Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-1994 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 28, 1994 Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Charles Christensen, Sidney Grant; Alternate Board Member James Zoller Members Absent: Alternate Board Member Ruben Salinas City Staff 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 7:05 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24, 1994, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. With no corrections needed, Chairman Bernay declared the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST V94-003, REQUESTED FOR 201 HIGHWAY 146 SOUTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A SECOND DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ONTO WEST A STREET. Mark Lewis informed the Board that Variance Request V94-003 had been requested by Sonny Poteet. The purpose of the request is to allow the construction of a second driveway onto his property located on "A" Street. Mr. Lewis added that 18 public notices were mailed and 2 replies were received in favor of the request; 1 returned undeliverable; none received in opposition. Staffs review indicated that the pattern of traffic flow through the property has proven to be unworkable and unsafe, thus imposing a hardship. In addition, the proposed driveway would comply to all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, with the exception of the depth which is 150 feet. The proposed driveway should improve safety at this location which would comply with the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 2 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of April 28, 1994 Staff recommended approval of the variance request with the following conditions: · The driveway be widened to 20 feet. · The asphalt driveway should be removed and replaced with a reinforced concrete drive that is finished to match the other drives onto the property. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in C.L. Poteet. Mr. Poteet asked the Board to grant approval of the variance request. B. OPPONENTS There were none. Bob Capen made a motion to approve Variance Request #V94-003 with the following conditions: · The driveway be widened to 20 feet. · The asphalt driveway should be removed and replaced with a reinforced concrete drive that is finished to match the other drives onto the property. The motion was seconded by Charles Christensen. All were in favor and the motion passed. IV. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST V94-004, REQUESTED FOR 233 SOUTH CARROLL. VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO THE FOLLOWING ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: RESIDENTIAL SIDE SETBACKS, GARAGE REQUIREMENTS, DRIVEWAY SURFACING REQUIREMENTS. Mr. Lewis reported there were 19 public notices mailed; 2 replies were received in opposition, none were received in favor and 2 were returned undeliverable. Page 3 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of April 28, 1994 Mr. Lewis stated the request is for the property located at 233 South Carroll. The lot is presently vacant and is being proposed for development. The variance is being requested by Bill Herrick of Atlantis Homes. Mr. Herrick has requested variance to the following provisions of the Zoning Ordinance: Section 5-700, Table B: Residential (side yard) setbacks. Section 10-604.6: Residential garage requirements. Section 10-605.6: Driveway surfacing requirements. Section 10-605, Figure 10-2: Driveway setback requirements. Staff denied a permit request for Mr. Herrick to build a house at this location. The permit was denied for failure to comply with Section 10-605.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Herrick's proposed layout does not provide an accessible garage location. Even though you are not required to build a garage for your home, you are required to locate the house on the property in such a way that does not preclude the possibility of a garage being built in the future. Mr. Herrick is attempting to provide an attractive moderately price home that offers the buyer as much house as possible for the money. The lot size is 50' x 125' and is somewhat limiting. Mr. Lewis reported that staff had reviewed 4 different layout options for the property. Of the four, staff favored what was referred to as Component I in the Staff Report. Component I requests side setbacks of two feet and eight feet and a driveway setback of zero adjacent to the side property line. It also requests that gravel be approved as an acceptable driveway jparking surface. Staffs recommendation to the Board was to grant Variance Request #V94-004, subject to the following conditions: · Side setback shall be reduced to a minimum of two feet, on one side of the property only. No portion of the structure, including roof overhang shall extend closer than two feet from the side property line. · Side setback on the opposite side shall be increased to a minimum of eight feet. Page 4 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of April 28, 1994 . Driveway side setback shall be reduced to zero. . Driveway shall be sloped or graded to provide adequate storm water drainage. . A minimum of two off street parking spaces shall be provided. . The variance shall not supersede any zoning requirement other than those specifically listed herein. · The variance shall not supersede any Building Code requirement. In addition, staff and several Board Members voiced their opinion that gravel not be allowed as acceptable driveway surfacing. