HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-2004 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment• •
MINUTE S
• •
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
Members Present: Sidney Grant, Charles Schoppe, George Maltsberger, Bob Capen, Alternate No. 1
Barbara Norwine, and Alternate No. 2 Bernard Legrand
Members Absent: Rod Rothermel
City Staff Present: Interim Planning Director Wayne Sabo, Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins, and
Planning Secretary Peggy Lee
Note: Barbara Norwine (Alt. A) was a voting member for this meeting (in the absence of Rod Rothermel).
Bernard Legrand (Alt: B) was not a voting member for this meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairperson Sidney Grant called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
2. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 2004, MEETING.
Minutes of the meeting were approved as presented.
3. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST #V04-009, REQUESTED FOR PROPOSED HOTEUMOTEL
TO BE LOCATED AT 401 WEST G STREET. THE APPLICANT SEEKS A VARIANCE TO
EXCEED THE CITY'S STANDARD REQUIREMENT FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 45 FEET PER
SECTION 10643, TABLE B, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS VARIANCE IS BEING
SOUGHT UNDER THE TERM$ OF SECTION 106-192B(2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
THE CITY OF LA PORTE. (THIS ITEM IS BEING RECONSIDERED AT THE REQUEST OF THE
CHAIRMAN).
Chairperson Grant requested this item be reconsidered. He explained that at the August 26, 2004,
meeting, the motion to approve this Variance failed because three members voted in favor of
granting the Variance and one against. He explained that since the motion was to grant the
Variance, then the Variance was not denied, but rather failed, lacking the vote of all four members
present. Board Members discussed the merits of reconsidering the Variance.
Motion by Charles. Schoppe to reconsider Variance Request #V04-009 for a proposed hoteUmotel to
be located at 401 West G Street. Second by Bob Capen. The motion carried.
Ayes: Schoppe, Capen, Maltsberger and Grant
Nays: Norwine
Abstain:
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Interim Planning Director Wayne Sabo presented Staffs Report. The request for a Variance
was first considered at the August. 26, 2004, Board of Adjustment meeting. The applicant,
Dimple Patel, requested a variance to build a hotel located at SH 146 and "G", which
exceeds the City's 45' maximum height limit. Built as proposed; the peak of the roof
exceeds maximum height requirements by approximately six feet. The irregular shape of the
land is the basis for Mr. Patel's request.
.+ '' • •
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of September 23, 2004
Page 2
Mr. Sabo noted that the size and visibility of the proposed hotel was an issue at the previous
meeting. The Board had requested and was provided line-0f--sight diagrams relating to
traffic on Highway 146 and ,the Best Western Motel in relation to the site of the proposed
hotel. Mr. Sabo noted that the proposed hotel, being set back from Highway 146, is at a
disadvantage.
Mr. Sabo stated there was concerns voiced at the last meeting from other motel/hotel
owners in La Porte, that the 60% occupancy rates could not support another motel, however,
the applicant's market study indicates the hotel would be a viable option.
Mr. Sabo answered questions from the Board. Mr. Legrand commented a financial issue
should not be the primary consideration. He questioned how the 45' requirement came to
be. Mr. Legrand did not want any action taken and suggested the height matter be returned
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. Ms. Norwine commented that the
ordinance should be changed to allow all businesses the same opportunities.
In response to Mr. Legrand's question about why the maximum height requirement is 45',
Mr. Sabo stated the height issue was discussed at the previous Planning 8~ Zoning
Commission meeting with regard to fire fighting capabilities and line-of-sight. It was
mentioned that some in-fill developments could create circumstances requiring
exceptions/variances.
Assistant Fire Chief John Dunham answered questions from the Board. Mr. Dunham stated
the City possesses a 100' aerial tower capable of reaching the 7~' floor of a building. He
noted that the key for protecting high-rise buildings is built-in fire protection, conforming to
the codes and ordinances. Mr. Dunham confirmed the City's capability for fighting a fire on
the 4'h floor of the proposed hotel.
B. PROPONENTS
Chairperson Grant swore in Bobby Grisham, co-owner of Grisham-Toler Properties in Deer
Park. Mr. Grisham feels the highest and best use for the property is a hotel and it needs to
be four stories in order to be feasible.
Chairperson Grant swore in Ronald Hams, of 7118 Red Coral Dr., Pasadena. Mr. Hams is a
commercial lender for South Trust Bank located at SH 146 and Fairmont. Mr. Hams spoke
of his experience as a commercial. lender and with his business relationship with the
applicant. Mr. Harris responded to questions from Mr. Legrand.
Chairperson Grant swore in Rahul Desai, 7618 Betty Jane, Houston. ~Mr. and Mrs. Desai
developed the Best Western in La Porte in 1995 and eventually two more properties in Deer
Park. He purchased the land for the proposed hotel in 1999. Since 1999, the type of
development envisioned for this property is no longer feasible for the amount of land and the
adjacent land is not available for sale.
C. OPPONENTS
There were none.
Public input ended at 6:50 P.M.
Ms. Norwine stated that at the last meeting she might have given the impression that she was
opposed to the development. She clarified that she would like to see the hotel built, but does not feel
there is a hardship requiring a variance. She feels this is an ordinance issue that should be
addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
' + • •
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of September 23, 2004
Page 3
Mr. Grant stated that if certain criteria are met, the Board can grant variances. The Board should
make decisions that are good for the City as well as the landowners. Mr. Grant's main concern was
addressed with confirmation of the City's firefighting capabilities.
Mr. Legrand stated the matter should be tabled until the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council have an opportunity to take the height issue under consideration.
Mr. Maltsberger felt the Board should come to a decision on the variance.
