The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-12-00 Zoning Board of Adjustments minutes OATH OF OFFICE \ ~.. ,,:. OATH OF OFFICE I, George Mal tsberger I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of Zoning Board of Adjustment ' . of the City ,oftaPorte, , State of Te.."G1S, imd will to the best of my ability pres~e, protect and defend the constitution and laws of the United States and of this State and the Charter and ordinances' of this City; 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 or the confirm~tion thereof. So help me God. ~ //1~~ Sworn to and subscnDed before me this the ~ Yv\.. a....L(" JL/ ~ 0 <) I - / , day of MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2000 Members Present: Chairperson Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Ruben Salinas, Rod Rothermel, Alternate No.1 Charles Schoppe Members Absent: Alternate No.2 George Maltsberger City Staff Present: Director of Planning Doug Kneupper, Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Inspection Secretary Sherry Jennings 1. CALL TO ORDER. Meeting called to order by Chairperson Grant at 7:00 PM. II. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO GEORGE MALTSBERGER, ALTERNATE 2 POSITION. George Maltsberger was not present for the meeting. III. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 1, 2000, MEETING. NIinutes approved as presented. IV. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION #AOO-003 WHICH SEEKS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL WITH REDUCED SETBACKS TO THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AS PER SECTION 106-89(3) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE. Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore presented staff's report. Guy and Laurie Anderson are attempting to have a pool constructed at their residence at 10506 Spencer Landing North, in the Spencer Landing Subdivision. As proposed, the pool would not comply with the required setbacks from the house and utility easement. The applicants are requesting approval of the following: 1. Allow the water's edge of the pool to be five feet 5' off the house instead of the city's standard 6' setback. (Allow a l' reduction) 2. Allow the water's edge of the pool to be l' - 6' off the utility easement instead of the city's standard 3' setback. (Allow a 1'-6" reduction) Public notification for the appeal was mailed to seven surrounding property owners. The city received one favorable response. Staff recommended approval of the appeal. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of October 12, 2000 P:lg!;:2 A.. PROPONENTS Chairperson Grant swore in Guy Anderson. Mr. Anderson stated that he would appreciate it if the Board would consider his request so he could get his pool built. B. OPPONENTS No opposition was presented. Motion by Bob Capen to approve Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #AOO-003. Motion seconded by Rod Rothermel. All were in favor and the motion carried V. CONSIDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN CONNECTION WITH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION REGARDING #NCUOO-OO2. Assistant City Attorney John Atmstrong presented the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in connection with the June 1, 2000, Board of Adjustment action regarding #NCDOO- 002 Motion by Ruben Salinas to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding #NCU00-002, as presented. Motion seconded by Charles Schoppe. All were in favor and the motion carried VI. STAFF REPORTS There were no reports from smff. VII. ADJOURN Chairperson Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned at 7:10 PM. Submitted by: s~~~ Inspection Secretary ~;,,~ Peggy e Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment '-1/1/1 ~ I ~6 () J J--dayof~,~ APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION #A 01-001 EXHIBITS 1. POOL DEPICTED ON SURVEY 2. TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS " C. ~ r L E ~ It)' or a. Q1t~lf~1 Em.!hlishL:d ll~~~ ~ ~ c ~ ill FES 2 1 2001 ~ :aui 1 ding v' Mechanical *Electrica~ (* See back of for.:) By *Plu:mbing = ?:roject Aadress: / () '/ 71.;2 F~I r IttJS() rL - , Fl1rr -Pft/?k IE.. I ~. LJ, Ph<<.se L/-C ./ ./ '''jOb's Q..," II CIt Tho r-OL .1 ~j 7' " Phone: A g /-- f? 0 7- 9;7 6' ~ Bleck: Lot: Subdivision: . Owne:rl s Name: A.ddress:_5/}-m,t: Street Ci t:.l 13 RR-b STE ~~.s Phone: *-:1 )?