HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-05 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2005
Members Present:
George Maltsberger, Bob Capen, Charles Schoppe, Alternate No. 1 Lawrence
McNeal, and Alternate NO.2 Gilbert Montemayor
Members Absent:
Sidney Grant, Rod Rothermel
Masood Malik, City Planner; Clark Askins, Assistant City Attorney; and Peggy
Lee, Secretary
City Staff Present:
1. CALL TO ORDER
George Maltsberger, Vice-Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 2005, MEETING.
Motion by Bob Capen to approve the Minutes of February 24, 2005. Second by Lawrence
McNeal. The motion carried.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Capen, McNeal, Schoppe, Montemayor and Maltsberger
3. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE05-001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1602 WEST MAIN STREET, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT AS LOTS 11-15 & 16-20, BLOCK 717, TOWN OF LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY,
TEXAS. THE APPLICANT, MIKE LONGTAIN OF HOPPlE'S RESTAURANT, SEEKS AN
EXCEPTION TO THE STANDARD REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE AND COVERED PARKING WITHIN THE REAR
YARD SETBACK. THIS EXCEPTION IS BEING SOUGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION
106-191(B)(1)(2) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Masood Malik, City Planner, presented the information outlined in staff's report. In order
to construct additional storage and covered parking within the rear yard setback at 1602
West Main Street, the applicant has requested an exception to the standard rear yard
setback requirement. The existing building is located within the ten-foot rear setback
area and is a pre-existing non-conforming structure.
The City received three responses favoring the exception, of the nine public hearing
notices mailed to owners of property within 200' of the subject property.
B. PROPONENTS
Vice-Chairperson Maltsberger swore in Mike Longtain, 3302 Valleybrook, owner of
Hoppie's Texican Grill. Mr. Longtain stated he was trying to improve the curb appeal in
order to generate more business and customer parking. He believes the addition will
improve business efficiency by making it possible to process meat products at the point
of entry. Mr. Longtain spoke of his plans to add landscaping.
C. OPPONENTS
No opposition was presented.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of March 24, 2005
Page 2
Motion by Bob Capen to approve Special Exception Request #SE05-001 to allow construction of
additional storage and covered parking within the rear yard setback for property located at 1602
West Main Street. Second by Lawrence McNeal. The motion carried.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Capen, McNeal, Schoppe, Montemayor and Maltsberger
Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins, read Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances relating to
Appeals.
4. CONSIDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN
CONNECTION WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION REGARDING APPEAL OF
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A05-001.
Vice-Chairperson Maltsberger asked Mr. Askins to explain this item. Mr. Askins stated he was
not present at the Board's February 24th meeting. He noted the Findings of Fact represent the
written record of facts presented and discussed and Conclusions of Law reduces to writing what
the application of facts were based on what the Board was asked to consider. It was his
understanding that Mr. Armstrong, who was present at the February 24th meeting, had requested
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law given the nature of the applicant, Mr. Melvin Walker's
request.
Motion by Bob Capen to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in connection with
the Board of Adjustment action regarding Appeal of the Enforcement Officer's Decision #A05-
001. Second by Lawrence McNeal. The motion carried.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Capen, McNeal, Schoppe, Montemayor and Maltsberger
5. STAFF REPORTS
There were no staff reports.
6. ADJOURN
Motion to adjourn by Bob Capen. Second by Charles Schoppe. The motion carried. The
meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Capen, Schoppe, McNeal, Montemayor and Maltsberger
Submitted by,
p~
Planning Secretary
Approved on this ~ day of
fYlOet
,2005.
oning Board of Adjustment
#V05-002
VARIANCE
FOR
SYL VAN BEACH DEPOT
600 BLOCK OF PARK DRIVE
TO REPLACE AND EXTEND THE FENCE
EXHIBITS:
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT A - MAP SHOWING PROPOSED FENCE
EXHIBIT B - MAP SHOWING BLDG. SETBACKS
EXHIBIT C - SECTION 106-7910F THE CITY'S CODE
OF ORDINANCES
EXHIBIT D - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE REQUEST
Application No.:
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received:
Receipt No.:
Note: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
C'S'-- O~.J.
Lt-~tJ-o)
Applicant:
City of La Porte Parks & Recreation Department
Name
1322 S. Broadway
Address
281.470.5131
Phone
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Stephen L. Barr
Owner* :
See above
Name
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
Street Address
Legal Description
( ) Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site Plan
( ) Minor Development Site Plan
( ) General Plan
A Site Plan ofthe 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! 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.
20 April 2005
Date
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 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 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:
The property is (and will be) a City of La Porte Park. The City owns the southern 2/3 of the property and is
proceeding through the condemnation process, to acquire the northern 1/3 portion of the property. The
historic Sylvan Beach Depot, located on the park, and the Centennial Statue, also located on the park, have
experienced several acts of vandalism and other problems caused by lack of security provided by the
existing chain link fence surrounding the Depot area of the park, and lack of security fencing around the
Centennial. It is our intention, provided relief is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, to remove the
existing non-conforming chain link fence the entire block, and to replace and extend the fencing around the
entire property, utilizing galvanized ornamental iron fencing to protect the property from future acts of theft
and vandalism
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
The City is requesting a variance from the existing rules governing setbacks in order to place a new
fence around the subject property that will provide security as well as an attractive addition to the park.
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUESTS:
This property is public property for the enjoyment of and use by, citizens of La Porte and visitors to
La Porte. As a public park, the property (see attached site plan) does not fit in typical zoning of this area.
