HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-1997 Public Hearing and Special Called MeetingMINUTES
mmvUrEs •
NING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
January 9, 1997
Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Sidney Grant,
Willie Walker, Bob Capen, John Willis, Ruben Salinas
Members Absent: Jim Zoller
City Staff Present: Director of Planning Guy Rankin, Chief Building Official Art
Flores, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning
Secretary Peggy Lee
Note: Recording equipment in Council Chambers was not working. No audio is available.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernay at 7:03 PM.
H. APPROVE MQNUTES OF THE DECEMBER 5, 19969 MEETING.
A motion was made by Bob Capen to approve the minutes with the correction that
Mr. Zoller did not attend the meeting. The motion was seconded by John Willis. All
were in favor and the motion passed.
III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A97-
001 TO DENY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONVERTING A SMALL
ENGINE REPAIR BUSINESS TO A BEAUTY SALON IN A HIGH DENSITY
(R-3) RESIDENTIAL ZONE. PROPERTY IS KNOWN AS 2757 OLD
HIGHWAY 146 (SO. BROADWAY).
Mr. Rankin reviewed staffs report for #A97-001. The applicants/property owners,
Bill and Dorothy Stevens, are appealing the decision of the Enforcement Officer to
deny a building permit for converting a small engine repair business to a beauty salon
in a High Density (R-3) zone. Section 4-202 of the Zoning Ordinance does not allow
changing a non -conforming use to a use that does not conform to regulations for that
zone. The property in question is located at 2757 Old Highway 146 (So. Broadway).
Staff felt that the proposed use is less intense than the use that currently exists,
therefore, supported the Appeal for purposes of ameliorating the adverse impact of the
property on the surrounding properties. There were, however, several conditions
staff felt should be included with Board approval.
Page 2 of 4
. Zoning Board of Adjustment •
Minutes of January 9, 1997
Mr. Rankin reviewed with everyone, a proposal by the "Old Hwy. 146" Committee
regarding entrance drive configuration. The Committee suggested there be two
entrance drives on South Broadway and no entrance on Crescentview Drive.
Mr. Capen noted there are two buildings located on the property. He was told that
the Appeal does not include the larger of the two buildings. Mr. Capen also asked if
there were any requirements addressing the appearance of the building, or do the
requirements pertain only to landscaping. Mr. Rankin's response was that the
applicants have stated that they plan to paint the building.
A. PROPONENTS
Chairman Bernay swore in Dorothy Stevens, the applicant, who resides
at 302 Fairfield. Ms. Stevens informed the Board that she and her
husband intend to convert the small engine repair shop to a beauty
shop. She stated she would continue working with the City to conform
as closely as possible with regulations.
Chairman Bernay swore in Bill Stevens, the applicant, who also resides
at 302 Fairfield. Mr. Stevens told the Board that he is trying to
improve the property. He stated the community has considered the
building an eyesore. He purchased the property because of his lifelong
.goal to own his own business. Mr. Stevens explained he originally
attempted to have the property rezoned as commercial. This created a
great deal of controversy and created emotional problems within his
family. He explained the City offered him the option of an Appeal.
Mr. Stevens said he would prefer there not be an entrance on
Crescentview Drive. He also submitted a drawing of the type of
fencing he is proposing. He chose wrought iron fencing because it is
durable, strong, and attractive. Landscaping will be added along the
fence and the building will be painted. Mr. Stevens stated that other
citizens have requested he construct a wooden fence and paint the
building gray, similar to Pelican Bay. Mr. Stevens, however, does not
want to paint the building gray, and he prefers wrought iron fencing.
Chairman Bernay swore in Rand Valentin. Mr. Valentin is in favor of
the Appeal being granted only if the Board approves the Appeal with
conditions. Mr. Valentin stated that he had voiced opposition to the
rezoning issue and was happy when the Stevens withdrew their request.
Mr. Valentin suggested there be two entrances on Old Hwy. 146 and
no entrance on Crescentview. He also suggested the parking space
angles be reversed from what the applicant is proposing. He proposed
shadow box fencing but is not opposed to wrought iron, approximately
4 feet in height. In addition to staff s recommended conditions, he
suggested that the paint color blend with neighboring properties.
