The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-09-1993 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 1993 Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Bob Capen, Charles Christensen, Willie Walker, Alternate Board Member James Zoller Members Absent: Sidney Grant, Ruben Salinas City StatT Present: Planning Director Charles Harrington, Chief Building Official Mark Lewis, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernay at 7:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGS: A. OCTOBER 28, 1993 B. NOVEMBER 11, 1993 Mr. Lewis asked the Board to restate for the minutes, their decision during the October 28, 1993, meeting regarding A93-002. For clarification, Chairman Bernay declared that the Board granted approval of the appeal requested by Mr. Morvant allowing him to continue parking the truck in question at the location specified. The Board was only considering the truck in question and made no decision to allow a trailer to be parked at the same location, since the appeal did not include a trailer. With no other items to be addressed, Chairman Bernay declared the minutes of both meetings approved. III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION A93-003. UNDER APPEAL: THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION TO DENY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF A MANUFACTURED HOME ON LOT 271; BLOCK 16; SPENWICK PLACE SECTION II, WHICH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 9602 BELFAST. Page 2 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 9, 1993 Mr. Lewis reported that this request was made by the property owners, John and Carla Steagall. Mr. Steagall has requested a building permit for the purpose of allowing a manufactured home to be located at 9602 Belfast. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Steagall provided the City with a copy of the home's title. By checking with the Texas Department of licensing and Registration, staff was informed that the home was a H.D.D. Code manufactured home. Based on the R-1 zoning of the property and the designation of the home, the permit was denied. Mr. and Mrs. Steagall are appealing this decision. Fourteen (14) public notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Two (2) notices were returned in favor of the appeal. No replies were received in opposition. Mr. and Mrs. Steagall noted the following reasons for their appeal: · There are a number of existing mobile and manufactured homes in the Spenwick subdivision. · Modular homes have been discontinued and have not been manufactured since 1979. · The applicants intend to remove the wheels and tongue from the home and set it on a permanent foundation system (tripod bases). · Prohibiting this type of housing poses a handicap for property owners in the Spenwick Subdivision. · Other property owners are agreeable to placement of the home. · Placement of the home in conjunction with flower beds and landscaping will improve the neighborhood's appearance. They also requested that the Zoning Ordinance be amended by deleting the term modular home and replacing it with manufactured home. This request would have to be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Mr. Lewis noted that the only items which should be addressed by the Board are those items that question whether or not the Zoning Ordinance is unreasonable or whether or not the Building Official's decision was unreasonable. Mr. Lewis noted Page 3 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 9, 1993 that Zoning Ordinance Section 5-600 prohibits manufactured homes in R-l zones, therefore the Building Official's decision would not appear to be unreasonable. Mr. Lewis discussed state law as it pertains to this appeal. He reminded the Board that they do not have the authority to take any action or make any interpretations regarding state law. The Zoning Ordinance was written as to reflect and respect state law. Manufactured housing is regulated by the Texas Manufactured Housing Act, which states that the installation of H.D.D. Code manufactured homes shall be permitted as residential dwellings in those areas determined appropriate by the City. The City of La Porte's Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have determined the areas deemed appropriate for manufactured housing. The location in question is not one of those areas. The Zoning Ordinance should not be considered unreasonable as it respects and follows the provisions of state law. Mr. Lewis noted that per the Texas Department of licensing and Regulation, modular homes are still available in Texas. Since a modular home could be placed on the property, staff feels that the Zoning Ordinance regulations are reasonable. In regard to the Zoning Ordinance condition which disallows granting special privileges to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated, it is staffs opinion that granting this appeal would grant a special privilege since it would be contrary to other Board decisions regarding similar matters. In addition, Mr. Lewis stated that the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan must be protected. Based on the R-l zoning that was assigned to the Spenwick Subdivision, it was the City's long term goal for this area to be restored as a neighborhood of conventionally built single family homes. Allowing nonconforming structures would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on all these findings, staff recommended that Appeal of the EnforcementCOfficer's Decision # A93-003 be denied. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bemay swore in John Steagall. Mr. Steagall said he feels the Zoning Ordinance is too harsh as it relates to the property owners of this subdivision. Page 4 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 9, 1993 B. OPPONENTS There were none. Mr. Zoller asked Mr. Steagall if he considered his home to be a manufactured or modular home. Mr. Steagall replied "modular". He stated that other than wind load, there are no visible differences between a modular and a manufactured home and considers them to be comparable. Chairman Bernay suggested that this issue may need to be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission if there is concern that the area should be rezoned to allow manufactured housing. Mr. Capen sympathized with Mr. Steagall but believes that the appeal should be denied. Mr. Capen motioned to deny Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision A93-003. The motion was seconded by Mr. Christensen. All were in favor and the motion passed. IV. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Armstrong informed the Board that the Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeals and has remanded to the District Court level, the Couch-Davis appeal. v. ADJOURN Chairman Bernay declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:43 PM. Page 5 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 9, 1993 Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the 24th day of Deborah Bemay, Chairman Board of Adjustment February . 1994. VARIANCE REQUEST #V94-001 > ~.EC~. CITY OF LA ?ORTE \ ~I q ZON!NG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT V.4RIANCE REQUEST p\ANNlNG --------------------------------------------~~;i~~;;i~~-~~~~--1~:-o~-;= OF'FTCE USE ONLY: Fee: ~100.Q.i1 Date Received: 1-31-1'1-_ Receipt No.: ~~4/~2 NOT~: rh1s Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board1s Decision. -~------~---------------------------------~----~----~------~----------- Applicant: MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING CO., INC. Name 3301 FEDERAL ROAD PASADENA, TEXAS 77504 Add re~ s I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING CO., INC. to act on my behalf in this matter. PE'!: 941-8988 Owner~: JAMES R. HOLCOMB 1300 POST OAK BLJB~me Address PH: 626-2168 I am requesting a variance to Sect. of the City Zoning Ordinance Mo. 1501. I am requesting this variance for property located at GLEN ME;D~\4~:tSt'=<1A~~S~ Legal Description (x) Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development S1t~ ?!an ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the 1nformation 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 on the ow~er~ behalf. I/~ 94- Date owner, he ~ orovide .uthorization to act .o-V Applicant'S Signature _________________________w________________~-____--____----------------- OFFICE use ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes~ No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: 2-,/'-'-I/Q 'L Approved Applicant Notified of Date: ~II/qi Denied ( ';IL~ Meeting Date: Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision~ ( ) ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to ApplicantJOwner: ; PAGE 2 A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance". The City's Soard of Adjustments ma~ NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following conditlons: 1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest. 2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance mu~t result in a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its unusual shape, narrowness, ~hallowness, or topography con- stitute~ the primary exampl~ of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot be granted. 3) Granting the vari3~~~ ~~S~ nc~ violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 4) ~o variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance allowins a commercial u~e in a residential zone is not allow- able. , Please rememoer it is the Applicant1s responSibility to prove that a variance will meet the above condition~. If there is not adeQuate room" on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information1 please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board should consi~er. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: A LANDSCAPE (101 RADIUS) AREA IS LOCATED AT THE CUL-DE-SAC ON ARCHWAY COURT WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY @ THE CUL-DE-SAC BEING A 60' RADIUS ~s OPPOSED TO THE NORMAL 501 RADIUS. ~ PAGE 3 TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: SEEK A 201 BUILDING LINE ON CUL-DE-SACS AND KNUCKLES AS OPPOSED TO A 251 BUILDING liNE. THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUESr~ THE LOTS ~N THE CUL-DE-SAC COULD NOT BE BUILT ON WITH A 25' BUILDING LINE DUE TO THE 10' RADIUS LANDSCAPING AREA IN THE CENTER OF THE CUL-DE-SACS. THE DEPTH OF._LOTS ARE TIED DOWN BY PREVIOUS.SECTIONS OF GLEN MEADOWS. ON THE KNUCKLES WHICH HAVE EXTRA WIDE PAVING AREAS, WE REQUEST A 201 B.L. TO GIVE MORE USABLE REAR YARD. ~ED/1-'87 GLEN MEADOWS PARTNERS c/o HOLCOMB PROPERTIES, INC. 1300 POST OAK BLVD., SUITE 1110 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 713-626-2168 January 21, 1994 Mr. Charles Harrington Director of Planning CITY OF LAPORTE P. O. Box 1115 LaPorte, TX 77571 RE: GLEN MEADOWS, SECTION SIX (6) Dear Chuck: I, JAMES R. HOLCOMB, do hereby authorize MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. to act on my behalf on a variance request for the above mentioned subdivision. Cordially, ,.