Motion by Bob Capen to approve Variance #V04-009 to exceed the City's standard 45' maximum
height requirement for a proposed hotel/motel to be located at 401 West G Street. Second by
Charles Schoppe. The motion carried.
Ayes: Capen, Schoppe, Maltsberger, and Grant
Nays: Norwine
Abstain:
4. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE04-009, REQUESTED FOR A PROPOSED
HOTELIMOTEL TO BE LOCATED: AT 401 WEST G STREET. THE APPLICANT SEEKS A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF PARKING SPACE AND MANEUVERING
LANE FOR PROPOSED HOTEL AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 106-835 (a) 8 (c) OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES. THIS EXCEPTION IS BEING SOUGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF
SECTION 106-191 B(3) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE.
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Sabo presented Staffs Report on a special exception request to reduce the size of
parking space and maneuvering lane for off-street parking for a proposed hotel/motel at 401
West G Street.
B. PROPONENTS
There were none.
C. OPPONENTS
There were none.
Motion by Bob Capen to approve Special Exception #SE04-009 to reduce the size of parking space
and maneuvering lane for property located at 401 West G Street for a proposed hoteVmotel. Second
by Charles Schoppe. The motion carried.
Ayes: Capen, Schoppe, Maltsberger, Norwine, and Grant
Nays:
Abstain:
5. STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Sabo reported the following would be brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
review:
^ Maximum height requirements
^ Allowable locations for truck stops
^ Maximum 40% lot coverage
Zonin Board of Adjustment ~ •
9 1
Minutes of September 23, 2004
Page 4
Ms. Norwine addressed the Board. She felt her vote last month did not count and this was a do-over
until a better vote was made. She believes the vote last month should have stood. Ms. Norwine
announced her resignation from the Board and thanked them.
Board Members and Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins discussed rules on quorums and
reconsidering motions, as provided for by the local government code and Robert's Rules of Order.
Mr. Grant suggested staff and the legal department organize an education class for the Board. Mr.
Sabo will coordinate the training.
6. ADJOURN
Chairperson Grant adjourned the meeting at 7:22 P.M.
S miffed by,
eg
Planning Secretary
Approved on this ~ day of , 2004.
Sidney Gran
Chairperson oning Board of Adjustment
•
C7
OATH OF OFFICE
~ ~
G~+
OATH OF OFFICE ~~''
I, Gi 1 beet Montemavor ; do solemnly sweaz (or affirm), that
I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of Toni n9 Board of
Arljus _mPnt~ .AltPrnatP ? , of the Ciry of La Porte,
State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect
and defend the constitution and laws of the United States and of this
State and the Charter and ordinances of this City; and I furthermore
solemnly sweaz (or affirm) that I have not directly or~indirectly paid,
offered, or promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing, or
promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my
appointment.or the confirmation thereof. So help me God,
}~ _
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
~unnmm~mrluilinm4nnnnlrnnuuuw~
,,~Y `~~, PEGGY LEE
= *~ o* NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF TEXAS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
''',,, ~, t.+~ SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
tiunimm~numnummmuinnuuuumif
day of
Notary and for the
State of Texas
-'
• •
iir.i
.~'
.~
s~
V
~~
0
-~
•
^~
0
:~
~- o
V
o
. ~
~~
O
~ ~ a
~ ~ w
v
~ L
i. ` n
• ~ r
~ ~
r
0
>~
C Y
3 .o 0
e 07
~~ ~
= V C
o~ ~ ...
O V
~`~'m
~~ a
m ~
G
~~
~~o
~$-
_~
~~
~~m
.~
~~
0
~~~~
=~
~~
as
~s~
~`o
o~
J m~
a a
m
~~
~ C
L
O C.
e~
'~ I
9 ,
i ~
u
W
N ~ ~
4
~
`N .:..
°
~p
VL
i a
Q
C~
0
(~
~/
O
A
O
{~(~r
~• 1
m
Q
m
.~
~.
m
m
m
0
~-
. Z
a
0
.a
<y
u
Z
e
'% `
WTHOF OPFlCe ~~
I, Lawrence McNeal , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that
I will faithfiilly execute the duties of the office of 7nni n9 go_f
Adi~stment, Alternate 1 , of the City of l:,a.Porte,
State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability. preserve, protect
and defend the constitution and laws of the -United States and of this
State and the .Charter. and ordinances of this City; and I furthermore
solemnly swear (or affirm] that I have not directly or:.indirectly paid,
offered, or promised to contribute any money, or valuable thing; or
promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my
appointment or the confirmation thereof. So help me God.
`..`_~k~.k,..l
and subsc~bed befo ~e me this the J day of
~nunnnunnnunnnttttitttnnunnnnnt~
~~• °~~ - PEGGY LEE =_
i~~ c# NOTARY PUBLIC' STATE OFTEXAS= NO ~ d or the
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES =State of Texas
~~>~ ,,,.~'~ SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
iinttnnnnnnnnttntttttttttttttnunnnniii - .
•
•
.~
~~
.o
'!~
•~-i
~~ O
~ ~
Q
~~ ~
~~~-^
v1
o ~~
.m
7- •
O
~ V
~~
.C '~ ~
~~~ ~ ~~
~ i
v
•-~
'. ~ .. L
~o
`o m R
gas
3 '° L
e a7 ~
~~ v
~ ~..
v
~ `~
m
,~ a
_~~
~~
L b
QO O
N ..
...
a ~~
~, - m
~m
..
~~
a
~~
w `c
~ :~
~d
d`o
L ~~
.. a
`off
~~
a a
Q
4 C
L
O Q
~~
~ ~ ~
S 3 l~
. - ~ ~
v
~p
v
s
m
°o
~I
O
Q
X11
m
~_
Q ~.
