Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2002 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment• • MINUTE S . • ~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2002 Members Present: .Chairperson Sidney Gram, Bob Capen, Wyllie Walker, Rod Rothermel, Ruben Salinas, Alternate No. l Charles Schoppe . Members Absent Alternate No. 2 George Maltsberger City Staff Present Planning Directar Doug Kneupper, Chief Building Official Debbie VUilmare, City Planner Gwen Goodwin, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Chair~erso~ Grant at 7:02 PM. II. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO REAPPOINTED CH,PIIRMAN SIDNEY GRANT AND BOARD MEMBERS ROD ROTHERMEL, RUBEN SALINAS, WILLIE WALKER AND BOB CAPEN. Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong administered the Oath of Office simultaneously to Sidney Grant, Rod Rothermel, Ruben Salinas, Willie Walker, and Bob Capea. III. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 2001, MEETING. Minutes were approved as presented. TV. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION #A01002 WHICH SEEKS TO ALLOW MOVING LIGHTS (FOR TWO ON-BYTE SIGNS) AS PER SECTION 1069(3) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA FORTE. Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore presented staff's report. Russell Ybarra, owner of Gringo's Mexican Kitchen, 2631 Underwood Road, requested the appeal In August 2001, the City issued two sign permits; one far a small take -out odder° sign to be mounted on the north side of the restaurant and another for a new freestanding, on premise pole sign replacing the previous one located in front of the building. Ms. Wilmare explained at the time the permits were issued, the City was unaware the signs would have moving . The plan reviewer did nat.notice the reference to ~travelingA lights on the small signs, and no reference was made to moving lights on the larger sign. Current City regulations prohibit the use of flashing or moving lights on signs. Ms. Wilmare explained the City offered to cover the expense of having work done on the small sign to prevent the lights from moving. The applicant has declined the City's offer. The si gas have been installed and the applicant contends their continued use should be allowed. Zoning Board of Adjustmart • • _ 1N'inutes of January 24, 2002 Page 2 Public Hearing notification was mailed to eight (8) property owners. The City received one (1) response in favor and none were received in opposition. Staff polled five surrounding cities to determine if their zoning regulations had provisions for signs with flashing ar moving lights. Of the five cities polled, only one allowed such use, with restrictions. A. PROPONENTS Chairperson Grant swore in Gilbert Russell Ybarra, owner of Gringo's Mexican Kitchen. Mr. Ybarra stated he had discussions with the sales representative far "State Sign", regarding the possibility of replacing his existing sign with a Las Vegas style sign with flashing lights. The sign representativ a told him that type of sign would be allowed in LaPorte. Mr. Ybarra pointed out the ardinance, as presented, does not say a sign cannot move, flash,. or rotate, rather it says a sign cannot move, flash, ar rotate in such a manner as to be confused with t raffic control signals ar emergency vehicle signals. Mr~Ybarrr contacted the publisher of the Bayshore Srm to gain another perspective regarding the intent of the ordinance. The publisher wrote an article about the sign, which basically stated the same. Mr. Ybarra added that enforcement of flashing signs appears to be selective, since they can be found in other locations in the City, such as "Covington's" and "Video Viewer". Chairperson Grant swore in Harold Mabry, with State Sign Corporation. Mr. Mob ry resides at 11230 N. Ave. "P". He has worked for State Sign Corporation far 45 years. Mr. Ybarra has been his customer for 5 -6 years. Mr. Ybarra spoke wi$r him about. the pos~bility of purchasing a sign with moving lights for his La Porte restaurant. Mr: Mabry visited City Hall to find out whether. or not Mr. Ybarra's sig~r request was acceptable to the City. The gentleman he spoke with informed him there would be no problem obtaining permits for the two signs with moving ligkrts. Mr. Mabry went back to Mr. Ybarra and told him about his conversation wig the ~'• Chairperson Grant swore in Al Flores, attorney for Mr. Ybarra. Mr. Flores has an office at 3401 Louisiana, Houston. Mr. Flores understands the intent of the ordinance is to restrict a sign from containing words such as, "caution, danger, detour, etc... " so as not to cause confusion with traffic related devices. He stated that the diagram describing the sign in question indicates a height of 18' 4". Due to the type, height, and direction of this sign, it should,not apply to the ordinance. He stated that both sign diagrams were submitted on August 13 `~. Each diagram was a singe page with a singe font size with the word "traveling" noted on one of the diagrams. Mr. Flares added that the Ybarra's have gone through great time and expense on this matter and there was a detrimental reliance on the City's agent who said the signs could be used. Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong asked if Mr. Ybarra's testimonywas that the sign would not have gone up if the City had not okayed it, ar was it a question of the ordinance. Mr. Flores replied one depends on the other. He added, Mr. Yban: a and the ~ sign company representative plainly read the ordinance and determined that due ' Zoning Board of Adjustment • ~ , - Minutes of January 24, 2002 Page 3 to the height of the sign, in no way could it be confused with traffic signals. And had it been known the signs with lights were indirect conflict with what they perceived to be the meaning of the statute, they would not have gone forward with installation. Mr. Armstrong again asked for clarification of the answer to his question and Mr. Flores replied it was due to reliance on the City Official's reading of the ordinance. B. OPPONENTS No opposition was presented. Ms. VPilmore answered questions from the Board. Upon conclusion of discussion, staff recommended the Board deny the Appeal. Staff suggested the applicant present the matter to the Planning & Zoning Commission for consideration of a proposed ordinance change to the sign-regulations. . Motion by Bob Capen to approve Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #A01- 002 as follows: ^ Allow corninued use of moving liglrts on a small "take-out orders" sign to be mounted on the north side of the bu>7ding. ^ Allow continued use of moving lights on a new freestanding, on pre mise pole located in froirt of the busines s- on Underwood Road: Second by Rod Rothermel. Motion carried with all in favor. V. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE02-001-TO WAIVE OR REDUCE THE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIItEMENTS FOR CHURCHII,L PLACE APARTMENTS AS PER SECTION 106-1O1B(3) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA FORTE. City Planner Gwen Goodwin presented staff's report. Clnu chi71 Place Apartments is a proposed apartment complex to be located at 1201 S. Broadway, and designed exclusively for the senior population. Al Fairfield, representing La Porte Venture LTD, has requested a special exception to allow a reduction in off-street parking from the required 168 parking spaces~to 89 spaces far this development.. The Texas Deparhnent of Housing and Community Affairs has approved the project as a development for tax credits. As such, the property cannot be sold or the use changed for a period of 40 years. Staff is concerned about the use of the property after the 40 year period ends. Additional restrictions are recommended to prevent the use from reverting to a regular multi-f amdy use, in which case the building would not have adequate parking. Chairperson Grant asked Planning Director Doug Kneupper to briefly describe a memo he had written to the Board dated January 18, 2002. According to Mr. Bneupper, initial a Zoning Board of Adjustmart • , Minutes of January 24, 2002 Page 4 meetings with the applicant revealed the project was to occupy all of Blocks 1121,1122, and 1160. However the site plan that was later submitted utilizes Blocks 1121,1122, and only 4 lots' out of Block 1160. The parking problems could have been overcome by utilizing the entirety of all three blocks. A. PROPONENTS Chairperson Grant swore in Al Fairfield, 11123 Katy Freeway, real estate developer in the Houston area for 43 years. Mr. Fairfield stated the original concept for development included all three blocks. The State Housing Department has declined tax credits for the project for the last three years. Mr. Fairfield met with the Housing Department to find out what type of project they were interested in. The current plan is the result. The State Housing Department requires the land use to remain unchanged far 40 years. Mr. Fairfield's attorney has worked with the City's attorney to include a section in the deed restrictions, which limits the use to seniar housing for a period of 114 years. Mr. Fairfield described the project and explained the reduction of parking spaces is necessary to maintain a recreation area and green space. The remaining lots in Block 1160 were sold to his son, Steve Fairfield, with the money from the sale to be used to help fund the project. Steve Fairfield would like to bind 12-14 affordable homes on the land he purchased. The Board was provided copies of an e-mail from Mark McSwain to Steve Fairfield regarding "parking to unit" ratios similar to Churchill Place Apartments, along with a copy of the site plan. Chairperson Grant swore in Rae Fairfield, 11123 Katy Freeway, Houston. Mrs. Fairfield described parking far existing projects similar to this one. She compared this project to "The BedfordA located on FM 518 outside of Friendswood. Chairperson