Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-2002 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment• MINUTES • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2002 Members Preset Chairperson Sidney Grant, Bob Caper, Wr11ie Walker, Alternate No. 2 George Maltsberger Members Abse~ Ruben Salinas, Rod Rothennel, Alternate No. l Charles Schoppe City Staff Present: Chief Btu7ding Official Debbie Wilmore, Assistant CityAttorney John Armstrong, Planning Secxetary Peggy Lee I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Chairperson Grant at 6:00 PM. II. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 24, 2002, MEETING. - Mirnrtes were approved as presented. III. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE BUII.DING OFFICIAL'S DECISION #A02-002 WHICH SEEKS APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE ERECTION OF A FENCE WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA, AS PER SECTION 10659(3) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA FORTE. Chief Bur~ding Official Debbie Wilmore presented staff's report. Ms. Wrlmore provided sorme bacl~+ound information about DNV Petroleum, located at 318 N.16 ~` Street. 'T'his Appeal, requested by Alfred Barry, seeks approval to erect a fence within the required front yard setback. The applicant is requesting the fence in order to address security issues, whrle at the same time, enhance aesthetics of the area. The required front setback in an LI zone is twenxy feet (20~; therefore staff was unable m issue a fence permit four a fence to be placed within that setback. Public notice was ma>7ed to seven property owners within 200' of the site in question. The Cary received one response in favor and one response opposing the Appeal. A. PROPONENTS Chairperson Grant swore is Alfred Barry, Laboratory Manager for DNV Petroleum. Mr. Barry stated the LaPorte Fire Marshal was satisFied that the tie-in for fire protection world be located outside the proposed fence. Fire Dept. activities would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency after hours when the gate is locked. Noting recent burglaries in the area, Mr. Barry stated that a security fence would be a deterrent to thieves. The fence would also provide security for personnel who . Zoning Board of Adustment • - ~ Minutes of June 27, 2002 Page 2 occasionally work after dark. He stated the proposed fence would be located farther from the road than some of the buildings along 16 ~` Street. B. OPPONENTS No opposition was presented. Mr. Barry answered questions from the Board. Motion by Bob Caper to approve Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #A02- 002. Second by W~71ie Walker. Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong reminded the Board that a minimum of four votes would be races sary to approve the Appeal. Chairperson Grant, Bob Caper and Wylie Walker voted to approve the Appeal and George Maltsberger voted to deny. The motion failed; Appeal of the Budding Official's Decision #A02-002 was not granted IV. STAFF REPORTS There were no staff reports. v. AD1ovRN Chairperson Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned. Su ~ ed, Peggy Planning Secretary on this ~ day of ~ , 2002. Zoning Board of Adjustment • #A 02-003 APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER' S DECISION FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON AN EXISTING SLAB NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK EXHIBITS: APPLICATION FOR APPEAL STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT A - SURVEY OF APPLICANT' S PROPERTY EXHIBIT B - COPY OF RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT EXHIBIT C - DENIED BUILDING PERMIT EXHIBIT D - RESIDENTIAL AREA REQUIREMENTS, SECT. 106-333, TABLE B } ,4. • S , • CITY OF LA PORTE • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DECISIO " ~ --------------------y~ --------- ------------------------------------ Application No.: ~~°~- 003 OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: ~9-ll-O~ ---------------------------- -----------------=----------------------- Applicant: C.