Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-1992 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 10, 1992 Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Charles Christensen, Sidney Grant, Willie Walker, Bob Capen, Alternate Board Members Ruben Salinas, James Zoller Members Absent: All Present City Staty Present: Building Official Ervin Griffith, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernay at 7:01 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 22, 1992, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A motion was made by Sidney Grant to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Charles Christensen. All were in favor and the motion passed. III. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE92-006 WHICH IS REQUESTED BY ZION HILL BAPTIST CHURCH, 430 NORTH 6TH STREET. THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUESTED EXCEPTION IS TO WAIVE THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT FOR 48 OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES AND ALWW THE 35 SPACE PARKING WT LOCATED AT THE DEWALT ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL, 601 WEST MADISON, TO SERVE AS REQUIRED PARKING. Ervin Griffith briefed the Board regarding Special Exception Request 92-006. Zion Hill Baptist Church intends to remove their existing church and replace it with a new facility. The church is requesting that on site parking requirements (Zoning Ordinance Section 11-605.2.C) be waived and that a reduced number of parking spaces serving as required parking be allowed. The church has an agreement with the De Walt Alternative School (located across the street) to use their parking lot as off premise parking. The parking Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 10, 1992 Page 2 lot has approximately 35 spaces. The new church will seat a maximum of 150 people as opposed to the 130 persons that can be accommodated at the present building. Notification of the request was mailed to 19 adjacent property owners. Two were returned, both being in favor of the Special Exception Request. Sidney Grant asked how the parking would be handled when the church held special events which might bring in a capacity crowd. Mr. Griffith explained that in addition to the available off street parking available at the school, there is also on street parking which could be used for overflow crowds. Chairman Bernay swore in Charlie T. Perry. Mr. Perry spoke on behalf of Zion Hill Baptist Church reiterating the church's intent to build a new facility. John Armstrong stated that there is a specific joint parking provision noted in the Zoning Ordinance where only 80% of a church's parking needs may be met by a joint parking agreement. Therefore, 20% of the parking must be on site. Mr. Perry stated that it was his understanding that the church's 30 foot setback on the Madison Street side and the 30 foot setback on the 6th Street side could be used for parking. There was some confusion among the Board and staff over what exactly the Board should be acting on. Mr. Griffith explained that the only issue before the Board was a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 48 to 35. Seven parking spaces would have to be located on site. The 20% on site required parking spaces would be dealt with through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council by a Conditional Use Request. No proposed on site parking was indicated on the plans submitted by the church which would seem to be the basis for the confusion on the issue. If the required on site parking can be provided, then the Board would not need to take any action on this item. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 10, 1992 Page 3 Chairman Bemay asked the staff to refund to the church any money spent for this Special Exception Request. Charles Christensen made a motion to table the item. All members were in favor of tabling the request. IV. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION A92-001 WHICH IS REQUESTED BY MR. ROBERT THROWER OF 3425 VALLEY BROOK MR. THROWER IS SEEKING TO WIDEN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY TO 33 FEET. HE IS APPEAliNG THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION THAT DRIVEWAY WIDTH MAY NOT EXCEED 25 FEET. Mr. Griffith informed the Board that the appeal was being made by Bob Thrower of 3425 Valley Brook. Mr. Thrower is adding on to his residence. He enclosed one bay of his triple car garage, added on to the north end of the garage and enlarged his driveway. Mr. Thrower's contractor was notified that the drive was not in conformance, however, there was a lack of communication between Mr. Thrower and his contractor regarding the City Inspector's determination that the driveway enlargement exceeded the maximum allowable width (25 feet) for a residential driveway. In order to bring the drive (which is now 33 feet) back into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, it would be necessary for Mr. Thrower to remove an 8 foot section of the driveway that no longer fronts a garage door. Mr. Griffith stated that staff feels that the enforcement officer has correctly interpreted the Zoning Ordinance requirements pertaining to this matter, therefore, staff feels that this appeal should be denied. Mr. Grant wanted to clarify that the section of the driveway to be removed would be the 8 foot section from the sidewalk to the