The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-18-1996 Public Hearing and Regular MeetingNmvirrFs Z~G BOARD OF ADJUS APRII,.18, 1996 Members Present: Vice Chairman Sidney Grant, Board Members Willie Walker, Bob Capen, Ruben Salinas, Jim Zoller, John Willis Members Absent: Chairman Deborah Bernay City Staff Present: Director of Planning Guy Rankin, Assistant City Manager John . ~ Jcerns, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Grant at 7:02 PM. II. CONSIDER NIINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 1996, MEETING. With no objections from the Board, Vice Chairman Grant declared the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A96- 002, WffiCH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501 WEST FAIRMONT PARKWAY. APPLICANT IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUII.DING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE THAT WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH DRIVEWAY DESIGN CRITERIA. Mr. Rankin presented staff's report for Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A96-002. Mr. Rankin noted that the appeal was requested by Rudy Hikary, the owner of the property located at 501 West Fairmont Parkway. Mr. Hikary was denied a building permit for construction of a new gas station/convenience store, due to his failure to comply with the driveway design criteria of Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.605. The applicant requested one (1) thirty foot (30') drive on South 4th Street and two (2) twenty five foot (25') drives with a twenty foot (20') separation on Fairmont Parkway. Staff s review of the request found the following: • There is no reasonable difference of opinion regarding the intent.of the Zoning Ordinance. The Enforcement Officer acted properly in denying the permit. • Both the intent and specific regulations of the Zoning Ordinance are reasonable and should be upheld. • Granting this appeal would convey a special privilege to this property. • Page 2 of 3 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of April 18, 1996 • Granting this appeal would be contrary to the best interest of the community. . • Granting this appeal would be clearly contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. • Due.to the availability and necessity of the Fourth Street right-of-way for driveway access, denying ~ this appeal will not restrict or prevent the use and development of this property for the type of business being proposed. Staff s recommendation to the Board was to deny the appeal. Vice Chairman Grant questioned staff's logic that allowing two drives ~ on Fairmont Parkway would create a traffic conflict. Mr. Grant contended that two drives would alleviate anticipated traffic conflicts. After considerable discussion, the Board heard from the applicant. A. PROPONENTS Vice Chairman Grant swore in the applicant, Rudy Hikary. Mr. Hikary told the Board he was expecting ~ approximately 600-800 customers per day and needed to make sure cars would be able to come and go from his store without delay. He did not believe he would be granted a special privilege, since McDonald's has a similar drive setup that seems to be working well. He noted that the property adjacent to his has no drives on Fairmont Parkway and questioned why the City could not include that footage when calculating spacing for his drives. B. OPPONENTS There were none. A motion was made by Bob Capen to deny Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A96-002. The motion was seconded by Jim Zoller. The motion passed with Bob Capen, Jim Zoller, and Willie Walker voting to deny the appeal and Ruben Salinas voting in favor of the appeal. IV. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE96-001, WffiCH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 116 NORTH 16TH STREET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IlVIPOSED~ BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE'S ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Rankin presented staff's report for Special Exception Request #SE96-001. Mr. Rankin noted that the special exception was requested by Pfeiffer & Son, Inc. , for the property located at 116 N. 16th Street. He informed the Board that the applicant proposed construction of a shop/warehouse with a front setback of 10 feet Page 3 of 3 • Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of April 18, 1996 • and side and reaz setbacks of 0 feet. The setbacks as proposed, deviate from the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff's review of the request included consideration of Comprehensive Plan issues. The request does not interfere with the Thoroughfaze Plan and the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Plan components of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff `recommended ~ approval ~ of SE96-001:. ~"''' . - ~ ~ . A. PROPONENTS Vice Chairman Grant swore in--L.R. Pfeiffer. Mr. Pfeiffer agreed with