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

January 3, 2013

6:00 PM

City Council Chambers

200 West Walker Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.                   Call to order and Roll call of members

 

II.                Approval of Minutes

A.     December 6, 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, ZBA12-14 (Javadi), a variance request to the 25-foot front yard setback requirement (Section 125-70.(c)) on approximately 0.10 acres zoned “RSF-7” (Single-family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet), legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 of the Glen Cove Subdivision, generally located north of Knollwood and east of Cove Park Drive, with the approximate address being 2108 Knollwood.

 

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

A.     Hold a third 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; SECOND COMPLIANCE HEARING CLOSED ON 12-06-2012)

 

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 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 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

January 3, 2013 

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                                                     LONZELL BANKS

SENIOR PLANNER                                                              CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS/

BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

THURSDAY January 3, 2013 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 6:07 p.m.

 

Members present:                                                       Members absent:

James R. Christiansen, Chair                                       Amy Beasley

Janet Alleman                                                                                     

Katie Benoit

Elizabeth Scully

           

*Mr. Christiansen activated both Ms. Benoit as a voting member.      

 

City Representatives:

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner

Lonzell Banks, Code Compliance Official

 

II.    Approval of Minutes

 

A.     December 6, 2012

 

Ms. Scully made a motion approve the minutes of December 6, 2012.

Ms. Benoit seconded the motion.

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

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 after the date of the decision rendered by this board or such time period as indicated by Section 216.014 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, ZBA12-14 (Javadi), a variance request to the 25-foot front yard setback requirement (Section 125-70.(c)) on approximately 0.10 acres zoned “RSF-7” (Single-family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet), legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 of the Glen Cove Subdivision, generally located north of Knollwood and east of Cove Park Drive, with the approximate address being 2108 Knollwood.

 

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. He indicated that staff requests a condition that the proposed structure shall be constructed in the same approximate location and whereby the rest of the structure must comply with the remaining side yard and rear yard setbacks.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if they were essentially taking the same footprint and renovating or replacing the structure.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that his understanding that the applicant was unsure of what he wanted to do. Mr. Linenschmidt then asked the applicant, Mr. Jay Javadi, to approach the microphone.

 

Mr. Mohamad Javadi, 1909 Carriage Creek Lane of Friendswood, Texas approached the microphone and explained what was required by the City’s Building Code and howthe structure would need to be addressed with respect to the floodplain requirements.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the structure is rebuilt and the square footage is increased, would the applicant be required to bring the structure up to current codes such as electrical, roofing, hurricane straps, etc.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the structure was considered a two-story structure where the first floor of the structure is a garage and there can be no living space or if the structure would remain a two-story structure after being elevated out of the floodplain.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt explained what is and what is not permitted on the ground floor of a structure that is being elevated out of the flood plain.

 

Ms. Scully asked if it would still be considered a two-story structure because of the garage underneath it.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt confirmed that the structure is currently two-stories.

 

Ms. Scully asked for confirmation that the applicant is undecided upon what course of action he was intending with the property, either reconstruct or renovate.

 

Mr. Javadi confirmed that he is continuing his cost analysis for the property based on all of the code requirements. Mr. Javadi also indicated that the structure is essentially a one-story structure since the ground floor is unusable.

 

Ms. Scully asked Mr. Linenschmidt if there were any architectural review commission restrictions within this subdivision.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that he was unaware if there was since the City of League City does not enforce deed restrictions.

 

Ms. Scully asked if there was a utility easement that runs along Cove Park Drive.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt replied that any utility easement would be identified on the survey.

 

Ms. Scully made a comment regarding the rear deck in proximity to any easements.


Mr. Linenschmidt responded that staff had made a requested condition that the structure must meet the remaining requirements.

 

There was a discussion regarding the shape of the subject property and of the Glen Cove neighborhood.

 

Ms. Scully asked if there was an issue of the property being 2 lots.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that the code permits the property to be seen as one lot, as long as 1) either one or both of the lots does not meet the width or size requirement for a lot in the designated zoning district and, 2) the property was in the current configuration at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted.

 

Ms. Scully asked if Mr. Javadi had submitted the proper documentation of the lots to be considered one.

 

Mr. Javadi indicated that he was recently made aware of the issue.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt added that Mr. Javadi’s permit request was still under review.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if there was any additional detail regarding the approximate size of the property.

 

Mr. Javadi responded that the structure would be 1,450 to 1,460 square feet in size.

 

Ms. Benoit asked what the size of the current structure was.

 

Mr. Javadi responded that he did not know.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if there were any restrictions on increasing the size of the renovation relative to the existing site and the surrounding neighborhood.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that the development standards are set by the Zoning Ordinance. Within the Zoning Ordinance, each specific zoning district identifies the allowable setbacks, lot coverage, as well as maximum height; staff must approve the plans if the basic development requirements are met.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if the Zoning Ordinance had any allowance for older neighborhoods. Ms. Benoit further asked how the older neighborhoods are  protected, when the ordinance does not address it.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt indicated that the alterations have already begun. It first began with the adoption of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, whereby the focus is more on character and context sensitive solutions, as opposed to performance zoning. Staff is currently working to make those revisions to the Zoning Ordinance.

 

Ms. Scully asked Mr. Javadi what the square footage of the house was when he purchased the property.

 

Mr. Javadi responded that he did not know. He added that it was his understanding that the revised structure would be smaller than the overall size of the existing structure. Mr. Javadi reiterated the description of the area surrounding the property.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt added that the character test in the staff report would reflect the ongoing changes in the neighborhood. Considering that the character of the neighborhood has changed, the denial of the request could be seen as a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood as well.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if staff had heard from any of the neighbors, positive or negative.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that no one had contacted the Planning Department.

