HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-2003 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment0 , 0
ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
MINUTES
0
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT•
MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2003
Members Present: Chairperson Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Willie Walker, Rod Rothermel, Ruben
Salinas, Alternate No.1 Charles Schoppe, Alternate No. 2 George Maltsberger
Members Absent:
City Staff Present: Interim Planning Director Nick Finan, Assistant City Manager John Joerns, Assistant
City Attorney John Armstrong and Planning Secretary Peggy Lee
1. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order by Chairperson Grant at 6:03 P.M.
2. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JULY 24, 2003, MEETING.
Minutes were approved as presented.
3. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE03-005 TO DEVIATE THE FRONT YARD
REQUIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 106-191 (B)(2)(A).OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES.
Interim Planning Director, Nick Finan, presented staffs report and answered questions from the Board
The applicant, Lisa Waligora, has requested approval to construct a front porch to replace a smaller
porch that previously existed on her home at 119 Dwire Drive. The house is considered a non-
conforming structure since it does not comply with the City's standard 25'. front yard setback. Ms.
Wahgora would like the new roofed porch to be 7' deep X 21' wide, which would extend 8.3' off the
front property line.
A. PROPONENTS
Chairperson Grant swore in Lisa Waligora. Ms. Waligora stated that a storm
destroyed the previous porch. The new porch would be aesthetically pleasing and
would provide protection. She answered questions from the Board and asked for
favorable consideration of her request.
B. OPPONENTS
No one spoke in opposition.
Motion by Bob Capen to approve Special Exception #SE03-005, to allow a seven -foot (T) deep front
porch to be constructed 8.3' from the front property line, with the following conditions:
• Applicant shall obtain all required city permits prior to the start of work.
• Staff shall include the Special Exception information on any permit issued.
Second by Ruben Salinas. The motion carried
Ayes:
Capen, Salinas, Walker, Rothermel, Schoppe, Maltsberger,.and Grant
Nays:
None
Abstain:
None
Chairperson Grant recognized a member of the audience with a question. Mr. Grant swore in Bernard
Legrand, of 3115 Layne Court. Mr. Legrand felt he was not afforded an opportunity to speak
i
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of Meeting August 28, 2003
Page 2
Mr. Legrand had concerns about flooding, and emergency vehicles getting down the narrow streets.
Thirteen public notices were mailed. No responses were received Two were returned undeliverable.
4. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE03-006 TO REDUCE THE OFF-STREET'
PARKING REQUIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 106-191(B)(3) OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES.
Chairperson Grant read aloud a letter from the applicant requesting the item be withdrawn from
consideration.
Mr. Finan reported that the contractor and the applicant are working with City Staff to re -design their
plans so as to comply with City Ordinance.
Chairperson Grant requested the City keep the neighbors informed on activities associated with this
development.
5. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST #V03-003 TO ALLOW PARKING SPACES IN THE REAR
SETBACK WHEN ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 106-
192(B)(2)(b) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
At the applicant's request, this item was withdrawn from consideration.
6. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Finan noted there have been new appointments to the Board
Ruben Salinas, Mr. Walker, and the Board exchanged words of appreciation for each other's service.
Mr. Salinas and Mr. Walker will not be returning as Members.
7. ADJOURN
Motion to adjourn by Ruben Salinas. Second by Charles Schoppe. Chairperson Grant adjourned the
meeting at 6:35 PM.
Ayes:
Salinas, Schoppe, Capen, Walker, Rothermel, Maltsberger, and Grant.
Nays:
None
Abstain:
None
' 7�tted by,
�I
-ePeggyaw /
Planning Secretary
•. . • .. this •. . k"Ct'//YL'ZV—.11
.1 6/
Sidney C#a;k
Chairperb6n,Zoning Board • . Adjustment
#V03-004
VARIANCE
FOR
402 SOUTH 5THSTREET
REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF A
RESIDENTIAL GARAGE THAT WOULD OCCUPY
MORE THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE REAR YARD
EXHIBITS:
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT
1 :---!
EXHIBIT B-- SURVEY
EXHIBIT C — SECT. 106-262(g) OF THE CITY' S CODE
OF ORDINANCES
EXHIBIT D — SECT. 106-741(e)(1) OF THE CITY' S
CODE OF ORDINANCES
ZOACITY OF LA PORTS
G BOARD OF ADNSTME
VARIANCE REQUEST
Application No.: &�� f U3 O d �Z
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $1100
Date Received: /o 6 _ 03
Receipt No.: /i%ltf i fet gqy/ram e
Note: This Fee is Non -Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
Applicant: James W. Liles, Sr.
Name Cell #832-419-8031
402 So. 5th Street — La Porte, Tx #281-471-8818
Address 77571--5054 Phone
. I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*:
Same
Name
Address
Phone
I am requesting a variance to Sect. 106-192 of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the
Code of Ordinance.
I am requesting this variance for property located at 402 South 5th Street
Street Address
(Block 7; Lots 31,32 & N. 8' of Lot 30; La Porte)
Legal Description
(4site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan
() Major Development Site Plan () General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the.
following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on theretherr behalf.
(),o@,AA aA I.J
Date Applicant's Signature
Office Use Only
Site Plain and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes o ().
Date transmitted to the Board of
Adjustments:'
Meeting Date: ` %! U� Applicant Notified of Date:
Notice to surrounding property owners- Date: // —oZ 1 — d3
Board's Decision: Approved () Denied ()
Notice of Boards Decision.mailed to Applicant/Owner:
A variance is a " deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance." The City's
Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the. following
conditions:
1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest.
2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship
must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its
unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography constitutes the primary example
of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot
be granted.
3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance.
4) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question may be
granted. For example,.a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not
allowable.
Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to.prove that a variance will meet the
above conditions.
If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information,
please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board
should consider.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
I want to add on an addition to the garage to use as a storage
room;.however, it has been pointed out by the.City that the
existing garage structure is nonconforming. I recently bought
this house and the garage was an -existing structure, so I was
unaware of this matter. I want to add this addition to the.
garage so I can store equipment that should.not be exposed
to the weather.
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
See Attached Sheet:
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUESTS:
See Attached Sheet
S:%CPSharAINSPECTION DIVLSIONIStandard FormsIZONING BOARD VAR IANCEdoc REVISION I012I/03 RYC
•
James W. Liles, Sr. Variance Request
Type of Relief being Sought:
Two issues have to be considered.
#1 - Sect. 106-262(g) allows a structure that is existing
and is nonconforming to.be enlarged if the degree of
nonconformity is not increased. The proposed addition -.to
the garage would not increase the degree of nonconformity.
#2 - Sect. 106�471(e)(1) identifies that accessory buildings,
carports, garages for single-family dwellings shall not occupy
more than 25%'of the rear yard nor exceed 1,000 square feet of
floor area.
The addition would make the overall garage 602 square feet in
size. This is clearly less than the 1,000 square feet. However,
based on the location of the existing home, my rear yard is only
2,146 square feet in size. Using 25% of this area would prevent
me from adding on. -.anything larger -than 36.5 square feet.
