HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-11 Special Called Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment MINUTE S
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of March 24, 2010
Members Present: George Maltsberger, Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No. 2), Charles Schoppe, and T.J.
Walker
Members Absent: Lawrence McNeal (Alt. No 1), Chester Pool, and Rod Rothermel.
City Staff Present: Masood Malik, City Planner; Clark Askins, Assistant City Attorney; Shannon
Green, Planning Assistant.
1. Call to Order.
Chairman George Maltsberger called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
2. Consider approval of the December 08, 2010, meeting minutes.
Motion by Charles Schoppe to approve the Minutes of December 08, 2010, with the following
correction:
Remove the name T.J. Walker, as present, at the December 8, 2010 meeting.
Second by George Maltsberger. Motion carried.
Ayes: George Maltsberger, Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No. 2), Charles Schoppe, and T.J.
Walker
Nays: None
Abstain: None
3. Consider Variance Request #11- 93000001 for the property located at 920 Seabreeze
Avenue, further described by the Harris County Appraisal District as being Lots 18 -20,
Parkway Block of Bay Shore Park, Volume 10, Page 22, Johnson Hunter Survey, Abstract
No. 35, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. Richard Sparks, property owner, seeks a variance
to convert an existing garage located in a side yard into a mother -in -law quarter, contrary
to the provisions of Section 106 -741 of the Code of Ordinances. This variance is being
sought under the terms of Section 106- 192(b)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
La Porte.
A. STAFF PRESENTATION
Masood Malik, City Planner, presented staff's report.
Twenty -seven public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 200' of the
subject property. The City received four responses in favor of the Variance.
B. PROPONENTS
Applicant, Richard Sparks spoke in favor of the variance.
C. OPPONENTS
There were none.
D. PROPONENTS REBUTTAL
There were none.
Motion by George Maltsberger to deny Variance #11- 93000001, for the property located at 920
Seabreeze Avenue. Second by Gilbert Montemayor. Motion carried.
Ayes: George Maltsberger, Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No. 2), and T.J. Walker
Nays: None
Abstain: Charles Schoppe.
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of March 24, 2011
Page 2 of 2
4. Administrative Reports
There were no reports.
5. Board Comments
There were no comments.
6. ADJOURN
Motion by Charles Schoppe to adjourn. Second by T.J. Walker. Motion Carried.
Ayes: George Maltsberger, Gilbert Montemayor (Alt. No. 2), Charles Schoppe, and T.J.
Walker
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Chairman Maltsberger adjourned the meeting at 6:16 pm.
S r itted by,
Shannon Green
Secretary, Zoning Board of Adjustment
Approved on this L day of 0 , 2011.
.4 ' ' ' x / '
Rod Rothermel
Vice Chairperson, Zoning Board of Adjustment
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR
125 SOUTH 3 STREET
EXHIBITS:
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT C - CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTION 106- 443,TABLE B,
COMMERCIAL AREA REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT D - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
Staff Report April 28, 2011
Fire Station No.1
Special Exception Request #11- 94000001
Requested by: City of La Porte c/o Reagan McPhail — Public Improvements Coordinator
Requested for: Yard setbacks and other requirement for the Main Street District
Location: 125 South 3 Street
(Block 39; Lots 11 -16; Town of La Porte)
Zoning: Main Street District (MSD)
Background: The City of La Porte has plans to build a new Fire Station No. 1, along with
administrative offices at 125 South 3 Street. Currently, Fire Station No.1 is
located along West `A' and South 2 Street. Current growth trends and first
responder's approach require advanced equipment and better personnel
accommodation at these facilities. In addition, this is an old building and
require much needed space for the Fire Department personnel
The proposed layout plan shows no setback for a 2 -story administrative
building along front, side yard adjacent to West `A' Street, and rear yard
abutting 16' wide public alley to the east (See Exhibit). In developing a
corner lot, zoning regulations require a minimum ten -foot (10') setback on
the side that adjoins a public right -of -way (West `A' Street) and 20' rear
yard setback for the Main Street District.
The Main Street Overlay and District were created to attract mixed use
developments. Minimum yard setbacks for the Main Street District are;
Front *, Rear 20', Side 5'. In addition, all yards adjacent to public right -of-
way must be a minimum of ten feet. It is likely that existing buildings and
lots available for development may not meet these regulations, as most of the
buildings in the downtown area are considered to be zero lot line or have no
setbacks.