Grant swore in Stephen Fairfield, 903 Solo, Houston. Mr. Fairfield noted that one parlnng space per unit is a typical seniar's ratio and cited other developments that have provided less parking space than what is being proposed for this project. . Mr. Fairfield will make sure Mr. Armstrong receives a copy of Exhibit A to the declarations/covenants, which desc~es the 114-year land use restriction. In the event the Board were to grant an exception and impose a condition that the property be used solely far seiziar housing far 114 years, Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Fairfield if he was willing to not hold the City accountable if he proposed a change in the use, even if the development had already been constricted. Mr. Fairfield confirmed that was an acceptable statement to him. According to Mrs. Fairfield, the State will require an audit be performed every year far 40 years that reports the number of senior residents. A visual audit will also be performed once every 3 years. Zoning Board of Adjustmern • Minutes of January 24, 2002 Page 5 Chairperson Grant swore in Eugene Samson, 501 Valleybrook, who awns a town home on Oregon Street. Mr. Samson expressed concern there may not be enough parking area. He is not sure if he is for or against the project. Chairperson Grant swore in Steve Surofchek,1311 Oregon Street. Mr. Surofchek is not sure if he is for or against the project. He stated there is already a parking problem along Oregon Street in front of the town homes and this development may take away from the residential aspect of the area. Chairperson Grant swore in Dolores Baum, who currently resides in El Lago. Ms. Baum hopes to one day be a resident at the complex. The senior facility across the street is very convenient. There shouldn't be a problem with too many cars since this is a senior's residence. - B. OPPONENTS - - No direct opposition was presented Ms. Goodwin noted there were 27 public hearing nadces mailed The City received one response in opposition, none in favor, and one was returned undeliverable. Staff recommended approval of the special exception with noted conditions: Motion by Rod Rothermel to approve Special Exception #02 -001 with the following conditions: 1. Parking shall be calculated as follows: 72 units x 1.25 yields 90 spaces; plus 14 ADA spaces for a total of 104 required parking spaces. 2. Covenants/restrictions shall be assigned to the property limiting the use of the property to senior housing for a period of 114 years with the parking requiremerrts proposed by the City. In order to assure that either the applicant or subsequent purchasers of the property cannot change the use, restrictive covenants/restrictions shall be filed affecting the property that would limit the use to the senior apartment project for the proposed 114 years. No certificate of occupancy or zoning permit shall be issued untr3 the deed restrictions, in form satisfactory to the City and the City's Attorneys, have been f>7ed for record, thus limiting the use of the property. 3. Identification of the Special Exception information (permit number, date of passage and any conditions) shall be noted on the minor development site plan. This must be submitted to the city prior to approval and issuance of a bur~ding permit. Second by Bob Capen. Motion carried with all in favar. Zoning Board of•Adjustment • Mnutes of January 24, 2002 ' Page 6 VI. CONSIDER VARIANCE #V02-001 TO ALLOW REDUCED SETBACKS FOR CHURCHILL PLACE APARTMENTS AS PER SECTION 106192B(2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE. Ms. Goodwin presented staff's report. Churchill Place Apartments is a proposed apartment complex to be located at 1201 S. Broadway, and designed exclusively for the senior population. Al Fairfield, representing LaPorte Venture LTD, has requested a variance from the required bw7ding setbacks of .25'-20'-20' to 20'-10-10; 20' on the front (along Broadway) and 10' along "K" Street, Oregon Street, and along the inside property lines by the undeveloped portions of "L" Street and Texas Avenue. A. PROPONENTS Mr. Fairfield explained how the project could be .built without the variance. With the . variance, he will be able to build a better project because reduced setbacks would provide space for the buildings to be staggered rather than lined~up in a row. It would also allow for more practical use of green space. Mr. Fairfield agreed a 25' setback should be maintained along the front of the property instead of 20' as ' requested in his application. Mr. Fairfield expects to spend between $125,000 and $150,000 on landscaping for the project. Eugene Samson asked about stormwater drainage. Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Kneupper to explain the drainage scenario for this project. Mr. Kneupper explained the City has a stormwater cntena manual, which includes information on watersheds that require detention. This project will be located in the Little Cedar Bayou Watershed; which does not require detention. The City intends to work with the project engineer to mitigate the development's impact on localized flooding. B. OPPONENTS No opposition was presented Staff feels the request does not meet the criteria for a variance and recommended denial. Motion by Bob Capers to approve Variance #02 -001 as follows: ^ The minimum front building setback shall remain at 25', and the rear and side setbacks shall be reduced to 10'. Second by Ruben Salinas. Motion carried with all in favor. VII. STAFF REPORTS There were no other staff reports. In other matters, Ruben Salinas moved to change the start time for Board meetings from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Second by Rod Rothermel. The time change was approved with all in favor. Zoning Board of Adjustmart • . Minutes of January 24, 2002 .. Page ~ v~u. ADJovRly ~ ~. Chairperson Grant adjourned the meeting at 9:30 PM. R Sub ed, P Planning Secretary Approved on this ~~ day of Ltk~ , 2002. ~ -- - . Sidney G Chairperson, Zoning Board of Adjustment • ~ ~~~ #A 02-002 APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION .. FOR ERECTION OF A FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA EXHIBITS: APPLICATION FOR APPEAL STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT A -AERIAL MAP OF SITE EXHIBIT B -EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED FENCING EXHIBIT C -CITY FENCE REGULATIONS -Sect. 106-798(2) EXHIBIT D -SCUP #00-002 PERMIT AND STAFF REPORT JUN-03-2002 h{ON 03 ~ 45 PM FAX W0, P, Oc" • CITY OF LA FORTE ZOMYNG BGIARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFPCAL QF ENFORC~:hrEN'P OFFrCER'S DECT5ION _ - r __.~..___----__~ ------ ----__..~..__.,___ ------ -Applioatian Flo.: ~ d - Ofd a pate Reosived: ,. -G'~ OFD*CE; USE CNf..Y: _____~_~r.- Applicant: ,-.~..1~ ~Q - - 1 -- ~ N a~ '~ P H : ~ ! 0 - 2'7~-~ I u R d, Co r tkS' Add~~~ ~ ~ yia a tt'~e owner of the herein described property. Y have authorized Fe -C~Ah~~/ ____~, - to act on my behalf in this matter. A~_ f'~~fro ~~ur.~ S~t`~?S~.Zn r~~ its-. P C~.~. ~ ~ e.n ~ Pr e~`i ~eh ~" Owner" ; Name ~ aee_ e~ ~ Px : 2OL-~~~9~ Add ess o766~ ~s~ L.E.~~R) I am appealin the deeisxon regarding or the interpertation of Sect. ~Q(o- 79'~~ of the City Zaning Ordinance. Y am making this a amain r~ to t e property lcc t d ~'E~sfiall~Y ; B~Oc~~~ ~Stre t Address ~'~ Legal Aescript~o~ (~ SitQ Plan ( ) Miner Development Site Flan ( ) Major Development Site Flan ( ) General Plan ~ _~ A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, T have listed the information rerluested below on the fallowing pages of this form. a) All faots concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief Y am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon whioh Y am making this request. ~ Tf applicant is NOT the owner, he mu provide Authorization to act on the ownar~s behalf. zo a~ -- eta A.pplicant~s gnature o>~'FICIv USE ot~r~Y Site P1.ar, and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( No t ) ~3ete transmitted to the >3oard of Ad~ustrnents: E7eeting Date: ~/a7 oa ~Ippl.ica:~t ~Jotified of Data: ._~~ 3oard's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Aecisxon mailed to Applicant/Owner; -~• JUN-~3-2002 MON 03;46 PM FAK N0. P. 03 • PAGE ~ If there is not ada~uate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach ar. additional letter or anY information and exhibits you feel the Board ~hould~consider. FACTS RE~EVANT TO 7cII5 MATTER: 1 J ~ O ~^ p `~V 2tr rS 4~-t d ~U ~ b Qh Q 1'IIILP_d s t n ,~ o r, " 2~ ~J 21t_ ..\ ~r' _ _ . _` _I „ A e ~ .. h , ~-u -f~'r OK t^ /A~irsQ). h ~~ ~- ,~ o ~t ~ 2 0 ~~rc~ h~ ~c~S~' 'f'~~ G ~~ ~~QS~ s.~~. ~ ~ p ~~ ~ r~ /1_~A7 Tear nF RELIEF 13EIiVG SOUGHT: _ _. _...... e. r.nn mLC DL`ftilCQT . . • DNV PETROLEUM SERVICES ~~~~~. j 111 Galway Place Teaneck, New Jersey 07666 USA Telephone: 201/893-1990 212/868-6595 Facsimile: 201 /888-4559 Telex: 7607419 DNV FQT UC June 5, 2002 ~. City of La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment . 604 W. FairmontParkway " ~ ~ " La Porte, Texas 77571 ~; " ,.. RE: AUTHORIZATION ~ ~- :. ~ : -.. ~ ~ " Mr: Alfred Barry, ~ our Laboratory "Manager"'ins Houston, is hereby authorized to represent DNV Petroleum Services. Inc. with "the .fence request under the appeal of the Enforcement Office,r's decision: ~ ~ '. - ~ ~. , Yours faithfully ~ " , ;.. ~ ~~ For. DNV PETROLEUM.SERVICES'INC: ~ ~'~~ ,t .. . _ . William P. Cullen " , . ~. President _ . ', r L_J Staff Report June 27, 2002 Appeal of Building Official's Decision #A 02-002 Requested by: Alfred Barry, Laboratory Manager for DNV Petroleum Services, Inc. Requested for: 318 N. 16~ Street DNV Petroleum Services, Inc. Lots 1-8; Block 681; Town of La Porte Background: DNV Petroleum Services, Inc. is the sole occupant of the Light Industrial (LIJ zoned building known as 318 N. 16'~ Street. For your reference, the building location is shown' on an .enclosed aerial map and is identified