The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-26-05 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2005 Members Present: Sidney Grant, George Maltsberger, Bob Capen, Charles Schoppe, Alternate No. 1 Lawrence McNeal, and Alternate NO.2 Gilbert Montemayor Members Absent: Rod Rothermel City Staff Present: Masood Malik, City Planner; Stephen Barr, Director of Parks and Recreation; Clark Askins, Assistant City Attorney; and Peggy Lee, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairperson Sidney Grant called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24, 2005, MEETING. Minutes of the meeting were approved as presented. 3. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST #V05-002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE 600 BLOCK OF PARK DRIVE NEAR THE SYLVAN BEACH DEPOT, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS LOTS 7-14 & 15-16, BLOCK 50, SYLVAN BEACH PARK SUBDIVISION, LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE CITY OF LA PORTE, THROUGH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REPLACE AND EXTEND A NEW FENCE AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FOR PROVIDING SECURITY AS WELL AS AN ATTRACTIVE ADDITION TO THE PARK. THIS VARIANCE IS BEING SOUGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION 106-192(B) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. A. STAFF PRESENTATION Stephen Barr, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented staffs report. The City has requested a variance for the park area at 600 Park Drive near Sylvan Beach Park, the location of the Sylvan Beach Depot and Centennial Statue. The City intends to remove the existing chain link fence around the park area, install a new fence, and extend the fence along an entire block with an ornamental iron fence. The fence will protect the property from theft and vandalism. The City plans to beautify the area for a park. The City mailed six public hearing notices to property owners within 200' of the subject property. No responses were received. B. PROPONENTS There were none. C. OPPONENTS There were none. Mr. Barr responded to questions from the Board. Motion by Bob Capen to approve Variance Request #V05-002 to allow removal of an existing chain link fence and installation of a new fence extending along an entire block of the park area at 600 Park Drive near Sylvan Beach Park. Second by Charles Schoppe. The motion carried. Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Capen, Schoppe, Maltsberger, McNeal, and Grant Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of May 26, 2005 Page 2 Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins, read aloud from Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances, which addresses Appeals. 4. STAFF REPORTS Masood Malik, City Planner, provided the following updates: ~ Town Hall Meeting for the proposed Rural Large Lot District scheduled for June 9, 2005, at the Lomax Elementary Cafeteria from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. ~ 2005 Comprehensive Plan Review Committee meeting scheduled for June 2, 2005, 7:00 pm. at City Hall. ~ Major developments highlighted. 5. ADJOURN Chairperson Grant adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Submitted by, p~~ Planning Secretary Approved on this",:2t day of ~ /~i.1iang~:::- ,2005. #V05-003 VARIANCE FOR CHARLESBERDONLAWRENCE 1800 BLOCK OF S. BROADWAY & 777 S. 'R' STREET TO BUILD AN 8' HIGH WOOD FENCE EXHIBITS: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP EXHIBIT B - MAP SHOWING PROPOSED FENCE EXHIBIT C - SECTION 106-791, 7930F THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES EXHIBIT D - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE '=:ITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARlANCE 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 (l) - tJ 0..3 h~6-0.) (oyJ'<3 A pplican t: {' h Jte Is;.} If ~jJc) ~ ~ 71/V I( Ell/ (! ~ Name . I h l50lc. /31-3 /;1I/5l.1 7Z(-:f/ 713~4J-S-:#6tJ f . Address Phone I am the owner oCthe herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Name Address Phone /06-1C/-fJ ;L. I am requesting a variance to Sect./OCt - 791 of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinance. I am requesting this variance for property located at Au . h / Street Address FER /7//r/t.', 7r>C/ 0U,eL--f.t? y", . Legal Description I }(Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) Minor 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! am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. * If a}:plicallt is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. 