HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2002 Regular Meeting and Public HearingMINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2002
Members Present: Chairperson Sidney Grant, Ruben Salinas, Rod Rothermel, Bob Capen, Willie
Walker, Alternate No. 1 Charles Schoppe, Alternate No. 2 George
Maltsberger
Members Absent:
City Staff Present: Director of Planning Doug Kneupper, City Planner Gwen Goodwin,
Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Inspection Services Coordinator
Sherry Jennings
I. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order by Chairperson Grant at 6:00 PM.
II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 24, 2002, MEETING.
Minutes approved as presented.
III. CONSIDER VARIANCE #V02-002 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 200
MULTI -FAMILY UNITS INSTEAD OF THE 180-UNIT MAXIMUM. THIS
VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED PER SECTION 106-192(B) OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE.
City Planner, Gwen Goodwin, presented staffs report. Bill Helm, representing First
National Bank of Bellaire, has requested a Variance to construct a 200-unit multi -family
complex on approximately 20 acres along Luella at Fairmont Parkway. This exceeds the
City's 180-unit maximum allowed for such developments.
Staff recommended the Board deny the Variance because Mr. Helm has not demonstrated
there are circumstances unique to his property that would warrant granting a variance.
Public notification was sent to 30 property owners. The City received three responses
opposing the Variance and one response in favor.
A. PROPONENTS
Chairperson Grant swore in the applicant, Bill Helm. Mr. Helm pointed out that the
additional units he is requesting is .actually less than 10 units per acre. He stated that
the additional units would ensure a better unit mix by providing more three -
bedroom units, which are in demand in this area. He intends to make use of excess
unusable land for a detention pond and amenities. He asked the Board to consider
his request.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of November 20, 2002
Page 2
B. OPPONENTS
None
Motion by Bob Capen to deny Variance #V02-002. Second by George Maltsberger.
The motion carried with all in favor.
IV. STAFF REPORTS — DUE TO HOLIDAY, DISCUSS AN ALTERNATIVE
MEETING DATE FOR DECEMBER.
Ms. Goodwin asked the Board if there was any interest in changing the December meeting
date, due to the holidays. Chairperson Grant suggested Staff avoid changing the regularly
scheduled meeting dates, whenever possible. All other Board Members concurred. If a
December meeting is warranted, it will be held on the regular meeting date.
V. ADJOURN
Chairperson Grant adjourned the meeting at 6:20 P.M.
Submitted by,
Sherry Je
Inspection Services Coordinator
r1do, ro*
-
— =—
planning
A roved on this day of 2003.
Sidney G
Chairperson, Zoning Board of Adjustment
W03-001
VARIANCE
EXHIBITS
A.
Staff report
B.
Location map
C.
- Graphic rendering
D.
Application
E:
Documentation
Staff Report March 27, 2003
Variance Request #V03-001
Requested by: Mr. William Helm representing First National Bank of Bellaire.
Requested for: Waiver from the City's $1 million bond requirement and provide a Reserve Fund in lieu
of the requirement.
Location: Luella at Fairmont Parkway — 22.355 acres in the William M. Jones
Survey, Abstract No. 402, Harris County
Zoning: 20.355 acres High Density Residential 3 (R-3)
Background: The project is proposed on approximately 20 acres zoned R 3. The boundaries of the
property are Luella on the west, Venture Lane on the north, Willow Spring Gully on the
east, and on Fairmont Parkway on the south. (See Exhibit A.) Approximately 180 units
are proposed giving the project a density of nine (9) units per acre.
On June 2002, Mr. Helm inquired about the development and zoning regulations for
multi -family units. Staff informed Mr. Helm that City Council placed a moratorium on
the construction of mid to high density residential development to create new regulations.
On October 14, 2002, Council adopted Ordinance 1501-XX. Among the new regulations
established was a 180-unit maximum on all multi -family complexes. On October 18,
2002, Mr. Helm presented Staff with a plan that exceeded the 180-unit limit. On
November 20, 2002, Mr. Helm asked the Board for a variance. His request was denied.
During this time, Mr. Helm also stated that he could not secure a $1 million bond and/or
irrevocable letter of credit as required for new multi -family developments over 100 units.
(See requirements in Exhibit E.) On March 6, 2003, the applicant filed a request for
variance. Citing Section 106-192 B (2) b, he is seeking relief from the requirements
found in Section 106-150.
