Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-06 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Minutes of the Meeting (Due to change of personnel, minutes will be presented at the meeting) ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23,2006 Members Present: Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Rod Rothermel, Charles Schoppe, Lawrence McNeal (Alt. No.1), and Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No.2) Members Absent: George Maltsberger City Staff Present: Clark Askins, Assistant City Attorney; Masood Malik, City Planner; Traci Koenig, Secretary. NOTE: Alternate No. 1 was a voting member in the absence of George Maltsberger. 1. CAll TO ORDER. Chairman Sidney Grant called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27, 2005 MEETING. Minutes of the meeting were approved as presented. 3. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO REAPPOINTED MEMBER, SIDNEY GRANT. Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins, administered the Oath of Office to Sidney Grant. 4. CONSIDER APPEAL OF AN ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION #A06-001 FOR PROPERTY lOCATED AT 11315 NORTH 'H' STREET, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS LOTS 248 AND 253 OF THE LA PORTE OUTlOTS IN THE ENOCH BRINSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT 5, lA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PROPERTY OWNERS, ROBERT AND lORI DRUCKENBRODT, SEEK APPROVAL TO EXTEND EXISTING BARN AND ADD A DOG RUN (KENNEL) WITHIN REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THIS APPEAL IS BEING MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 106-89(3) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. A. STAFF PRESENTATION Masood Malik presented the Staffs Report. The applicants, Robert and Lori Druckenbrodt, are appealing the enforcement officer's decision to apply Code of Ordinances Sections 106- 331 and 106-743 to the proposed development of a breeding kennel at 11315 N. "H" Street. The permit was denied because the kennel must be no closer than 100 feet from the property line. The applicants have requested their property line be extended to include additional land they lease to the west of the subject tract, within a pipeline corridor. Staff contends the applicant owns ample land to develop the kennel within the subject tract and adhere to current regulations. Seventeen property owners within 200 feet of the subject tract were sent notification of the public hearing. Five responses were received favoring the appeal. B. PROPONENTS Chairman Grant swore in Don Spiller, 11501 N. "H" St. Mr. Spiller's understanding is the applicants' kennel received damage during a storm and they are now trying to make improvements. Chairman Grant swore in Robert Druckenbrodt, 11315 N. "H" St. In order to develop a kennel and remain 100' away from the property line, the kennel would need to be placed in the middle of his property, which is his driveway. Mr. Druckenbrodt would like the adjacent leased 14 acres be factored into the calculation. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of February 23, 2006 Page 2 Chairman Grant swore in Lori Druckenbrodt, 11315 N. "H" St. Ms. Druckenbrodt wanted to clarify the dirt road, as referenced by the City, is not a dirt road, it is their driveway. The request is to relocate the kennel, which was damaged by a storm, to a large fenced in area at the back of the property, by extending the west side barn. Mr. Spiller commented on the property's history and the improvements that have been made throughout the years. C. OPPONENTS There were no opponents. Motion by Rod Rothermel to approve Appeal of an Enforcement Officer's Decision #A06-001, to allow construction of a breeding kennel as an extension to the south side of the existing bam, 49 feet from the west property line, and a minimum of 100 feet from the north property line at 11315 N. "H" Street. Second by Bob Capen. The motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Rod Rothermel, Charles Schoppe, and Lawrence McNeal (Alt. No.1) Nays: Abstain: Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins, read aloud from Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances, which addresses Appeals. 5. CONSIDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST #SE06-Q01 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11318 NORTH lOP" STREET, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS TRS 311A, 311 B, AND 311 C OF THE LA PORTE OUTLOTS IN THE ENOCH BRINSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT 5, LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE APPLICANT FRANKIE PERIOU, SEEKS AN EXCEPTION FROM THE LARGE LOT DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE. THIS EXCEPTION IS BEING SOUGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION 106-191 (B)(4) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. A. STAFF PRESENTATION At the request of Chairman Grant, Mr. Malik briefed the Board on the