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in Bill Herrick. Mr. Herrick stated he has tried to find a way to develop nice, affordable housing that could be a nice addition and will blend with the other houses in the neighborhood. Since older La Porte has many 50 foot lots, it would be an opportunity for development of many of the vacant lots. There was discussion between Mr. Herrick and several Board Members regarding several issues unique to this request. B. OPPONENTS There were none. Mr. Grant noted that if this variance is approved, the door would be open for anyone who owned lots this size to do the same. He feels that lots of this size can be built on without any variance. Page 5 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjusttnent Minutes of April 28, 1994 A motion was made by Sidney Grant to deny Variance Request V94-004. The motion was seconded by Bob Capen. The motion was defeated by a vote of 2-3. Members voting against the motion were Charles Christensen and Chairman Bernay; voting in favor of the motion to deny the variance request were Bob Capen, Willie Walker and Sidney Grant. In order to approve a variance request, the Zoning Ordinance requires four atrmnative votes for approval. Since there were not 4 votes in favor of the granting the variance, the request was denied. V. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUFST V94-00S, REQUFSTED FOR 3209 OLD mCKORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALWWING CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL WITH REDUCED SETBACKS ADJACENT TO HOUSE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. Mr. Lewis stated that this request was made for 3209 Old ffickory in Fairmont Park. The request is being made by Dr. Reed Tolles, property owner. The purpose of the request is to allow for the construction of a backyard swimming pool with a setback of 4 feet adjacent to the home and a 0 setback adjacent to the rear utility easement. Mr. Lewis added that 18 public notices were mailed and 4 were returned in favor of the request. There were no replies received in opposition. Mr. Lewis stated that the property in question backs up to a pipeline corridor. An entire 20 feet of easement is located in the rear yard. It is more typical to see 16 foot utility easements is subdivisions such as this, rather than 20 foot easements. Staff feels that this unusually large easement presents a hardship to the owner. Staff feels that with careful pool design and engineer design, this variance will observe the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the variance request with the following conditions: . No portion of pool or permanent deck structure shall encroach into the utility easement. Page 6 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of April 28, 1994 . Plans for the pool shall be sealed by an engineer and shall indicate all precautions and design elements necessary to ensure the integrity of the pool and the home foundation. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in Reed Tolles. Mr. Tolles asked the Board to grant the variance request. B. OPPONENTS There were none. A motion was made by Sidney Grant to approve Variance Request #V94-005 with the following conditions: · No portion of pool or permanent deck structure shall encroach into the utility easement. · No portion of the pool shall be located within four feet of the adjacent home. Measurement shall be from pool water line to house foundation line. · Prior to permit issuance, the applicants shall submit to the City, a letter of approval from the Fairmont Park Homeowner's Association. · Plans for the pool shall be sealed by an engineer and shall indicate all precautions and design elements necessary to ensure the integrity of the pool and the home foundation. The motion was seconded by Charles Christensen. All were in favor and the motion passed. Page 7 of 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of April 28, 1994 VI. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Lewis informed the Board that in May the Planning and Zoning Commission will begin review of the Zoning Ordinance. He asked the Board to pass along any suggestions they feel might need to be considered as part of that review. Mr. Armstrong announced that the Board has recently had 2 lawsuits filed against them. VII. ADJOURN Chairman Bemay declared the meeting duly adjourned at 8:55 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Lee, Planning Secretary Minutes approved on the 26th day of May . 1994. Deborah Bernay, Chairman Board of Adjustment VARIANCE REQUEST #V94-006 CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE REQUEST ::::::-:::-:::~~----~::~--:~::~::-----------~~~~:~:~~~~;~~~~~~~t-~- ReceIpt ..0.. ___ NOTE: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision. -----------------~----------------------------------------------------- I am the (Sob h" ,Ji Ld,fqnc- Is l;;>! Eq 61}meb". f-qPort-e,- N- 715'rt PH: Address owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. 47 Q.-dq dO J.wz <f~d---Dd-%tj wI::. Applicant: Owner*: Name PH: Address I am requesting a variance to Sect. of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this variance for property located at L I..egal Dessription 11 0+ S 7/ ~ I Co.( ~ I D po. Lf f('~ nt Hd~l+l 'tJ '1 1.5-{ ,'1 Street ..