Page 3 of 4
Zoning Board of Adjustment 0
Minutes of January 9, 1997
•
Mr. Rankin suggested that if the Appeal were granted, the fencing and
landscaping should be established immediately. Mr. Grant and Mr.
Capen both agreed that a reasonable amount of time should be given to
establish and ensure the growth of the landscaping.
B. OPPONENTS
Chairman Bernay swore in Spero Pomonis, former President of Bay
Colony Property Owner's Association. Mr. Pomonis stated that at the
time of annexation, the question of what would happen when businesses
along Old Hwy. 146 closed, was asked. They were told that if they
closed, they must remain closed. Mr. Armstrong added that if an
abandonment was thought to have occurred, the Zoning Board can hear
cases to determine whether or not an abandonment actually occurred.
Mr. Pomonis added that no property owners were at the Public
Hearings to oppose the zoning as residential. Mr. Pomonis does not
want a business located in a residential zone. He explained he was
very embarrassed to come forward to speak in opposition of a neighbor
and personally blames the City for placing him in that position.
A motion was made by Sidney Grant to grant Appeal #A97-001 with
the following conditions:
1. Landscaping (6 %) shall be provided at the site and
maintained in the future. Two (2) years shall be
permitted to allow maximum growth of the landscaping.
The landscape plan shall be approved by the Director of
Planning.
2. Two (2) entrance drives shall be constructed in front of
the proposed beauty salon on Old Hwy. 146, the first
being a 25' wide drive at 25' from the intersection. The
existing northernmost drive may remain at its present
width of 23'. The 12' entrance drive on Crescentview
that was initially proposed, shall be deleted and replaced
with wrought iron fencing and landscaping.
3. Existing parking shall be changed to a dust free material
within six (6) months.
4. The parking configuration shall be as depicted on Exhibit
A (see attached).
5. The new parking area shall be striped to comply with
current parking requirements.
6. A four foot (4) wrought iron fence shall be constructed
along the west and south sides of the property.
Page 4 of 4
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of January 9, 1997
•
7. Construct and repair the wooden fence located along the
east and south property lines to buffer the business from
the adjacent residential area.
The motion was seconded by Bob Capen. All were in favor and the
motion passed.
IV. STAFF REPORTS
There were none.
V. ADJOURN
With no other business to come before the Board, Chairman Bernay declared the
meeting duly adjourned at 9:15 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
—ae"r� �
Peggy
Secretary, Board of Adjustment
Minutes approved on the 18th day of February , 1997.
v y;—
Board
xii
01F PROPOSED FMCM
® PROPOSED UWDSCAPING WOODS ON THE BAY SEC. 2
(Deun
02 cm wow
03 "Am am=
® tAim ww.
Omcm
A) CpISIm=m
&) FeM
CRESCENTVIEW
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT
#SE 97-001
• CITY OF LA PORTE0
RECEIVE®
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN! EC ! 1 NS
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST- _
Itl
------------------------------------------------------- - - ---
Application No.: ! 0
OFFICE_USE_ONLY: Fee._; ,$50.00 Date Received: g
-- Receipt No.. _ sin -
NOT
E: This Fee is Non -Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision.
---------------------------L-�------------------------------------•---------
Applicant: C�W�'rG_t�!�'�
Name 7
S02a 14..P_Q4- U 490M P H : In
Address
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. '-�2_ of the City
Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this Special Exception for
property located at •_� �' ._._.____- _�� l 1Z 2 I' ka A of U CH
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 a jt pr vide Aut orization to act
on the Owner's behalf.
Date Applic '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 ( ) 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 -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) Exceptions 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 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:
- --- SSA }�tTtt-�M------------- -----
PAGE 3
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST:
CED/1-'87
ATTACHMENT TO SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST
January 30, 1997,
We have visited with the City of LaPorte staff regarding a proposed parking lot expansion
to the Southwestern Bell facility located at 502 W. Polk and discussed the following:
• The facility is located in a R-1 zone and therefore is considered a non -conforming use.
