HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-29-11 Zoning Board of AdjustmentNotice is hereby given of a Special Called Meeting of the La Porte Zoning Board ufAdjustment to be
held omDecember 29,2O11.sd6:O0P.M. adCity Hall Council Chambers, GO4West Fairmont Parkway,
La Porte, Texas, regarding the items of business according to the agenda listed below-,
l. Call boorder
2. Consider approval ofSeptember 22.2Oi1.meeting minutes.
Consider Variance Request #11-93000011 for the property located at 1718 Roscoe Street,
further described as 12.5 feet nfLot 13, all of Lots 14 through 24. Blonh27. BeyfnontAddidon
bothe Town ofLa Porte. Johnson Hunter Survey, /\batneot No. 35, La Porte, Harris County,
Texas. The applicant seeks to construct an accessory structure up to 19 1/2 feet high
exceeding the height limit of15`.contrary tothe provisions ofSection 106-741 ofthe Code cf
Ordinances. The variance is being sought under the terms of Section 106-192(b) (2) of the
City'sCode ofOrdinances.
A. Staff Presentation
B. Proponents
C. Opponents
D. Proponents Rebuttal
4. Consider Variance Request 911'93000010 for Lot 13-18' 21-24, 29'32. 37'40. and 44-48
Block 2, Lakes at Fairmont Greens, Section 1, W. P. Harris Survey, 4-30, Le Porte, Harris
County, Texas. The property owner seeks a reduction on the front building setback of the cul-
de-sac lots from 28' to 15' in order to construct homes in accordance with building plans and
specifications. ThevarianoeisbeingsnuQhtonderthetermaofSection1O6-1Q2(b)(2)ofthe
City'm Code of Ordinances.
A. Staff Presentation
B. Proponents
C. Opponents
O. Proponents Rebuttal
5. Administrative Reports
6. Board Comments on matters appearing on agenda or inquiry of staff regarding specific factual
information or existing policy
Aquorum of City Council members may be present and participate in discussions during this meeting; however,
no action will be taken by Council.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of La Porte will provide for reasonable
accommodations for persons attending public meetings. To better serve attendees, requests should
be received 24 hours prior to the meetings. Please contact Patrice Fogorty, City Secretary, at
281.470.5010.
MINNIMMIRRIEW
| certify that copy of the December 29. 2011. agenda of items to be considered by the Zoning Board
of Adjustment was posted on the City Hall bulletin board on the ____ day of
.2O11
Members Present: George Maltsberger, Charles Schoppe, Rod Rothermel, and Sherman Moore (Alt.
No, 2).
Members Absent: Chester Pool, T.J. Walker, and Lawrence McNeal (Alt, No 1).
City Staff Present: Traci Leach, Assistant City Manager; Masood Malik, City Planner; Clark Askins,
City Attorney; Peggy Lee, Planning Coordinator,
1. Call to Order.
Chairman George Maltsberger called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. Consider approval of the August 25, 2011, meeting minutes.
Motion by Rod Rothermel to approve the Minutes of August 25, 2011. Second by Sherman
Moore. Motion carried.
Ayes: George Maltsberger, Charles Schoppe, Rod Rothermel, and Sherman Moore (Alt.
No. 2).
Nays-. None
Abstain! None
3. Consider Variance Request #11-93000009 for the property located at 217 Sylvan Street,
further described by the Harris County Appraisal District as Lot 12, Block 3, Sylvan Beach
First Subdivision, Volume 3, Page 72, Map Records of Harris County, Johnson Hunter
Survey, Abstract No. 35, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. Barbra and Cletus Sheppard,
property owners, seek a variance to build a deck with handicapped ramp over one foot
height limit in the front yard, contrary to the provisions of Section 106-771 of the Code of
Ordinances. This variance is being sought under the terms of Section 106-192(b) (2) of the
Code of Ordinances.
Chairman Maltsberger opened the Public Hearing at 6-.05pm,
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Masood Malik, City Planner, presented staff's report.
Twelve public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 200' of the subject
property. The City received one response in favor and two were returned undeliverable.
Sherman Moore requested staff to review the Zoning Ordinance to see if changes are in
order for the height requirements.