aspects of the newly created Large Lot District. Mr. Grant provided some history on development of the District, as he served as a member of the review committee. Mr. Malik presented Staffs Report. The applicant, Frankie Periou, has requested an exception from the lot size and width requirements of the Large Lot District, in order to subdivide 1.86 acres at 11318 N. "P" St., for construction of a second house for her daughter and son-in-law. As proposed, the lot width of the existing house would be 140 feet and the second lot would be approximately 48 feet, which would create a nonconformity. Ten property owners within 200 feet of the subject tract were sent notification of the public hearing. Three responses were received favoring the exception. B. PROPONENTS Chairman Grant swore in Frankie Periou, 11318 N. "P" St. Ms. Periou, whose husband passed, wants to remain in her home with % acre. She does not want to relocate or have someone take care of her. She would like to divide the remainder of her property so her daughter and son-in-law can build a house and be close to her. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of February 23, 2006 Page 3 Chairman Grant swore in Adam Wilkes, 10501 Eagle Fort Ct., son-in-law of Ms. Periou, who spoke in favor of the exception. A second driveway is in place that could serve development to the back of the property. Dividing the property down the middle with both lots fronting N. "P" St. would not be feasible. Lori Druckenbolt, previously sworn in, inquired about the requirements for subdivision in the Large Lot District. Mr. Spiller, previously sworn in, inquired about access and rights-of-entry. C. OPPONENTS There were none. Motion by Rod Rothermel to approve Special Exception #06-001, to allow the applicant to proceed with a proposed subdivision for a single family residence with the condition that the subject property of 1.86 acres at 11318 N. "P" Street be divided evenly with each lot having a minimum of 94 feet of frontage along the public roadway. Second by Lawrence McNeal. The motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Rod Rothermel, Charles Schoppe, and Lawrence McNeal (Alt. No.1) Nays: Abstain: Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins, read aloud from Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances, which addresses Appeals. 6. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST #V06-001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SENS ROAD AND NORTH 'L' STREET, FURTHER DESCRIBED BY THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS TRS 5, 5A-1, 5F. AND 10 IN THE ENOCH BRINSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT 5, LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE APPLICANTS, DUDLEY MASTERSON AND LARRY HOGAN, SEEK A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE STANDARD BUILDING SETBACKS WITHIN THE BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL (BI) ZONING DISTRICT TO DEVELOP AN ENGINEERING OFFICE AND SHOP. THIS VARIANCE IS BEING SOUGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION 106-192 (B)(2) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. A. STAFF PRESENTATION Mr. Malik presented Staffs Report. The applicants, Dudley Masterson and Larry Hogan, have requested a variance to allow reduced front, rear, and side yard setbacks to develop an engineering office/shop at 1827 Sens Rd. The subject property will be reduced from 160 feet deep to 122 feet deep, once Harris County completes acquisition of right-of-way for the widening of Sens Rd. Additionally, a ditch along the southern property line encroaches 19 feet into the applicants' property. Thirteen property owners within 200 feet of the subject tract were sent notification of the public hearing. Two responses were received favoring the variance, one opposed, and two were returned undeliverable. B. PROPONENTS Chairman Grant swore in Larry Hogan, 8602 Spencer Hwy., owner of H & M Design. After learning how much land he was losing to the Sens Rd. widening, Mr. Hogan had to change the layout of his buildings, at a greater expense to him. He may have an opportunity to Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of February 23, 2006 Page 4 purchase some adjacent land that would alleviate the setback problem, but wants to pursue the variance in order to move forward. Chairman Grant swore in Alan Ward, 4731 Louise St., Seabrook, representing BWC, the property owners immediately north of the subject tract. Of concern is the matter of land acquisition. Mr. Ward expressed his approval for granting the variance. C. OPPONENTS There were none. Motion by Bob Capen to approve Variance #06-001, granting a reduction in setbacks to Front 40 feet, Rear 20 feet, and Sides 20 feet to allow development of an engineering office and shop located at 1827 Sens Rd. Second by Lawrence McNeal. The motion carried unanimously. Ayes: Sidney Grant, Bob Capen, Rod Rothermel, Charles Schoppe, and Lawrence McNeal (Alt. No.1) Nays: Abstain: Assistant City Attorney, Clark Askins, read aloud from Section 106-196 of the Code of Ordinances, which addresses Appeals. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mr. Malik reported the following ongoing developments: . Underwood Business Park, along Old Underwood Rd. south of SH 225 . Lakes at Fairmont Greens - Preliminary Plat approved for a residential golf course development. . La Porte Family Clinic - adjacent to O'Reilly Auto Parts . La Porte Hardware closed down; Ace Hardware coming in 8. BOARD COMMENTS There were none. 9. ADJOURN Chairman Grant adjourned the meeting at 8:03 PM. Submitted by, M Approved on this {)5 day of j{~ ,2006. oning Board of Adjustment #SE06-003 SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR 9601 MONTGOMERY LANE FRONT YARD FENCE EXHIBITS: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP EXHIBIT B - SURVEY MAP EXHIBIT C - SECTION 106-791, FRONT YARD AREA RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS EXHIBIT D - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSES CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST Application No.: ~r cb - DO :3 OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: a ~o.l d(t)~ Receipt No.: Note: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision Applicant: ]lm E SehOol~L1 Name ct ~O l rn Oht~O h'\~r~ ddress PH: .2 CO \ . 4,li. '22lO'1 I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: Name PH: Address I am requesting a Special Exception to Sect. / q I of the City Zomng regulations Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinance. t? '1/11. _ / I . I am requesting this Special Exceptiou for property located at 71.0 I r I W} 7 9 ()/Yl (/ill-/} II J ---i/ I ..L / _ I StreE;,t Address ',*,c7 :n-/O'l9L/ hi 1~7 ~t::Jj Ii IJ + Lt 1'1~ nLI( 1/ Legal Description 5pi:/h-J ll.l< PI r.re.c: .f'~c. 2. ( ) 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 np to this request. b) The type ofreliefI 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 Office Use Only 2-3-/)tp Date Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes () No () Date transmitted to the Board of Adjustments: Meeting Date: Applicant Notified of Date: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Boards Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: 2 A Special Exception is a deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Before they grant a special exception, The Board of Adjustments must determine that the exception is not contrary to the best public interest and will not adversely affect the value or use of adjoining property. Special exceptions may be granted for the following items only: 1) The reconstruction of or addition to a building occupied by a non-conforming use. Additions cannot extend past the lot occupied by the original structure or use. The reconstruction or use cannot prevent the property from returning to a conforming use. 2) Deviation of yard requirements under the following circumstances. a) Exceptions to front yard requirements if front yard setbacks are not met on abutting pieces of property. b) Exception to rear yard setbacks if any four (4) lots within a block do not meet setback requirements. c) Exceptions to yard requirements on corner lots. d) Exceptions to front yard requirements if existing front yard setbacks on a block are not uniform. 3) Waiving or reduction of off street parking and loading requirements if the Board feels they are unnecessary for the proposed use of a building or piece of property. Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that a Special Exception will meet the above conditions. If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board should consider. 3 .. S:\CPShare\INSPECTION DIVISION\Standard Forms\ZONING SPEGAL REQUEST. doc REVISION 10/21/03 RYC Staff Report March 23, 2006 Special Exception Request #SE 06-003 Requested by: Tim E. Schooley (Owner) Requested for: Lot 197 less E 13', Lot 198, Block 11; Spenwick Place, Section 2, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. Location: 9601 Montgomery Lane Zonine:: Low Density Residential (R-l) Backe:round: Applicant is requesting a Special Exception to erect a fence in the front yard setback. Applicant stated that a fence existed at site for over thirty fiye years but it was taken down recently due to removal of a house at 9521 Montgomery Lane. Upon application to replace the fence, the City Officials informed Mr. Schooley of the requirements of the current ordinance. The applicant stated that he would comply with the ordinance, but he wants to replace just the portion of the front yard fence which was there for several years. The applicant submitted a Special Exception request in order to allow construction of a fence in the front yard setback where it borders even with the neighbor's fence. The applicant has submitted photos of the neighboring property fences in this regard. The City's Code of Ordinances, however, prohibits a fence being erected within the front yard setback in the all zoning