what Mr. Rankin had reported. He also informed the Boazd that he purchased the alley that divided the property: _ B. OPPONENTS There were none. A motion was made by Ruben Salinas to approve Special Exception Request #SE96- 001. The motion was seconded by Bob Capen. All were in favor and the motion passed. ~ . V. STAFF REPORTS There were none. VI. ADJOURN With no other business to come before the Boazd, Vice Chairman Grant declazed the meeting duly adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, egg ,Secretary Boazd of Adjustment Minutes approved on the 23rd day of May , 1996. Sidney ice Chairman Boazd o djustment • • Variance Request #V96-001 L • ~ , ~O i ,~ ~~. :s F . m ~:~ `- ~ ~. ~ `~ t ~~'- ~~ TEXAg • City of La Torte. - ~ Established 1892 Building ~ Mechanical ~ *Electrical *Plumbing (* See back of form) ' Project Address : sd ~ ~ • ~~ ~m~~// Lot : ~ g- /? Z Subdivision: ~~ f~Q~~G Block° I~OJ Owner's Name : r"!~ Phone ° `•f ~~^ ~~~ Address: ~2~ 5- ,fJe`~~= Gi~ ~2~?.Lc- ~~~r'7/ Street City Zip Contractor: ~LJ(~S~~n/P.~S ~~c.-c~nl'('-4L- Phone: Address: Street Engineer: Designer: Building IIse : ~.D~Ve~a~~ ~~~~ Valuation- ,~~~ ~VLJ City Zip Sq.: Footage: ~~ # Stories: Describe Work i ,S~'L°~ ` nn.,-..o,,..-~- -p K~.sau ~ (I ~ mss' ,o.,., Q . ~ S~-1 For City IIse Only Occupancy ~rpe ~ Flood Zone Class Work Sq. Ft. Construction ape ~ IIse Zone.~1~ C e # Stories ~ Parking requested Commercial Buildings Plans Only-Fire Marshal Approval _ ~V\ C!~ ~ Date: G / Checked/Approved for Issuance By: n~n1z-E~;~ ~~ Date: ~/~~ ~46 Special Conditions : ~ ~~ ~ B'h ~~D~~ ~ U "" ;3 (~,,,~.n,~- A~ ~1~Mw~A ~ I~` n ~~- o w A .R / n _ „ OS ~ J ,n•,._.:,, r, _ (4n ~ / c n / Ravi•od 03/12/96 ca• Pa=•~PP 0.~~. I3ux l 1 1 i Ln ['carte, Texas 77572.1 l 15 (713) 471-5020 Permit No. - Permit Fee S (attach to actual permit) . ~., ..,'' ~~ CITY OF Ln PORTE . ~ ZOnIIrlG BOARD ~OF ADJUSTMENT VAR_T4NCE REQUES ~ ~• ------------ --------------- - ~ --= -------- ----------- Applicat ~ ion No.: V96 -001 OFFICE USE'ONLY: Fee: X100.00. ~~ Date Rec eived: Receipt' No. . NOTE: This ------------ Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the ---------------------------------------- Board's -------- Decision. --=-------- Applicant: ~ ~dy G. Hikary . ~ - _~ . .. ~ ~ .. ~ . 922 ~ S: ~. Broadway, La ~orte, ~ - - ~, . , • PH :- ~ ~ 471-7773 Address . ~I am~the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owners : ~~ ~-~ ' ~ ~ Name PH: Address I am requesting a variance to Sect. 10-605 FG 10-3 ~ of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am requesting this variance for property located a t 501 W. Fairmont, La Porte; Tats 28 thru 32', Block 1105, City of I,a Porte Street Address ~ Legal Description ( ) Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan .,"~ ( ) Major Development Site'Plan ( ) General Plan'' A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have~liste.d 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 owner, on the Ow er's behalf. ~'-~g_a~ Date he..must provide Authorization to act Applicant' Signature OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: 5/23/96 Applicant Alotified of Date: yes Notice to surrounding property owners - Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed`+to Applicant/Owner: •-'' ~ • • . ~ PAGE .~ A variance~is.a "deviation from t~he~~literal.provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ". The City's Board of~Adjustments may AJOT~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-Zoni:ng.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 example•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. 4) No variance that allows~a.use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance allowing a.comtnercial use in a residential zone is not allow- able. Please remember it is the P_pplicantts 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 Board should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: - ~~ I~am constructing a convenience store with branded gasoline at the herein describedproperty. The current Toning: Ordinance allows a; maximum'25' driveway per 125' of ~ frontage . ~ • P4GE 3 TYPE OF RELIEF .BEING SOUGHT : ~ _ : ' ~ - ~~ ~ . - ~ - ~ -- To allow for proper traffic .flow-and ingress/egress, I.