Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-2000 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing L.JNING BOARD OF ADJUST~J.~NT MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2000 Members Present: Chairperson Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Ruben Salinas, Alternate No.1 Charles Schoppe Members Absent: Rod Rothermel, Alternate No.2 George Maltsberger City Staff Present: Planning Director Doug Kneupper, Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore, Lt. Carl Crisp, Engineer I Carlos Martinez, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, and Planning Secretary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER. Meetingwas called to order by Chairperson Grant at 7:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1999 MEETING. With no objections from the Board, Chairperson Grant declared the minutes approved as presented. III. CONSIDER NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUEST #NCSOO-OOl WHICH SEEKS TO REINSTATE THE USE OF AN ABANDONED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND WT AS PER SECTION 106- 262(H) AND 106-268 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CIlY OF LA PORTE. Planning Director Doug Kneupper presented staffs report for the request submitted by Paul Case, Executive Director for Lakeside Center, Inc., for occupation of an abandoned, nonconforming structure and lot of record located at 200 Garfield. The current R-3 zoning is appropriate for a multi-family residential development. Mr. Kneupper noted the following during his report Section 106-261 of the City's Code of Ordinances states that the general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment have been directed to take note that nonconformities in the use and development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing, whenever and wherever possible. The apartment complex in question was constructed in the mid-60's and was occupied until approximately July, 1997. At that time, utility service was disconnected due to nonpayment of utility fees. City of La Porte Police records indicate that during the period January 1, 1993 to July, 1997, hundreds of calls were made to the location to deal with different types of offenses. Interviews with local residents revealed that parking on Garfield and Forest Streets created traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. No security fencing Zoning Board of Adjusro Minutes of January 27, 20Vv Page 2 of 11 and a lack of on-site recreational facilities resulted in children of all ages playing in the parking areas and the streets. Mr. Kneupper outlined the aspects of the existing development that are considered nonconforming when compared to current City development standards: Parking - There are 85 existing vehicle-parking spaces. The applicant proposes 16 additional spaces for a total of 101 parking spaces. Current City standards would require 135 parking spaces. In addition, 66 of the existing spaces are located within public street right-of-way. Current standards would require complete and total off-street parking. Building Setbacks - The City's Zoning Ordinance stipulates m1nlffiUm setbacks for this type facility of Front -25', Side - 20', and Rear - 20'. Five of the nine existing buildings encroach, to varying degrees, into setback areas. Existing building setbacks are Front -15', Side - 3', and Rear - 5' Number of Dwelling Units per Acre - There are currently 57 dwelling units on approximately 1.83 acres of land. This calculates to a density of 31 dwelling units per acre. Current City standards allow up to 27 dwelling units per acre in an R-3 (multi-family residential) zoning district. Landscaping - There is little to no landscaping presently at the facility. Current City standards would require 6% of the site to be landscaped with trees, shrubbery, and ground cover. In addition, landscaping should be maintained in a healthy state. Mr. Kneupper stated that Section 106-262 of the City's Code of Ordinances addresses nonconforming structures, and in this case, Paragraph (h) would apply because the structure has been abandoned longer than 180 consecutive calendar days. The applicant was notified of the nonconforming aspects of the project. The following options are available to address each aspect: Parking - Currently there are 85 parking spaces surrounding the complex. The applicant proposes to construct an additional 16 off-street parking spaces within an area at the southwest comer of the site making the total 101 parking spaces. Current development standards require 135 spaces for this type of project. In addition, current standards require that all parking be off- street. There is no area within the 1.83 acre site to accommodate additional parking. An option available to the applicant to achieve the 135 required parking spaces requires acquiring additional land from the vacant areas surrounding this facility. With regard to the use of public right-of-way