Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-11 Zoning Board of AdjustmentSTATE OFTEXAS § COUNTY OFHARR|G § CITY OF LA PORTE § La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment Notice is hereby given of a Regular Meeting and Public Hearings of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment to be held on April 28, 2011, at 6:00 P.M. at La Porte City Hall Council Chambers, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La Porte. Texao, regarding the items of business according to the agenda listed 1. Call toorder 2. A. Staff Presentation B. Proponents C. Opponents D. Proponents Rebuttal A. Staff Presentation B. Proponents C. Opponents D. Proponents Rebuttal 5. m further described by the Harris Cou 1: raisal District as Lots 12-16, Block 74, Town of La Porte, Johnson Hunter SurveV, Abstract 35 La Porte Harris Countv, Texas. Walter Johnson, instead of 20' from the oroiDerty li ie in the front vard setbaick 12er Section 106-797 of the Code of Ordinances. This variance is being sought under the terms of Section 106-192(b) (2) of the Code of Ordinances of the Citv of La Porte. A. Staff Presentation B. Proponents C. Opponents D. Proponents Rebuttal G. Administrative Reports Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 Page 2of2 7. Board Comments A. Matters appearing on agenda B. Inquiry of staff regarding specific factual information or existing policy 8. Adjourn 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 Fogarty, City Secretary, at 281.470.5019. Patrice Fogarty, TRMC, MMC City Secretary Date posted Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 2011 Members Present: George Maltsberger, Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No. 2), Charles Schoppe, and T.J. Walker Members Absent: Lawrence McNeal (Alt. No 1), Chester Pool, and Rod Rothermel. City Staff Present: Masood Malik, City Planner; Clark Askins, Assistant City Attorney; Shannon Green, Planning Assistant. 1. Call to Order. Chairman George Maltsberger called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. Consider approval of the December 08, 2010, meeting minutes. Motion by Charles Schoppe to approve the Minutes of December 08, 2010, with the following correction: Remove the name T.J. Walker, as present, at the December 8, 2010 meeting. Second by George Maltsberger. Motion carried. Ayes: George Maltsberger, Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No. 2), Charles Schoppe, and T.J. Walker Nays: None Abstain: None Consider Variance Request #11-93000001 for the property located at 920 Seabreeze Avenue, further described by the Harris County Appraisal District as being Lots 18-20, Parkway Block of Bay Shore Park, Volume 10, Page 22, Johnson Hunter Survey, Abstract No. 35, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. Richard Sparks, property owner, seeks a variance to convert an existing garage located in a side yard into a mother-in-law quarter, contrary to the provisions of Section 106-741 of the Code of Ordinances. This variance is being sought under the terms of Section 106-192(b)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte. A. STAFF PRESENTATION Masood Malik, City Planner, presented staff's report. Twenty-seven public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 200' of the subject property. The City received four responses in favor of the Variance. B. PROPONENTS Applicant, Richard Sparks spoke in favor of the variance. C. OPPONENTS There were none. D. PROPONENTS REBUTTAL There were none. Motion by George Maltsberger to deny Variance #11-93000001, for the property located at 920 Seabreeze Avenue. Second by Gilbert Montemayor. Motion carried. Ayes: George Maltsberger, Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No. 2), and T.J. Walker Nays: None Abstain: Charles Schoppe. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 24, 2011 Page 2 of 2 4. Administrative Reports There were no reports. 5. Board Comments There were no comments. 6. ADJOURN Motion by Charles Schoppe to adjourn. Second by T.J. Walker. Motion Carried. Ayes: George Maltsberger, Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No. 2), Charles Schoppe, and T.J. Walker Nays: None Abstain: None Chairman Maltsberger adjourned the meeting at 6:16 pm. Submitted by, Shannon Green Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment Approved on this day of George Maltsberger Chairman, Zoning Board of Adjustment , 2011. Staff Report Apri128, 2011 Fire Station No.1 Special Exception Request #11-94000001 Requested by: City of La Porte c/o Reagan McPhail — Public hnprovements Coordinator Requested for: Yard setbacks and other requirement for the Main Street District Location: 125 South 'I'd Street (Block 39; Lots 11-16; Town of LaPorte) Zoning: Main Street District (MSD) Background: The City of La Porte has plans to build a new Fire Station No. 1, along with administrative offices at 125 South 'I'd Street. Currently, Fire Station No.l is located along West `A' and South 2nd Street. Current growth trends and first responder's approach require advanced equipment and better personnel accommodation at these facilities. In addition, this is an old building and require much needed space for the Fire Department personnel The proposed layout plan shows no setback for a 2-story administrative building along front, side yard adjacent to West `A' Street, and rear yard abutting 16' wide public alley to the east (See Exhibit). In