- ,- Requested For: Prooerty Zonin~: Requested By: Purpose of Request: Bacqround: 11~1.111.1.~i: Lots 19' 20' 21' 22' 41' 42' 43' 44' Block 9' Lots 11' 12' 13' 14' 16' 17' 18' 19' """" , """" Block 12, Glen Meadows, Section VI (See Exhibits A & B) R-l Low Density Residential Municipal Engineering Company, Inc., on behalf of Mr. James R. Holcomb, property owner. A variance to the front yard setback requirements of Ordinance 1501, Section 5-700, Table B. The variance, which is requested under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 11-606, seeks to reduce required front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet. As noted, the property in question is located in Glen Meadows, Section VI. The preliminary plat for this subdivision section was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 17, 1994. Infrastructure for this section of the subdivision has not yet been constructed. Approval of the Final Plat will be granted after streets and utilities have been completed and accepted by the City. The lots listed above will be located on cul-de-sacs. Exhibit A indicates the locations of the lots in question. As required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, the preliminary plat establishes a front setback line of 25 feet for these lots. The application is seeking a variance to reduce this setback to 20 feet for the lots listed above. Section 11-606.2 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance". It further states that the Board may grant a variance when "strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship because of circumstances unique to the property on the which the variance is granted". Additionally, the Board must find the following: · Granting the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest . Page 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 2/24/94 V94-001 · The hardship will be caused due to property configuration or topography and not due to financial considerations or the owner's own actions (see Zoning Ordinance, Page 123 for complete text to this paragraph). · The variance, if granted, observes the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Glen Meadows, Section VI will be an expansion of an existing subdivision. Sections 1 through 4A are developed and substantially built out. Section V (for which the Board granted a similar variance) has been recently constructed and should receive Final Approval in the near future. Section VI will be adjoined by the previously developed sections of the Glen Meadows subdivision on its south and east faces. Sections 1 through 4 were constructed in accordance with a "General Plan" that had been approved by the City several years ago. Due to the new storm water detention requirements instituted by Harris County Flood Control (HCFCD), this General Plan could not be used as a guide for construction of the remaining portions of the subdivision. In October of 1992, the City's Planning and Zoning Commission approved a revised General Plan for the remaining subdivision sections (see Exhibit B). The developer has attempted to layout future sections of the subdivision in a manner that will tie into existing streets and utilities as well as satisfy HCFCD and City requirements. Section VI is the second of the revised subdivision sections to be submitted for platting. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat with knowledge that due to the subdivision redesign, a variance might be necessary for certain lots. Analysis: As noted above, the cul-de-sac lots were created as a result of the need to reconfigure the original subdivision design. Unfortunately, this has in a few cases resulted in relatively shallow lots. Examples are Lot 19 in Block 9 and Lots 11 and 19 in Block 12. Imposing the standard 25 foot building line on these lots would result in the "buildable" portion of the lot being too shallow to accommodate many typical tract home floor plans. Reducing the front setback on these lots would make them much easier to develop. This is the purpose of the requested variance. Although only a few lots would be unduly impacted by the 25 foot front setback, the developer has requested a 20 foot front setback be established for cul-de-sac lots and lots with radial street Page 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 2/24/94 V94-001 frontage. This is for the purpose of maintaining a more uniform streetscape. In reviewing this request, staff finds the following: · The lots in question are laid out in as close accordance as possible with City requirements. The lots were created as a result of a subdivision redesign. · The revised subdivision design that resulted in creation of these lots was made necessary by a change in County regulations. Design was further dictated by the need to tie in with existing streets and utilities. This has resulted in a