6, /:?/q:J &~ ~ -t:~ <>__ D~e Applicant's Signature <,7e>L Office Use Only Site Phn ~nd Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No () .:.r:-- Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meetirg Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to sunounding property owners- Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Hoards Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: Staff Report July 28, 2005 Variance Request #V05-003 Requested by: Requested for: Location: Zonin2: Back2round: Analvsis: Charles Berdon Lawrence (Property Owner) Lot 1 thru 32, Blocks 1218 and 1255, Town of La Porte, Lot 1, Block 1, Crescent Shores, Vol. 8, Pg. 58, H.C.M.R., 13.50 acres out oflot 23 of the W.B. Lowrance Subdivision, J. Hunter Survey, Abstract - 35, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. 1800 Block ofS. Broadway (Old Highway 146) 777 S. "R" Street High Density Residential (R-3) The property in question is formerly Vista Baywood Apartments, a multi-family residence built originally in 1972 per the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD). Total area of the subject site is 435600 sq. ft. (10 acres) adjacent to the City of La Porte's Little Cedar Bayou Park East. Another 3.30 acre tract is located along South Broadway. The main entrance to the property is along South R Street off S. Broadway (Old Highway 146). The property also abuts Park Avenue (unimproved ROW) to the West and the Crescent Shore Subdivision to the East and South of the complex. The complex, known as the Vista Baywood Apartment Homes, has been demolished recently by the current owner. The applicant wants to build an 8' high wood fence around the entire property, which also encloses Park Avenue right-of-way. The City has agreed to close this part of Park Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance allows fences of not higher than six feet excluding six-inch rot boards. As per survey, this property was developed for a multi-family residence (subsidized housing) with a pre-existing 8' high chain link fence on the portions of the east property and corrugated metal fence along north property lines. Per Section 106-791 of the Code of Ordinances, no fences shall be permitted within any front yard areas. Per Section 106-793, fences of not higher than 6' shall be permitted within side yards and rear yards. This variance request seeks to allow 8'high wood fence around an entire property for security purposes. As per copy of the survey provided by the applicant, the proposed fence is shown to be erected along the perimeter boundary of the entire tract abutting South Broadway (Old Highway 146). Section 106-192, 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 106-797 (2) 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 July 28, 2005 #Y05-003 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 applicant's request would be contrary to the public interest, Staff recognizes that the development of the property with high fence location in particular may not create a problem with adjoining properties. Safety is cited as a primary issue since the adjacent street conveys heavy vehicular traffic. A survey of surrounding properties shows that this non-compliance with the ordinance is common to some other residences in the vicinity. The ordinance states that fences erected along property line in common with residential properties shall be subject to the provisions described in residential district fences requirement. In viewing the specific grounds for granting a variance, Staff noted that the reason, as for security and safety, is legitimate. Because of the nature and location of the property, we do not find, however, " . . . unnecessary hardships due to an exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography, or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the property in question." The applicant believes that a relief on the fence height will improve the image of an area and will match with an existing fence on the property. In addition, it will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties. In fact, the City's Little Cedar Bayou Park will be benefited as far as security is