developing a corner lot, zoning regulations require a minimum ten -foot (10') setback on the side that adjoins a public right-of-way (West `A' Street) and 20' rear yard setback for the Main Street District. The Main Street Overlay and District were created to attract mixed use developments. Minimum yard setbacks for the Main Street District are; Front *, Rear 20', Side 5'. In addition, all yards adjacent to public right-of- way must be a minimum of ten feet. It is likely that existing buildings and lots available for development may not meet these regulations, as most of the buildings in the downtown area are considered to be zero lot line or have no setbacks. * denotes front yard setback as the average of the existing structures on that side of the street on the same side or the setback of the closest structure on an adjacent lot. In this case, front setback is proposed to be zero as other structures are considered zero lot line on the same side of the street. It is considered to be consistent with the existing structures and will look aesthetically pleasing. In order to build a two story administrative office building, 0 side setback is shown instead of 10' side yard setback when adjacent to public right-of-way (West 'A' Street). In staffs opinion, a 10' side yard setback may not be necessary for the proposed building, which will be similar to other structures on the same side of the street. The proposed Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 #SE 11-94000001 Page 2 of 3 structure meets the minimum 5' side setback to the north adjacent to an existing rental/apartment building. The City is committed to provide the best possible services to its citizen. To move forward with this important public project, the City is requesting special exceptions to waive a 10'side yard and 20' rear yard setback requirements, and to allow placement of possible eaves and downspouts within the building lines and/or property lines. Analysis: The Code of Ordinances defines a special exception as a specified enumerated deviation from zoning regulations. The Board is empowered to grant a Special exception when itfinds the following: ❖ Grunting the exception will not adversely affect the value, or use of neighboring property. ❖ Grunting the exception will not be contrary to the bestpublic interest. The applicant's request is based on Section 106-191(b)(2), which states the following: • To deviate vard requir'eiventS in the f )n' lloiring ccillustances: a. Anv exception fi'oiv the front var'd r'equir'eivents where the actual front Yard setback of anv abutting lot does not meet the front Yard requir'eivents. b. A rear Yard exception irher'e the actual rear' Yard Setback of anv f )ur or more lots in the same block does not meet the rear Yard requirements of these regulations. c. A vard exception on corner lots. d An exception where the existing front vard setbacks of the various lots in the same block are not uniform, so that any one of the existing front Yard setbacks shall, for buildings hereafter constructed or extended, be the required riiirliiiiruii fr'orlt Yard depth. The applicant recognizes that Main Street is a unique district where buildings are historic in nature and have minimum to no setbacks. Aesthetic look and consistency with other existing structures are contributing factors for requesting special exceptions. For similar reasoning and for consistency in the neighborhood, it may not violate the spirit of the ordinance. in addition, the Code of Ordinances, Section 106-191(b) (2) provides the flexibility/relief needed to address the challenges being faced on the corner lot development. Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 #SE 11-94000001 Page 3 of 3 Conclusion: The Board is charged with deciding whether the applicant's request for a zero side yard corner lot and rear yard setbacks exception are "reasonable" and that granting the special exception will not adversely affect the value and use of adjacent or neighboring property, or be contrary to the public's best interest. The Board may consider: ➢ Approving Special Exceptions and allow the project to move forward with the following provisions: a. Zero setback along West `A' Street in lieu of 10' for corner lot b. Zero setback adjacent to an alley in the rear in lieu of 20' setback c. Allow placement of eaves and/or downspouts within building lines/property lines along public rights -of -way. ➢ Denying Special Exceptions to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances). Appeals: As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Adjustment, 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 l T.C.A., Local Govern vent ( ode Section 211.011, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in irhole or in part, specify' ing the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be presented to the court within ten days after the filing of the decision in the off ce of the Board ofAdjustment. CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST Application No.: 1/--W100000 / OIzFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: 3.30 -- it Receipt No.: c �h�� S-R Note: This Fee is Non -Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision Applicant: Q a YA Name trio 4 W. Fi2! rm'em 1 ��Cl,�� PH: pgj-q iD Address I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. p (9 Owner" : ! L, © r to Name CpD ft9. Falrmo/n.r ,-ICwt Pi -I: 20)~qW 50-2in Address I am requesting a Special Exception to Sect, of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinance. I aiu requesting this Special Exception for property located at-��u'1`�1y :!S;I . St ree Address Legal Description ( Site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan () Major Development Site Plan (j General PIan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) Tire type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) Tile grounds upon which I am making this request. If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorizati n to act on the w ev behalf. 