-Address 0'1 E-a5t. L. ( 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 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~)}~~behalf. Dat to act ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes (~ No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: J'~~o~yt Meeting Date: 5'" / )-..b / CjLf Applicant Notified :f.hDaJ': 'I~5 / I (j Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: ~ Jp <:::[7 Board's Decision: Approved Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applic3nt/Owner: FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER I am requesting permission to install a canopy above my existing patio slab. It will be done in a professional manner and will not to interfere with the surrounding environment. No trees or other type of vegetation will have to be removed for the installati on. It will not devalue my property or the surrounding properties. No interference with vehicle traffic should occur. TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT I am requesting that the double frontage ordinance rule be varied. THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST Due to the unusual shape of lots 7 and 8, I am requesting that the City of LaPorte grant me permission to erect the canopy as depicted in the attached drawings. As noted on the drawings, lot 8 has approximately 1/3 of the 2500 square footage and lot 7 has much less. Therefore, I am restricted the amount of area I have available to me. Upon these grounds I am requesting a Variance. Thank you for your review of this Variance. Sincerely, Bob LeBlanc 1512 East ESt. LaPorte, Tx. 77571 10 C'0 ; \ ('J. (<') <t <"-" o o <"-" <"-" uJ :;t <.) c.f) ~ .J c.f) <.9 ~ I- <f) ;< uJ . 'r 0- o ~ <.) o uJ c.f) o 0- o cL 0- ~ Requested For: Property Zonine: Requested By: Purpose of Request: Back~ound: Analysis: :11111111111:111111:11:11111111 ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ :::::::::::::::::::::=::;=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ;:::;:::::;:;:;:;:::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................ ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. .. ............................... .............................. ............................... .............................. ............................... .............................. ............................................................. . ......................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... . ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. ................... .................. ................... .................. ................... .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. ................... .............................. . .............................. ............................... .............................. ............................... .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. ............................... ............................. . ............................ ................. :-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:-:-:.:-:.:-:-:.:-:-:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:....... . ... ............................ .. .................. . :.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:............. . .............................................. . . ....................... 1512 East "E" Street which is further described as Lots 7-10; Block 1; Bayfront Addition (See Exhibit A) R-1, Low Density Residential Mr. and Mrs. Bobby J. LeBlanc, property owners The request seeks a variance to the twenty feet rear setback for "through lots" established by Zoning Ordinance Section 4-104. The variance is requested for the purpose of allowing construction of a rear yard patio awning with a setback of two feet from the rear property line. As illustrated on Exhibit A, the tract in question is a triangular piece of property. It is located at the juncture of East "E" Street and Park Drive. The East "E" face of the property has been designated as the front. The Park Drive face is the rear. The property is designated as a "through lot". Section 1-104 defines a through lot as "a lot fronting on substantially parallel streets" . In regards to this property, the key word in this defmition is substantially. Obviously, East "E" and Park are not parallel. However, since they abut property lines that are clearly front and rear respectively, they are under ordinance intent "substantially" parallel. Section 1-104 establishes a twenty feet rear setback for through lots. The applicants are seeking variance to this requirement. They are requesting the variance to allow construction of a 15.5 foot x 35 foot aluminum patio awning which is to be attached to the rear of their home (See Exhibit B). The awning is to be open with no sidewall enclosures of any type. Ordinance Section 11-606 defines the term variance and established the conditions that must be satisfied in order for a variance to be granted. 