~am x'egizesting a .35 ~ driveway on the ~- F ''ai.rnant Parkway side ~ of the property. and a 35 ~ driveway on. the ~ South 4th Street side ~ of. ~the~ property. ~' THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: ~ ' My customers stay an average of only 4 minutes; so there will be.a lot of in/out traffic, unlike a doctor's office~or beauty shap~where cars stay for an hour or_so. I would like to .move .the cars in .and out quickly and a 25' drive does not permit quick access. -My store on 922~S. Broadway has two drives and traffic flows wellonto Broadway: Since I am.tmable .to• iLSe 2. drives on. the Fairnroalt side . of -the property, I ain requesting .aversizecl~ drives - as stated. This should improve traffic flaw over what a~25~ driveway would. CFD/1-rS?7 • • Staff Report. May 23, 1996 . Variance Request #V96-001 Requested For: Propert,Y Zoning: Requested BX: SO1.W. Fairmont Pazkway, which is further. described as Lots 28- 32; ,Block 1105; Town of La Porte. General Commercial (GC) Mr. Rudy G. Hikary, property owner Purpose of Request: The applicant is requesting a vaziance to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance 1501, Sect. 10-605, Figure 10-3, which allows for a maximum driveway width of twenty-five feet (25') in a General Commercial . (GC) zone. The request has been made for the purpose of allowing construction of a thirty-five foot (35') driveway on Fairmont Pazkway and athirty-five foot (35') driveway on South 4th Street. . Background: As noted, the applicant is proposing to construct a new gas • station/convenience store to be located at 501 West Fairmont Pazkway. As proposed, the Fairmont ~Pazkway face of the facility would have one thirty five foot (35') driveway. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum twenty five foot (25') driveway in a General Commercial zone. The applicant applied for two (2) driveways and was denied previously. However, based on the applicant's revised request, it is the opinion of staff that the 35' drive would not violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the failure to comply with established design criteria, the Enforcing Officer was obligated to deny the applicant's permit. Mr. Hikary is requesting a vaziance. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 11-606 defines a vaziance as a "deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance granted ... when strict conformity to the Zoning Ordinance would • • cause an unnecessazy hazdship because of the circumstances unique to the property .... " This section also chazges the Board to grant vaziances only .when it finds that all of the following conditions have been met. 1. ~ That the granting of the vaziance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. -That literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hazdship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessazy hardship" shall mean physical hazdship relating to the property ~ itself as distinguished from a hazdship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hazdship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and 3. That by granting the vaziance, -the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. Conclusion: In regazds to Item 1, granting this vaziance would not be contrary to the public ~ interest. The literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hazdship for the applicant due to the physical situation of the property in question. Moreover, granting this vaziance protects the spirit of the ordinance while protecting public interest. - Anneals: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Boazd of Adjustment, or .any taxpayer, or any officer, department, boazd, ~or bureau of the City of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorazi, 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 Boazd of Adjustment. • • Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A9G-003 L • / ~ ~~ '°o ~, r ~ /~li ~~~ ~ ~ v ,i m ~- - ~' ~ ~; `~ 7•EXAg • • ~~~~iQ~ ~~~ ~1TS~'ECT C1N Cit of La Porte -PM y Established 1892 Building ~ Mechanical *Electrical *Plumbing (* See back of form) Project Address: ~ ~~ ll~ ~ CO~O~J I Lot: 4-~ Subdivision: ~ ~1`/ C-UI.-O~y' Block: owner's Name : ~o rf -~ ~- • C ~ ~ ~~"S Phone • ~"~ O (~ ~ D 2 Address : 1 ~ ~' ~-~ d'I lJ COLOrJ ~ l.f~C~~L-. f C- ~? ~ ~ 7 ~ Street City Zip Contractor:_1~ EC'~C,~~1 ~ ~'~-_ Address: Street ~n City Zip Engineer • C~ l.U '~ E ,~t~ Designer- ~~ N ~/F_ Building IIse: '~N CL' Sq. Footage: # Stories: Valuation : ~ Describe ~ Work : ~~*~ ~-~ -- l,J 0 0 D -~ ~~ . ~ For City IIse Only Occupancy Z~+pe ~_ Flood Zone ~ ~. Class Work ~~_ Sq. Ft. ~--- Construction T~rpe .~~-- IIse Zone R~. # Stories Parking requested - Commercial Buildings Plans Only-Fire Marshal Approval n//F~ Date: Checked/Approved for Issuance By: ~E/VZ~D 'I3Y~.G~~moRF~ Date: - a- Special Conditions :_~ C 0 u E5T V~oLR~T~S Z o n; na U-~ ~ #/SO /; ,Z~ /0 - Oa. Permit No. - Permit Fee S (attach to actual permit) Rrvi••d 03/12/96 ca^ P•=••PP f .C~. I3ux l 115 La ['~~rte, Texas 77572.1 l l5 (713) 471-5020 Phone • S ~?~ E +t.. ~. `' ~ ~~~ . CITY OF LA PORTE • ZO.IVING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION --------------------------------------------APpliaation PIo--- 4~ --Ub ~ - OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: ~~.-/a-9~ -----------------------------n---,-,-----------------------r--------------- A p p l i c a n t: ~Ott~ C.. C.