street which is the old part of the driveway. The new part of the driveway is located on the right side. Mr. Griffith verified the fact that a permit had been issued for the construction of the new part of the driveway. Mr. Grant asked why the inspector, during routine inspection, allowed the construction to continue. Mr. Griffith stated that the contractor was informed that the drive, as was being constructed, was not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 10, 1992 Page 4 After some discussion, Mr. Griffith relayed to the Board the sequence of events leading up to the request for an appeal. Mr. Thrower filed for his own permits. He filed a homestead affidavit, and obtained building, plumbing and electrical permits. He hired a contractor to do the work. The plans were reviewed by the Inspection Division and the contractor was informed that the driveway could not exceed 25 feet in width. The building permit did not specifically denote the 25 foot maximum allowable driveway width. Mr. Griffith stated that there is not room on the permit to specify all of the necessary requirements. Bob Capen stated his dissatisfaction with staff's preparation of both the items that were brought before the Board during the meeting. A recommendation was made by the several Board Members for staff to specify to the applicant in written form, any comments which staff feels could directly impact an enforcement officer's decision. Mr. Grant reminded staff of their responsibility to make citizens aware of Zoning Ordinance requirements and stated that in his opinion he did not feel it would be right to have Mr. Thrower remove the 8 foot section of driveway, since the City did not discharge its responsibility properly by not having the construction ceased at the time the violation was cited. Mr. Griffith stated there were 20 notices mailed to adjacent property owners, 5 were returned in favor of the appeal. Chairman Bernay swore in Robert E. (Bob) Thrower. Mr. Thrower read from a prepared statement. A copy is attached to these minutes. Mr. Thrower stated he had not been informed by his contractor that the driveway was in violation of City Ordinance. Bob Capen made a motion to grant the appeal of the enforcement officer's decision. The motion was seconded by Sidney Grant. All were in favor and the motion passed. Chairman Bernay suspended the agenda to swear in James Zoller as an Alternate Board Member. John Armstrong administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Zoller. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 10, 1992 Page 5 v. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Griffith stated that a letter was sent by the City Attorney's office regarding SE92-004 (presented at the last meeting concerning the garage located on an easement). To date we have received no response and the deadline for an appeal has passed. Regarding SE92-005 (presented at the last meeting concerning the fence located on the bayfront property), the fence has been removed and is now in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Bernay declared the meeting duly adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the day of , 1993. Deborah Bernay, Chairperson Board of Adjustment SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE92-006 Special Exception Request SE92-006 This is an addendum to the Staff Report presented at the December 10, 1992, Board of Adjustment meeting. The original Staff Report and Exhibits are attached for reference. Zion Hill Baptist Church is proposing to demolish their existing sanctuary and replace it with a new building. Under Zoning Ordinance requirements, the new sanctuary, which is to be located on the same property, will require 48 parking spaces. The church has requested a Special Exception to waive on premise, off street parking requirements and allow 35 off premise spaces to serve as required parking. During the course of the December 10, 1992, Board of Adjustment meeting, a question was raised as to whether or not the requested exception was necessary. The Board then tabled this request until questions regarding parking could be resolved. It was mentioned during the meeting that under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 6-600.F, up to 80% of the church's 48 required parking spaces could be provided off site without the need for a special exception. There are 35 spaces in the DeWalt School parking lot. When asked, the church's representative stated that the additional 13 required parking spaces could be provided on premise with the remaining to be located at the DeWalt School. It was at this point that the Board tabled the request. Exhibit A is a plot plan of the Zion Hill property. As noted, the proposed sanctuary is to be set 30 feet from both the North 6th Street and West Madison Street rights-of-way. These setbacks are the areas which the church felt could be used for parking. Thirty feet does not, however, provide adequate depth for parking and on site maneuvering. Zoning Ordinance Section 10-605.3 states "... except in the case of single, two family and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backing into the public street shall be prohibited". This requirement has been instituted in the interest of safety. A parking lot without controlled access could result in several vehicles backing and pulling into a right-of-way simultaneously. This would cause