for parking, the layout at Flamingo Bay requires parked vehicles to back into the adjacent streets. This would occur on a daily basis and create a traffic safety issue. The only cure for this non-conformity would be to acquire enough adjacent property to accommodate all the parking on-site. Zoning Board of Adjustn. Minutes of January 27, 2000 Page 3 of 11 Building Setbacks - As stated earlier, 5 of the 9 buildings encroach into current required setback areas. Physically moving or relocating the buildings is not a reasonable solution. However, setback requirements could be accomplished by acquiring additional property around the boundary of the site. On the west side, additional land could be acquired from the property owner. Number of Dwelling Units per Acre - There are currently 57 dwelling units on a 1.83 acre site. This calculates to a density of 31 units per acre. There are two directions available to remedy this nonconformity. The first requires the elimination of 7 dwelling units within the existing 1.83 acre site which creates a conforming density of 27 units pre acre. The second alternative would be to gain approximately 12,245 square feet of land and apply to the existing 57 units. This again would create a conforming density of 27 units per acre. Landscaping - Current development standards require 6% landscaping. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows a significant amount of proposed landscaping estimated to be approximately 12% to 15%. Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Kneupper if the applicant had submitted a set of detailed plans for renovation of the project. Mr. Kneupper replied that the applicant's architect had submitted a schematic plan for renovation. When Chairperson Grant questioned the condition of the slabs, brick veneer, and underground sewer, Mr. Kneupper answered that nothing was submitted that would indicate the condition of those items. Chaiperson Grant asked if the City's Inspection Division knew what the exact conditions were. Mr. Kneupper replied they did not, however, the buildings were not condemned to be tom down under the City's Dangerous Building Program. They were, in fact, determined to be structurally sound. Mr. Capen asked who owned the property. Mr. Kneupper answered that to the best of his knowledge, the owners were Lakeside Center, Inc. Chairperson Grant asked everyone in the audience, who intended to address the Board, to please stand and be sworn in. Chairperson Grant simultaneously swore in everyone that was standing. A. PROPONENTS Ruben Garza, representing Lakeside Center, addressed the Board. Mr. Garza stated that before this project was considered, they came to the City and obtained a letter stating there would be no problem with zoning. He distributed a copy of that letter to the Board. In addition, representatives walked the streets in the area in order to inform residents in the neighborhood of what they were planning to do. While addressing the board, Mr. Garza noted the following: Zoning Board of Adjustn Minutes of January 27, 200u Page 4 of 11 The structure is structurally sound. Lakeside has closed on the property and they are the current owners. Two environmental reviews were performed on the property. Adding parking spaces, as requested, will be difficult to do. Setback requirements can't be met. Prospective tenants must pass a stringent application process. Income from property goes back into the project. Owners are willing to establish an advisory committee with the neighborhood. Mr. Garza answered questions from the Board. The following was noted: Lakeside is a nonprofit organization. Funding for the project is a grant from the HOME Program. Grant is in the amount of $1,491,842. $800,000 is budgeted for construction. Lakeside worked closely with the City and was never led to believe there were obstacles that could not be overcome. Lakeside performed a neighborhood survey and obtained 31 signatures from people in favor of the project Tres Davis, with the State of Texas, sworn in, explained the process for distribution of funds. Funding for the project is a loan, not a grant, and income from rental will go to repay the loan, which is fmanced for 30 years. If cash flow exceeds operating costs, then the remaining funds are returned to the nonprofit organization. Nonprofit organizations are exempt by State Law from paying property taxes. The State was satisfied with the letter written by the City that indicated this multi-family project was properly zoned and there shouldn't be any problems obtaining a building permit. Executive Director for Lakeside, Paul Case, was sworn in by Chairperson Grant. Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Case how he came to know that La Porte was in need of affordable housing. Mr. Case answered that he really didn't know until he came to La Porte and started talking with different people and getting signatures on a petition. Mr. Garza introduced Chris Carwile, from Deer Park, Texas. Mr. Carwile is currently in training to be the manager of the project. Mr. Carwile was recently released from the Marines, where he was a Sargent. He also holds a black belt in Karate. Bruce Spitz engle, President of Grant Works, sworn in, addressed the Board. He explained that Grant Works assists nonprofit organizations with obtaining and administering grant projects. Ron Kent, Architect, sworn in, stated that he was hired to provide architectural services for the project Mr. Kent answered questions from the Board. The following was noted: Zoning Board of Adjustn Minutes of January 27, 2000 Page 5 of 11 Mr. Kent proposed constructing a residential type roof for the structures. New stairwells, landscaping, gazebo, playground, and security fencing are proposed. All units will be brought up to code and ADA compliant. There will be new cabinetry throughout and all units will have new air conditioning and electrical panels. When asked if the structures had cracked slabs, Mr. Kent replied that the structural engineer determined the buildings to be sound. Chairperson Grant asked about the obvious cracks in the brick veneer and if an underground sewer inspection had been performed. Mr. Kent replied that an underground sewer inspection had not been performed. Pam Orr, of Grant Works, a consultant for the project, was already sworn in. Chairperson Grant asked about a notification letter that was part of the environmental report process. Ms. Orr explained the record of events that transpired during the reporting period. Chairperson Grant, for the benefit of the audience, read excerpts from the public notification responses the City received. All Board Members were provided copies of these letters in their packet. B. OPPONENTS Jack Oliphant, sworn in, and wife Patricia have resided at 101 Garfield since May 1964. When the apartments were occupied, the children who lived there were often times unsupervised. Mr. Oliphant recalled making several calls to the apartment when he was Fire Chief. He also recalled repairs being made to the foundation. Thefts in the neighborhood and lack of parking were other problems. Jim Philliom, sworn in, resides on Jefferson St. Mr. Philliom was unaware of the neighborhood survey that has been talked about. He does appreciate the fact that the graffiti on the buildings has been painted over, however, suggested that the City should secure the buildings, since some of the units are open. Mr. Philliom questioned whether or not anyone had looked into the possibility of problems with asbestos and lead paints. He suggested the buildings be tom down and a park built on the land. Spero Pomonis, sworn in, spoke against the project because he believes it is spot zoning. He would like to see the apartments tom down and single family homes built in their place. Sonny Shepherd, sworn in, resides on the comer of Sylvan and Bayshore. Mr. Shepherd contacted the Police Dept. and obtained a report of calls made , ~.. .. --- . .......,..- ............. . Zoning Board of Adjustn Minutes of January 27, 2000 Page 6 of 11 770 calls to the Police Department and from 1996-1999 there were 270 calls. Mr. Shepherd gave the report to the Board of Adjustment Secretary. Fred Muston, sworn in, resides at 117 Garfield. Mr. Muston knew a gentleman by the name of Bob Carpenter that lived at the apartments when they were new. Mr. Carpenter showed him an opening in the adjacent woods and beyond that opening was some old furniture and box springs. When the police came to the front of the apartments, those who had narcotics would escape to the woods and remain there until the police were gone. There have been sewerage and drainage problems at this location over the years, as well as plumbing problems and fires. Mr. Muston would like to see the apartments tom down. Pete Guarino, sworn in, resides at 217 E. Garfield. Mr. Guarino doesn't understand why the City would consider granting approval for this project. If apartments are needed, they should be replaced with upgraded ones. Pat Ryan, sworn in, resides at 206 Garfield. Mr. Ryan was not polled by the applicant and isn't aware of anyone else who was. His concern is the crime rate. His vehicle and home were broken into when the apartments were occupied. He hasn't experienced any problems with theft since they have been vacant. Mr. Ryan also described a drug raid he witnessed at the apartments. He thinks the project would be bad for the neighborhood and opposes it. Nancy Doise, sworn in, has resided with her husband at 211 E. Forest for 21 years. Mrs. Doise would rather see a housing complex for senior citizens. Her daughter lived at the apartments for two months when she was 18 years old. At that time, there were air conditioning and roach problems. Someone tried to break into her apartment and that is why she moved. Young children played in the streets. Eighteen wheelers were parked along the street. Police, Fire, and Ambulance calls were numerous. Allen