My proposed 61X17'or 102 square feet addition is approximately
28% of the rear yard area.
Grounds for the Request:
The addition._.to the rear of the garage would meet the required
3' setback from the property line. The addition would not be
located within the standard 10' side setback area off of the
C Street right-of-way. The shape of the house and it's existing
location results in a small backyard area.
The proposed 6' X 17' (102 Sq. Ft.) addition.would cover 28% of
the rear yard in lieu of. the standard 25% area. I'do not believe
the addition would result in a problem for neighboring property
owners and the addition is well away from the street right-of-way.
•
DIAGRAM
Property Line
= Projected Addition
PAGE 3
OCT - 6 2003
STAFF REPORT
Staff Report DecembeM, 2003
Variance Request #V03-004
Requested by: ' James W. Liles, Sr., Property Owner
Requested for: Enlargement of a Residential Garage That Would Occupy More Than 25 Percent of the
Rear Yard
Location: 402 South 5P Street
(Block 7; Lots 31,32 & N. 8' of Lot 30; La Porte)
Zo_ _ nine: Low Density Residential (R 1)
Background: The applicant is requesting additional storage area by enlarging his existing garage. The
property. is an existing residential home site located in the old part of town: (See Exhibit
A). When reviewing his request, Staff noted two zoning regulations that were applicable
and need to be addressed.
The property in question is 58' X 125' in size and as shown -on the January 2003 survey a
home and garage currently exist on the property. (See Exhibit B) Since the property is a
corner lot, the first issue deals with pre-existing, nonconforming structures. The survey
identifies that both the home and garage are located five-foot (5) off the public right-of-
way in lieu of the required ten -foot (10') side yard setback As a result, both structures
are considered pre-existing, nonconforming structures.
Although. both structures are pre-existing, nonconforming, based. on the applicant's
proposal, only the garage structure is being addressed. Zoning Section 106-262(g) states
"an enlargement to a structure can occur if the Board determines 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". (See Exhibit Q.
The applicant's proposes to add a 6' X 17' storage addition to the southwest corner of the
detached garage. As proposed, the addition would be located 4.9' off the rear property
line (minimum setback is 3') and 12' off the West C Street right-of-way (minimum
setback is 10'). Staff recognizes that the enlargement of the structure would result in a
decrease in the degree of nonconformity.. Therefore, this issue does not appear to present
a stumbling block in the development.
The second and more critical issue addresses lot coverage. Zoning Section 106-741(eXl)
states "no accessory building or carport, garage for single-family dwellings shall occupy
more than 25 percent of a rear yard nor exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area". (See
Exhibit. D). Based on the location of the existing home, the rear yard is 37' X 58' or
2,146 square feet in size. Utilizing 25% factor, the maximum size garage allowed would
be 536.5 square feet of floor area. The applicant's proposal results in 602 square feet of
garage floor area or an overage of 65.5 square feet. This means the garage would occupy
approximately 28% of the rear yard in lieu of the maximum 25%.
•
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2003
#V 03-004
Page 2 of 3
Analysis: Section 106-192(b)(1), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as a deviation from
the literal provisions of the chapter which is granted by the Board when strict conformity
to the chapter would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances
unique to the property on which the variance is granted.
Except as otherwise prohibited, the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a
requirement when the board finds that all of the following conditions have been met.
❖ That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest.
❖ That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or
exceptional physical situation unique to the speck piece- of property in question.
"Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself
as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or
caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own
actions; and
❖ That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed.
The Board is charged with determining if the applicant's variance request to Section 106-
741(e)(1) is reasonable and whether all of the above conditions were met.
To determine if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the general public,
Staff considered the fact that the home and garage are both pre-existing, nonconforming
structures. Whether the Board does or does not grant the applicant's request will not
eliminate the nonconformities that exist on the developed site.
When looking at the next test, Staff determined that granting the variance would still
observe the spirit of the law. If one considers the spirit of the law is to ensure uniformity
and property maintenance throughout the City, Staffs. notes there are already some
property irregularity at this site. Therefore, it does not appear that the applicant's request
will create a negative impact to the property or the surrounding area.
The final test is the most difficult and involves unnecessary hardship. Staff does not find
the applicant's request meets the physical hardship test, as there is nothing unique about
his property..
•
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2003
#V 03-004
Page 3 of 3
Conclusion: While the applicant's variance request does not appear to be contrary to the general
public and appears to meet the spirit of the ordinance, the Board must determine whether
a "physical hardship" unique to that property has been established in order to grant the
applicant's request.
Recommendation: Since Staffs responsibility is to enforce applicable city codes. and ordinances, the
applicant's proposal conflicts with zoning regulations and it is Staffs opinion that the
applicant only meets two out of the three requirements so our recommendation would be
to deny the request. As part of its decision, the Board must consider issues noted in this
report
Appeals: Asper 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 o f cer, 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, specking 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
r:
s:t E -5 t X.
4�
Ills property IS_NOT_-located in
LEGE14D
the 1017 ynpr N Ruin k is
iu inSUranCe'r T zone., X ,
:rCALE: 1"= ED:
U .E.-lllttl7Y EASEMENT
A.E.-AERIAL EASEMENT
ns per Inpp /0445.1
W.LE.-WATER LANE EASEMENT
dated _ 11�06_9ki -- - _
— _-
D.L.
WOOD LINE
- WOOD FENCE
—O— CHAIN LINK FENCE
—I— BARBED WIRE FENCE
-
—O— IRON FENCE
ALI Ei..'
w
�j�°~Ili;
_...... :
1�.. II '' 1- �'•�`
58.00
SE
P „. it:.►,
LOT 31 `S -.
_
STDRA6E _
--
I
hDUCTiota
I
REMAINDER
I—
ONE A'ME'.'I OR
FRAME'. �
� E'
rIl^L1E
"
OF LOT 30
CARACE
UH ;EWAV.
-, �
'
ti
-'"°"D-- ITS
-' • •
)3.
24.2•
--------
F—
Li
01 1
LN
�y O
C(r4EIi' b�
.�[ DWUOtI
c.
O
v '
••
w
:V
22.2'
lJ
1
��A���1M�
U
!�/�1_
c l
'
{GAIN 4 W
lcew - In V7
n
L.IJ
Id
r .t =
N
J_
22.1'
- 0
25j2' 2]. 4- 2
CD
k4F6. V
n �1111i `�
I MICHAEL D. MORTON
rND IR
i/s :58.00r FUD A.A Lr.
v• �
�q 3666 S
9 ti �0r'
S�
5th STREET
(60' it.0.1K)
'
1. MICHAEL U. MO!iION, A RECISIEREU PRDrESS1UNAL W40
SURVEYOR IN 7HE S'IATE OF IFYAS, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
r.
THAT THE PUT IIEREON Ct1RRECTLY REPRESENTS THE
IRS:- _ - -
UASI$ FOR BEARINGS; ASSUMED AS PLATTED ..
