Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-29-1994 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing• • MINUTES • • MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 29, 1994 Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Sidney Grant, Ruben Salinas; Alternate Board Members Jim Zoller, Russell Ybarra Members Absent: City Staff Present: Chief Building Official Mark Lewis, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee - I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernay at 7:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27 1994, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. With no corrections needed, Chairman Bernay declared the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION SE94-003, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A COIVIlVIERCIAL BUILDING ADDITION WITH A REDUCED FRONT SETBACK. EXCEPTION IS REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 NORTH 18TH STREET. - Mr. Lewis reported Julian Garcia, on behalf of Harborlite Corporation, is requesting a special exception to the front building setback requirements for construction of an addition to an existing commercial building. The property is located at 201 North 18th Street. The facility is a small processing plant that processes perlite. - The applicants propose to construct an approximately 30 foot by 50 foot office addition with a front setback of 4.3 feet. Ordinance requires a front setback of 20 feet in Light Industrial zones. The applicants also propose to install new security fencing and are requesting that this fencing be allowed to maintain the same front setback as the building addition. • • Page 2 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 29, 1994 Mr. Lewis noted staff had reviewed the request and recommended granting the exception subject the following conditions: Building addition shall be located as illustrated on Exhibit A, the site plan attached to this report and identified as the Paving and Drainage Plan for Harborlite Corporation, project 114-94. Minimum front setback for the building addition and security fence shall be 4.3 feet. Under the terms of Development Ordinance 1444, Section 4.10, a Minor Development Site Plan must be submitted for approval by the City of La Porte prior to building permit approval. The terms of this special exception, its identification number (SE94-003) and date of approval shall be noted on the site plan. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in Julian Garcia. Mr. Garcia, who represents Harborlite, discussed his company's plans for updating the facility and assured the Board that the City would be very proud of the building once construction was complete: B. OPPONENTS There were none. A motion was made by Bob Capen to grant Special Exception SE94-003 subject to the following conditions: Building addition shall be located as illustrated on Exhibit A, the site plan attached to this report and identified as the Paving and Drainage Plan for Harborlite Corporation, project 114-94. Minimum front setback for the building addition and security fence shall be 4.3 feet. • Page 3 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 29, 1994 • Under the terms of Development Ordinance 1444, Section 4.10, a Minor Development Site Plan must be submitted for approval by the City of La Porte prior to building permit approval. The terms of this special exception, its identification number (SE94-003) and date of approval shall be noted on the site plan. The motion was seconded by Ruben Salinas. All were in favor and the motion passed. IV. STAFF REPORTS There were none. V. ADJOURN Chairman Bernay declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:20 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the 26th day of January , 1995. Deborah Bernay, Chairman Board of Adjustment • • VARIANCE REQUEST V95-~~1 ,. -. • CITY OF LA cnRTE' ZOPlI~lG~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VART_ANCE REQUEST --------------------------------------------4oolication Alp--- 15 - ~ L~- OFFICE USE OP1LY: fee: 5100.00 Date Received: _ -J.~`^ Receipt No.: O .3 MOTE: This Fee is nlon-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant : ,~az ~l S LD~V S T/eGCC~D/(.~ Name ~~P~~L[)~ /11 ~ Address I am the owner of the herein described property. ~(jLL1~.L'n~uS~GC~'Tlot~ to act on my behalf Owner* : ~~~ e ~ l~~-l~x~~ Name ~. !~ ~ . ()l APL{ l.c )!~i ,~,L')VGIC Address I am requesting a Ordinance No. 1501 a t I Zla ~t`~, variance to Sect. of I am requesting this variance fo P H : `~ ~~'~o~ ~ ~ I have authorized in this matter. PH : ~17~-Z.gj the City Zoning property located 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 r 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 Aut ri at'o to et on the Owner's behalf. /-~~i~ Date Applicant's ignature 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: 1?otice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Ocaner: • • PAGE' 2 A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ". The City's.Board of Adjustments may r~OT 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 example•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 i~nformatior. and exhibits you feel the Board should consider. " FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: . Tizl~ EX iS i r /~ ~i /~~ ~L./~~~1~ ! 