HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-08 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2008
Members Present:
George Maltsberger, Chester Pool, Bob Capen, Rod Rothermel, Charles
Schoppe, Lawrence McNeal (Alt. No.1) and Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No.2)
Members Absent:
City Staff Present:
Masood Malik, City Planner; Clark Askins, Assistant City Attorney; and Peggy
Lee, Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Maltsberger called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 29, 2007, MEETING MINUTES.
Motion by Chester Pool to approve the Minutes of the November 29,2007, meeting. Second by
Bob Capen. The motion carried.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Rothermel, Pool, Maltsberger, Capen, Schoppe
None
None
3. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A08-001 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1911 WEST MAIN STREET, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS LOTS 5-9, 11-28, TRS 4,10, AND 29, BLOCK
727, JOHNSON HUNTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 35, LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO ERECT AN OFF-PREMISES ADVERTISING SIGN
WITHIN 1,000 FT. OF AN EXISTING SIGN, PROHIBITED PER SECTION 106-875 (H) OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS APPEAL IS BEING MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 100-89 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Masood Malik, City Planner, presented Staff's Report. SignAd, Ltd., applicant, has
appealed the Enforcement Officer's decision to deny a permit to erect an off-premises
advertising sign at 1911 West Main Street (Spencer Highway). The permit was denied In
September 2007. The applicant filed an Appeal, but the application was received after
the due date. After re-applying, the applicant's application was denied in January 2008.
The permit was denied due to an existing advertising sign located within 500' on the
same roadway of the proposed site, on the opposite side of the right-of-way. The La
Porte Zoning Ordinance, in Section 106-875(H). requires off premises advertising signs
be spaced at intervals of not less than 1,000'.
Staff recommended denial of the Appeal.
Five property owners located within 200' of the subject tract were mailed public hearing
notices. The City did not receive any responses from the mail-out; one was returned to
the City undeliverable.
B. PROPONENTS
Chairman Maltsberger swore in Richard Rothfelder, 1201 Louisiana, Houston, Texas
77002. Mr. Rothfelder, Attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board. Accompanying
Mr. Rothfelder were Mark Grimes, with SignAd and Gus Brieden, owner of the land
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of February 28, 2008
Page 2 of 4
where the proposed sign was to be located. Mr. Rothfelder presented Board Members
with copies of a letter he had written in support of the Appeal. He also provided copies of
photos of the proposed sign location, as well as photos of an existing sign.
Mr. Rothfelder's interpretation of Code of Ordinances Section 106-875 (H) is that
billboards cannot be located on the same side of the street within 1000' of each other.
He noted that City regulations do not say to measure the distance in a radial fashion, nor
do they say to measure on the same side of the street. He referred to regulations
imposed by the Texas Department of Transportation on spacing of signs in Texas
Administrative Code Title 43, 21.153, which refers to distance being measured between
signs on the same side of the roadway, and not in a radial fashion. Mr. Rothfelder
informed the Board that on July 1, 1999, the City of La Porte granted SignAd a permit for
another billboard located on the west side of Highway 146 north of West Barbour'S Cut
Blvd. A copy of the permit was included with his materials. Across the street, within 590'
from the permitted billboard, was an existing billboard, but the permit was issued because
it was further than 1000' from the nearest billboard on the same side of the highway. Mr.
Rothfelder stated the proposed billboard site is suitable for outdoor advertising.
Chairman Maltsberger swore in Mark Grimes, with SignAd, 2400 S. Voss, Houston,
Texas. In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Grimes said that placement of the
sign at the proposed location would allow for the remainder of the property to be
developed.
Mr. Malik responded to points made by Mr. Rothfelder:
Section 106-875 (H) does not distinguish between signs located on the same side of the
street and across the street. It simply states that signs shall be spaced in intervals of not
less than 1000'.
The City is not bound by the particular section of 43 Texas Administrative Code
referenced by SignAd. Another part of 43 Texas Administrative Code, Section 21.151
specifically allows a municipality to regulate the size, lighting, and spacing requirements
of signs and to enact regulations that are more restrictive than the general rules in 43
Texas Administrative Code.
It is irrelevant that the City approved a permit under similar circumstances in the past.
The Board can only evaluate the appeal based on the three criteria outlined in the law
and referenced in the staff report.
Mr. Rothfelder addressed staffs response in that the City did not make a mistake in
1999, rather it correctly interpreted its regulations and established a precedence. Mr.
Rothfelder believes it was Council's intent that spacing intervals be measured on the
same side of the highway. One should not compare spacing requirements for
apartments with spacing requirements for billboards.