B. PROPONENTS
1. Michael Garner of 201 & 205 Sylvan spoke in favor of the variance,
2. Dane Lester, son of Ms. Sheppard, spoke of the importance of the handicap
access for his mother.
3. Lou Ann Martin of 1103 Oak Leaf, spoke in favor of the variance.
C. OPPONENTS
TWeYere -mte.
D. PROPONENTS REBUTTAL
There were none.
Motion by Charles Schoppe to approve Variance Request *11-93000009, for the property located
at 217 Sylvan Street to build a deck with handicapped ramp over one foot height limit in the front
yard, Second by Rod Rothermel. Motion carried.
Ayes'. George Maltsberger, Charles Schoppe, Rod Rothermel, and Sherman Moore (Alt.
No. 2),
Zoning Board ofAdjustment
Minutes ofSeptember 22.2O11
Page 2of2
Nays: None
Abstain: None
4. Close Public Hearing
Chairman Maltsberger closed the public hearing at 6:1 5pm.
6. Administrative Reports
The Planning and Zoning Commission is currently working with consultant on the Comprehensive
Plan Update. The Commission reviewed Chapter 2 at the September 15^' Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting.
The City is currently working with the perspective consultant on updating the Northside
Neighborhood Plan.
7. Adjourn
Motion byRod Rothemne|hoadjourn. Second bySherman Moore. Motion Carried.
Ayes: George Maltsberger, Charles Schoppe, Rod Rothermel, and Sherman Moore (Alt. No.2).
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Chairman George &1aDobergeradjourned the meeting mt&16pm.
Submitted by,
Peggy Lee
Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment
Approved onthis day of 2011.
GeorgeMaltsberQeY
111111 �, �b1115
Wi 7 's b §!w 1 .
1110,441 I
I10011IS Y
EXHIBIT E - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
(None received as to elate)
Staff Report December 29, 2011
Variance 11® 1
Reguested by: Maury Rubenstein, Property Owner
Re uested for: Additional height of 4'/z ft. exceeding the maximiurn 15' allowed for an Accessory
Building
Location: 1718 Roscoe Street
(Block 27; 12.5 feet of lot 13 & all of lots 14 through 24, Bay Front Addition, Town of
La Porte)
znn° e Low Density Residential (R-1)
Bac1S ound: The applicant is requesting additional height of four and a half feet for an accessory
building exceeding the maximum fifteen feet allowed per Section 106-741(b) of the
Code of Ordinances. The purpose is to construct a building garage for accommodating a
large boat on trailer which would be over the height limit for accessory buildings. The
subject property is a proposed residential home site located in the Bayfront Addition to
La Porte by the Galveston Bay.
Several years ago, an old house/structure was demolished by the owner. Now, he is
developing a new residence with an attached and a detached garage on one acre of land.
located at 1718 Roscoe Street. Proposed house plan shows a circular drive with a
detached garage along Roscoe Street. An existing slab along Roscoe Street has been kept
intact for proposed detached garage.
In addition to new house and detached garage, the owner is proposing to build an
accessory structure to keep a larger boat on the property. Proposed structure is
approximately 27'x 37' and will be located in the rear at the southwest corner of Roscoe
Street and South Lobit Avenue. Furthermore, it is more than 30' behind the main
structure and has 10` setbacks at the rear and side property lines. An access to the
accessory building will be from South Lobit Avenue.
Proposed building neither exceeds 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area nor occupies more than 25%
of rear yard in compliance with the Code of Ordinances. In addition, accessory building
is designed to aesthetically blend with the primary structure and will incorporate same
building materials, Furthermore, the height of an accessory building will be the same as
of primary structure.
This property is among the waterfront properties. La Porte's waterfront properties are
unique in the sense that most of the rear yards face the street. The old town of La Porte
was platted as 25'x125' lots in the 19t" century. The property in question consists of
twelve of the same sized lots. The house will sit on six lots with a detached garage being
located in the rear yard along Roscoe Street. Typically, the garages were built close to the
street to maximize green spaces. In addition, the streets are narrow and few blocks long
due to the numerous bayous out falling into the Galveston Bay.