Wright, sworn in, is a superintendent for Brown & Root. He stated that the renovation could not be performed for $800,000. Baxter Stanley, sworn in, resides at 231 Forest. Mr. Stanley was not contacted about the project. He does not want affordable housing to be located down the street from his house. Since the buildings are currently vacant, this would be a good opportunity for them to be tom down. Steve Valerius, sworn in, resides at 140 Hazel and has lived in La Porte for ten years. Mr. Valerius represented himself, as well as the Old Hwy. 146 Committee. It is his opinion that this project is low income, subsidized housing, backed by H.U.D. and is not affordable housing. The corporation's background was researched with the following noted: Zoning Board of Adjustn. Minutes of January 27, 2000 Page 7 of 11 Incorporated by the Secretary of the State of Texas as Lakeside Center. Paul Case is the Agent. Lakeside is a domestic nonprofit corporation in good standing. Previous name was Lakeside Adolescence, Inc. Previous name was Gulf Coast Alcohol Abuse Alternative, Inc. Mr. Valerius stated that based on the representation of their attorney, there are numerous deficiencies in Lakeside's application that can be challenged in court, which they plan to do if the Board of Adjustment chooses to proceed. Mr. Valerius stated that this project is not going to happen. Whatever resources necessary, will be spent to contest this matter in court. They have hired and reviewed the condition of the building with a HUD Developer and also another gentleman, who has significant background in the building business, and is prepared to attest that the buildings can not be renovated for $800,000. Renovation would, in fact, cost three to four times that amount to make the 57 units livable. Mr. Valerius believes the application has major implications for property values in the area, which is a serious issue with the City of La Porte and is very disappointed that the City ever indicated that the application would be considered. They are not prepared to discuss the matter, or any compromise, with the Developers. Mr. Valerius stated that this is a serious crime issue and feels the Developers will say they have background checks for adults living at the complex, when there is no auditing in the State of Texas that is effectual in this matter. There are serious deficiencies in the whole application process and how it is that the applicant was able to receive the down payment for the project and $600,000 of the taxpayer's money. Mr. Valerius believes the hiring of a Marine indicates the applicants feel there will be a need for policing of the project Even if the tenants pass their test, there will be juvenile delinquents roaming the neighborhood and they are not going to let that happen. Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Valerius if he had made an inspection of the buildings. Mr. Valerius stated he toured the exterior of the buildings with a friend, who is a HUD Developer in Houston. Bernard Legrand, who resides in Bayside Terrace, was sworn in by Chairperson Grant. Mr. Legrand agrees with the other opponents and believes the applicants should have been more thorough. Art Kelley, sworn in, has resided at 215 Hazel with his wife, Linda, since 1981. Mr. Kelley would like the Board to stand by zoning. He does not believe current regulations should be waived for a project that will not generate taxes. Mr. Kelley noted that when the apartments were occupied, there were always children playing in the street, creating a safety hazard. Cars were always backing out onto Garfield. He also thinks the buildings are ugly. Seth Cottahy, sworn in, resides at 232 Forest and has lived here for two years. Mr. Cottahy noted that in addition to resident parking, there would Zoning Board of Adjustn Minutes of January 27, 2000 Page 8 of 11 also be a need for visitor parking. The City has gone to great lengths to attract nice businesses in hopes of creating a particular vision for La Porte. Specifically, the Sylvan Beach community, because of its proximity to the bay, has the best chance of carrying forward that vision. Allowing a development such as this to exist in that neighborhood would destroy that vision. He requested the board deny the request. Richard Atherton was sworn in by Chairperson Grant. Mr. Atherton has lived in La Porte for two years. His real estate agent said the City was going to have the buildings tom down. If he had known the buildings would still be standing, he would not have moved here. Terence Johnson, sworn in, resides at 212 E. Forest. Mr. Johnson moved here to get away from Houston and to enjoy the bay area. He believes more could be done to develop the Sylvan Beach area. A multi-family dwelling should not be built on this site. The property would be better suited for a park or a senior citizen or handicap living facility. Ruben Garza was given the opportunity to address the stated concerns. Mr. Garza understands