as "Exhibit A". The applicant's use of the property was not a "listed use" in the City's Industrial Use Table so the applicant submitted a request for a Special Conditional Use permit. In November 2000 they were granted Special Conditional Use Permit SCU #00-002 enabling them to begin operations at this location. A copy of their permit follows this report and is identif ed as "Exhibit D". The .permit shows their use as a "bunker fuel quality testing lab with limited on-site storage of .petroleum products". You will note that two of the conditions shown on that permit were "landscaping of the facility" and "development is subject to all ordinances and regulations of the City and all other applicable law ". With this request the applicant is asking the Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) to consider approving the erection of a fence within the required front yard setback Their application describes the requested fence as both a security measure and an enhancement of area aesthetic qualities. As part of their submittal, a photograph of a similar wrought iron fence was provided and is identified as "Exhibit B". Although the type offence does not present a problem, the proposed location does. The required front setback for a LI zone is twenty-feet (20'), which prohibits the proposed fence from being located within that area. Section 106-797(2) of the City's Code of Ordinances read as follows: Fences in commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet • • Board of Adjustment •• ~ - ' 06/27/02 - #A 02-002 Page 2 of 3 - above the grourrc~ •and such fence shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of arty yard or the front yard setback of arty commercial or industrial establishment. A copy of the city regulation follows this report and is identified as "Exhibit C". The applicant was provided the fence regulation and staff discussed the matter with them, Based on the City's current regulations, staff had no alternative but to deny the front yard fence permit. The applicant chose to utilize the appeal avenue and their appeal application precedes this report. The applicant requests they be allowed to erect a fence within the required twenty-foot (20') front yazd setback. Analysis: ~ ~ In describing the action of appeal, the Code of Ordinances states: In~ exercising the .powers set forth in Section 106-88, the Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, . ~ wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requiremerrt, decision, or . determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the .powers of the enforcement officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board must find the following in order to grant an appeal. a) That there is a reasonable di„~`erence of interpretation as to •the speck _ intent of . the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the . interpretation of the enforcement o,~cer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. Current regulations are written in a clear manner that .allows the enforcement officer to understand the intent of City Council as it relates . to fencing and fence location. This regulation has been in effect s ince the January 26, 1987 adoption of Zoning Ordinance #1501 and the regulation has not been proven to be "unreasonable". b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant. a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated Current regulations are written in a cleaz manner that enables individuals to understand City Council's intent. This enables staff to provide the information to others and be consistent in ~ the enforcement of this regulation. This consistency in the enforceme~ of the regulation ensures no "special privilege" to any one property: Staff has denied previous . permit requests for fiont yard fences. . .. • - • Board of Adjustment 06/27/02 - #A 02-002 Page 3 of 3 c) 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. . Staff believes the erection of the front yard fence would conflict with the intent of the regulation and would not be in the best interest of the community or be consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and the comprehensive plan of the city. Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the -Board should deny granting the Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #A02-002. The denial of this appeal would ensure that a "special privilege" is not afforded to one property. Staffbelieves the appropriate avenue to address this matter would be for the applicant to approach members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and shaze their ideas for a proposed ordinance change to the fence regulations. A resulting ordinance change, if it was determined that the proposal had merit, would then benefit all residents of La Porte. Appeals: ~ As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte: 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 may presertt to a court of record a petition for a writ of . certiorari, as provided by V.T.C.A., 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 days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. ~. ,~ • • • • ~ ~t'~~ 1 / ~'~. ~~ !