As an attachment to his application, Mr. Helm notes several major hardships that affect
the property. First, "no bonding company, insurance company or bank will issue such a
bond." In lieu of the bond/irrevocable letter of credit, the applicant indicates that the
stipulations found in a HUD 221(d) 4 loan require that the borrower maintain a Reserve
Replacement account for the loan's life. The applicant will be required annual deposits of
$45, 000 (approximately $250 per unit). After 40 years, the deposits will equal $1.8
million.
Analysis: Section 106-192 B (1), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as a deviation from
the literal provisions of the chapter which is granted by the Board when strict conformity
to the chapter would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances
unique to the property on which the variance is granted
Except as otherwise prohibited the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a
requirement when the board finds that all of the following conditions have been met.
:ZM
Zoning Board of Adjustment
March 27, 2003
#V 03-001
Page 2
❖ That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest.
❖ . That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shoe, 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 chapter will be observed
The Board must decide if the applicant's variance request to Section 106-150 is
reasonable. The Board is charged with deciding whether all of the above conditions were
met.
To determine if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the general public,
Staff contemplated accepting the Reserve Fund in lieu of the bond/letter of credit. Over
the life of the loan, the fund would contain over $1.8 million for maintenance. Although
the City could not access the fund as stated in Section 106-150, annual HUD inspections
would dictate that the property is maintained to HUD's standards. If the inspection
resulted in a score below 70, the applicant would create a maintenance plan and use
monies from the Reserve Fund to ensure that the property is brought up to standards. The
lending institution assures that HUD's standards are not contrary to the general public. In
addition, the applicant may, at any time, obtain funds to use for normal maintenance.
when looking at the next test, Staff determined that granting the variance would still
observe the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is to ensure that property is properly
maintained and does not fall into disarray. To meet the ordinance, Mr. Helm attempted to
secure bond insurance but was unsuccessful. (See Exhibit D.) As an alternative, he
offered the Reserve Fund.
Staff believes the Reserve Fund partially meets the spirit of the ordinance; however,
issues arise after the 40-year loan ends. At that time, the Reserve Fund is returned to the
applicant; as a result, no mechanism is in place to ensure that the property will continue
to be maintained to City standards.
The final test involves unnecessary hardship. Staff believes that Mr. Helm's request does
not meet the physical hardship test, as there is nothing unique about his property.
However, Staff believes that a hardship does exist. When the bonding requirement was
established, it was believed that securing the bond/letter of credit was possible.
The City of Pasadena's ordinance contains a similar bonding requirement. Pasadena's
staff indicated that many developers encounter problems trying to secure a bond. To
Zoning Board of Adjustment
March 27, 2003
#V 03-001
Page 3
provide relief, their applicants are requesting a variance and providing a Reserve Fund in
lieu of the bond.
As the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the zoning and development
ordinances, Staff will encourage the Commission to explore amendments to the bonding
requirements. In the interim, Staff recommends that the Board consider adding one or
more of the following as a condition(s) to the variance:
• Lower the dollar value of the bonding requirement; and/or
• Add a covenant that continues after the 40-year mortgage and Reserve Fund
ends. Upon receipt of the Reserve Funds, the applicant must establish a new
maintenance fund that continues with annual deposits for the life of the project.
Conclusion: The applicant offers an alternative to the bond/letter of credit requirement that is not
contrary to the general public and that meets the spirit of the ordinance. While he has not
demonstrated a "physical hardship", the City's bonding requirement does create an
"unnecessary hardship." Staff recommends that the Board grant the applicant's variance
request but only if one or all of the above conditions are added.
Appeals: Asper Section 10 -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 ftrpayer, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the city may
present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by Y. T. CA:,
Local Government Code Section 211.011, duly verified setting forth that such decision is
illegal, in whole or in part, specifidng 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.