.~
m
m
'O
c
0
~-
. Z
a
~.
.~ E
0
.~
~~
v ~
`~ ~~
~a
0
~ z
.~ ~
y
V
_a
i
t
• ~
#V04-010
VARIANCE
FOR
1700 ROSCOE STREET
.ALLOW ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE
EXHIBITS:
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT A -AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B -SURVEY PLAN
EXHIBIT C -SECT. 106-741 (a) c, OF THE CITY' S
CODE OF ORDINANCES
EXHIBIT D -PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
'' ._.;~. ~ ITY OF LA PORTE
ZON~IIQG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE REQUEST
Application No.: -
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 ~ Date Received: ~[,j.-~~~
Receipt No.: I f '`.~_
Note: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision .
Applicant: ~C~ ~ f~lM ~C7WC"'~_
Name
Address ~ Phone
I am the owner of the herein clescribed property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner*:
Name
Address
Phone
I am requcsting a variance to Sect. ~ ' of the City Zoning regulations Chapter~106 of the
Code of Ordinance.,
I am requesting this variance for property located at ~ 7 DU ~.0~ ~ G
.Street Address
t.Z.3 ~t,aeYa
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 Owrier's behalf.
. 3 d~ ~ ~ m~
ate Applicant's Signature
Office Use Only
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes (). No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments:
Meeting Date:
Applicant Notified of Date:
Notice to~urrounding property owners- Date: ~ .
Board's Decision: Approved (~) Denied ( )
Notice ~of Boards Decision walled to Applicant/Owner:
• •
Type of Relief Being Sought
Grant variance to allow the construction of a 10' x 28' addition on the SW side of
existing 25' x 28' gazage with single caz garage door facing directly onto Roscoe. (See
building plan isometric)1
Grounds for Request
(1) Public safety can be addressed by other measures since road is not a significant
thoroughfare and is severely speed limited due ~to length and narrowness.
(2) Preserve back yard green space in chazacter with house of this vintage
(3) Relieve houses limited storage space.
Facts Relevant to Matter
(1) Low use/speed road m~.n~*ni~-es risk to public from backing out into street.
Alternative safety protection can be used to compensate if deemed necessary (i:e.;
mirrors; gazage side windows, warning lights)
(2) Waterfront lot and orientation result in unique situation not considered in narrow,
. strict ordinance requirements
(3) Narrow lot and comer location offers no acceptable alternative driveway location.
City proposal to relocate garage doors to SW side of structure would eliminate
back yazd green space. However, no acceptable driveway plan has been
identified to service this. scenario. (see Figure 1)
(4) Significant house storage limitations.
(I) The Variance must not be contrary to the public interest
LaPorte's waterfront properties are unique in that the "back'yazd" faces the street.
Originally platted in the 19~' century, the Roscoe house. sits on 2 of 3, 25' narrow lots,
Hence side yards are minimal resulting in the garages being located in the "back yazd".
Typically the garages were built close to the street to maximize green space. The streets
themselves are narrow and only a~ few blocks long due to the numerous bayous feeding
into the bay. Hence the practical speed rate is limited to ~10 mph..Vehicles are typically
locals and a few weekend sightseers.. With low speeds and minimal traffic; backing into
the street is a low risk to public safety in the base case. However, additional layers of
protection can be used,` if desired, including mirrors;`gazage side windows, and industrial
warning lights.
' Existing garage contains Utility mom, bathroom and yard tool storage room on southeast side.
• •
While safety should be a pazamount public interest, preserving historical chazacter should
also be ~an important consideration. In order to conform to current code, the 1700 Roscoe
garage door would need to be relocated to the adjacent SW side, resulting in the balance _ _
of the back yazd being paved over as a driveway.2 The back yazd green space would be
eliminated and the houses historical chazacter seriously altered. ~ .-
(2) Literal ordinance enforcement must result in a hardship
1700 Roscoe was built over 100 yeazs ago: Houses of that period did not have
significant storage spaces since material possessions was significantly below today's
standards. The Roscoe house has 2300 ft2, but only 5 sma112'x3' closets. The attic
joists are only 4", limiting their storage load potential and accessibility (especially if 12"
blown insulation is installed). Hence it is proposed to extend the southwest side of.the
garage out 10 feet to ease the storage issue. In order to conform to city ordinance,
relocating the garage door to the adjacent wall would result in a less eiTicient garage .
layout which can only be addressed by enlarging the gazage an additional 5 to 10 feet.
(3) ~ Granting variance does not violate~spirit of the ordinances
The spirit of the ordinance is~assumed to be public safety. As mentioned previously; .
Roscoe Streets limited speeds and use minimize public risk. To compensate, additional
safety protective layers can be designed into the structure to compensate if deemed
necessary. From a historical perspective, the gazage plans called for a cupola and
sheathing in #117 treated wood siding, matching the house.
(4) Granting a variance that allows. use prohibited within use zone.
Not a concern since the gauge extension is intended for use as a residential gazage and
not for business interest:
v~
1~~3~JH
? ~ In order not to violate the " 25 ft from .comer ordinance", this scenario requires the driveway to exit ~ .
onto Holmes in a narrow slit.between a utility pole and.a large oak tree on the easement.
~ •
~`
/~O~
1.~- ~
~~
Staff. Report
November 23, 2004
Variance Request #V04-010
Requested bv:
Requested for:
Location:
Zoning
Ted & Kim Powell, Property Owners
Addition and/or Enlargement of a residential garage along the street
1700 Roscoe Street
(Block 27; Lots 1,2 & 3, Bay Front Addition, Town of La Porte)
Low Density Residential (R-1)
Baclgrround: The applicant is requesting additional garage area of (10'x 28') with single car garage
door 8' wide by enlarging an, existing garage (25'x 28'). The property is an existing
residential home site located in the old part of town by the Galveston Bay. (See Exhibit)
The existing car garage with 16' wide door is facing directly onto Roscoe Street.