Zoning Board of Adjustinent
December 29, 2011
Page 2 of 3
n&a is: Section 106-192(b)(1), in the Cade of Ordinances, defines a variance as a deviation fiorn
the literal provisions of'the chapter which is granted by the Board when strict conformity
to the chapter ivould cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances
unique to the property on - Mich the variance is granted
Except as other-i,i)ise prohibited; the board is empori�ered to authorize a variance from a
requirement when the board„ nds that all of the folloiving conditions have been met.
+� That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest.
+° That literal enforcement of the chapter ;,hill result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narroivness, shallovimess, shape, topography or ether extraordinary or
exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question.
"Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself
as distinguished fi°om a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or
caprice, and the hardship must not result fi•orn the applicant or proper%) owner's o vn
actions; and
+ That by granting the variance, the spirit cif the chapter will be observed
The Beard is charged with determining if the applicant's variance request to Section 106-
741, general provisions, is reasonable and whether all of the above conditions were met.
To determine if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the general public,
Staff considered the fact that new residence, garages and accessory building are proposed
at the same time and the home and garage will be consistent in design. Staff also
recognizes that the development of the property may not create a problem with adjoining
properties. Adjoining properties are also single-family residential.
Whether the Board does or does not grant the applicant's request, development of house
and detached garage will proceed after obtaining a City permit. However, the applicant
wants to build an accessory structure as a part of an overall project.
When looking at the next test, Staff determined that granting the variance would still
observe the spirit of the law. The spirit of the ordinance is assumed to be public safety. If
one considers the spirt of the law is to ensure uniformity and property maintenance
throughout the City, Staff s notes that there are already some property irregularities (pre-
existing nonconformities) in the area. Therefore, it does not appear that the applicant's
request will create a negative impact to the property or the surrounding area.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
December 29, 2011
Page 3 of 3
The final test is the most difficult and involves unnecessary hardship. Staff does not find
the applicants request meets the physical hardship test, as there is nothing unique about
his property.
While safety should be paramount public interest, preserving historical character should
also be considered. In order to conform to the current regulations, the fence along Roscoe
and Lobit Streets need to be improved. Driveway along South Lobit shall be in
conformance with the City's Driveway criteria and landscaping shall be installed to cover
loss of green space near the Bay.
Conclusion: Variance Request seeps relief from building height for proposed accessory building in
the rear yard, may not appear to be, contrary to the City's Code of Ordinances. The
circumstance, however, for the requested variance needs to be re-evaluated in that the
request is not due to physical hardship imposed by the uniqueness of the property
concerned.
While the reasons for the variance relating to the height of the building do not strictly
conforin to "physical hardship relating to the property itself" the building's intended use
to parr boat, while on trailer otherwise be committed to open storage may be taken into
consideration when rendering a decision.. The applicant's variance request appears to
meet the spirit of the Ordinance.
While recognizing the grounds for the request associated with the property, the Board
could consider:
Allowing an accessory building to be 19'6" in height, in excess of the 15'
allowed by ordinance, to accommodate intended private storage of boat
trailer (variance granted).
Deny the variance for an accessory building to be 19'6" in height, over the
limit allowed by the ordinance.
ppe�als: As per Section 106-196 of the Code of `Or Ordinances of the City erf'La Porte:
Any person or persons, Jointly or ser,eralljl aggrieved by any decision cif the Board crf
Adjirstrraent, or any taxpayer, or any officer, departinent board or bureau of the city may
present to a court of record ea petition.tbr ea vw t of certiorari, os provided by V T C.A.,
Local Government Code Section 211.011, drily verified, settingforth that such decision is
illegal, in ivhole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegahty% Vlach petition shall be
presented to the court within tern clays after the filing of the decision in the office of the
Board ofAdjustinent.
Too'd IVI-01
CITY OF LA PORTE
V"—k "Aiii&i
AppUatlon No..
oFF_jcy,AF ohLY. Fee., 1 e ate eoeived
Receipt No.,
Nter This Foe is Non -
Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
,
Addx-m
Site PISS Minor Development Site Plan
Major Develtipment Site Plan General 111nu
...........
