Zoning Board of Adjustment

I MEMORANDUM ! TO: Carolyn Sunseri, Chairperson and Zoning Board of Adjustment Members I FROM: Janice Norman, Urban Planner I, Zoning Administrator Department of Planning and Community Development DATE: February 26,2013 RE: 13Z-01 (1014 61 st Street) Request for a variance from the Galveston Zoning Standards Section 29-105 (c) (1) (d) (1&2) regarding sign height, type and square footage, in a Commercial, Gateway Development Zone, Zone -1, Height and Density Development Zone, Zone 1 (C-GDZ-l­ HDDZ-l) zoning district. Property is legally described as part of Lot 34 (34-2), Trimble and Lindsey, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas Applicant and Property Owner: Lamson Nguyen This case was continued from the February 6, 2013, regular meeting to the March 6, 2013, regular meeting, due to the lack of a quorum. The staff report was sent in the February 6, 2013, packet. This was the first continuance of this case and there are no additional costs associated with the continuance. xc: Rick Vasquez, Director Department of Planning S:\Planning\PJanning Division\ZBA\Staff Reports\ 13zba\13Z-0 1\13Z-O I Memo.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Carolyn Sunseri, Chairperson and Zoning Board of Adjustment Members FROM: Libby Stone, Coastal Development Planner' Planning Department DATE: February 27,2013 RE: 13Z-02 (6702 Seawall Boulevard) Request for a variance from the Galveston Zoning Standards Section 29-102(k)(7)b. regarding a pylon sign within the Retail, Seawall Development Zone, Zone 4, Height and Density Development Zone, Zone 5, (R-SDZ-4-HDDZ-5) zoning district. Property is legally described as Hall & Jones Survey, Part of Lots 90 and 101 (76-4), Trimble and Lindsey Section 1, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: CMA c/o Bruce Carlson Property Owner: Walmart Real Estate Business Trust % Walmart Stores, Inc. # 504 c/o Dana Morrison The applicant is requesting a continuance for the above request until the regular Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on May 8, 2013, in order to gather further information regarding the destroyed pylon sign. This is the first continuance of this case and there are no additional costs associated with the continuance. xc: Rick Vazquez, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Community Development S:\Planning\Planning DivisionlZBAIStaffReportsl13zbal13Z-02113Z-02 ntento2.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Carolyn Sunseri, Chairperson and Board Members Galveston Zoning Board of Adjustment FROM: Dustin Henry AICP, Urban Planner II, Planning GIS Analyst Department of Planning and Community Development henrydus@cityofgalveston.org or 409-797-3669 DATE: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 RE: 13Z-03 (2828 Seawall Boulevard) Request for a variance from the Galveston Zoning Standards Section 29-67 Vehicle Parking. Property is legally described as Lots 1 through 4, Southwest Block 140 of the Galveston Outlots, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: John Listowski/HomeLife Builders Property Owner: Inman Investments, Inc. The above request was originally scheduled for consideration at the February 6, 2013 regular Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, however the applicant requested this case be continued until the March 6, 2013 regular meeting. This is the first continuance of this case and there are no additional costs associated with the continuance. xc: Rick Vazquez, Director Planning Department S:\Planning\Planning Division\ZBA\Staff Reports\13zba\I3Z-03\13Z-03 memo.docx I t 1 1 Staff Report Case 13Z-06 Page 1 13Z-06 (3618 Seawall Boulevard) Request for a variance from the Galveston Zoning Standards Section 29-102(d) regarding fence location and height. Property is legally described as the north part of Northwest Block 186, Lot 14, Southwest Block 161, and Part of Adjacent Street (186-0-2) of the Galveston Outiots, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant and Property Owner: COTB, Inc. clo Gary Roger Druss Existin2 Zonin2 and Land Use: Zoning Retail, Seawall Development Zone, Zone 2, Height and Density Development Zone, Zone 3(R-SDZ-2-HDDZ-3) Land Use Commercial, Hotel or Motel Surroun d'109 Z ODln~ ' andLandUse: North South East West Zoning Retail, Seawall Retail, Seawall Retail, Seawall Development Development Development Zone, Zone 2, Zone, Zone 2, Zone, Zone 2, Beach, Seawall Height and Height and Height and Development Density Density Density Zone, Zone 2 (B- Development Development Development SDZ-2) Zone, Zone 3 Zone, Zone 3 Zone, Zone 3 (R-SDZ-2-HDDZ­ (R-SDZ-2-HDDZ­ (R-SDZ-2-HDDZ­ 3) 3) 3) Land Use Commercial, Vacant, Beach Commercial, Commercial, Surface Parking Restaurant Hotel or Motel n "" , ....... • I: 2013: Sent Returned In Favor In Opposition No Comment 22 Advertisement Date: February 22, 2013 City Department Notifications: Private Utility Notifications: Airport: Pending A. T. & T: Pending Building Department: Pending CenterPoint Energy: Pending Fire Chief: Pending Comcast: Pending Fire Marshal: Pending Texas Gas Service: Pending Police Department: Pending Public Works: Pending ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to repair an existing perimeter fence along the south property line, located between the existing hotel and Seawall Boulevard. Repair work to the fence, approximately 200' in length, will utilize the existing brick piers, with