/-- is ~3 7- 8:2 3~ 7t 'i70dO Zip ':on trac tor: 13 Gtck Y <l rei f} fJ1 tilt.;," es Address: '/I,..{~.A~. 7Ji'~1J-~Y / ~ ~ Street 73 ~ITJIIU/} , Cit::y ./ Engineer: Designer: 3uild.i~g Use: -PCl 0 J 7aluation: $...3..5', ()OO v Sq. Footage: # Stories: _0...9-- Desc:riJJ~ Work: :r/l:J"~ U/l.1 ~ ~V I tnfrt//lj -p tOo / F,or Ci +-" Use 0nl'V' ' Jl t\ ".r~ S W'l \'Yl rn j- ~ Class Work "'-POD) Sq. Ft. Occupancy Type ----- Flood Zone Construction Type ______ Use Zone '"'R -I Chec~ed/A~~roved for Issuance Ev: -- ~ # Stories _____ Parking-requested C~E:rcial Euildings Plans O:c.J.v-Fire Marshal A~roval ./Y\~/ a.- Date: N ~. ~ ,1);}ftyvt91'u ! ~ocl C( e ~l1LSe_ -- " P e-"'":11i t No. p ~---:ni t F es $ (attach to actual pe:I::I1i. ti '-f~~ O[ZJ jI..;....t 03/];/'. = :-:_1:'. :&~ Jt-C~(!)oc:(-PL/~-()~9- ~oo/ ~ ,... .... .- ----. I!'" -~..\ .-t .... ri) "'IX lll' · ;~.!..'::...:. 1\::-:.1" i,"~_..).l'l · ~it."..,- ~/!.;\.._'" -#jf'jC765/' CITY OF LA PORTE u ~ a5 ~ 0 w ~ ml FEB 22 2001 Wi DECISION ,By ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTM APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE .USE ONLY: A P P 1 i cat ion Mo.: 0 i-DO I Date Received: ;;t -~).-D I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant: Prl ~~llLC. VVloro- Name f\ .~ l 04 4~ V::-cU rwCOJ-OUI Address ~-te ~' {f 'Si I PH: 7fJ - ~(". 7 -q -'I lAt>" ~ I a~ th,e owner of the herein described property. \'->fr\\ \ ' ~/\,^:.h: @'S ":u. '"&r-J 5i-~~fhs to, act on my behalf, -~ ,..) Owner*: .' \" \ ~c.,~\~Cl. 1J'vCoyOL ' Name ,ctt~~ ~~ft- . Address I have authorized in this matter. ~\. I hf) 2GI-~ q ~. \-.JV . I..- GLo-'\....~ PH: lc {- '7 ' ~'51l P I am appealing the decision regarding or the interpertation of Sect. of the City Zoning Ordinance No. 1501. I am making this ap!?eal in regar.ds to the p~ope~t? located at lnC\.4d-. Fo..1.n...unocL ~ ~Y'k_ -r)(liS11 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 upoh which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the on the Owner's behalf. to act ::J - ~:;;2 - D I Date ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes (v( No 3/ /~. /01 Date ~ransmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: .3 / ~:J.. / (J J 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 additiona1 letter or any information and erhibits you feel the Board should consider. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER: '1\ I ~J.j Yln --i.k 0 n MA-n1 '^}- tr ~ ~ I!..o. J2JeJ. 01.1.1\ ~1lcL t 1 , J ~fl . 'Ck fwre...~~. :+-~ oti~Ss:..L.'11. JOSt r~n-t- tlv1J WalKiv1j -l~ ?([)~~ u..J\~-t'^-e ~LLi{cl9-Y WI vUi,i/-L +otJ bL{ ~tdJ2V C4tlct.-tW Q drJ..i -kiM CI ( pet I j ~v+ -Ccv.~ oVtJ/ ~/) q tot vJfL_ uJeu ld ~ I l-lu t-\e;,\k, ~ ~ ~ f"!..W /'fIJJ~,k. . p~ LyPQ.f:: ~ ~ pml ~.... \ . ~ h & -LtlJ P/1)lI.Df)1 A \d b ~ l u.J(J Cht J Ok ~ u-rnp O-.LV-GSS. (\0+ 'Sc..v ; I"YI '? .~ .. "A . -+i . ;' ~J. i..~t-{. .coY-\-\;l!lV2t:. :Sl~ ()+--W pi:J~ll ...vL~ JoL Vr-1CiJ ~Mr-J'h1-1~'Jn./Ui.4~: Y. OF~ELIEF BE!NG SOUGHT: V P ~ l;4 ~A.buJL ~ ~v yJ~..e.. klL YLcJL~J.. iuS4 <<)Yy-., \Nl,~. ~ D~l""+-t'/~AJ 34 ~~ <is' 4 u.+i Lt~ Q fA ~ /Vv, a.~A 4- 4-0 ~. .v e~~./l ~ ~.e-t.5 ~ tel" tv. 1':.4- -PrOl\"\-JN Ll-kt\~+-v. f:/~~ l~~ ~.(.~) 3-'+. \ GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: ----rL ln~A"" -l~.Jl--- /mcvi L ~4 IVli.u.J VLD'Yvv2 eu.zot. -Uta a.)j..t-k"dYlt. t~ ~~~~~ (l"wJ.Th :r;/j::~~f . _~'. .-- ---- u.J -/-old. ~._: Qyt gClliLNYL{UA~ tdJ~ J11F4J~ l~ hofl.