~ f '' ~ + r y, f ~ ~ r~. ". ~~.' ~~~~c ~ ~~ ~~* ~ a ~~~~ ~~~ ~. _. .: ~ .. ~«,a EXHiI~t'1' ~ Secs. 106-774--106-79~served. . DIVISION 4. FENCING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Sec. 106-791. Front yard areas. No fences, structures, grading, or barrier hedges shall be permitted within any front yard areas except in the case of large lot residential lots, or in the case of lots with a front yard directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, as provided in section 106-792: Sec. 106-?92. Large lot residential lots. In the case of large lot residential lots, six feet perimeter fences are permitted as an accessory use. In the case of lots with a front yard directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, four feet front yard fences are permitted parallel and adjacent to the side lot lines. However, such fences shall not be permitted on the front lot line directly adjacent to "" Galveston Bay, and shall only be constituted of chain link. These exceptions do not permit structures, grading, or barrier hedges. Sec. 106-793. Fences in side and rear yards. Within side yards and rear yards, fences of not higher than six feet excluding six-inch rot boards and walls 42 inches high or less shall be permitted. Sec. 106-794. Fences and trees on utility easements. Fences or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal at the owner's expense if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. Trees on utility easements containing overhead wires shall not exceed ten feet in height. Sec. 106-785. Maintenance of fences. Both sides of the fence must be maintained in good condition by the owner of the fence. Sec. 106-796. Barbed wire fences. Barbed wire fences shall not be permitted, used or constructed except in industrial districts or to control livestock as hereinafter provided. . Sec. 106-797. Property line fences in industrial districts. Property line fences in any industrial district shall not exceed eight feet in height except that: (1) Fences erected along a property line in common with a residential district shall be subject to the provisions herein described in residential district fences; and (2) Fences in commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet above the ground, and such fence shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the front yard setback of any commercial or industrial establishment. Sec. 106-798. Fencing and wall requirements for automotive wrecking, salvage yards, junk dealers, etc. (a) General requirement. Every automotive wrecking and salvage yard/junk dealer/scrap metal processor yard with the city shall be completely surrounded and enclosed by a solid fence or wall which is at least eight feet in height. ~~' ~1 (b) Construction, maintenance of fence or wall. Every fence or wall herein shall be V constructed and maintained as follows: • City of La Porte Special Conditional Use Permit • Permit # SCU #00-002 This permit is. issued to: Alfred Barry Owner or Agent 12401 Up River Rd., Corpus Christi, Texas 78410 Address For Development of: DNV Petroleum Services, Inc. Development Name ' 320 N. 16th Street, La Porte, Texas Address Legal Description: Lots 1 through 8 and adjoining west one-half of alley of Blk 681 J. Hunter Survey A-35, Town of La Porte, Harris County, Texas Zoning: Light Industrial Use: SIC Code #8734 -Ship bunker fuel quality testing Testing lab with limited on-site storage of petroleum products Permit Conditions: 1. A minor development site plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Development Ordinance 1444 shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. 2. Landscaping of the facility shall be required. 3. The applicant is responsible for public hearing costs of $106.86. 4. Development is subject to all ordinances and regulations of the City of La Porte and alt other applicable taw. Failure to begin construction within one (1) year after issuance or as scheduled under the terms of a special conditional use permit shall void the permit as approved, except upon an extension of time granted after application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. If construction is terminated after the completion of any stage and there is ample evidence that further development is not contemplated the ordinance establishing such special conditional use permit may be rescinded by the City Council, upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte, and the previous zoning of the entire tract shall be in full effect on the portion which is undeveloped. Validation Date: 11/27/00 ' ector Pan i City ecretary ~~~~~ • ~ StaffReport DNV Petroleum Services November 16, 2000 Special Conditional Use Permit #SCU 00-002 R ~ uest: Special Conditional Use Permit Request #SCU 00-002 Requested Bv: ~ Ntr. Alfred Barry, DNV Petroleum Services, Inc. Requested For: Approximately 0.61 acre (26,640 sq. ft.) described as lots 1 thru 8 and the adjoining west one half of the alley of Block 681, Town of La Porte, as recorded in Volume .83, Page 345 of the Harris County Deed Records, J. Hunter Survey A 33, City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas. The property is located in the 300 Block of North 16~ Street (Exhibit A). Present Zoning: Light Industrial (LI) Requested Use: Applicant is seeking a Special Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) to operate a fuel quality testing business located at 320 N.16m Street. Section 106-441 of the Code of Ordinance classifies this type of development as a Conditional Use. ~ ~ .. Background: Previously, ~ a Special Conditional Use Permit was approved for Alliance Recovcry Services on July 12, 1999 for this same property, Alliance did nat follow through with their permit. This request is for use of an existing building with some site modifications. The use will be fiiel quality testing on site. The applicairt has provided staff with the company brochures, which describe the fuel testing activities. The following information is based on the documents provided by DNV.. ~. • The world leader fn bunker fuel testi»g • Uwn laboratories -Oslo, Rotterdam, United States and Singapore • Unequalled experience from more than 200, 000 sample analyzed • Confidence of more than 7000 ships in the program • Detailed analysis results of samples are available within 24 working hours • Decentralizes; well trained technical expertise in all laboratories • Centralized computer links to all laboratories provide instant data • Round--the-clock technical support spanning all time zones • Largest database on fuel quality in the world • Published statistics available to members of FQT. D1W Petroleum Services pioneered Fuel Quality Testing (FQT} in 1980 at a time when the market was seriously concerned with rising fuel .costs and .~ ~ .. '- ~ ,, DNVPS - - ~ SCU #00-002 ~ ~ - Page 2 ~- -- - - declining quality of marine fuels at marry ports of the world The incidences of engine problems and faflures attributed to substandard residual, fuel were showing an alarming increase. Concerns of the 80's regarding fuel quality has worsened with the impact of environmental awareness and industrial legislation in the 90's Contaminants from industrial waste are 'now increasingly being detected in marine fuels as well. - • ~ -The routfne tests carried out for marinefuels-are: Densi - Viscosi ater . macro-carbon. residue Sulphur So 'um Ash Vanadium luminum Silicon • Benefits of the FQT program are: Avoid costlkre„~airs Machinery damages can be mirrimized Enhanced vessel ner~ormance and improve reliability ofvessel ' sc doles ~ - Enhcmce crew safety - Minimize costly dispute resulting in swings on management time ' and communication cost. Ana sfs: The Code of Ordinances Section 106-217 establishes the following review criteria and conditions fiur approval of Special Conditional Use Permits: • That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of the other property, nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. • That the conditions placed on such use, as specified in each district, have been met by the applicant. • That the applicant has agreed to meet any additional conditions imposed, . based on specific site constranrts necessary to protect the public interest and welfare of the community. ~ . e. DNVPS SCU #00-.002 Page 3 ~~ Staffwould note that the site in question is surrounded on all sides by a Light Industrial Zone. The said building is surrounded by Maxim (Former Anthony Crane Rerrtals) on the west, warehouses on the south and east, and a heavy wooded area on ~ the north. The City's Comprehensive. Plan addresses the following issues pertaining to the subject use within an Industrial Zone. . ~ . . • Should be tazgeted in selected industrial areas. • Should have good access to the airport, truck routes, hazazdous material routes & railroads. • Should not be directly adjacent to residential areas. • _ Should have good access to secondary and primary streets. . This site and the proposed use meet all the above-criteria Staff believes the request satisfies all applicable ordinance requirements. This facility and the proposed use axe compatible with the surrounding properties and should not be injurious to the use, enjoyment or value of surrounding properties. Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations presented above, staff recommends granting Special Conditional Use Permit #SCU00-002 subject ~ to the . ~ following conditions: . • A. minor development site plan, prepared in accordance with the . requiremens of Development Ordinance 1444, shall be ~ submitted for review and approval by the City. • Landscaping of pazking lot improvements shall be required. • The applicant shall pay the cost ofpublic hearing. N. r