HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-95 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing• •
MINUTES
• •
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JANUARY 26, 1995
Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Willie Walker,
Sidney Grant, Ruben Salinas; Alternate Board Members Jim
Zoller, Russell Ybarra
Members Absent: Bob Capen
City Staff Present: 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 DECEMBER 29, 1994, ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
With no corrections needed,,Chairman Bernay declared the minutes approved as
presented.
III. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST V95-001, WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL
FACILITY WITH A LOT COVERAGE OF 51%.
Mr. Lewis presented staffs report for Variance Request V95-001. Eighteen (18)
public notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. T~vo were returned in
favor and one returned in opposition of the variance.
The variance is requested by Mark Follis, on behalf of Curtis Watkins, for the
property located at 126 North Virginia. It is presently occupied by Beulah's
Ceramic Center. The owners propose to demolish all but one of the existing
buildings. The owners then propose to construct a new 12,000 sq ft building. The
Zoning Ordinance limits development in GC zones to 40% maximum lot
coverage. As proposed, the new facility will cover approximately 51%.
Staffs review of the request resulted in a recommendation to the Board to deny
the request based on the following facts:
. . •
Page 2 of 3
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of January 26, 1994
• Granting this variance would constitute a significant compromise of
Ordinance lot coverage limits.
• These limits were established as the regulatory means for implementing the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The goals of the Comprehensive Plan are intended to protect and enhance
the best public interest of the City of ~I.a Porte.
• There are no property conditions creating an unnecessary hardship.
• Allowing, in the absence of an unnecessary hardship, construction of a new
nonconforming structure is directly contrary to the intent of Section 4-200,
which calls for nonconforming uses and structures to be avoided.
• Granting this variance would, therefore, not uphold the spirit of the Zoning
Ordinance.
A. PROPONENTS
Chairman Bernay swore in Mark Follis. Mr. Follis noted the
present facility does not meet minimum landscaping and parking
requirements. Mr. Follis added he owned property in close
proximity to the tract in question and stated for the record he is in
favor of the request.
Chairman Bernay swore in Curtis Watkins. Mr. Watkins stated he is
currently leasing property on Broadway that he uses for storage. He
would like to be able to utilize the new facility to include storage.
If this were possible he would be able to discontinue leasing
additional space. It is also an inconvenience for him to transport
merchandise to and from storage by running a forklift on Broadway
Street.
Chairman Bernay swore in Gus Breiden. Mr. Breiden owns
property close to the tract in question. He stated he is in favor of
the request.
• •
Page 3 of 3
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of January 26, 1994
B. OPPONENTS
There were none.
A motion was made by Sidney Grant to approve V95-001. The motion was
seconded by Jim Zoller. ~ The motion carried with Sidney Grant, Deborah Bernay,
Ruben Salinas, and Willie Walker voting in favor and Jim Zoller voting against
the motion.
IV. STAFF REPORTS
There were none.
V. ADJOURN
Chairman Bernay declared the meeting duly adjourned at 8:05 P.M.
Res ectfully Submitted,
Pe e,
Planning Secretary
Minutes approved on the 23rd day of March , 1995.
Deborah Bernay, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
• •
APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICERS DECISION
#A95-001
•i°~~ • ~ CITY OF LA PORTE •
. .,
' ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
. APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S~DECISION
-------:-------------- ~- -D
Application AIo.: -
OFFT_CE USE ONLY• Date Received: 'd~- s-
Applicant:•~~' ~ PEDRO TORRES
200 GARDF.•ILD #1 ~m LAPORTE TX. 77571 PH : (713) 470-2155
Address
I am the.owner.of the herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my.behalf in this matter.
Owner: ~ SAME AS ABOVE
' Name
PH:
Address
I am appealing the decision regarding
Sect. of the City Zoning
this .appeal in regards to the property
at 1806 Elmwood
Street Address .,.•...