- �. x t, �.', � .G v i � �' i lc � e+ -ic' 11 �''1 [ ua !`� �r��r � wnn-•�. arv�,zr---3 r��a_..p►�n-yi � � _ _
1 1, f it i
AA
tu
tv
�., s rt:Y .ai is ,j;�? $ � ,`� ��w, � �`• K b,. � `k, �' � � `�1r� �i
�� �• �_ -mow �. _ ���s��- mot., z � � i� + � t ;tlf �,
� i°° •w � '� °� �� -.��,� � — - .ti,., � : firs � ,� 77---
qL
�� �Y�. �._� � .a � y .-ta,,s,' ',;-,=,'��f - ���.��'�� � .pz", _ - � i.4�`•�. � .�•��r- . , f�1'14fff�ll '+, •'t .�`;
_ ff
- Sh.E�`rTSis Rsl[AN�,�, !rr .b,
i r
..,.. ..n+..-wa"-r'=TazC.,� C` +raa•. �, ,.wmwwvw.�_m•�'',w.er.i �C __.LLl� O •a.L�•� Vo.+.v....�...
3 "L-
-. ono � ,� �� - `€- F� •�
-k
00 - "i-,
OFF
u Design
�n exas 7/057
r,Iz-
:HITECTS
Mar 05 03 12:01p p.2
Mar 04 03 04:54p • • P•2
W-03-2003 N0N 10:35 An FrX i(0. P. 62
CITY OF LA FORTT
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARLkNCE REQUEST
Application No. _ Gl : - Q n/
11FULE USE ONLY! lace! S10Q;QQ Date Received:
Reeeipt No.:
>at:, This Fee is Non Refundable Regardless of the Doard's Decision.
Applicaat: First National Bank of Bellaire
ame
5501 Bissonnety -
r
Bellaie Tx Aadd 774o2
I AM the owner of the herein described property.
to act on my behalf in this matter.
713-666-2�1.1
Phone
X have authorized wi j i i am L._ Helm
Owner*: First National Nank of Bellaire
Name
Sae Ahomp _
Address Phone
T axu requesting a variance to Sect. Lffir j U of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501.
X am requesting this variance for property located at Luette & Fairmont: Parkway,
Street Address
Legal Description —�
( Site plan () Minor Development Site Plan
() wCajor Development Site Plan General Plan
A Site plan of the property its attached. Also, I have Wed the information mquested below'
on the following pages of this form.
A) All facts concerning the.matter that has led up to this request.
bi The type of reuee t nm seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon wbich I am making this request.
* if applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Autborization act on the Owner's
behalf.
,�
a��
Date Applicant' igtaitture
Office Use Only
Site Plan and Authorizotion (if •applicable) attached? Yes () No ( )
Date transaxitted to the Board of Adjustments:
Meeting Date: . _ Applicant 1'otified of Date:
Notice to surrounding property owners - Date:
Board's Decision: Approved (} Denied I �'
rMAAR 5 7011
W
Mar 05 03 12:02p
Mar 04 03 04:54p •
• p.3
p.3
HPR 0'- 003 -MON 0-36 9M
RV No, r3
a •
'k variance i3 a "deylation from the literal provisions oft he Zoning Ordinance." The
Citv's Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the
following conditions:
S.y The variance must not be contrary to the public interest.
1) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This
hsu dsltip must be unique to the property in questiou. Property that is undevelopabh
due to its ussuslml shape, nU rowness, shallowness, or topography co:tstitutes tine
primary example of hardship. hardships that are financial in nature or due to the
owner's actions cannot be grunted_
3) Granting the variance runst 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 usa in a residential zone
is not allowable.
Please remember it Ls'the ApplicMat's responsibility to prove that a variance will
sleet the above conditions.
If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent
information, please feet free to attach :an additional letter or any information and eibibits
YOU fc ti the board should consider.
FACTS REMVANT TO THIS MATTER:
Undue hardship will result from requiring strict compliance of
this ordnance.
We plan to apply for a.HUD 221(d) 4 loan through Davis Penn
Mortgage Company for the planned 180 unit apartment complex to
be buxit on property at the corner of Fairmont and I,uette. The
_—requirements of the HUD 221(d) 4 loan will require that the owner
^, maki? a monthly payfaent to a reserve for replacement amount which Will
be: held by the Lender. The average amount;•for a monthly deposit
i . yc250:00 per unit per year. Strict annual ro er
P p y" z»spec ions
insure tIzal she project will be properly maintained over he 40 term
of the loan. See attached letter from Davis Penn MorrgaUe Company.
