HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-30-1989 Public Hearing and Regular MeetingQ * E8~~9 ~
COMM. DEV.
C.r T~Y OF L A F' GAR TE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING
•
DECEMBER 1 4, 1 9 8 9
w t
M= N U T E S
s
.~ ~~
LA PORTE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 30, 1989
Members Present: Deborah Bernay, Jody Seeger, Steve Hines,
Willie Walker
Members Absent: Charles Christensen
City Staff Present: Director of Community Development Joel H.
Albrecht, Chief Building Official Ervin
Griffith, Community Development Secretary
Nina Browning, Assistant City Attorney
John Armstrong
Others Present: Richard Hayes, representing the La Porte
Independent School District
1) CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Deborah Bernay at
7:00 P.M.
2) APPROVAL OF MINIITES OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 1989 MEETING.
A motion was made by Jody Seeger and seconded by Willie Walker
to approve the minutes as presented. All were in favor and
the motion passed.
3) CONSIDER SPECIAL.EXCEPTION REQUEST SE#89-004 REGARDING A
REQUEST BY THE LA PORTE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A 7.3
FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE 2 0 FOOT REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT
OF SECTION 5-700, RESIDENTIAL TABLE B OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
NO. 1501. THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE BAYSHORE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
LOCATED AT 301 BAY OARS DRIVE.
Joel Albrecht presented the staff's report on the Special
Exception Request. The school district is seeking a Special
Exception to rear setback requirements as provided for by
Section 11-605.2b. of the zoning ordinance. This paragraph
allows the Board of Adjustments to grant the following Special
Exception:
® "To deviate from yard requirements in the following
circumstances: A yard exception on corner lots."
• Board of Adjustments
Minutes of 11-30-89
Page 2 of 3
The Bayshore Elementary school is located on a corner lot.
A Special Exception shall be granted only when the Board finds
that such Special Exception will not affect the value and use
of adjacent or neighboring properties or be contrary to the
best public interest.
The proposed addition will primarily affect one homesite.
Since the rear wall of the addition will be located fairly
close to the rear property line of this home, the School
District has agreed to meet the following conditions:
(1) The 12.8 foot setback area is to be fenced with gates on
the east and west ends;
(2) This fenced area is to be landscaped to make it as
visually attractive as possible. The landscape plan is
to be approved by the Director of Community Development;
-~ - (3) Drainage will, by means of underground culvert, be
channelled away from neighboring residential homesites;
(4) The School District will, if requested by the neighboring
• property owner, install security lighting to illuminate
the fenced area and adjoining residential rear yard.
This request meets ordinance prerequisites regarding
exceptions to corner lot setbacks. It is therefore eligible
to be considered for the requested Special Exception to allow
a rear setback of 12.8 feet. It must, however,. be determined
by the Board whether or not the measures proposed by the
School District are adequate to prevent adverse affect to "the
value and use of adjacent or neighboring property".
Mr. Hines asked Mr. Albrecht if the home owner that is being
affected by this addition had any comments on this matter.
Mr. Albrecht told him that Mr. Cook has had considerable input
in this matter and the additional conditions that were put
into the Special Conditional Use permit were the results from
meetings with the homeowner and the School District.
Mrs. Bernay swore Mr: Hayes in at this point for his testimony
to the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Hayes told the Board about
the proposed addition and the items that the School District
and the property owner (Mr. Cook) had agreed to. Mr. Hayes
stated that a letter is forthcoming to Mr. Cook, with copies
coming to the La Porte and Shoreacres City Council, outlining
our commitments to the property owner.
C:
~ •
Board of Adjustment
Minutes of 11-30-89
Page 3 of 3
4) CALL FOR VOTE TO APPROVE OR DENY SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST
#ES89-004.
A motion was made ~by Steve Hines to grant the request based
on the pre-requisites of the Zoning Ordinance and on the
letter that outlines the agreement between the homeowner and
the School District, the motion was seconded by Jody Seeger,
all in favor. Motion passed.
5) -ADJOURNMENT
Before the meeting adjourned'Mr. Albrecht asked to make a
report to the Board on the appeal of the Building Inspector's
issuance of a building permit for a barn on "H" Street. On
Wednesday, November 29th, a Hearing on the temporary
injunction was heard. The lawsuit was filed against the City
of La Porte, the Board of Adjustment and the Couch's to keep
the Couch's from building a barn as approved by the issuance
of a building permit by the City. The Judge, after receiving
testimony, denied the temporary injunction request.
John Armstrong stated that the denial of the preliminary
injunction enables Mr. & Mrs. Couch to proceed with the
construction of the building (barn) and once that building is
constructed there is really no basis for the continuance of
the lawsuit.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
7:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Nina Browning, Secret y.
Community Development
Minutes approved on the
day of
1989.