~~-D Es7'1/~"S l~ t~Y~ ,3~ 3 3~ a g g~ Name Address ~ ~ .. I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Name Address . I am appealing the Sect. 10'SD2 this appeal in re at _ ~~~ Street Address ' Legal Description (~ 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 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: 14eeting Date: PH: decision regarding or the interpertation of~ of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am making d~ to the property located _ „ _ - Applicant ;lotified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: • - + • • PAGE 2 Ct 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 -'•;ATTER: (~2 Cl.r/+t ('2C~,J F-5T7/J~i ~2-11~n1SS + 0~ Z u ~c.4 t.J ~: c ~• ~ S G.~S v N~o~. ~~s'f 4.e~C . Ul.) ~. tie ~ ~-~,~•nw az ~ ~.: c~. ~O t~--s ~ ~ t ~ n ,~r~e c ~~~o r a `' c y'oss --{~~c o r ~Inc~ ~ dw~ s ~ ~e -- ~o - S I'AE. s~a~ L b ~ ~ t' b ~. GROUNDS FOR ~ THE REQUESTl: I ..~~`` ~ - ~ ' ( -Q ~O ~? cv-•°\ l UhrCQS fide at C~nS~ e ~a Q S v rD ~C t 1~~ , n G~.u`$~2Y0'+~.5 C~nc~ t-t r !M d~r~ ~C ~ O 1 ~ N car irs ~ttn~. e.~+n~ ~-Q.c~~i1n p.M G~ S c~ ~ S G ~S ten ~~ , ;~ aoT ~~~ ~ doss _ ~ se..~~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ec~ ~ ~ ( Gam '.h ve~ -- ,n -e. CED/1-~$7 o~-~. 2~C~Ps etc y~~ -F~ ~~ 51De S~ TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: . ~~ . • ~ ~e5ct,ro~ir5 SzG~ ~ l D - ~-OZ:. ~ f , //' ,--G1'S ~ rah ,' ~j. ce ~UG~i n~'~+ I~ ptU.~I l~Ia7` ~~ 7 ~ ~- c rvs s JJ , ~~~ ~o z ~ve S ro~, h~ ~ G ~c v d se , S~ ~ n-, ~-- f' ~- ~ ~ C oS~' ~ ~ b/~7 siv~~ .~o~ ~ne ~ ~c~ ~ r-- Se~,7~.6h /0-,~oZ C~ ~~~ ~r f v ~ ~j n i ~_ ~r ~ s t u/v''~~n~' d • ,• tad we v~ r, to ~ d r re ~l~ u.~~~ ~v ~c ~`J t~ ti c rds ~' ~' o~~x ~° ; S7' ~~ AA / ~ ~ s.~ ~ 'w ~ u rreQ S !Y~ a~b le Y'~ S~ •C h ~. ~J ~'' J~ ,vir,(~dsP.a ~5 y,~ ~~h1LU~ ~h /o-SoL ~ -~~v/ rc~ vas ~o~ ~ c ~-~_ n TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment FROM: John and Debra Cazdenas Re: Supplemental Argument : Zoning Ordinances 114 Bay Colony/ Fence PermitApplication ~~~~~ ~-aa-g ~ BACKGROUND My wife, Debra, and I live on bay front property on Galveston Bay just south of the Houston Yacht Club. We have requested a permit to construct a decorative see-through wooden fence to enclose a portion of our yazd that fronts the bay. The purpose of the proposed fence is to provide a safe azea in which our two (2) yeaz old daughter, Emily, can play outdoors without the danger of wandering into and drowning in the bay. Additionally, the fence will also protect other small children, such as house guests and Emily's friends, who frequently visit our house. The safety of our daughter and other small children visiting our house is our number one concern and primary purpose for constructing the fence. ZONING ORDINANCES Section 1- 200 -Purpose This section of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the purpose of the zoning ordinances and provides a basic guideline to which we should adhere in interpreting the various ordinances the City has adopted Section 1-200 states in pertinent part that: "The zoning regulations...as herein established have been made... for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, and the general welfare of the City of La Porte. They have been designed to... secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers...They have been made to reasonable consideration..." Accordingly, we should bear in mind that the express purpose and intent of the ordinances is to make sure that the City in which we live is a safe place that protects us from as many dangers that is reasonably possible. To this end, we should apply and consider the intention of Section 1-200 in analyzing the subsequent zoning ordinances, including Section 10-502. Section 10-502 -General Fencing and Landscaping Requirements This section sets forth the allowable locations in which a fence may be constructed on a bay front lot as well as the type of materials which must be used With respect to the location of the fence the ordinance sets out the boundaries by defining the allowable side fence locations and by defining the prohibited cross fence location. To be specific, and with respect to side fences the ordinance states: "In the case of lots with a front yard directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, four feet (4') front yard fences are permitted parallel and adjacent to the side lot lines..." This section cleazly and unequivocally allows side fences on the lot line or in a location, for example, neaz the lot line and extending from the house the entire distance of the lot to the bay. In short, there is no prolnbition (except as to height) as to side fences. • With respect to cross -fences, the ordinance simply states the specific location where a cross fence is prohibited The only reference in Section 10-502 as to cross fences states as follows: "However, said fences shall not be permitted on the front lot line directly adjacent to Galveston Bay..." The above-cited portion of Section 10-502 cleazly prohibits a cross fence on the lot line that is duectly adjacent to the bay. This provision does not preclude