hardship for the developer. The hardship however, does not result from the developers own actions. · The variance, as requested will still provide a uniform front setback that will preserve the residential character of the subdivision streetscape. The 20 foot setback will also be adequate to "secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers...; to provide adequate light and air [and] to prevent overcrowding of land (Ordinance 1501, adoption section)". Based on these considerations, staff feels the variance observes the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and that it will not be contrary to the best public interest. Conclusion: Based on the facts an~ consideration discussed above, staff recommends approval of Variance Request #V94-001 as follows: The front setback for Lots 19; 20; 21; 22; 41; 42; 43; 44; of Block 9; Lots 11; 12; 13; 14; 16; 17; 18; 19 of Block 12, Glen Meadows, Section VI shall be 20 feet. This setback shall be noted as the platted setback line on the Final Plat of Section VI. The plat shall also note the following: Front setback for Lots 19; 20; 21; 22; 41; 42; 43; 44; of Block 9; Lots 11; 12; 13; 14; 16; 17; 18; 19 of Block 12 has been established as 20 feet by #V94-001, granted by the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment on February 24, 1994. Page 4 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 2/24/94 V94-001 NOTE: 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 of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, 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 (10) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. VARIANCE REQUEST #V94-002 FORREST SERVICES, INC. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SANDBLASTING. PAINTING P.O. BOX 1702 LA PORTE, TEXAS 77572 PHONE: (713)471-6107 FAX (713) 471-7360 February 3, 1994 Zoning Board of Adjustment City of La Porte La Porte, Texas 77571 Dear Sirs: I am requesting a variance that will allow me to place a building 15 feet from the south property line. This building will be used primarily for equipment storage and possibly for doing some inside painting. There will be no lights in the building. If any work is performed after dark, we have portable, explosion proof lights that will be used. All plugs, fan motors, etc. will be explosion proof. Fans will be installed on the outside of the building and will run through a water separator to take the impurities out of .- the air. The reasons that I need to have the building 15 feet from the south property line are: 1. It will keep the building in line with our present driveway to bring the equipment in. 2. We have employees who frequently park their cars on the inside of the fence on the north side when they are working out of town for a week or more at a time so that the risk of having their cars stolen is minimized. 3. We have compressors, trucks, trailers, large portable buildings, sand hoppers, air dryers, etc. that have to be parked there when not out of the yard on a jobsite. 4. At times, we have to store sizable amounts of pipe and we must have room for the forklift and/or other lifting equipment to move around and load or unload pipe. 5. We have large compressors and portable buildings that have to be lifted onto trailers for transporting to a jobsite and that takes quite a lot of space. Due to the narrowness of the property, even locating the building 15 feet from the property line will leave us with the bare minimum of space required on the north side of the property. Thank you for your consideration. '1>,* tw<<A James Forrest CITY OF LA PORTS ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMSNT VARIANCE REQUEST --------------------------------------------A~~l~~~~~~~-~~~~-s>q=-DD~- OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $100.00 Date Received: :J...-Lt;" 9 Receipt No.: ~~t 0 NOTS: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. Applicant: James Forrest Name ,2231 Sens Road, La Porte, TX 77571 PH: 471-6107 Address I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized Alan T. Ward to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Name PH: Address I am requesting a variance to Sect. 1-60~1~b~'~ of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this variance for property located at 2231 Sens Road, La Porte, Texas Metes & Bounds Street Address Legal Description f.~-- (~Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the folloHing 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, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. 2-3-94 Date ~ Applicant's Signature ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ~ No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board ""L/~ y / CCLj I / of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: -z./IJ/1t-j '1e-~ Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision: Approved ) Denied Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: PAGE 2 A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance fl. The City's Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following conditions: 1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest. 2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography con- stitutes the primary exampl~ of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot be granted. 