Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-1993 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPfEMBER 2, 1993 Members Present: Acting Chairman Sidney Grant, Board Members Charles Christensen, Willie Walker, Bob Capen, Alternate Board Member James Zoller Members Absent: Alternate Board Member Ruben Salinas City StatT Present: Director of Planning Charles Harrington, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Sidney Grant at 7:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1993, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING With no additions or corrections, Sidney Grant declared the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE93-006. THIS REQUEST SEEKS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 6-500 AND THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 10- 609. THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERlY WCATED AT 324 WEST MAIN STREET. Mr. Harrington stated that the applicant, J.J. Meza, intends to demolish an existing building which is located at the corner of 3rd and West Main Streets. The request seeks to allow a new building to be erected with the same zero front and side setbacks, matching those of the existing building. The applicant also seeks to have the off street parking requirements waived. The present building (sometimes referred to as the Sullivan Building) is in poor condition including a cracked foundation slab and serious roof leaks. It is a typical Main Street building that is located on the front and side property lines with no considerable setbacks. The new structure would have the same front and side setbacks. Page 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of September 2, 1993 Staff realizes that in this particular section of town, the buildings are built on the property lines. If setback requirements for this building were enforced, it would appear out of character with the rest of the Main Street area. Staff, in reviewing this request, kept in consideration the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, Visions '89, and the proposed Bayfront Master Plan. In particular, the proposed Bayfront Master Plan places the highest priority on upgrading bayfront access corridors, specifically along West Main and San Jacinto Streets. Staff feels that special consideration should be given to the character and appearance of the building which will replace the old one. Staff met with Mr. Meza and agreed on several conditions that should be included as part of the special exception. In regards to the parking requirements, this area already has a lack of off street parking and Mr. Meza will not be creating a new situation. Based on the facts and considerations of this report, staff finds this request to satisfy Zoning Ordinance guidelines, and therefore, recommends that SE93- 006 be granted subject to the following conditions: · The front setback shall be reduced to zero. · The side setback, adjacent to the North 3rd Street right-of-way, shall be reduced to zero. No portion of the structure shall, however, encroach beyond the property line and onto the public right-of-way. · Off street parking requirements for customer and employees shall be waived. Company vehicles shall be parked on premise. · A rear setback of at least 45 feet shall be maintained. · The rear setback area shall be surfaced in accordance with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 10-605.6 with driveway access being provided from the adjacent alley. There shall be no outside storage. Page 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of September 2, 1993 · The rear parking area shall have a landscape buffer designed in accordance with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 10- 605.11 and located adjacent to the North 3rd Street right-of- way. Design and planting plan for this buffer shall be approved by the Director of Planning. · The new structure proposed for this site shall have a store front facade designed to, as closely as possible, match the facade of the Sullivan Building. Final design approval shall be granted by the Director of Planning. · At least 30 feet of the western face of the proposed building shall be covered with a stucco finish. Final design approval shall be granted by the Director of Planning. · The following language shall be noted on the certified site plan which is to be submitted for this project: As per the terms of Special Exception SE93-006, granted by the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 2, 1993, front and side setbacks have been reduced to zero. Requirements for off street parking of passenger vehicles have been waived. A. PROPONENTS John Armstrong swore in J.J. Meza 10310 Winding Trail, owner and applicant, who spoke in favor of the request. B. OPPONENTS There were none. Ray Blakely was swore in by John Armstrong. Mr. Blakely owns the building (318 & 320 W. Main) next to Mr. Meza. Mr. Blakely is in favor of what Mr. Meza is trying to accomplish. His concern is the closeness of the buildings. He wanted to make sure there was going to be enough access room between the buildings. He was satisfied with the answers he received. A motion was made by Bob Capen to grant approval of #SE93-006 with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Charles Christensen. All were in favor and the motion passed. Page 4 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of September 2, 1993 IV. STAFF REPORTS There were none. v. ADJOURN Sidney Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the 23rd day of Sidney Grant, Acting Chairman Board of Adjustment September . 