traffic congestion and could result in hazards to both vehicles and pedestrians. Zoning Ordinance regulations have been designed to help avoid this type of problem. Figure 10-1 from the Zoning Ordinance illustrates minimum parking space and maneuvering aisle dimensions (see Exhibit B). Figure 10-2 from the Zoning Ordinance details minimum dimensions for driveways located in Residential Zones (see Exhibit C). This figure also lists minimum driveway setbacks from property lines and public intersections. The only parking arrangement shown on Exhibit B which might allow on site parking and maneuvering is the 450 configuration. However, given driveway setbacks and typical vehicle turning radii, the church would not be able to fit the required 13 spaces on the property. Additionally, the area that would be devoted to parking would substantially reduce the area available for required landscaping. Page 2 of 2 SE92-006 Addendum to Staff Report Given that the new sanctuary is not expected to significantly change the church's present parking needs, staff feels that required landscaping should take precedence over on premise parking. Finally, it should be noted that granting this exception will not preclude all on premise parking. So long as landscaping and parking design requirements are complied with, the church, may, if they choose, still develop a limited number of on premise spaces to serve as handicap or staff parking. Since the required percentage of on premise parking cannot practically be developed, the Special Exception, as originally presented is necessary. Staff recommends that Special Exception SE92-006 be granted as follows: . Required parking for the proposed Zion Hill Baptist Church Sanctuary shall be reduced to 35 spaces. . All required parking may be provided by the DeWalt School parking lot, subject to a formal written joint parking agreement between the church and school district being filed with the City. This agreement shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 6-600F. SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST 92-006 REPORT PRESENTED AT 12-10-92 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Reauested By: Zonin2: Puroose of Reauest: Back2round: ......................................-,.-.................................................................... rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr:~rrrrrrrrfrrrr!/?rrfrrrffr;~;/t ...SiljilliGip~lgglal"!~I.....:::::: .:....l..........:l:.l..:..:::.:l:::..:.:::.::............. :::.:....:..SE~_~............................................... . . . . . . . :: ::;~:;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::;:t:::::::: ;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~:~:::::::::::~:m:~:~:~:~:~~~~~:~~~:~~~~~:~~~:~;~;;~ ;;j;j;;;tj~:[~~[~;~;;;;;;;:;:;:;:::;::~~::~:: Zion Hill Baptist Church; 430 North 6th Street which is further described as Lots 1-4; Block 90; Town of La Porte. (See Exhibit A) R-l, Low Density Residential. Zion Hill Baptist Church is seeking a Special Exception to waive the on site parking requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 10-609 and to allow a reduced number of parking spaces to serve as required parking. This exception has been requested under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 11- 605.2.C. The Zion Hill Baptist Church was established in it's present location in 1903. Due to deterioration of the building, the church has decided to demolish and replace the original sanctuary building. The proposed sanctuary will seat a maximum of 150 people as opposed to the 130 persons that can be accommodated by the present building. Zoning Ordinance Section 10-609 requires a minimum of 48 parking spaces for a church with 150 seats. The church presently has no on-premise parking, but rather makes use of the approximately 35 space parking lot located across the street at the De Walt Alternative School (See Exhibit A). This is done under the terms of a long standing joint parking agreement with the La Porte School District. The church is proposing to maintain this agreement after construction of the new sanctuary and is seeking this Special Exception to allow the 35 spaces in the De Walt lot serve as the required church parking. Zoning Board of Adjustment Special Exception Request SE92-006 Page 2 of 3 It should be noted that given the church's location in an R-1 Zone, a Special Conditional Use Permit must be obtained prior to the construction of the new facility. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must review and consider approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The use of off- premise parking will be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council as part of their review. The sole determination to be made by the Board concerns the number of parking spaces to be required. This determination is a necessary precursor to action on the Special Conditional Use Permit. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 11-605.2.C allows the Board of Adjustment to "waive or reduce off street parking ... requirements when the Board finds the same are necessary for the proposed use of the building or structure ...". The Zion Hill request falls within the guidelines of this section and is therefore, eligible for the Board's consideration. The Ordinance also charges the Board to grant special exceptions only when "such special exception will not adversely affect the value and use of adjacent property or be contrary to the best public interest". As noted, the Zion Hill Church has existed in this location since 1903. The church primarily serves and draws its congregation from the surrounding residential neighborhood. To date, the parking provided at the De Walt school appears to have been adequate to meet the church's needs. When constructed, the new sanctuary will seat approximately 20 more people than the existing church. Any impact on parking resulting from the new building should be minimal. Granting this exception should not have any tangible effect on the value or use of the neighboring properties or be contrary to the best public interest. Zoning Board of Adjustment Special Exception Request SE92-006 Page 3 of 3 Conclusion: Based on the facts of this case, Zion Hill Baptist Church is eligible for the requested exception. Staff, therefore, recommends granting Special Exception SE92-006 as follows: · Required parking for the proposed Zion Hill Baptist Church sanctuary shall be reduced from 48 to 35 spaces. 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, dilly 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. c :=1 ~2 - - 1 - - -- :=::::: - :t: ~\n e.~\-\\B\'t !\. ~~ ~'\i\ L~ rr- SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE93-001 " CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST -------------------------------------------------------------~--_._---- OFFIG.LU$~_QN~J: E~~;_ __J.5_Il..OO ~~i~i~:~;~~e~~' : ~lf!i--- R e c e i p t No.: -'----.!-Ci. (). ') NOT&: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. ----------------------------------------------------------~~---_._~-._---- Applicant: -LlJ.J (( L_.___5TXdYt__._. __ .3!J.Lcj..Q/ltL!2IlI/J7;J -LA! I)~EK M'k7K1ZilJ53?PH: , Address Lj7.~~ 9f/8 9 LfF- 76 ~/-* I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized -___.______._._.__________...__________ to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Name ---~_._--_......_._._._._------_._~----_.__._._._-~._.__. PH: Address I am requesting a Special Exception to Sect. . of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. _ I am r.equesting this Special Exceptiol)., for property located at ~.r;07 t:../l?/l/A.{__. L.dTS ;[- d.. I SIR, /8..'2-.&(-.)/,) CJ,? //J /-ti,k'rr 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 NDT the owner, he m~ provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. , . h- _2- 9-93 /l;!~~ Date Applicant's 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 ( ) De n i e d ( ) 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-conforming use. Additions cannot extend past the lot occupied by the original structure or use. The reconstruction or use cannot prevent the property from returning to a conforming use. (2) Deviation of yard requirements under the following cir- cumstances: (a) ExceptiDns to 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 us~ 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: 7d..& _..&ftfc5/ ::r /-/4yC__(S .~ZP__&f?:.t!!-/A!2{z-/{/~/lc _:57.tjL4~E__.B{{!.?t2L.&~ :5-_7Ji_g~_,_I3t{(/~z__~d--71/ ~s.__ P/?{)PFRTJ: ~L9/Yl IAI ur ;:kaC:~S5 ()~ ;i~~_~!~~G...,__. M_5. htJ;?E~TV!:OIOA(_,L_jj;tJ0! JIIAT_/lLJI2!-T(J!~/l~_,___ J:;fi:~12;~~~;;;;~1tff:::~;c;;t}1f!/!ttc /S Nor /A/TE/?e-STE[) IN '7I/E Pt1~cll/75 6/ Ir 1-1 c- Cfl/t/A/OT /JOf} /!OOI77CJNl1c BW/cO/N65.. PAGE 3 TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: 70 /Ie: Lo.0l___.I2t2/JLT/oAl/li ._,::2721~~G~ gG//L_.o/-1!~s___70_ BE dill! T cJA/___0/:5 #(JPE~/~Lffi~__.lf}d;Z~.:U pc ik'C2lZ~/'7f IJ)//(!ij:L {/d!JEt/E~(JPE;) tUIl5~/}"'/I/jSEf.] ft) 1/ ~-L@Il<---~;L_fkl2.(!IIl.2EL2_ _4!Lz/i_/Lf/T cA/L_t2E-_5J2f!7f: i2.IJY 17(}(}/AJ6__()~( -Ne;- /}E~!I/!(/S-J((/,d&?_J!!&g_~$ar -Ji;GrL_._aE..__T!iL_.Z~d.!A/ 6 _.(///J.A!bE d /917 tJII 1t'1! jJtJL/f.Q.__llt~c~CT 7///5. 7/lE fb~PE<T/V~- iJaYrK /IT N() 7I/Ylr tr./EA/T 1J~J/J 7i j/JIl~/~_(1!;L.1/4{i 10 $EE /ldJdT bErT/dC &~/i/J/#6 Hr/Yl/TS rZLI/~-Ls' ~JH~L__ 7H~ nC,J6iE/J1' :S uEF/-lCF!J. THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: I c~.. ~,i/iY lEilo PAT mc&c.;. 71_/#_ wlj/c# ___ . I . 111/5 -;/~b~E4.?~_._./.) ~uc/lT~j) M?J!6L-a_E~A!EE;Z- MOlY! )/i1!//A/6 !1t:~~'OY/?1E#T /A/ 7///S 4~E/l, 7JjC_~2(!KK{)(//t/;)IA/G_.-Af& ,_~R-m.5 __~_g~ _t<~!__ A._/77{/fRF5_5 .~I)~~ /?Love; J)cEl/&COpmo(/~_ rJE MIS #d~FkTV IU()U{ v /A//I/lAlC'f;C_.~r(!~._._. i1!~c/j~I1&!.c.E-.L.&~-Q,__,_6:/f'~1:~~_._!~'f!__7ZJx_gt/c1!U:~ _b~ 7/lE C/~"v; ~ /3aE/t/F 111A:.~C2~(~!? SF Iltl &r 8E2/ //L/TFRF5T or r//r_./~8c...!.c;+A~Q 1/(/CkEAS'E /Z:I~~t/r elk't/5F dF r/lc::.._ _1J1:),) C2.0J / /L(.G__.~_K~?~Eff~_____.