Deborah Bernay, Chairman
Board of Adjustments
12/1/89/neb
• •
•
VAR 2 A N C E R E Q U E S T
V89-001
U
.®
•
® VARIANCE REQUEST V89-001
REQUESTED FOR: I.W. II, Incorporated
LOCATION: 11730 Old La Porte Road (See Exhibit A)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 9 of the F. A. Staashen Survey
REOUESTED BY: Mr.-I,:W~. Hickham, Jr., owner of I.W. II, Inc.
REQUESTED RELIEF: Twenty seven (23) foot variance to the fifty
(•50) foot rear setback requirements of
section 7-600 of Ordinance 1501 to allow
construction of a building addition with a
rear setback of twenty seven (27) feet.
ZONING: Light Industrial (LI) (See Exhibit B)
BACKGROUND • ~~~d~ ~
_~~~ ~ ~
I.W. II, Incorporated owns and operates a light industrial
manufacturing facility which is located at 11730 Old La Porte
Road. The company is proposing to expand one of the existing
buildings l o c t ~~ ~~ ~ ~ tab s i t e . S~e'e two n~~•6:0:0.=~a~-l:e= --8-,
~Ind~u~:t-r'-i:al, rues a ~ifty (50) foot rear setback for all
structures located within L. I. zones whose rear property lines
abut residentially zoned property. ~ _p.rop~~y l;rn:e~-o-f
I_rHt ~- :: Ida bu~t:s~°-a--"'-"1 oa'~.•-d•e•n•s-i-tyz.-rr-e•s• d~e-n°t i a-1°- 'r(~t2 --1) -:.~z:o_n e-°-~ use e `
Exhi-rzt"B). The Monument Estates subdivision is located in the
portion of this R-1 zone which adjoins I.W. II.
As proposed; the bu' ding. addition would have a rear
setback of twenty seven (27 feet at its closest proximity to the
rear property line. At the furthest point from the rear property
line, the setback would be thirty six (36) feet (See Exhibit A).
Mr. Hickham, the owner of I.W. II Inc., is requesting a variance
to allow construction:•of this addition with the reduced rear
setback. ~~
S`-'° ~~r= ~~~~'f- the~:Zoning Ordinance defines a variance
a s s~ -
A deviation from the literal provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance which is granted by the
Board when st:.ic~t confazmity to t1',e Zoning
Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship
because of ~ circumstances unique to the
property on which the variance is granted.
• ..
~:..J
® VARIANCE REQUEST V89-001
PAGE -2-
•
' n ur t the Board is empowered to
grant a variance only when it finds all of the following
conditions to be met.
1. That the granting of the variance will not be
contrary to the public interest.
2. That literal enforcement of the Ordinance
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
• 3. That by granting the variance, the spirit of
the Ordinance will be observed.
ANALYSIS:
Exhibit C is a master plan of the I.W. II, Inc. and Hickham
Industries complexes. Their master plan which was prepared in
February of 1989, indicates the location of both existing and
proposed .structures. Structures highlighted with crosshatching
have been completed since the original plan was drafted. At the
time this plan was prepared, La Porte's zoning requirements were
regulated by Zoning Ordinance 780. This plan complies with all
zoning requirements which were in effect during 1984.
Dt~e to the shallow (for industrial applications) depth of
the east end of the I:W. II tract, the original buildings were
located fairly close to the rear property line. This placement,
which complied witi~ ~t}~e requirements of Zoning Grdinance 730,
allows for adequate off-street maneuvering and parking at the
front of the buildings: T}~e ado~~i~ion of Ordinance ].501, with its
more stringent rear setback requirements,.)•ias rendered t:wo of the
I.W. II buildings, including the one proposed for e::pansion,
nonconforming.
The applicant contends that, for the following reasons,
literal enf_orcemer~t of the rear setback requirements of Ordinance
1501 would cause an "unnecessary hardship".
® •
• VARIANCE REQUEST V89-001
PAGE -3-
1. The triangular shape and shallowness of the I.W. II
tract dictated the placement of the original structure
on the tract.
2. Original building placement and development of the I.W.
II master plan compiled with City Zoning regulations in
effect at the time.
3. Original buildings were designed to accommodate the
proposed expansion. Relocation of the proposed
addition would render it useless for its intended
purpose as well as interfering with required
parking/maneuvering areas located at the front of the
property.
4. The hardship which would result from literal
enforcement of zoning ordinance requirements, would be
due to changes in the City Zoning Ordinance which were
• made subsequent to construction of the existing I.W. II
buildings and development of the company's master plan.
• The hardship is therefore not as a result of the
applicants actions.
CONCLUSION:
f~ With the above factors in mind, there appears to be a
legitimate hardship involved. This request is therefore eligible
~_~ to be considered for a variance. Before deciding whether or not
to grant the requested relief however, the Board must also make
the following determinations:
1. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the
public interest.
2. Granting the variance will observe the spirit of the
zoning ordinance.
These determinations must be made based on testimony taken from
the applicant and concerned citizens.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve the requested valiance.
2. Deny the requested variance.
~~=~, 3. Table the request for further consideration at a future
date.