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 Page 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of OS/26/94 V94-006 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. The first issue to be dealt with is that of hardship. As illustrated on Exhibit A, the lot in question is of an unusual shape. The rear yard becomes quite narrow. Although the property is fairly large (approximately 7,300 sq. ft.), the useable rear yard area is quite restricted. The imposition of the twenty feet rear setback line reduces buildable area even further. If Zoning Ordinance setback provisions are strictly enforced, the twenty feet rear setback line, in conjunction with the odd lot configuration will preclude construction of the requested patio awning. These factors will deprive the applicants of a reasonable degree of property use. This constitutes a hardship. The hardship will be as a result of the property's configuration. The application therefore satisfies ordinance guidelines regarding hardship. The next issues to be considered are protection of public interest and preservation of the intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. while these are separate issues, the considerations involved are similar enough that, in the contact of this request, they can be addressed in a single discussion. Section 4.104 states that the rear of a through lot shall be the face abutting the "major" streets. The City's Thoroughfare Plan classifies both East "E" and Park as "local collectors". Neither is a "major" street. It is solely by choice of the original builder and not by City requirement, that the home on this site was Page 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of OS/26/94 V94-006 oriented so East "E" is the front and Park is the rear. It is staff s view that the twenty feet rear setback was established based on the fact that most through lots would be backed by thoroughfares. Examples of this situation are the homes in Fairmont Park and Glen Meadows that abut West Main Street. In these types of cases, there is a clear interest in maintaining an adequate building setback for safety reasons. There have unfortunately, been traffic accidents that have left vehicles in people's back yards. As noted however, Park Street is not a thoroughfare. It is a two lane, local collector. The thirty mile per hour speed is much lower that is found on most thoroughfares. As illustrated on Exhibit B, the applicant's rear property line is approximately forty-five feet from the edge of the street paving. This forty-five feet contains a drainage swale. This degree of separation between the paved street and property line in conjunction with the physical barrier provided by the drainage ditch should provide an adequate safety margin. As far as staff can determine there are no plans in the foreseeable future for any widening or upgrade of Park Drive. It is to remain a two lane local collector street. Finally to be considered, is the type of structure being proposed. The applicants plan to erect a patio awning. There are to be no enclosing walls. Under normal circumstance, this type of structure is allowed to extend to within three feet of a rear property line (section 10-401.3). One corner of the awning will project beyond the three feet setback point. This is a result of the triangular lot shape. Although the awning could certainly be shortened by a foot, staff would note that as proposed the structure is, by residential standards not unusually large. As illustrated on Exhibit B, at closest proximity to property line, a setback of two feet would be maintained. The awning is intended to cover a recently constructed concrete patio deck. This patio deck (which was properly permitted) complies with all ordinance requirements. By ordinance, decks and terraces that are not over one feet above average grade may extend to within two feet of any property line (Section 10- 401.2). As proposed, the awing in will extend just far enough beyond the deck's perimeter to keep the drip line off the patio (See Exhibit B). As proposed, the awning will be located far enough from Park Street to satisfy safety concerns. There are presently, no plans for improving or expanding Park Drive. Construction of the awning should therefore not be contrary to the best public interest. Page 4 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of OS/26/94 V94-006 The type of structure proposed is typical is residential neighborhoods. It is not unusually large. The awning is designed to work in conjunction with a patio slab that satisfies all ordinance requirements. Ordinance conflict is due solely to factors relating to property configuration. Construction of the proposed awning would not violate the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Conclusion . Denying this variance would impose a hardship by restricting reasonable use of the applicant's property. . The hardship would result from strictly applying ordinance requirements to an unusually configured piece of property. . Granting the variance would not be contrary to the best public interest. . Granting the variance would not violate the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these facts and considerations, staff recommends granting variance request V94-006 subject to the following conditions. . No portion of the awning shall be located closer than two feet to the rear property line. . The variance shall allow construction of an awning only. There shall be no enclosing walls. . The variance does not superceed any building code requirements. ~PR 18 '94 12:39 FROM IWL COMMUNICATIONS TO 9-4717168 PAGE. 003 LAPORTE BRANCH,E.S.B. TEL:1-713-471-79$1 Apr 15)94 16:02 No.006 P.02 ~..' I':."~':!.:.:;~'._-~-TT:-Vw~o::;:;x.r~'-r-t/ "'''''.' ...__...._--.,.-....- --...".......-...--.. ,..-........__.__ _... Kain & Currie S.urveying Company 5353 W~t Alabl1m2 .. Suite 510 · HoustOn, Texas 77056 (713) 6Zl.6941 . FI);~ (713) 6Z1~910 PROPERTY ~IN tOO YE:.AR FLOOO PLANE AREA ACCORDING iO N.F.I.? COMMUNITY'NO: 4enfe1 MAl' NO: ~t:4l, ?ANEVO~REV.~ZON'E....:.i:. PLAT OF SURVEY ~ ~ I 1 SOUTH "E" STREET 10 Q> ..... 1 A ~ '3 .. 8~ \t" 'lO. -~ ~ I "7l ~ .1 tj(()~"( ~~QLlr~ s s'\'?-~~'\ ~ p..?- '(.. ~ ~ ....... SCALe: I":*, · , ~' "", , '<:. ,q ,~ . I I I I I J EXHIBIT A --l ....J W 3 ~ Q <t ..J m r- uJ uJ 0::- r- ef) ~ ~ 0... o o ~ ~ uJ ;i <.) ef) E~",,\6\1' B ------- .~.~-'-