3 ;0 2®I ! Date Applicant's Signature Office Use Only Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No () Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved () Denied () Notice of Boards Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: _ Go 133NIS .9.183M 1C !S U,s N � pti�0 x$ pN Q LI.F - L3l PL]N T, ­O dcj Qµ ua1 o2 C11 co 0�0� OAR 1iKOC -- —..0 ——S..V y •s `Vi O �4r—.`�u�l *y - ova�. -e x I n I i I l i l i l i l I l l l l l i l i l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I! I I I 1 1 1 I i t l l l l l l l 1 1 1 f l l l! l l 1 1 3 t l l l! 1 1 .. .1 _L 13311is NIWJ is3M IVA ZONING Sec. 106-443. Table B, commercial area requirements, (a) Table B, Commercial area requirements. § 106-443 Adjacent to Residential Minimum Minimum Minimum Landscap- Yard Yard ing Maximum Setbacks Setback Maximum Bldg. De - Required Lot F:R.S. F'R.S. Height sign Stan - Uses b Coverage �. 3 ', s, 7 2,6 (feet? dardss R-3 uses (permitted) except residential 6% Density Intensity Regulations Specified in Table single-family, detached and special lot, B, area requirements, section 106-3330 duplexes, quadruplexes, townhouses, and multifamily CR Comm. Recreation Dist.; all permit- ted or conditional NC Neighborhood Comm.; all permit- 6% 5090 20-10-0 20-10-10 NIA9 ted or conditional GC Generaf-Comm.; all permitted or 6% 40% 20-10-0 20-20-10 N/A9 100% ma - conditional sonry$ Outside sales or services N/A NIA 5-5-5 Same as NIA principle use Outside storage N/A N/A 20-10-5 Same as See section principal 106-444(b) use Freestanding on -premises signs See article VH of this chapter Freestanding on -premises signs located See article VII of this chapter in controlled access highway corridors Main Street 6% 60% *-20-5 *-0-0 TBD Main Street Overlay NIA SO% 0-20-0 NIA TBD (b) Footnotes to Table B. A minimum landscape setback of 20 feet will be required adjacent to all designated conservation areas. Buildings, parking areas, loading docks, outside storage, and refuse containers will not be allowed in such setback areas. A planting plan is required to be submitted and approved by the enforcing officer. These areas are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Required landscaping must be maintained by the property owner and/or occupant. 2 Screening is required in conformance with section 106-444(a). 0 All yards adjacent to public right-of-way must be a minimum of ten feet. 4 The minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement shall be three feet. 5 See article V, division 4 of this chapter for additional requirements. Supp. No. 18 CD106:61 Staff Report April 28, 2011 Variance Request #11-93000002 Requested by: Mr. Kenneth R. McCurry (Property Owner) Requested for: Lot 24, Block 12, Fairmont Park East Section 2, William M. Jones Survey, Abstract 482, LaPorte, Harris County, Texas. Location: 10804 Mesquite Drive Zoning: Low Density Residential (R-1) Background: Per the HCAD records, this property is 6,900 S. F. The primary residence is 2,132 S. F. with an existing roofed house area of 1368 S.F. There is an existing pool and cool deck in the back of the house. The total impervious coverage with concrete, decking, and house under roof equals 3,890 S. F. or 56.3% impervious cover factor. The pool with cool deck was constructed without issuance of a City permit. Per City Ordinance 106-333 Table B, the maximum allowable lot coverage for a single family detached dwelling unit is 40% for this type of lot. Several years ago, the City approved an ordinance to allow patio cover of up to 900 sq. ft and accessory building of 200 sq. ft. exempted from 40% lot coverage for single-family detached. However, the impervious cover factor of 55% for the total site for drainage purposes remains intact. Recently, the applicant has added more concrete to an existing driveway and extended it all the way to the back up to the pool decking. With this move, an existing coverage for the subject lot equals 3,890 sq. ft. (56.3%) or 95 sq. ft. over the maximum allowable of 3,795 sq.ft. (55%). To be in compliance with the City ordinances, existing impervious/concrete would have to be reduced by 95 sq. ft. This variance requests seeks to allow the current impervious coverage of 3,890 sq. ft. to remain in place. The owner states that excess coverage was not intentional and it would be expensive to saw cut and j ackhammer out reinforced concrete. The City is working diligently to mitigate any adverse impact of flooding in town. Several drainage projects including one in the Fairmont Park East subdivision are underway at this time. The City's Public Improvement Criteria Manual allows impervious factor of 55% for total site drainage. In this case, an additional impervious coverage may impact to an outfall and capacity of the storm sewer in the area. Analysis: Section 106-192(b)(1), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as a deviation from the literal provisions of the chapter, which is granted by the Board when strict cogf)r'iuiry to the chapter irould cause an unnecessary hardship because of the cir'culustances unique to the property on irhich the variance is granted Section 106-1 defines lot coverage as "...the area under roof on any given lot." Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 #11-93000002 Page 2of3 Except as otherwise prohibited, the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement when the board finds that all of the following conditions have been met. Conclusion: ❖ That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest. ❖ That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other 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 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; and ❖ That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed. In determining if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the public interest, staff recognizes that additional impervious coverage at the property may create a problem with adjoining properties due to flooding issues in the neighborhood. A survey of surrounding properties shows that this non-compliance with the ordinance is not typical to the neighborhood. In addition, the pool with cool deck and concrete work were done without City permits and stands in violation of the City ordinance. In viewing the specific grounds for granting a variance, Staff points out that the condition, as it exists, was the "...result of the applicant or property owner's own actions..." contrary to the provisions of Section 106-192. We also find no grounds to justify "...unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography, or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the property in question." This lot represents a typical example of property within subdivisions throughout the City and very typical of the spirit of the Ordinance. The ZBOA's final consideration is whether granting this request observes the spirit of the ordinance. Based on the facts noted in this report, the applicant's request would be contrary with the spirit of the ordinance in that all properties, by allowing additional coverage, would set improper precedent and would not promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Variance Request which seeks to allow for greater than 55% impervious coverage of a standard 6,900 S. F. lot by allowing an existing, non -permitted work with additional concrete coverage of 95 S.F. to remain in place is contrary to the provisions established by the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106), Section 106-333, Table B. Furthermore, the parameters for the requested variance do not, in our opinion, appear to meet the provisions established by Section 106-192 (Variance). Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 #11-93000002 Page 3 of 3 While recognizing the circumstances associated with the property, the Board could consider: Allowing the existing concrete surface/impervious coverage over the limit, put in at the owner's expense, to remain in place (variance granted) with the stipulation that a City permit is obtained at double the normal fee as allowed by the building code for non-pern fitted work. • Requiring the owner to reduce the concrete surface/impervious coverage by 95 S. F. (variance denied), leaving an impervious coverage factor of 55% in place for total site drainage, after obtaining a City permit at double the normal fee for a non -permitted work and the resulting structure, again, must meet Code. Appeals: As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of LaPorte: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Adjustment, 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, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be presented to the court within ten days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE REQUEST Application No.: II - 40000001 OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: i—.31,11 Receipt No.: 7� 1lj1� Note: This Fee is Non -Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision Applicant:' G1._ 1_' c 6ty ry Name 10901f Mesgwl'fe Dr, Address I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: -� Ca Name Address Phone Phone I am requesting a variance to Sect. 6 33 3 C/ of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinance. I ann requesting this variance for property located at Legal Des (,)";Site Plan () Major Developnnennt Site Plan Street Address ah-i A8,k-eir1<, Yr'Cj-(e {) Minor Development Site Plan {) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the owner, lie must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. 