districts except large lot residential (greater than 1 acre) and lots directly adjacent to the Galyeston Bay. Staff analyzed the surrounding area and based upon site inspections and the pictures submitted by the applicant, the following considerations are noted: · As seen in the photos, the existing block containing the residence has existing fences in the front yard setback (Photos to be presented at the meeting). · The requested fence would join even with the fence of an abutting property owner. · The front portion of the fence in question was an extension of an existing fence constructed in the side setback. The standard front yard setback requirement in residential zones, single family detached is 25'. It should be noted that if the applicant's request is granted, the ZBOA will be determining the deviated or "reduced" front yard setback. Board of Adjustment March 23, 2006 #SE06-003 Page 2 of3 Analvsis: Tbis exception is being requested under the terms of Section 106- 191(b)(2)(a) and (d) of the City's Code of Ordinances. .:. To deviate a front yard setback requirement where the actual front yard setback of any abutting lot does not meet the front yard requirement. .:. An exception where the front yard setbacks of the various lots in the same block are not uniform. The Code of Ordinances defmes a special exception as a specified enumerated deviation from zoning regulations. The Board is empowered to grant a special exception when it finds the following: .:. Granting the exception will not adversely affect the value, or use of neighboring property. .:. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the best public interest. Regarding this request, the relief being sought is similar to the circumstance coyered by the terms of the Special Exception Section. · Allow construction of a fence in a front yard setback. The issues to consider are impact on neighboring property and the best public interest. In this case, it appears that the fence will serve to proyide a uniform setback of adjacent properties and, as stated by the applicant, enhance the safety of his grandchildren to play along one of the main road in Spenwick Subdivision. ~ Section 106-191 (b) (2) (a), City Code of ordinances states that a special exception may be granted if "Any exception from the front yard requirement where the actual front yard setback of any abutting lot does not meet the front yard requirement." ~ Section 106-191 (b) (2) d. states "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 extended, be the required minimum front yard depth. Board of Adjustment March 23, 2006 #SE06-003 Page 3 of3 Conclusion : Appeals: The application merits review by the Board based upon the parameters set by the Ordinance. The Board may consider: ~ Granting the variance and allowing the fence to be constructed in the front yard setback. ~ Denying the variance thereby denying the construction of the front yard fence. 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. w z ::s M>- 00::: OW cb~ 00 w(.!) Cl)1- =t:t:z o ~ T- o <0 0> ~H'Bn~ 1\. -tJO\Z.T~ o 1'1.<1 .00 -:1:.8/.00' -.5-':I,.IE, 1'1 -46.00' _-~ -=-=---=-=-5~x20' />-,c. ,- -=- -=-~=~ Lor l"Ib LoT 1"17 o <l. .;j' -+ 2<q'..O" -fl'-II" :t'2'i ~ 11 12..€'!p.",~a " I ',i ' 1.3-8 ' :50' e..L. I ' , , , ,'caI-JC. " , C'/?-h''! I I I I . .T3o:;'{'Z!' .1::::" 1:)<1."1'. 'ajl:{'ee.i . .. .~ ,.". _.. ........, ,~''''.~....' ?t i , ' 4"1. ~o ~ ~- ....I.. 'r", ==F'~, ~" ''"': c;,o I Jo-..'lOJo.JTC.,.OIVtE/2'f LANE W. 4.8 I Of LOT' Iq 7 ,f A.u. of Lor Iq,:;, f->LOo::. (I 0PE:"-JW ,c.~ fl..t\CE; :$l;'C. '2 LA Po~n: I TT::XAS ~ ::l;: 00i '::I ~ C) !:i' I 8 w '5Ct-lOOI.EY [2e":;IOEoN CE. A2..E:CI S.E. HolVI.cs <SITE. PL.-AN %! I '( ~'20'-O" ~:;;., .. I . To'''_'.''''"~'_~.'_.._....._".'_' ADAMS """0 ~,,\ , =::~';':~'::~7-.4=~=':.=':";-:1I:~: _ . _ ~~ .,,'.~_.,....'..e.."...,..,""'.,,-,.,<1,.._. ~liII. I SL 3 188138 Yi~ll ~=::,~-_"."'p'''n__'"::''''''~~'' LlDDESIGNERS ..m.. ..... .... o Q. . "" '<\- .-t - Ul. - , /l']' ~ , S- (r 't =. J', e -( ,0 (i'I L:j ( l , I i 1 Y E ;. r .- ~ ~ ,.~ i'" ~ r" g ! t ~ S 106-773 LA PORTE CODE (2) Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the premises; (3) Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and light trucks, as defined in this chapter; (4) Firewood, compost, or residential lawn and garden tools. Sees. 106-774-106-790. Reserved. DIVISION 4. FENCING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Sec. 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 shoreline 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 only be constituted of chain link. These exceptions do not permit structw"es, grading, or barrier hedges. l \ " Sec. 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. Sec. 106-794. Fences and trees on utility easements. Fences or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal at the owner's expense if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. Trees on utility easements containing overhead wires shall not exceed ten feet in height. Sec. 106-795. Maintenance of fences. Both sides of the fence must be maintained in good condition by the owner of the fence. Sec. 