~F. Jakob Name 3302 Bennington - Pasadena, Tx 77503 pH; #713-473-2686 Address I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act~on my behalf in this matter. Owner: Carl F. Jakob Same ~ P H :.,; Address I am appealing the decision regarding or the interpertation of Sect. 106-333, Tabled the City Zoning Ordinance .D~ocxxk~C9:k. I am making this appeal in regards to the property located at 1807 Elmwood (ilk. 2; Lot 9; Conners Homesites) Street Address ~ Legal Description (~ Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan A Site Plan of the property is information requested below on a)1 All facts concerning the b) ~ The type of relief I am c)„~The grounds upon which I attached. Also, I have listed the the following pages of .this form. matter that has led up to this request. seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). am making this request. ~ If applicant is NOT the owner, heg~u~, provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. ~/ 9 J1-~ • Date Applicant's Si ture OFFICE USE ONLY -- ~~ ~~Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes (~I No ( ) . ~ ~ ~ Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: /U- a~0v?.~~ .~ ~ Meeting Date: G6'~ ~-O ~ ~ Applicant Notified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: F. i' i• ~ . . ~ SEP 1l 2002 PAGE 2 If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all .pertinent information, please feel free to ~a_t.t~h an aciditi~onal letter or any information and exhibits. you feel ~ Board s ou consi~ e~-r,'-" ' FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS i1ATTER: Property was purchased on:~10-11-85. The lot had an .. existing ~~,.ab ~lre~ady -~,.ocate.d -4.n__the..p,roperty-.=--.&~i-nee -- - - ---- - - the ground plumbing and slabcalready existed, I assumed the City had performed the necessary inspections to ensure everything complied witli.c3.ty regulations at the time. of construction. The slab was originally constructed when the property was located within the City of Lomax. TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: Approve slab location and encroachment to allow slab to be sold and built upon. -~ --GROUNDS FOR THE~R~E'QUE~ST~: `- =-~ -~''~~ - - -" - ~ --- -` - In March 1995, the Zoning~~ioard of Adjustment assisted Mr. Pedro Torres (.owners by granting his appeal for the development of 1806 Elmwood.;~:iThis property is located across the street from my lot at 1807• Elmwood and appeared to have the mirror image of~my situation. 1806 Elmwood had a 10' encroachment into the 25~ front setback. ~ -a ~ ~ ~R cus ~ T~ N c ~ ~ ~,~ ~A c !S ~,/Lf~ ~i'~~f ,~Aa~ ~ I~..Ns 7' 6a. CED/1-'87 ,6 ~..~ ~.~, r- O/~ ~ 9 /l S . EP . 11 2002 .~ ey _-- - - - Q UT rT-' ill l L~. • old. :G ~ dam' . ~ ~ /~'~-? -- - ~ - -. ~. -- ~ s (/4_ u_ ~ ~1nl~.Grl T,~~ 9~(~l'~~ L~1C ~,s ,Pl~/~fi' --- nl',S,~c ~- 7',0 ~-AI . e~~/o~ h ~Cl L ~ ~ /Zo~S~ -- - _ - .- ~l~~~Q~i~~~ ~ ~,:~j-` _,A- T T /-FLT G ~ L p ~~S~~,Q - - - - , - ~ ~ S~nl ~ P'~ O ~ ~ fl al~ "~ ~-~ 1 ./ ~ •- - " ~ .r - -- --- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ T ~`,Cl~r P /~°~ L.IN~S ,AT `~ w ~c~~ ~ ~'OfJ~ ~'ET ~~ LS L" / 5. ~ , -~_ - fi1~G~ ~1 ~`2 L~ Sf~-1/_ ~- ~ P -ro LE' LLt~l~ •o/r2 ~(/!Jl ~ ~ , _ _ _ _ ,~ 1 /Vl /~[~ ~,4~1/~s ,C~~N ~'~~ c~ oil ~~ -0~~ ~/,~~ ~./.11~~/-~ ~; - - _ .- - - r~ ~ ~~ .rte ~--~- n~ ~n/~Q9 ~~~ ~• ~,~ ,~ o v T ~~,--- - ._~V+~ n/~~ y~~~_A,2~~ !-YID ~`S1J~~.4~f~~-;ice ---.-- - - _ IT - ~_ _._ .. - r.J ~s I~ ?'o A- GARM fi'~V1 _ / ~s ~ ~ o u~~~ s-i ~' i S s - - _ -- - - -- - ~l~ ~/- --fit ~r m 1~ t~l~ ~~ !~n/,~,J s ~E~ 1~~+ - •Tl~~s _._ .Z S' V /2.~~ ~_n ~1 ~+- _ _ ~.1G~t Te . d /2i~1 ?~i~c~ I /n -- - _ _ _ ~~ B r-0~C 1~.-. -- ~- t~J A-.~ T'o LD VR~ ~ ~a,r! ~ ~'!.~-._4T - _/ w-:~ cll,9 ^ ~, ~/J,./~ /1 r_,/~1~ ,4..111/ ~l .r~-~1 P~~l ~ A .I~,~,P - s • ~ August s, 2002 ~ ~~ SEP 11 2002 IU Mike Mosteit Councilperson, District ~ City of La Porte City Hall 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy. La Porte, TX 77s71 Dear Mr. Mosteit, My name is C. F. Jakob and I live in Pasadena at 3302 Bennington St. Twenty years ago my son and I first drove down Elmwood Ave. to the end. We were in the process of finding him (Michael Joseph-Jakob) •a home-sight. At the time; it - - was a shell street and had signs on the property that lots were for sale. On calling that number, we spoke to Mr. Connery of Connery Homesites. He told us he was getting ready to concrete the street with a cul-de-sac at the end of it. A week later we drove by to look it over and were both well pleased with what we saw. On calling him, he said the lots were for sale for $8s00.00, but the lots at the cul-de-sac would be only $82s0.00. It so happens that the cul-de-sac lots were the ones