Mar 05 03 12:02p •
Mar 04 03 04:55p
• p.4
p.4
HAP-01-2033 MOB; 10.36 AM
7I V?E-, OF RELIEF BELNG SOUGHT:
3
_wt, are desirous of receiving a variance to Sect.10G=].5()0f the La Porte
ordnance regiring such a bond for all new constructio:: of apa] Lu:ents.
The specific request is for permission to be relieved df the
.roquiremen"ts of Sect.106-150
Till: GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST:
There is no bonding company, insurance company, ,or bank_.who will
issuo such a bond. Town and Country Insurance Agency wl.
-iu have
�. _.�.
-researched the Intire market and have reported that no bond of
this type is available. . See -attached letter:
Mar 05 03 12:02p • P•5
Mar 04 03 04:55p • P.5
03 O ii 03 09:39 281-482-3 58 DAVIS Ff-* MCRTGA(Z— RZE 02/e2
DAVIS-PENN MORTGAGE CO.
M<,rch 3, 2003
Mr. Bill Helm
The, lielm Companies
252.5 South Shore Blvd., Suite 407
League" City, Texas 77573
Re: La forte Apartrucnts
HUD 221(d)4 New Ctmslruction
Dear Hill,
We have completed the preliminary analysis for the above -referenced development and have
that: iniuCd that it would be an excellent candidate for a loan under the HUI) 221(d)4 Insurance
Prvgram.
0&vis-Penn Mortgage Co. will be the Lender issuing GNMA Seourdies backed by the FHA/JJUD
.Insurance. The 221(d)4 program is a 40-year ternVamortization, fully -assumable; construction to
petumtent and non -recourse loan. The HUD Insurance Commitment will require that the Owner
MAC a monthly payment to a reserve for replacement account which will be held by the Leader.
The avenge amount for a monthly deposit is $250 per unit per year. Strict mutual property
inspections along with the reserve for replacement escrow ensure that the project will be property
tna(Atained over the life of the loan.
1.r you should have any questi(►ns or should need additional h6onnation, please do not hesitate to
contact out office. Thank you.
Cordially,
Cart W. Ogden
Vice President
CW01ird
Urlclosure
7MRqA1
A FULL SERVICE MORTGAGE COMPANY
12621 FEATNEAWMD- Su1TE M - NOusmN.2Exw5 :7o)a . t22t) 4tt1.2a00 - r.Ax. (2S1)y 1.2ui
Mar 05 03 12:02p
Mar 04 03 04:55p
Jart-20-03 12:02
•
From -TOWN 6 C(X RY INSURANCE
... : . w n - C r + r. t - r .
November 18, 2002
William L. Helm
Horizon Residential. Inc.
2525 South Shore Blvd.
.Suite 407
League City, TX 77573
7114642614 7-442 P.01/01 T-301
Ky: Bonding RequirementsiCity of La Porte Via Fax 281-334-2066
Dear Bill.
1 have been in contact with all of our bonding carriers in regard to this requirement from
the City of La Porte. The carriers consider this a form of a subdivision maintenance bond
and have no interest in underwriting tlris bond. They declined die to size of the bond,
term of the bond and type of bond among many other reasons. We have access to every
major bonding carrier but it seems that no one has any interest in pursuing this particular
request nor had they ever seen a similar situation where this vas required before. All of
the carriers contacted staled that no bond of this type would be available at any cost with
ory carrier unfortunately.
1 apologize that we were uriable to help in :his situation but if 1 can be of further
assistance in another tnbtior please let me know.
Sincerely,
L ophar E. ng, CPCTJ CIC
057:s rc.,ty P!6:wuy. 3uue 110. r+0�••1• r�•T4rnl. 77024 t':J.401.SyT8 prone 717.4o4.1674 ioa w.ww.low!s:.rurcgbnUy.!n.OL*%
Mar OS 03 12:03p • • P•7
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
OF BELLAIRE
Craig s. Wooten
President
March 4, 2003
William L. Helm
Horizon Residential, Inc.
2525 South Shore Blvd.
Suite 407
League City, Texas 77573
Dear Mr. Helm,
5501 Bissonnet
Box 40
Bellaire, Texas 77402
tel 713-666-2511
fax 713-666-7199
www. f nbbellaire.corn
Previously I have tried to assist you in obtaining a maintenance insurance bond as required
by La Porte's new Planning & Zoning ordinances. Through my contact with Travelers
Insurance, I was told that they were not interested in bidding on such an open- ended
obligation. Alternatively you have requested information on our ability to issue a letter of
credit in lieu of a long- term maintenance bond. Based on my 30 years experience and further
discussion with our major correspondent bank, we have not heard of a letter of credit issued
in this manner.
