1978-11-29 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~ ~ ~~3Er'lORANDUPd • -November 1, 197 8 TO: -Mayor and Council _-FROM: J. R. Hudgens -SUBJECT: Zoning I ata in receipt (attached) or correspondence from Beau-Bay .Development Corporation, developers of the Creekmont subdivision, and Monarch Homes, a proposed builder in Creekmont, requesting two variances from our zoning ordinance. The two requirements of the ordinance that prompted the variance requests are: 1. dotal slab area of structures cannot exceed one-third (1/3) of the total lot area. 2. ~.'wenty-five (25) feet minimum setback from rear property line - except for detached structures may be within three (3) feet of rear property line. Monarch Homes, a tract builder, proposes to build four models in the referenced subdivision. Upon submission of their plans for • construction it was determined that some of their proposed con- struction would violate the above two zoning provisions. In response to the variance request a telephone survey of ten (10) surrounding communities was made (attached) for compara- tive purposes. Of the ten communities surveyed, three did not have zoning. The remaining seven approached the required open areas in a manner less specific than La Porte, witr. the exception of Nassau Bay. In addition to the telephone survey, I visited with Dr. Wolfgang Roeseler, Chairman, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Architecture and Environmental Design at Texas A&M University. Dr. Roeseler indicated that there is a trend to smaller lot sizes due to increased cost of land and construction. He indicated, however, that coupled with this trend is a shift to alternative types of housing. The al- • ternatives, although still single family dwellings, reflect changes that are not traditional elements of single family units. Such items as zero lot lines, patio homes and planned unit devel- opments that allow for increased densities but at the same time retain a measure of aesthetic objectives while maximizing land use. The survey or my discussions with Dr. Roeseler do not indi- cate a clear-cut answer to the question at hand. As a point of interest or confusion, Dr. Roeseler (who is not an attorney) indicated that. in his judgment the City could not grant "the variance" requested by Monarch Homes because it exceeded the defi- • nition of a variance ir. that what they (Monarch) are requesting is a "rezoning" of an entire area. In his. (Dr. Roeseler) judg- ment, the granting of a variance would be proper only when it