RESULTS OF AN ACTUAL SWWEY LADE ON 1NE GROUND
UNDER MT INREC71ON AND THAT IHENE ARE NO
_ -
AIL AILS S SIII NII ARE BY GROUND -COMPANY..
All ADS IIiAC IINC DONE bl: T11E_ -COMPANY... � '
.
ENCROACHMENTS E%CEPr AS siumN.
OCT - 6 2003
LO75 31, 32 AND INE D' or LOT. 30. ULOCR 7 PORIL.
DATED THIS 111E r� MY
NOILTII IN (W It1WN Or LA
1 ADDITION 114 HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS. ACCORDING 10 711F.,MAP OR PI -AI IIIENEOF,
icomPED III VEX. V. PC. 320 OF -THE II.C.U.H.�IE%AS—__-----.---
OP^� _ 2UO3
HIS SURVEY IS ONLY VALID BETWEEN. ITAWITS LIS.TLD BELUW
w1cINEl D. MORIDH - R—P.L S Nu.36116
---
I,OI(S) BLOCK r SUHDNISION---_—,---
_ RI 1-- - — - TOWN'OF LA f'DRT[
— --
_ --
SLCT;00
iECONCAllr81
COUNTY IAIE
VOL.. 57 PG. 320
HARRIS I� TEXAS
_—_ _!'LC1i,R_ _ _ _ _ _--�
Z;b7kE9S__. _--- - —------- f:R'f LIP f:�IOE LCNDER
_
1
402 SOUTH 5th S'1'REl T. - —L L.A Pl'1_RTE 7.:5%1
--
1AILCSTONE MORTGAGI i
WRCHASER -- — _ ---
l TREE 1:L1M1'AIJY
G.F.� 140. 1
DAMES WLLLIL.E_S_-_...__.__-.._.._.-.1- S1;EWART TITLE
03112133
,DED BY: - r 1 r
—,p c 01=2:,_u3 ARROI'4 StIRVE II`!�i'
-+
JOB 110.
�_ 03-01-ID9
-- -_
CG OL-30-U_3 P.O. RUX 410 PEUIIAl1D. IEY.AS 77068
- --
:CKFD k1Y: X x,- (201) 412--2294 FAX(21!1) 412-7l14
__- ..
-- -'--- -----'---..__.:.....
EXHIBIT B-
ZONING
§ 106-262
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 replacement cost
of such structure rests upon the owner of such structure:
(e) Determination of replacement cost. In determining the replacement cost of any noncon-
forming structure, 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 by law 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 Ito 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
f 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-
ing properties, and which can reasonably be ameliorated taking into account the effect
of the configuration of the lot and the location of existing structures and the --cost of
eliminating or substantially reducing such nonconformities.
(h) Abandonment of nonconforming use or nonconforming structure.
(1) A nonconforming use shall be deemed abandoned when the use ceases to be used for
the nonconformity for a period of 180 consecutive calendar days. The nonconforming
use, when abandoned, shall not resume.
(2) Anonconforming 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.
(3) When. it has been determined by the enforcement officer that a nonconforming use or
structure has been abandoned, notification shall be made by certified mail to the owner
(as shown on the certified tax rolls) of.the abandoned nonconforming use or structure.
The owner or his representative seeking to maintain such nonconforming use or
structure may appeal the enforcement officer's decision to the. board of adjustment. The
property owner or his representative seeking to maintain the existing nonconforming
Supp. No. 1 CD106:39
EXHIBIT C
§ 106-741 LA PORTE CODE
DIVISION 2. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USE AND EQUIPMENT
See. 106-741. General provisions.
.(a) No accessory buildings, uses or structures shall be erected or located in any required
yard other than the rear yard except:
(1) A detached private garage as defined, may be permitted in side yards, provided:
A. It complies with all the requirements of this section;
b.. It shall be five feet or more from side lot lines; and
c. The side yard does -not abut a street right=of-way.
(2) Accessory buildings .built on a skid foundation, no larger than 120 square feet and no
more than one story in height may be located in utility easements in required rear
yards, except that they may not be located closer than three feet from a side or rear
property line or closer than six feet from any other structure.
(b) Accessory buildings, uses and structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height, shall be
three feet or more from all lot lines, shall be six feet or more from any other building or
structure on the same lot, and shall not be located upon_ any utility easement.
,(c) Private garage structures with -vehicular access doors facing public alleys, as defined in
the public improvement construction policy and standards, shall be 20 feet or more from the
alley right-of-way. Detached garages located in rear yards of corner lots shall be set back a
minimum ten feet from the property line abutting the side street right-of-way.
(d) Detached private garages, as defined, may be 20 feet in height, or the height of the
principal structure, whichever is less.
(e) Floor area.
Generally. No accessory building, or carport garage for single-family dwellings shall
occupy more than 25 percent of a rear yard, nor exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area.
(2) large lotiTesidential only. Accessory buildings in single-family residential large lots
may notlexceed2,000-square feet of floor area. Accessory buildings with a floor area in
excess of 1,000 square feet must be located at least 30 feet from any property line and
30 feet behind the rear of the primary structure.
. M No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one detached private garage
or carport structure for each dwelling.
(g) Wind generators, for producing electricity or other forms of energy shall not be located
in any yards other than the rear yard and -must be set back 150 feet from all property lines or
the height of the structure, whichever is greater.
CD106:82
EXHIBIT DI:
•
##V03-005
VARIANCE
FOR
MC CABE ROAD
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A .LARGE LOT
RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT
EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 29000 SQUARE FEET
OF FLOOR AREA
EXHIBITS:
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT A —AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B —. SKETCH PLAN
EXHIBIT C — SECT. . 106-1 OF THE CITY' S CODE OF
ORDINANCES
EXHIBIT D — SECT. 106-741(e)(2) OF THE CITY' S
CODE OF ORDINANCES
ZOACITY OF LA PORTE
G BOARD OF ADJUSTME4
VARIANCE REQUEST
APplicatiori No.: -
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: — `b =0.3
Receipt No.: _
Note: This Fee is Non -Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
Applicant:
ri` ve Z
Na W
7 A.
Address Phone
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have'authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*:
Name
Address Phone
I am requesting a variance to Sect. !191 (�Z) of the*City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the
Code of Ordinance. ,.,{
I am requesting this variance for property located at IU Poo
T� /� �f /� / Street Addr�ee _
, �V '�'�1 Omf. o r �/t/, f' Arr.! /�hl f/•tc f /vd, �O ��i�J, L.rn+fy, 7X
Legal Description
(Jj Site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan
() Major Development Site Plan () General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the
following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage,'etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If applicant is NOT 'the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf..
Date Applicant's Signature
Office.Use Only
Site Plain. and Authorization (if applicable) attached?. Yes () No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:.