we were interested in and agreed to pay. him that price for the two end lots. At that time, this property was still part of Lomax. The sale went through for cash. The 18031ocation was bought in my son's name and the one across from it in my name. For the next year, I spent many hours in building a home for my son and his family. He now has two grown sons, graduates of La Porte High School, well educated and honor students. At present they live at 1803 with their mother. The 1803 residence was built under a Lomax engineer's supervision and according to all their specifications. No problems. The other lot was given to my daughter and her husband, Ronald Eaton, another La Porte graduate, on their marriage; and they had a home erected there in which they now reside. This home was built in 1991 and under La Porte authorizations with no __ complications. _ _ _ , _ ~~ _ _ It is most important for you to know that the circle of the cul-de-sac was built to 30 foot radius (NOT DIAMETER). A blueprint I was given (sheet-sized) with the whole street on it shows the circle to be a 60 foot radius. I believe Mr. Connery was saving money on concrete when he had it paved. It was months later while looking at this blueprint that I noticed the difference, because the printing was very small. There is room to double the size of the circle without interfering with the building line of the slab. There were about 10 slabs powed on both sides of the street by a construction company, that finished a few of the homes and left without finishing the rest of them. It seems the Delta Savings Association of Texas in Alvin was left holding the bag and after several visits to the property, with slab next to my son's 1803 residence, offered to sell me that one for $62s0.00. These slabs naturally had their plumbing finished, ~~~~~p~~ ~. ~ ~ SEpl~ ~j 2002 ~ ~ which made them a bargain at that price. Date of sale 10/11/85. At the time I boug _ . ` one, I had my two grandsons in mind, ages 3 and 8. The lot next to my other lot across the street was bought by a gentleman, I don't remember his name, and also contained an identical slab. I did not get the chance to buy that one. About 3 or 4 years ago, he chose to build on his lot. He was told he couldn't, so he complained to the city council and a meeting was set up for him in that I was invited to attend. In answering the letter sent to me, on answering I, without thinking, made the statement, because I was so familiar with the problem, I thought it involved nit-picking. At this point, I am interrupting my message to apologize for this transgression. I'm truly sorry and realize this whole thing was my fault. As of now I'm pleading with city council to allow me to~l or buil on this particular lot: Lot 9, Block 2, Connery Homesites. As of now, I'm 82 years of age and want to get this taken care of for my wife's _ __ _ benefit. The cost of paying the taxes and keeping the lot mowed is eating me up. It's ` `~ ~ now valueci~at $17,000 on the taz rolls. It is identicalto the lot the other 1-meeting-' ~-- ~- ~-- approved. The one dvectly across from it. ~ v ~R. Yours truly, C. F. Jakob 3302 Bennington Pasadena, TX 77503 713-473-2686 ~.i • Staff Report October 24, 2002 Appeal of Building Official's Decision #A 02-003 Requested bv: Carl F. Jakob, Property Owner Requested for: 1807 Elmwood Avenue Lot 9; Block 2; Connery Homesites Background: The applicant is appealing the Building Official's decision to deny a building permit for the construction of a new single-family dwelling. The proposed home would be built on an existing slab foundation that partially encroaches into the subdivision's twenty-five (25') recorded building line and the city's _ required residential twenty-five (25') front yard setback. A survey of the property is attached for your reference and is identified as~Exhibit "A". The ground plumbing and foundation was installed prior to the City of Lomax and City of La Porte consolidation in 1980. In March of 1995, the Zoning Board of Adjustment (BOA) considered previous Appeal Request #A95-001 for the property known as 1806 Elmwood. It is located across the street from Mr. Jakob's lot and the encroachment for that lot was a mirror image of the one being considered at this time: The BOA was able to help the previous applicant by granting his 1995 appeal.. As shown on the subdivision plat identified as Exhibit "B", lot 9 fronts