Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-1996 Regular MeetingMINUTES ~: ' . . ~NING BOARD OF ADJUS~NT May 23, 1996 Members Present: Chairman Deborah Bernay, Board Members Sidney Grant, Willie Walker, Bob Capen, Ruben Salinas, Jim Zoller, John Willis Members Absent: City Staff Present: Director of Planning Guy Rankin, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bernay at 7:04 PM. II. APPROVE 1~~IINUTES OF THE APRIL 18, 1996, MEETING. With no objections from the Boazd, Chairman Bernay declazed the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST #V96-001 REQUESTED FOR 501 WEST FAIRMONT PARKWAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF TWO -(2) THIRTY-FIVE FOOT (35') DRIVEWAYS. Mr. Rankin presented staff's report for Vaziance Request #V96-001. Mr. Rankin noted that the Variance 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. Mr. Rankin informed the Boazd that Mr. Hikary is requesting one (1) thirty-five foot (35') drive on South 4th Street and one (1) thirty-five foot (35') drive on Fairmont Pazkway. Staff s review of the request determined that granting the Vaziance would not be contrary to public interest. ~ Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant due to the physical situation of the property, and finally, granting the Vaziance protects the spirit of the Ordinance while protecting public interest. Staff's recommendation to the Boazd was to grant the Vaziance. Jim Zoller disagreed with the statement that the applicant would be burdened with an unnecessary hazdship 6ecow~s~ o~ -{-l;g / Phi s c~,~ 51 ~.~ t o n W~- i ~.~t '~-o '-~ig s~c.i~','c P~ec ~ off' Pro pe.r-}~. _ Page 2 of 8 • Zoning Boazd of Adjustment. • Minutes of May 23, 1996 A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in the applicant, Rudy Hikary. Mr. Hikary asked the Board to grant an additional 10 feet for drives to his property on Fairmont and 4th Streets. B. OPPONENTS There were none. A motion was made by Sidney Grant to grant Variance V96-001. The motion was seconded by Ruben Salinas. All were in favor and the motion passed. IV. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A96- 003 TO DENY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FRONT YARD FENCE TO BE LOCATED AT 114 BAY COLONY DRIVE. Mr. Rankin began staff's presentation for Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A96-003 by showing a video of the fence/location of the fence in question. Mr. Rankin noted the fence was built without the applicant obtaining a permit for its construction. Ten (10) Public Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. Two (2) replies were returned in favor of the Appeal and two (2) were returned against the Appeal. Nine (9) notices against the Appeal were received from local residents who were not on the Public Notice mailout list due to their distance from the location in question. Mr. Rankin noted that the Appeal was requested by John Cazdenas (owner), for the property located at 114 Bay Colony Drive. He informed the Board that the applicant started construction of a residential front yard fence, made of wood, without first obtaining a building permit from the City of I.a Porte. A complaint was filed with the City of La Porte, construction of the fence was halted by the building official, and Mr. Cardenas, thereafter, applied for a building permit for his fence. Upon inspection of the fence by staff, and application of the Zoning Ordinance to the situation, the applicant was denied a building permit for construction of a residential front yard fence directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay. The permit was denied under the provisions of Sections 10-501 and 10-502, and the definition of "front yard" as contained within the City's Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits a fence within a front yazd adjacent to Galveston Bay and also limits construction materials of said fences to chain link. Staff's review of the request found that there is not a reasonable difference in interpretation of Zoning Ordinance Sections 10-501 or 10-502. In addition, Mr. Rankin noted that if Staff granted the applicant the fence, then the applicant would have a special privilege since the City of La Porte has permitted no other front yard fences directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay or anywhere else in La Page 3 of 8 . Zoning Board of Adjustment • Minutes of May 23, 1996 • Porte. Mr. Rankin further explained the applicability of the Zoning Ordinance sections in question. Section 10-501 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits all front yazd fences, and then goes on to indicate two limited exceptions to the absolute