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. Supp. No.9 CD106:88 ~HIBn' ~ A Meeting of the La Porte Zonin~ Board of Adjustment (Type of Meeting) RECEIVED Scheduled for MAR 1 6 2006 March 23~ 2006 (Date of Meeting) PLANNING DEPT. to Consider Special Exception #SE06-003 (Type of Request) I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. I am in FAVOR of granting this request for the following reasons: ~~~ ~k~ o+..~ M1~ I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: !~1f} 7Y. LI AI D C; a~ Name (please print) C};~ CO Signature ~ q5/ 7 1j1~tJr6oM~t-l Address /... fAr t.:JC'~r6' 17 5 7/ City, State, Zip ~(HIBn 1) #A06-003 APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION EXHIBITS A. Staff Report B. Location Map C. Application D. Documentation E. Sections 106-741(d) & 106-262 (c), City's Code of Ordinances F. Public Notice Responses Staff Report March 23, 2006 Appeal of Enforcement Officer's Decision #A06-003 Applicant: Randall W. Cemosek, Property Owner Location: 303 S. Iowa Street Le!!al description: Lots 4, 5, S lIz of 3, and N lIz of 6, Block 216, Johnson Hunter Survey, Abstract No. 35, Town of La Porte, Harris County, Texas. Present zonine: Low-Density Residential (R-l) Land Use Map: Residential Back2round: The applicant is appealing the Enforcement Officer's Decision to apply Code of Ordinances Section l06-741(d) and Section l06-262(c)(g), to a proposed development. As per Section 106-741(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, a detached garage may be 20' in height, or equal the height of the principal structure, whichever is less. In addition, Section 106-262(c) (g), a nonconforming structure may not be rebuilt unless it conforms with the ordinance, reconstruction cost may not exceed 50 percent of its value, and structure may not be enlarged. The subject property is located at 303 S. Iowa Street. The property was built in 1948 as per record of the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD). The house has a liying area of 1,222 sq. ft. and detached garage 480 sq. ft. The applicant stated that the existing detached garage was a two-story (non-conforming structure) and the height of the garage did exceed the principal I-story structure against the provision of the current ordinance. The second story was removed as of August 22,2005, and later on a carport was added to front of existing garage. The applicant seeks permission to rebuild the second floor and roof on existing garage and carport and to enlarge an area of a nonconforming structure from 480 sq.ft to 720 sq.ft. extended over carport. Height - In this case, the height of the detached garage will exceed the height of the principal structure. Valuation - Estimated total construction costs of a two story detached garage equals $22,685. The construction cost to rebuild second floor only from 2nd floor decking to roofline is $7,996. The applicant determined that this amount is less than 50% of the total cost or its value and is in compliance with Section 106-262(c) of the Ordinance. Exhibit "D" as calculated by the Building Official, howeyer, disagrees with the applicant's findings. Enlargement - Section 106-262(g) prohibits an enlargement of a nonconforming structure. If greater than 50% and less than total, the Board may grant as a special exception a permit for repairs but not for enlargement or reconstruction of the building. ~~HH~l~l A. Board of Adjustment 3/23/06 - #A 06-003 Page 2 00 Analysis: Sect. 106-261 is the beginning of the "nonconforming" section in the zoning ordinance and the opening paragraph provides guidance regarding the intent of these regulations. The general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment have been directed to take note that nonconformities in the use, development of land, and buildings are to be avoided where now existing, wherever, and whenever possible. The applicant has submitted a permit application to add/replace 2nd story to existing garage and extend it over the carport. The permit was denied based on Section 106- 741 (d) of the Code of Ordinances as detached garage height would exceed the height of the principal structure/house on the property line. In addition, the applicant wishes to enlarge proposed area, which is prohibited per Section 106-262(g) of the Ordinances. Unless the Board determines that such enlargement will not result in an increase in the degree of non-conformity. In describing the action of appeal, the Code of Ordinances states: In exercising the powers set forth in Section 106-88, the Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the enforcement officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board must find the following in order to grant an appeal: a) That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the interpretation of the enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. Current