fences parallel to the lot line duectly adjacent to the bay. It is important to note that the ordinance when referring to acceptable side lot fence locations provides for fences on the lot line and "parallel" to the lot line. Such pazallel fences, however, aze not precluded by the ordinance in the case of cross-fences. If the ordinance intended to preclude all cross-fences it would have simply stated so or would have included a provision that cross-fences aze not allowed on the lot line and parallel to the lot line. However, such is not the case. There is simply no language whatsoever in Section 10-502 that precludes across-fence in a location other than on the bay front property line. A fence appro~mately 50 feet from the lot line is not a fence that is "on the lot line directly adjacent to the bay". In any event (and for sake of azgument), should there be any confusion.as to the meaning of Section 10-502 as to cross-fences we should fall back on Section 1-200 for guidance in the interpretation of Section 10-502. In this regazd, we should make every effort to construe section 10-502 in a manner that is consistent with promoting the health, safety and welfaze of the citizens of I.a Porte and protects said citizens from dangers. This stated purpose and goal of the City Zoning Ordinances supports the proposed interpretation of Section 10-502 which we are asking the City of T a Porte to adopt. We are asking the City to allow us to construct a fence to allow our daughter and other small children a safe and secure place to play outdoors without the immediate danger of drowning in the bay. Allowing a cross fence is consistent with and supported by the express purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (1- 200). To allow across-fence approximately 50 feet away from the property line will provide a safe area for children to play and will not violate any express language of the ordinance. Reasonable Interpretation Section 1-200 states that the zoning ordinances have been made to reasonable consideration for encouraging the most appropriate use of the land throughout the city. Section 1-200 states in pertinent part: "They(the ordinances) have been made to reasonable consideration, among other things, for ...encouraging the most appropriate use of the land throughout the City". This section seeks to impose the requirement of reasonability into all ordinances. I contend that what we are asking the City to allow is reasonable. Asking the City to allow us to construct a small enclosure on our property to allow small children to play outdoors safely is not only reasonable but responsible as well. On the other hand, we aze at a loss as to reasonable justification for the City not allowing across-fence. What possible purpose is served by the City in disallowing a cross fence? More precisely, what reasonable purpose is served by the City disallowing a cross fence in the location that we have proposed? And if such a purpose exists, does it promote the City's stated purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the City? Furthermore, what language does the City reasonably rely upon in Section 10-502 to support the disallowance of a cross-fence? • MATERIALS Chain Link vs. Wood • The ordinance (10-502) states that all fences must be chain link. We believe that the purpose of this requirement was to insure that any fence constructed would be asee-through fence as opposed to a privacy fence (not see-through). We contend that a reasonable interpretation of Section 10-502 would allow a wooden or a wrought-iron or other modern see-through fence. I would agree that a wooden fence that is a privacy fence should be disallowed The fence we have proposed is asee-through fence. We have submitted photographs to the City which cleazly show the design of the fence and how easy it is to see through the fence. Additionally, the fence we have proposed is much more attractive than a chain link fence and we believe is faz more desirable to our neighbors. If the City requires that we build a chain link fence, we will certainly abide by the City's decision. We do not believe, however, that a chain link fence is desired by anyone interested in this matter nor will set an unfavorable precedent as long as the fence constructed is see-through in design. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Families It is nice to live on the bay. The bay front affords beautiful views, a serene setting, a place to fish, and a breath of fresh air. It should be a place where families should be able to live and enjoy a home. Unfortunately, the bay front does pose the danger of drowning to small children. This should not, however, be such an obstacle that should prevent families from living on the bay. Much of the danger of drowning can be suppressed by building a retaining fence such as we have proposed It is similar in purpose to fences that are required by the City to be constructed around swimming pools. Without such protection, it would be dill cult for airy responsible family to live on bay front property. Small children need protection. To this end, the bay front should not be exclusively reserved for people without small children. View We have taken into consideration the impact upon our neighbors of the view that our fence presems. We have provided to you a series of photographs that depict the view from numerous angles. We have made every effort to design the fence and place the fence in a location that best accommodates our neighbors views while allowing a reasonable azea for children to play outdoors. For the most part, as the photographs depict, the fence is not impeding the view of our bay front neighbors. It is see-through in design, short, and setback approximately 50 feet from the bay front. In fact, we have placed the fence in location that is far less intrusive upon our neighbors than that allowed without dispute by city ordinance. For example, the city ordinance (10-502) allows us to have side fence that extends all the way to the bay. This, obviously, would affect the view of the neighbors far more than the fence we have proposed. Finally, with respect to view, a cross fence simply does not affect or hinder anyone's view. Value Among the houses in our neighborhood on the bay front, we have constructed the largest and most expensive home on the bay. We have raised the property values of our neighbors. The fence that we are proposing will not decrease the property values of our neighbors. Keep in mind, that the city ordinances allows a chain link fence all way to the bay. We have designed a far more attractive fence that is less intrusive than the chain link fence that is allowed without dispute. In arty event, we contend that • • the impact as to value, if airy, does not justify or begin to outweigh the value of a child's life that the fence is designed to protect. Furthermore, a fence can be removed after children have grown and aze no longer in need of protection. A child's life, however, cannot be returned once lost. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the Zoning Boazd of Adjustment reverse the Officer's decision and grant us a permit to construct the proposed fence. We believe that we are in full compliance with the relevant zoning ordinances as to location of the fence and in substantial compliance with the ordinance relevant to the type of materials to be used Finally, the fence we have proposed is consistent with and serves to promote the stated purpose of the zoning ordinance. • • Staff Report May 23, 1996 Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A96-003 Requested BX: John C. Cazdenas, property owner Requested For• The request is for 114 Bay Colony Drive, which is further described as Lot 40; Block 1; Bay Colony. Zonis (RI) Low Density Residential Purpose of Request• The applicant is appealing the decision of the Enforcing Officer to deny a building permit for construction of a residential front yazd fence directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay. The permit was denied under the provisions of Sect. 10-502 of the City's Zoning Ordinance 1501, which limits construction material to chain link and prohibits a fence on the front lot line adjacent to Galveston Bay. Ba ound• The applicants live on bayfront property on Galveston Bay just south of the Houston Yacht Club. They have requested a permit to construct a decorative see-through wooden fence to enclose a portion of their yazd that fronts the bay. The purpose of the proposed fence is to provide a safe azea in which their two yeaz old daughter can play outdoors without the danger of her wandering into and drowning in the bay. Additionally, the applicants note that their primary purpose for constructing the fence is to protect their daughter and other small children who visit their house. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 11-604 establishes the conditions under which the Boazd may grant an appeal. The guidelines aze as follows: . • • • That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the i~erpretation 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. .Section 1-200 -Purpose This section of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and provides a basic guideline to which we should adhere in interpreting the various ordinances the City has adopted. Section 1-200 states in pertinent part that: "The zoning regulations...as herein established have been made...for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, and the general welfare of the City of La Porte. They have been designed to...secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers...They have been made to reasonable consideration..." Accordingly, we should bear in mind that the express purpose and intent of the ordinance is to make sure that the City in which we live is a safe place that protects us from as many dangers that is