prohibition: a. Large lot residential lots; or b. Lots with a front yard directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay (as occurred in this case). Thereafter, Section 10-502 describes limitations on the type of fencing allowed in the case of fences within a front yard directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay (as in the instant case): a. Fences shall be limited to four feet (4') in height; b. Fences are only permitted parallel and adjacent to the side lot lines; and c. Fences are only to be constructed of chain link. Nowhere does the Zoning Ordinance allow for cross fences within the front yazd. However, Section 10-502 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that front yazd fences are not to be permitted on the front lot line directly adjacent to Galveston Bay. Staff interprets this language to be further restrictive of the location of front yazd fences on lots directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay. Staff does not agree with what appeazs to be the interpretation of this language by the applicant that such language only prohibits fences crossing .directly upon the front lot line of the shoreline adjacent to Galveston Bay. No ordinance language exists which agrees with the applicant's interpretation. Staff finds no Zoning Ordinance language that permits front yazd fences crossing within front yards on Galveston Bay; Staff only finds Zoning Ordinance language that prohibits fences being located within front yazds directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, except as allowed in Section 10-502, being pazallel and adjacent to the side lot lines. Mr. Rankin stated that in order to have the standazd for fences parallel to Galveston Bay removed, the Zoning Ordinance would have to be changed and a recommendation would have to be made to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff s recommendation to the Board was to deny #A96-003. Chairman Bernay asked Mr. Rankin if the Planning and Zoning Commission, when considering fencing along Galveston Bay, deliberated cross fencing at any point between a house and the shoreline. Mr. Rankin stated there is no mention of it in the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. He then deferred the question to the Assistant City Attorney, John Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong added that, from a historical prospective, provisions for fencing along Galveston Bay were not originally Page 4 of 8 Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of May 23, 1996 • written into Ordinance 1501. Several amendments were made at a later date that pertained to Galveston Bay. Provisions were made to allow side lot line fencing, however, the crossing fence or front lot line fence would not be permitted for purposes of bay access, visual appeal, and safety. Mr. Armstrong read the definition of a front yazd as "a yard extending along the whole of the front lot line between the side lot lines and being the minimum horizontal distance between the front lot line and the front of the principle building or any projections thereof, other .than stairs, unenclosed balconies, or unenclosed porches. In the case of the lots directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay, the front yazd shall be the yazd extending along the whole of the lot line directly adjacent to the shoreline of Galveston Bay and along the horizontal distance between the front lot line and the front of the principle building or any projections thereof other than steps, unenclosed balconies, or unenclosed porches". A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in John Cardenas, the applicant. Mr. Cazdenas explained how his two yeaz old daughter needed protection from the bay, and that is why he constructed the fence. He was not awaze he needed a permit to do so, however on the same day it was brought to his attention that he needed one, he visited City Hall where he was denied a building permit. At that point he filed for an Appeal. Mr. Cardenas does not agree with the City's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. He feels that he is in complete compliance with the Ordinance. Mr. Cardenas, on the dry erase boazd, illustrated for the Boazd his interpretation of several sections of the Ordinance that pertain to his Appeal. With respect to property values, Mr. Cazdenas believes the wooden fence has a more favorable impact on the value of the properties in the area than if he had built chain link fences all the way to the bay. With respect to special privilege, he does not feel he would be granted a special privilege because he.feels he is in compliance with the Ordinance. During a random search