regulations are written in a clear manner which allows the enforcement officer to understand the intent of City Council as it relates to the nonconforming structure. This regulation has been in effect since the January 26, 1987 adoption of Zoning Ordinance #1501 and the regulation has not been proven to be "unreasonable". No reasonable difference exists regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Alternative remedies exist for the property owner in which the applicant would be compliant with the Ordinance; therefore the Zoning Ordinance should not be construed as unreasonable. b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated Current regulations are written in a clear manner that enables individuals to understand City Council's intent. This enables Staff to provide the information to others and be consistent in the enforcement of this regulation. This consistency in the enforcement of the regulation ensures no "special privilege" to anyone property. Board of Adjustment 3/23/06 - #A 06-003 Page 3 of3 Conclusion: Auueals: One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to eliminate and/or ameliorate nonconformities. Typically, the elimination of nonconformities is addressed when property owner decides to develop the property or expand existing facilities. Granting this request would give the appearance of granting a special privilege to the property owner. c) The decision of the Board must be in the best interest of the community and consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's Zoning Laws and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Staff believes it would conflict with the intent of the regulation and would not be in the best interest of the community or be consistent with the spirit of the City's Zoning Ordinance. While the property owner has presented estimated cost to rebuild 2nd floor, which seems to be less than 50% of the total cost (contested by the City), the Board may grant permission to issue a permit for reconstruction, but not for an enlargement of a nonconforming structure. Unless the Board determines that such enlargement will not result in an increase in the degree of nonconformity. The general intent and purpose behind the Zoning Ordinance is to promote public health, safety, and welfare. The enforcement officer's decision in this case would be in the best interest of the community and would be consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's Zoning Laws and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, Staff feels the enforcement officer's decision was correct. If the Board chooses to grant #A06-003, this action would allow the applicant to proceed with the proposed development as follows: . Rebuild 2nd floor on existing garage and carport. . Enlarge 2nd floor from 480 sq.ft. to 720 sq.ft., which will extend over carport. 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. #A06-003 303 S. IOWA CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION Application No.: Af)<P - 00 d. OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: -Z-ll3l '/ .Q;Q~ Applicant: 1219 tJOffl-L, W, ~tJerc::eK. Name :903 $', ~WI4 Address PH: ~/-tf?I-7t7~ I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized to act on my behalf in this matter. Owner*: dflVlJ~ ~ tltff'/2,UPSl3< . Name 3it/ 5, 13'"#CK.ltJt:!lt:. Address PH: ;Jt'1-~71-76~ I am appealing the decision regarding or the interpertation of Sect. /tJ(,/llfl(D) of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances. I am making this appeal in regards to the property located at: 803 5', ::;:OwJ1- ~S ~S:I 5'; a. or.3 -I N. ~ bP? /.?~k, :.2/b Street Address . 'Legal Description / 7cwi/ IJF ill- ;J~ ( ) Minor Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan / (0' Site Plan ( ) Major Development Site Plan A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the following pages of this form. a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request. b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc. ). c) The grounds upon which I am making this request. * If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf. () t9 - t? 7.-pt, Date .&b14~ 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: Board's Decision: Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner: ~HiQtr\C ., ,?~ 2 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 TIllS MATTER: <P. EXI577rJ6 O~'fJ P/llV~ ~A1Ut'r.R wAS f). ~-v/-! y ~d 7W t~c'tff c;() ~?::-Y; AtlrJt1Jl'm, i 5/1',1...1( S7l.Ucn<,.tt-e. 8@:()a fJ.efvtcvM.., OF ;1/d!!.?;:::e.cp{l.. ~ E6Tlmlf11i'KJ p:;rm, C01J~tJrJ O:>~ of I} ,;L 9'pa<{ Ihi14'tif1ilJ /h'X.dI/ C~.,F aA/1f ~f;,-e. ()fJt.'( ~m 4. ~ ~;;lJ fp~, 6l.f , ESnlflMtftJ ~ Co;:;~l1Ua1otJ (Q:?I -10 ~alq) :9-- t)1!.O .p(.4"';Z f)'P&K.f#C, /l) ~t'F L-tP;? J...st.7tl96. 'iO WH'It'H 15 ~5 tt;u&~ $t4fv9 i5 "11J1tIJ ~ ~ CP5T ~F (!hV::f~ tJ/1T2Me t1::7 11Bl- 4!JcE &1P Pl2dj,v~ ~6(... IPb I ~.").. (C) t (j ~ICT ~',.H' tvlftJ I/'1'JlJnJ ~ F~,.n-PF ex.,m~i- ~~,,~ f}c(;o!'