reasonably possible. To this end, we should apply and consider the intention of Section 1-200 in analyzing the subsequent zoning ordinances, including Section 10-502. Section 10-502 -General .Fencing and Landscaping Requirements This section sets forth the allowable locations in which a fence may be constructed on a bay front lot as well as the type of materials which must be used. With respect to the location of the fence the ordinance sets out the boundaries by defining the allowable side fence locations and by defining the prohibited cross fence location. To be specific, and with respect to side fences the ordinance states: "In the case of the lots with a front yard directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, four feet (4') front yard fences are permitted parallel and adjacent to the side lot lines..." This section clearly and unequivocally allows side fences on the lot line or in a location, for example, near the lot line and extending from the house the entire distance of the lot • • to the bay. In short, there is no prohibition (except as to height) as to side fences. With respect to cross fences, the ordinance simply states the specific location where a cross fence is prohibited. The only reference in Section 10-502 as to cross fences states as follows: "However, said fences shall not be permitted on the front lot line directly adjacent to Galveston Bay..." The above cited portion of Section 10-502 clearly prohibits across-fence on the lot line that is directly adjacent to the bay. Conclusion• There is not a reasonable difference of interpretation as cited in Section 10-502, which clearly prohibits a cross fence on the lot line that is directly adjacent to Galveston Bay. The resulting interpretation will grant a special privilege to the property owner in question. The Planning and Zoning Commission and residents of La Porte, through extensive consideration, recommended that fences parallel to Galveston Bay were not in the best interest of the community. The proper channels to have this community standard removed would be a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission for fences that parallel Galveston Bay. Appeals: As per Section 11-610 of Zoning Ordinance 1501: 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. • • >- Of M ~ / M ~ M W a Y / C d I I F- O n ~ M ~,O o ~ :° ~~v o J``j / J 'J / -J ~ V O O~ 0 y . ~~o / yG ° ~P ~ O M N F- O ~ a ~ O J O J ~'I / J M .. N ~ F- / J ~ / ~ 0 J / / N J v 0 J a ~ s U C~ ~ h- ~ O J O to ~ o U Q m ~? O 'iF J • ~ Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A96-004 • L ~ r~/ . m ti,. ~_' ~ ~., _: x ~ `- -~ -~ ~ ~~r~r `~ rEXAg Building ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ • .. -~7- ~~ty O ~~ Established 1891 Mechanical ~ *Fslectrical - (* See back of form) *Plumbing _ Project Address : __ -l~~r~ ~~~. Subdivision: Owner' s Name : a-W ~ ~ U 1 wt Address : 6 ~ ~ /-~- a P f. Street City Coatractor:~ Address• Street Engineer• Designer• Building IIse: ~~(~. Valuation: For Ci Sq. Footage: # Stories: Describe Work: ~~ IIse .Only '" " Occupancy Type -~ Flood Zone Class Work Sq. Ft. --'~ Construction Type -~ IIse Zone ~- ~ # Stories. .Parking requested Commercial Buildings Plans Only-Fire Marshal Approval1~ ~~ ~ Date: Checked/Approved for Issuance By: ~1~~~~ - ~. ~~;nrv~ Date: - -'~(a Special Conditions: ^ 8•vi••d 03/12/96 ca• • ~ P•='aPP ['.O. f3cax l 1 I5 La ['carte, Texas 77572-I l l5 (7l3) 471-5010 City Zip Lot: Block- /' (`~ Phone • ~ ~l~ ~v ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~- Zip Phone: Permit No. - Permit Fee S (attach to actual permit) ~... ,~: ,• . CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION -------------------------------------------------------------- ---- - Application P1o.: _ d0 OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: - - A licant----- ~ ~----, l~0 V~~--- -------------------------------- PP ~~C ~ N~me ~ PH : ~L ~ ~~ .. ~ Address I am the owner of .the herein described property. I have authorized ~ to a¢t on my behalf in this matter. Owner * : qZ(,~/1 !-J ~ l.0 U 1 ~:~ I O ~r~~ev~ ~a~ti Address I am appealing the decision regarding Sect. of the City Zoning this' appeal in regards to the property at 9 Sat 'ilk. lro,nra avnetiv Lan e, Street Addre PH : / ~ -~J~~~ or the interpertation of Ordinance No. 1 01. I am making located j~ Legal Descripti n P-~ca,, 5.~ ( ) 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 owner, he provide Authoriza ion to act on the Owner's behalf. ~~' Date ~ Applicant Signature ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: ?fleeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved. ( ) Denied ( ) 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. FACTSnR TYPE OF RELIEF BEING OUGHT: GRO S FOR E UEST: CED/1-'87 • • PAUL D. COVINGTON (713) 479-6552 9310 SPENCER HIGHWAY LaPORTE, TEXAS 77571 April 26, 1996 City of La Porte Inspection Department P.O.Box 1115 La Porte, TExas 77572 To Whom It May Concern: Per my recent conversations with Mr. Mark Lewis, we agreed to the following terms regarding the vacant lot located in back of my property on Spencer Highway, in the Spenwick addition. 