• Section 11-605 of the -LaPorte zoning ordinance 1501 allows the Zoning Board of
Adjustments to grant special exceptions to non -conforming uses for a "deviation from
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance... and then only when the Board finds that
such special exceptions will not adversely affect the value and use of adjacent or
neighboring property or be contrary to the best public interest."
After reviewing the ordinance and discussing options with staff, we are submitting a
request for special exception. We believe that an expansion of the parking lot, while not
specifically listed in Section 11-605, is less intrusive than a building expansion or
reconstruction as described in paragraph "a" of Section 11-605. We also maintain that the
other provisions regarding Special Exceptions are either not applicable or can easily be
met.
The reason for this request is due to the need of additional parking area for employees.
The LaPorte/Bayshore area growth has created a need to bring additional technical
employees to this area to install and maintain service for telephone customers. Impact to
the area will be nearly transparent, since the employees will be driving to this location and
working in the field most of the day. The existing parking lot is not large enough to
accommodate these additional 26 company and personal vehicles. We feel that the
parking lot expansion is necessary to provide safe parking for our employees and reduce
the need for off-street parking. In addition to our proposed parking lot, the other
alternative would be street parking which would be in violation of Section 10 of the
Zoning Ordinance 1501.
Southwestern Bell will be willing to provide landscaping around the property to enhance
the overall look of the lot as well as install privacy fencing if the board or city sees a need.
4F
Requested For: 502 W. Polk which is further described by the Harris County
Appraisal District as Lots 17-32; Block 65; Town of La Porte.
Requested .y Southwestern Bell Telephone, property owner.
Zonis : Low Density Residential (R-1)
Purpose of Request: To allow expansion, within the lot of record, of a parking lot with
a covered area.
Ba und: According to the City's current zoning map, which was approved
on January 26, 1987 and later replaced by the map dated
September 25, 1989, the property is currently zoned R-1. (See
Exhibit A) Based on the map the current property use is
considered "non -conforming". The proposed expansion of the
parking lot could mean an enlargement of the non -conforming use,
but would not be an enlargement to the existing structure. The
proposed expansion of the parking lot would be totally confined
within Southwestern Bell's current lot of record, as defined in
Sect. 4-300 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is requesting an exception to allow the expansion of
the parking lot with a 250' square foot covered area and does not
include the construction of a new building nor the addition to the
existing office building. The exception is being requested under
the terms of Zoning Ordinance Section 11-605, which allows
deviations to yard requirements in the following circumstances.
• To reconstruct, enlarge or extend a building
occupied by a non -conforming 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.
Bd. of Adjustment (2/18/97)
NYSE 97-001
Page 2 of 4
While the above noted language does not specifically apply to
expansion of a parking lot, Staff believes that this situation is
within the spirit of Sect. 11-605 et seq of the Zoning Ordinance.
(See Exhibit B). The City Attorney has concurred with their
belief.
Analysis: The Zoning Ordinance defines a special exception as a specified
enumerated deviation from Zoning Ordinance requirements. The
Board is empowered to grant a special exception when it finds the
following:
• Granting the exception will not adversely affect the
value, or use of neighboring property.
• Granting the exception will not be contrary to the
best public interest.
Regarding this request, the relief being sought is covered by the
terms of the Special Exception Section.
• The proposed parking lot expansion is
approximately 130' X 116' in size.
• The proposed covered area will be 10' X 25' in
size. This will be located within the area of the
existing parking lot.
Based on these factors, staff believes the request is eligible to be
considered for the exception. The issues to consider are impact on
neighboring property and the best public interest. The proposed
parking lot layout shows approximately a six foot (6) side setback
along the North 4th Street right-of-way line which would allow for
landscaping. While the interior side setback along the alley right-
of-way matches up with the existing building and parking lot.