This properly is among the waterfront properties. La Porte's waterfront properties are
unique in the sense that most of the rear yards face the street. The old town of La Porte
was platted as 25'x125' lots in the 19~' century. The properly in question consists of three
of the same sized lots. The house sits on 2 of 3 narrow lots with minimal side yards
resulting in the garage being located in the rear yard. Typically, the garages were built
close to the street to maximize green spaces. In addition,. the streets are narrow and few
blocks long due to the numerous bayous out falling into the Bay.
The property is a corner lot, the issue deals with pre-existing, nonconforming structures.
The survey identifies that the house is located just six (6) feet off the public right-of--way
in lieu of the required ten-foot side yard along Holmes Street. The existing garage
directly faces .Roscoe Street is only 2'-5" off the public right-of--way in lieu of the
required ten-foot (10') 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".
The applicant proposes to add a 10'x 28' garage addition to the southwest corner of the
detached garage. As proposed, the addition would be located at least 2' off the rear
property line along Roscoe Street and 25' off the Holmes Street right-of--way (minimum
setback is 10'). In addition, an accessory building or carport, garage for single-family
dwelling shall occupy not more than 25 percent of a rear yard nor exceed 1,000 square
feet of floor area. The applicant's proposal results. in 980 square feet of garage floor area.
Staff recognizes that the enlargement of the structure would result in an increase to the
degree of nonconformity. .
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment
November 23, 2004
#V 04-010
Page 2 of 3
•
Ana sis: 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 Boazd is chazged with deterniining if the applicant's vaziance 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 deternuned that granting the variance would still
observe the spirit of the law. The spirit of the ordinance is assumed to be public safety. If
one considers the spirit of the law is to ensure uniformity and property maintenance
throughout the City, Stars notes that there aze already some property irregularities in the
area. Therefore, it does not appear that the applicant's request will create a negative
impact to the property or the surrounding area.
While safety should be paramount public interest, preserving historical character should
also be considered. In order to conform to the current regulations, the garage door would
need to be relocated to adjacent southwest side, resulting in the balance of the reaz yazd
being paved over as a driveway and loss of green space as well.
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment
November 23, 2004
#V 04-010
Page 3 of 3
•
Conclusion: While the applicant's variance request does not appeaz to be contrary to the general
public and appears to meet the spirit of the ordinance, the Boazd must determine whether
a situation unique to that property has been established in order to grant the applicant's
request.
Appeal3: Asper Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte:
Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by arty 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 ver~ec~ 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 a, fter the filing of the decision in the o~`ice of the
-. Board ofAdjustment.
`*~ '*' ''n I'KUI'tK I Y !N (1Ut51 lU1V ~ ~ '~' "~
Y J ~~ i
~ ~.F ~
'
tr
~- rf' ~ $+'~~ ~
~:
` ~ w
~
~
fir ~ .. ~ i ~
~ F
A r~A~ ~ ~ b+~~':L Y -~
.
...
r
~ ~ '~
~t i,. p a~ ` Y ~ ~ K, -
~ ~ '' ,:
nn
~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~
VARIANCE RE(~VEST # : -~.~ , 4
V-04-010 :. ~~~~~~
r ~:~ w.
1700 ROSCOE ST. ~'.
~.
~-l1~~°I' 1-~
• s9-2004 14:23 GUARD T[TLE . r•G~
I
ROSCOE .STREET
(putrEO As: ROSCOE AVENUE)
N 25roo~oo•E ~l.oo~ ~
.. ~ ~~.~.
5 ~ . ~. a'
_ N
~ '~f
~
•~~
. o
~ ~.r d,•
~,~~
.
~.
. f
^f ,~
,
~
~
; .
°~
.
~~. ~
~Y ~
~
$ 2~
C ~
F,
~
h
i.i'
LO' . .
f ].0'
_ ~ ~ I ~ LOT 4
~r T 1 .)
~ ~ LOT 2 I ~~ L0 3 ..
. f I~
. :~ ~I~
•
. ~ ~~ ~ ~
.
.. .
... ~ ~.
~6'00'OO~If 71.00
..
a ~
.. -:~
. f .
NOTES:
i.). SUBJECT .TO APPLICABLE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS LISTED IN
ITEM Na 1, SCHEDULE "B" OP
TITLE ~COAAMITYIENT.155UED 8Y VANGUARD YtTLE CO, UNDER G,F; N0, . T><-04001039.
~2)"SUBJECT: to THE ~20NING ORDINANCES IN THE CITY OF LA PORTS, TEXAS.
- A85TRACTINC 8Y TITIE~ COMPANY.
- All BEAAINCS SNOwN ARE REcERENCEO PER RECORDED PuT OF SAID SU801H~ON.
-~- - ~ -~ LOTS t, ~ Z` ac 3, BLOgc ~7.
~~~ BAY FRONT ADDITION ~TO
,~,~~
ecu~ r~oa
. N. I`.
t~ .°_.F~. T~-
• •
$ 106-741 LA PORTS CODE ~~
DIVISION 2 ACCESSORY BUII.DINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT
Sec. 106-74I. General provisions.
.(a) No accessory buildings, uses ur structures shaIl be erected or located is nay 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 firm side lot lines; and
c. The side yard does not abut a street right of-way.
