Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout386-BADATE: September 5, 1996 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Stephen C. Richardson, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consider an application for a building setback variance for an existing commercial structure located in the C-M (Commercial -Manufacturing) District. FILE: 386-BA STAFF REPORT AND PROJECT INFORMATION The Planning Director recommends approval of the request. The application is in compliance with Conditions A, B and C. The existing cinder block building at 1440-50 Neches is located across Lots 21 through 30, which takes up all of Block 3, Langham Addition. This addition was platted in 1915 and is located a few blocks south of the present Central Business District. The property was originally zoned C-1 (Neighborhood -Commercial ) in 1955, converted to GC -MD (General Commercial - Multiple Family Dwelling) in 1981 with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and changed to C-M (Commercial - Manufacturing) after a rezoning study by the City staff in 1986. There were no building setback (yard) regulations for commercial or industrial buildings until the new zoning ordinance, which became effective on April 1, 1981. Most district setback regulations pertain to required front, rear and side yards for both interior lots and exterior lots (corner lots). The front of a lot is defined as the more narrow portion of the lot abutting a street. Since the subject building took up all of the block, containing 1.65 acres, it is apparent that the entire block - bounded by Neches, Langham, Gray and Emmett - was regarded and treated by the building inspection department as one lot. The narrow part of the block and the side that fronts a major street is the Neches Street side. The building faces Neches, the parking and drives are located in the front of the building and the two addresses are on Neches. The existing front yard or the distance between the front of the 200'x 200' building and the east property line is 74.3 feet. The rear yard along Gray Street is 25 feet, The setback along Emmett is 34 feet, more or less. The building, however, sits close to on the property line on the south side along Langham. A survey done by registered surveyors in July 1996, shows the south edge of the structure lies from 4.8'to 4.9' from the property line. This survey also assumes that the required building setback along Langham Street is five (5') feet. This is not the case and is in error. The proper regulated building setback is ten (10') feet. The building encroaches about 5' into the south side setback. The applicant's request for a variance is based upon the mistaken assumption that the structure encroaches only from P to 2" into the required yard. It was first thought by staff that the building must have been constructed prior to the setback or yard regulations which became effective on April 1, 1981. However, it was found that the actual building permit was issued to the Galaxy Building Corporation on behalf of the Beaumont Industrial Corporation on June 30, 1981, two months after the adoption of the ordinance. The pert -nit was for a $330,000 "shell only" structure at 1450 Neches, This is the earliest permit record discovered by staff after searching tl1rOL1gl1 the records of the building official. No record of any variance request could be located, either. The resulting 5' setback on Langbarn instead of the minimum 10' can be attributed either to mistake or to some prior agreement between the building officials and developer, evidence of which cannot be located at this time. The commercial structure has been standing about 15 years. A sale is pending on the property and the encroachment has caused a minor cloud on the property, Exhibits are attached. PUBLIC NOWICATION Notices mailed to property owners 24 - Responses in Favor . Responses in Opposition -. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 21-30, Block 3, Langliarn Addition, City of Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. VAPdANCm SUPPIEMENTAL APPLE CA71ON FORM CE, BEAUMONT, TEXAS (CODO SECnON 30-37 k3),. The Board of Adjustment has the power to grant variances where the following-listec1 zonditions have been met. Indicate how your application meets each of these conditions In the space following each condition. Separate sheets may be attached. Me applicant has Me burden of proof to demonstrate that all three of the conditions necessary for a variance have been niet). Except as otherwise prohibited, the Board is empowered to authorizc` a variance from a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance when the Board finds that all of the following conditinng have been met: CONDM O_NA, That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. There is an existing building on -the above-descr-ibed-proper-ty.? The* a ' ttacbed.-survey plat caused to be made by prospective purchaser, EMC Industries,..L.-L.C., shows that the south wall of the building encroaches 1.2 inches at the'east boundary line of the building and the encroachment widens to 2.4 inch6e ruvning-along the south wall to the west boundary of the building. The granting of*the variance will not be -against public policy because this minimal encroachment was probably the result of a misadvertence and the granting of a variance will not reward a conscious, wilful indifference to the City ordinance. 0QNDITJ. ON R_ That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result *in: unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness., shape, topography of other. extraordinary or exceptional physical situation or physical condition unique to the specific -pi&e- of prop" in qucstion. "Unncc=ary 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 owner's own actions. The literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of the narrowness of the Land where the demolition and reconstruction of thewall must take place would make it virtually impossible to literally -comply with the ordinance. CONDMON Q That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinaue� 'wiffhe observed and substantial justice will be done. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and sub- stantial justice will be done because an encroachment so minimal would not be of great concern to the public or the public officials charged with the ' enforcement of the ordinance. The prospective Purchaser, through its attorneys, have.,required, as is their right 'pursuant to their contract, thisvariance.'or,consent to encroachment to avoid future difficulties as remote as they may seem '-to..the seller'and-its attorney. I HEREBY AMST THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGEUY.REQUOT MEETS THE CONDITIONS STATED ABOVE. Applicant's signature., Daw. hit @0 AIN 0 Ab t File 386-BA: A request for a variance to the building setback rqgulations NORTH -0, bo pertaining to an existing structure located in the -!,.CM tie (Commercial -Manufacturing) District Location: 1440-50 Neches St. A& Applicant; Thomas J,LykXs, Atty. for Beaumont Industrial Corp. SCALE F® 1-1--2001 .00 Ob Jae -1 �z r & 2 tA 4 + %0 Af r, Q) lu Ll Ui z r6 4 2, to EMM-ETT'AVE. to C, 14 1.9 It 6 SUBJECT/it 7 8 LANGNAM' AVE. X, 0 5.9 50 $7 4.9 40 47 46 6t 69 0 O 14 63 af 54 33 5z 50" V ROYAL::$*. 10 LF 'Vo ' 19.70 77 /Ors 74 Uj 44 tv it Uj 7� z AIG r a CRAIG: ST. AM& FO 4 .9 �A y 4iI sill X z t 6 t t ? E E d 1- c2 's k t 3aa .s, ZI �yWQg 6 K fz -g e c2 B (4 F w .wFz z z z (45 w U1011HIP f" Xe ki, Y -2 Q Z j�,s Z "M • E a -got H I t al -6IM-Z. Z k do 4 a a -9, A, g 1'-2 .3 N ("AI'Ta .09) ILHHZ:TLILS SHROHN 100,0K, 1Ivo V6*60.2: AL,,QT,TO.00S (I VY c, LI io co 0 0) 0 co u E4 pq zo 0 0) 0 0-1 co Lu 3 ZU C) [a T.00.00M aKA .99"oof IWO '00.0of (,41*0*8 '09) 3 I I m 1 9 ONJ 77yo The Board of Adjustment is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance when the Board finds that all of the following conditions have been net: CONDITION A: That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. CONDITION B: That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation or physical condition 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. CONDITION C: That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done, ANALYSIS CONDITION A - APPLICANT'S STATEMENT There is an existing building on the above -described property. The attached survey plat caused to be made by prospective purchaser, EMC Industries, L.L. C., shows that the south wall of the building encroaches 1.2 inches at the east boundary line of the building and the encroachment widens to 2.4 inches running along the south wall to the west boundary of the building. The granting of the variance will not be against public policy because this minimal encroachment was probably the result of a misadvertence and the granting of a variance will not reward a conscious, willful indifference to the City ordinance. CONDITION A -STAFF RESPONSE Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. The building was permitted for construction 15 years ago, only 2 months after the adoption of yard regulations. It can take quite some time for new regulations to extend out to all departments concerned in any large institution, and the city is certainly no exception. The side of the building encroaching is not used for access or deliveries. There are no driveways along this side of the building. The location of the structure, approximately 26' off the pavement, causes no line -of -sight obstructions to drivers. CONDITION B - APPLICANT'S STATEMENT The literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of the narrowness of the land where the demolition and reconstruction of the wall must take place would make it virtually impossible to literally comply with the ordinance, CONDITION B - STAFF RESPONSE The enforcement of the ordinance regarding this encroachment would require that a 5' x 200' portion of the building be demolished, then removed and a new wall constructed. The variance is requested by the proposed new owner so that there will be no perceived cloud on the title, CONDITION C - APPLICANT'S STATEMENT That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done because an encroachment so minimal would not be of great concern to the public or the public officials charged with the enforcement of the ordinance. The prospective purchaser, through its attorneys, have required, as is their right pursuant to their contract, this variance or consent to encroachment to avoid future difficulties as remote as they may seem to the seller and its attorney. CONDITION C - STAFF RESPONSE The spirit of the ordinance will be observed and justice done by granting the variance. The building already exists and the encroachment has caused no harm to the public. Although there are no available public records to demonstrate that the placement of the building was approved prior to the setback regulations of 1981, this does not preclude that city officials did not grant such an approval. However, the sale of the property is being held up due to the apparent structural encroachment. GENERAL INFORMATIONIPU13LIC UTILITIES APPLICANT: Thomas J. Lykos PROPERTY OWNER: Beaumont Industrial Corporation LOCATION: 1440-50 Neches STATUS OF APPLICANT: Attorney and Agent EXISTING ZONING: C-M (Commercial -Manufacturing) District PROPERTY SIZE: 1.65 acres, more or less EXISTING LAND USES: Commercial building, two addresses FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: "C" Minimal Flood Hazard Zone SURROUNDING LAND USES: SURROUNDING ZONING: NORTH: Vacant lots, abandoned house C-M (Commercial -Manufacturing) EAST: Vacant lots C-M SOUTH: Frame residences C-M WEST: Vacant commercial building, storage C-M COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Conservation and Revitalization, South of the Central Business District GENERAL INFORMATION/PUBLIC UTILTIES (continued) OTHER PHYSICAL FEATURES: None STREETS: Neches - 60' right-of-way, 3 8' pavement; Langham - 60' right-of-way, 18' pavement; Gray - 60' right-of- way, 18' pavement; Emmett - 46' right-of-way, 18' pavement. DRAINAGE: There is a 15" storm sewer in Neches. Open ditches in Emmett, Gray and Langham. (Records show a 15" storm sewer in Emmett, near Neches). WATER: Neches - 12", Langham - 2"; Gray - 6"; Emmett - 12" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE: Neches - 8"; Langham - 6"; Gray - 54"; Emmett - 24" FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection is provided by Station # 1, 747 College. ADEQUACY Services and utilities are adequate. Pavement width OF SERVICE: of Gray, Emmett, and Langham are substandard.