A Site pinji of the property is attnchecL &Lio, Y have Fisted the inforn=tion reque-stod belvo, on thA
fol I owl ng p 2-W&s of thIs form.
a) All facts conceraing the xnatter that has led up to this requesL
b) The type of relief I am Fenng (setbacks, lot coverage, efe,),
c) The 5roupa upo)u which I am makiRg,ffiIs request.
If applicant is NOT the owner, he M2A provide Ckttthoyi=don to act OUt Owner's behalf
Date
0frice Use Only
sale plja pftd ,kutlior"tlon (itapplicable) uttpch6d? Yes () No
I)ate transmitted to the Board of Adjustmeutaag
Meeting, Date: AppHcant NotiPjed of Date -
Notice to sarroundIng property owners- Date.
Board's Dt,-cisioyi: Approved () Denied
Natim of YWftrd& DVCiS10T) Ulftiled to APPUMAt/0"cr:
TOO/T'00'cl M: T T T T 0 3 - 7, T -;DE,'-7
rISM 11010
FACTS RELA VENT TO THE NATTER
The owner has permitted and is developing a new residence with an attached garage and a
detached garage on one acre of land located at 1718 Roscoe Avenue. The attached garage is for
automobiles, while the detached garage is for small, single person watercraft, lawn equipment,
and other miscellaneous maintenance equipment.
In addition to these two structures, the owner is proposing to build separate, accessory structure to
beep a larger boat on the property. The accessory building is intended house and store the boat
from public view. The proposed accessory building is designed to aesthetically blend with the
main residence and will incorporate many of same; building materials.
The structure will be located in the rear, comer portion of the lot more than 30 feet behind the
main residence and has 10 foot setbacks at the rear and side property Lines in an effort to retain
the trees in close proximity. The square footage of structure is 998 sgft and is not more than. 25%
of the total rear yard. The access to the accessory building will be from Lobbit Avenue.
TYRE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT
Section 106®741-b states that any accessory building may not exceed 15'-0" in height. We ask
that a variance be made to allow this accessory structure a maximum height of 19'-6".
According to Section 106®1 `Definitions', the height of a building -with a roof exceeding 2.5:12
pitch, shall be measured to the average point of the slope, We calculate the height of this
structure, having a roof pitch of5:12, at 19'6" to the roof slope's average point,
To keep within the spirit of the Code, this proposed accessory building's height conforms to the
requirement that any detached garage not exceed 20'-0" in height.
GROUNDS FOR THE REQ-USTS
Since a detached garage is already proposed and permitted near the main house, this structure
shall be classified as an accessory building according to the Code of Ordinances..
In order for the owner to use this accessory structure to park his boat, while on trailer, the door
height must clear 14'-4" The accessory building design requires that the roof structure be raised
above the door's clear height. Taping into account the framing, roof structure and 5:12 roof slope,
the overall average roof height is 19'-6", which exceeds the maximum allowable by 3'6".
Unfortunately, the physical dimensions needed to achieve clearances give us no other option
other- than to request a variance.
a
mf
s
3 9
� ay
�g R
9¢ _
a
j
WW
yy e
"P
gn 5 S"Y'
T�
�.� 0iyr„. R 3 $`a9 G
a
�a
coy
r
g
an
gA--,c
m�3
Oka
u
eEC
l5 `� �8`�w ���
7�� � '��'"
� a�e
�
'g•. x`], Cry �
a
mb
�
n
Ur,
-
-ac
z6
2 L , a
f yaa�
a 3atZ
Ev
Pau
Nrd Eg
4. n
C j
G
3nN3AV S 1011
a n
v az 5
x
aMR
t {¢¢{�
' ; i' � 1 S
I
U� 1�1
cn
;mo
I
EXHIBIT r,
cn
1
A
a
R;A R.-
R
H
ma
32 2
.5
Uzi
p4sg
-gi
w
LU
-j
0
g
. - "0"
2`2 H
j
ors
N. a.EM*MH',
ot
(c
�2
g� 'O'N"g-
- 2nE 92
LU
m
cc
0
co
T—
Ic
,a ul.