concerned. A memo from the City's Parks and Recreation Department is attached in this regard. The applicant requests that the Board recognize this as a positive step. The ZBOA's final consideration is whether granting of this request, observes the spirit of the ordinance. Conclusion: Variance Request #V05-003, which seeks a variance for allowing 8' high wood fence around an entire property, is contrary to Section 106-791 thru 106-793 of the City of La Porte's Code of Ordinances. In addition to the overall impact of a fence along Old Highway 146 (South Broadway), the parameters for the requested variance, however, in staff s opinion, appear to meet the provisions established by Section 106-192 Variances. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2005 #V05-003 Page 3 of3 As a reminder, safety and/or security at times, transcend other factors and may be considered during the Board's deliberations. Appeals: As per Section 106-196 ofthe 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. City of La Porte Interoffice Memorandum July 21, 2005 To: Wayne Sabo, Director of Planning From: Stephen L. Barr, Director of Parks & Recreation Proposed Fencing Change - Little Cedar Bayou Park Bounded by Berdon Lawrence Property There is a proposal pending to replace the existing chain link fence on Berdon Lawrence's property that is adjacent to the Little Cedar Bayou Park property east of Broadway, with a permanent wood fence. From an aesthetic standpoint, the wood fence will be much more attractive and offer enhanced security for Mr. Lawrence's property as well as for the park property. I believe it will be in the public interest to have the chain link fence replaced. If you or have any questions or if I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me atx5136. Page 1 of 1 r (f) w ::> 0'0'1 WO ex:: 9 wl.l) UO z> <* I-< ex:: < > .-I r'" WI.I) w'" 0:::", r ~~ 0::: , = W or (f)0::: ",0 ",CL "'0::( -l ~IBrr A . ~:J> II ~ '<" "I ",""'" · i: ~M I! z ::D il ">-< ;1 ~ (J I!~:J>~ u1Z ~r" C i5 ::'1 ~i , , , n I ~~~ ~ ~~5!il~ ~ og~~~ l/l zi!j:-"""" ~~mi~ ill r :Z1.ll~z5 f"Tl - i;;:~ g ~ ~E5Q>):! z 0 ln~::Ul~~ -i n!"~2~R ~ 0 g~~~!"_ ::E 0-0 .~~dp~ ;D "T] 0 .... m:tj III rT1 0 ~~=j;l~~ ~ ~ p~p~5 (T] -0 ~S!lIlZ~ (T] ;! ~g~~~ -l () ~~:~~ ~ t'3 ~:?;r'i:~ ;0 p~iC;o --I < ~.~?' ~ ~ (T] n -< -j l/l '1 I I. '1 I '1 I e _~il:; ;~ii I: ~J H ~~ r ~ J ~ i : it" 'II I Iii ~ . ~ . . - ,. -I!I. ............,. '. '. ',' ... ~I il!!!I!!I!!!!IIII!I!!!!!!!1 , ! Ii ' - IJlI'I'IIHI I Iii I I' ~ 106-791 LA PORTE CODE - r DIVISION 4. FENC~G AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS See" 106-791. Front yard areas. No fences, structures, grading, or barrier 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 shorelhie 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 ~ 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 applicax:t's property on which barbed wire .~...".'" 'Il JiWt,'" 6W ,- ~H1 __< , 11~ ~' A Meeting of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment (fype of Meeting) pr-r'rlj 1,-. '-, , t-. [> ,.,... l J ,,,-v' I "L 1 ' "'..- ,; ...__t' Scheduled for June 23, 2005 (Date of Meeting) F) 1 /~ 1\ i ~.~. ,il .;, /1 /~ ~-'._, , , i1' ,'.\ d , j'1I' :1" r'T - ....., .J ~ 1 ~:, .~ t:i ;/ J.1- r"' ,I .. "",jI t__!! ~_~ to Consider Variance Request #V05-003 (fype of Request) I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. I am in FAVOR of granting this request for the following reasons: --=-9 ~~L 7!ve JCe-t/6iF u////' /)eLk') ~ ~i-t;J~ ,el{!~ F~~ ;%0/4 7A~/fct: t7~ ~ ~/l/:. t.~ /1 fU//(. lie tP 5'~~#/le ,r/k'l/"n- AAJ A-11I IIJe;Les. .. __.,..1 ~= OBPOSEfi Lu gI.allLillg Lhi~ I.cyue~L fuI. Lhc fotlowmg reasons: j!fffr- fJ Je/li, EL S 11 Otf/1h{;5/}-/Pb Name (please print) ~~~t/ ~> ->>t:a?Zfe-e~ Signature ;;Zoo 1 (!A~s: ~~?~ :.:t>rG *' Address L~1- ~/C:re ; 7#Ji4-::5 / '} 1 J 1 d- City, state, Zip / ,tL<<HIBll D A Meeting of the La Porte Di"I.'''1 T-n lEi' "I-J j.,! ,( ,! " L.VL~ ~ ;..t..l Zoning- Board of Adjustment (fype of Meeting) Scheduled for 1\/ ! ,:.~l,~~;P-)'''''''> .;Jr~ I ,.,~ "",..j 1 '1 June 23, 2005 (Date of Meeting) to Consider Variance Request #V05-003 (fype of Request) of the above referenced public hearing, I anting this request for the following reasons: I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: /9;;3 ~~ ~ :iY~" City, State, Zip A Meeting of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment (fype of Meeting) Scheduled for ;i".J" ,. ., l- 1 ,.