1993. ApPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A93-001 CITY OF LA PORTE ~\:E\"ED ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT' -t q?/ . OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION PLANNING :~~:::":::":::~~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~~~~i~:~~~~:~~~~1t~~A1~7"" APPEAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant: ~M '~] ~;~ ~.. '_ Rt, ~e. ,\ ~<lJ-oL/7,)5~~ PH: t!c9 - :)q'l-\f-~~~ Address r I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: ~~ 1)",% ~ i~~ ?~ L~~ q <6 N~V\I:\Q\-Q '7'753!L Address Q' PH: Jj--ffi ~ ,-19'7 - ~-Lf (;8 I am appealin& the decision regarding or the interpertation of Sect. ~l'NC~c-~) of the City .Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am making this appeal'in regards to the oroperty located at j(6\ \SY\.-'L(\t\c"-l rut') ~tLJll~ ) \;\~~(~~ \Yt~ ~~Q.Y\u'~ <\h_\J~a('1I. ~ ~ <'~,~ ))l'l'ruLl,l \ Street Address (\\\ _ n . ~ Legal Description G _~~~~;':IFY\;h\) u'''r-) W-c- f n1QU00'1'),\) rv\-~f'I't)Q.l ~1'11r\:P:,L' U ) Site Plan () Minor Develooment 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 provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. ~ - ,'<, \ - q3 Date ,~'\\ l>.h . Q9'J ~ 1'~~J Applican s Signature ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: r1eeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( Denied Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: City of La Porte E.\uhli.\hL'cl 1 rS9 2 August 26, 1993 Mrs. Roy Hicks P. O. Box 988 Crosby, Texas 77532 RE: 3244 Hillsdale Dear Mrs. Hicks, As requested, I have reviewed the City's Zoning Ordinance provisions as they apply to mobile home replacement. The City Attorney's Office has also researched this matter. What we find is as follows. The mobile home, which was located at 3244 Hillsdale was in place prior to the 1983 SpenwickjCollegeviewannexation. Subsequent to annexation, the home was considered a legally established non-conforming structure. Use of the land as a mobile home site was considered a non-conforming use. When the home was removed from the property, sometime early in 1993, the non- conforming use ceased. The City has established February 1993 as the last month during which there was an active water account. Based on your recollection, as relayed to me, the home was removed sometime shortly thereafter. Section 4-202 of City Ordinance 1501 regulates non-conforming uses. The section states that a non-conforming use, when abandoned, cOn not be resumed. It further states that a non-conforming use is considered to be abandoned when "land used for an established non-conforming use ceases to be used for a period of ninety consecutive calendar days." , . . -. -"'\........ , Mrs. Roy Hicks, Page 2 Based on the information available at this time, the City of La Porte has determined that the non-conforming use, (as a mobile home site) at 3244 Hillsdale has been abandoned and cannot be resumed. Appeal of this decision, should you wish to make one, should be addressed to the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment. ;21~ Mark S. Lewis Chief Building Official, City of La Porte ~----------------------- ----.--'--~ _.-----.-~-/~/ N\ ,+1r __-~~-----~. \_ --K'\, L' \\ C ~\I-:", ~U"':/-_/------ ~~ . y! i' '" ~----~ ----------- ~ ' (.__~"--~'~/~~~~ L~ e \v>~~v-------- ( . ,,\\ , ..' C \ " . ~l;c~ '- ' ___-:}0~<;.'0---~- ~_WI'U:; '. 1-Ar' , . ~"c- \ ~ ----- ~F- ~ ---- ' , ,#,t. ,,[ "--<1'" ." ~~~ ~_____________~0'~~~~~~tG '-"']' ~\Js\- -~~~'. ,L-3~L\..-0;~"\l-~ c~~~-~~~' ^ \ " " " - ~ __ .\\ ,~_ (' ,......,'," ~" \', \.'" 'Li \ C'.L".1 IS0J I \rO' lJ.-'//// ~ ~-~~.-,.'-' ;.&--, ..---/ .._~~ ~ ~Q.f;;'iJ,/ ../~' .' .- ./-/~ ,.~_-_///e:>+'\U ~ -' .. ./ .../../-.-'--/ -~-=~~=+~~~'/./~==== '\ /-./// --,----- ~_.----- J\~b~~~:~~~~C=~~~~ ~-..~ \ /U'. ' ' .----- o ~~J'\-J"{[' .J.6-'\--0~"" r\ U . \' ' r- _~____--~ ~'~J ' \ \ · .J)...w..d.-S: . 'N.' (:; "" ~ ~'\ ' _---~ "~' . ' ' " ^, "i ~. \, r' "~F1~, ~" , ," ~ ~- ." , I': ' ,0 ' I ' .. "b' ,- ~' ,,' , \ ' . . " .,' rJ\ ___ '~', \\~ ~~_~~ck0\ " \/~ _===~ ~C~Q\-~V/~' , // ~~ -r- .. .../--~/ -- /_-----/-~//---->/~\\. ~" L · · ~-::~. ' "0 ;:-C:i " ' \, ' ' ",,~'j ~e '- ~S(\)...cv \/.:: ) JG.-o.o.-'-=.,..J/ . \; ~.-' ' /.~~/\-/.--~- _~'--"'-/'/-C.Ci~~~~';J,...<,-~~~4-:-~ / "-'/'--;~L i\9-j'Dd.~l~~--u1C&-'x..~~~\ ~_.RD5'\ '--:-.(1..L_, 6L-', '." fl' '1 \'\') )'1 - d~~----- ~' . n.. ' n" , l,' , /:3, L..'/--' \ . v-Xl ~.v-- ..v' ---- ~----- ~b fX I i'S', d ",1 fn '11 J1<C k~ (j-I 'Q i-V '~ t -- . MQ.l Hho.~ ~ L'E O~'d ~IJLNnf2(J ~Sill...\11 \ ~ e~). " -1 \. A . _n /; (i i, ' r: \ '<0J:io~ t-;u JD~ iJJLLL v--hd \h~ -~ ~ 1cmr~ 4~'r~'~o' !s- 11~ Ltj1JQ . "rle . '.~cu! /(2.;,) .~ 11Xll D'I c _ ~Q; QO~1f QLlW- ,~rnJ, JYn~7~9J-~H(I~~ ,::.jhki~.Q.. 01 '\''('::- <Zh ~~L1m1Li C,ClLQ, &~." .)~lQ~-~~~~~~LL+- f;)r.