1. Mark Lewis was aware of the trashy condition of the lot and of the lien on the property for mowing the lot. 2. Mark Lewis OK,D the use of Covington Autos,.to be used for parking space. 3. Mark Lewis OK,D the erection of a fence on the 2 sides of the lot which currently do not have a fence. My conversations with Mr. Lewis took place before the lot was purchased, as he was aware of the intended use o~f the property, and knew that the property would be of no value to me unless these improvements made. I would like to work out an agreement with the current administration that will be agreeable to both of us.~ Sincerely, Paul D. Covington .. ~ '.~ f •?1i+ s F: • ` ~` ,fin ~ ~ .._ ....._., tit-'; _..--r--•• ----~;'~.~%~-+~--•^~- ~. --w.... ri,Nf~~l~r.:iiiu't~u.'~~-{cri/• i • .. ~:~:~/. f2 :a/e~. .,3 •-,. • t ~ :!/' : ~ .-_.~ ....~ ~...,~. ; 4-~ :. -jam r~...t• ` ~+. ~_~ . ~....' . .... ~ .... ~ •• f\o `~ ~::~. ' O;. t . p' ~V ; T4 Ka.~r~9~aK~A~tcr' • ~ I .. ~ ~ . 'i , ~ ..~ - .~..:..!. ~ <e;c;{i:.. es~'~;~•~" ' (<t 'Q'~ ' ~ .s'i l~Gi i:~•~ .,_ .c. ~: •:+ - - - ~. 4 ~ J'U.E, w 5 k 20 A. ~..; • ,' ~r ~~st P.k no ' ~ ~' ~,t -.ycu~r%. •uel.rocua/ w ~ .. -', ~ . fir.--.,--::-~ ~•-.` , _ ._ il'i~~ ~ ~ . tL ~ .'. .. ., _ . (~ :i. •~• ~ .. ~1~/' {'tl7if,f~./~nr'~~('~ 9r~•c:enisi-~y i •; ~ '~: ~ ~'s''• •' : ~(ryP. ~. LQ/~n . kki~t~. lPholcr~, c~ t oe~i) I :.' ...,. .~,. ~ ~ ~•'• Hur••Cglt li•~; f:{~t~¢(zu8 A1yC%OApr~?O) v ',•. ~ a • .. ~' :~ .. ~ :r . .. ....._., .~ _. __.... ~~,,,, ....:~.. ~.;. .. ~r~;,ital~~.:itu a,o;R/• s '' :..: fir:x/. /2 :offer-. .,~ .., r ni;. ) r• ~j '+ T4 Kcw.u9-aR A~tcr' •.:. ; ;•. ::: t.; •:• ~'1 . `~ f ~D'~`: • G 1 ~ , ' •. t S t. '~ •. • 1 1 s~ ~' ' .y~„th •-r,d .f~ciaJ - ...-' • ~ ;--..w••-~..: ~-• . ~;~.•ri ., _ . _ _ ~ iii y :. - , x . I ~ ~f ; ti ~ s :.A: •i. •i: ; .. .. ... . ~ • . ` -~ ~ ' ~ .. r;~ ~l•:': ~• : ~~rF,1p,. '1. Lp/,n. k~git~~. lPhmten,r~. t oe~i) ' I • ,•:.. ' ` .~: •. • ~ •• • . .., . f:•• .~'Hur•'Ga~:.li'RC•f~Qi~Rfci,e i~~ycroco~po) . • . • Staff Report May 23, 1996 Appeal of the Enforcement .Officer's Decision #A96-004 Requested BX: Paul D. Covington, property owner Requested For: The request is for the 9300 Block of Montgomery Lane, which is further described as Lot 42; Block 2; Spenwick Place, 5.1. . ~• (RI) Low Density Residential Pose of Request• The applicant is appealing the decision of the Enforcing Officer to deny a building permit for construction of a fenced pazking lot for the pazking of cars in aLow-Density (R-1) Zone. The permit was denied under the provisions of Sect. 5-600, Table A, which does not show outdoor storage as a listed, allowable use in a residential zone. Background• The property in question is currently a vacant lot located in a Residential Single Family Zone (Rl). The Applicants Property is located in a General Commercial Zone. The Applicant seeks to extend his property from GC along Spencer Highway south into a Residential District. Analysis: Zoning Ordinance Section 11-604 establishes the conditions under which the Boazd may grant an appeal. The guidelines aze as follows: • That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to 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 t>e spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte. Conclusion: The General Commercial and the Residential Zones aze cleazly~delineated. The (GC) is located along Spencer Highway allows businesses the opportunity to develop without detracting from community chazacter. The proposed landuse pattern will invade the Residential Landuse located just south of the applicants property. The decision of the Enforcement Officer is reasonable, in that it protects the neighborhood. The applicant's request to allow cars in a Rl Zone would be not be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the Enforcement Officer's interpretation does not grant a special privilege. The car storage lot clearly violates the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. ARpeals: As per Section 11-610 of Zoning Ordinance 1501: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Boazd of Adjustment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, boazd, or bureau of the City of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorazi, 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 pazt, 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 Boazd of Adjustment. ~ ~ 7~ ~T,~^~ ~~T~ r~olzr4l 117.35 22 I III ~ I ~ I ~ &I~iYj~i:!~4CC'!r- J / ~ I .. ~ .. 2 RESIDENrwL ,aND cornrrERCI,a~ 4' WIDE L4NDSGAPE SCREENING REQUIREED Oc ~~V i ~~ h ~ GRASS ~ ;~ PARK INCx 1@!~ ~ AREA ~'01 p ~- ^ dj a i=i~Ofi='OS~D n . ~l._.._~rb~~- ~ ~ F~c i~ rr~r ~~~ i~- is 42 ~~~41 I I40 u~sr 6~ ae' ~'~ ~~ 111®1~Y71 ~(~®~1II~Il~ ~Y I~~l~l>~