the concerns of the neighborhood. He brought Chris to the meeting in an effort to show the neighborhood they were serious about what they were intending to do and how they intended to operate differently; not because they were expecting problems. He stated that everyone has lawyers, but there is a necessity for affordable housing in this community. The problems described, are problems of the past. Mr. Garza understands and respects the needs of the residents to maintain the quality of their neighborhood. He stated that Lakeside did their homework and it didn't make sense that cracked slabs have been mentioned, yet no one actually went into the buildings. Lakeside is willing to work with the neighborhood, compromise, form a committee to oversee the management of the operation, and put money back into the project, not their pockets. He noted that they have followed the process and done their homework. "Not in my backyard" is commonly known in affordable housing, and he reminded the Board of a comment received from the mail out that Chairperson Grant read aloud referring to "poor people in this country having a right to affordable housing". Chairperson Grant reminded Mr. Garza that he was trying to be fair by reading all of the comments, those for and those against and then asked Mr. Garza if, after hearing the voice of the community, he had reason for concern. Mr. Garza responded that if he had to do it all over again, he would have walked the streets himself, speaking to the neighbors. Lakeside followed the process and worked with the City, and in his opinion, was never given any indication they would ever be at this juncture. Mr. Garza stated that this has been a long process, and there has always been an opportunity to investigate the nonprofit organization. Nonprofits mature and grow, and there should not be an implication of impropriety. Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Garza to trust the Board to digest the information and make a fair judgement. Mr. Garza agreed and thanked the residents. Zoning Board of Adjustn. Minutes of January 27, 2000 Page 9 of 11 Chairperson Grant read aloud a letter written to him from the City Manager. Chairperson Grant asked Mr. Kneupper if the content of the letter reflected the scope of discussions the City has had over time with Lakeside. Mr. Kneupper agreed it was an accurate reflection. Mr. Kneupper concluded staffs report as follows: Parking - Staff research concluded that previously, while occupied, vehicles were using the opposite side of the street along Garfield, Forest, and Oregon as parking and that this activity was occurring on a daily basis. This indicated that additional parking is needed, probably beyond the 16 spaces proposed by the applicant. For this facility, 135 on-site spaces should be available for parking. Building Setbacks - Gaining compliance in this area would not provide a measurable benefit. Acquiring additional property to meet the building setback provisions is not recommended. Number of Dwe1ling Units per Acre - The submitted proposal does include a playground and recreational amenities along with a new Gazebo, which would provide some activity centers for the occupants. Current development standards limit buildable area or lot coverage to 60%. Flamingo Bay has lot coverage of 32%, which indicates there is a sufficient amount of open space within the site. The number of dwelling units per acre or density of this site has previously not had an adverse affect on utility service. For these reasons, reducing the dwelling units per acre from 31 to 27 is not recommended. Landscaping - The proposed plan submitted by the applicant shows a sufficient amount of landscaping distributed around the buildings and throughout the site. A recommendation would be to include additional landscaping around buildings #2, #4, and #7 to enhance the appearance from the adjacent streets and provide some relief from the setback encroachment. In addition, all landscaped areas should have a sprinkler system to ensure healthy, sustainable plants. Staff recommended the following: . Require the applicant to provide 135 on-site (off-street) parking spaces. . Accept the existing building setback encroachments. . Accept the existing number of dwelling units per acre. . Accept the applicant's landscape plan as being sufficient to meet current City requirements. Include a provision to provide some landscaping around buildings #2, #4, and #7. Include a provision to provide irrigation for all landscaping. Zorung Board of Adjustn. Minutes of] anuary 27, 2000 Page 10 of 11 The Board has the authority to make the following decisions. · Afftrm the Planning Director's recommendation to require 13S total parking spaces on-site, or require an amount of parking less than the recommended. · Affttm the Planning Director's recommendation to accept the building setbacks as they currently exist, or require the building setback encroachments to be reduced or