3--31- If L�, m c"� Date Applicant's Signature Office Use Only Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to surrounding property owners- Date: Board's Decision: Approved () Denied () Notice of Boards Decision inailed to Applicant/Owner: _ Facts relevant to this matter I bought the property in May of 2010. A contactor widened and lengthened the driveway. The contractor built the driveway according to the driveway detail sheets. The detail sheets do not mention maximum coverage. The contractor did not obtain a permit from the city. If the contractor would have got a permit this would not have happened. I assume the responsibility of not getting a permit. The property has 56.1 % coverage where 55% is the maximum allowed. Type of relief sought I am requesting to leave the 1.1% (75.9sf) concrete overage in place. Grounds for the request The excess coverage was not intentional. The excess is only 1.1% over the 55% maximum allowed. It would be expensive to saw cut and jackhammer out reinforced concrete. There are properties in the area with a higher % of coverage than mine. I .4:3 v 1 s �k 60t M6 " S z- / 3 0 Co 14CIP-eGk 2T2 2 39 vzl PIA&PT041 0,60sp CdV44-49,e 6Vet , Cl) vA0- I 1 11 5 1611 f-�'O � ptIYee-ly 11,12t MAR-07-2011 NOR 10:49 AN BAPH CONSTRUCTION SVCS FAX HO, 281 834 5899 'o4 iFy la P, 01/01 § 106-333 LA PORTE CODE when the development is situated adjacent to a single-family residential development. The space needed to meet the required parking spaces shall be exclusive of the required setback and the additional buffer. 16. In the case of multifamily residential developments being adjacent to single-family residential developments, the buildings within the multifamily residential develop- ments that are directly adjacent to the single-family residential development shall be limited to two -stories in height. Buildings within the interior of the multifamily residential developments may be three -stories in height. 17. Multifamily residential developments cannot exceed 180 dwelling units. 18. See section 106-334(i)(3) for open space utilization criteria. 19. Follo-wing structures exempted from 40 percent lot coverage on single-family detached: Accessory buildings 200 s.£ or less and patio covers up to 900 s.f. 20. Maximum lot coverage for single-family detached in planned unit development (PUD) zoning district or residential subdivisions requiring a detention/drainage system, shall be 50 percent. 1� (The impervious cover factor of 55 percent for the total site for drainage, as prescribed in PICM, remains in effect.) (Ord. No. 1501-JJ, § 6, 10-14-02; Ord. No. 1501-LLLL, § 6(Exh. F), 4-25-05; Ord, No. 1501 .T4, § 6(Exh. F), 10-24-05; Ord. No. 3242, § 1, 4-26-10) f` Cross references —Contents of mobile home park plans, § 98-92; minimum area require- ments for mobile home parks, § 98-95; location of mobile homes with respect to property lines and public streets, § 98-99. Sec. 106-334. Special use performance standards; residential. (a) Landscape buffers. (1) Alandscape buffer planted with grass or evergreen ground cover and also planted with trees shall be provided. No buildings or refuse containers shall be placed in such areas. (2) Standards: a. Minimum width of planting strip: Four feet. b. A planting plan specifying the location and species of trees to be planted as well as the type of grass or ground cover to be utilized shall be submitted for approval by the director or his duly authorized representative. (3) Screening will be required in the following situations: a. Parking areas for recreational buildings, community centers, religious, and private and public educational institutions. b. Manufactured housing parks and subdivisions screened from abutting uses. (4) Required screening will count toward the required percentage of landscaping. (5) Required landscaping must be maintained by the property owner and/or occupant. Supp. No. 22 CD106:50 A Meeting of the La Porte�,��Jf_ Zoning Board of Adjustment , IIN (T)pe of Meeting) Scheduled for April 28, 2011 (Date of Meeting) to consider Variance #V1193000002 (Type of Request) I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing, in F,�VOR of granting ties request for the following reasons: I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: .e &Zze2l'�" Signature /Z e�� Address wa ! city, vte, zip A Meeting of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment (Type of Meeting) Scheduled for April 28, 2011 (Date of Meeting) to Consider Variance #V1193000002 (Type of Request) I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. I am in FAVOR of granting this request for the following reasons: I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: // C' r 7"c /? . %)' s �',S Name (please print) Ignature Address City, State, Zip A Meeting of the La Porte 111j,j APR Zoning Board of Adjustment (Type of Meeting) Scheduled for April 28, 2011 (Date of Meeting) to Consider Variance #V1193000002 (Type of Request) I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. I am in FAVOR of granting this request for the following reasons: tAl2 toe I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: Name (please prinVmJt ZAW) GAM(Au000d Q� Address City, State, Zip Staff Report Fence April 28, 2011 Variance Request Requested by: Walter Johnson, La Porte Commercial Properties, LLC. Requested for: Lots 12 thru 16, Block 74; Town of La Porte, Johnson Hunter Survey, Abstract 35, LaPorte, Harris County, Texas. Location: 302 North 11th Street Zoning: General Commercial (GC) Background: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a proposed six feet high chain link fence at 5' off the front property line within the front yard setback along North 11th Street. The property in question is located at the southeast corner of North 11th Street and West Adams Street. The property is currently zoned General Commercial (GC). The Code of Ordinances prohibits a fence from being erected within the required landscape portion of any yard or the front yard setback (20') in the commercial and industrial zoning districts. As per Section 106-797 (2) of