* denotes front yard setback as the average of the existing structures on that
side of the street on the same side or the setback of the closest structure on an
adjacent lot. In this case, front setback is proposed to be zero as other
structures are considered zero lot line on the same side of the street. It is
considered to be consistent with the existing structures and will look
aesthetically pleasing. In order to build a two story administrative office
building, 0 side setback is shown instead of 10' side yard setback when
adjacent to public right -of -way (West 'A' Street). In staff's opinion, a 10'
side yard setback may not be necessary for the proposed building, which will
be similar to other structures on the same side of the street. The proposed
CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST
Application No.: /7—'74 000c00 /
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: 3 - 3o --
Receipt No.: c,2 __
Note: This Fee is Non - Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
Applicant: . gec` 0.
c' Name
(00 4 11v. Fair mor i 1 2I(1/ PH: g(— 70 - 43
Address
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner *: (11+1 OP L et erte
Name
(OOLI (45 Fair/via/Cr / PH: vZS �7 5c0 CD
Address /
I am requesting a Special Exception to Sect. of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106
of the Code of Ordinance.
I am requesting this Special Exception for property located at 1 -- ouy-,h
L 0 11 a 2 , 7
Stree Address
I 9 L. o r + e
Legal Description
( Site Plan () Minor Development Site Plan
() Major Development Site Plan () General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the
following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorizati i n to act on the • w r - " • behalf.
3/g 0/2 1r • � ,
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:
Board's Decision: Approved () Denied ( )
Notice of Boards Decision mailed to Applicant /Owner:
£a pp xix y-
$��TT S 6 N 8 ¢° S
■ I E d E ®❑ • gg
} c
Sig,
aW r
} a il 1 I I '4p °o
.... 1 I II lad E5- $ 30 y c,
I��� a W re
13311S „8„ 1S3M ( II I I l
to
r�
E �q til 6 C 2, Itiki
u;
6 - P
w _ _ ._ _ __. W 6 0
W 0 m
cc d' y?ox
rn in'
0 0 n - o O "
N K _. - - _. Y ___.. _ m Al r4
= O O M N W Q y u
= OJ ?yOLL
0 F
0 m 1 O , $ z1x-wa
A N
rU WOU
i-
�Z K
zH aW ❑oa
14'''. OodyLL�
oi-�— w
° u
�,C IiC�Q
J
(M'o ,09) i 133N_LS .M„ .12,3M
T
o
e e N.V. aeu z
O
( _ _ _ r . <.m — —
3w wo
— I : 1V _ ° ~
w o n
1 f a .., a
1 °_.-2 .
_ I —�./ _ —
i
v
0 l i
! i
1 I
1
I
1 1
1 I
I
133231S NIWI 1S3M
ZONING § 106 -443
Sec. 106 -443. Table B, commercial area requirements.
(a) Table B, Commercial area requirements.
Adjacent to
Residential
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Landscap- Yard Yard
ing Maximum Setbacks Setback Maximum Bldg. De-
Required Lot F.R.S. F.R.S. Height sign Stan -
Uses s Coverage z, s, 4, s, 7 2, 6 (feet) dards
R -3 uses (permitted) except residential 6% Density Intensity Regulations Specified in Table
single - family, detached and special lot, B, area requirements, section 106 -333
duplexes, quadruplexes, townhouses,
and multifamily
CR Comm. Recreation Dist.; all permit-
ted or conditional
NC Neighborhood Comm.; all permit- 6% 50% 20 -10 -0 20 -10 -10 N /A
ted or conditional
GC General Comm.; all permitted or 6% 40% 20 -10 -0 20 -20 -10 N /A 100% ma-
conditional sonry
Outside sales or services N/A N/A 5 -5 -5 Same as N/A
principle
use
Outside storage N/A N/A 20 -10 -5 Same as See section
principal 106 444(b)
use
Freestanding on- premises signs See article VII of this chapter
Freestanding on- premises signs located See article VII of this chapter
in controlled access highway corridors
V Main Street 6% 60% * -20 -5 * -0 -0 TBD
Main Street Overlay N/A 80% 0 -20 -0 N/A TBD
(b) Footnotes to Table B.