Meeting Date: I a �7 10,3 Applicant Notified of Date: % / l e.A 3
Notice to surrounding property owners -Date:
Board's Decision: Approved () Denied ()
Notice of Boards Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
• 2
A variance is a " deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance." The City's
Board of Adjustments may NOT grant a variance that does not meet all of the following
conditions:
1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest.
2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in a hardship. This hardship
must be unique to the property in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its
unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography constitutes the primary example
of hardship. Hardships that are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot
be granted.
3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the Zoning. Ordinance.
4) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the Use zone in question maybe
granted. For example, a variance allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not
allowable.
Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a variance will meet the
above conditions.
If there is. not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information,
please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board
should consider.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUESTS:
.5 EE
S:%CPSham\[NSPECTION DIVISIOWtandard Forms%ZONINC BOARD VARIANCE.doc REVISION I0/2I/03 RYC
Y
CITY OF LA PORTE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL CONDITION USE
PERMIT:
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
This document addresses questions raised in section 106-659 of the LaPorte Code for the
purposes of obtaining the necessary permits to begin construction on the following
property:
5.8926 ACRES VACANT TRACT KNOWN AS
TRACT 5H OUT OF W.P. HARRIS ABSTRACT NO.30
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Site description:
The subject property is located in the southeast portion of the City of La Porte, in Harris
County, Texas. The site is a 5.8926 acre tract that fronts on the south line of McCabe
Road between SH 146 and Old Highway 146. The site is rectangular in shape and has
483 feet of road frontage and a depth of 531 feet. The west 50' of the site is encumbered
by a Harris County drainage easement that is identified as "West Branch Taylors Bayou".
This easement is indicated on the attached site survey and shown on the attached
photographs. The easement encumbers a site area of +/- .6101 acres resulting in a usable
site area of 5.28254 acres (5.8926 less 0.6101 ac.).
Ownership:
The subject property was purchased in February of 2003 by, and is currently owned by,
-Scott D. Rodriguez. Rodriguez has been employed by Lockheed Martin Space
Operations for the last five years in the role of Operations Management and Program
Controls at NASA's Johnson Space Center. Rodriguez also owns property in Houston,
Pasadena, and Wichita Falls, Texas:
106-659 (a) (3) a. Uses
The intended use of this property is as a single-family estate -type residence. Owner
intends to construct a one-story, two -bedroom residence of approximately 2467 square
feet, one garage of approximately 6000 square feet to house an extensive car and
motorcycle collection, a natural stone and wrought iron fence running the length of the
McCabe Road frontage with an electrically operated wrought iron ornamental gate,
extensive landscaping including a swimming pool, SportCourt, a number of small
ornamental ponds, decking and stone patios, and a concrete driveway. The owner has
long term plans of replacing the original house with a larger (approximately 4000-5000
square foot) house on the same general footprint as the original house.
106-659 (a) (3) b. Zoning
The site is zoned PUD which serves as an interim district subject to review rezoning in
accordance to proposed development plans. A single-family subdivision adjoins the
subject property to the south and presently there is no commercial development on
McCabe Road between SH146 and Old Highway 146. Owner would be agreeable to
property remaining zoned PUD.
•
•
106-659 (a) (3) c. Streets
As a single-family residence, no streets are required. All drives on the property will be
concrete.
106-659 (a) (3) d. Grade or topography
N/A .
106-659 (a) (3) e. Density
N/A — As a single-family residence, the issue of density is not applicable..
106-659 (a) (3) f. Utilities and drainage
Water and electricity is available along the McCabe Road frontage. The previous
property owner had indicated that the city had agreed to allow a sewer connection within
the Shady River Subdivision that abuts the subject property to the south. This will
require utility work within the subdivision, +/- 100 feet of sewer line within the
subdivision, construction of a lift station, and extension of the sewer line to the subject
dwelling/improvements.
106-659 (a) (4) Schedule of Construction
Construction to begin immediately upon approval from the La Porte City Council. The
garage and home will be built simultaneously, as will the driveway and all land
improvements of scale. The backyard landscaping (including pool, SportCourt, and
much of the decking and stone walkways and patios) will be constructed after the house
and garage are completed as they are contracted to separate builders.
106-659 (a) (5) Property Control for Common Areas
N/A — As a single-family residence, there are no common open spaces or areas.
106-659 (b) Review and evaluation criteria
106-659 (b) (1) — Property Control
This section is not really applicable to a single-family estate. However, the entire subject
property will be under the control and direct supervision of a central authority (owner)
that has the greatest interest in protecting his rights and property values, as well as being
solely responsible for maintenance and upkeep.
106-659 (b) (2) — Circulation Plan
Since the property will only include one residence, there will be no danger or congestion
created by development with regards to access on McCabe Road. A single driveway will
be constructed with access to McCabe Road, and a culvert meeting the requirements set
forth by the City of La Porte will be built at the driveway entrance.
106-659 (b) (3) — Sufficiency of Open Space
As a single-family estate, this requirement is not applicable.
106-659 (b) (4) — Arrangement of Uses
The owner has the utmost interest in preserving both the privacy and property values of
the surrounding residential uses. There is currently no construction on three sides of the
subject property. The west side is buffered by Taylor Bayou, and the owner understands
that there will be no construction directly on the opposite side of the bayou as it is
designated to be a natural preservation area by owner Forest Holdings LTD, LLP. The
property directly to the north and across McCabe Road is currently vacant wooded land.
The owner is aware that the opposite side of this property borders the Bay Forrest Golf
Course, and as such expects that the City of La Porte have a vested interest in assuring
that only suitable construction occurs there. The property bordering the subject property
to the east is currently wooded and vacant with the exception of 'a small house located on
the far northeast corner of the property, approximately 450 feet from subject property.
Owner is currently negotiating to purchase this property from current owner with the
intention of developing into an upscale, but small, gated community in the future. The
only current residential area bordering the subject property is the subdivision of Shady
Oaks directly to the south. There are three homes and a community pool that share a
boundary line with subject property. Owner has taken great care in assuring that the
location of structures on subject property does not allow them to be visible from any of
the aforementioned, nor that the aforementioned are visible from subject property
structures. This is to be assured by the preservation of undergrowth for at least 30 feet of
depth around the entire property border. Any holes in undergrowth shall be filled by the
planting of Wax Myrtles (evergreen and fast growing). Additionally, the driveway
entrance is designed to not allow for a view of any structures on the property from the
front gate.
106-659 (b) (5) — Drainage and Utility .
Drainage and utility system plans are adequate based on a single residence on the
property.
106-659 (b) (6) — Public Interest and Land Conservation
The owner purchased the property based to a large degree on its beautiful and heavily
wooded natural state. Conserving this beauty is the primary factor in all plans and
designs for the property. Owner is personally going to oversee'the construction process
to insure that no trees are cut that are not absolutely necessary. In fact, the placement of
the structures on the property was carefully determined to protect certain trees that the
owner would not allow to be removed. The owner feels that the proposed construction on
the subject property is in the public interest, as it will increase property values of the
surrounding area and will take a current. eye sore (some dumping has occurred on subject
property on existing culvert and is generally unattractive) and turn it into an attractive
road front (via the stone and wrought iron fencing).