 

Mr. Christiansen indicated that the City Attorney, Steve Weathered, would like to ask the applicant a question.

 

Mr. Weathered asked if there was an error in Mr. Javadi’s letter that states the lot was 500 square feet in size.


Mr. Javidi indicated in the affirmative and that the lot was 5,000 square feet and was an error in the letter.

 

Mr. Weathered then asked if it was Mr. Javadi’s testimony, in his letter, when he indicated that if the 20-foot setback were enforced then the property would be useless and render it not buildable for a house.

 

Mr. Javadi indicated in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the setback that is being requested is the setback of the existing house, and therefore the requested setback is in keeping with the remaining portion of the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Javadi indicated in the affirmative.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked the Board if there were any additional questions.

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the public hearing at 6:36 PM.

 

Mr. Christiansen closed the public hearing at 6:37 PM with no one speaking.

 

The Board voted on the tests in the Variance Findings Form. There was a discussion regarding the confusing nature of the various tests and the votes.

 

Ms. Scully made a motion to revote on the 8 tests.

 

Ms. Alleman seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Christiansen stated that the vote would be based on a true/false in lieu of Yea/Nay.

 

Motion passed unanimously 4-0-0.

 

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

True: 4   False:  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.

True: 4   False:  0

 

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

True: 4   False:  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.

True: 4   False:  0

 

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

True: 4   False:  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.

True: 4   False:  0

 

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

True: 4   False:  0

 

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

True: 4   False:  0

 

Mr. Weathered stated to Mr. Christiansen that staff had made a request for a condition.

 

Ms. Scully made a motion to approve the variance request with staff’s condition.

 

Ms. Allemen seconded the motion.

 

The motion to approve passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0, subject to the condition as stated.

 

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

 

A.     Hold a third 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; SECOND COMPLIANCE HEARING CLOSED ON 12-06-2012)

 

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 Code Compliance Official provided the applicant with an updated list of items to be repaired and briefly discussed the updated list. Mr. Banks recommended that the City remove the slab foundation as well as the newly constructed building and associated plumbing. Mr. Banks added that should the Commission decide to provide the Owner with an additional 30 day time period,  the Owner is  required to provide a timely schedule of progress related to the slab foundation, removal of newly constructed building and associated plumbing.

 

Ms. Scully asked for clarification as to what Mr. Banks was asking the Commission to consider – to order for removal or another 30 days for compliance?

 

Mr. Banks responded in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Scully asked if another compliance hearing needed to be held.

 

Mr. Banks responded in the affirmative.

 

Ms. Scully asked if it would take care of the associated plumbing issues at that time.

 

Mr. Banks responded in the affirmative. Mr. Banks added that the City would remove the slab foundation, as well as the newly constructed building and associated plumbing, if an order were approved.

 

Ms. Scully asked if a lien would be placed on the property owner if the City was required to perform the work.

 

Mr. Banks responded in the affirmative. He added that the lien process was discussed with the Owner’s representative, Mr. Delgado, and discussed the process.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the compliance hearing could extend past the 30 days.

 

Mr. Weathered discussed the League City Ordinance and how it is applied, as to the current case, based on the information presented and prior actions by the Commission.

 

Mr. Banks added that should the Commission decide to extend beyond the 90-day time frame, then progress reports would be required.

 

Ms. Alleman asked if the Owner’s Representative has been in contact with City staff on a regular basis and if  any information had been relayed regarding issues in financing the work to be done.

 

Mr. Banks replied that staff was not aware of any financial issues of the Owner’s representative and that progress was being made.

 

Ms. Scully asked if the 90 days began at the first compliance hearing or the original hearing.

 

Mr. Banks explained that the first hearing was establishing the violations and creation of the list of the repairs for the Owner’s representative. He added that the Owner’s representative stated at the meeting that he desired to repair the structure but later demolished the structure.

 

There was a brief discussion regarding what was said during the initial hearing and what actions were performed on-site.

 

Ms. Scully, again, asked if the 90 days began at the first compliance hearing or the original hearing.

 

Mr. Banks responded that it began at the first compliance hearing.

 

Mr. Weathered clarified the intent of the statute and the Ordinance for the Commission related to the 90-day time frame and what options are available to the Commission.

 

Mr. Banks added that, based on the order decided at tonight’s meeting, the Owner’s representative would be notified via certified mail and a notice would be placed on the property. Mr. Banks requested that  the order include the slab of the demolished structure, the newly erected, non-compliant, structure and associated plumbing. The remaining issued could be addressed by code enforcement.

 

Ms. Scully made a motion that the applicant be given an extension of 30 days (to February 7th, 2013), and that within the 30-day time frame the applicant must remove the slab from the original building, remove the non-compliant shed, and remove and cap the non-compliance sewer and water lines. At the end of the 30 days, the applicant must appear before the Commission and give cause as to why the time frame should be extended.

 

Ms. Benoit seconded the motion and asked that the applicant provide weekly progress reports to the City.

 

Ms. Scully amended her motion.

 

Ms. Benoit amended her second.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the Owner does not do anything that triggers the payment of the lien, then the City may not be paid for quite some time.

 

Mr. Banks responded in the affirmative.

 

There was a discussion on the feasibility of the applicant to perform the required tasks since the Commission would have to make a determination on the property.

 

Mr. Christiansen called for a vote.

 

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

 

VI.   Adjournment

 

Ms. Alleman made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

 

Ms. Scully seconded the motion.

 

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

 

Mr. Christiansen adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.

 

 ___________________________________             ______________________________

Mark Linenschmidt                                          Jim Christiansen,

Senior Planner                                                             Chair, Zoning Board of Adjustment                       

 

 

Date minutes approved: ___________________