§ 106-741 LA POR E CODE
DIVISION 2. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT
.(a) No accessory buildings, uses or structures shall be erected or located in any rewired
yard other than the rear yard except:
(1) A detached private garage as defined, may be permitted in side yards, provided:.
a. It complies with all the requirements of this section;
b. It shall be five feet or more from side lot lines; and
C. The side yard doses not abut a street right-of-way.
(2) Accessory buildings built on a slid foundation, no larger than 120 square feet and no
more than one story in height may be located in utility easements in required rear
yards, except that they may not be located closer than three feet from a side or rear
property line or closer than six feet from any other structure.
(b) Accessory buildings, uses and structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height, shall be
three feet or more from all lot lines, shall be six feet or more from any other building or
structure on the same lot, and shall not be located upon any utility easement.
(c) Private garage structures with vehicular access doors facing public alleys, as defined in
the public improvement construction policy and standards, shall be 20 feet or more from the
alley right-of-way. Detached garages located in rear yards of corner lots shall be set back a
minimum ten feet from the property line abutting the side street right-of-wa;y.
(d) Detached private garages, as defined, may be 20 feet in height, or the height of the
principal structure, whichever is less.
(e) Floor area.
(1) Generally. No accessory building, or carport garage for single-family dwellings shall
occupy more than 25 percent of a rear yard, nor exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area.
(2) Large lot residential only. Accessory buildings in single-family residential large lots
may not exceed 2,000 square feet of floor area. Accessory buildings with a floor area in
excess of 1,000 square feet must be located at least 30 feet from any property line and
30 feet behind the rear of the primary structure.
(f) No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one detached private garage
or carport structure for each dwelling.
(g) Wind generators, for producing electricity or other forms of energy shall not be located
in any yards other than the rear yard and must be set back 150 feet frown all property lines or
the height of the structure, whichever is greater.
i
Lot,!\ \.:
/.... .,. }.
01,4111 7 \ I II
EXHIBIT PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
(None received a mkt
Staff Report December
2011
y
Variance
rx st d y: D. R. Horton (Builder) on behalf of Dr. Malladi S. Reddy (property owner)
Reguested for: Waiver of 5' from the City's front building setback of 20' along all cul-de-
sac lots in Bloch: 2, Lakes at Fairmont Greens, Section 1.
Location: Lakes at Fairmont Greens, Section 1, Lots 13-18, 2.1-24, 29-32, 37-40, and
44-49, Block 2 W. P. Harris Survey, A-30, La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
This property is further described as being located between State
Highway146 and the Bay Forest. Golf Course south of Wharton Weems
Boulevard.
Zoning., Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Land Use Marro Low -Density Residential
Back r=ourr Lakes at Fairmont Greens is a residential subdivision located along State
Highway 146 South just west of the Bay Forest Golf Course. Under the
terms of the Development Ordinance 1444, this development is classified as
a major subdivision.
The subject property is located at the southeast of State Highway 146 and
Wharton Weems Boulevard. It is bounded on the cast and south by the Bay
Forest Golf Course, West along State Highway 146, and proposed entrance
along Wharton Weems Boulevard. The developer presented plans for
residential development known as Lakes at Fairmont Greens on
approximately 135 acres surrounding the Bay Forest Golf Course along State
Highway 146.
As proposed, the subdivision consists of 92 lots, 2 blocks, 2 reserves, and
two points of entry/exit along Wharton Weems Boulevard. A density of 2.70
dwelling units per acre conforms to the Code of Ordinance, Section 106-333,
Table B, residential area requirements of the City.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, at the February 2, 2006 special
called meeting, approved a Preliminary Plat of the proposed Lakes at
Fairmont Greens, Section I Subdivision. The Development Ordinance
requires a developer to file a final plat within one year of approval of the
Preliminary Plat. Subsequently, the final plat of the subdivision was
approved at the March 16, 2006, meeting.
Board of Adjustment
December 29, 2011
Page 2
As a part of the PUD development process, a Special Conditional Use Kermit
##04-012 dated 8-23-04, General Flan and Developer's Agreement are in
place for this development. Later, few changes to an overall land plan and
split of general partners caused amendments to the Developer's Agreement.
Currently, the developer has a Developer's Agreement for Section l
approved by City Council in July of 2008, as well as conditions approved
and required in the SCUT' approved in concert with the subdivision plat.