___._____ CED/1-'87 Requested For: Reauested By: Zonin2: Purpose of Reauest: Background: ...,. Bartco Enterprises, Warehousing, 507 East Main which is further described as Lots 2-21; Block 185; Town of La Porte (see Exhibit A). Mr. Mike Stone, property owner General Commercial (GC) To allow expansion of buildings occupied by a nonconforming use, specifically miniwarehouse storage within a General Commercial Zone. This exception is being requested under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 11-605.2a. Bartco Enterprises is a legally established nonconforming use. This business became nonconforming in 1987 with the adoption of Zoning Ordinance 1501. Prior to the adoption of Ordinance 1501, miniwarehouse storage (SIC 4225) was allowed in Commercial Zones. With the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance, this type of business was restricted to the City's industrially zoned districts. The age of the warehouse building is not know by staff but, Exhibit A, which was prepared from a 1980 aerial photograph shows the buildings in question. Houston Lighting & Power utility records indicate an active business account for this location since November, 1984. The age of the buildings and the length of utility service verify that the business was in operation prior to 1987 and is, therefore, a legally established nonconforming use. Mr. Stone, the present owner of this facility, on behalf of a prospective purchaser, is seeking a Special Exception to allow additional miniwarehouse buildings to be constructed on the property. Prior to submitting this application, Mr. Stone had met with staff and been informed that due to current zoning regulations, additional warehouse buildings could not be c9nstructed on this property. This determination was based on the Zoning Ordinance's intent to ultimately see nonconforming properties brought back into compliance with ordinance requirements and comprehensive plan intent. This can be seen in the language of section 11-605.2a which is quoted below. The applicant then inquired regarding the possibility of appeal. This application has been filed as a special exception because there is a specific special exception provision dealing with expansion of buildings occupied by nonconforming uses. It is in essence, however, an appeal of zoning regulations as enforced by staff. The applicant is proposing to locate 11 "prefab storage buildings" on the property. These storage units are to be placed on Lots 6-9; the same lots as the present buildings. The exception is being requested under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 11-605.2a which deals with the expansion of structures occupied by a nonconforming use. Under the requirements of this section, the Board is empowered to grant a Special Exception to: Reconstruct, enlarge or extend a building occupied by a nonconforming use on the lot or tract occupied by such building, provided that the reconstruction, extension, or enlargement does not prevent the return of the property to a conforming use. Section 11-605 also charges the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception only when they find: That such special exception will not adversely affect the value and use of adjacent or neighboring property or be contrary to the best public interest. Analysis: Paragraph 2.a of Section 11-605 has proVISIOns to allow expansion of buildings occupied by nonconforming uses, but only on the "lot or tract occupied by such building(s)". Block 185 was formerly a 'T' block (see Exhibit A). The "north/south" leg of the alley has been closed and abandoned by the City (City Ordinance 1157). Lots 6-21, therefore, comprise a single tract of property. The "east/west" leg of the alley is, however, still open and dedicated. This alley separates lots 2-5 from the remaining property. There are no improvements on these lots except a shell driveway. As a separate tract without "nonconformities", Lots 2-5 are not eligible for consideration as part of this request. Lots 6-21 are the only lots which may be considered. The other major provision of paragraph 2.a regards the eventual "return of the property to a conforming use." Miniwarehouse buildings are rather specialized structures which are not readily adaptable to non-storage business activities. The addition of eleven more storage units on the property will decrease the likelihood of the property being returned to a conforming Commercial use. Another consideration for this tract is availability of utilities, specifically water for fire protection. City Ordinance requires that fire hydrants be located within 300 feet of nomesidential buildings. This measurement is taken along street and driveway lines and is calculated from the hydrant to the farthest point of the building in question. (The existing warehouse buildings predate this requirement.) The closest existing fire hydrant is over 500 feet from the present buildings. The closest water line capable of supplying adequate water to a fire-hydrant is located at the southwestern corner of the Utah/East Main intersection. This is too far away to provide fire protection to the portion of the tract for which the special exception is being requested (see Exhibit A). Even if this request were granted, additional warehouses could not be constructed unless a new water line, with capacity to supply a fire hydrant, was first extended to the tract in question. The final condition the Board is required to consider is impact on the value and use of neighboring property. Exhibit "B" is an excerpt from the City's Zoning Map. The tract in question is zoned General Commercial. The property immediately to the north is zoned R-2, Mid Density Residential. Expanding the nonconforming use at this location could certainly impact the value of surrounding properties. It could also decrease the likelihood of surrounding properties being developed in the manner intended by the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion: '-\ This request does not satisfy the conditions of Zoning Ordinance Section 11-605. Staff, therefore, based on the facts of this case, recommends that Special Exception #SE93-001 be denied.