That setback is approximately two feet (2'). The proposed covered
area is shown to have a side setback along the alley right-of-way
of approximately four feet (4'). The property owner is not
proposing to alter the two existing driveways nor do they plan to
add a driveway. No change in the pattern of traffic entry and exit
will occur as a result of this parking lot expansion. (See Exhibit C)
Bd. of Adjustment (2/18197)
#SE 97-001
Page 3 of 4
The current parking lot has twenty-five (25) spaces. The proposed
dust -free parking lot would involve the addition as well as
relocation of parking spaces. The proposed parking lot would be
comprised of fifty-eight (58) standard size spaces and three (3)
accessibility sized spaces. The zoning ordinance requires a
minimum of forty (40) spaces for the building (9,313 sq. ft.) and
number of employees at this site. The owner has indicated that the
La Porte/Bayshore area growth has created a need to bring
additional technical employees to this area to install and maintain
service for telephone customers. The lack of adequate on -site
parking would result in the additional employees parking along
street right-of-ways. Whenever possible, the City discourages off-
street parking since the maneuvering and parking creates traffic
problems.
Based on these considerations, it does not appear that granting the
requested special exception on the parking lot and covered area
would adversely impact the adjacent rights -of -way or adjacent
properties. The expansion of a parking lot for a non -conforming
use would be less intrusive on the surrounding neighborhood than
the expansion or addition of a building. Also, the parking lot
expansion would not prevent the return of the property to a
conforming use at a later date. On -site parking would provide for
a safer traffic flow in the neighborhood. Also, the applicant is
willing to provide landscaping and screening. Therefore, it does
not appear that granting this exception would be contrary to the
best public interest.
Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted above, Staff supports
the request to grant Special Exception SE#97-001. However, to
accomplish this objective, Staff would suggest site specific
conditions be maintained. Those conditions are:
1) Landscaping (6%) should be provided at the site
and maintained in the future. Landscape plan is
subject to approval by the Director of Planning.
2) Parking lot screening in accordance with Zoning
Ord. #1501, Sect. 6-600. Screening Plan is subject
to approval by the Director of Planning.
•
Bd. of Adjustment (2/18/97)
SSE 97-001
Page 4 of 4
3) Staff would also recommend that the terms of this
Special Exception be noted on the minor
development site plan that must be submitted for
this project.
Appeals: 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 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.
TWIN
L! '
[� [ >_
L� .
L� ! �
■a I e ■■Fs
l=� 1.:�
L! Lli
c' ■ : >s
Lti ■ ��
■� '
I ■ F�
� o_ �� =
e
!-ate
F[-�
L>• !.t!
Cf ■r .!i
uf>♦ ■'Ff_
C1i F.<!
Li ■:� ,
nay
■
■
u!0 >a�
l� ■
!J• �, .J•
up -�
Ll>D ■ �.Lit
■�■
=
sm
r t>_ . •>s
■� ..>_
r l>_ V'
r>- L'a
r.l� a
C=-=
{_>• C la>i
f� !
_ 1
- ■ rye
■ . ��
[
[' � F. � r ■Fay
E�
L1• l - �
L� f _ 1!
■� l .1s
■1! lam^
l)i 1 _ \�
!J� ■ � 11•
l�
[� F �
L>i L�
l-Ti t-'
[1• ■:�
[->i a
LEI' i■ l
1, ii■ r
Llil'J l
IL
LJi :'�■ L> l
t_�i. ■ L�
FdJi ! - ■-
111�■ ■ � u A
! -
l
F� 1.:_li
■= ■'�
LJi [ :�Fia
K]
LJi
Elm k >s
■� l �
F� l >a
L� t �
[1•
EJ•
l� La♦
[
r >_� F !i
Fay 1' f>s
■�
!� ■
Lli L
■� ■
■� L
L
F� Cli
Fi'�l C;
I >� ■.!_
L� L�
C
■ ■f■f>s ■ .
r ■■>— L
1 L
L
1 r! ••" 1>arf
l
EZ� ■ � E>i
1 f>i l la
� rta f..
11• r as 11•
■per■ LF■S
■ � - fii
Em IV
LAC v
LA N
LZ
LA IL -MM
" m
rJIL-M !
Ls _ �
is EM
� u �
� u■ �
Ujm
>• ,L-M to
l�
■ �
■' �
f FfFa
Llls
L�
l':Ji
l-�
ll7•
L�
r s�
t�
1'- I»�
�
■' ■f■>s
LI>_
■ - r>a�
1 - �
t�
■.�
.