Mr. Rothfelder requested the Board reverse the decision of the Enforcement Officer by
granting the Appeal.
c. OPPONENTS
There was no opposition presented.
Motion by Bob Capen to deny Appeal #A08-001 and to uphold the Enforcement Officer's decision
to deny a permit to SignAd, Ltd. to erect an off premises advertising sign at 1911 W. Main Street.
Second by Chester Pool. The motion carried.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of February 28, 2008
Page 3 of 4
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins read aloud from Section 106-196 of the Code of
Ordinances, which addresses Appeals.
Motion by Chester Pool to request Chairman Maltsberger forward a letter to City Council, on
behalf of the Board, respectfully requesting a review of Code of Ordinances Section 106-875 (H)
dealing with the spacing requirements for billboards. Second by Rod Rothermel. The motion
carried.
Pool, Maltsberger, Capen, Schoppe
Rothermel
None
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Pool, Rothermel, Maltsberger, Capen, Schoppe
None
None
4. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST #V08-001 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3209
SOUTH BROADWAY, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT AS LOT 15 AND EAST 57.9 FT. OF LOT 16, BAY OAKS, W.P. HARRIS SURVEY,
ABSTRACT 30, LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE APPLICANT SEEKS A
VARIANCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING GAS CANOPY WITH A LARGER CANOPY AT THE
CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION. THIS VARIANCE IS BEING SOUGHT UNDER THE
TERMS OF SECTION 106-192 (b) (2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Masood Malik presented Staffs Report. Naved Anwar, agent for La Porte Petroleum
Corporation, Inc., has requested a variance to replace a 500 sq ft. existing gas canopy
with a larger 1,000 sq. ft. canopy at the convenience store/gas station located at 3209 S.
Broadway. Enlargement of the canopy would increase the pre-existing nonconformities
at the subject property.
Public hearing notices were mailed to 15 property owners located within 200 feet of the
subject tract. The City received two responses favoring the variance.
B. PROPONENTS
Chairman Maltsberger swore in Khelid M. Khan, 903 Crosstimbers, Houston, Texas,
contractor for the owner. Mr. Khan explained that this location has received approval for
the Valero brand. Valero's specifications require a minimum canopy size of 20' x 50'.
Mr. Khan believes the requested improvements would help the look of the neighborhood.
He stated that all city requirements would be met.
Chairman Maltsberger swore in Salim Qadr. Mr. Qadr, property owner, bought the
property in 2004 when it was branded Chevron. He has experienced a 60% decline in
business ever since the convenience store across the street was rebuilt. Mr. Qadr feels
he can improve his business by updating the store, as well as help the neighborhood look
better.
C. OPPONENTS
There were none.
\
I
'"'
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of February 28, 2008
Page 4 of 4
Motion by Chesle~POOI to approve Valiance Request #V08-001 to allOW the replacement
of an existing 500 sq. fl. canopy with a 1,000 sq. fl. canopy at the property located at
3209 S. Broadway, with the following conditions:
. Parking lot surface shall be improved.
. Dumpster shall be screened from public view and public right-of-way.
. Landscaping shall be provided.
Second by Rod Rothermel. The motion carried.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Pool, Rothermel. Maltsberger, Capen and Schoppe
None
. None
Assistant City A\lofI1ey, Clark Askins read aloud from SectiOn 106-196 of the Code of
Ordinances, which addresses Appeals.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
There were no administrative reports. However, Mr. Malik mentioned that ealiier In the day, there
was a tour of the new Bayport cruise Tenninal and when construction is completed, it should be
a very nice facility.
6. BOARD COMMENTS
There were none.
7. ADJOURN
Chairman Maltsberger adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
Submitted by,
~~
Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment
Approved on thiS~ day of - ~
,2008.
#V08-002
VARIANCE
FOR
EXTERIOR BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS IN
TIRZ NO.1
EXHIBITS:
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B - PHOTOS
EXHIBIT C - SITE PLANS
EXHIBIT D - SECTION 106-680, CODE OF ORDINANCES
EXHIBIT E - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
Staff Report
April 24, 2008
Variance Request #V08-002
ReQuested by:
ReQuested for:
Le!!al Description:
Location:
Zonm!!:
Backl!round:
Mr. Alton Ogden, Jr.
(Oakland Land & Development, LLC.)