(2) Accessory buildings buflt on a skid foundation, no larger than 120 square feet and no
more than one story is height may be located in ut~ity easements is required rear
yards, except that thep.may not be located closer than three feet fi~om a side or rear
P~P~Y line or closer than sin 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 siz feet or more fronn nay other building or
structure oa the same Iot, 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 polity and standards, shall be 20 feet ar 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-wap
(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 thaw 25 percent of a rear yard, naac ezceed 1,000 square feet of floor area.
(2) Large loe residential 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 firom nay property line and
30 feet behind the rear of the primary structure.
(fl 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
~'~:~
• •
A Meeting of the La Porte
Zonia~ Board of ~diustment
(Type of Meetiag)
•
#V04-011
VARIANCE
FOR
•
519 NORTH BROADWAY
ENCROACHMENT INTO BUILDING SETBACKS
EXHIBITS:
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT A -AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B -SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT C -AREA PHOTOS
EXHIBIT D -SECT. 106-443, TABLE B, OF THE CITY' S
CODE OF ORDINANCES
• .
• CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
• ~ VARIANCE REQUEST -~ ~ -
- ~ ~ - Application No: 04-1
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00. Date Received: 11-5-04
• Receipt No: ! a O~s9
- Note: This Fee isNon-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision . ' ~ ~~ ~~ Y'~~
.- NOU 4 ~ 2004
- Applicant: William A: Benson. Jr. ~ ••
• Name - ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~C~~.
- - 1203 Shadowbend - Pentland. TX 77581 ~ (281~~932-7836
- Address ~ - - Phone
. I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
To act on my behalf in this matter. -
Owner: ~ Millennium Industrial Services. Inc. .
• - Name
(281) 831-7832
Address - ~ ~ ~ ~ Phone
I am requesting a variance to Sect. ~ of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the
Code of Ordinance.. ~ •
I am requesting this variance for property located at 519 North Broadway -
- . ~ ~ Street Address
Lots 17L18,19,20,21,22.23 and South'/Z of Lot 24. Block 108 La~ Porte. ~TX
( Site Plan ~ ~ ~ ()Minor Developmerrt Site Plan
~( )Major Developniem Site Plan ~ ~ (- )General Plan
A Site Plan for 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. .
11~-OS-04 - -
Date -
- Office Use Only
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable)~attached? ~ Yes (~) No (~ )
Date transmitted to the Board ofAdjustments: - -
Meeting Dare:
Applicant Notified of Date:
Notice to surrounding property owners-Date:
Board's Decision: - Approved () Denied ( )
Notice of Board's Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: BOTH
• •
. ~ The requested -variance, is for an 18 foot encroachment. into the front
building. setback line, (As .the - facade of the building, is 2 feet from the front
property line.) =AND - a variance for the Rear Building. setback as the structure
encroaches into the rear building setback line by 9 feet. (The rear of the building is
11 feet from the property line.) - ~ ~ ~ .
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
Variance to the following code: ~ ~ .
1. Variance of 18 feet, for.the encroachment of the facade of an existing structure
into the Front Building setback,
. ~~ ~ 2. Variance of 9. feet, for the encroachment of the rear of an existing structure into
the Rear Building setback:
. - THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST ..
- ~ This. property .is being brought ~ forward for Board action; based on the (3 )
conditions outlined in this ZBA ,application request form; necessary for approval:
.Condition 1. ~ Improvements thax-may occur to this property, as a result of
. ~ ~ this variance ~ request, may ~ lead..to the overall ~ economic
.enhancement for the general area this property occupies. This .
.. ~ property holds the: potential ° to ~ transition ,from its existing
' ~ ~ ~ ~sent state, to one that may be abl~capture a "higher and
best use." In general, ~ new improvements that positively
impact the image of a property, hold the potential to be in the
. ~ public's best interest.
Condition 2. This property presents a ~ unique. and literal enforcement ~ ~ .
. ~ ~ ~ ~ lardshi~ upon the City Staff when ~ applying the current Code '
of Ordinances: The structure is ~ an existing pre-engineered
metal ~ building ~ of approximately 8,000 sf. with fxont & rear .
.encroachment issues under the current code guidelines. ~ The .
structure; as-built, is laiown to be rion-conforming. Action on .
.this variance request, seeks to provide direction to City Staff
.~ ~ concerning enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance in this .~
' . ~ ~ matter. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .
. .~ Condition 3. The spirit of the zoning ordinance provides for the ~ general
safety and overall welfare for the citizens of L,a Porte.:. ° .. . .
Revitalization of pre-existing structures presents opportunities .:
for the newest life-safety guidelines to be implemented ~ in the° , .
re~oristruction process. Befoie .the City Staff can proceed with ~ . ~: ~ ~.
~. ~ ~ . .. theproperty owner through this revitalization ~ effort, Board .
.. ~. action, iri accordance with the spirit and due process outlined ~~
by the Code: will need ~to occur to resolve this specific
' ~ ~ ~ enforcement matter..
A Variance is ation from the literal rovisions of the Ordinance." The -
P ~g
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. Properly 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. -• -
. - •hTo variance that allows a use fihat 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 if is the Applicant's responsibility to prove drat a variance will meet the
above conditions. - .
. - If there is not adequate room an the remainder of this form to list all pertinent ~ , ~ -
_ - ' information,please feel•free to attach~an'additional letter or anyinform~tion and exhibits you feel .' .
. the Board should consider. ~ .
.FACTS-RELEVtl,NT ~O THIS 1MATTER: ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ -. .
In its present condition, the property has pro-existing~ conditions, that. are . . ~ ~_
rion-conforming to The City's ~ Zoning ~ Ordinance. These `conditions present ° ~ ~ .
