for this building. Building 2 will require a setback variance of 19 feet, 6 inches and a setback variance of 25 feet to the side. Additionally, the complex if developed as proposed will require lot coverage variance of 17%. Section 11-606 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as "a deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance granted ... when strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship...." This Section of the Ordinance empowers the Board to grant variances subject to the following conditions: I. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. II. That literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and ID. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. The locations of the proposed buildings are based on the need to preserve maneuvering space and loading dock access for heavy trucks. Additionally, there is an electrical easement which extends onto the property and limits possible building locations. Page 3 or 3 ZomngBoardorA~ummem V92-003 Conclusion: Based on the facts presented, staff has no objection to the locations proposed for buildings 1 and 2. Regarding the issue of lot coverage, the applicants have stated their intention to present additional information to the Board during the course of the August 27, meeting. Staff will present a recommendation regarding this request after hearing the applicant's information. A/.55T //~'/C37:- (6h/~yea";> r----------------------l I I I I : PPej ~~6.s I /:~". I I I I hf<$o'T' ~~ ~~ L:l ~ ~ o I T~/c.e;e ~/~ ~I ~ ~ ~..e-e#~ ~ ~ ~ 0 r-... - \ ~.uV~,e/,u4'~ PPc? ~A:V€..s EXHfBIf A VARIANCE REQUEST V92-004 CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE REQUEST ::::::-:::-:::~~----~::~--:~::~::-----------~~~~~~:~~~~:~~~~-;it~-fit-- R e c e i p t No.: 06 q 0 ;.:.. NOTE: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. :: ::::::: ~ -t -;; - -;,: ~~=i:;- &'~Ii- - ~~~~ -~:;it- M:4; - ~~-;~ -~:::.. t> /PO 6L~ 4().-c9'j L.. ~~~ I ~-t(D'D PH: 7/S! gvJ-~fv,l./c..f l,4pv~ ~ 1)( Address 77(/)(,.7 I am the owner of th~ herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Name PH: Address I am requesting a variance to Sect. of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this variance for property loc~ted at Street Address Legal Description ~ Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provo on the Ownelj' sl behalf. g/~/4Z- Da e to act OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes~) .g'/~II~J... . No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: ~/27/q1- r Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: 1/1/'-1/11-- I '-j/L.1' Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: PAGE 2 A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ". The City's Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following conditions: 1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest. 2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography con- stitutes the primary exampl& of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot be granted. 3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 4) No variance that allows a use tha~ is prohibited Mithin the Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not allow- able. Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a variance will meet the above conditions. If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: 67E /Up IZ/?I'?t: I I ~ I, c.~ c.--I ~ rJ)VlJ v' I ~ { ~t, te.-l. (t-( ej tA/r~ ~"f b,~a., k~ 4; ~ c.~//~/-?--Y .~/zph~ ~~ ;z:./~ ~~M~"/~If1'.s '~""'I&S./At ~ Y'v',c..~ h.r ~ I~~~&. 1'ttr-!'(Jo/'4 ~ 2J,~ It. . 11-1- fN"~ ( ~ !('ve I It.t /"r . ~ ~ P6~fc 4 tltI'"~& {S I~ ~ v,, ~ 1kt'4' I (I I- &~v.k -<:- ~e.,..J, c."'"'S e f-.c. ) ..,.,. ./ ..{- / ;:0 v...... J, .z. , ~ /1e !,.JOy-I::. ~ t!"~els. 1:0- I &. Pc"k. -r~( 5 0:::11 "';7c r~./, c::> ,4 ~ /..t.-I- I & "t. I~"""o I ~ +-Lt l."Sll1rs.s ", ",..I-e Co, /-, '% -e....s;. (),;"Ic/ fA (;( I/--c. . C( I~r.>y-.e ~ b~/VI c.e ((C~II &:f-e II alJJ ''''' IuS k-/ltf.,.h ~ <:r? 4 { S PIAl/- A / (0;) ~ -c.-P "~UI ""C' S. ~ ~II, W~IC-~ ~C-l1 ~ ~ II '- I t- 01- ~ "Z~'d C(C.C~I J ~1,..../1t-~1 tJ-~ r..f f: I ReQuested For: Prooerty Zonin2: ReQuested By: Puroose of ReQuest: Background: Analysis: ?1~~~lidlli~l~iliDI~bdl The 200 Block of Highway 146 South which is further described as Lots 5-8; Block 21; Town of La Porte. (See Exhibit A) General Commercial (GC) Mr. Shep Poland on behalf of GTE Mobilenet of South Texas Limited Partnership. A variance to the 45 foot maximum building height requirement of Zoning Ordinance 1501, Section 6-500, Table B. The variance is requested to allow construction of a 150 foot radio telephone relay tower. G.T.E. Mobilenet provides cellular telephone service to La Porte and the Houston Metropolitan Area. This type of phone service is dependent on a network of "cell