~I'.hiJ.l~ 10 tW'r cParcP~,vprp.)c;!3. TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT: o ~ !tIJPPeVA'V TO ~-PlLt~tJ tP~ ~ft!.- 1tPJ4 ~fl;: IN.) CXI.711ft/t, ~ctJp)#~ @ ~-r /h^fj2e'IIAl.-TlJ ev~e ;).:!!IJ PiJ;.'1;.'IC-~P1 t.tJ":5~IPr W 7,." SI(7Fr: WH-1CIf fA; ItA,.. ~ Olta.. ~g,q- p~ Ct:Jf)€ ..'IF OI4l~P//J'll~ fUZ. to". pIt;;.(g). GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST: (P (;")(.16",.;" ~~ WIJS J- f~ ~ I"b~ CG6I Tl> ~/tO q2~ pu.c,e ,oS U"S5 vwJ~ M pe;e UlIJIf of p,e.a,-Jl-~t't!; Job. ~3--(~) ..(#). G> .$F /'J11ItJoUIRJ , ~j'1UI~ CtliU ~c: FIN il1Jl'MverrJetJr tiP P,l!/~I',t!/H. ~~ /J1SIlJ , W itA... p~/ II1Jv~GUf 1mI' 4f::r :f~~W"''lJIif.~ P~P(!E17es. ((} C'45T7rJ'- P~&1J ~~ /.PC:'> I1'ti!l?rI1U- t11ftJI2. :;?tpt.J,#Jf&, ()ti)IIVIJ'J)U5 rJIt),() a?/Je-5. (g A1 Ptr2- tc/)c ~F C'~IIIIII1ve:F$ sa. 1O/?~3(k) Ii 5ttd/llI:/~I~/fJ or 5c~H'tVtn..e '7?J CIb1Jt.7~ S:\CPShare\INSPECI'lON DIVISION\Stanclard Fonns\ZONING APPEAL OFFICERS DECdoe REVISION 10121/03 Rye 14')"" .~ 303 So. Iowa (Owner/Occupant: Randall Cemosek) 2004 Certified Tax Roll: Improvements Valued @ $33,700* 2005 Certified Tax Roll: Improvements Valued @ $37,235* (*Includes house & detached garage). Valuation 1) No exemptions applicable 2) House - 1,222 sq ft/living ar~a X $25.75**/sq ft = (**$51.50 sq. ft/new construction; used 50% for older home [1948]) 3) 20' X 24' Detached Garage - 480 sq ftll-story X $12.00/sq ft. = TOTAL Utilizing oWner's ~arage valuation estimates (see attached): $30.60/sq ft for 1 st floor (includes slab cost) X 480 sq ft = $ 16.66/sq ft for 2nd floor x 480 sq ft = DETACHED GARAGE TOTAL 50 % of$14,688.74 (i-story garage estimate) = Owner's estimate on 2nd story is shown as = $7,344.37 $7,996.80 Non-Conformin{! Issue: $31,466. 5.760. $37,226. $14,688.74 ,7.996.80 $22,685.54 _,_ .J~' - ........'" .';\ __"'_...".;J (OVER 50%) . Garage height exceeded zoning regulation allowable height since residence is single story. Two-story garage was non-conforming structure. . City identified owner's removal of 2nd story as of 08-22-05. . Replacement of deleted 2nd story exceeds 50% of I-story . Staff unable to assist property owner; only option Zoning Board of Adjustment " ..._~. '~HIBn D .---- ~ _:~ -_: .~... .- ....- , , ~ $;, .:;t:OttJA ,: LJ~~ t$ · e o? ~~ I ,<, > ~M .~ . r ~ ,fI~ :.StlJPr: ~FIZ- ~~61L. . .' /;'J Ift..L. tr~ 10TfltJ '~ " Wd ~ r 7 t1 t/ :;-- ) Fr: /!b '~ L :zfl'-" . "Il.r. ,..,.......r.", .. ~ ,-:: ' . · _ rr . ',_". . r.. f '_' ,4, ,eft( 1 ~' ,', '. YJ ~ .V~~ ;tJ,U ,. ~ :<~' ~ . . .-; ., f../ ) A e~{rf1t'1 " .P' / '0 !:!-.--.. I .; . . C'- l) 4" J . ..,.'~ .J! . ,~X:, i ~ ~ z 149fT"'" , '"''':'''~~rf ,~;. ';:'!;,/J,c 4,':~ fj,,'~,_ ~ifIii.';'lK:_'l7-f,. '';" . - /~,., / PERMIT. APPLICATIQN./ . ~r , l J~ -;l3: "'S-) City of La PO~~~w~t) . Established 1892 DEe ! 3 Z005 281-470-5073 Mechanical *EIectrical *(See back ofform) Lot~" 'f: ~: ; {~~k- 3> -6 /v'-{:' ~~ Co ')/ Billoc -q~ Pho1'tt2ft. ~")I. 7&7-2- . U:I{ '2-S7. 5/<::;). .C::J:;;l-g ~ ~ ? )57/ Zip *Phrmbing Project ~ess: , ~ flu;/J Subdivision: . Owner>sName:~,v?,( U>Uvc>>€J::: sJij if' 04c/L A/d-f Street . CIty . -Address: Contrnctor: S~ Phone: ~ Address: Street city Zip . ~1!iSJVty) Sq. Footage: ~ 67:;, # StoneS'~ . .~fVO J~ ~e:V?,/' 7e ~~'\'e Describe Work .. . ".,J h.J /(:/ N.:C,oV"c0t.6r7 ~~ M~' t:>Y&-. ~~~~. S~cT~ . Class Work ~ . .Sq.:pL 1&:-6 ~ .;., &- ;.;., ; #Stories Pa~g~' . Engineer: . Building Use: de ..s//:?C; ~r9 ~ .. VaIwmon: Occupancy TypeY-3 Const;ruction Type V For eRr -goo .only Flood Zone X': . UseZone IC)" ~ . ': Date (p) e5: ;;;> tEX~ ~~ Taxes-o~'M -D(p ~, Permit No. ~ r^AT".,.,_:__~_...'D1mm . r",Pm-tp Tpy;:!o;77S71 . (281)471-5020 ~ 106-:741 LA PORTE CODE DIVISION 2. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT Sec. 106-741. General provisions. (a) No accessory buildings, uses or structures shall be erected or located in any required yard other than the rear yard except: (1) A detached private garage as defined, may be permitted in side yards, provided: a. It complies with all the requirements of this section; b. It shall be five feet or more from side lot lines; and c. The side yard does not abut a street right-of-way. (2) Accessory buildings built on a skid foundation, no larger than 120 square feet and no more than one story in height may be located in utility easements in required rear yards, except that they may. not be located closer than three feet from a side or rear property line or closer than six feet from any other structure. (b) Accessory buildings, uses and structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height, shall be three feet or more from all lot lines, shall be six feet or more from any other building or structure on the same lot, and shall not be located upon any utility easement. (c) Private garage structures with vehicular access doors facing public alleys, as defined in the public improvement construction policy and standards, shall be 20 feet or more from the alley right-of-way. Detached garages located