' , enforcement challenges. Specifically; the existing structure. encroaches into the ~ . ~ - ~~
- ~ - ~~. Front Building setback. line (Broadway) as well ~as the Rear Building setback line; ~. ,~ ~ ~°
. . ~ (Alley RO.W:): 'The Zoning. Ordinance,. for a commercially zoned structure that.
- ~ 'abuts a residentially zoned property is found in: (Code BELO
' . ~ ~ Summary ~ ~ •
- -. ~ 20'` Front Building set-back ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~~
20' 'Rear Building set-back. ~ ~ ~ . ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
. - ~ 10' Side Building set-back _ ~ ~ ~ - • ~ . ~.
•
•
Staff Report _ November 23, 2004
Variance Request #V04-011
Requested bv: Mr. William A. Benson Jr.
Requested for: Waiver from the City's front building setback requirements
Location: 519 N. Broadway Block 108, and lots 17 thru 23 & S. 15 ft. of lot 24
J. Hunter Survey, Abstract - 35, La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
Zoning: General Commercial (G.C.)
Background: The property in question was built originally in 1967 per the HCAD record.
Total area of the site is 23750 sq.ft. (0.55 ac.) with 125' along West Madison
Street and 190' along N. Broadway. The structure is an existing pre-
engineered metal building ~of approximately 8,000 s.f. with encroachment
issues under the current Code of Ordinances. The structure, as built, is
described as "pre-existing, non-conforming, and is in violation of the Section
106-262(h) of the Ordinances. To our knowledge, the non-conformities have
been abandoned for over 180 days. T'he Zoning Ordinances state that
abandoned non-conforming structures and uses revert to present. zoning
regulations and must be modified to comply with the current regulations in
the General Commercial district.
On December 6, 2001, staff received a site plan for the development. On
December 21, 2001, staff mailed and faxed written comments to the
developer about items that needed to be addressed. A major issue involved
building setback in that the non-conforming structure, adjacent to North
Broadway, encroaches into the 20' front building setback. In addition,
existing fence encroaches into the landscape portion and front yard setback.
Fences can only be placed at the property line on the sides and rear. (See
pictures showing structure and fence at site.)
Section 106-443 Table B -Commercial area. requirements stipulate
minimum setbacks of 20' on the front, 10' on the rear, and 0' on the sides.
Total lot coverage cannot exceed 40% maximum in GC district. Therefore,
staff applied the same standards for the said protect.
Using the City's setback standards, the submitted site plan does not meet the
requirements. Staff offered the following options to the applicant:
• Using N. Broadway as the dedicated front setback means building
encroachment of 17-1$' & front yard fence encroachment as well. Staff
suggested to utilize Madison as front setback in an effort to reduce the
amount of non-conformities/encroachments; or
• •
Board of Adjustment
November 23, 2004
#V 04-011
Page 2
• Submit a variance request to the Zoning Boazd of Adjustment seeking
relief from :the building setback.
Citing Section 106-192 B (2) b, the applicant is seeking a variance from the
required front yazd setback of 20'. He is requesting building setback for an
18' encroachment of the building facade into the front building setback
along North Broadway. In addition, rear and side yazd setbacks of 10'
already exist at site.
The applicant requests that the Board recognize this hazdship. On the
variance application, the owner stated that the improvement to this properly
would lead to an overall economic enhancement for the general azea. The
property holds the potential to be transformed into a higher and best use.
Furthermore, new improvements which will enhance the image of the
property results in the public's best interest and overall impression of the
area. Further, building would be remodeled under the current regulations.
Revitalization of pre-existing structure presents an opportunity for the
newest life-safety guidelines to be implemented in building re-construction.
Currently, the City's ordinances and various adopted amendments address
the issues raised by the applicant. Currently, the zoning ordinance requires a
minimum of 6 percent of the property is landscaped. In terms of building
proximity, the City must apply the adopted fire protection and life safety
standazds and must ensure that all buildings meet these standazds prior to
occupancy. Drainage issues can be resolved by designing shallow storm
water detention into the parking lots to mitigate adverse affects.
Ana sis: Section 106-192 B (1), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as
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
• •
Board of Adjustment
November 23, 2004
#V 04-011
Page 3
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 Boazd must decide if the applicant's request to have building setbacks at
a specified distance is reasonable. The Boazd is chazged with deciding
whether all of the above conditions have been met.
The applicant believes that a relief on the current setbacks will improve the
image of an area with new construction project has the potential to positively
impact the economic vitality as well as increasing a positive image. The
applicant requests that the Boazd recognize this as a positive step.
Staff, however, does not have evidence proving that a "hazdship" exists.
Except that the building was built at least 40 yeazs ago, no unique physical
conditions exist on the applicant's property that precludes the project from
complying with the City's setbacks.
Conclusion: The applicant has not shown that circumstances unique to his property exist.
Based on the facts outlined in this report, however, conditions would
improve but not comply if a variance is granted.
Anneals: 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 arty taxpayer, or any o,~icer, 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
o, Bice of the Board of Adjustment.
r~ _.~ ~~ a
as ~: i ti~
..,,.
t . 'G ~a .
... ~ ~
~-\
Y S $u `~~
~'~i~ ~ _
_. .. '~ 1. ~ ~ "~f - 2 ~ ~ k~ ~
~~" rat ~~.
a it
"',f r { ~ IC '1
~S N5.6Y-. ~ ~ ~~~`~ 6 ~ y .. III ~. -. ...A
~ j~
x.,,
,..,
~,y . .
¢.~
PROPERTY IN QUESTION ~Y~ ~ ~ -
~ _ ~..__6 ~.. _ ~
y7" 5a~; F~'" w
~ M. ~ ;_: w
~ ,.r` ~
~~:
_ F t -R j
- •.. ~ y -
i.