\ ,. ", .' ~ J i.~ lU iU 1,1 ,r~1 -" ~" .~~ 1:i -t] June 23, 2005 (Date of t-.'1eeting) to Consider Variance Request #V05-003 (fype of Request) - I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: ,qJ~ ~~ t f :Jdre" City, State, Zip f )~tlJt-:Tt QRJL7 A Meeting of the La Porte '. . CElurn RE I V tv Zoning Board of Adjustment crype of Meeting) ; ~ ~; ..i -' <,< Scheduled for PLANNING DEPT, July 28, 2005 (Date of t-.Jeeting) to Consider Variance Request #V05-003 crype of Request) -~ I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. o am G;~~f granting this request for the following reasons: f 13< /-e')}/-( ~e ~e#eE /;//// AJ...e /J-/ /)S];;e:~:r /D de ?"J{/e4,4./[ A/?'t'4- /i:? /,.fr:Pff?/ -' t'/# ,1~/J-#~..tJ r4,'J-rR~' ~ t/e'#;',!"Je-:. r,4p/PL E~/2!/7 ~ /J(l~/~ ,/ CJ4I Y#i/ /~~~,~~' / I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: t1ItJf$( I, )ft;~,l;;/~;Q Name (please print) ~1bc/ 9. l~~~~ , Signature J )) /11--.. f/M ftd~ tCu/ ~/e-c, t>J.- h ",tn' / r,p )2/?-.! koY~ ;f}t/erLo/':e~./ p~ Address ,./ ;-Iv/?'?7Zk.J 72/P~. ~p1~7 City, State, Zip (p ;:<-- ;;;<"61 0 l' et;L~ ~~e e'~ P"L #V05-004 VARIANCE FOR METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITY EXHIBITS: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP EXHIBIT B - MAP SHOWING PROPOSED BLDG. EXHIBIT C - PARKING ANALYSIS HUD 202 SITE PLAN BUILDING DESIGNS EXHIBIT D - SECTION 106-192, 106-1910F THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES EXHIBIT E - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE ,ITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT V ARlANCE 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 tJS- -oo~ 6-"<)- oS IltJS-1L/ f Applicant: Pi L DE.QL, blC\, E..,l2-D ~T Name 'l'lO'l.. T\N\eE..R.LocH pLA(.~l ~0i"'i:. '100 II-\E v../60f)\..A t->o" i ..,.r:.~A?17 ~ 80 Address 2.61- 61O~'- 11006 Phone I am the owner of the herein (Iescribed property. I have authorized Kl LHf\iZ.i) O(-.jZ.llJ to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: A I.- Df.\?.:, Gi (il1" ~ " (Z.O'J T Name 1..1.0'2- tIM~t:.RL\:)(,H p'-Ac..€, ~\.n-rtlJ.cc \M~ WOOOL~~OS, \~~A~ 77~8o Address -2.81- 3b3-'2..~(J6 Phone I am requesting a variance to Sect. \00- 333 Code of Ordinance. I am requesting this variance for property located at of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the I \ II I?:>A'-( ~1~OR.f DR. Street Address Legal Description W Site PIa n ( ) Major Development Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan 09 General Plan A Site Plan of the property is attachecl. 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 r am making this request. * If al:plitant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. CZc/~r: ~~ 0-1..'2.# oS Date Applicant's Signature Office Use Only Site Phn 2nd Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No () Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Notice to surrounding property owner"s- Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Hoards Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: Grounds for the request And Facts relevant to this matter Aldersgate Trust has made an application to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a $4,668,941 grant for the construction of a much needed 63 unit senior housing project to be located on the subject site adjacent to our existing 52 unit apartment building and across from the Happy Harbor nursing home. If awarded the grant the building will be similar to the project recently completed in Bryan, Texas subject to local codes. (See Exhibit "A" and "B"attached). Distance Variance We cannot determine the exact distance between the buildings until design drawings and site plan are completed. However we cannot afford to incur this expense unless we know a variance within our approximated distance will be approved. Based on the City of La Porte requirements it is possible to have 125 units constructed within a 25 ft to 50 ft distance of each building and be in compliance. (See Exhibit "C" attached). We will have 114 units. Density and Parking Variance See attached Exhibit "D" for a parking analysis of our five senior housing projects located in Bryan, Huntsville and La Porte. As you can see the average parking ratio is about 0.5 spaces per apartment. This ratio can be attributed to the age and income of the residents (See exhibit "F" attached). The City of Bryan, where we have three buildings, classified the building that was completed in August 2004 as institutional and required one parking space per five residence units and one per each day staff member. This is the same building we want to build in La Porte. We try to provide a comfortable surrounding for our residents and do not want to cut down all the mature trees to pour concrete parking that never gets utilized. (See Exhibit "E" for a very preliminary site layout. The layout show 63 parking spaces but with the Cities setback and buffer requirements this will not be possible. We will attempt to provide as many parking spaces beyond the 0.5 spaces per unit requested if it does not significantly impact the design and loss of major trees. Due to the typical ages of the residents in a senior housing facility the increase density per acre will not impact any additional traffic in the area since they rarely leave the building. Even residents that have an automobile only use it occasionally to grocery shop or visit a doctor. They are not in and out daily like an apartment building. Staff Report July 28, 2005 Variance Request #V05-004 Requested by: Mr. Richard Dgrin representing The Aldersgate Trust (The Methodist Retirement Communities) Requested for: Waiver from the City's standard requirements for multi-family units per acre and exception from number of parking spaces Lee:al Description: A 7.08 acres of land described as lots 1 thru 8 of Bellaire Block, lots 1 thru 22 of Bayview Block, lots 1 thru 6 & Res. B Bay Front Block & Res. A Bayshore Block, and lots 1 thru 4 less N 5 ft. Bayshore Block, Bay Shore Park Subdivision, La Porte, Volume 10, Page 22 of the Map Records of Harris County, Texas". Location: 1100 Block of Bayshore Drive Zonine:: High-Density Residential (R-3) Backe:round: The above project is a proposed apartment complex designed exclusively for the senior population. The subject tracts comprise approximately 7.08 acres of land, described as lots out of Bayshore Block in the Bayshore Park, Bayview Block and Bellaire Block of Bayshore Park Addition, La Porte, Volume 10, Page 22 of the Map Records of Harris County, Texas. The Happy Harbor Methodist Home facility is located at 1106 Bayshore Drive adjacent to the Galveston Bay. The property across the street, an existing multi-family development (Happy Harbor Apartments), is located at 900 Park Ave. An undeveloped land, located between these two facilities, is being used as a park facility for the seniors. (See Exhibit #A) The subject tract for proposed development is located between Parkway Ave. and Bellaire Ave. The property is fenced all around with an opening exactly across from the Methodist Home. The site is accessible for seniors across from the nursing home. The property is adjoined by the Happy Harbor Apartments located at 900 Park Ave. The nearby properties are a few single- family residential, Sylvan Beach, and Seabreeze Park. Earlier, the Methodist Home and Happy Harbor properties were zoned Medium-Density and Low-Density Residential respectively. Then, the applicant requested a rezone from Low-Density Residential (R -1) & Medium-Density Residential (R-2) to High-Density Residential (R-3) for proposed senior apartment complex at the subject tract. At the July 15, 2004, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezone, which was approved by City Council. Board of Adjustment July 28, 2005 #V05-004 Page 2 The proposed development is for a 63-units expansion project of the Happy Harbor Methodist Home for senior citizens. This variance request seeks to address the following issues: . Distance - 1,000 ft. from other multi-family residential development . Density - 25 DU/A compared with 14 dwelling units per acre allowed . Parking - 0.5 per unit instead of parking ratio of average 1 per unit New Multi-Family regulations require a multi-family residential development with 50 or more units must be located at least 1,000 ft. from other multi-family residential development of 20 or more units. As the intent here is for a 63-units expansion project of the Happy Harbor Methodist Home for senior citizens, distance requirement shall not be applicable. The project is consistent with the present use of the adjoining properties. The proposed use is in conformance and development is considered as expansion of the existing 51 