in rear yards of corner lots shall be set back a minimum ten feet from the property line abutting the side street right-of-way. c. i \ V (d) Detached private garages, as defined, may be 20 feet in height, or the height of the principal structure, whichever is less. (e) Floor area. (1) Generally. No accessory building, or carport garage for single-family dwellings shall occupy more than 25 percent ofa rear yard, nor exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area. (2) Large lot residential only. Accessory buildings in single-family residential large lots may not exceed 2,000 square feet of floor area. Accessory buildings with a flOOI area in excess of 1,000 squar~ feet must be located at least 30 feet from any property line and 30 feet behind the rear of the primary structure. (f) No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one detached private garage or carport structure for each dwelling. (g) Wind generators, for producing electricity or other forms of energy shall not be located in any yards other than the rear yard and must be set back 150 feet from all ~roperty lines or the height of the structure, whichever is greater. CD106:82 ,s(H!SO ~ 106-261 LA PORTE CODE recommendations thereon. As necessary, the city council may from time to time on its own motion or upon cause presented by interested property owners inquire into the existence, continuation or maintenance of any nonconforming use within the city. (1) Conforming use does not change to nonconforming use if adjacent property subsequently changes zoning classification. A use that conforms to the zoning regulations on the effective date of this zoning ordinance at the time of initial development of the site shall not subsequently be deemed a nonconforming use solely because the use changes on an adjoining property. (2) Accessory use of structure. No structure that is accessory toa principal nonc~mforming use or a nonconforming structure shall continue after such principal use or structure has been terminated, removed or otherwise brought into compliance, unless it complies with all of the regulations of the district in which it is located. (Ord. No. 1501-Z-1, ~ 5(exh. D), 2-9-98) Sec. 106-262. Nonconforming structures. (a) Limitation on regulation. No structure, otherwise in accordance with the provisions of these regulations or an amendment hereto, shall be rendered or be deemed a nonconfoi'IIiing structure solely for a failure to comply with provisions relating to Article V, Division 2, Accessory Buildings, Uses, and Equipment, of this chapter. ( (b) Continuance of nonconforming structures. Subject to all limitations herein set forth, any nonconforming structure may be occupied and operated and maintained in a f;ltate of good repair, but no nonconforming structure shall be enlarged unless the enlargement is made in accordance with the provisions of section 106-262(g) of this chapter. V/ (c) Accidental damage to structure. If a building occupied by nonconforming uses is destroyed by fire or the elements, it may not be reconstructed or rebuilt unless it conforms with, the provisions of this chapter. In the case of partial destruction by fire or other causes, not exceeding 50 percent of its value, as determined by a licensed appraiser, the enforcing officer ofthe city may issue a permit for reconstruction. If greater than 50 percent and less than total, the board may grant as a special exception a permit for repairs but not for enlargement or reconstruction of the building. (d) Obsolescence of structure. The right to operate and maintain any nonconforming structure shall terminate and shall cease to exist whenever the nonconforming structure becomes substandard under the codes and ordinances of the city, and the cost of placing such structure in lawful compliance with the applicable ordinances exceeds 50 percent of the replacement cost of such structure, as determined by a licensed appraiser, on the date that the enforcing officer determines that such structure is obsolete or substandard. The enforcement officer of thc city shall notify the owner of such nonconforming structure, as shown on the ccrtified tax rolls of the city, as to the date oftermination of the right to operate and maintain such nonconforming' structure, and as to the procedure to be followed to bring such structure Supp. No.1 CD106:38 A Meeting of the La Porte RECEIVED Zonine- Board of Adjustment (Type of Meeting) MAR 1 6 2006 Scheduled for PLANNING DEPl March 23, 2006 (Date of Meeting) to Consider Appeal of Enforcement Officers Decision #A06-003 (Type of Request) I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing. I am in FAVOR of granting this request for the following reasons: c:2 C/O .> (( h f' ,J( '/P'" d- i'J N CJ 'f=. '72> ,Vi'A~ n7J #~ Ill, 6~r I1(}CJ/ / P ';// I"t (Q/'tf.rf/f / u .. cfO/A/ .r &;'i/p 74~ I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons: [)AfA/;J (}cJllf /~~) Signature 3tJf) ~ ~W;er Address L/lIJ/6/ ~/ 77J7/ City, Stale, tip - ~Hnlrr ,~{'