It would've extremely difficult for a bank to underwrite a letter of credit for such an extended
period of time and for the purpose intended. Most letters of credit are for short duration of 1
to 3 years and for specific performances. The type that is being proposed is for replacement
and repair that could be 15 or 20 years away and for problems that may or may not exist. A
bank would have a difficult time in determining a borrower's credit worthiness this far in the
future.
It is also nonsensical to expect a developer to pledge cash or other collateral to secure a letter
of credit for this length of time. The security would have to be given at the time the letter of
credit was issued when no maintenance would be needed. A requirement of this nature would
increase the cost substantially and make the project financially non feasible.
Based on the requirements of the letter of credit and it's length, neither our bank or its
correspondent bank would have an interest in issuing a letter of credit as proposed by the
City of LaPorte.
Yours truly,
&aft S. Wooten
•
•
Documentation
tar
structure not in conformance with this chapter or any other ordinance of the city in
accordance with state law.
Sec. 106-146. Zoning permit for nonconforming uses, lots and structures
A zoning permit shall not be required but may be applied for and shall be issued for
nonconforming uses, lots, or structures. However, in the event of any subsequent
application or building permit or of any change in occupancy the enforcing officer may
require other evidence that the nonconforming use, lot, or structure legally existed prior
to the effective date such property became subject to the terms of these regulations.
Sec. 106-147. Certificate of existing conforming uses.
A zoning permit shall not be required but may be applied for and shall be issued for any
existing use of land or structure which conforms . to the requirements of these
regulations.
Sec. 106-148. Utility connections; prior zoning permit approval required.
For all new construction and the use of all existing and new structures, no public utilities
under the city's direction and control shall be connected to such building or structure
until the zoning permit approval required by this chapter has been granted.
Sec. 106-149. Application fees.
All written requests shall be accompanied by a filing fee sufficient to offset all costs of
publication and notice .required by statute or ordinance but in no event less than the
amount established by the city council and listed in appendix A.
0 0
•
#A03-001
APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER'S DECISION
EXHIBITS
A. Staff report
B. Location map
C. Application
D. Documentation
Staff Report March 27, 2003
Appeal of Enforcement Officer's Decision #A 03-001
Property owner: Oakland Land & Development Co.
Alton Ogden, President
Applicant: Alan Ward on behalf of owner
Location: 216 S. 16' Street
Legal description: Lot 1-4, 7-9, 24-32 Block 752 and part of the alley in Block 752
Present zoning: Light industrial (LI)
Surrounding North: Light Industrial (LI), Business Industrial (BI)
zoning: South: Light industrial (LI)
East: Light industrial (LI)
West: General Commercial (GC)
Land use: Industrial
Background:
The applicant is appealing the Enforcement Officer's decision to apply Code of
Ordinances Sec. 106-262 Nonconforming Structures to a proposed development.
Under DIVISION 9 NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES of
the Zoning Ordinance, the City has been mandated to review all nonconforming
structures, uses, and lots. Section 106-261 states, "the general public, the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment have been 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 property in question currently contains several nonconforming items that include:
• Building setback encroachments
• Parking and driving aisle encroachments into public right-of-way
• Front yard fencing encroachments
• Complete lack of landscaping
• Lay -down and open work areas that are not dust -free
Sec. 106-262 (b) Continuance of nonconforming structures provides for any
nonconforming structure to be occupied and operated in a good state of repair. However,
no nonconforming structure shall be enlarged unless the enlargement is made in
accordance with Sec. 106-262(g).
The applicant has submitted a site plan that is attempting to enlarge an existing
nonconforming structure or site. The site plan that was submitted showed a new building
and related items being added to the property in question without complying with Sec.
106-262(g). Compliance with this section would require elimination or reduction of those
nonconformities that have significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, and
ftwatrr Q
Board of Adjustment
10/24/02 - #A 02-003
Page 2 of 3
which can reasonably be ameliorated taking into account certain factors such as lot
configuration, location of the nonconformities, and cost.