units apartment building across from the Happy Harbor. The proposed plan reveals 63 units to be developed on a 2.52 acre tract. Applying a density of 14 units per acre allowed by ordinances, this yields 35 units. So, number of units proposed exceeds the maximum density permitted. The applicant is requesting a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. As per ordinances, a multi-family development shall be limited to 2-stories in height when directly adjacent to single-family residential. But, buildings within an interior of the development may be 3-stories in height. The sketch plan shows proposed 3 story building. The applicant also noted that securing a "strong" financial institution could be difficult which could ultimately affect the maintenance of the property. Finally, the increase in the number of units will allow a better unit mix. A special exception is requested for number of parking spaces required for this project. At least 63 parking spaces are required per ordinance. Here, general layout plan shows equal number of parking spaces. But, the applicant stated that the site constraints may reduce number of spaces significantly. The parking analysis for similar housing projects in other cities is attached. (See exhibits) The applicant requests that the Board recognize these hardships. On the variance application, the applicant stated that existing trees shall be preserved so that the residents would have green space to enjoy lawns and landscaping. Without granting relief, garden areas, benches, and other recreational areas would be eliminated. Board of Adjustment July 28, 2005 #V05-004 Page 3 Analvsis: Section 106-192, 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 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 The Board must decide if the applicant's request to have a density of 25 units per acre is reasonable. In addition, if the parking analysis submitted by the applicant are justified. The Board is charged with deciding whether all of the above conditions have been met. The applicant believes that imposing current regulations will cause undue burden and incur expenses to accomplish this project. Loss of green space and cutting down the mature trees will have a negative impact on the area specifically adjacent to the Galveston Bay. The applicant requests that the Board recognize this as a hardship. The applicant designed this project for the senior population; however, concerns arise over use. While measures are in place to ensure that the property remains a senior facility for over 50 years, after that period, the use could revert to "regular" multi-family use. If the density (14 DU/A) required by ordinance are not enforced, the complex could become a non-conforming structure. A set of covenants and restrictions may be submitted to ensure that the project will remain a senior housing facility and may not be converted into a commercial apartment complex at any stage. Board of Adjustment July 28, 2005 #Y05-004 Page 4 Conclusion: Anneals: Nonetheless, Staff believes that applicant's request does not meet the test for hardship for the following reasons: First, while the tract has an "odd shaped" configuration, this has not precluded or impaired development. Furthermore, the amount of acreage available will not impose a burden on development. Second, allowing 28 additional units would not negatively impact the community; however, it clearly goes against the new regulations approved by the City. Due to the typical ages of the residents in a senior housing facility, the increase density per acre will not impact any additional traffic in the area. As per applicant's research, the average parking ratio is about 0.5 space per unit assessed for five different senior housing projects located in other parts of the State. But, applicant is committed to provide parking spaces beyond the 0.5 space per unit if it does not significantly impact the design and loss of major trees on the subject tract. La Porte Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9, Residential Development, has provisions to provide for additional retirement communities and centers within the appropriate zoning districts. Variance Request #V05-004, which seeks a variance for allowing an increased density and exception for lowering the parking spaces ratio, may not be in conformance with the City of La Porte Code of Ordinances. In addition to the likelihood of an adverse impact of the overall project, the parameters for the requested variance, in staff s opinion, appear to meet the provisions established by Section 106-192 Variances and Special Exception (106-191 ). While recognizing the circumstances associated with the property, the Board could consider: . Allowing the requested oversized density and accepting the parking ratio assessed by the applicant (variance granted). . Directing the owner to modify the plans to comply with the ordinances (variance denied). 