1 A minimum landscape setback of 20 feet will be required adjacent to all designated
conservation areas. Buildings, parking areas, loading docks, outside storage, and
refuse containers will not be allowed in such setback areas. A planting plan is required
to be submitted and approved by the enforcing officer. These areas are to be landscaped
with trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Required landscaping must be maintained by the
property owner and/or occupant.
! Screening is required in conformance with section 106- 444(a).
lJ All yards adjacent to public right -of -way must be a minimum of ten feet.
4 The minimum setback adjacent to any utility easement shall be three feet.
5 See article V, division 4 of this chapter for additional requirements.
Supp. No. 18 CD106:61
VARIANCE
FOR
10804 MESQUITE DRIVE
EXHIBITS:
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B - SKETCH PLAN
EXHIBIT C - SECTION 106 -333, TABLE B, RESIDENTIAL
AREA REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT D - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
Staff Report April 28, 2011
Variance Request #11- 93000002
Requested by: Mr. Kenneth R. McCurry (Property Owner)
Requested for: Lot 24, Block 12, Fairmont Park East Section 2, William M. Jones Survey, Abstract 482,
La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
Location: 10804 Mesquite Drive
Zoning: Low Density Residential (R -1)
Background: Per the HCAD records, this property is 6,900 S. F. The primary residence is 2,132 S. F.
with an existing roofed house area of 1368 S.F. There is an existing pool and cool deck
in the back of the house. The total impervious coverage with concrete, decking, and
house under roof equals 3,890 S. F. or 56.3% impervious cover factor. The pool with
cool deck was constructed without issuance of a City permit.
Per City Ordinance 106 -333 Table B, the maximum allowable lot coverage for a single
family detached dwelling unit is 40% for this type of lot. Several years ago, the City
approved an ordinance to allow patio cover of up to 900 sq. ft and accessory building of
200 sq. ft. exempted from 40% lot coverage for single - family detached. However, the
impervious cover factor of 55% for the total site for drainage purposes remains intact.
Recently, the applicant has added more concrete to an existing driveway and extended it
all the way to the back up to the pool decking. With this move, an existing coverage for
the subject lot equals 3,890 sq. ft. (56.3 %) or 95 sq. ft. over the maximum allowable of
3,795 sq.ft. (55 %). To be in compliance with the City ordinances, existing
impervious /concrete would have to be reduced by 95 sq. ft.
This variance requests seeks to allow the current impervious coverage of 3,890 sq. ft. to
remain in place. The owner states that excess coverage was not intentional and it would
be expensive to saw cut and jackhammer out reinforced concrete.
The City is working diligently to mitigate any adverse impact of flooding in town.
Several drainage projects including one in the Fairmont Park East subdivision are
underway at this time. The City's Public Improvement Criteria Manual allows
impervious factor of 55% for total site drainage. In this case, an additional impervious
coverage may impact to an outfall and capacity of the storm sewer in the area.
Analysis: Section 106- 192(b)(1), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as a deviation from
the literal provisions of the chapter, which is granted by the Board when strict
conformity to the chapter would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the
circumstances unique to the property on which the variance is granted.
Section 106 -1 defines lot coverage as "...the area under roof on any given lot."
Zoning Board of Adjustment
April 28, 2011
#11- 93000002
Page 2 of 3
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.
In determining if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the public interest,
staff recognizes that additional impervious coverage at the property may create a problem
with adjoining properties due to flooding issues in the neighborhood.
A survey of surrounding properties shows that this non - compliance with the ordinance is
not typical to the neighborhood. In addition, the pool with cool deck and concrete work
were done without City permits and stands in violation of the City ordinance. In viewing
the specific grounds for granting a variance, Staff points out that the condition, as it
exists, was the "...result of the applicant or property owner's own actions..." contrary to
the provisions of Section 106 -192. We also find no grounds to justify "...unnecessary
hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography, or other
extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the property in question." This
lot represents a typical example of property within subdivisions throughout the City and
very typical of the spirit of the Ordinance.
The ZBOA' s final consideration is whether granting this request observes the spirit of the
ordinance. Based on the facts noted in this report, the applicant's request would be
contrary with the spirit of the ordinance in that all properties, by allowing additional
coverage, would set improper precedent and would not promote the health, safety and
welfare of the general public.
