09-26-13 Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting

Browse Search

Page 3 GROUNDS FOR THIS REQUEST: l) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest. The Applicant believes this variance request is not contrary to public interest. The site plan has evaluated and taken efforts to preserve much of the native trees on site while providing adequate parking for the senior residents. The BC team and the Applicant intend to make Mariposa Pecan Park a beautiful addition to the La Porte community. This variance will prevent unnecessary impervious cover and allow Mariposa at Pecan Park to save many large trees on the north end of the community. 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 shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography constitutes the primary example of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot be granted. The 12.97 acre site has a few unchangeable properties that impact the site plan for Mariposa Pecan Park. First, there is an existing median cut in Canada Road at the south entrance to Pecan Park. This existing median cut requires the Applicant to place the entrance and front door to Mariposa Pecan Park directly in the middle of the property. Second, the detention pond for the 12.97 acre site is being designed to serve the future detention needs of the remaining commercial pad sites that sit between the proposed Mariposa at Pecan Park site and Canada Road. In addition to oversizing the detention pond for the pad sites the Applicant placed the detention pond in the only area that could have access to both the City controlled drainage facility to the south and the Harris County drainage facility to the east. Third, there is an existing pipeline easement that runs through the north end of the site, which presents a number of site design issues. The placement of buildings, drives and parking all have been placed in respect to these existing properties and make the existing parking requirements per the R-3 zoning ordinance infeasible to be constructed as adjacent parking. In order to satisfy the ordinance, we would be required to construct a remote parking lot at the north end of the 12.97 acre site and would result in a tremendous loss of large trees that currently exist in that area that could be saved if a variance is granted. The current site plan takes the matters discussed above into account. The existing parking requirements of the R-3 zoning ordinance are impractical and frankly, infeasible if the City wishes to maintain the large trees currently located on the north side of the site and not construct what would be an empty remote parking lot. In addition, we believe the addition of this remote parking lot would result in a hardship for the community because of the additional, unnecessary impervious coverage that will be added and vegetation that will be lost. 3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. The granting of this variance does not violate the spirit of the zoning ordinance, as it is fully our intention to provide adequate parking for the senior residents. As long-term owners, BC and the Applicant have