3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. LI) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not allow- able. Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a variance will meet the above conditions. If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Soard should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: See attached letter. PAGE 3 TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: Relief from Section 7 - 600 Table B, Industrial as regards to minimum yard set back. THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: The construction desired by us is un-workable if conforming to the ordinance as it exists. See attached letter. CED/1-'87 Reauested For: Property Zonine: Reauested By: Purpose of Reauest: Bacqround: 11I1I11I.1aI1!1 2231 Sens Road, which is further described as a 1.5930 acre tract out of the Enoch Brinson Survey, Abstract 5 (see Exhibit A). Business Industrial (BI) Mr. James Forrest, owner. Applicant is seeking a 15 foot variance to the 30 foot B.I. side setback requirements of Ordinance 1501, Section 7-600. The variance is being sought to allow construction of an approximately 5,000 square foot industrial building. Forrest Services is an existing business located at 2231 Sens Road. The company is essentially a "special trade contractor" as classified by the Standard Industrial Classification (S.I.C.) Manual. Specifically, the company specializes in repair and construction of industrial plants, pipelines, etc. Although most company work takes place on jobsites, there is a certain amount of fabrication work performed at the Sens Road facility. Additionally, as stated in the applicant's letter, the facility is periodically used as a marshalling yard for job materials. The S.I.C. designation assigned to this company is 1629. Zoning Ordinance Section 7-500, Table A, lists S.le. 1629 as a permitted B.l business activity. Although Forrest Services is a conforming business, it was established in this location prior to La Porte's adoption of its current Zoning Ordinance and map. There are certain aspects of the facility and the business that do not conform with current zoning regulations. These elements, which must be considered as legally non-conforming will be discussed in a later section of this report. As has been noted, this property is located in a B.l zone. Ordinance Section 7-201 defines the intent and purpose of this zoning designation as follows: The purpose of the Business/Industrial Park District is to provide for the establishment of industrial development that is compatible with Page 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 2/24/94 V94-002 surrounding or abutting residential districts and to encourage high level performance standards. Development in the Business/Industrial Park District is limited to administrative, wholesaling, manufacturing and related compatible uses, with suitable open spaces, landscaping and parking areas. This statement of purpose should be carefully considered in regards to this request. Also to be considered in conjunction with this or any variance request is the definition of the term "variance" and the guidelines established for the Board to use in evaluating a request. · The term "variance" shall mean a deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which is granted by the Board when strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property on which the variance is granted. · Except as otherwise prohibited, the Board is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance when the Board finds that all of the following conditions have been 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. Additionally, under the terms of Section 11-607: The Board is empowered to impose upon any variance or special exception any condition reasonably necessary to protect the public interest and community welfare. Page 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 2/24/94 V94-002 Analysis: The tract in question is approximately 139 feet wide and 500 feet deep. Although this is a fairly sizeable piece of property, it is, in terms of Business Industrial setbacks, somewhat narrow. As noted in the applicant's letter, the area along the north face of this property is used for driveway, maneuvering room and parking of passenger vehicles, trucks and equipment. H the proposed building were located within the required setback lines it would fit and would leave accessible driveway and parking for passenger vehicles. It would however, severely restrict the area available for parking and maneuvering of trucks and large equipment. It would also limit loading bay access to the proposed building. Given the nature of this business, these restrictions would pose a serious handicap. As this hardship is due to the configuration of the property and not the applicant's own actions, the variance as requested, in this respect is within ordinance guidelines. The other conditions to be satisfied in order to grant a variance are: · The variance must not be contrary to the best public interest. · The variance must observe the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. As noted in the background section of this report, Business Industrial zoning is intended to encourage development that is compatible with neighboring residential areas, such as those located west