Ordinance 1501-F5, Exterior Building Design Standards in TIRZ No.1
8.608 acres of land described as TRS 2 & 3, TR A (abandoned 17th Street)
TR 4A, TR 5A, TR C (abandoned 17th Street) and West N Street right-of-
way closed and abandoned by Ordinance #2006-2890, Johnson Hunter
Survey, Abstract No. 35, La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
1400 & 1500 Blocks of South 16th Street (powell Road)
Light Industrial (LI)
The 2020 La Porte Comprehensive Plan shows a consensus by the citizens
that all existing and future commercial/industrial developments are
attractive, highly utilized, and without negative influence on adjacent
properties and roadways. Subsequently, City Council has approved two
amendments to Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances creating
architectural and exterior building design standards in order to enhance the
overall impression of the City and to promote quality developments within
the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone #1 and along major thoroughfares,
in an effort to attract new sustainable businesses to La Porte.
Staff, with guidance from the Planning and Zoning Commission, reviewed
proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106). After a
public hearing at the August 17, 2006 meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, by a unanimous vote, recommended amendments related to
Architectural Building Standards for TIRZ No. 1 to be included in the
Code of Ordinances. City Council, at the September 11, 2006 meeting
approved an ordinance amending Chapter 106 which adds to exterior
building design standards in TIRZ No.1. Major developments lie within
TIRZ #1, which includes Port Crossing, Lakes at Fairmont Greens, and
Preserve at Taylor Bayou.
A provision for Exterior Building Designs has been introduced per Section
106-680 of the Code of Ordinances (copy attached). Any building readily
visible from a major thoroughfare or directly abutting a residential
development on any side shall be 100% masonry and/or glass products with
minimum landscaping of 10%. Development of non-conforming existing
structures will be required to be in compliance with these architectural
standards.
The developer has proposed few office/warehouse buildings within the
above project area along S. 16th Street. Building #1 located at 1400 S. 16th
Street was approved on April 25, 2005. Building #2 located at 1410 S. 16th
Street was approved on July 10, 2006 (see photos).
Board of Adjustment
April 24, 2008
#V08-002
Page 2
Analvsis:
Ordinance 1501-F5 pertaining to Exterior Building Design Standards in
TIRZ No.1 was approved on September 11, 2006. Later, the developer
submitted development site plan for building #3 to be located at 1500 S. 16th
Street and site plan for yard only to be located at 1801 West 'M' Street, on
November 14,2007.
Later stages of the site plan review and prior to approval, a major issue
surfaced involving architectural standards for proposed building to be
located on the subject tract. The proposed building was found with no
compliance with architectural standards applicable to the subject property
being in the TIRZ #1. Subsequently, the plans were approved with a note
that: "Project is located within the City's TIRZ No.1 and shall conform to the
minimum exterior building design standards 100% masonry and/or glass
products". Citing Section 1 06-680, this variance request by the developer
seeks to address the following issues:
· To allow no 100% masonry and/or glass etc. fayade on the sides or back
of the buildings
· To allow brick fayade to be placed on the front of the buildings below
the canopy.
The subject tract for proposed development is located in the area between
Fairmont Parkway and newly developed Port Crossing Business Park within
TIRZ#1. The property is located in the light industrial zone along major
arterial with 100' right-of-way. The site is accessible both from State
Highway 146 through Wharton Weems Boulevard, Export Drive, and
Fairmont Parkway. The property is adjoined by Port Crossing and other light
industrial facilities along S. 16th Street.
The applicant requests that the Board recognize these hardships (undefined).
On the variance application (copy attached), the applicant stated that the
requirement of 100% masonry products on front and sides will drive the
rental price beyond the prospective tenants reach and prospective tenants
may relocate to other city.
Section 106-192, in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as 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.
.:. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public
interest.
Board of Adjustment
April 24, 2008
#V08-002
Page 3
Conclusion:
.:. That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary
hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape,
topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation
unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary
hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as
distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial
considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the
applicant or property owner's own actions; and
.:. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed
The Board must decide if the applicant's request not to have exterior
building design standards despite the provisions found in Section 106-680, is
reasonable. The Board is charged with deciding whether all of the above
conditions have been met.
Staff cannot find evidence proving that a "hardship" exists. No unique
physical conditions exist on the applicant's property that will prevent the
project from complying with the City's Code of Ordinances pertaining to
fCl9ade ordinance in TIRZ No.1. The applicant believes that imposing current
regulations will cause undue burden and incur expenses to accomplish this
project. Loss of prospective tenants, jobs, and eventually tax base to the City
will have a negative impact on the area. The applicant requests that the
Board recognize this as a hardship.
Nonetheless, Staff believes that applicant's request does not meet the test for
hardship for the following reasons: First, while the tract has an "even
shaped" configuration, this has not precluded or impaired development.