a new iron fence to be installed, resulting in an overall height of the fence between 4'-9" and 5'-3" at the brick columns. The Seawall Development Guidelines, Section 29-102 of the Galveston Zoning Standards, disallows fencing within the area between the north right-of-way line of Seawall Boulevard and the south fas;ade of the respective structure. Exceptions to this prohibition include fencing to control the sale of alcohol, fencing around parking lots associated with hotel/motel and resort developments, residential uses, and fences around swimming pools that meet the requirements of the 2009 International Residential Code, as IStaff Report Case 13Z-06 Page 2 I amended and adopted by the City of Galveston, which requires a minimum height of 48" above grade. The proposed fence will be between 9" and IS" taller than the minimum requirements of a swimming pool fence. 1. Variances regarding fence location and height The proposed fence is subject to the following requirements per 29-1 02( d)( I) of the Galveston Zoning Standards: J (d) Fencing (Ord 02.091) ! (l) No fencing is permitted within the area between the north right-of-way line of Seawall Boulevard i. and the south facade of the respective structure. However, this provision shall not apply to: a. A protective barrier, utilized to control the sale of alcohol, in accordance with the Texas I Alcoholic and Beverage Commission. b. Fences required around swimming pools, in accordance with Section 10-3 of the Code of the City of Galveston. c. Fences existing on the effective date of this ordinance. J d. Residential uses. e. Front yard fencing for properties without direct Seawall Boulevard street frontage shall ~ comply with the existing regulations of Section 29-66 (b) ofthe Galveston Zoning Standards. f. (Ord 02.091) Parking lots associated with and adjacent to hotel/motel and resort developments. (Ord02.091) Variance(s) Regut$ted - the applicant is requesting variances from the following: II Fence location - between the north right-of-way line of Seawall Boulevard and the south fayade of the respective structure Il i Fence height from 48" to 63" f Applicant's Justification Please refer to Attachment "B" for a copy of the applicant's written justification for the request. Among i the reasons cited in the narrative, the applicant has indicated that the Galveston County Health \ Department has indicated that they want a higher fence. Other reasons include securing the privacy and safety of guests of the hotel, as well as the public using Seawall Boulevard. I CONDITIONS FOR A VARIANCE The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance under this Section only if the variance is not prohibited by ,I Section 14.40 I.e. in Article 14, Administrative Bodies, and if the Board makes a determination in writing I that all of the following are demonstrated: t I. The request for the variance is rooted in special conditions of the applicant's property that do not generally exist on other properties in the same zoning district. 2. Due to said special conditions, the literal enforcement of the strict terms of these Land Development Regulations would impose an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. 3. The variance is not contrary to the public interest, in that: i. It does not allow applicants to impair the application of these regulations for: I k f ; a. Self-imposed hardships; b. Hardships based solely on financial considerations, convenience or inconvenience; or c. Conditions that are alleged to be "special," but that are actually common to many properties within the same zoning district. ii. The variance will not have a detrimental impact upon: IStaff Report Case 13Z-06 Page 31 a. The current or future use of adjacent properties for purposes for which they are zoned; b. Public infrastructure or services; and c. Public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 4. The degree of variance allowed from these Land Development Regulations is the least that is necessary to grant relief from the identified unnecessary hardship. 5. The variance shall not be used to circumvent other procedures and standards of these Land II f Development Regulations that could be used for the same or comparable effect (e.g., if alternative development patterns, alternative development standards, or other flexible measures in these regulations are available that would avoid or mitigate hardship without using a variance, then they must be used). \ 6. By granting the variance, the spirit of these Land Development Regulations is observed and I substantial justice is done. APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BOARD In accordance with Section 29-112, any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board, or any officer, department or other Board of the City, may appeal the decision or action ofthe Board by filing a petition for Ii the same in a court of competent jurisdiction, setting forth that such decision is illegal in whole or in part, and specifYing the grounds for the alleged illegality. Such petition shall be filed with the Court within ten (10) days from the day the Board renders its decision, and not thereafter. The time period set forth herein shall be deemed jurisdictional. I ATTACHMENTS "A" Aerial Map "B" Applicant's Narrative "COO ­ Site Plan "D" ­ Existing and Proposed DrawingslPhotos Date fPlanning Date S:\Planning\Planning Division\zBA\StaffReports\l3zba\13Z-06\13Z-06 STF.docx