�
a as
r
!lam
r a_
. —_
l•�
[ fn>_
t
F_F■FS
■.�
■.�
k�
L-�
'.�
t�
r ■>s
l
'
L.a
[l♦
L�
r�
r��
r7_
■ .�
i.�
L�
E"1a■fa
[ �
E�IL�
EJ�
c�
�tii
t �
l�
u�
ca
t.s
�
1..�
cii
■.�
1
>-
1
"t
l
L-
1
lJ• ! � F.l• 11114■''
FJ
lam•:-1 am1 u
Fa v R]
■� ■ >, v is ■i
Lts ■-� Li Fa
iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii/ A-d
11 - 605
1.
2.
a. That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation
as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or
zoning map, provided the interruption of the enforcement
officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning
ordinance is unreasonable.
b. That the .resulting interpretation will not grant a
special privilege to one property inconsistent with other
properties or uses similarly situated.
.c . The decision of the Board must be
the community and consistent with
of the City's zoning laws and th
the City of La Porte.
Special Exceptions
Application for Special Exceptions
e
in the best interest of
the spirit and interest
Comprehensive Plan of
All applications for special exception to the terms of this
Ordinance shall be in writing and shall specify the facts
involved, the relief desired, and the grounds therefor. Each
such application shall be filed, along with the appropriate
fees, with the enforcement officer who after investigation
shall transmit such application together with his report to
the Board of Adjustment within ten (10) days after the filing
of the application with the enforcement officer.
Special Exceptions to be Reviewed/Finding of Facts
The term "special exception" shall mean a deviation from the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, -specifically enumerated
herein, which shall be granted only in the following
instances, and then only when the Board finds 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:
a. To reconstruct, enlarge or extend a building occupied by
a non -conforming 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.
b. To deviate yard requirements in the following
circumstances:
1. Any exception from the front yard requirements
where the actual front yard setback of any abutting
lot does not meet the front yard requirement.
- 116 -
EXHIBIT $
2. A rear yard exception where the actual rear yard
setback of any four (4) or more lots in the same
block does not meet the rear yard requirements of
these regulations.
3. A yard exception on corner lots.
4. An exception where the existing front yard setbacks
of the various lots in the same block are not
uniform, so that any one of the existing front yard
setbacks shall, for buildings hereafter constructed
or extended, be the required minimum front yard
depth.
C. To waive or reduce off-street parking and loading
requirements when the Board finds the same are
unnecessary for the proposed use of the building or
structure for which the special exception request
applies.
3. Hearings on Applications for Special Exceptions
The Board of Adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for the
hearing of all applications for special exceptions, give
public notice thereof, as well as due notice to the parties in
interest, and decide the same within a reasonable time as
specified in Section 11-608 of this Ordinance. Upon the
hearing any party may appear in person or by agent or by
attorney.
11 - 606 Variance
1. Agplication for Variances
All applications for a variance from the terms of this
Ordinance shall be in writing and shall specify the facts
involved, the relief desired, and the grounds thereof. Each
such application shall be filed with the enforcement officer
who after investigation shall transmit such application
together with his report to the Board of Adjustment within ten
(10) days after the filing of the application with the
enforcement officer.
2. Findings of FactlDefiniton_of Hardshi
a. The term "variance" shall mean 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.
117
EXHIBIT R
NORTH 4TH STREET
,,RASS
NORTH 400.0'
(I ITl
18 SPACES
C
DRIVE I GRASS AIR GRASS
DRIVE SHAFT
80'-2"
b4D/X
To PA:Z1 Na
N I
-7
EXHiBrave
INTERIM REVIEW ONLY
Document Incomplete: Not intended
for permit or construction.
Engineer: W. FDMRI) rONrFR
P.E. Serial No.: 54702
Dote: 1-8-97
Q)
iz X
0
co
i as
C
C
V;
M u
L1j
z
0
LIJ
Z
-J
0—
Lu
C0
Z CD
< <
(L X
LU
LLJ
LU 1,-
ca
I-- Lj
z
0'-
, j:r
Cc
0
(13
UJ
Q�
Z J
C/)
Lu
Q.
0
CIRECEIVED
INSPECTIONS
/-Q-q&
CIVIL
LAYOUT
SHEET I OF 2