on a cul-de-sac and the front setback line follows the contour of the cul-de-sac. This was not taken into account when the slab was constructed. The northwest corner of the slab extends within approximately fifteen-foot (15') of the front property and results in a ten-foot (10') front yard setback encroachment. These encroachments are the reason the permit application was denied. A copy of the denied building permit application is attached and identified as Exhibit "C". Also included as part. of this report, is a copy of the Residential Area Requirements (Sect. 106-333, Table B) that establishes the twenty-five foot (25') front yard setback requirement for single-family ~ dwellings. That document is identified as Exhibit "D". • Board of Adjustment 10/24/02 - #A 02-003 Page 2 of 4 Analysis: In describing the action of appeal, the Code of Ordinances states: In exercising the powers set forth in Section 106-88, the Boazd 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 d~erence of interpretation as to the speck 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. There is no reasonable difference regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance intent. The setback requirements are cleazly spelled out and the decision to deny the permit was based on the cleaz intent of the Ordinance to prohibit setback encroachments. The question to be examined is whether the Zoning Ordinance intent, as applied to this specific request is reasonable. Regazding this question, staff would note the following: ^ Except for one corner, the slab meets all setback requirements. ^ The portion of the slab encroaching is intended for a garage. The setback from the ~ property line is adequate to accommodate a driveway and that the driveway in conjunction with the garage will satisfy all off street parking requirements. ^ The actual distance from the corner of the slab to the edge of pavement is approximately thirty-five feet (35'). ^ Strict enforcement of ordinance intent would, in practical terms, require the existing slab to be removed and replaced in order to accommodate a new home. Based on the factors discussed above, strict enforcement of ordinance intent and requirements would, in this case appeaz to be somewhat unreasonable. • Board of Adjustment 10/24/02 - #A 02-003 Page 3 of 4 • b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated. Staff notes that in the past, the BOA has granted relief to front setback requirements for certain cul-de-sac lots. Two of the cases were Variance #V94-001 (Glen Meadows lot) and Appeal #A95-001 (another lot within this subdivision).. Although the circumstances and degree of setback encroachment may vary somewhat, granting this Appeal would be consistent in principle and would not grant special privilege. If anything, it could maintain a standard that, when circumstances warrant, could be applied by the Boazd to any future request. 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. The intent and purpose behind zoning setback requirements is to ensure properties have an attractive aesthetic value, adequate light, air and ventilation, adequate recreational azeas, adequate fire separation between structures and adequate off-street pazking and maneuvering. As situated, a home constructed on this slab would be able to satisfy all of these goals. Staff believes the development of the existing slab would not be contrary to 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. Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the Board should consider granting the Appeal of the Building Official's Decision #A02-003 with the conditions noted below. ^ Permit approval require a certification from a Texas registered engineer that the existing slab will adequately support asingle-family dwelling. ^ Permit approval require written approval by a State licensed master plumber that the existing ground plumbing is in working order. ^ Permit application to reference Appeal #A02-003. • Board of Adjustment 10/24/02 - #A 02-003 Page 4 of 4 Anneals: 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 Boazd 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 Boazd of Adjustment. 04-24-2002 01:28PM FROM-V~ESTAR LAND SURVEYORS +2813880317 Found 1 /2" . 4 2 o A C Q c S --~~ Imn Rod , ,, ~~~00'~•~~ 87.00 S O L• of 10 W .g 8 'O m 2 Found 1/2" Iron Rod Lot 9 Block 1 X T-024 P.001/002 f-157 FOtmd 1 /2" Iron Rod ~ - ~o'ut= -Sx2o'gE _ 1I~1 ~ m - ~ v ~ rtrl o o c~ N . ~ ~ _1___ g YALE ~'•~ IM Lot 8 •, .