Legal Description
(X) Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan
( ) Major Development~•Site Plan ( ) Genera~l•.Plan
A Site Plan :8';~ t'he property is attached. Also, I •have listed the
information requested below on the following pages of this form.
a) All facts''c•oncerning 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._,~
Date Applicant's'•Signature
-------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE USE ONLY
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes~(~ No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments':••• 3 ~
Meeting Date: 3 23 ~s _ Applicant ?notified of Date: •~
Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( )
or the interpertation of
Ordinance No. 1501. I am making
located Co~tNy Komi-s ~f'cs
Blok 1 Lot 9 '
Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
.. .. • .
~_ .. .
PAGE 2
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 Board
should consider.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
I purchased this property with the intention of building a house
Ori h xi a ; nq al ah ~ Whan the cl ab wc'~~=*?11ureC~-, the prt~~.ert`,= U1~s
i.n the city of Lomax. The city inspector has approved .the slab
Now that Lomax has been annexed by the city of La Porte a portion
'of the slab is on the new set back line 2 was unaware of the new
on the slab and lot for at least seven years_ __
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
permission to build on.the existing .s lab even though asportion
~.
of the slab is on Laporte city setback line
GROUNDS FOR~THE REQUEST: ~
I was unaware of the setback line when I bought the property.
The foundation is already there and Iplan to build a house
on it. I:feel that this will improve the neighborhood and
will bi much better for the community than a-vacant
lot in neighborhood
CED/1-f$7
•
STAFF REPORT
•
APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICERS DECISION #A95-001
REQUESTED FOR: LOT 9; BLK 1; CONNERY HOMES SITES WHICH IS
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1806 ELMWOOD. (SEE
EXI~BIT A)
REQUESTED BY: MR. PEDRO TORRES, PROPERTY OWNER
PROPERTY ZONING: R-1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The applicant is appealing the Building Official's decision to deny. a building permit
for construction of a new single family home. The home is to be built on an existing slab
foundation. A portion of the slab encroaches into a required front setback. The
encroachment was the reason for the permit denial (See exhibit B).
BACKGROUND:
As noted in the applicant's request, the slab in question was poured prior to the time
of the La Porte, Lomax incorporation. The slab was mislocated at the time it was poured.
As illustrated on Exhibit A, Elmwood Avenue terminates in a cul-de-sac. A portion
of Lot 9 fronts on the cul-de-sac. Front setback line follows the contour of the cul-de-sac.
This was not taken into account when the slab was constructed. As a result of this error,
the north east comer of the slab extends to within approximately 15 foot of the .front
property line. This constitutes a 10 foot setback encroachment. _
Mr. Torres has had the slab inspected by a licensed engineer. The engineer has
certified that the slab is in a sound condition and suitable to support a single family frame
home.
.. •
Staff Report
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
•
Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-604.3 empowers the Board of Adjustment to grant
appeals only when it finds that all of the following conditions have been met.
That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as the specific intent
of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the interpretation of the
enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is
unreasonable. -.
That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one
property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated.
The decision of the Board must be in the best interest of the community and
consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte.
Regarding the first of these conditions, there is no reasonable difference regarding
interpretation of Zoning Ordinance intent. The requirements regarding setbacks are clearly
spelled out. The Building Official's decision to deny the permit was based on the clear
intent of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit setback encroachments. The question to be
examined is whether the Zoning Ordinance intent, as applied _to this specific request is
reasonable.
Regarding this question, staff would note the following.
. Except for one corner, the slab meets all setback requirements.
. The portion of the slab encroaching is intended for a garage. The
setback from property line is adequate to accommodate an adequate
driveway, that in conjunction with the garage will satisfy all off street
parking requirements.
The actual distance from the corner of the slab to the edge of
pavement is approximately 35 feet.
. The slab has been inspected and certified as sound by a registered
engineer.
.. • +
Staff Report
Page 3
r1
L J
Strict enforcement of ordinance intent would, in practical terms, require the
existing slab to be removed and replaced in order to accommodate a new home.
Based on the factors discussed above, strict enforcement of ordinance intent and
requirements would, in this case appear to be somewhat unreasonable.