the Code of Ordinances, ` fences in con?nuercia% and industrial zones irhlch are pi -hues i%V erected as a security measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet above the ground, and such fence shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the front yard setback of any commercial or industrial establishment". A development site plan for the proposed project is under review by the City. Total lot size is 15, 625 square feet with a proposed storage/staging yard at site. The facility is required to comply with Section 106-444 (b), Special Use Performance Standards related to outdoor storage. Storage area shall be screened from view from the public rights -of -way. There are two driveways proposed for this facility, one along North 11th Street and a second driveway along West Adams Street. Landscaping shall be provided along North llth Street and West Adams Street. All landscaping shall be provided with an approved irrigation system. The applicant has submitted a variance request that seeks approval to erect a fence at 5' off the front property line within the standard 20' building setback line for commercial zoned property. According to the applicant, the front yard fence at the property line is desired for the safe operation of the storage yard at this site. In addition, the applicant stated that he would comply with the ordinance, but he wanted to erect the fence at a distance, which matches with the neighboring fences in the area. Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 Page 2of4 Staff analyzed the surrounding area and based upon site inspections and visual from the street, noted the following: • An automotive repair shop located at 202 North llth Street has an existing fence within the front yard setback from the property line. • A towing company with yard across the street has existing fences in the front yard setback. • The property at 314 North llth Street has a chain link fence within the front yard setback. • The property across the street at 1300 West Adams has a fence within the front setback. The standard front yard setback requirement in General Commercial zoning district is 20'. The application's submittal also includes a site plan showing the location of a fence with a request for "specific" fence setback of five foot instead of twenty foot from the property line. It should be noted that if the applicant's request is granted, the ZBOA will be determining the deviated or "reduced" front yard setback whichever is appropriate. Analysis: Section 106-192(b)(1), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as a deviation from the literal provisions of the chapter, which is granted by the Board when strict conformity to the chapter irould cause an unnecessary hardship because of the, circinustances unique to the, property on irhich the, variance is granted Section 106-1 defines fence as "...the manmade structural barrier erected on or around a piece of property." Except as otherwise prohibited, the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement when the board finds that all of the following 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 will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other 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 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; and ❖ That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed. Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 Page 3 of 4 • Allow construction of fence at 5 ft. off the property line with a reduced setback in the front yard. In determining if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the public interest, Staff recognizes that the development of the fence at the property may not create a problem with adjoining properties. A survey of surrounding properties shows this non-compliance (pre-existing & non- conforming) with the ordinance in the area. Issues to consider are impact on neighboring property and the best public interest. In this case, it appears that the fence will serve to provide a uniform setback of adjacent properties and should not be injurious to the public. The applicant wishes to construct the fence as requested by obtaining a City building permit; however, staff is unable to approve a site plan based on the conflict with the zoning regulations. In this case, it appears that the fence will serve to provide safety and security to the businesses intended to move or relocate to this area. In addition, it may prohibit any vandalism and loitering in the area. The intent is to provide a conducive environment for the safe operation of the businesses in the area. In reviewing the specific grounds for granting a variance, however, staff points out that the condition, as it exists, "...is the result of the applicant or property owner's own actions..." contrary to the provisions of Section 106- 192. Staff finds no grounds to justify "...unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography, or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the property in question." Security and safety of the property may be considered in this regard. The Zoning Board of Adjustment's final consideration is whether granting this request observes the spirit of the ordinance. Based on the facts noted in this report, the applicant's request may not be contrary with the spirit of the ordinance. Conclusion : The application merits review by the Board based upon the parameters set by the Ordinance. The Board may consider: ➢ Granting the variance and allow the fence to be constructed at 5 ft. off the property line in the front yard setback. ➢ Denying the variance thereby disapproving the construction of the front yard fence. Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Appeals: As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of LaPorte: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Adjustment, 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, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall be presented to the court within ten days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. CITY OF LA PORTS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE REQUEST Application No.: _ // - �-3a0 WJ OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: Receipt No.; Note: This Fee is Noll -•Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision Applicant; Na me Address Phone I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized r�/ R [LIA to act on nay behalf in this matter. 3.- a 6q- 635 Owner*:r.��'r Name Address Phone I am requesting a variance to Sect. TIN of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinance, lam requesting this variance for property located at Street ddress Legal Description () Site Plan () Major Development Site Plan Minor Development Site Plan General Plan A Site flan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeping (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am maldng this request. If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. r 111-J l ("� /I— � �, � Date Applica#f's Signature Office Use Only Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to surrounding property owners- Date: Board's Decision; Approved () Denied () Notice of Boards Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: - TVPF OF TRFT,TFF BKfNG SOUGHT' truce 1--D UNT-nQ VnT2 'T'TTF. RF.OTIFfiT.q: 0CPShareVNSPECTION DIVISIOW(andard FormAZONING BOARD VARFANCF.doc RFVJSIOn 1Di21/03 RXC irrw'.` `>::` 10l JNI`Jd15 N ei°r°ena°] leaava9 Plln9�v8Fs# l.YSl+363 i� 0 1z f aet[ vo[�an }suo� s)iin ILSLL SVX31 `3180d owl a II o �3�f1S Hitt. - "N ZOC q.airty Eso �_ezcn a s U1M s 5b 1 s3 p i C°off Z4NtCn is a oil 1 � S m x � ��� `�;Ui3 3rv�n n 8 r`V 3 y ,qY 1�3n � ° 1 � 3$ id$3 �:K Bolo �� qc °Q Yr5 rM _ �' < e��'3j ALL, iQ 11 YnO �.0 K 5[52�5 N o YnY tu.Z U� RHO f V � 'lie w3 a S W z &��$nWz aW� EEj�EEj V �I o m�° OK`d`;;a fiaeP _ a � • yam r/°i^ m~°� n 1 71 vuH �g+� o��"S S Pion a� O� o�[}] Qu � �m � ���VO ao o�h� g—o � a�5 D A�J��J ¢ ao S z os �o�uoe tt��Pi Ucf 3m �� `�o z g LIJ i-- Ld ch - c n togs c)z ^� WMR N s A O r U o Li I- ry a Q. (137N15 T1 Hi2ON) ski AVION �aa 133if15 LM L FLLaOV N -s vv u As 133a1S 'm t t112�ON d c 3� j s� flit t °n a SAMS NOR x}i kl § 106-797 LA PORTE CODE V Scc. 106-797. Property line fences in industrial districts. Property line fences in any industrial district shall not exceed eight feet in height except that: (1) Fences erected along a property line in common with a residential district shall be subject to the provisions herein described in residential district fences; and (2) Fences in commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet above the ground, and such fence shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the front yard setback of any commercial or industrial establishment. Sec. 106-798. Fencing and wall requirements for automotive wrecking, salvage yards, junk dealers, etc. (a) General requirement. Every automotive wrecking and salvage yard/junk dealer/scrap metal processor yard with the city shall be completely surrounded and enclosed by a solid fence or wall which is at least eight feet in height. (b) Construction, maintenance of fence or wall. Every fence or wall herein shall be constructed and maintained as follows: (1) All fences shall be constructed of wood, masonry, corrugated sheet metal, chain link or any combination thereof; provided, however, that any one side of an automotive wrecking and salvage yard/junk yard/scrap metal processing yard shall be bounded by a fence or wall constructed of only one of the above materials. (2) Chain link fences shall be constructed of galvanized chain link fencing with wood or metal slats or strips run through all links of the chain link fence. (3) All fences or walls shall extend downward to within three inches of the ground and shall test plum and square at all times. (4) All fences or walls shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable provisions of the building code of the city. (c) Use of wall, door or building as part offence or wall. Any part of a fence or wall required by subsection (a) of this section may consist in whole or in part of a solid wall and door, or walls and doors of any completely enclosed building on the premises, if such wall or door meets all construction requirements set forth in this section. (d) Gates at openings in enclosure. Openings in the prescribed enclosure which are necessary to permit reasonable access to said automotive wrecking and salvage yards/junk yards/scrap metal processing yards shall be equipped with a solid gate or gates, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements for a fence or wall set forth in this section. Such gates shall be closed and securely locked at all times except during normal daytime business hours. (Code 1970, § 123/9-14(c)--(f)) Supp, No. 21 CD106:90