~,, • .g . ~ ~ ~ ~ .. S . ~ . O • ~ ~ 1 a c ' ' c ~ e c ~ q,s ~ I ~ ~ ~~~ - - ' o~ Found P.K. ~ h C Nail @ P.C. ~., V'o / V N 00°00'00"W 62.04' .(1807) ELMWOOD AVENUE~,2r. -~- = 6' Wood Fence •~ 4' Gain Link Fence Nate: An unobstructed easement 5 feet in width located east of and adjoining the 5 foot • wide utility ~~*+t along th~er~west pro line together with a 5' X 20' A.E. Note: T~°siHrictive oo °' n~s las re or3e3 in6`~r-~R;tc~;-a~f3 t PropertYa BUYER Philip .Landry 1807 Ellrla7od Avenue DESCRIBED PROPER`fY Lot 9 in Block 2 of t70NNE'RY HD1~SITE,Sr an,.addition_in..Harris .• ---- --- - County, Z+eims acociding• to the map~orplat "thereof recorded in volume 217, Page 21 of the Map Records of Harris Oounty, Zlexas. WESTAR LAND SURVEYORS INC , . of ~ ~ ~ P. p. BOX 669 • AWIN, TX 77512 ~ ••""'"' ~ 'G~F' 58) 339.1 X59 (281) 3 42303 ~ ~ r' ~ ~ 4 G.F. . Date• 4-23-02 ' • ... STEVEN H. ST ........ ...... 5380 Inv.~i: ,,:o~ `••0 4901 ~ °•.9 " JOBIt 5380 9i~•••.. ESS~ ~ SUR' I do hereby tantlryeNtlNs euvsy wet ddedry neuM an eis 0~ dme taePoM Ipeeydeeer3ed hereon, for on MM dlaohed eMeq, and b eetroel, orW mareare ra enrmadunente unless s1ltaMn. and was done by ree or under my eupervfapn, end canitama re oreYrwodama ounenl sandards ac sdopred byme Texas Hoard d Prolssslonal Lend Surveylna. Noto: There era no natural drolnepo coureoe on tlNe preWrtY• Note: TNe property eoes not Ihin a Hood heaerdttans eaoonlirq re H.UD1F.1.1a. 485487 0945 J 11-6-96 ~~one X ~~~// aa .. ~ -•- - - - .r .. ._.. ... .... _. ., .. r s,z ' ~ :... r'~ / ~:. ryiE 'sti :'v s:~ •" ....: - •:, .. `> `~ E A~S.T r .; ..~...: • ~6:0 . . • • . ,y tt~A.::,ry.:.Y, I: t 3t }' "•,,T,r Y,.s»r.: ,.;,: x 133' . x 33 • ~ 1..: ~!~i ::i;s: 4kir ~ ~: J _ n~ : . ~ ' - - - -1- I ~ m m ~ I _ ~ ~ ~ . .. . ~ • ~Y~• , .. ..`~~ .. .r ~ ~ •- -. ~~ 00•NNERY _HOME•SI~TES "' . A SUBDIVISION OF LA PORTE OUTLOTS 294 AND 291 LOMAX HARRIS • COUNTY ,TEXAS _ _ SCALE I"= IDO ~ iJC?VFAARFR ar, ~q~~ NORTH 'L'r •STREET • • ~~ ~<,~ t ~ ~_~~~~ ::~~ ~ ~ +C~t~ of La Porte ~ , Established 1892 xAS //~ ~ ~ 281-471-5020 Ext. 259 Building l/ Mechanical ~ • - *Electrical ~ *Plumbing *(See back of form) Project Address: ~~ ~ / ~! n'! W 0'0~ /~ U ('_~ ~ Lot: Subdivision: C D 17 ~ ~~ ~~-D1'yt ~ ~I" fF,S Block: Owner's Name: ~ C'f fi(,h ~ F~ S O(./'C D •D ~ ~ Phone: ~ ~~~ 3Ua ~t>1n'rhq ~R ~D4S.elG Street City Zip Contractor. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Phone: Address: ~ ~ . . Street ~ . ~ . City - ~ ~ ~ ,Zip Engineer. Building Use: ~ I~ Pl ~ ~ . FU Yl'l.l .~j/ Sq. Footage: # Stories Valuation: ~ ~ Describe Work ~ t~ d the- EX•~S-fine ~rn~A~S~ •~~Ulh rx ~i~ns~ ... . :: ~ For Cry Use Only - Occupancy Type Flood Zone X ~ ~ Class Work ~ Sq. Ft. ~ . Construction Type ~ Use Zone - # Stories ~ ~ Parking Req Commercial Buildings Plans Only-Fire Marshal Approval /V~~ G.. ~ Date -FF~c~i- Taxes Pernrit No. HCAD ~ IO L ~ ~o ~01i~- O 00 _ 0 ~ 0 Permit~Fee s:~crsn~vn~~s~sia~mna~P~roi .ao~ 604 W. Fairmont Pkwy. • ~ La Porte, Texas 77571 (281) 471-5020 Checked/Approved for Issuance Bv: h ~-h i '~.6C b Y ~:~.'~iyi ~/~e, Date ~ Q- / 1-,D ~, • r ZONING $ 106-333 ~ `° ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ d d ~ d ~ e~D m eg4o ~s~:r~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ v ~ a ~ ~' ~ CD CD w ti ~o ~ ~~ .y Q ~ Y ~~Op. w w w w ~ ~' ~ ~ o d o d o d d oOd o d o d ~~] d~ ~ A d,'''A tiCOA aoA ~,~~~A o~` Mo` oo\ o\ z ~oA ^oo'NA ~~A ~ ~ .~ M ~ ,t~i~p fs W W W W W W W .~ ~ M ~ Cp7 ~ M ~ ~ N •, ~ O ao Vj " O ~ ~ „~+ a m ~ a O ~ ~ 1f~ N 1A ,,~ .O-1 ~ ~ ~O ~ ~O O O ~y ~~ vj N N N N N N N N m ~ ~i a ~ ~ v O O ~' Q ~ GL O~ O ~ COO ~ N O ~ C ~ ~ O '-i ~ ~~ O O (~ ~ ~' v Q~ O ~ O O O •O C O ~ ~ ~{~ ^ ~ y COO ~i ~ ~ COD COO N . N ~ ~ ~ "" e~.~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O'er ,~ • ..~ O ~ W d a, a, ~, q a, . ~ .-~ ~ Gl d d O ~ ~ ~ '~ H ~ .r d ~ ~ ~ -00 "eD ~ w eo ~ 3 ^o .~ ~ a~ ~ v] ~~ A ~n3 €'~o ~ ~ cnlos:47 • #NCS 02-001 • REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR ENLARGEMENT OF A FRONT YARD FENCE EXHIBITS: APPLICANT' S REQUEST STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT A - SITE PLAN OF APPLICANT' S PROPERTY EXHIBIT B - FENCING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONES, SECT. 106-797 (2) EXHIBIT C - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REGULATIONS -ENLARGEMENT TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SECT. 106-262(G) iv•~:•~.