along Galveston Bay, Mr. Cardenas found eight homes with cross fences. He presented photographs of the fences to the Board and asked that they be included in the record. Mr. Cardenas noted that disallowing him to place the fence at its present location jeopazdizes the health, safety, and welfaze of young children. To comply with the Ordinance, Mr. Cazdenas offered to replace the wooden fence with a chain link fence. Page 5 of 8 , ~ : Zoning Board of Adjustment. Minutes of May 23, 1996 • Mr. Capen asked about Deed Restrictions. Mr. Cazdenas said the Deed Restrictions prohibit him from having a fence in the back yard or in this case, the street side of the property. Mr. Grant asked Mr. ~Cazdenas if the shrubbery on the lot line visible in the video was on his property. Mr. Cardenas stated the shrubbery was on adjacent property. Mr. Grant asked about the construction of the fence. Mr. Cardenas told the Boazd that he designed and constructed the fence himself and did not calculate its wind speed strength. Mr. Cazdenas offered to remove the fence once his daughter was old enough to swim, possibly by age 4 or 5. Mr. Zoller commented that he sees the only issue to be the definition of a lot line. Discussions regarding interpretation of Sections 10-501 and 10-502 followed. Chairman Bernay swore in Dorothea Cubberly. Ms. Cubberly's main concern was for the safety of the child. Chairman Bernay swore in Walter Cubberly, who resides at 205 Bay Colony Drive. Mr. Cubberly stated he had a chain link fence when his children were younger and they climbed right over it. In that aspect, . he believes a wooden fence would be more difficult for a child to climb. He agreed with his wife, whose main concern was for the safety of the child. Chairman Bernay swore in Barry Eiland, who resides at 110 Bay Colony. Mr. Eiland's main concern was for the view obstruction a chain link fence would create. The wooden fence is acceptable to him. Mr. Eiland was also concerned about the safety of the child. Chairman Bernay swore in Mazilyn Eiland, who resides at 110 Bay Colony. Ms. Eiland would like Mr. Cazdenas to be able to keep the fence. She does not feel it will have any impact on property value or enjoyment of the bay. B. OPPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in Bill Strong, who resides at 2711 Crescent View. Mr. Strong feels that keeping an open bayfront is important in maintaining the integrity of the City. Mr. Grant asked Mr. Strong if he knew if any of the fences shown in the photographs Mr. Cazdenas presented were grandfathered. Mr. Strong believes that some of the cross fences were probably constructed prior to passage of the Ordinance. He also recommended that side fences not be allowed. . ' Page 6 of 8 ' Zoning Board of Adjustment. • Minutes of May 23, 1996 Chairman Bernay swore in Jerry Cooney, who resides at 200 Bay Colony Drive. Mr. Cooney stated that he is a neighbor of Mr. Cardenas. He noted that he favors safety for children but feels that Mr. Cardenas has created a permanent problem for a temporary situation. Mr. Cooney offered several possible alternatives for keeping the child away from the bay. He provided a copy of a plat that showed eight (8) Bay Colony properties along the bayfront. Mr. Cooney noted that none of them have a fence parallel to Galveston Bay. He also submitted panoramic styled photographs which he feels show the visibility problem the fence poses. He also provided a copy of Bay Colony's Deed Restrictions. Mr. Cooney concluded by asking the Board to disallow the wooden fence or any fence parallel to Galveston say. Chairman Bernay swore in Kay Snider, who resides at 202 Bay Colony. Ms. Snider shared her concerns about aesthetic and financial aspects. She requested that a permit not ~be issued for the fence. Chairman Bernay swore in James Suber, who resides at 3902 Bonita. Mr. Suber is on the Board of Directors for Bay Colony. Mr. Suber noted that Mr. Cardenas has disregarded the Deed Restrictions for Bay Colony Subdivision. When asked by Mr. Capen if the Association planned to pursue the violation of the Deed Restrictions, Mr. Suber replied by saying "not immediately". Chairman Bernay swore in Richard Petronella, attorney for Mr. Cooney, whose address is 2635 Caisson, Houston, Texas. Mr. Petronella asked the Board to take away the element of child safety when determining whether an appeal should be granted for the Cardenas fence. Mr. Petronella disagreed with Mr. Cardenas' interpretation of Zoning Ordinance, Sections 10-501 and 10-502. Chairman Bernay swore in Frances Heyck, who resides at 210 Bay Colony Drive. Ms. Heyck said she is concerned about obstruction of the view of the bayfront. When planting