106-659 (b) (7) — Ordinance 1444.
It is the owner's understanding that 1444 applies to residential developments of scale, and
is, for all practical purposes, not applicable to this request.
•
•
1 106-659 (b) (8) — Dwelling Unit Requirements
The dwelling unit will meet all requirements set forth in city, county, and state codes.
106-659 (b) (9)—106-216 through 106-218
Owner believes these provisions to be satisfactorily met. To be determined by
committee.
106-659 (b) (10) — Comprehensive Plan
Owner is aware of the City of La Porte's comprehensive plan for the area -only through
unofficial conversation, but believes that the proposed subject property will only be a
beneficial addition to that plan. Owner is excited and confident that the City of La Porte
has the same interests in seeing the surrounding areas develop into an attractive
community while maintaining the areas natural beauty. Owner is committed to this plan
to the extent of purchasing and developing surrounding property and making the subject
property his permanent home.
STAFF REPORT
IdMk
Staff Report DecembeM, 2003
Variance Request #V03-005
Reauested bv: . Scott Rodriguez, Property Owner
BMuested for: Construction of 'a Large Lot Residential Accessory Structure in Excess of 2,000 Square
Feet of Floor Area
Location: Mc Cabe Road
(Tracts 5G &-5H, Abst. 30, #. P. Harris)
Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Background: The property in question is an undeveloped 5.89-acre site located on the south side of Mc
Cabe Road. (See Exhibit A).. Although the property is zoned PUD, the applicant has
provided the City with a sketch plan which indicates his proposal to build a single-family
dwelling and a 60' X 100' (6,000 square foot) accessory structure (detached garage).
(See Exhibit B).
Utilizing the applicant's sketch plan, Staff reviewed the plan and identified it as "large lot
residential" development. Based on Section 106-1, the definition of large lot residential
is a home site for a single-family home that is comprised. of at least one (1) acre (43,560
square feet) in size and a minimum lot width of one hundred feet (100'). (See Exhibit Q.
Please note that the definition does not address the zoning of the land in question.
Once identified as a large lot residential development, Staff considered regulations that
were applicable to the size of the proposed accessory (garage) structure. Zoning Section
106-741(ex2) states: "Accessory buildings in single-family residential large lots may not
exceed 2,000 square feet of floor area. Accessory buildings with a floor area in excess of
1,000 square feet must be located at least thirty -feet (30) from any property line and
thirty -feet (30') behind the rear of the primary structure". (See Exhibit D).
The result of Staff' review identified two (2) areas of concern. The first issue deals with
the applicant's request for a 6,000 square foot accessory structure when the zoning
regulations identify a maximum of 2,000 square feet.
The second issue addresses the placement of the structure. Based on the sketch plan
provided, the over -sized accessory is not located the minimum of thirty-foot (30) behind
the primary structure as required by the city's zoning regulations.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2003
#V 03-005
Page 2 of 3
Analysis: Section 106-192(bxl), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as a deviation from
the literal provisions of the chapter which is granted by the Board when strict conformity
to the chapter would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances
unique to the property on which the variance is granted
Except as otherwise prohibiteg the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a
requirement when the board finds that all of the following conditions have been met.
-00• That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest.
❖ That literal enforcement of the chapter_ will result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, -shape, topography or other extraordinary or
exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question
"Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itseff
as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, finial considerations or
caprice, and the hardship must not r. esult from the applicant or propen7y owner's own
actions; and
❖ That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed
The Board is charged with determining if the applicant's variance request to Section 106-
741(eX2) is reasonable and whether all of the above conditions were met.
To determine if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the general public,
Staff considered the fact that the overall size of the property is 5.89 acres and placement
of the structures on property this size would not appear to present a problem to the
general public.
When looldng at the next test, Staff considered whether granting of the variance would
still observe the spirit of the law. For fire safety reasons, the spirit of the law was to
ensure that no single accessory building exceeded 2,000 square feet in floor area.
However, an individual is allowed multiple large accessory buildings. provided they,
along with other roofed -over structures on the property, do not accumulatively exceed the
maximum forty percent_ (40%) lot coverage. The Board will need to determine if the
granting of a variance for the over -sized building would still observe the spirit of the law.
The final test is the most Micult and involves unnecessary hardship. Staff does not find
the applicant's request meets the physical hardship test, as there is nothing unique about
his property.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2003
#V 03-005
Page 3. of 3
Conclusion: While the applicant's variance request does not appear to be contrary to the general
public, the Board must determine if the granting of the variance would meet the spirit of
the law and whether a ".physical hardship" unique to that property has been established
by the applicant.
Recommendation: Since Staffs responsibility is to enforce applicable city codes and ordinances, the
applicant's proposal conflicts with zoning regulations and it is Staffs opinion that the
applicant only meets two out of the three requirements so our recommendation would be
to deny the request. As part of its decision, the Board must consider both issues (the
over -sized structure itself and the required placement behind the primary structure) noted
in this report.
Appeals: 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, specking 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 ofAdjustrrient.
U
•
EXHIBITS
N 01 ° 17'34" W 351.48'
w-------------- laaylar �i� Qu--------------
w ( 25'Wide Harris Country Flood Control Esmt. Per Vol.1788, Pq. 73 D.R.H.C.T.
API g
9 i "-Hie h Bank
�C5
I W M
ODD M I
m
CD
FUTURE TENNIS COURTS
FUTURE WINNING POOL
0.
7
0
241'-6"
00
I.;
cob
00
155'-0"
CO
i - •••�d.�. ,s•}. .5a8926 Acres
1 w
I •
I
I
Remains of Old Fence
N: S 01 17 34 E 351 48
m
Shady Rtrer SsaB Vol 117, PS SI N.C.M.R. TM,,. ...,,,,,y�M,,,�„��
McCade Road ANGLE TEE d— .N ft
RESIDENCES OF: ScoC O. RodrlEuea DATE: Oat. 28, 2009 CApOE51GN �
. nv...+.as. a .ir or mnp.l,a mub..
DRAWN BY: DAVID M. KERR SCALE y:r-iw TirHTT�tu eaxaesam .weaver
-i
OD
W
W
16
A
0
Z
..
EH
H
W
H
x
W
Lot line means a boundary of'a building lot.
Lot line, front means that boundary of a building lot which is the line of an existing or dedicated
street. Upon corner lots either street line may be selected as the front lot lire providing'a front and rear
yard are provided adjacent and opposite, respectively to the front lot line.
Lot line, rear means that boundary of a building lot which is most distant .from and is, or is most
nearly parallel to the front lot line.
Lot line, side means any boundary of a building lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line.
Lot of record means an area of land designated as a lot on a plat of a subdivision recorded
pursuant to statutes of the state with the county clerk or an area of land held in single ownership
described by metes and bounds upon a deed recorded or registered with the county clerk.