Furthermore, the amount of acreage available will not impose a burden on
development. Second, it does not meet the standards that Planning and
Zoning Commission, and City Council wish to pursue within TIRZ # 1. In
addition, it clearly goes against the new regulations approved by the City.
Staff believes this defies the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and that
granting this variance would not be in the public's best interest.
Variance Request #V08-002, which seeks a variance for allowing no fayade
on sides or back of the buildings, is not in conformance with the City of La
Porte Code of Ordinances. The applicant has not shown that circumstances
unique to his property exist. Based on the facts outlined in this report, the
conditions needed to grant a variance do not exist. In addition to the
likelihood of an adverse impact or viability of the overall project, the
parameters for the requested variance, in staff's opinion, does not appear to
meet the provisions established by Section 106-192 Variances.
Board of Adjustment
April 24, 2008
#V08-002
Page 4
Avveals:
In view of the above facts, the request has no merits for variance, however,
the Board could consider:
· Allowing the requested relief being sought and accepting the
minimal fayade on the building (variance granted).
· Directing the owner/developer to follow the approved plans to
comply with the ordinances (variance denied).
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 present to a court of record a petition for a writ of
certiorari, as provided by V T CA., 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.
;/
r
~~
CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
V ARlANCE REQUEST
Application No.:
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received:
Receipt No.:
~ This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
v O~ - OO::L
o 4-olt/-o~
, ~1J.3.
Applicant' ,11,$cJtJt))H.) ];./tYai,t;#4#cf!1 lJe;elljI/IIf',vT: lie.
? uI- ~~ Name 7/ ]:-'/l~ - r"fso cel!
FO' fl/)rCIIE~ /115;37/2/ to/- qt2 ,t,t,f/? t9rr,'c-e
Address Phone
I am the owner ofthe herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*:
Name
Address
Phone
I am requesting a variance to Sect. I f,tJ - IPdltJ of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 ofthe
Code of Ordinance. II A . ..1 .
I am requesting this variance for property located at T~ks ~ 17. 3 ~ I/7T, (1, SA
. f" ~t A dress I / {t II
JL/txJ,. /'1/0/ IS- 00 .5 DfJlJ.. It, 57ie e'f'T (ItJlUc(( _) tK() I t.JI~ T 111
Legal escription
() Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site Plan
( ) Minor 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! am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If a}Jplil:ant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorizatio
~#y
, D e
Office Use Only
SitePl:1n 2nd Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes() No()
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:
Meetir,g Date:
Applicant Notified of Date:
Notice to surrounding property owners- Date:
Board's Decision:
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
.."u_..!~ T\M:~;nn m~i1ed to AODlicantlOwncr:
--
2
A variance is a " deviation from the literal provisions oPhe 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 ~hape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography cop.stitutes the pri~ary example
, of"hardship. BardshiRs that are financial in n-ature or due to the owner's actions cannot
be granted.
. .
3) "Granting the ~aria"nce must not violate the spirit onhe Zoning Ordinan'ce.
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 Jetter or any informauon and exhibits you feel the Board
should consider. . ~
. . .
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
.. ,;.'~ ~ '. j t
~~~/~1.7
" . +A e ) If-e. 'i
.. .. ' II. 'I. .
wI/-'" L<.~s FA. ~~J~ fk~ jJ~(J~"; It'! t:kvdoJ~rl
(,2) 13"( ;'c""'f /'~f)!('-..J b jJVI lP".fD FIP..f... nJ Ff1)~
I!J.~~Z sltJes -rAt's J~lf.)p'~ -/-he re~4.(;I'/r~ jerf)~1
wl..el./ lJ,..n~~rf1~fL fe;tJP4'~.I/~ ~re pile I" dr so .fl..6e
I V
OfJf.I.tl,u In te/oc,,-fe ~ 'ZIIl.,;/l, "'I" cHy h$"u J Dk eoN;
-fa~ &<~.
LSJ Jl.r-e..#. IS- 2,jlJ <J- T~
(If)
""1l
-.....- ~-
3
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
dlI~ hce;.Je ~<<J ~!JeS' Dr bL?d tPr Av:/I,'#1.!"".
Ilj'/c..k 6cfl.J~ fb b4!. fbU'I'4J T"f-o,.!T 12 F bt//IeP.'tVf.$
/J do uJ /'",,; "I- if.
/
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUESTS: -.