~tQ\ , . ~l zMMC" ~OL\L~~~ .... . rQ eLf' 0'( I) I )/ ~ k_D]Jc.J~___~ ______________u .jtz.L ,~ 0 ~(:AA~~~ ' _~______ ~-.I---J------ <I< j!, // (~~/ v/)c2!~_CJ{cr~ . r--I ~, ,1:0 Jtk I/!IJ( 6?u?' y;f'fi ? - ~/7~,,) ,/ >l4/<L- 72t["iJ.. / - ?<-Z19 ,- ,,39 /- ~___ _1~gl_illll_lllli . . ............................................ ..... .......................... Reauested For: 3244 Hillsdale which is further described as Lot 4; Block 1; Spenwick Place, Section I. (Exhibit A) Reauested Bv: Mrs. Roy Hicks Subject of Anneal: The applicant is appealing the Building Official's determination that removal of a mobile home from the above described property constituted abandonment of a nonconforming use. Zonin~: R-1, Low Density Residential Bac~ound: A mobile home was located on the lot in question, from the time of the 1983 SpenwickjCollegeview Municipal Utility District annexation, until sometime in or shortly after February, 1993. Exhibit A, which is an excerpt from an aerial photograph taken early in 1984, shows the mobile home located on the lot. The property in question has been part of a R-1, Low Density Residential zone since the time of annexation. Mobile and manufactured homes, by Zoning Ordinance requirement, are not allowed to be located outside of licensed mobile home parks. The use of this property as a mobile home site has therefore, since the time of annexation, been a legally established nonconforming use. After removing the mobile home from this lot, the applicant offered the property for sale. An offer to purchase the property has been made. The sale is contingent on the buyer's ability to place a manufactured home on the property. The buyer contacted the City and based on a provision of state law, requested that he be allowed to place his manufactured home on the lot. This law, in essence, states that one time only a Page 2 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 9/23/93 # A93-001 mobile home, manufactured prior to 1976, may, on the same lot, be replaced by a manufactured home, constructed subsequent to 1976. Mobile homes and manufactured homes are substantially the same type of dwelling. The difference in designation is largely based on the date of manufacture. The prospective buyer was told that due to the fact that the original mobile home had previously been removed from the property, state law was not applicable. Based on this determination, a manufactured home could not be placed on the property. The buyer subsequently provided the City with copies of titles for two (2) homes. One for his manufactured home, the other for a pre-1976 mobile home titled to Mr. and Mrs. Hicks, the applicants. The buyer was again informed that due to the fact that the original mobile home had been previously removed from the property, a manufactured home could not be placed on the property. It was at this point that Mrs. Hicks, the applicant, contacted the City. Mrs. Hicks was informed that two (2) issues are involved. The first issue, which is the only one being considered in this case, is abandonment of the nonconforming use. It is the City's determination that given the time that has passed since the mobile home was removed, the nonconforming use is abandoned and cannot be resumed. The second issue is in regards to state law. In order for this law to apply, a request for replacement must be initiated while the original home is still in place on the property in question. Again, since the original home was previously removed, this law is not applicable. Mrs. Hicks, at this point, expressed her desire to appeal the City's determination. In addition to the zoning issue, a question regarding state law is involved, the matter was referred to the City Attorney's office for review. In a verbal determination, Mr. Armstrong, the Assistant City Attorney indicated the following: Page 3 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 9/'13/93 # A93-001 Analysis: · Based on available facts and informatio~ staffs assessments and determinations are correct. · The issue of abandonment of a nonconforming use is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. An appeal regarding this issue can be made to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. · The jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment extends only to zoning matters. The Board is not empowered to consider any determinations or interpretations regarding state law. Based on Mr. Armstrong's opinio~ the Building Official notified the applicant by letter that a nonconforming use, namely use of the property as a mobile home site, was abandoned and could not be resumed. The is the determination being appealed by the applicant. Zoning Ordinance Section 4-202 regulates the nonconforming use of property. This section states: A nonconforming use, when abandoned, shall not resume. A nonconforming use is abandoned when land used for an established nonconforming use ceases to be used for a period of ninety (90) consecutive calendar days, and it is determined that an intent to abandon the nonconforming use occurred, as evidenced by an overt act or a failure to act on the part of the nonconforming use landowner or his occupant. Whether or not a nonconforming use has been abandoned is a question that shall be determined by the Board of Adjustment. The