The City has a responsibility to protect its property from vandals and thieves. An ornamental iron fence
surrounding the property, with proper landscaping and other amenities, will enhance the attractiveness of
the facility, while increasing its security and safety of patrons.
S:\CPShare\INSPECTION DIVISION\Standard Forms\ZONING BOARD V ARIANCE.doc REVISION 10/21/03 RYC
Staff Report
May 26, 2005
Variance Request #V05-002
Requested by:
Requested for:
Location:
Zonm!!:
Back!!:round:
Analvsis:
Parks & Recreation Department, City of La Porte
Us. 7 thru 14, 15& 16, Block 50, Sylvan Beach Park Subdivision, La Porte.
600 Park Drive, Sylvan Beach Depot
Mid-Density Residential (R-2)
The City of La Porte owned the property located at 600 Park Drive near the Sylvan
Beach Park, a historic place in the southeast Harris County. The property is further
described by the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) as Lots 7 thru 14 of Block 50,
Sylvan Beach Park. The historic Sylvan Beach Depot and Centennial Statue are located
on the same park site. The City owns 2/3 of the block and is working towards acquiring
the northern 1/3 portion (lots 15&16) through condemnation process. The Park facility
has a history of several acts of vandalism and other security concerns related to the
Centennial Statue and historic Depot.
This variance requests seeks to remove the existing chain link fence around the Park area,
to install a new fence, and extend the fence along an entire block (see Exhibit A) with a
galvanized ornamental iron fence to protect the property from future acts of theft and
vandalism. Per Section 106-791 of the Ordinances, fences, structure, grading, or barrier
hedges are not permitted within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the front
yard setback.
The property mentioned above (lots 15& 16 of block 50) is too narrow to develop. Based
on the zoning regulations, building setbacks for the subject property (see Exhibit B),
zoned Mid Density Residential, are as follows:
. Along Park Drive front 20'
. Along Bayshore Drive rear 20' (through lot)
. Along San Jacinto Street side 20'
. Along the Railroad Museum side 10'
As described above, the property does not comply with the residential area requirements
for any kind of development within R-2 zone.
Section 106-1 92(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
Section 106-791 prohibits fences in front yard setback.
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:
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 26, 2005
#V05-002
Page 2 of3
.:. 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 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.
In determining if granting the request would be contrary to the public interest, Staff
recognizes that the proposed development of the property may not create any problem
with adjoining properties. Adjacent properties across the streets are Sylvan Beach Park,
Skate Board Park (former Tennis Courts) to the east and La Porte High School to the
west.
An observation of the surrounding area verifies that this is a public property for the
enjoyment and use by the citizens and visitors of La Porte. The City reserves the rights to
protect its land and promote public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment's [mal consideration is whether granting of this
request, observes the spirit ofthe ordinance.
Conclusion:
Variance Request #V05-002 seeks a variance for installation of a new ornamental iron
fence along perimeter boundary of an entire block. The new fence around the subject
property will provide security as well as an attractive addition to the park. In addition,
proper landscaping and other amenities will enhance the attractiveness of the historic
facility with increasing its security and safety of patrons. The parameters for the
requested variance, given the history of the property and the safety issues involved may
meet the provisions established by Section 106-192, Variances.
While recognizing the unique circumstances and historical aspects associated with the
property, the Board could consider:
· Allowing a new galvanized ornamental iron fence around the subject property
(variance granted).
· Should the Board deny the variance, an existing chain link fence at current
location will remain in place.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
May 26, 2005
#V05-002
Page 3 of3
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, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall
be presented to the court within ten days after the filing of the decision in the office of the
Board of Adjustment.
r~
~\
-
PROPOSED IRON FENCE
EXHIBIT 2
VA,Rlf\NCE
~HIB1T A
EXHIBIT 1
DEVELOPA,BLE l~\REf\
~-"'n r'T
':h.i r I
ttOCHIBn
~ 106-791
LA PORTE CODE
r
DIVISION 4. FEN~G AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
See. 106-79L Front yard areas.
No fences, structures, grading, or banier hedges shall be permitted within any front yard
areas except in the case of large lot residential lots, or in the case of lots with a front yard
directly adjacent to the shorelliie of Galveston Bay, as provided in section 106-792.
Sec. 106-792. Large lot residential lots.
In the case of large lot residential lots, six feet perimeter fences are permitted as an
accessory use. In the case of lots with a front yard directly adjacent to the shoreline' of
Galveston Bay, four feet front yard fences are permitted parallel and adjacent to the side lot
lines. However, such fences shall not be permitted on the front lot line directly adjacent to
Galveston Bay, and shall ~nly be constituted of chain link. These exceptions do not permit
structures, grading, or barrier hedges. .
See. 106-793. Fences in side and rear yards.
Within side yards and rear yards, fences of not higher. than six feet excluding six-inch rot
boards and walls 42 inches high or less shall be permitted.
See. 106-794. Fences and trees on utility easements.
Fences or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal at the owner's expense
if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. Trees on utility' easements
cont~ng overhead wires shall not exceed ten feet in height.
Sec. 106-795. Maintenance of fences.
. ,
Both sides of the fence must be maintained in good condition by the owner of the fence.
See. 106-796. Barbed wire fences.
Barbed wire fences shall not be permitted, used or constructed except in industrial districts
or to control livestock as hereinafter provided.
Sec. 106-797. Property line fences in industrial districts.
Property line fences in any industrial district shall not exceed eight feet in height except
that: .
(1) Fences erected along a property line in common with a residential district shall be
subject to the provisions herein described in residential district fences; and
(2) Fences in commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security
measure may have arms projecting into the applica~t's property on which barbed wire
CD106:88
'XHI8Il C-