HomePrint
Email

Go To Search
City Council and Boards and CommissionsDepartments - City ConnectionsResidents - Resources and InformationHow Do I...? - How Can We Help?
Click to Home

 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

LC LOGO

Zoning Board of Adjustments /

building and standards commission

Regular Session Agenda

December 6, 2012

6:00 PM

City Council Chambers

200 West Walker Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.                   Call to order and Roll call of members

 

II.                Approval of Minutes

A.     November 1, 2012

 

III.             The Swearing in of Speakers and Witnesses

 

IV.              Public Hearings and Action Items from Public Hearings (ZBA)

A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on Zoning Board of Adjustments Application ZBA12-12 (Access Storage), a variance to the parking requirement (Section 125-170(d).) and referenced schedule for “Off Street Parking Requirements,” that self storage uses have 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet, 1 parking space per 250 square feet of office area and 4 parking spaces for a waiting area on approximately 2.0 acres zoned “CG” (General Commercial), legally described as Tract 90 of the Perry and Austin Survey, generally located south of Farm to Market Road 646 and east of West Walker Street, with the approximate address being in the 3200 block of West Walker Street.

 

B.     Hold a public hearing and take action on Zoning Board of Adjustments Application ZBA12-13 (Riverbend Multi-family), a variance to the 20-foot rear yard setback requirement (Section 125-72(c)) “Development Regulations — Commercial and Mixed Use Districts,” on approximately 6.0 acres zoned “CM-PUD” (Commercial Mixed Use with a Planned Unit Development), legally described as Unrestricted Reserve “H” of the Clear Creek Crossing Subdivision, generally located northeast of Wesley Drive and east of the Frontage Road to the Gulf Freeway (Interstate 45 Highway), with the approximate address being in the 400 block of Wesley Drive.

 

V.                 Public Hearings and Action Items from Public Hearings (BASC)

A.     Hold a public compliance hearing with possible action on ZBA12-09 (2111 Hill Avenue), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property located at 2111 Hill Avenue, League City, Texas 77573, legally described as Lot 7, Block 25 of Moore’s Addition to the Town of Dickinson, in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof filed for record in the Office of the County Clerk of Galveston County, Texas. (INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 10-04-2012; FIRST COMPLIANCE HEARING CLOSED ON 11-01-2012))

 

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Candelaria Alvarado, 4903 39th Street, Dickinson, Texas 77539

                           And 5009 Hauna Lane, Dickinson, Texas, 77539

 

VI.              Adjournment

 

CERTIFICATE

 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE OF MEETING WAS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD AT CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS, BY THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 BY 6 PM, AND WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT).  ITEMS POSTED IN THE OPEN SESSION PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA MAY ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED OR EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HEAR ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED AGENDA ITEMS THAT QUALIFY FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING THE APPLICABLE SECTION NUMBER OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, (CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING CHAPTER 551.071 “CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY”), THAT JUSTIFIES EXECUTIVE SESSION TREATMENT.

 

 

 

Page 2 of 2

City of League City

Zoning Board of Adjustments / Building Standards Commission

Regular Session Agenda

December 6, 2012 

6:00 PM

Council Chambers, 200 West Walker Street

 

 

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED PROCEEDING MAY CONSTITUTE A MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.  BY THIS NOTICE, THE PUBLIC IS HEREBY ADVISED OF SAID MEETING NOT LESS THAN 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION NOTED ABOVE.

 

 

 

__________________________________________                                              __________________________________________               

MARK LINENSCHMIDT                                                     OSCAR AREVALO, CBO

SENIOR PLANNER                                                              BUILDING OFFICIAL        

 

 

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS/

BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

THURSDAY December 6, 2012 at 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers

200 WEST WALKER

*************************************************************

I.       Call to order and Roll call of members

 

Mr. Christiansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

 

Members present:                                                       Members absent:

James R. Christiansen, Chair                                       Janet Alleman

Amy Beasley                                                                                                  

            Katie Benoit*

            Elizabeth Scully*

           

*Mr. Christiansen activated both Ms. Benoit and Ms. Scully as voting members.       

 

City Representatives:

Wes Morrison, City Planner

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner

Lonzell Banks, Code Compliance Official

RJ Davidson, Building Inspector

 

II.    Approval of Minutes

 

A.     November 1, 2012

 

Ms. Beasley made a motion approve the minutes of November 1, 2012 with noted revision.

Ms. Scully seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 3-0-1 subject to noted revision.

III. Swearing in of Witnesses

 

Mr. Christiansen swore in the witnesses, stating this is a quasi-judicial board, which is being recorded and therefore anybody that speaks should be aware it is considered testimony.  Any appeal of the decision by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or Building and Standards Commission must be filed with the Court of Competent Jurisdiction within 10 days of the date of the decision rendered by this board or such time period as indicated within the Texas Local Government Code.