The City's Zoning and Development ordinances offer a remedy to the property in
question. The property owner would need to formally subdivide the property into two
separate parcels. Parcel 1 would contain the existing facilities including the
nonconformities. Only then would Sec. 106-262(b) Continuance of nonconforming
structures apply. Parcel 2 would be the area that the new facilities would be constructed
in accordance with today's ordinance standards. This scenario was discussed with the
property owner and applicant; however, they chose not to pursue this option.
The property owner and applicant also took their case to John Joerns, Assistant City
Manager for his review. After careful consideration of the submitted site plan and the
applicability of Sec. 106-262, Mr. Joerns upheld stars decision that new buildings and
facilities on this site would be an enlargement to an existing nonconforming structure
and that Sec. 106-262(g) would apply in this case.
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, requirement,
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 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.
No reasonable difference exists regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance intent.
The construction of new buildings and related facilities clearly is an enlargement of the site
that should proceed under Sec. 106-262(g). Remedies exist for the property owner therefore
the zoning ordinance cannot be construed as unreasonable.
b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property
inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated
The zoning ordinance objective is to eliminate and/or ameliorate nonconformities.
Typically, eliminating nonconformities is addressed when property owners decide to
develop their properties or expand their facilities. Other properties within the City and along
16a' Street have successfully built or expanded their facilities under the guidelines of Sec.
106-262(g). Granting this request would indeed grant a special privilege to this property
owner.
c) T ate 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.
Board of Adjustment
10/24/02 - #A 02-003
Page 3 of 3
The general intent and purpose behind the zoning ordinance is to promote public health,
safety, and welfare. This is accomplished by providing a safe transportation system,
providing sufficient open spaces and landscaped areas, and preventing the overcrowding
of land. The zoning ordinance clearly provides for these items. Upholding the
enforcement officer's decision in this case would certainly be in the best interest of the
community and would be consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws
and the comprehensive plan of the city.
Conclusion:
Sec. 106-261 does provide for the preservation of property rights when necessary to
promote the general welfare and to protect the character of surrounding property. A
remedy exists for the property owner to retain all the pre-existing nonconforming features
found at 216 S. le Street. However, the property owner thus far, has elected not to
utilize this specific remedy.
The property owner and applicant have appealed to the Assistant City Manager. This
resulted in confirmation that adding a building and related facilities to this site is in -fact
an enlargement of a nonconforming structure and that the guidelines found in Sec. 106-
262(g) shall be followed.
Staff recommends that the Board deny this appeal and uphold the ordinance provisions
found in Sections 106-261 and 106-262.
Appeals: As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of LaPorte:
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
present 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.
ZOIKCITY OF LA PORTS
G BOARD OF AWU
Appeal of Enforcement Officer's Decision
• 'Application No.:�4
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: -=?
Recei t No • � `
Note:
P •• This Fee is Non -Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision.
Applicant: L A e. i N �I
Name
Address Phone t� 8 2003
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized ALW Whgo
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*: 7�p14, V-r AMQ A �-kr C.
5 Name 3512o,
Address . Phone
I am requesting a variance to Sect. of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501.
I am requesting this variance for property located at Z• 1 tP S o . "Tl'-
IK �T 2��.•r
,_ Street Address
Legal Description
() Site Plan K 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 must provide Authorization to act
behalf.
Office Use Only
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:
on the Owner's
Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date:
Notice to surrounding property owners - Date:
1. i
FEFFFM
Board's Decision: Approved () Denied ()
i
Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
Ii f
A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance." The
City's Board of Adjustments may NOT 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 constitutes 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 allowable.
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 information and exhibits
you feel the Board should consider.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
` !�
SEE R t 8 tT A ATTA['�I
• • 3
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
Nl?PaeolAL. 13AsF-D
r
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST:
February 28, 2003
City of La Porte Board of Adjustments
Re: Development of 216 S. I& St. La Porte, Oakland Land & Development Company.
Members of Board,
A proposed site plan was submitted on July 31, 2002. "Staff' returned comments in a letter dated
August 8, 2002. In this letter several items were listed concerning existing non -conforming
issues on an existing building located within the boundaries of this overall property. Items 4, 6,
and 7 in this letter requested that the site plan be noted to state that the existing fence, building
and parking are "pre-existing and non -conforming". The site plan was reworked and resubmitted
for approval. On September 26, 2002, another letter was issued by the city regarding the need to
change the non -conforming items on the existing property prior to approval of the site plan on the
new property to be developed.