of Sens Road. B.1. zoning is also to promote development that provides landscaping, open areas and adequate parking. Also as noted, there are certain elements of this business that do not comply with current zoning regulations. Specifically, these elements are: · Parking/storage area that is not dust free. · Outside storage of materials (pipe, valves, etc.) · Inadequate landscaping. While staff feels the hardship associated with this request is legitimate, we are also concerned about continuing non-conformities in what is an increasing high profile area of the City. We would therefore, request that the Board, Page 4 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 2/24/94 V94-002 should they decide to grant this request, use the provisions of Section 11-607 and attach certain conditions to the variance. The purpose of these conditions, which will be enumerated in the conclusion section of the report, is to reduce the degree of non-conformity associated with this facility. By attachment of these conditions, staff feels the variance can be granted in a manner that will observe the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and also serve the best public interest. Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted above, staff recommends that Variance Request #V94-002 be granted subject to the following conditions: · All parking, driveway and storage areas shall be topped with a permanent, dust free surface. Parking spaces for passenger vehicles shall be marked in accordance with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance 1501. · Landscaping shall be installed on the property. Emphasis shall be placed on the north property face. A landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Planning. · All outside storage of pipe and other materials shall take place in the area to the rear of the proposed building. Please Note: This variance is not a building or development permit. It is based on zoning criteria only and does not supersede or eliminate the need for compliance with any other applicable City code or ordinance. Anneals: 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 of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by Veroon's Texas Codes Annotated, 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 (10) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. ApPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION A93-004 ApPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION A94-001 .ll~i11~rjl_J...~ ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................... ................................. ............................. ..................... .......... . ................. ..... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... .................................. ... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... ..................................... ................................. .............................. .......................... ....................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~:~:~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::~~~::~~~:~::~::~:~:~~~~~~::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:::~:~~~~~:~:~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~:~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~:::~::::::::::::::::~:::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::~:~::::::::::::~::::::~~~:~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::.:.:.:.:........... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... .................................. TO: SUBJECT: Dr. Deborah .Be~y, Ch~ ~~Joa:rd of Adjustment Mark S. LeWIS, ChIef Bulldmg Offl~ Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting of February 24, 1994. Appeals of the Enforcing Officer's Decisions # A93-004 & # A94-001. FROM: Agenda item VI is Appeal of the Enforcing Officer's Decision # A93-004. Agenda item vn is Appeal of the Enforcing Officer's Decision #A94-001. Both of these appeals have been requested by Ms. J an Stevenson. Ms. Stevenson has requested that the Board defer action on her request at this time. Staff is asking the Board to honor Ms. Stevenson's request by tabling these appeals without acting on them. By bringing each of these items up for consideration and then tabling them without action, all public notice requirements will have been satisfied. The requests can then be brought from the table and considered at a future meeting without the need for further public notices. FEB-21-94 MON 11:5e JAMES R KEENEY~ JR. p.e::2 James R. Keeney. Jr. Donna Yost Keeaey & Yost, P.C. Attorneys and Coun$elm (It Law 1001 West H Street P.O. Box 134- liI Porte. Texas 77572-0134 (713) 470.1001 Fax (713) 471-4376 Assist. nt: Becky Roberti Pebruary 21, 1994 Mr. John Ar~tronq AskIns & Armstrong, P.C. P.O. Box 1218 La Porte, TX 77572-1218 ReI Matter between Janet A. stevenson and the City of La Porte ... .._... _. ';'~"~ ' " ~_ . ,......,... ", I " . ~_,. . F r.', -c, ... I)ea;{.Mr. Arms tronq : On behalf of Ms. Stevenson, you are hereby requested to cause the hearlnqs before the Board of Adjustment on Enforcement Officer's Decision No. A93-Q04 and Enforcement Officer's Decision No. A94-001 to be continued until the Marcb session of the Board of Adjustment. JRK/bmr OCt Mr. Mark Lewis (by Fax) ROlZl.94