Lot, residential large means a homesite for a single-family home that is comprised of at least one
acre (43,560 square feet). Minimum lot width shall be 100 feet.
Lot, single-family dwelling, special means any residential lot for single-family dwelling purposes
with an area of less than 6,000 square feet, but greater than 4,500 square feet.
Lot, through means a building lot not a corner lot, both the front and rear lot lines of which adjoin
street lines. On a through lot both street lines shall be deemed front lot lines.
Lot, width means the minimum distance measured in a straight line between the side lot lines of a
building lot along a straight. line, which shall be on the side of the building.
Manufactured housing means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the
traveling mode is eight body feet or more in width or 40 feet in length, or, when erected on -site, is 320 or
more square feet in size and which is -built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling
with or without a foundation system when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing,
heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein. Such manufactured housing may or
may not be constructed under H.U.D.-specifications.
Manufactured housing parks means a development under single ownership intended for the
rental or leasing only of manufactured housing units.
Manufactured housing subdivision means a subdivision designed and/or intended for the sale of
lots for residential occupancy by manufactured, housing meeting H.U.D. specifications as established
under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act.
Mobile home means a structure that was constructed before June 15, 1976, transportable in one
or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more
in length, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis
and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the
required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems.
National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act of 1974 means the federal act which
governs the standards for construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes or mobile
homes built in the United States since June 15, 1976 defined as homes meeting H.U.D. specifications.
EXHIBIT C
§ 106-741 LA PORTE CODE
DIVISION 2. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT
Sec. 106-741. General provisions.
(a) No accessory buildings, uses or structures shall be erected or located in any required
yard other than the rear yard except:
(1) A detached private garage as defined, may be permitted in side yards, provided:
a. It complies with all the requirements of this section;
b. It shall be five feet or more from side lot lines; and
c. The side yard does not abut a street right-of-way.
(2) Accessory buildings built on a skid foundation, no larger than 120 square feet and no
more than one story in height may be located in utility easements in required rear
yards, except that they may not be located closer than three feet from a side or rear
property line or closer than six feet from any other structure.
(b) Accessory buildings, uses and structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height, shall be
three feet or more from all lot lines, shall be six feet or more from any other building or
structure on the same lot, and shall not be located upon. any utility easement.
(c) Private garage structures with,vehicular access doors facing public alleys, as defined in
the public improvement construction policy and standards, shall be 20 feet or more from the
alley right-of-way. Detached garages located in rear yards of corner lots shall be set back a
minimum ten feet from the property line abutting the side street right-of_way.
(d) Detached private garages, as defined, may be 20 feet in height, or the height of the
principal structure, whichever is less.
(e) Floor area.
(1) Generally. No accessory building, or carport garage for single-family dwellings shall
occupy more than 25 percent of a rear yard, nor exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Large lot:resiclential only.. Accessory buildings in single-family residential large lots
may not .exceed 2,000 square feet of floor area. Accessory buildings with a floor area in
excess of 1,000 square feet must be located at least 30 feet from any property line and
30 feet behind the rear of the primary structure.
(f) No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one detached private garage
or carport structure for each dwelling.
(g) Wind generators, for producing electricity or other forms of energy shall not be located
in any yards other than the rear yard and must be set back 150 feet from all property lines or
the height of the structure, whichever is greater.
CD106:82 .
EXHIBIT D
#SE03-007
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR
238 SOUTH HOLMES STREET
YARD EXCEPTION ON CORNER LOT
EXHIBITS:
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B - SURVEY/SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT C - SECT. ' 106-333, TABLE B, RESIDENTIAL AREA
REQUIREMENTS, FOOTNOTE #5 OF THE
CITY' S CODE OF ORDINANCES
ZO*CITY OF LA PORTE
G BOARD OF ADNSTME#
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST
Application No.: �-,S E - 03 - d a 7
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $1 41A Date Received: l — 1 7 — 6 3
Receipt No.: /y1,/ CL
Note: This Fee is Non -Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
Applicant: Francisco & Mariana Rea
Name.
9121 E. Avenue L Houston, Tx PH:#713-926-3642
Address 77012-2725 .
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*: Same .
Name
PH:
Address.
I am requesting a Special Exception to Sect. 10 6 -191 of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106
of the Code of Ordinance.
I am requesting this Special Exception for property located at 238 So. Iiolmes Street
Street Address
(Block 72; Lots 21,22; Bayfront Addn.)
Legal Description
Site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan
() Major Development Site Plan () General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the
following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf.
(W -J l - Do
Date
Office Use Only
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:
Meeting Date: 02 I Al < a � Applicant Notified of Dates
Board's Decision: Approved () Denied ( )
Notice of Boards Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
0 0 2
A Special Exception is a deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Before they
grant a special exception, The Board of Adjustments must determine that the exception is not
contrary to the best public interest and will not adversely affect the value or use of adjoining
property.
Special exceptions may be granted for the following items only:
1) The reconstruction of or addition to a building occupied by a non -conforming use.
Additions cannot extend past the lot occupied by the original structure or use. The
reconstruction or use cannot prevent the property from returning to a conforming use.
2) Deviation of yard requirements under the following circumstances.
a) Exceptions to front yard requirements if front yard setbacks are not met on abutting
pieces of property.
b) Exception to rear yard setbacks if any four (4) lots within a block do not meet
setback requirements.
c) Exceptions to yard requirements on corner lots.
d) Exceptions to front yard requirements if existing front yard setbacks on a block are
not uniform.
3) Waiving or reduction of off street parking and loading requirements if the Board feels
they are unnecessary for the proposed use of a building or piece of property.
Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a Special Exception will meet
the above conditions.
If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information,
please feel free to. attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board .
should consider.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
Our property survey (prepared in'February, 2003) did not show
any special yard setbacks for the property. Our house was'
designed to leave approximately si.x=foot (6') 'on -each side
side of the home.
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
Since East B Street is an "unused, undeveloped" right-of-way,
we are requesting the city's permission to build the home
six-foot-(6') off the.East B Street right-of-way instead of
the required ten -foot L10')side yard.
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUESTS:
The surveyor did not identify any -special setbacks: -_or building
lines and we designed our house plans accordingly. Also, the
house plans were provided to the City in May of 200.3'and the
city did not address the reauir•ed ten-foot.C10') issue when the
plans were reviewed. The problem was not discovered and brought
to our attention until the ground plumbing work for the home had
been done and the forms were in place.
Since East B Street is an -undeveloped right-of-way,'.there is no
vehicle traffic on the street. We are asking that the four -foot
W ) side setback issue not stop the construction of our home.
The home will be located six-foot (6') off of East B Street.