 

IV.  Public Hearings and Action Items from Public Hearings (ZBA)

A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on Zoning Board of Adjustments Application ZBA12-12 (Access Storage), a variance to the parking requirement (Section 125-170(d).) and referenced schedule for “Off Street Parking Requirements,” that self storage uses have 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet, 1 parking space per 250 square feet of office area and 4 parking spaces for a waiting area on approximately 2.0 acres zoned “CG” (General Commercial), legally described as Tract 90 of the Perry and Austin Survey, generally located south of Farm to Market Road 646 and east of West Walker Street, with the approximate address being in the 3200 block of West Walker Street.

 

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner with the City presented the staff report for this item and reviewed the tests within the staff report for the Board’s consideration.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked how many parking spaces the new design required.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that 141 parking spaces were required.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if it was for the current design or for the previous design.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that the parking requirements reflected the current design.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the applicant was proposing a new building and if it was smaller.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that the proposed building would be larger and described the size increase.

 

Ms. Beasley asked if the footprint of the building changed.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Beasley asked for staff to comment [in relation to the proposed parking study currently being performed] on how the city’s was leaning towards any base requirement of a per square foot or parking space per units requirement.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that staff was still in the data gathering stage and had yet to reach that level of analysis. He also noted that the Traffic Engineer would accept a number, based only on a signed and sealed study by a traffic engineer.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the applicant had already accounted for the open space, landscaping requirements.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt replied that the Development Review Committee (DRC) has notified the applicant of the requirements in a pre-application conference setting, but no formal plans have been submitted for review at that time.  

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for the applicant to come forward. No one came forward.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if there were any questions of the Board for staff. There were none.

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the public hearing at 6:16 PM.

 

Mr. Christiansen closed the public hearing at 6:17 PM with no one speaking.

 

Mr. Christiansen made a motion to deny the variance request.

 

Ms. Benoit seconded the motion.

 

The Board voted on the tests in the Variance Findings Form.

 

Test #1: Such variance will not be contrary to the public interest.  

Yes: 0   No:  4

 

Test #2: Such variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized for the district in which the property for which the variance sought is located.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #3: Such variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property in the same district.

Yes: 0   No:  4

 

Test #4: Such variance will not alter the essential character of the district in which it is located or the property for which the variance is sought.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #5: Such variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purposes of this Ordinance.

Yes: 0   No:  4

 

Test #6: The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial, and are not due to, or the result of, general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Yes: 0   No:  4

 

Test #7: The variance will not substantially weaken the general purposes of this Ordinance or the regulations herein established for the specific district.

Yes: 0   No:  4

 

Test #8: The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

Yes: 0   No:  4

 

Mr. Christiansen stated that only 2 tests met the requirements

 

The motion to deny, passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

B.     Hold a public hearing and take action on Zoning Board of Adjustments Application ZBA12-13 (Riverbend Multi-family), a variance to the 20-foot rear yard setback requirement (Section 125-72(c)) “Development Regulations — Commercial and Mixed Use Districts,” on approximately 6.0 acres zoned “CM-PUD” (Commercial Mixed Use with a Planned Unit Development), legally described as Unrestricted Reserve “H” of the Clear Creek Crossing Subdivision, generally located northeast of Wesley Drive and east of the Frontage Road to the Gulf Freeway (Interstate 45 Highway), with the approximate address being in the 400 block of Wesley Drive.

 

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner with the City, presented the staff report for this item and reviewed the tests within the staff report for the Board’s consideration. It was also noted that the applicant had altered the site plan, removing habitable structures from within the setback.

 

Ms. Beasley asked if the applicant would be able to place parking spaces all the way to the property line in lieu of the car ports.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt affirmed that the setback references the covered structures.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the area within the setback included the stairwells of the main building.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the applicant would have been required request a variance as a result of the stairwells being in the setback.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt indicated that a variance would be needed since the stairwells are a part of the larger building.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt concluded the presentation of the staff report.

 

Ms. Beasley asked for staff to show areas where the site plan lays on the overall site.

 

There was a discussion on the location of the floodway, floodplain, and the existing site and proposed site.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if the site backed up to a marina.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt replied that a marina is proposed in the PUD.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if the setback was from the marina.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that the setback was from the property line.

 

Ms. Beasley asked if the development intending to develop the property all the way to the creek.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded yes.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the development was to happen before the new floodplain maps.

 

The Board asked the applicant to come to the microphone.

 

Stacy Grey with Atticus Real Estate, responded that FEMA had approved a cut and fill plan and that the buildings are directly adjacent to that built up slope. The property to the rear is currently undevelopable.