Ol-#?rJ ph Jlr.At lo ,J 5U Jun :ffeJ S"P/}L ",fJJ..r "'7 h e,Y y I-lw. -r h-e
-.EeJ.J- fJJonlJ .<~c.()I'e- &Jur I1AS.l.j../iJ"; fAIt-r wt:.. w~tJIIN"T
v . -- ---
~:"e. :, C-/J :j/Y w~fJ... :f-J,/~ ~~,C4"'C~.; We WU"e. /.oW
b_ Wa,_e SL_li I-ll",r /-he eH-y bJtPcdJ Se.gJJ A-I.d/.u-
r!.PAJ f:.'''I'1J~ lIz-s J,Ji c.'fy t<k_vu /s$vd 1/5: fAIi!.
./e-+f.(;i'. SG..-bt!J Al~;e live. sl-~feme/lJr Ujlpt,) C/:)AJF/,pAJI-at
lAd- we. <lti' p~ T hd-e ~" ('B'o/Y uJlflt .ht'"4t#e ~dJ4K''''
bU{i((J>; '"- tLJL cPU'e- ,:.; f-~ t~re<s LJF llevdf/"J fit:s
ft....c.r (;I j//'ck) a,.;-1I-I..<L ('_Ny Ira; ,')",I,i} lie /tN~
~he-re r 1''711-- A. w~ IJt/V'/JuJJ~J /-t",r- 001' ,,~<:AJf.,'o~~
~Q ~ .f, t!..4 ,J I, IN U~ .
S:\CPShare\INSPECTION DI\-1SI0N\Standard Forms\ZONING BOARD V ARIANCE.doc REVISION 10/2]/03 RYC
If ~ ~; ~ i: ~-~~4
oJ..~ ~,..........- -
.-
.._-,~
. "''f . '/' en. :
..{:~ ,- ..IL~'
" f- =. ".;.; -
""'J ,; il'k-~";.
.. ,'3, I iI-, --:' -;'1 ^,
1<" 'i "."
'" ." J, ;
~ i 'N' I 11 ;1.1 ~ .
" '''!l
" ,",," ..-l',~
.......i-1
- "
~ {"';"", - ",
AM>Id1Nb~:I /fA
-' AM)fG.1NCrftrtV:I
-,gI' rr "" .,-nr. ('"";It
aes." :t.
. & <,-
. '..
". '. 1,'
N
,/--
ZONING
~ 106-680
(
(c) Prior to recording in the county deed records, approval of the city shall be secured as to
the documents described in subsection 106-676(b).
(d) The declaration of covenants, conditions or restrictions or equivalent document shall
specify that deeds, leases or documents of conveyance affecting buildings, units, parcels,
tracts, townhouses, or apartments shall subject such properties to the terms of such
declaration.
(e) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall provide that an owners'
association or corporation shall be formed and that all owners shall be members of said
association or corporation which shall maintain all properties and common areas in good
repair and which shall assess individual property owners proportionate shares of joint or
common costs. The declaration shall be subject to the review and approval of the city attorney.
The intent of this requirement is to protect the property values of the individual owner through
establishing effective private control.
Sec. 106-677. Public services.
The proposed project shall be served by the city water and sewer system and fire hydrants
shall be installed at such locations as necessary to provide fire protection. Proposed utility
connections shall be subject to approval by the planning director.
Sec. 106-678. Building height.
Height limitations shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts.
Sec. 106-679. Roadways.
Private roadways within the project shall have an improved surface to 24 feet or more in
width and shall be so designed as to permit the city fire trucks to provide protection to each
building. No portion of this required 24-foot road system may be used in calculating required
off-street parking space or be used for parking.
V Sec. 106-680. Exterior building designs.
The material used on the exterior facade of all commercial and industrial buildings within
the city's TIRZ No.1 shall conform to the requirements below and in accordance to the
appropriate zoning district, land uses, and visibility of the site.
(a) Minimum exterior wall standard for any building visible from a major thoroughfare or
directly abutting residential development shall be 100 percent masonry or glass, e.g.
brick, stone brick veneer, tilt wall, decorative or textured concrete block, split face
block, stucco, and EIFS (exterior insulation and finish systems).
(b) All nonconforming structures must come into compliance with the above standards
whenever a permit is desired and under review per sections 106-262 and 106-268 of
this article. Any pre-existing building which is required to conform to this section shall
have front facade 100 percent masonry or glass, side/rear 50 percent masonry or glass.
Supp. No. 15
CD106:79
EXHIBIT 0
~
PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
There were public hearing notices mailed to Eight (8) property owners
within 200' for the subject property. There were no responses received.
f)(., :1
I...,...,