The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-13-1977 Called MeetingF, ® MINUTES - CALLED MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION LA PORTE, TEXAS - JULY 13, 1977 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PRESENT: Charles Christensen, Chairman; Eugene Ybarra, J. C. Hebert, W. R. Shedelbower, and Joseph Ligi. OTHER CITY OFFICIALS PRESENT: Donald James, Inspector. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Joe Wallace and Children; Alan Thayer, Contractor for Wallace. PRESIDING: Charles Christensen. 0 + + + • 1. CALL TO ORDER.- The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. 2. DISCUSS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PRIVACY ENCLOSURE FOR JOSEPH' D. WALLACE '-' 7'2'2 S. IDAHO,- LOTS -15 THRU 21, BLOCK 9, BAY FRONT ADDITION - Joe Wallace ask for variance. Parties agreed to change plans to fit ordinances to make Aboretum as intergral part of building, and resubmit for approval by inspector. 3. Discussion was held about the fact that permit granted February 10, 1977, to move house also had stipulated that old house was to be taken down which has not happen yet. Something is not working. 4. Shedelbower nominated Christensen for Chairman. Seconded by Hebert. Vote unanimous. Christensen named Chair. 5. Shedelbower nominated Hebert for Vice Chairman. Seconded by Ybarra. Vote unanimous. Hebert named Vice Chair. 6. Hebert nominated Shedelbower for Sect. Seconded by Ybarra. Vote unanimous. Shedelbower named Sect. L F, ® Minutes 7/13/77 .7 • 7. Discussion about more background and info about agenda and especially less removal of items from minutes and submitted minutes returned to members after typed. 8. Discussion of maps for Commission members; as up to date as possible. We ask for five :(5)• 'new corrected zoning maps. Please. 9. Discussion of new procedure for variances. We ask for copies when typed. 10. Shedelbower moved to adjourn. Vote unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. E Acting Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission L 722 S. Idaho St. La Porte TX 77571 July 1, 1977 City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission P. 0. Box 1115 La Porte TX 77571 Gentlemen: We have in progress a major remodeling project at our home at 722 S. Idaho St. (Lots 15 thru 21, Block 9, Bayfront). Our architect, Alan Thayer, secured the necessary building permits from the City when the work was begun in March, 1977. At that time, he gave the City Building Inspector a set of the plans to keep for reference. The plans are on file with the city. They were approved in their entirety, and cons- truction was begun. A minor item in the plans is a privacy enclosure to surround the existing front porch, extending not more than • four feet out from the existing roof line, and situated some 35 feet from the street, well within the building line. When construction was begun on this item, the City Building Inspector came by and said that it would not be allowed. After his initial approval, it surprises us to see that the usually thorough methods of that department have allowed this situation to arise, causing inconvenience to all parties. Our research fails to show why a variance should be necessary for this type of enclosure. But if such a variance be necessary, we respectfully request that it be - granted to us. The proposed enclosure would be built of western cedar, a material which blends well with the color and natural materials of the total structure. The enclosure is desirable for a number of reasons: Our house is situated facing east, and the living room windows face directly east. In the mornings, the sun causes a tremendous glare --so much that it is physically uncomfortable to sit in our living room facing east. Worse yet, the evening sun reflects off the white house 2 across the street at 725 S. Idaho, causing reflected glare, which almost makes entertaining in our living room impossible. Heavy draperies, which could block the glare, are impracti- cal because these windows are the only source of natural light in a paneled room. We want to admit as much light as possible without the glare. The proposed enclosure would achieve this end, making draperies unnecessary. The open area between enclosure wall and roof would act as a giant skylight. The enclosure would provide added security to our home at a time when the neighborhood is rapidly developing, with extensive rental property just across Park Avenue, resulting in increased population density, noise, and traffic. Architecturally, enclosed courtyards are currently in vogue. If we were building our house today, it doubtless would have been incorporated into the original design of the house. The proposed facade would enhance the value of our property, giving it a more modern, contemporary appearance. At the same time, it is a very inexpensive way to add usable living space for relaxing or entertaining. • At present, our open porch is totally exposed to the street with its increasing traffic and noise. The enclosure would allow us to grow tropical plants which would be a visible part of our living area, without fear of them freezing in winter, because they would be protected by the enclosure. The living room is too dark and crowded for such plants to survive indoors. Finally, our large Doberman Pinscher is an indoor pet whose protective instincts extend as.far as her eye.can see. We enjoy having a protective dog, but her natural inclination to bark at pedestrians three blocks away is a nuisance to us as well as to the pedestrians. By shielding our front windows, this nuisance will be eliminated. This is our home and our lifestyle. This simple, com- pletely inoffensive enclosure will allow us to pursue our lifestyle without forcing it upon our friends, our neighbors, or our community. We respectfully request your speedy approval, so that construction may proceed on this project. 7o' co" do� 01. 4117� lo;� J-,- .Ar 1p 17 R;T • fC 12 14(d mod. -t A, /f 1P ) '-7 . ? 7t- 3 E- f Ar