The next condition to be considered is that of special privilege. This property is
somewhat unusual in its configuration and situation. There are a very limited number of
instances in which similar circumstances might exist. Staff would also point out that the
Board has previously ~ granted relief (most recently Glen Meadows, Section VI; Variance
V94-001) to front setback requirements for certain cul-de-sac lots. Although the
circumstances and degree of setback are somewhat different in regards to this case, granting
the appeal would be consistent in principle.
Based on these factors; the limited number of similarly situated lots and previous
Board determinations, granting this appeal would not grant special privilege. It would
maintain a standard that, when circumstances warrant, could be applied by the Board to any
future request.
The final condition to be considered is the requirement to preserve the best interest
of the community as well as the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. The intent and purpose behind zoning setback requirements is to
provide an attractive street scape, to provide adequate light, air and ventilation, to provide
adequate recreational areas, to provide adequate fire separation between structures and to
provide adequate space for off-street parking and vehicle maneuvering. As situated, a home
constructed on this slab would be able to satisfy all of these goals. Development, under
these circumstances would not be contrary to the best public interest.
CONCLUSION:
Strict interpretation and enforcement of zoning ordinance requirements as
they apply to this request would be unreasonable.
Granting the appeal would not convey special privilege.
Granting the appeal would not be contrary to the best public interest nor,
would it violate the spirit or intent of the Zoning ~ Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
,'' •
Staff Report
Page 4
•
Based on these factors and considerations, staff would recommend granting appeal
of the Enforcing Officer's Decision A95-001. Granting this appeal will allow, subject to
normal City ordinance and building code requirements, construction of a new single family
home on the existing slab located at 1806 Elmwood Avenue.
APPEALS:
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
I,a: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.
4
SET 5/9" I.R:
-- - -- - ~/,~iqi
_r_-
5' BOARD
FENCE I
t !~ •'
ff. C. C. F.C'jI~CBi2225 `' I ~ '• If
~ L,JI•
'--~--- -- ... - - •-- 4' CL. L K s
F f.~e 1es•~ FENCE ins-
RI/'W,• '
CALL & FN. NORTH 87.00' SET 5/9"I.
•- _ ~ S'_•UTIL_ ESMT. - T _ Fiw.. O.iSe
t~P---- ~ - ~ - TELE.~a _ -- t
O_H.E.~f _ pEIL_...-
.1 PLAT
BLOCK I 6' BOARD
FENCE
i
i
~ ~-~
Fiu~
~ N aaf
::~
~ 9
I is i
M O
RODNEY V. KESSNER - ~ RONALD EATON, ET UlC
H. C. C. F. C. NO. 925771 ~ H.C.C.F.C. NO. M90SIS6
F
1 fA 9/ 9'
~ yl ~ 434' \"` \` \_
~
\
- - - -
PROP. ,
m ~
Q
W
3
~
~
ADDN. ~ gUILD• LINE
-~
+
• o\
' 21.4
•'\\\ ~ 2g ~
\
ZI
//p ~~
. d; CONC. S:LA B
,,, ~ U.
\,
\\
\ N
. Z \ ~'\\\' - V
W 9.9' \ 6 A.9' ~ ~ i
~ •
:.~_ _,~, 25' BUILD. LINE
•••I SET 5/B"I. R.
Q
._. V ~ . ~ .
d
O ~ w.M.
FN. 5/9•'I. R DIST. p = 33.15' 17"
SET 5/B"I.R. RESET R = 60.00'
•• ~ ~ ~ • ~ •~'• • -~- • • %~Q•
•' L = 34.83' CL. 34.82'FN.
~ ~6
• LAMP CALL EI FN. SOUTfi -62.04'
~
POST `
~ Dlrcll _,~
~
j
.
ELM WOOD AVE
~ ~'° '
.
~ ze' coNC. PvMT.
'
~
o
FN. 5/8" I. R. ~ •
O.L 8 DIST.