S:\CPShare\INSPECTION DIVISION\Standard FormAZONING SPECIAL REQUEST.doc REVISION 10/21/03 RYC
0
STAFF REPORT
Staff Report December 04, 2003
Special Exception Request #SE03-007
Rmuested by: Francisco & Mariana Rea, Property Owners
Requested for: Side yard requirement on a corner lot
Location: 238 So. Holmes Street
(Block 72; Lots 21, 22; Bayfront to La Porte)
Zo_ nwa: Low Density Residential (R 1)
Background: In February 2003, the applicants received a property survey that identified
the size of their property (50' X 125'). The property in question is shown on
the attached area map and is known as 238 South Holmes. (See Exhibit A).
In reviewing the survey, there was no mention of building lines and/or
required yard setbacks. At that time, the applicants proceeded with selecting
a home design and the development of construction plans. The proposed
house -plan provided to the City allowed a six-foot (6) setback for both side
yards. (See Exhibit B).
The owners provided the City with their construction plans and staff
reviewed the plans -for compliance with applicable codes and regulations.
Unfortunately, the staff member that reviewed the plan failed to note the
property was a comer lot and did not recognize the inadequate side setback
adjoining the public right-of-way. . In developing comer lots, zoning
regulations require a minimum ten -foot (10') setback on the side that adjoins.
a public right-of-way (East B Street). (See Exhibit Q.
In this case, the applicant's plans only provided a six-foot (6) setback in lieu
of the required ten -foot (10'). While "East B Street" is a public right-of-
way, it is "undeveloped" and currently- there are no plans to develop the
street for vehicular traffic. The Public Works Division has acknowledged
that the undeveloped rights -of -way in this area is being retained for drainage
purposes.
The applicants are requesting a four -foot (4) Special Exception to the side
yard requirement on a comer lot. Granting of this exception would allow a
six-foot (6) setback in lieu of the standard ten foot (10) requirement.
Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2003
#SE 03-007
Page 2 of 3
Analysis: The Code of . Ordinances defines a. special exception as a specified
enumerated deviation from zoning regulations. The Board is empowered to
grant a special exception when it, f nds the following:
❖ Granting the exception will not adversely affect the value, or use of
neighboring property.
❖ -Granting the exception will not be contrary to the best public interest.
The applicant's request is based on Section 106-191(b)(2)(c), which states
the following:
To deviate yard requirements in the following circumstances: a yard
exception on corner lots.
The applicant recognizes contributing factors played a role, in this situation.
The initial factor was the property survey's lack of reference regarding
building setback requirements and subsequently, the city's oversight during
the plan review stage. Since there are no plans for development of East B
Street and vehicular traffic, this would not be an issue. Allowing an
exception to the side set back would not create a visual obstacle for
motorists. Section 106-191(b)(2)(c) seems to provide the flexibility/relief .
needed to address the challenge being faced on this development
Conclusion: Based on the points noted in the report, the Board is charged with deciding
whether the applicant's request for a four -foot (4') comer lot yard exception
is "reasonable" -and that the granting of the special exception will not
adversely affect the value and use of adjacent or neighboring property, or be
contrary to the public's best interest.
Recommendation: Since Staffs responsibility is to enforce applicable city codes and
ordinances, we note that the applicant's proposal conflicts with zoning
regulations. However, we also recognize the uniqueness and intent - of the
ordinance is to address sight visibility for vehicular traffic. In this case, the
future use of the right-of-way in question is for "drainage" purposes rather
than vehicular traffic. It is Staff s opinion that the applicant's request meets
the criteria for a special exception and our recommendation would be to
approve the request. As part of its decision, the Board must consider issues
noted in this report.
•
Is
Board of Adjustment
December 4, 2003
#SE 03-007
Page 3 of 3
Appeals: Asper 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, specking 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
�11����i�'i
a _
'(
lip
� 1 '
(it'7
�lfe• 1 �' ( / �" m ti r � ' if i%r � \. ( �i, k
i� `C-�5:•'' P c, 4 4
y Pill,
.
Z Ft1pP �fljliVr't{�
1, i ♦ b , _. • ' � r ��' � Yf !'
r itr J
tl .ten 1 ,' �
� C hr 'n dltil• Jil11 F Grp
it
� �, � i � • ' s i r'j41+ � • � �. \ ! ;' 1 Illl�i
I+, • I � ' iIjHM ��i li i,�. � ^/-.'�'+'' Il+s�uliti' � lir �
rh���kal���,��
is �. t yli���l t ryj � j'✓j +i 'q �,
!
4 kkll
`'1���`y
Of14
' � � 1�'r I ah � � �� I� � �i •: , ;; �,
1,
1111,!t,t l;lpk i�i3,
�t{ i!. /iu�!� 1+ •.tr < � pi i� 1 f r�4 'li+ ti .' � � I'h .
All
� i%` �� �. ,��s ,�• ,1 ll,iin �y141'l✓»f"+�� Ils, f r �. ���tl, '
N"
' o• { �,n' ' '>+�," , � . "' I Ik , w'�1, fc i�1' QI' � �� "F�/ (�' • G-, �� �J � f:�
q. .: � �n�(lur I i� . r s Ili ' �' i•r � � �� `li'Iq�i� s ��/ 1 . �� \->` / ��� ' I'tlr.r
p0"yjtkx! �+1 r u ,Ita4Y' u t� { ar ! r
Osdl�; � �rW "nyn!,' ;lii' i �' `� � . 41,
01,
.41
+ �••� ',�, I .�� U
1f 1'. 1. • ' ..%�t ,f-.:, .
y
„� d•'"j4" Jib ,� �� ,! t,,�}� i{��! � ' ,t t , I r
f i� �1 `
f I .0e
EXHIBIT A
As r ,• I�� aN"' �/t � h.• t . 4 iyy' � 'Cr�"t! i , " � �� •
r
SOUTH HOLTr-S AVENUE
Found 1/2"
Iron Rod
O
LO
CITY copy N
Lot 23
w
LOT SIZE
% MAX LOT COVERAGE
BED COVERAGE
NING BUILDABLE AREA
�z
Found 1/2"
Iron Rod '
0 P 0
71 `00 E 5Q00
° ZS °4 i— 80 O
(PoctC.0 27?) \Found 1/2"
1 Iron Rod
22
Lot 21
)Ck 72
znt
Vacant
A.
N27150OW 50.00
•O
O•
LLJ
LLJ
I
F-
CO
O
OD
• ix
O
v
•O .
�
•t
Q
o q
N
L.L1 '
Found 1/2"
Iron Rod
20' Alley
i I :' ; '�4r I e• 1
SITE PLA1�1 ;; j :' N.
t MAY 9 2003 I11.
BUYER Francisco Rea and South Holmes Avenue
Mariana Rea
DESCRIBED PROPERTY
Lot 21 and 22, in Block 72 of BAYFWW AMI77M, a sutdivisian
in Harris County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in
Volume 1, Page 53 of the Map Records of Harris County, Texas.