The Developer's Agreement, along with other documents, outlines the
Developer's responsibilities relating to development of the tract. The
agreement notes that several" Developers Items" for Section I anticipated a
May 2008 completion. Since some of these developers items have yet to be
completed, a Memorandum of Agreement between the developer and the
City was signed on April 14, 2010, to address a request to dig detention
north of Wharton Weems. Boulevard in order to use the dirt.
The developer has recently completed wrought iron fence located along the
golf course adjacent to Section I using City approved specifications. The
final completion date has been June 1, 2010. Now, the developer has
introduced a builder (D. R. Horton) for this development. Staff is diligently
working with the new builder to start building homes in Section L
As a part of their due diligence, the builder is experiencing some difficulties
to accommodate several building plans on the cul-de-sac lots. A major issue
involved front building setbacks.
Using the City's setback standards, the submitted plans do not meet the
requirements. Staff discussed the following options with the applicant:
re -arrange the building layout within the existing lot area to comply with
setback requirements;
a add additional land from the rear and re -plat the proposed subdivision to
meet the building setbacks; or
a submit a variance to the Board of Adjustment seeking relief of the front
building setbacks.
Citing Section 106-192 B (2) b, the applicant is seeking a variance from the
required setbacks of 20'for all cul-de-sac lots. Applicant is requesting
building setbacks of 15' on the front for lots 13-18, 21-24, 29-32, 37-40, and
44-49, block 2, Lakes at Fairmont Greens Subdivision.
The applicant requests that the Board recognize this hardship. On the
variance application, the applicant stated that reducing the front building
lines of the cul-de-sac lots will allow for a consistent product offering
throughout the community and a more aesthetically pleasing streetscape with
Berard of Adjustment
December 29, 2011
Page a
uniform setbacks. Due to the current building setback lines and configuration
of the lets, the cud -de -sac lots are not buildable for the single-family products
(1,542 sq.ft. to 2,464 sq.ft.) planned for this subdivision. In addition, the
current building lines may disrupt the continuity of front building elevations
from lot to lot.
Analysis; Section 106-192 B(1); in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as
deviation firow the literal provisions of'the chapter i-t)hich is granted by the
Board it)hen strict conforinity to the chapter i,widd cause an unnecessary
hardship because of the circrirnstances unique to the property on which the
variance is granted.
.except as other ivise prohibited, the board is einpoivered to authorize a
variance , from a requir•einent -w hen the board finds that all o f the . folloiving
conditions have been reset.
4*.o That the granting of the variance iiaill not be contrary to the best public
interest.
2� That literal eilforcenient Qf the chapter will result in unnecessary
hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallolvness, shape,
topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation
unique to the specie piece of property in question. "Unnecessary
hardship" shall inean physical hardship relating to the property itse�f'as
distinguished front a hardship relating to convenience, financial
considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result fitorn the
applicant or property oivner's own actions; and
That by grunting the variance, the spirit gfthe chapter will be observed
The Board must decide if the applicant's request to have building setbacks at
15' instead of 20' per Development Ordinance 1444 is reasonable. The
Board is charged with deciding whether all of the above conditions have
been met.
The applicant believes that imposing current setbacks will cause disruption
and discontinuity of building elevations on these streets. It will not look
aesthetically pleasing and choice of selection will be limited. The applicant
requests that the Board recognize this as a hardship.
While measures are in place to ensure that the property remains an
aesthetically pleasing adjacent to the golf course. If the setbacks of 15'are
approved, the instrument will be recorded with the Cleric of Harris County to
avoid any complications at the title assessment.
Board ofAdjUAMCrlt
December 29, 2011
Page d
Conclusion: Variance bequest seeks reduction of 5' font building setback on the cul-de-
sac lots for Lakes at Fairmont Greens, Section 1, may not appear to be
contrary to the City's Code of Ordinances. The circumstance, however, for
the requested variance is due to physical shape, width and depth of these; cul-
de-sac lots presents uniqueness of the property concerned. The applicant's
variance request appeals to meet the spirit of the Ordinance,
While recogs-tizing the grounds for the request associated with the property,
the Board could consider:
Allowing a reduction of 5' on the 'front building setback of all the
cul-de-sac lots from 20' to 15' (variance granted).