 

Ms. Scully asked for confirmation that the application reflected the issue of the existing property and the related low lying properties and the anticipated floodplain level increase early next year.

 

Ms. Grey responded that that was her understanding. Ms. Grey clarified that it was her company’s intent to develop only the multi-family portion of the PUD Master Plan, which was approximately half of what was permitted.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the applicant had raised all of the property to where the marina is to be located.

 

Ms. Grey responded no. She added that the soil was taken from the rear of the property and built up the front of the property near Wesley Drive.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the property that was built up in front was soon going to be in the new floodplain maps.

 

Ms. Grey responded that Ms. Scully was correct.

 

Ms. Scully confirmed that the applicant did what they thought needed to be done and that the land is now smaller.

 

Ms. Grey responded that the property is currently out of the floodplain, but intend to mediate from the anticipated flood maps.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if someone could purchase the property between the subject property and the proposed marina.

 

Ms. Grey responded in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked that the property could be developed, in theory.

 

Ms. Grey indicated that this area of the property was in the floodway and discussed some of the requirements in order to develop.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked the elevation of the subject property.

 

Ms. Grey indicated the property was currently at 12 feet and the finished floor of the buildings would be at 16 feet in elevation.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked where the ground sloped, if there were any bulkheads.

 

Ms. Grey replied that there would be a retaining wall that would support the foundations.

 

Ms. Beasley asked why they just couldn’t move or resize the structures out of the setbacks.

 

Ms. Grey responded that the property is being reconfigured to accommodate the newly anticipated flood maps. She added the additional considerations of the locations in relation to all of the associated infrastructure and design that has been set forth in the master plan.

 

Ms. Scully asked property was designed the site (i.e. buildings, roads, etc.) to correspond to the remaining phases of the master plan so that the phases could align correctly, which is affected by FEMA revising the flood maps.

 

Ms. Grey indicated that Ms. Scully was correct.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the property was originally designed outside of the setbacks, until FEMA came up with the anticipated changes.

 

Ms. Grey indicated that Ms. Scully was correct.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt added that staff’s interpretation was that the PUD was existing and that the rules have changed when FEMA announced their revision in which the City has no authority to deny. Mr. Linenschmidt further explained how infrastructure was to be installed in relation to roadways and structures for the most efficient distribution possible.

 

Ms. Beasley asked how the subject property had become smaller.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt indicated that the property has changed and the property line has not changed, but where the property can be developed has changed since the applicant will still need to slope the additional soil.

 

Ms. Beasley asked how does that affect where the property line is and 20-feet in.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt asked Ms. Grey to confirm that the property line was set at the edge of where the land was raised.

 

Ms. Grey indicated that the property line moved as the land was raised.

 

Ms. Beasley asked how the property line moved.

 

Ms. Grey explained how the property line moved as the land was being raised in elevation.

 

Ms. Beasley asked if it was a true statement that the site could have been placed just about anywhere on the lot before it was known that the property needed to be elevated again.

 

Ms. Grey explained that there would only be a portion and a corner of the building within the setbacks.

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the public hearing at 6:52 PM.

 

Linda Lee, 1405 West Main Street, was opposed to the request. Ms. Lee indicated that her neighborhood has had flooding issues since the property was raised. She continued that the property should not be allowed to be raised until all of the flood problems are resolved.

 

Ms. Scully asked if all of PUD area shown had been raised.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that a portion of the property has been raised within the PUD.

 

Lynn Davis, 351 Wesley Drive, indicated that there were flooding issues. Mr. Davis indicated that his property was not affect, but that the City needed to address the issue prior to any additional development.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt added that the Engineering Department requested anyone with questions regarding any floodplain concerns to contact them and the residence convenience to sit down for a discussion.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for anyone else from the public.

 

Mr. Christiansen closed the public hearing at 7:03 PM.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked the Board if there were any additional questions, if not he would begin reading the tests.

 

There was a discussion regarding the relationship with the health, safety and welfare test and the flooding concerns of the nearby neighborhood.

 

Test #1: Such variance will not be contrary to the public interest.  

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #2: Such variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized for the district in which the property for which the variance sought is located.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #3: Such variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property in the same district.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #4: Such variance will not alter the essential character of the district in which it is located or the property for which the variance is sought.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #5: Such variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purposes of this Ordinance.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #6: The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial, and are not due to, or the result of, general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #7: The variance will not substantially weaken the general purposes of this Ordinance or the regulations herein established for the specific district.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Test #8: The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

Yes: 4   No:  0

 

Ms. Beasley made a motion to approve the variance, ZBA12-13 (Riverbend Multi-family).

 

Ms. Scully seconded the motion.