-Ilo LLUa.. &f:---tLv or.hL'+(iJroa) r:/ Bt(JL./A.L '1 #-wl ~.aY- C>CY0kfriJ'i av,c-l&h ~~ /)<u</ We. w~J i1.Ol- d( /h1'.?d-<. !.Ius flkle.htue J h~ W<-. l~iJujJ il.lie. a. lJ~1 ~i,~tf l~ 500d * ~ Y/1VrJ: a.n~ O~CVWI<?,-/ -rT'lis /5 -1-0 Ia<. ,vti/u!L. ' h 1T-t ~) ~M tLud ~ ov. C ED /1 - , 8 L ~ I Staff Report March 22, 2001 Appeal of Building Official's Decision #A 01-001 Requested by: Priscilla Mora, property owner Requested for: 10942 Fairwood Block 39; Lot 1; Fairmont Park East, Section 4, Phase 4-C Back2round: A swimming pool design proposed by Backyard Amenities, if placed on the lot in question, would not comply with current city zoning regulations. The applicant submitted a site plan showing the location of the proposed pool; however, conflicts with city regulations regarding setbacks required staff to deny the permit. The conflicts deal with placement of the pool with relationship to the house and utility easement. The applicant believes reducing the size of the pool would leave it inadequate for her family's needs. To resolve these issues, she has requested an Appeal of the Building Official's Decision # AO 1-00 1. The current city regulations for a swimming pool are found in Section 106- 748 and 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. The pool proposed by the applicant (See Exhibit A) complies with the required side setbacks and deck placement requirement; however, it does not comply with the required setback from the house or utility easement. The applicant is requesting the following: [J Allow the water's edge of the pool to be 5' off the house instead of the city's standard 6' setback. (Allow a l' reduction.) [J Allow the water's edge of the pool to be l' off the utility easement instead of the city's standard 3' setback. (Allow a 2 ' reduction) Board of Adjustment 3/22/01 - #A 01-001 Page 2 on Analysis: 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 ex,cessive based on the typical size of the lots in this subdivision. 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. 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. At the October 12, 2000 meeting, the Board considered Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #AOO-003 which addressed a similar swimming pool situation. The Board was able to grant that appeal. Board of Adjustment 3/22/01 - #A 01-001 Page 3 00 Conclusion: Appeals: 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 #AO 1-00 1. Although staff plans to submit changes in the zoning ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the time involved would delay this project. If the Board chooses to grant #AO 1- 001, this action would allow the applicant 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 1 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. 82/2112881 16' -, 2814281134 BACl<VARD AM~"="""ES PAGE 82 MAP OR PL.AT RECORDED IN f.C. 378049' HARRIS COUNTY MAP RECORDS. 0tdtnfIan 11I11I,,'" to MfafMI plIA/I_ 01 1M ~ It '- ..... ~. Ia -wnr..." h1IUIullllll. ., ~ ..... SlIrwy '- wild only " -,.he".. IIII9/NI lllIIlII Mi Mtn.,. ., UW)IIr. ...,.. ......, ... -uc "dt. F.."... ., ut ""., ,.., at ... __ vi c z ~ Ii: en x a::: d f5 o % :J o Z < en o II:: o ~ ~ a. ..c: ::I w F ~ ~ o <<l ,... .~ ~d ct:u; "lz ,0- l.S ::Jo ~t5 <S · 5: j: = <In oS ~rni :5 .2!~ ;E r::F="" ., - uct: ::i "D jg C - 8en~ o ri:w Z .Q:~ :a^i5~~ ;:)~ (0-'" ::Jcloft) 2:::swZ tt- "":I . olOhm... =~i~ !!~~""lD !:::~92 10942 FA,lRWOOD ~NCRlH ~ = '25' S.L 2 "" ~ ..... ~ ~ ;. ~ iii ~ 0 ,'~'" 0 2 5 70/' 'r' ~ 0 0 g) BIlJC/< Q F ~ 8 .~' en ~ ..... ~' ~ . .. 21 WE 65.00' 22 .J...!...OO SURVEY OF LOT 1, BLOCK 39, F AIRMONT PARK EAST. SECTION 4, PHASE 4-C, HARRIS COUNTY. TEXAS GP# 200 Scale: 1-20' ~. 1/3-1100 ~.Ylaed: iurvey By: T.S. )rawn By: P.G. ~ar: IMPERIAL HOMES & 11!:8t Southwestern 'urchaaer: PRISCII.U MORA nlls PlAT IS AN ACCURAlE REPRESENTAlION Or: THAT SUR\'EY MADE ON THE GROUND UNDER MY SUPER\1SION. THERE ARE NO APPAAENT ENCROACHMENTS OR CONFUC ACROSS PROPERlY UNES A T THE 1lME OF THIS SUR\'EY. EX~T AS SHOM HERON. lOb No, 98-.3633'1 !IIu.y L SHANKS rod SEl.S-l.SB-tBZ ltJ;D..l1t6 R'[o1=~ ott=20 to 12 q.~ CITY OF LA PORTE RES1JLTS OF 02/22/00 TELEPHONE SURVEY CITY OF DEER PARK: Placement of swimming pools and accompanying decb. > No minimum setback from structures. > A minimum three-foot (3') from side property lines. ~ lVfay abut but may not encroach into a utility easement CITY OF HOUSTON: Placement of swimming pools and accompanying de"'Jcs. ~ No minimum setback from structures. ~ No minimum setbac.fc from side property lines. >- May abut but may not encroach into a utility easement.