5 A2',~ t~ R-i A- ~ ~'c~/~ ~~~~ 1~ ~i~f~ /~ ~~i UGC ~L! _ " i4-ill-~ • • p4GE TYPE OF RF1 TFF gErraG SOUGHT : . to ~~) ,P~`~ ~~ ~~~.~1 ~r~T ~',~r~c~~a~~ THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: ~/~ qa Lo7' GDt/~~~ 1 ~ ~~'iil 1~~~ ~~ ~f ~' i,<«Z~~s' ~u«,o1.y~ s ~ v ~L~or,J ~~ ~ ~ ~ ra rn~-T aYi~ Se~~ y'',9~1/~ ~ ~'7ri f1~t:~J ,~ G2 u /~~~ ~ ~' ~Y~< L'li~' a'~7~c~'S ~~ C`7Z' [5`~~.r~C l~ U /L ~~ .~ G A2S~ ~1.R~ C~,~~2~~ ~ ~ ~s d~ ~ L y7-S ~a~ ~~b ~ Yr~~'~ . CED/1-'p7 • • Requested For: 126 North Virginia, which is further described as Lots 6-13 of Block 186; Bayfront Addition (See Exhibit A) Property Zoning: General Commercial (GC) Requested Bv: Mr. Mark Follis, on behalf of Mr. G~irtis Watkins, property owner. Purpose of Request: The applicant is requesting a variance for the purpose of allowing construction of a 12,000 square foot commercial facility, which in conjunction with an existing building, will cover approximately 51% of the lot in question (See Exhibit B). Background: The tract in question is presently occupied by Beulah's Ceramic Center. The business has operated in this location for several years. The business owners are proposing to demolish all but one of the existing buildings on the site. (Note: Although interconnected and having the appearance of a single structure, the facility is comprised of two separate buildings.) The owners are proposing to construct a new 12,000 square foot building. The new building, in conjunction with the remaining structure is to house the ceramic center. Zoning Ordinance Section 6-500 limits development in General Commercial zones to a maximum lot coverage of 40%. The Zoning Ordinance defines lot coverage as the "area under roof on any given lot" (Section 3-100). This facility, as proposed by the owner, would cover approximately 51% of the lot with roofed structure. The owner is seeking a variance to allow the structure to be constructed as proposed. Analysis: As noted, the owner is requesting a variance to lot coverage requirements. Section 11-606.2 defines a variance as a deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, which is granted by the Board, when strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property on which the variance is granted. • • Page 2 of 6 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 1/26/95 V95-001 The Zoning Ordinance empowers the Board to grant a variance only when it finds all the following conditions have been met: That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 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 That by granting the variance, the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. The Ordinance also states that "the applicant shall have the burden of proving to the Board that the foregoing conditions have been met". The following review of this request will include three components. They are as follows: Reasons for lot coverage limits. Nature and scope of the business proposed for the location in question. Conditions for variance approval as they apply to this request. Lot Coverage: The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted for the purpose of providing long term goals and guidelines for development in a manner that will best serve the needs and interests of La Porte. The plan was developed over the course of several years. Development and adoption were done publicly in a manner that actively sought questions and comments. The documents that resulted from this process can be viewed as blueprints and tools for serving the best public interest of the City and citizens of La, Porte. A specific goal of the Comprehensive Plan is the "Fostering of Attractive and Convenient Development" (Vol. II, pp 2-13). • • Page 3 of 6 Zoning Boazd of Adjustment Staff Report of 1/26/95 V95-001 The Plan states that adequate regulations and standards are "important in guiding the development of commercial and industrial areas. They provide assurance of adequate access and the interrelationship of service and utility facilities" (Vol. II Comprehensive Plan). The City's Zoning Ordinance is an element of the Comprehensive Plan. It is, more specifically, a tool for the "nuts and bolts" implementation of Comprehensive Plan goals. The Zoning Ordinance does this by means of specific development and performance standards that assure: adequate space for light, air, and privacy will be provided and that density of development in [a given] area will be held at a level which can be properly served by municipal facilities and services. It also prescribes that adequate off-street parking space is provided for each type of use to prevent congestion in the streets. (Volume II, Comprehensive Plan) The 40% General Commercial lot coverage requirement of the Zoning Ordinance is one of the specific tools for implementing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Scope of Business: Beulah's Ceramics is a multi-use facility. There are three main components to its business operations. They are: Retail of greenware, finished ceramics and supplies. Class instruction Manufacture of greenware for retail and wholesale. Taken by itself, the manufacture and wholesale of greenware (SIC 3269) is an Industrial business