® ,
~' ~ ~ ~~~~
i ..i~
=~{~2
~Rt1 t
Tti,f
.! it~c
.~7~ k~i
1 ~ i T
i i
t~
`~
•
~ ~jjr
1 ~~j
~. i'1
~!.
'ii.
~ }.ti
~~~
_~
..- • ~:
~;
I;;
I
-r-===r_
. :. ~j~_
~.~
~T ~
--='~"
~_
~~
-=~~
-.... ~
:.. -.J
• - •;
-• -*Y
i~
-~:~ ~
}. ~
-~ ?~~ •• ~
. ti..w,,
' it
~~..
1 ~ L.
:I
•. .:~~
~~
j
`~ ~
i !'
~ ~'
'•~~~ i
'{
tk'i~~ 9
~~:~ Sil.
!
~:
:
~~
?t~ ire,??
~
i .~; ~
{ ~
~• ~1
i
i.' ;
~',_
~ t~
tt~~q a j:~2 ~
_ ~ _; ;
.
•
~
=
~ , ~~_~ ~ L
J•i
~}: it
N
V F. 9 2
Nm a ' a x
~'
o ~ ~ ~ `zo
~ ~
. .~~~~ =~s
,_, C
J 4 n
a .
^
• N O 9 9 ~
~ I ~
;~~
5 v ~ f
+
~
^
9 c \ ~
~ r.f
~~ j};
R
j ~] e
. ,~ .~~
~~
•E s
I
} ~,
~i
r~ ~~,f~,
f '~
~~ '
l~ ~o/
~: ,•~'
a./ . ,,.
~rM O ~ _
f = .~
~' a
..~. a
r,
~~~I_
t
IEXHtB~' ~
:., .,
~
~ ~
,
y„
,.~~
.M~
~
r.y;
.~~ .
w~~~ `
;.~:,.+ TRACT IN QUESTION ~ . , •~"
. ....... ~._ ... ... ~
.
F
! ......rv «r. ~
"''•
>. ...
. ...;4 :.
s~~ .. ,.: ;
._..... ........_._.... .,
• ._
:
x a
+.....~M::tiR +.riw+i
.. .
F. ...
.... ....._.. _... ..
.,~~_....:~.:..:~
~s•°y . .Y ....._... .. ...
. ....
.. ... ...
_.
f
`
a ~ : ~
~ L ,
~
Q ~
'
' rtti~..Arp~
.~
"4
'
+~
••'
..,.....~...r+ii~a..C:•-.e,..:,~
ra v..tan.A6sv..,..-+wx^.^•uvx•arharsr7.eeosx
+^x-.......a • . ,
~».
.
.
'
8 :.
•f
~
<,.L
~ ' GC ~;
t ..
V^ ~
.. ..
K :
f r
~ X~
)) .••1
.. «rwtlc .nqa~
. .
....
rta^ ~. ..... .CdYR ~! .. <... .. n .... ~~ .. a .. ~.
.~..
......~....._.........._.........._.. .. _.. ... .... .. O ..
's
.: i,+ -•
. .....:
••
~~' a ~
~
s x..xt.
r.d:~ i
.
.:r
~ .
~~ ~
r ...
, ..
]
~
N
v
ww+.^q4"~~d:~*.W"'~~`-F~.e..~.'.'.A?9$:l~ia~z w.. ,.ro+•N-<v`~vKu.... r
~,.;~r^~ >
s1z. N.. :.i.rwxM•. .~ awt.cT.w9c:r.'.wa• Yaw+M xna. .~u-.
' ~.;~
p •,
i
} ~ M.
..
'i
:~
..
.
~
r t:
..
i i .... ..... .. .
< ."
" p,
~;
f
S ... v .
-....
~Y
..:N,~ .:ww.tin~
jti t ..
• ~ •. A: NC
' , , ® ~ ...
EXHIBET $
4 ... T ..y.... .~w `M• t
. ,
x ,
R .. ..
r
"
a.
!
•i
... ,...~...~...
...
.t ,.
t. ~
.~we... v....wvn..as'+wx+ { w.e'~ i++'i. +~+wa+.n..sw»~++.w•s'.'
. 'S~ .A .
' }.
.
o `
'
y
~
•~. ..t.
i
t
. ,C
... ~ ... ... ,.X
^
ssee''' ':n,
b.
s
t.
^ i
f
Y '
SCALE ~ I~~=1000
0 500 1000 ~ 2000
•
•
•
m I
~, C
gA t~i~ C ~
m p
E ~ ~ m
- N~a
_~
if
8 ° R
a1 3 ~ ~ ~ { O
m py j{f
e ~
f ~ V =
Y C
~ 10
-_.~ }
~ • _~c1
,~
~-
a
r ,`
.1
,~ ~ ~.
7
0
L
J
n
I' ,•'~.
1.
EXHIB~ ~
~_
~_
\~
~~
~~
C_
a>