9f 1
-, ~
3 ~ . ~' rc r~
r ~, ` .. '
w ~ y' ~ ~ ..~~ .
' - t ~ 1 ~a '~,. d
-~ ~ ?w,
{ i, ,`
VARIANCE REQUEST # : '
V-04-011 ~ ~~ ~'
519 NORTH BROADWAY ,~ .
~~~ a
.. .~,
. i I .
I 1-sroRr ~25 S. EDGE I ~ .
gNDER BLOCK 20.9
. D R.R. SPIKE
AiETA1 SHED - ~ W~FUNCH 21.25 ~ D 1/Z" I.R.
3.2' •~ O.fS~NORTii
-' - - - _ - WATER METER 0.09'
~ 'p SET ~B' I.R. N 8T00'41' E : P' 4~ ~ ~P°21.01' O.BS' ~ . .
1" P.P.
WATER METER 20x3'
. a ~ S ~~ 10' REAR SET-SACK- LINE TOP 21_33 - ~ .17 _~
. X16.35' _ x ~•r
n
° - rafd - - -- • ~ Iv
' a -~ ~ ~
~~ G \ r
z ~m#~ ~' ~ • • ~ " Q
~~ I ~ .2.2 ,-STDRr
. ~ c ~ METAL BLDG: I
~~•
.~~~g -_---------------- ~ ~ ~ O
c+ a ,
• ~ ~
.L.1 m
. ~ 9• ~ - -
Q. 1 I. . • ,
~ ~ Oi
He QG _ +_ x~~~ ~< .: I~
p~ ~J =
a ~ n d
a Ci.
.. ~i ~ ~ 9 '# ~ a N '
_ of I.
I d 1 7• .19x3' 4r
gg ~ FIND. FENCE ~ . 1.5' ~
. ~ b7 .i. POST ON CORNER ~ AREA J041 S~F ~+%E) .. SET 3/8 LR ~~ ~
+ 1 16x8' er
` S 8 41 W 1 m I
.~ UG iELE. MARKER EXISi1NG WA 1 ~. of
+ ~~ ~ ~ P.P. ~ .19.91 • P.P.
• ------------- ----- ~ -- - 1 - -- ~ m is
. ~ FLT 17x 1' ~ FL DRLH , WA ~~ ~ I v n
- ~i 18' RCP
.04 EDGE ASPH.
• CL'2°.25 WEST MAD/50N • STREET ;; •
--• ~ ~ , ~ ~ - • _~ • .16°1'' ,~
• •
-I
~ ,~' ~ +i .
~# ~ c
i"r t ~`
.4 ~1 t a.,~t
W#
dat}],~.~ ...
.f'
.~
#? ~; I~~ t
4
r i! ~t~1Y~ ~ ~f}.~a~ia,~+:""'.~ ~~45~~e~`~"t~.r!~.tt.~ ~ ~~'S n'r` ~ f wx
~ „~3S"F'.(.K. ~ 5r`x ~ ?s~41,f~,t.'d. ~ dil ~ 3*r~I~.{lr«r~ ~'^aY"~"".yf-,~y~-'$` ~~~~ N~i~tt
.,._y~ n `Yi 'i' !- ?rtt~ eF s'' Hi ,~ {~'~ ~'n~"wt-~ti.`i? wr x ~f
~' '# FX.x""'.~.z"sr. a.t st~,,.,..ad,at.~r ~~,'~g~r F. w+r±R•^.~--~- tTM~,@y~ T' ~'v dt~~«,"'J'~`-+~o!
r, ! ~~1
t~s ~ .~_ 3'. _
_ is ,. .~.
~~xsk
F k~ f~
~ ~
_ } `~;~~rr ~ ~~,,~ ~ ~
~~ z 5 r `j~~~~~$~~ ~ ~ ~ « y r ,~~ . C
is ~i' +. y~ ~, ~ E r ' i ~"~i~, ~ei s q
t ~
4 3 s ~ r~ i ~~~ _ i t li ~ s Na- y.Y 3l~iF` * f.a'~ : s ~ `~i iii. S'~#~ru~~` sF'~'~~57 ~.~'t ~~6~w~ '9
'. _ t ~ri ti ~.,~' ~' ~ ~~ ~ r-5 L1" t ~- n. ~ (~.~F A" w i ~p i ~,~~ t P
~., ~ t S ' 4 ~ ~ ~ Y Xi~t '' 3 ~ tx TI ;~ ~ C ~ ~ $ i ~.~
f s +~ 4 i
. ~ fa.. . F 'x:'
r3~, f u" r k
3;.."1 ~i~,3~it%k s r~ ~ ,~ta~ utTy~~4~p ~ ;Z „x,'- e~~,'.
~~~ .~~ .~' t~
r~ ~ ~: I
~>
.;` ~~ ~~
} ~
`y. a
+, ~ ~~3
~~
'q , '"
.~ +t ~
.1, ..r ... ^, ~~ t l
I i A' : {..
` ~ I ~ , ~.
~~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' '~ -tip ~ ~~ ~ •~ .„ t~
Y"~ ~ i ~ !
si t .1 ~'~ z +- 6 i A.~ 4 ~ y N i ew* - .tF f ~ id11 +f~ i , " t F' «s4 ;, as, 'F r u.~ !. s m f ~
~ ~~ 4x,~' I ~~3,R s a 1•,~Mf- ~ ~wU{ ~ s +0 3p
`n jf.6 ~ Y .w~", s f Ly~'`ta Nn '~>vJ'~^ ^ g ~ 'k ~y-{xha I f's ~~ ,~ 1'h!''+'C"1.~~t^ ~~ ~ F~r~,~' ~f ..