Deny the variance for reduction of 5' on the front building; setback
of all cul-de-sac lots as requested.
peals: Asper Section 106-196 rrf'the Cade of Ordinances of'the City Qf La Porte:
- Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the
Board of Ac#ustmenI, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, board or
bureau of.the city may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of.
certiorari, as provided by V T C.A., Local Government Code Section
211.011, duly verified, .settingfibr^ih that such decision is illegal, in ivhole or
in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be
presented to the court within ten clays after the filing Qfthe decision in the
office of'the Board ofAdjustment.
i
i
I
TPORT]
ZONING %0ARD OF AWUSTMENT
QUEST
I Application No.: C'
j
OFFICE USE ONLY! Fee, 0400 DateReceived:�
Receipt No,: ,50 6
l 21E ThisFee is Non-Refundabin R4gnrd1eqs of theBoard's Decision
I
Applicant: Representative of .D ! Horton
2002 `I'imberloc h lnee". Snite 600, Thc- Woe )dlands ` y,. 773 O 281-7 -
350
a=
Address Phoi
I ain the owner of the herein doscr abed property. I have authorized Represen tive
Q.
R.
Horton to act on wry behalf in this nine er>
' I
owner"! l r�[I�dr ua . edd
apse
2 9� waver est I t lv� f kloarstraal, t T7t15 2 I-468- 190
Address Phone
I
E
I am requesting variance to Sect. �� of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106
of
the
Code of Ordinance,
I warn requesting this variance for prop rty located at
i Street Address
;fee attnphed rraa. Affeeted kits are highlighted in reen(Lails 13-19 21-24 21)-32 37-40 arts
411-49,
of Block 2. of Lakes at FairmontGreens ,ction I-
-i
Legal Description
i i
( ) Site Platen ! () nor Development Site L'a
h
() Major Development Site Plan ; () General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached'! Also, I have listed the information requested below -
ax
he
follGivrrag pages of this form. j
a) All facts concer'raing the to tter that has fed yap tea this r'calarcst.
b) The tyke of relief I rarer reel ing (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
C) The gmands upon which Ipni risking dais request.
If applic2nt is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act GR the 0 Is behab
I
sat Applicant's Signature
Office Use Only
;Site Plan and Ahrthori tiurr (if applicable) attached? `des () No ( )
Date, transi witted to the Board o f Adj u kmonts.-
meeting Date, a® I Applicant Notified of Date,
u
Notice to surrounding praperty owners- Date.
I
oar€f's Decision: Approved () Denied ( )
Notice of Iguards Decision assailed to A�plicaantll] raer,
i
A, variance is a " deviation fro
Board
of Adjustments may NOT
conditions.-
1)
The variance must not be
7)
Literal enforcement of the
must be anique to the pro]
unusual shape, narrownes
of hardship. Hardships th
be grauted.
3)
Granting the variance ram
4)
No variance that allows a I
granted, For example, as v
allowable.
Please remember it is the A
above conditions,
If there is Piet adequate room
please feel free to attach an addlt
should consider.