~~.. iV. JJ rAa LOlY/YYYClJ B08LS riLC.. ~ 002 October 2,2002 281-4T4-4493 Faac: 281-474-5722 • - Boats EtG 2309 Bayport 131vd Seabrook, TX ?7586 City of LaPorte Zoniuog Board of Adjustment Dear Sirs, . Recently vve purchased the pmperty~at 331 S. Hwy. 146. The past use of the property was a used car lot, but we plan to utilize the site for retail sale of boats. Site construction and redevelopment has begun and we encourage the Board members to drive by and view the improvements. The site includes an existing 2-foot post and cable front yazd fence that provided security. While adequate for automobiles, this type fence does not provide the needed security for a boat sales lot. We understand the fence is considered apre-existing,. nonconforming structure so we are asking the Boazd to allow us to enlarge this structure by amending. the fence height and material. R/e have outlined our proposal below. 1. We aze submitting an illustration showing a decorative wrought iron 4-Ft. high fence with rolling gates. 2. Landscaping, bushes, and trees will be placed is front of fence partly screening it from Hwy.146 frontage Rd. 3. We also fieel that this improvement to the non-conforming structure will add to the beauty of our premises. .. 4. Please take in consideration that~we have lost approx 35% of our property from set .backs, parking, and landscaping. 5. Our Insurance coverage against theft, and vandalism is in jeopardy even with motion detector alarms. Thank you for your consideration in this request. ~~~ c~ to 1 ~ ~~.J~ v v' Boats Etc. Bry Gwin Brandy • • Staff Report October 24, 2002 Nonconforming Structure Request #NCS02-001 Requested bv: Boats, Etc -Bryan and Brandy Gwin, owner Requested for: 331 S. Highway 146 (Blk. 21; Lots 9-16; Town of La Porte) Background: The applicants recently purchased the property in question and plan to utilize the site for the retail sale of boats. The previous use of this General Commercial (GC) zoned property was a used caz lot that included a pre- existing, nonconforming two-foot (2') high post and cable front yard fence. Although site construction and redevelopment has begun, the applicants have learned the existing front yazd fence does not satisfy their insurance company. Request #NCS02-001 for the Enlazgement of a Nonconforming Structure has been received and in their request, the applicants ask the Zoning Board of Adjustment (BOA) to allow them to replace the existing front yazd fence with a decorative four-foot (4') wrought iron fence. While the proposal includes a change in fence height and material, the fence location would remain unchanged. For the Board's reference, a site plan is attached to this report and identified as Exhibit "A". . Nonconformity: Sect. 106-261 is the beginning of the "nonconforming" section in the zoning ordinance and the opening paragraph provides guidance regarding the intent of these regulations. "The general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustment are directed to take note that nonconformities in the use and development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing, wherever and whenever possible, Present commercial fence regulations require a fence be erected behind the required landscape area and not within the required twenty-foot (20') front yazd setback. A copy of the city's regulations is attached and identified as Exhibit "B". • • Board Of Adjustment 10/24/02 - #NCS00-002 Page 2 of 2 As you can see on Exhibit "A" site plan, the proposed fence would be located behind the new landscaping and is within the front yazd setback. The existing fence is located ten-feet (10') off the front property line and while the material and height change does not present a problem for staff, the location prevents approval of their proposal. Analysis: In the City's Code of Ordinances, Section 106-262 addresses nonconforming structures. In the case being considered, paragraph (g) would apply to the applicant's request because an enlazgement of a nonconforming structure cannot occur unless the Boazd of Adjustment determines such enlazgement will not result in an increase in the degree of nonconformity with the regulations and development standazds of the district in which it is located. That section is attached to this report and identified as Exhibit "C" This development was originally approved with the fence being maintained in its current location and at the current height. Staff feels that replacing the fence and increasing its height will result in an increase in the degree of nonconformity. Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels Request #NCS02-001 does not comply with the intent of the City's nonconforming structure regulations. Appeals: Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Boazd of Adjustment or a taxpayer or any officer, department, Boazd or bureau of the city, may appeal the decision in accordance with V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, S. 211.011. Unless properly appealed within ten days of the date the decision is filed in the Boazd of Adjustment's office, the decision of the Boazd of Adjustment is final and incontestable. 'J ~!.! • ~+ x\r ~ _ y.s - _- z .~~ _ ~ ~~ ` ~ LL ---- C~JT v C - - - - ' .. J . r 3 W Z ~, w > ' o ~ I~ . i ~ d ------- t a 1 ~___~~ , i W i ~ Q ~' ~ --~T~~ W ~ ~ ^ { I a ` ~ ` ~ 6 ' t r .. r+ ~ -------~ ~..~ , ~~ ~ f _ _ _~ ~ - i W R Q 1- ~. o• 'J F F~ LL •LL ~'O '.N •VI ' 'O~ O .~O'D :.~~. N •. H.'t7 O sZ .~ :Y N :J ~ aW o'a-u ~ az mQ N J wr w ~o Y J 2 .. Q. LL Uo ., . ~ ~, R Q W ~ v 2 k 2 O C f~ ~ J = c ~ ~ L o a ~~ ~ w lL ..~. o. o... ? . O w ~ O W a ~ ~ ~ a ~' ~ u c~ Q~ Z > W ti W ' r' `_ z. `CCl . ~ ~~ a LL ~ 1 ~ ~ ~\)~ ~ L J r;~ Y '~'i p ~ . ~ u ;`~ W N' v U/ 7 • _~ V Y 0 ` 'P .~ C~ ~ ~ ' ~ I 1 • Y . ,,,,, ~o _ _„ ..,, „_.,. _...., .,... a~:cY irca uuCl.Cr 1CilCC:3 tlrC, t,CrmiLreQ aS ail accessory use. In the case of lots with a front yard directly adjace to the shoreline~of Galveston Bay, four feet fro~d fences are permitted parallel and cent to the side lot lines. However, such fences sTiall not be ermitted on the front lot line directl ~~~ P y adjacent to Galveston Bay, and shall only be constituted of chain link. These exceptions do not permit structures, grading, or barrier hedges. Sec. 146-793. Fences in side and rear yards. Within side yards and rear yards, fences of not higher than six feet excluding six-inch rot boards and walls 42 inches high or less shall be permitted. Sec. 106-794. Fences and trees on utility easements. Fences or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal at the owner's expense if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. Trees on utility easements containing overhead wires shall not exceed ten feet in height. Sec. 106-?95. Maintenance of fences. Both sides of the fence must be maintained in good condition by the owner of the fence. Sec. 106-?96. Barbed wire fences. Barbed wire fences shall not be permitted, used or constructed except in industrial districts or to control livestock as hereinafter provided. Sec. 106-797. Property line fences in industrial districts. Property line fences in any industrial district shall not exceed eight feet in height except that: (1) Fences erected along a property line in common with a residential district shall be subject to the provisions herein described in residential district fences; and (2) Fences in commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security measure may have arms proiecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet above the ground, and such fence shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the front yard setback of any commercial or industrial establishment. Sec. 106-798. Fencing and wall requirements for automotive wrecking, salvage yards, junk dealers, etc. (a) General requirement. Every automotive wrecking and salvage yard/junk dealer/scrap metal processor yard with the city shall be completely surrounded and enclosed by a solid fence or wall which is at least eight feet in height. (b) Construction, maintenance of fence or wall. Every fence or wall herein shall be constructed and maintained as follows: (1) All fences shall be constructed of wood, masonry, corrugated sheet metal, chain link or any combination thereof; provided, however, that any one side of an automotive wrecking and salvage yard/junk yard/scrap metal processing yard shall be bounded by a fence or wall constructed of only one of the above materials. (2) Chain link fences shall be constructed of galvanized chain link fencing with wood or metal slats or strips run through all links of the chain link fence. (3) All fences or walls shall extend downward to within three inches of the ground and shall test plum