WESTAR LAND rdoMa.DYprtl(YtliilhbarvaywaslhbdaymWeon�pamddlhapopaAy
SURVEYORS, INC. 1"* 4saQroadbwawe lorcn"raeesolyddiss ".andlsaanaoCe rwe aW
w a�cewiwasuraanaewwre andwadana nuarwdw
(Sof TF� oordorrroeswaroaawftcurrwaNe�saadophdbyftTi Bowdof
P. O. BOX 889 • ALVIN, TX T7512-0889 DAP.: ��5 r�R 4 Fmhniorrr Wa aq
(281) 388.1159 • (888 339-1159 •.S
Q � O:
235 03-10 0 4 .� Hae Tbwwnonnude,.r,.o.mu,,.aa�.p
G.F. � -.......................................
STEVEN 14. STAffdRD Noes:TNspnpwrydourMkhall Wt*zrdwft bKU.DJF.LA.
Date: 2-20-03pmpwjy
485487 0945 J
;0 4901 R
Inv* 13532 <9�O SU��yOQ'
• JOB#
Xh
IB 1' $—
I
•
EXHIBIT °G"
ARTICLE III. DISTRICTS
j DIVISION 2. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Subdivision 1. Generally
Sec. 106-333. Table B, residential area requirements.
(a) Table B, residential area requirements.
Maximum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Lot
Coverage /
Lot
Lot
Yard
Site
Development
Minimum
Uses
Area / D. U.
Width
Setbacks
Maximum
Area / Unit
Open Space /
Landscaping
8
S.F.
L.F.
L.F.
Height
S.F.
Unit S.F.
Required
2, 3, <, S. 8, 10
ii'127:f3;171:13
:18
17
18
Single-family detached
6000
50
25-15-5
35 Ft.
9100
—
40%/N/A
4.8
Single-family large lot
43560
100
25-15-5
45 Ft.
DU/A
--
30%/N/A 0
4356
1.0
Single-family special lot,
line, 0 lot line
4500
4b
20-10-0
35 Ft.
DU/A
Footnote
60%/N/A
7300
# 1
6.0
Duplexes
6000
60
22Q20
45 Ft.
DU/A
Footnote
60%/N/A
8.0
# 1
Single-family converted
to multi family
6000
50
20-10-5
35 Ft.
DU/A
N/A
50%/N/A
N/A
Townhouses,
quadraplexes (10,000 s.f
2000
20
25;=2Q'=20
45 Ft.
4400
Footnote
75%/2.-M
of site area 100 ft. wide)I
DU/A
# 1
10.0
Multi=family
20000
100
25-20-20
45 Ft.
1600
289
60%/25%0
'4
Footnote
# 1
Manufactured housing
4500
40
20-10-5
25 Ft.
7300
Footnote
60%/6%
6.0
# 1
DU/A
Manufactured housing
subdivision
100 of front
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A/N/A
or parks (5
road frontage
acre min.)
Group care facilities (less
25-20-10
25 Ft.
N/A
N/A
N/A/6%
than 6) and day care
homes
Public or private educa-
tional and religious insti-
30-20-10
45 Ft.
N/A
N/A
N/A/6%
tutions, large group care,
facilities, daycare cen-
ters, recreational build-
� gs, boarding, and nur-
sing homes
Freestanding on -prem-
ises signs
See article VII of this chapter
EXHIBIT C
� s
Table B footnotes.
1.
Lot Size
Required Developed 5000 — 6000 Sq. Ft. Open Space / Lot200 Sq. Ft. �
4000 — 4999 Sq. Ft. 00 Sq. Ft.
3000 — 3999 Sq. Ft. 300 Sq. Ft.
2000 — 2999 Sq. Ft. 400 Sq. Ft.
a. Minimum size of developed open space:
i For multi -family ;�eside1.ntiaG.; deveaopmenfs Mmjmum of .25% of the .,Eotal development regardless of size of
development.
(ii) For townhouse/quadraplex developments: One-half acre for every 80 units or fraction thereof.
b. All required developed open spaces must be operated and maintained by a homeowners association, subject to the
conditions established in sections 106-676 through 106-679, with all documentation required to be submitted for filing in
conjunction with the final plat. (See also the city development ordinance number 1444, section 4.04 which is on file in the city
secretary's office.)
2. A minimum landscape setback of 20 feet will be required adjacent to all conservation areas. Buildings, parking areas, and
refuse containers will not be allowed in such setback area. These areas are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and
groundcover, with a planting plan required to be submitted and approved by the enforcement officer.
3. The minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement located in a rear yard, shall be three feet. No portion of any building
including projections of any nature shall encroach into any utility easement or vertical projection of the easement boundary.
4. Where adjacent structures within the same block have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard
minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one adjacent structure, the front yard
minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of only one adjacent structure. In no case shall
the minimum front yard setback exceed 30 feet.
All side yards adjacent to public R.O.W.'s must be ten feet.
6. In the case of zero lot line housing, the side setback opposite the zero lot line must be ten feet.
7. D.U.A. is an abbreviation for dwelling units per acre, or the maximum density permitted.
8. All structures except slab on grade, shall be placed on a foundation system described as: An assembly of materials
constructed below or partially below grade, not intended to be removed from its installation site, which is designed to support
the structure and engineered to resist the imposition of external forces as defined by the Standard Building Code, or in the
case of industrialized housing, the requirements of the TDLS. Such foundation system shall be skirted or enclosed with wood
or masonry to give the appearance of a solid foundation, if one is not provided, compatible with the appearance of adjacent
housing, and subject to the requirements of the Southern Building Code.
9. See article V, division 4 of this chapter for additional requirements.
10. No sign shall be located in a sight triangle so as to obstruct traffic visibility at a level between three feet and six feet as
measured above adjacent road grade
the case of multi family `Id..
dev.:elopments with 50 or more units said;complexes':must be located, af:;least.,:i:000, feet from other multi fanlity residential developments of 20 or more units
12' Within the 'buildmg; setback there must lie aten-foot opaque screen consisting of shrubs and:.fencmg. (See:Sec 1:0.6
._
for creenmg and fencing regwrements) _ -
13 Residential' deve1.lopments:4that are townhouses, quad�uplexes; or multi family';
dwelling units; must have a;mmimumaof 25%0
landscaping
14 Multi family residential developments adlacent:.to single family residential developments must establisha 25 foot buffer
between th,e two developments This buffer is rn addition to the`setback as established -by this table:
or he case: of multi family; residential developments no off street parking shall be placed within the'regwred5 #eesetback 5 de within the required additional: 25 foot buffer.; when the development is 'situated .,adjacent..to a' single-family "residential
elopment Th,e space needed to. meet the_regulred park.mg.„spaces shalf•be.exclusve:'of the ;required. setback -'and the
add itional.buffer.
16 In the case of multi family residenhal developments being adjacent to single-famil residential developments the,,bwldmgs
within the multi family residential `developments that are directly adjacent to the'smg e-family residential. development shall
hmited._to 2 stories m. height _Bwldrngsbe
withln the, inteno,of,.the ;multi family;.residential developments may be,. 3-stories',in
height
17 'Multi family residential developments cannot exceed 180 dwelling units.
18 .,.See Section 106-334(I)(3) foropen space. utilization criteria.