property owner or his representative seeking to maintain the existing nonconforming use shall have the burden of proving to the Board of Adjustment that the Page 4 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 9/'13/93 #A93-001 use has not been discontinued for a period of ninety (90) consecutive calendar days, and/or that the owner or his representative did not intend to abandon the nonconforming use during the period of cessation of use of the nonconforming use. The City has established the following facts regarding this matter: . The mobile home which was located at 3244 Hillsdale has been removed from the property. . The last active water account at this address was terminated on February 19, 1993. . Houston Lighting & Power Company no longer carries 3244 Hillsdale as an address for electrical service. H.L.& P. was, therefore, unable to establish the date on which the last active service account was terminated. . Mrs. Hicks has been unable to provide the specific date on which the mobile home was removed from the property. Based on the above considerations, the Building Official has determined that the nonconforming use of this property has ceased. Additionally, based on the date of water service termination and the applicant's inability to provide the date on which the home was removed, the Building Official has determined that the nonconforming use has ceased for a period of at least 90 days. The use is, therefore, abandoned. The Board, when considering an appeal, is charged by Section 11-604.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to use the following criteria and only grant an appeal when it is found that all three (3) conditions have been satisfied. Page 5 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 9/23/93 # A93-001 . 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. . That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated. . 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 of La Porte. Regarding the specific intent of the zoning regulations, Ordinance Section 4-200 requires that except as necessary to preserve established property rights, specific nonconforming structures, lots or uses, the "Board [ of Adjustment] is 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. The applicant's property has, since annexation, enjoyed the full protection of the nonconforming use sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Now, however, with the removal of the mobile home, normal R~ 1, Low Density Residential restrictions must be applied to the property. It should be noted that the property in question complies with zoning requirements for single family homesites. There is nothing in the ordinance to prevent a conventional single family home from being developed on the property. Based on these considerations it cannot be construed that the Zoning Ordinance is unreasonable. Regarding the issue of special privilege; the City of La Porte has been very consistent in dealing with the issue of nonconforming mobile homes. The City has strictly observed ordinance requirements which protect the established Page 6 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 9/'13/93 # A93-001 Conclusion: nonconforming status of existing homes. The City has also, through litigation when necessary,. enforced the zoning regulations (as they apply to mobile homes) assigned to a given district. To grant this appeal would vary from this standard and therefore, in effect, grant a special privilege to this property. The third condition requires that the Board's decision must be in the best interest of the City's zoning laws and Comprehensive Plan. Granting this appeal would clearly not be in the best interest of the Zoning Ordinance, nor would it further the Comprehensive Plan goal of re-establishing the Spenwick subdivision as a neighborhood of single family homes. Finally, the matter of state law must be mentioned. The Board of Adjustment is not empowered to make determinations regarding state law. The only issue being brought before the Board is abandonment of a nonconforming use. Based on the information provided, staff finds the following: · The nonconforming use, under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 4-202.4, has been abandoned. · The applicant has not proven that the Building Official's assessment is incorrect. · There is not a reasonable difference of ordinance interpretation involved. · Zoning Ordinance regulations are not unreasonable in regards to this matter. · Granting the appeal would afford a special privilege to this property. · Granting the appeal would not be in the best interest of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 9/23/93 # A93-001 Appeals: Based on the facts and considerations listed above, staff recommends denial of Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Determination # A93-001. As per Section 11-610 of Zoning Ordinance 1501: 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. '.'F I "l if' T :-~,. .-- -, "r"'- T- r ~ r-~ U I "'!II'''TT''ff-''' - i-~ ~ 'r ' ,.., -m"".' Ii ~ ---- ~' ~ ""<\I" I'"' I I · I ' , , "1I ~ r' , III .... ./ ~r):, 'f",,,:;; ~.. ",!:..- ;..-,;;~,. ,("'... /' i' .".' - . .c::.~. .. I'" >t.., ~. ~ "" ~ ~ ~ I t "' """.,.,- ','''.",.:~y--