and square at all times. ~~ (4) All fences or walls shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable .provisions of the building code of the city. Sec. 106-262. Noncon€orming structures. (a) Limitation on r~.tion. No structure, otherwise in accord with the provisions of ~; these regulations or an amendment hereto, shall be rendered or be eemed a nonconforming ' ~ structure solely for a failure to comply with provisions relating to Article V, Division 2, Accessory Buildings, Uses, and Equipment, of this chapter. (b) Continuance of nonconforming structures. Subject to all limitations herein set forth, any nonconforming structure may be occupied and operated and maintained in a state of good repair, but no nonconforming structure shall be enlarged unless the enlargement is made in accordance with the provisions of section 106-262(g) of this chapter. (c) Accidental damage to structure. If a building occupied by nonconforming uses is destroyed by fire or the elements, it may not be reconstructed or rebuilt unless it conforms with the provisions of this chapter. In the case of partial destruction by fire or other causes, not exceeding 50 percent of its value, as determined by a licensed appraiser, the enforcing officer of the city may issue a permit for reconstruction. If greater than 50 percent and Tess than total, the board may grant as a special exception a permit for repairs but not for enlargement or reconstruction of the building. (d) .Obsolescence of str~ccture. The right to operate and maintain any nonconforming structure shall terminate and shall cease to' exist whenever the nonconforming structure becomes substandard under the codes and ordinances of the city, and the cost of placing such structure in lawful compliance with the applicable ordinances exceeds 50 percent of the replacement cost of such structure, as determined by a licensed appraiser, on the date that the enforcing officer determines that such structure is obsolete or substandard. The enforcement officer of the city Khall notify the owner of such nonconforming structure, as shown on the certified tax rolls of the city, as to the date of termination of the right to operate and maintain such nonconforming structure, and as to the procedure to be followed to bring such structure into compliance with this chapter, or other codes and ordinances of the city. The burden of proof in showing that the structure's repair cost does not exceed 50 percent of the'replacament cost of such structure rests upon the owner of such structure. (e) Determination of replacement cost. In determining the replacement cost of any noncon- formingstructure, the cost of land or any factors other than the nonconforming structure itself, shall not be included. (f) Repairs and alterations. Repairs and alterations may. be made to . a nonconforming building or structure; provided, that no external alterations shall be made except those required bylaw or ordinance, unless the building is changed to a conforming use. No additional dwelling units shall be added where the nonconforming use results from there being more dwelling units on the lot than is permissible in the district in which the building is located. (g) Enlargement ~to nonconforming structure. A structure that is nonconforming may be altered, remodeled or otherwise improved, but not enlarged, unless the board of adjustment determines (pursuant to section 106-191) that such enlargement will not result in an increase in the degree of nonconformity with the regulations and development standards of the district in which it is located.. (1) Submission of schedule to eliminate nonconformity. The applicant shall present to the board of adjustment a schedule for elimination or substantial reduction of the nonconformity over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years, or setting forth the reasons why such action is not reasonably possible. (2) Approval of schedule by board of adjustment. The board of adjustment shall review and make any revisions found necessary to ensure that priority is given to elimination or reduction of those nonconformities that have significant adverse impacts on surround ~ C ing properties, and which can reasonably be ameliorated taking into account the effec of the configuration of the lot and the location of existing structures and the cost of eliminating or substantially reducing such nonconformities.