This letter is an attempt to get the board to reverse the decision of the planning director not on the
basis of a variance request, but on the basis that the planning director did not base his decision on
current ordinance. According to Div. 9, Sec. 106-261, preservation of the property rights shall be
maintained regarding buildings and site development prior to the adoption of these ordinances.
Relocation of existing parking at the sole discretion of the planning director is not maintaining
property rights. Also mentioned is a fence located on the property that was constructed in
accordance with the then City ordinance, but encroaches on the front setback line under the
current ordinance. Once again, We do not believe that requiring the Owner to relocate the fence
falls within existing city ordinance.
Regarding the issue of landscaping, the landscape calculations on the resubmitted site plan exceed
6% of the new development in accordance with current ordinance (excluding developed area in
existence prior to adoption of the current ordinance).
At issue are two situations that developed within the planning department:
1. The issuance of subsequent letters requesting additional changes which should have been
addressed in the first site plan meeting and the first letter, therefore requiring additional
time and expense incurred by the Applicant.
2. The fact that the planning department acts arbitrarily in making rules as to
the requirements for additional development to existing properties.
Your help in a prompt resolution to this matter is in the best interest of the City (additional fee
and tax revenue), and the Owners of the property so that they may proceed to construct their
facility.
YOU,
11AXQW—
Alan T. Ward
By direction of Owner.
EXHIBIT "A"
nn
�f I
1 y
FEB 2 8 Z003 I
1
v
•
C7
Documentation
ZONING § 106-261
1
Sec. 106-237. Conformance with thoroughfare plan.
All buildings shall be placed in such a manner that they will not obstruct future streets
which may be constructed using existing rights -of -way or dedicated rights -of -way in accor-
dance with the adopted thoroughfare plan of the city.
(Ord. No. 1501-Z-1, § 5(exh. D), 2-9-98)
Sec. 106-238. One principal building allowed per lot.
Except in the case of apartment or condominium developments, industrial developments
and planned unit developments, as provided for in this chapter, not more than one principal
building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common,
ordinary meaning; in case of doubt or on any question of interpretation the decision of the
enforcement officer shall be final, subject to the right of appeal to the board of adjustment.
(Ord. No. 1501-Z-1, § 5(exh. D), 2-9-98)
Sec. 106-239. Application of yard and parking requirements to through lots.
On a through lot within residential districts (a lot fronting on two substantially parallel
streets), the rear lot line shall be defined as the major street, where access is prohibited, and
the minimum rear yard setback shall be 20 feet for applying the yard and parking regulations
of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1501-Z-1, § 5(exh. D), 2-9-98)
Sec. 106-240. Minimum building setback.
Except in a planned unit development, no building shall be located closer than ten feet from
any existing or proposed street right-of-way.
(Ord. No. 1501-Z-1, § 5(exh. D), 2-9-98)
Secs. 106-241-106-260. Reserved.
DIVISION 9. NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES*
Sec. 106-261. Generally.
The general public, the planning and zoning commission and the board of adjustment are
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, except
when necessary to preserve property rights, specific structures, lots, or uses established prior
to the date these regulations became effective as to the property in question, and when
necessary to promote the general welfare and to protect the character of surrounding property.
It shall be the responsibility of the planning and zoning commission and the board of
adjustment to assist the city council in achieving this goal by advising the city council of their
*Note —See the editor's note to div. 8.
Supp. No. 1 CD 106:37
•
•
ZONING
§ 106-262
into compliance with this chapter, or other codes and ordinances of the city. The burden of proof
in showing that the structure's repair cost does not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost
of such structure rests upon the owner of such structure.
(e) Determination of replacement cost. In determining the replacement cost of any noncon-
forming structure, the cost of land or any factors other than the nonconforming structure itself,
shall not be included.
(f) Repairs and alterations. Repairs and alterations may be made to a nonconforming
building or structure; provided, that no external alterations shall be made except those
required by law or ordinance, unless the building is changed to a conforming use. No additional
dwelling units shall be added where the. nonconforming use results from there being more
dwelling units on the lot than is permissible in the district in which the building is located.