the liter2l provisions of the Zoning Ordinance." Tb
to the public interest,
.oniug Ordinance mustromAlt in a hardship. This ha
rty in question. Property that is undevelopzbl
not violate the spivit of the Zoning Ordinance,
e that is prohibited withio the Use zone in question be
'iancc allowing a commercial use in a residential zo: i. no
is responsibility to prove that a variance will
the remainder of thM form to list all pertinent Won
A letter or any information and exhibits you feel the
P
M
EXHIBIT
II'h�� spa
I I I
Ifn:
3 ; �
v I s 8m xx
-tjpq-
r3. �y5
—� II'i�11� �I�
II �' _
p Q sj ;
PH
\. i .✓-` �CY'� I.: s $ ch t as u qKE
za
ills ing
to Ito i F7
WAS�� _.9 n 3S �v. � s � G�i�.i 3s e�._ � 6 �L a• �r{ti �'�
�
t
s� L i u t
A NX
as 182'9
r, I �2 !� � �J:�Fx /// f,��1 _�-� njt� r�
/
tgx �.m i #_
ill
i .+�•t G�,r�g ,r+�'rr, as! F 'fr ri %l rr 6 + r+
as
hr'S-
f = ° 3.tsa 3".y,`•dx � ///! r� '; r r-��^'� r l3'
�v _ �Vr'rR YAE niq
i� rr
e�
qi
f� 4
Jill dies; 8`3. � �g it ®�8� �
�H a s s Np sra s 6 u1 1H R s� x a
Sys
7�ns. n 8!Honig u$ i�'.'9pp a� esv 5�fa 1 }'I�' 2aa,.ae
$ S� 4 s 8 SS 8� MUM
_ flS 8
a�e9 � �.� t� spa E=.g '93 ���� 6 �P�U
MIN �� �' 'Ss"5@ �� sk* � r9 �.€ L 9" n 0 5 saw
MI
ss�a�3��u ��E:r� e'�g p's�� 2 � �@Y�
} M *zQ
88' � � c S g �
2g�s Ha ug 2N �g�a �y �s day
e nioxen` 7i J 3 pr
1 �2
u4�s6�.I UI
EXHIBIT
-44-
5.04 BUILDING
LINES (NUMBERS REPRESENT
FEET)
COLLECTOR
LOCAL
THOROUGHFARES
STREET
STREET
LOT LINE
RESIDENTIAL
25
25
20
FRONT
20
20
20
REAR
15
15
15
EXTERIOR SIDE
5
INTERIOR SIDE
25
25
20
FRONT
REAR
(ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL) 20
20
20
(ELSEWHERE)
10
10
10
EXTERIOR SIDE
15
15
15
INTERIOR SIDE
10
10
10
(ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL)
(ELSEWHERE)
5
A.
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURSIDICTION: All building lines
shall meet the minimum
setback established in the
R - 1, low density
residential district
of the City
zoning Ordinance,
except in the case
of non -single
family residential
development which
shall require
20 foot minimum
side yard building
line adjacent
a
to a public street®
M",
ZONING
See. 106-333, Table B, residential area requirements.
(a) Table i3, residential area requirements.
Maxi-
Mini-
mum
MUM
Lot
Yard
Mini-
Lover- I
Setbacks
llfini-
mum
agel
ildini-
L.F,
mum
Develop-
Mini-
mum
Mini-
F,R.S.
Site
went
mum
Lot
mum
21 31 41 51
Area l
Open
Land -
Areal
Lot
s, 20, Maxi-
Unit
Space/
scap ng
Uses
D. U.
Width
11, 12, m, mum
&TY..
Unit
Required
8
S.F,
L.F
14, 15 Height
'.. 7
S.F.
9,19
Single-family detached
6000
50
25-15-5 35 Ft.
9100
—
400/o/N/A
4.8
DU/A
Single-family large lot
43560
90
25-15-5 45 Ft.
43560
—
400/otN/A
1.0
DU/A
Single-family special lot line, 0
4500
40
20-10-0 35 Ft.
7300
Footnote
60%/N/A
lot line
6.0
# 1
DUI,
Duplexes
6000
60
25-20-20 45 Ft.
8.0
Footnote
60%a/N/A
DU/A
# 1
Single-family converted to
6000
50
20-10-5 35 Ft.
N/A
NIA
5001UN/A
multifamily
Townhouses, quadraplexes
2000
20
25-20-20 45 Ft.
4400
Footnote
750/c/25%0
(10,000 s.f of site area 100 ft.
10.0
# 1
wide)
DU/A
Multifamily
20000
100
25-20-20 45 Ft.
1600
Footnote
600/o/25%a
14
#1
DU/A
Manufactured housing
4500
40
20-10-5 25 Ft.
7300
Footnote
60111o/6%0
6.0
# 1
DU/A
Manufactured housing subdivi-
100 of
N/A N/A
/A
N/A
N/A/N/A
sion or parks (5 acre min.)
front
road
frontage
Group care facilities (less than
25-20-10 25 Ft,
NIA
N/A
N/A/6%
6) and day care homes
Supp, No. 13 CD106:47