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 CA., Local Government Code Section 211.011, duly verified, settingforth 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. ~H'BIT A ~ ::r: ! OJ ~ :,,:1" :10 f: Cil{lltIlll1-lK not: .N 38" 6Z' ~ . . 200.00' 1 22 26 f'",. , 1:1';"(:1 '-,I Hi, ,"'I ! J'f'Yll.!-"1 ML Nli~ -/ '-D L -oJ \1:, ~:'":;-!:, o~ v".;:...7vL, I o g: 11: .(~... (,ll . c::1 '-; " 1'---'vpo\.P '" '" ~c9- "',- O'; 'cP '" ! ~I~~. &15 ' 13 I N38'52'E 100,0' ".,;~~~9'; BAYSHORE '" tI' 0- o q --I) 14 , .. ~(;.. OJ rn >< ::r:: OJ --l UI Icp 6l\ '7,L \)) 's-. o '. EXH\B\T~I D If Parking Analysis CRESTVIEW TERRACE - 100 apartments fully occupied 95 total parking spaces available 34 residents with cars, 8 employees, 12 visitors. Total 54 spaces used. Parking ratio .54 spaces per apartment CRESTVIEW PLACE - 44 apartments fully occupied 37 total parking spaces available 21 residents with cars, 4 employees, 8 visitors. Total 33 spaces used. Parking ratio .75 spaces per apartment CRESTVIEW UNITY - 63 apartments, 43 occupied 31 total parking spaces available 13 residents with cars, 0 employees 7 visitors. Total 20 spaces used. Parking ratio .465 spaces per apartment P ARKVlEW - 54 apartments fully occupied 54 total parking spaces available 14 residents with cars, 2 employees, 7 visitors. Total 23 spaces used. Parking ratio .425 spaces per apartment HAPPY HARBOR - 51 apartments fully occupied 48 total parking spaces available 30 residents with cars, 2 employees, 6 visitors. Total 38 spaces used. Parking ratio .745 spaces per apartment Average parking ratio for five senior apartments located in Bryan, Huntsville and La Porte is .585 spaces per apartment. taH1BJr C EXHIBIT II F " Ages of Residents in BUD 202 Apartments Apartment 100 years 90+ years 89/80 years 79/60 years 59 years Crestview Place 3 19 17 5 Crestview Terrace 1 19 42 26 12 Unity, Parkview 1 22 75 99 15 Happy Harbor 11 10 25 5 Total 2 55 146 167 37 ~:~i~i~i ~i~1~;~1 \'J~ " ,{~ g ~ ~ ~Jt 5 - --: e: [~ ~ ;;t ~ ~-"'. .., (1) H '" ("iJ o r0- D G ~ ;1 g .~t" E " EXHIBIT U ':-,5 :-:.'0 ~'et~ ??-\ I/~' . 1'''Y\>~ ~!"C \...---........ i - ~._----_._~------- _.__........_-~ ! I ! ''', , ~,---I- p, !\ : \ .-...--....-y:.... i I I ! .....~t. I r-1 +.____.____ i -l I ....--.-.!. jl lie ~ (. ~. j \ j j 1--- -----1 EXHIBIT U A " ZONING ~ 106-194 See. 106-192. Variance. (a) Application for variances. All applications for a variance from the terms of this chapter shall be in writing and shall specify the facts involved, the relief desired, and the grounds thereof. Each such application shall be filed with the enforcement officer who after investiga- tion shall transmit such application together with his report to the board of alljustment within ten days after the filing of the application with the enforcement officer. (b) Firu:li.ngs of factI definition of hardship. (1) The term "variance" shall mean a deviation from the literal provisions of this chapter which is granted by the board when strict conformity to this chapter would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property on .which the variance is granted. (2) Except as otherwise prohibited, the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement of this chapter when the board finds that all of the following conditions have been met: ~, '.