eliminated. · Mfttm the Planning Director's recommendation to accept the number of dwelling units per acre as currently exists, or require a reduction in the number of dwelling units per acre. · Affirm the Planning Director's recommendation to accept the submitted landscape plan and require additional landscaping around buildings #2, #4, and #7 and require irrigation for all landscaped areas, or require other amounts of landscaping at the Board's discretion. Ruben Salinas inquired about what options the Board would have if the buildings were found to be abandoned. Chairperson Grant answered that the Board must either approve staffs recommendations or deny Lakeside's request. A motion was made by Bob Capen to accept the Planning Director's recommendation to require 13S total parking spaces on-site. The motion was seconded by Ruben Salinas. In response to questions by Board Member Bob Capen, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong noted that the applicant, Lakeside, has submitted a plan that is nonconforming in the four areas that the City has addressed. He stated that in the event the Board felt the project had been abandoned, Section 106-262(h)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance states: "A nonconforming structure shall be deemed abandoned when the structure ceases to be used for the nonconformity for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days. The use of the nonconforming structure, when abandoned, shall not resume." The Board has the power: 1) to allow the use to continue as applied for, 2) or the use may continue as requested by staff with modiftcations, 3) or the Board can say no. After a brief discussion, Bob Capen withdrew his motion to accept the Planning Director's recommendation to require 135 total parking spaces on-site. Ruben Salines withdrew his second. The motion was removed from consideration. A motion was made by Bob Capen to deny Nonconforming Structure Request #NCSOO-OO1. The motion was seconded by Charles Schoppe. All were in favor and the motion passed. Zoning Board of Adjustn Minutes of January 27, 2000 Page 11 of 11 IV. CONSIDER NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REQUEST #NCSOO-002 WHICH SEEKS TO ENLARGE A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AS PER SECTION 106-262(G) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE. The applicant withdrew the request. V. STAFF REPORTS There were none. VI. ADJOURN Chairperson Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned at 9:30 PM. Respectfully SUbrrtl~ ~ ;;atw,c ~ Peggy Lee, 0 0 Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment Approved on this li day of February, 2000. k~~ _df~ Sidney G Chairperso , Zoning Board of Adjustment APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION #AOO-OOl CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY: Application No.:AOO - 001 Date Received: 02-21-00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant: Custom Desiqn Pools Name 509 Wicklow Dr. - Deer Park, Tx 77536 Address Bob Anderson PH:#281-478-6868 I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized Bob Anderson to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Paula Myers Name 10910 Sycamore Dr. So. - La Porte, Tx Address 77571 PH:#281-867-0942 I am appealing the decision regarding Sect. of the City Zoning this appeal in regards to the property at 10910 Sycamore Drive South Blk. Street Address Sect. 4, Ph. 4-B or the interpertation of Ordinance No. 1501. I am making located 38. Lot 6. Fairmont Park East, Legal Description ( ) Site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan () Other (Back Yard Plot Plan Showing Pool Location) 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 Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. 01~21-00 Date Original Signature on 02/03/00 Applic Applicant's Signature tion ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes ( ) No ( ) Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting 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. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: SEE SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHED TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: SEE SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHED GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: SEE SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHED CED/1-'87 CUSTOM DESIGN g POOLS 509 Wicklow Drive, Deer Park, Texas 77536, Office (281) 478-6868, Fax (281) 478-4355, Pager (713) 616-9123 1m [E @ ~ 0 W [E ml ~ FES 04 2000 ~j IBY I To: City Of La Porte Building Deptment Application for Variance From: Bob Anderson - Custom Design Pools Date: 01-13-00 Re: Ref: Allen Herdon 10910 Sycamore Dr. South Lot 6 Block 38 Fairmont Park East Harris County - La Porte, Texas To whom it may concern, Facts Relevant To This Matter: Mr Herndon has asked that Custom Design Pools give him an estimate to build a swimming pool at his residence in La Porte at