shrubbery, she is always aware if what she is planting is interfering with her neighbor's view of the bay. Chairman Bernay swore in Dean Snider, who resides at 202 Bay Colony. Mr. Snider asked that the record show he is in favor of child safety. Mr. Snider suggested Mr. Cardenas construct a fence on the side yard of his property. He is also concerned about the shrubs that are presently obstructing the view. He also noted that from the second story of his home, he looks down and the fence reminds him of a corral. Chairman Bernay swore in Bobbie-Vee Cooney, who resides at 200 Bay Colony. Ms. Gooney's main concern is the view. She asked the Board to deny Mr. Cardenas' request. Page 7 of 8 . ~ . Zoning Boazd of Adjustment. Minutes of May 23, 1996 • Chairman Bernay swore in Van Callahan, who resides at 210 Fairfield. Ms. Callahan raised two children along the waterfront. She feels that raising children along the waterfront is a controllable risk. She described the safeguards she implemented to help reduce the risk of accident. Chairman Bernay allowed Mr. Cardenas several moments for rebuttal. Mr. Cardenas noted that so far as he is aware, this is the first time this issue has come up. He did not want the implication to be that others have requested permission for a fence and been denied. He does not agree with everyone's concern that his fence is going to block their view of the bay. It is his belief that a side yard fence all the way to the front lot line would be more intrusive. During discussions between staff and the Board, Mr. Armstrong recounted that there is nothing within the Zoning Ordinance that says that a front yard fence is permitted horizontally across any front yard line. A motion was made by Bob Capen to uphold the Enforcement Officer's Decision to deny the building permit. The motion was seconded by John Willis. The motion passed with all members except Sidney Grant voting in favor of the motion. V. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A96- 004 TO DENY A BUII.DING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCED, PAVED PARIONG LOT LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE. SAID LOT TO BE LOCATED IN THE 9300 BLOCK OF MONTGOMERY LANE. Mr. Rankin began staff's presentation for Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A96-004 by showing a video of the property in question. Mr. Rankin noted that the applicant, Paul Covington, is appealing the decision of the Enforcing Officer to deny a building permit for construction of a fenced pazking lot for the parking of cars in a Low Density (R-1) Zone. The property is located in the 9300 Block of Montgomery Lane. Mr. Rankin noted that the property in question is currently a vacant lot in a residential zone. The applicant's adjacent property is located in a General Commercial (GC) zone. He seeks to extend his property's GC zoning along Spencer Highway south into a residential area. Nineteen (19) Public Notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. Two (2) replies were returned in favor of the Appeal and none were returned opposed to the Appeal. Three (3) notices against the Appeal and two (2) in favor of the Appeal were received from local residents who were not on the Public Notice mailout list due to their distance from the location in question. Staff recommended denial of the Appeal. A. PROPONENTS Chairman Bernay swore in Paul Covington. Mr. Covington told the Board that the video they viewed was taken after he hauled 4 trailer • Page 8 of 8 . ~ • • Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of May 23, 1996 •` Secretary, Boazd of Adjustment loads of debris from the property. Mr. Covington reported that when the property in question became available for sale, he knew it was not commercially zoned. Before he purchased the property, he called the City and spoke with the Building Official who, at that time, was Mazk Lewis. Mr. Lewis told Mr. Covington that if he bought the lot and cleaned it up he would let him use the lot for fencing in pazked cars. Mr. Covington said he bought the lot, cleaned it up and paid the liens against it. He said he intended to use the lot as a place to pazk space cars before he put them for sale on the front line of his car lot. He intends to construct a fence azound it to deter theft of the cars. Mr. Capen asked Mr. Rankin if Mr. Lewis could substantiate Mr. Covington's testimony. Mr. Rankin answered that he had not spoken with Mr. Lewis, since he is no longer working or living in La Porte. No written agreement has been provided and Mr. Rankin said he~ was not awaze of any verbal agreement between Mr. Covington and Mr. Lewis. B. OPPONENTS There were none. A motion was made by