N x! +:. ~~ ~{~ , ,>,... Y}'M°...« ,-&'~1<;'~tt~* „ ~rh~~5~~~~~~~~"3~~~~s ~ ~~~~~~SxSr~"y~'~~5t~`~sik~«'~~¢~ ~ `~~s. ~ ~i~~~~'~, +~~31 -°f'n~'If+ -wv. s~~.~
2 swn.'i~, a:a,.w h1n.,. 'a.,uu.~, ix .+"a'H~?x .+~ .. ~. 6:
S
• •
~+~r~t~
...a
~:.
~~.
..:,-
.~
.
.
~~
. ,
i
_.
~~-~t
~~~_
a . ~ r.
~`^
•Y
~ a
~
ly~
' ~~1+tAjWd1
'yAM1r
..
. w{' y~1« y~
+i u~. "~~lr-~l' ':'~ll~ `'~`
''tt ~
1~ ~,(Iq~
~,~
!~
~'4~r'it"+~~~ cc}{4Y ~';tA" ~ ~C
K 5 I
~~ .W
'~ ~
.
N~ •Vi' r~'~'_^Ci
~~
~
~ ~
~
f~flh2'.iy~ ''
~~,~~
~
.
.
. ~~ 1~
1 ~{,r - da
~~, i
~
Pr+~p~~~#y
,
~ ~ Y
~ti
l 3
~~
1 ~~ ,
~~-ov+ec~ tL~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~
~.
. •~ -
~~
~a~n
~;
r ~ ~v ~;;
,~
_
„ _
~~
• •
L, .nr~nw_
{ 4 ~ ,~1 ~.
g~ l I 41 ~~~~~~~ i ~,Y ~I ~' ,~ , .+~9
_ ~ ~,.w,
~k
.~ ,~~`: ~ A ~ .
r~,
w ,i W,.:,.. ~ ~xi 4 ~.:'`:
~ ~,~
'~ _. - '~'
.. ,..~
n ^t...._
•~
y-.. ~..
r r~ r~~ _ ~~~.~~
xk!,I 4
l~ Ik~~ Y,'~5~, ~~ -~ .. +~' :i'
q 4 ,~ +, ~~ 1 f ~ Ij: r ~ ~W fi y 1 I rt,"F' r~~ v
r'L i'i's•.'~1E]~ ~~:~ I Yr.,j, i y r f 7-~. `1 ~ .~ 4 „w-#i'~ t
.. .n,a !t t t';.y~ c it h 'r in ; t -. r` ~~a,,,,~~ ~.r :;
~1wd; ~r ~_a3sir.e,.u~a_,t.xe ,,w,i~Ftis.~~ ,i...f°.~~ ~p4y$
l ~ 4`h.-, { 4 i. ,~ ~ p.
_ ~ ~_ f a ~~.r II r^~r c~_ t.,a a - 1
ra,.'- t}mot yr r4 ,~yi ,
1 =j '' Y ~~? ~ f't ~ ~ Sig ~e
r , u ~~ Y~ fY! +~,
Y 4=
5~~~~
1
DD _ - __ 1~ -I - ~ -
Y^i~ ry:
-1k M',
. ~ ~~
_'j'_
15~i
g ~ ~1,
i~ ~ I +
~r'•
rt5. ...,Y I ~~"
~~
j tl ~
..,E ~ ~x~~ ~ n 4?.~~Y ~4~tii,,A~`;k'~. t~
WEST MADISON STREET S
. 126' _ ~,~ . .
FENCE
. o ~ .
. c
~n _ .
'~ D
m
~
'fl m
~
~ .
. ~ .. y
~m
N
~
~
C
C
m
.'O
~ .
. >^; g ~ g . g
g ~ .
Z .. ~ .. ..
O
1~
~ o.• ~ ~
~ . o .~ m
• J
'.
V
,
ZONIIVG
$106-~43
Uses (SIC Cade ~) Zones
CR NC GC
Hennels, breeding (0279) * * ~ C
Unlisted uses, similar to uses listed
.above C C C
L Refer to chapter 10 of this Cade. (Must be at least 300 feet from church, school or hospital.)
Sec. 106-~i42. Interpretation and enforcement
Property uses, eacept as provided for by section 106-441, Table A, are prohibited and
. constitute a violation of this chapter. '
Sec. 106-44~. Table B, commercial area regn;•N••••eats.
(a) Table B, commercial area requirements.
. Adjacrat m
R
d
rsi
estial
. Muw,eam hrr~imain
>, - bfuiimrrm Yard Yard
' Laadseapirig D[assmant• Setbae~Es Setback Ma~mam
Rtgrtired Lot FRS. FRS. Haight
Uses s _Cove~ge t. ~. ti 4 a ~ s !feet)
Ry-3 uses (pe~it~' 6°6 Density Intensity Regulations Specified is Table B, residential area
• regnitem~ts, section 106-333
CR Comm. Recreation
Disc-: all Permitted or .
conditional .
NC Neighborhood 69b 50°b 20-10-0 20-10-10 45
Comm.; all permitted or .
conditional
GC General Comm.; all 6°b 40°b 20-10-0 20-20-IO ~ 45
permitted or conditional
Outside sales or sec- _N/A Di/A 5-.ia Same as N/A
vices principle
use
Outside storage N/A NIA 20-10-o Same as See section
- ~ principal 106-~(~44(b)
use
. ~eestandiag as preen- See article VII of this chapter
ices signs '
F4eestanding oa preen- See article VII of this ehaptes
ises signs located is con-
trolled access highwap
~ corridors
CD106:59 H~~~`