the above address. Mr. Herndon concern is that by the strict building standards of the City of La Porte, he would only be able to have a swimming pool that is the width of 3' - 6" off the back bedroom and the width 8'- 9" off the kitchen area as shown on memo dated 1/13/00 (see attached). Tvoe Of Relief SeiDl! Soul!ht: Custom Design Pools is requesting a variance on behalf of Mr. Herndon with the City of La Porte's building standards for swimming pools be relax. Custom Design Pools is requesting a variance of 2' - 0" on the back side of the lot not incroching the utility easement and a variance of 1'- 0" between the house and pool structure. That would put pool water line 1'-2" from the back easement and 5'-0" from the house. (pool depth 3'- 0" to 4'- 0") The Grounds For The Relief: This request is well within most City building standards for swimming pools in Harris County. Deer Park building code allows pool structure to be built right to the easement line and 5'- 0" of the house if the water depth does not exceed 5'- 0". (deepest part of pool) City of Houston building code allows pool structure to be built right up to easement line and 5'- 0" of the house if water depth does not exceed 5'- 0". (deepest part ofpool) Please find enclosed check for $100.00 the fee for consideration of variance. Thank you for your consideration, Bob Anderson Custom Design Pools Custom Design Pools To; City of La Porte Building Department Pram: Bob Anderson - Custom Design Pools Dats 1/13100 ReI: Ref: Allen Herndon 10910 Sycamore Dr. South Lot 6 Block 38 Fainnont Pari< East Harris County - La Porte, Texas r~ ~ ~ 0 \YJ [E'i"-': II nIle , , ~'i i' I, I ~/ ~ ~ L,: II Ii ~ FES 04 2000 ~ Memo To whom it may Concem, Mr. Herndon has asked that Custom Design Pools give him an estimate to build a swimming pool at his residence in La Porte at the above address. Mr. Herndon concern is that by strict building standards of La Porte he V<<XJld only be able to have a pool that is the width of 3'-6" off the back of the bedroom and the width 8'-9" off the kitchen area as shown belaw. Custom Design Pools is requesting a variance on behalf of Mr. Herndon with the City of La Porte's building standards for swimming pools be relax. Custom Design Pools is requesting a variance of 2'..(1' on the back U.E. and a variance of 1'- o on the building line from the residence. That V<<XJld put the Swimming Pool water line 1'..(1' for the back UE and 5'..()" from the house. This request is well in line with most City's building standards for swimming pools in the Harris County areas. Thank You Bob Anderson Custom Design Pools 60' Fence --------------------- w :;:J to I '0 o I N 'co [~D~;;~:fL~P~rt~-! .-71 I,' " ,,:::<:1 " ,',,' ,~,~ '-:J Bedroom [, '~3 01 I in N v u C V lL. Q) u c Q) lL. 10910 Sycamore Or, Sourth Lot 6 Block 38 Fairman! Pork East Harris County LoPorb. Texas . Page 1 Staff Report February 24, 2000 Appeal of Enforcement Officer's Decision #A 00-001 Reauested by: Custom Design Pools for Paula Myers, property owner Reauested for: ~ 10910 Sycamore Drive South Block 38; Lot 6; Fairmont Park East, Section 4, Phase 4-B Backs!round: A swimming pool design proposed by Custom Design Pools, if placed on the lot in question, would not comply with current city zoning regulations. The design itself does not present a problem; however, this lot's back yard and its easement present a problem. The applicant contends amending the size of the pool is not feasible so, on behalf of the property owner, their original request to the Board was to ask for a variance to alleviate the problem. Based on the required criteria for a variation, Staff did not feel we could support the applicant's original request but felt their request had merit. We feel amending the applicant's request could allow the reduction in setbacks. Therefore, staff has revised the Meeting Agenda and the report on Variance Request #VOO-OO 1 which was included in your packets. This request is now being addressed in this report as an Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #AOO-OOl. The current city regulations for a swimming pool are as follows: · Measuring from the water's edge of the pool, a 6' setback from any adjacent structure is needed. · Measuring from the water's edge of the pool, a 3' setback from a utility easement is needed. · Measuring from the water's edge of the pool, a 5' setback from the side property lines is needed. · A deck (walking area) around the pool may abut a utility easement but may not encroach. Board of Adjustment February 24, 2000 #A 00-001 Page 2 of3 Analvsis: The pool proposed by the applicant (See Exhibit A) would comply with the required side setbacks and the deck placement requirement; however, it would not comply with the required setback from the house or utility easement. o Allow the water's edge of the pool to be 5' off the house instead of the city's standard 6' setback. (1' reduction) o Allow the water's edge of the pool to be l' -1 ~" off