John Willis to uphold the Enforcement Officer's Decision to deny the building permit. The motion was seconded by Willie Walker. All were in favor and the motion passed. VI. ADJOURN With no other business to come before the Board, Chairman Bernay declazed the meeting duly adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Peggy Minutes approved on the a ~ day of , 1996. Deborah y, Chairman, Board of Adjustment • • OATH OF OFFICE I, Bob Caren , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties imposed upon me by law as a Member of the l:.a Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment, and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to contribute any money or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment. So help me God. Bob Caper SWORN TO and subscribed before me, this the 27th day of June, 1996. Jasmine Ardion Notary Public for the State of Texas • • OATH OF OFFICE I, _ Ruben Salinas , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties imposed upon me by law as a Member of the La Porte Zoning Board of. Adjustment, and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to contribute any money or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my appointment. So help me God. Ruben Salinas SWORN TO and subscribed before me, this the 27th day of June, 1996. Lasmine Ardion Notary Public for the State of Texas • • RECEIVE June 3, 1996 Mr. Robert T. Herrera PLANNING La Porte City Manager City of La Porte P.O. Box 1115 La Porte, TX 77572-1115 Dear Mr. Herrera, This is~to thank you for the way the City of La Porte responded to a concern held by a very large number of citizens. The entire matter •was handled •both promptly. •and ~ smoothly. The • ~ moment a' zoning violation ~• (no building permit, •a fence ~ '• ~ ~ ~~~~ constructed of the wrong material, and a fence parallel to Galveston Bay) was reported to the city, the city responded the very same day. One could not ask for a faster response. Thank you. Then, at the Board of Adjustment meeting, held on May 23, the presentation by Mr. Guy Rankin, Director of Planning was fair, straight forward, extremely well prepared (even a video tape) effective, persuasive, and extraordinarily professional. Over ten people commented to me on how impressive his approach was. It's certainly wonderful to see the dedication with which he handles his duties. Please thank him for everyone in attendance: The La Porte City Attorney, John D. Armstrong was particulary skillful in separating the real facts of the case from the emotional issues. It's obvious the. city has excellent legal representation. Time and again when questioned, he exhibited a remarkable in-depth understanding of the ordinances, the history of the ordinances, and the interpretation of them. His grasp of the law and recognition of its application are extremely impressive. All members of the Board of Adjustment displayed patience (this single appeal lasted nearly two hours) and attentiveness. They took an obvious real interest in reaching a correct interpretation. By their questions, comments, and thoughtful discourse they displayed true concern for arriving at a reasoned decision. It is most impressive to see every facet of La Porte's operation running so smoothly. It is a credit to you and your entire staff . .. ' ~ ~• p,. • 1 • This is an issue critical to over 50 families in La Porte who actually live on the Bay and many many more who are determined to preserve it for everyone. This matter was equally important for the myriad of families living in La Porte who walk near the water, sail, motorboat or fish on the bay. As an aside, it.might interest you to know that over thirty-five La Porte citizens volunteered to come to the meeting to speak against the fence, only the first dozen were asked to attend. The membership of the Houston Yacht Club expressed a real concern~~~~~- about, as they put it, "the fencing of the Bay". The Galveston Bay Foundation F,xecutive Staff (some 1200 members strong) wrote me a letter expressing their support for continuing the prohibition of fences against the Bay. So this is a major issue not only for citizens of La Porte but for everyone who is dedicated to the preservation of the beauty and recreational enjoyment of the Bay. Please thank for all of us your excellent staff. Much to the dismay of his neighbors, the community, HYC, and the Galveston Bay Foundation we understand that Cardinas is appealing the City of La Porte's Board of Adjustment decision. Thank you for your continuing efforts on our behalf. S'ncerely .~ Gerald A. Cooney 200 Bay Coloney La Porte, TX (send all correspondence to P.O. Box 58307 Houston, TX 77258) cc: Mayor Norman L. Malone