(g) Enlargement -to nonconforming structure. A structure that is nonconforming may be
altered, remodeled or otherwise improved, but not enlarged, unless the board of adjustment
determines (pursuant to section 106-191) that such enlargement will not result in an increase
in the degree of nonconformity with the regulations and development standards of the district
in which it is located.
(1)
'Submission of schedule to eliminate nonconformity. The applicant shall present to the
board of adjustment a schedule for elimination or substantial reduction of the
nonconformity over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years, or setting forth
the reasons why such action is not reasonably possible:
(2)
Approval of schedule by board of adjustment. The board of adjustment shall review and
make any revisions found necessary to ensure that priority is given to elimination or
reduction of those nonconformities that have significant adverse impacts on surround-
ing properties, and which can reasonably be ameliorated taking into account the effect
of the configuration of the lot and the location of existing structures and the cost of
eliminating or substantially reducing such nonconformities.
(h)
Abandonment of nonconforming use or nonconforming structure.
(1)
A nonconforming use shall be deemed abandoned when the use ceases to be used for
the nonconformity for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days. The nonconforming
use, when abandoned, shall not resume.
(2) -
A nonconforming structure shall be deemed abandoned when the structure ceases to be
used for the nonconformity for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days. The use of the
nonconforming structure, when abandoned, shall not resume.
(3)
When it has been determined by the enforcement officer that a nonconforming use or
structure has been abandoned, notification shall be made by certified mail to the owner
(as shown on the certified tax rolls) of the abandoned nonconforming use or structure.
The owner or his representative seeking to maintain such nonconforming use or
structure may appeal the enforcement officer's decision to the board of adjustment. The
property owner or his representative seeking to maintain the existing nonconforming
Supp. No. 1 CD106:39
L�
•
§ 106-261 IA PORTE CODE
recommendations thereon. As necessary, the city council may from time to time on its own
motion or upon cause presented by interested property owners inquire into the existence,
continuation or maintenance of any nonconforming use within the city.
(1) Conforming use does not change to nonconforming use if adjacent property subsequently
changes zoning classification. A use that conforms to the zoning regulations on the
effective date of this zoning ordinance at the time of initial development of the site
shall not subsequently be deemed a nonconforming use solely because the use changes
on an adjoining property.
(2) Accessory use of structure. No structure that is accessory to a principal nonconforming
use or a nonconforming structure shall continue after such principal use or structure
has been terminated, removed or otherwise brought into compliance, unless it complies
with all of the regulations of.the district in which it is located.
(Ord. No. 1501-Z-1, § 5(exh. D), 2-9-98)
Sec. 106-262. Nonconforming structures.
(a) Limitation on regulation.- No structure, otherwise in accordance with the provisions of
these regulations or an amendment hereto, shall be -rendered or be deemed a nonconforming
structure solely for a failure to comply with provisions relating to Article V, Division 2,
Accessory Buildings, Uses, and Equipment, of this chapter.
� (b) Continuance of nonconforming structures. Subject to all limitations herein set forth, any
nonconforming structure may be occupied and operated and maintained in a state of good
repair, but no nonconforming structure shall be enlarged unless the enlargement is made in
accordance with the provisions of section 106-262(g) of this chapter.
(c) Accidental damage to structure: If a building occupied by nonconforming uses is
destroyed by fire or the elements, it may not be reconstructed or rebuilt unless it conforms with
the provisions of this chapter. In the case of partial destruction by fire or other causes, not
exceeding 50 percent'of its value, as determined by a licensed appraiser, the enforcing officer
of the city may issue a permit for reconstruction. If greater than 50 percent and less than total,
the board may grant as a special exception a permit for repairs but not for enlargement or
reconstruction of the building.
(d) ,Obsolescence of structure. The right to operate and maintain any nonconforming
structure shall terminate and shall cease to exist whenever the nonconforming structure
becomes substandard under the codes and ordinances of the city, and the cost of placing such
structure in lawful compliance with the applicable ordinances exceeds 50 percent of the
replacement cost of such structure, as determined by a licensed appraiser, on the date that the
enforcing officer determines that such structure is obsolete or substandard. The enforcement
officer of the city shall notify the owner of such nonconforming structure, as shown on the
certified tax rolls of the city, as to the date of termination of the right to operate and maintain
such nonconforming structure, and as to the procedure to be followed to bring such structure
Supp. No. 1 CD106:38