~~ That the granting of the variance will not be c?ntrary to the public interest; b. That literal enforcement of this chapter will result in unnecessary harqship 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 consid~tions or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owners own actions; and Co That by granting the variance, the spirit of this chapter will be observed. (3) . The applicant shall have the burden of proving to the board that the foregoing Conditions have been met. (c) Use varianceprohibited. No variance shall be granted to permit a use in a zoning district in which that use is prohibited. (d) Hearings on applications for variances. The board of adjustID.ent shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of all applications for variances, give public notice thereof, as well as due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within a reas~mable time, as specified in section 106-194. Upon the hearing any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney.. Sec. 106-193. Additional conditions. . The board is empowered to impose upon any variance or special exception any condition reasonably necessary to protect the public interest and community welfare. Sec. 106-194. Notice of public hearings before the board of adjustment. The notice of public hearings provided for in this section shall be given by publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city stating the time and place of such hearings, CD 106:33 etH18lT D ~ 106-191 LA PORTE CODE DMSION 6. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES" Sec. 106-19L Special exceptions. (a) Application for special exceptions. All applications for special exception to the terms of this chapter shall be in writing and ~hall specify the ~cts involved, the relief desired, and the grounds therefor. Each such application shall be filed, along with the apprDpriate fees, with the enforcement officer who after investigation shall transmit such application together with his report to the board of adjustment within ten days after the filing of the application with the enforcement officer. (b) Special e::cceptions to be .Teuuwed; finding of fad3. The term "special exception" shall mean a deviation from the requirements of this chapter, specifically enumerated herein, which shall be granted only in the foll~g instances, and then only when the board finds that such special exception will not adversely affect the value and use of adjacent or neighboring property or be contrary to the best public interest: . ---~1)' To reconstruct, enlarge or extend a buildin~ occupied by a nonconforming use on the lot Dr tract occupied by such building, provided that the reconstroction, extension, Dr . enlargement does not Prevent the return of the property to a conforming use. ~"__"___,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'.'_"__~'~_W'~"~~_'" __0 ..~.." _._~H" (2) To deviate yard requirements in the following circumstances: a. Any exception from the front yard requirements where the actual front yard setback of any abutting lot does not meet the front yard requirement. b. A rear yard exception where the actual rear yard setback Df any fDur or more lots in the same block does not meet the rear yard requirements of these regulations. A yard exception on corner lots. d. An exception where the existing front yard setbacks of the various lots in the same block. are not uniform, so that anyone of the existing front yard setbacks shall, for buildings hereafter constructed or e:rtended, be the required minimum front yard depth. (3) To waive or reduce off-street parking and loading requirements when the board finds the same are unnecessary for the proposed use of the building or structure for which the special e:tception request applies. (c) Hearings on applica.twns for special exceptions. The board of adjustment shall fi:c a reasonable time for the hearing of all applicatiDns for special e:tceptions, give public notice thereof, as well as due notice ~ the parties in interest, and decide the same within a reasonable time as specified in section 106-194. Upon the hearing any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. *Editor's note-See also section 106-89 for additional rules for hearings in front of the zoning board of adjustment. CD106:32 A Meeting of the La Porte R r i; f... H.P- (), , ,,-In...; ,) t.u Zoning Board of Adjustment (Type of Meeting) Scheduled for PLANNING DEPT. July 28, 2005 (Date of Meeting) to Consider Variance Request #V05-004 & SE 05-001 (Type of Request) I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. I am in FA VO R of granting this request for the following reasons: I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: /";u /(/2 /!~/ /.- 4 6g't!t~tt:/ A'1 /S~' t/,,-t . tJj ;lJ./ (],-If< ///511# Y tJttl/(J~eV Name (1ifease print) / /l~#/~~ ~ature /tfl// ~1I~/f(l~C J_~. Add ess J.,( A,,{~ 7X 7/~7/ City, State, Zip tXH1B1T E