activity. However, in conjunction with the retail sales and class instruction components of the overall business, the SIC number would be 5945. This SIC listing, which includes hobby and craft stores is Permitted in GC zones. Best Public Interest: Regarding the best public interest, staff would again assert that the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte is the best guide for determining • • Page 4 of 6 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 1/26/95 V95-001 the best long term interests of the City. As such, they should be upheld unless it can be shown that an unnecessary hardship, as specifically defined by the Zoning Ordinance, would result. As will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs, this is not the case in regards to this request. In regards to the applicant's statement that the existing buildings have "covered 60% of four lots for 50 years", staff would note the following: The existing buildings are nonconforming structures. As illustrated on Exhibit A, they are nonconforming due to setback. Until Lots 10-13 were purchased by the owner, they were also nonconforming due to setback. As legally established nonconforming structures, they are protected by the Ordinance and the owner has the right to perform repair and maintenance as necessary to maintain the facility in good condition. However, removal of the existing structures removes the right of continued nonconformity. The Zoning Ordinance includes a section that speaks to this directly. Section 4-200 charges "the general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board [of Adjustment]...to take note that nonconformities in the use and development of land are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing wherever and whenever possible..." In the absence of hardship, as defined by Ordinance, allowing one nonconforming structure to be removed only to be replaced by another would be contrary to the specific intent of the Zoning Ordinance. It would be contrary to the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, contrary to the best public interest. Unnecessary Hardship: The next issue to consider is that of hardship. Under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, a hardship must be a result of unusual property conditions. These are conditions such as narrowness, shallowness, or unusual topography. If any of these conditions exists to a degree that they could prevent an otherwise usable piece of land from being developed in conformance with ordinance guidelines, they could constitute a hardship as defined by the ordinance. The Ordinance further states that hardship must be a result of property conditions and not a matter of convenience, financial consideration, or the property owner's own actions. This property is 125 feet deep, 209 feet wide and is comprised of a total of • • Page 5 of 6 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 1/26/95 V95-001 26,125 squaze feet.- It is rectangular in shape and level with no unusual topographic features. Based on General Commercial lot coverage limits, there is room on the property to accommodate a 10,450 squaze foot building footprint. Maximum building height in General Commercial zones is 45 feet. There is (subject to provision of adequate parking) no obstacle to development of a multi-story structure. Based on these considerations, there is no apparent unnecessary hardship to justify this variance. Spirit of the Ordinance: As discussed in preceding paragraphs, granting this variance would compromise Ordinance performance standards. There is no appazent unnecessary hardship as defined by Ordinance associated with this case. Allowing construction of a new nonconforming structure would be directly contrary to the intent of Ordinance Section 4-200. Based on these considerations, granting this variance would be contrary to the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Conclusion: Granting this variance would constitute a significant compromise of Ordinance lot coverage lints. • These limits were established as the regulatory means for implementing the goals of ~ the Comprehensive Plan. • The goals of the Comprehensive Plan are intended- to protect and enhance the best public interest of the City of La Porte. • There are no property conditions creating an unnecessary hazdship. • Allowing, in the absence of an unnecessary hazdship, construction of anew nonconforming structure is directly contrary to the intent of Section 4-200, which calls for nonconforming uses and structures to be avoided. • Granting this variance would, therefore, not uphold the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance Section 11-606 empowers the Boazd to grant a variance only when it finds that all of the following conditions have been satisfied: There is an unnecessary hazdship. • • Page 6 of 6 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 1/26/95 V95-001 The best public interest is protected. The spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance is upheld. J Variance Request V95-001 does not satisfy these conditions. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of this request. Aupeals: 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, 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.