T0: MR. PEDRO TORRES -
I , H. CARLOS SMITH, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT
CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY, MADE ON THE GROUND
UNDER MY SUPERVISION, AND THAT THE FACTS AS FOUND •
~AT THE TIME .OF SURVEY ARE AS SHOWN HEREON.
WHITNESS MY NANO AND SEAL TNIS. 5 TH. DAY OF JANUARY, 1995. NOTES ~
(.SUBJECT TO CITY OF LA PORTE ORDINANCES.
' . ~•::r.:•,
•.j'••~ Ds~ '~L'~.
~"
~
+
~ 2.THIS TRACT LIES IN LONE )< AS
SHOWN ON FINA MAP NO. 48201C0340G
a
~ ~
p
,`;~,±,
t:r
lq, • DATED SEPT. 29, 1990.
/~
~
~
~
H. CARLOS SMITH P.S. ~
a ~• ~ ~"'7~•I"
r .r 1?28
~ rt..•!
t
TEXAS REGISTERED iPROFESSiONAL SURVEYOR NO. 1228 ~•yQtil~r,°R~~{=•
• •~ itifti,
~b~
PLAT O F oATE
SCALE
LOT 9, 8 LOCK I daN., 1995 - _
- •• • H. CARLOS SMITH 111 = 20'
CONNERY HOMESITES S/D DRAWN E
• NGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, INC. JOB NO.
VOL. 217, PG. 21, H.C.M,R. I ~G'~ ~~'
'~ P.o.eox 529 423 N. Hwv l4s 2940 - 94
E_ BRINSON SURVEY, A-5 CHECKED - _ LAPORTE,TEXAS77572 SHEET
LA PORT~E,•HARRIS COUNTY
TEXAS ~.~~•
, OF I
~~~®6 ~ 1~
~~ c ~ CITY OF LA PORTE •..
PERM_TT d?PLICATION FORM
BUILDIYG ~_~ MECSANIC3L *ELECTRICAL _`C *PLUi:RING ~_
* (S£E BAC~C OF FORM)
PROJECT ADDRESS : /~D G GL~W~~ LOT R : GI
SUBDIVISION: _ C_O N'~ ii
~ ~.~' ~~o Nl L S'I .t" ~S ~ BLOC~C ~ ~ ~ -
OWNER'S NAME : _ ~ ~ ~ R-y . T /o ~t.~c L S 'PHONE R y Z~'--76 7
ADDRESS : ,~ ~~~ W Nl ~ I w ~ I!~ ~O iw ~ TyC ~ 7 7 ~ Z-~ .
STREc T CITY Z_Tp
CONTRACTOR: ~ ~ pH; ~ ~
ADDRESS:
STREET CITY ~~~ ZIp
SNGIYEER : ~ T ~ S W (-I f T~ .
DESIGNER: /~OR~S D3'I GNC:2. :~
3UILDING USG : ko +~' r.= N~S° SQ . F OOTAGc : ~ r~,> y ~~ R ~STORFES : I
VALUATION : 3lD D 0 ~"~ "'DESCR_TBE i~ORK : N~ c/ ~-I ~ v 5 ~,
--F OR CITY USc^. ONLY--
OCCUP TYPE FLOOD ZONE CLASS TrTORK SQ. FT.
CONST TYPE USE ZONE R STORIES PKG REQ
COMM. BLDG. PLAiYS~ ONLY - FIRE MARSHAL APPROVAL: DATE:
CHEC~CED/APPROVED FOR ISSUANCc. •BY:~ pAi+E; 5
SPy'CiAL• CONDITIONS: Sr~ h ~ ._ __ .p ~~e~ ~O! ~.. ~:..,~., ~ . r: ['~ G1-.~,.~~'
... ... ... _ - .~y S
PERMIT N0. ~ ~- PERMIT FEE S (ATTACH TO ACTUAL PERMIT)
REV . 3 -9 2 .._
... ~ --. ~~'H1Bi'~' ~
A:PE'RMITAP.ORG/DEPT. FORMS