 

The motion to approve, passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

V.     Public Hearings and Action Items from Public Hearings (BASC)

 

A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA12-09 (2111 Hill Avenue), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property located at 2111 Hill Avenue, League City, Texas 77573, legally described as Lot 7, Block 25 of Moore’s Addition to the Town of Dickinson, in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof filed for record in the Office of the County Clerk of Galveston County, Texas. (INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 10-04-2012; FIRST COMPLIANCE HEARING CLOSED ON 11-01-2012))

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Candelaria Alvarado, 4903 39th Street, Dickinson, Texas 77539

                                 And 5009 Hauna Lane, Dickinson, Texas, 77539

 

Mr. Banks, Code Compliance Official, updated the Board on the events occurring on the property within the previous 30 days. The Building Official has provided the applicant with a list of items to be repaired. Code Compliance has visited the site and confirms that the structure has been demolished, yet another structure has been erected on the site and debris still remains to be removed from the site. Mr. Banks recommended that the Board review the repair list to provide those items that have been complied as well as those that remain outstanding. Mr. Banks also recommended that the timeframe be extended another 30 days to attend to the foundation of the demolished structure.

 

Ms. Benoit asked for confirmation that the subject structure spoken of at the last meeting was removed with another structure was constructed on-site.

 

Mr. Banks responded in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Beasley asked if the structure was constructed without a permit.

 

Mr. Banks responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Benoit asked if it needed a permit.

 

Mr. Banks replied that an accessory building could not be constructed without a primary structure.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the plumbing was the same plumbing that was discussed two months ago.

 

Mr. Banks responded that the water was being tapped from another owner’s water lines and the sewer was being openly dumped elsewhere on the property.

 

Ms. Scully asked that in previous discussions, was it not specified that the water usage of another water line had to cease.

 

Mr. Banks responded in the affirmative and requested to go through the list of items submitted by the Building Official to the Owner’s representative.

 

Item #1: Replace all rotten wood.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that this was no longer necessary since structure was demolished.

 

Item #2: Install proper attic ventilation.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that this was no longer necessary since structure was demolished.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that Item #3 was no longer necessary since structure was demolished.

 

Item #4: Noncompliant sewer line must be removed.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that even though the structure was demolished and the new structure is not permitted, the sewer line must still be removed.

 

Item #5: Noncompliant water lines must be removed.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that water lines must still be removed in regards to the previous discussion with the newly erected structure.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that Item #6 was no longer of relevance.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if there was electricity hooked up to the new structure.

 

Mr. Banks responded that electricity was not connected to the new structure, but that there was a generator on site and electrical wiring was attached to the water heater.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that Items #7 and #8 was no longer of relevance.

 

Item #9: Remove all improperly installed plumbing.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that this related to the previous Item #4 and #5.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that Item #10 was no longer of relevance.

 

Item #11: No High weeds/grass

 

Mr. Banks indicated that the Owner’s representatives were in the process of working towards compliance.

 

Item #12: Remove trash, litter and rubbish from site

 

Mr. Banks indicated that this item remains as can be seen from the photographs. He added that there were initially 5 or 6 junk vehicles and 2 remain.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that Item #14 was no longer of relevance.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if any items would be added to the list.

 

Mr. Banks indicated that the slab would need to be removed as well as the other structure as well.

 

Ms. Scully asked if Mr. Banks would be compiling a new list of items or an addendum to this list.

 

Mr. Banks replied in the affirmative that a revised list of items would be forwarded to the Owner’s representative, Mr. Delgado.

 

Mr. Christiansen added that Items # 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 13 remain unaddressed with two items being added for the foundation and new structure on-site.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for any other questions to Staff.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for Mr. Delgado to approach the microphone.

 

Mr. Christiansen swore in Mr. Delgado.

 

Lorenzo Delgado, 2111 Hill Street, son of the Owner, came forward. Mr. Delgado gave the Board a brief discussion of what he and his family have done to the property and what remains on the site. In conclusion, Mr. Delgado asked for time.

 

Ms. Beasley asked Mr. Delgado if the Board gave him until the next meeting to complete the necessary items.

 

Mr. Delgado responded in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for a motion.

 

Ms. Beasley made a motion to have another compliance hearing for the property at 2111 Hill Avenue at the Board’s regularly scheduled meeting on January 3rd meeting at 6:00 PM. She added that there was a remaining list as well as two additional items to be considered by the Owner’s representative.

 

Ms. Scully seconded the motion.

 

The motion to approve passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

VI. Adjournment

 

Ms. Benoit made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

 

Ms. Beasley seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

      Ms. Beasley adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m.

 

 ___________________________________             ______________________________

Mark Linenschmidt                                                    Jim Christiansen,

Senior Planner                                                           Chair, Zoning Board of Adjustment             

 

 

Date minutes approved: ___________________