sites" that are arranged in a grid pattern across the area being serviced. One of the main components of a cell site is an approximately 150 foot tall radio telephone relay tower. (See Exhibit B) G.T.E. feels the level of service provided to La Porte is not adequate. In order to improve the quality and consistency of phone transmission, it will be necessary to locate a cell site in La Porte. Location of a cell site is based on engineering criteria such as topography and location in relation to other existing cell sites. The site in question has been chosen as the best location available in La Porte outside of developed residential neighborhoods. The property on which this facility is to be located is zoned General Commercial. G.T.E.'s type of operation is listed in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual as "Radio Telephone Communications (SIC 4812)". Activities included under SIC 4812 are listed in the Zoning Ordinance as "Permitted" in General Commercial Zones (Section 6-400, Table A). Ordinance Section 6-500, Table B, however, limits structures in GC zones to a maximum height of 45 feet. Page 2 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Variance Request V92-004 As noted in the background section of this report, the antenna, or tower which is necessary for this facility must be approximately 150 feet in height. G.T.E. Mobilenet, the applicant, is requesting a variance to the 45 foot building height restriction in order to permit construction of their facility. Section 11-606, defines a variance as a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance granted... when strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship...." This section empowers the Board of Adjustment to grant variance subject to the following conditions. I. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. II. That literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice,and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and ill. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. In considering this request, it should be noted that Zoning Ordinance Section 10-402 allows height exceptions for similar types of structures; specifically, chimneys, utility towers (such as H.L& P. high line towers), flagpoles and monuments. These height exceptions are allowed so long as the structures are not located in an "airport height restriction zone". Staff has verified that the property in question is not located in such a zone. Page 3 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Variance Request V92-004 Regarding the specific conditions necessary for granting a variance, staff finds the following: I. Granting this variance would improve the quality of a service used by a large number of La Porte, Bayshore area residents and businesses. It should not, therefore, be contrary to the public interest. TI. While property topography and configuration is not at issue in this request, strict enforcement of the Ordinance's building height restrictions would cause a hardship. As noted earlier both the location and height of the tower are based on engineering requirements and not on convenience or the applicant's financial considerations. ill. As the Zoning Ordinance already grants height exceptions for similar types of structures, this request does not appear to be contrary to the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Finally, as noted, the type of facility proposed is permitted in General Commercial zones. The facility will comply with all other applicable ordinance requirements such as setback, lot coverage, landscaping, etc. Conclusion: This request satisfies ordinance prerequisites and is, therefore, eligible to be considered for the requested variance. Recommendation: Based on the facts presented, staff recommends approval of Variance Request V92-004 to allow construction of a radio/telephone tower not to exceed 155 feet in height. NOTE: 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 of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Local Government Code, Section 211.011, dulyl 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 (10) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. I I I r I I I I I I I I I! t I t I I ,I II I l'll II L_____________________~------------------------- I I II I I' I I I I ! f I I II I I II I I I I I I ! I I I 1 " ~ ) ::e -- WEST B I I II I I II I I I I I I I ! dl I I I I I I II I I I I r J JI ! I I I I 1 I r----------------~--------------l f------------ (' -------------______________..J I N I I --------------..-..----i1~-------.1 >- I ~-------:-t-- '~ I .1 r:':,"J'" ' I' --.4.;MI.. -.,. --- I <D I _._--~~-----_._. ~ f I I I I I I I I I I I ~~-----------~--~~ co . I :"j:il:il~ii~'i'~;'"'' :::r a ;:i'I Hi I d "'s I X.,. .I ., 0 ~ H co I.J ~0: T~ nHJ.. ~6-9 -~n"" EXHIBIT A ". t;i~( EXH1Brr ti