the utility easement instead of the city's standard 3' setback. (1 '-10 W' reduction) In describing the action of appeal, the Code of Ordinances states: In exercising the powers set forth in Section 106-88, the Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the enforcement officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board must find the following in order to grant an appeal. a) 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. Current regulations may be unreasonable and/or excessive based on the typical size of the lots in today's subdivisions. Staff did a telephone survey of the two cities referenced by the applicant (See Exhibit B) and found their regulations are less restrictive. The information will be utilized in evaluating whether current city's regulations should be reduced b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated. Should current regulations be changed, the proposed pool placement would comply with the revised setbacks being considered by the City of La Porte. Board of Adjustment February 24, 2000 #A 00-001 Page 3 on Conclusion: Anneals: c) 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. Although the placement of the pool does not comply with current setbacks, Staff believes the placement of the pool with the reduced setbacks proposed by the applicant, would not conflict with the best interest of the community and would be consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's zoning laws and the comprehensive plan of the city. Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the Board may wish to consider granting the Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #AOO-OOl. Although staff plans to submit changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the time involved would delay this project. If the Board chooses to grant #AOO-OOl, this action would allow the applicant and owner to proceed with the construction of the pool at this time. As per Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte: 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 may present to a court of record a petition for a writ of certiorari, as provided by V.T.c.A., 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 days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment. EXHIBITS -~~ ::::::::!.l C) = C) <'J "<:fl c OJ LLI \..L.. ~~. :i '~ ~ = . co .I N I 6' r- J'lNCIN~ DRDIl'WtCL JI~' 01fNBR 60'-0" CEDAR FENCE 11'-6" ILl D ; 00)0 i D d., m .. n t?=j ~ > ~ ~ t:z:j 2: n t?=j 7'-6" 1lII"ll 100 ij~ g; >. eLl REROUTES SEWER REROUTE: BY: GAS REROUTE: 0 BY: ENTEX ElECTRICAl. REROUTES: 0 BY: - .:;FNERAL SPECIFICATIONS AREA: 335 5.F. PER:I"ETER: 98 POOL SIZE: X x-o DEPTH: 3 -0 4 -0 SHAPE: - POOL CAPACIlY: GAUONS C.P....: 7Ci TURNOVER: 2.25 HRS. STEEL & GUNITE STEEl.: 8 D.C. "ALTS GRADE 110 REBAR GUNITE: II BAa :am: BENCH SfAT 'TYPE: TAN lENGTH: 12 BENCH SfAT 'TYPE: INSIDE LENGTH: 8 STEP '" BENCH FT. 40 ROPE RINGS: - RAISED BfAM 0: 12 00 Ci2 L.F. ~ROPERlY UNE 7 io aJ ::i . o I io @ . .... I <0 in RESIDENCE @ 'Ie II~ J 'e ,1 POOL PLUMBING SKI....ERS: 1 POOL ClEANER: POLARIS POOL RETURNS: 4 MAIN DRAINS: 2 JNoIO'( VALVE: SUDE PW..BlNG: - L.F. AERATOR SPRAY JET: - L.F. JAHf1( VALVE: - : - I.F. JANf1( VALVE: - CHLORINATOR: Rain cnr 320 FILTER: 48 5.F. 1YPE: D.E. POOL PUMP MlJTOR: 1.0 H.P. E+ CJWJ.INGBB IW:KWASH TO: p- WATERFAll. PIPE: L.F. lIAIN ORNNS: - WATERFAll. PUMP: - H.P E+ - SHEAR DESCENT PIPE: 70 L.F. lIAIN ORNNS: 2 SHEAR DESCENT PUMP: 2 H.P. E+ClWJDGD WATER REFlU.: INC. VACUUM BREAKERS: INC. MfA DRAIN FOOTAGE: - L.F. OPENlNGS:- SPA DETAILS WATER FEATURES -. --. ... _. lC'TR'.. WATERFAll. SIZE: - lONS 'TYPE STONE: - SPILLOVERS: SIZE: 48 SPlLLOVERS: - SIZE:- FOUNTAIN: - 3 WAY JANf1( VALVE: ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAl. OVER , DO : 0 SUB PANEL: - POOl UGHT: 3 0 SPA UCHT: 100 POO A COMPUTER:RS8 SPA RElIOTE:- l1..E CLOCKS: 0 GFI PR01EC1EIl PWG: 1 EXTRA PWGS: - SPA MISe.: TILE & COPIN 11LE: I'P ACCENT: 85 COPING FOOTAGE: 180 BUIJ.NOSE COPING :AGE: - 'TYP'- C"II:\I. to' .!tN i 'ia I 1- m .. 7'-6" n t?=j t; E ~ ~ t:z:j Z n t?=j DECK SPECIFICATI( REM ,0 W SA DECIC SIZE: 53& !.F. rtPE: PIA , DEe F. DECIC SIZE: 0 $.F. 1YPE: - PAVESTClNE 1YPE: 0 COLOl WOOD DECIC: S.F. ARBOR: ' OECK-o-ORAlN: EXPANSION JOINTS: - FO SUDE: - DMNG D: - TYPE: - CO PLASTER SPECIFICAl PI..ASlER COLOR: DIAMOND BRIGHT PlASTER COLOR: TIl MISC. SPECIFICATIC -.- -._."..~,.. DrIll Afllr:n. J EXH So. t' I IT.t CITY OF LA PORTE RESULTSOF02n2mOTELEPHONESURVEY CITY OF DEER PARK: Placement of swimming pools and accompanying decks. ~ No minimum setback from structures. ~ A minimum three-foot (3') from side property lines. ~ May abut but may not encroach into a utility easement. CITY OF HOUSTON: Placement of swimming pools and accompanying decks. ~ No minimum setback from structures. ~ No minimum setback from side property lines. ~ May abut but may not encroach into a utility easement. EXHI81T B FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS #NCS 00-001