Conclusion:
Variance Request which seeks to allow for greater than 55% impervious coverage of a
standard 6,900 S. F. lot by allowing an existing, non - permitted work with additional
concrete coverage of 95 S.F. to remain in place is contrary to the provisions established
by the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106), Section 106 -333, Table B. Furthermore, the
parameters for the requested variance do not, in our opinion, appear to meet the
provisions established by Section 106 -192 (Variance).
Zoning Board of Adjustment
April 28, 2011
#11- 93000002
Page 3 of 3
While recognizing the circumstances associated with the property, the Board could
consider:
• Allowing the existing concrete surface /impervious coverage over the limit, put
in at the owner's expense, to remain in place (variance granted) with the
stipulation that a City permit is obtained at double the normal fee as allowed by
the building code for non - permitted work.
• Requiring the owner to reduce the concrete surface /impervious coverage by 95
S. F. (variance denied), leaving an impervious coverage factor of 55% in place
for total site drainage, after obtaining a City permit at double the normal fee for
a non - permitted work and the resulting structure, again, must meet Code.
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.
CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE REQUEST
Application No.: //- g 3 O C c'i o
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $150.00 Date Received: 3 — 3/-0'
Receipt No.: 7 if J L/
Note: This Fee is Non - Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision
Applicant: e h Ctt e r y
Name
/08011 /1 esqt-is tr Dr, 8l �1 �5 Zy 79
Address Phone
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized
to act on my behalf in this matter.
Owner *: S jn, e
Name
Address Phone
I am requesting a variance to Sect. it 6-93 3, 19 of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the
Code of Ordinance.
I am requesting this variance for property located at /0 &.1 M
Se 1.4, -f Dr,
Street Address
Lo 24 Black I2 F01 Y hi %drtx /r`5 r; . lei 2
Legal Description
(.) "Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan
() Major Development Site Plan ( ) General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the
following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf.
3 l r
/m LA > -
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:
Facts relevant to this matter
I bought the property in May of 2010.
A contactor widened and lengthened the driveway.
The contractor built the driveway according to the driveway detail sheets.
The detail sheets do not mention maximum coverage.
The contractor did not obtain a permit from the city.
If the contractor would have got a permit this would not have happened.
I assume the responsibility of not getting a permit.
The property has 56.1% coverage where 55% is the maximum allowed.
Type of relief sought
I am requesting to leave the 1.1% (75.9sf) concrete overage in place.
Grounds for the request
The excess coverage was not intentional.
The excess is only 1.1% over the 55% maximum allowed.
It would be expensive to saw cut and jackhammer out reinforced concrete.
There are properties in the area with a higher % of coverage than mine.
10820 pi 8
Y i 1p822 ,d ` �N
Ct N S
V
'- i Ite/ / co
co
o �� 10824
10447
j ,� cx ' a, / 10826
e 'ANN"
" o � ."
� x
O
u s co ° : co
- 7 PROPOSED VARIANCE cot t iNc
a�
(10804 MESQUITE DR.) s woo
o + 1 0800
10447 /
«' X10802
ma / ',Q 10804 ' o °. , tvi
1
Q e a. o ° w
t 1 0804 ,
1 pea
� '
:::; ,
8 5 10 ' " `
•a o ;
° h BIRCH D
10810 t .
(10451 �. `►
/
/ 10812 �`"' Y o c .
°O P 0
r ------
1 4' / 0) --:
r 10814
r
a
' 10835
O M
�` ll rc �r 10823 o o c c
RD 10816 ° ° ° 0 0
1 10454 �� ".. .� �� tire
10458, ,
10818
10834
co co
10820 c CO o N CO CO
O' O O O
n
r.1 inch = 100 feet b.
GO' T -----. .
...
t I
L I - )
• ......,
cN/
-.7 Pcja I It COO( OrC 1 / 33
,.Q
Cis hcbact 2522
3872;
-,--'
\-4.)
\ :
....N4 .
FropY- v 4 g b°54
i
-4...
'a 1\ i
t ,
1
561 I c'il
- is - '
vl I 6 er L.-
‹..... . .7 , .•
....)
..,
- - - /
..- ,
i
-- - - .1.-- - -
0 I -t-
' * 3`
I - . .13
1
L ,
5 ?"
1 . / 7 1
L y 1 . ,
,
1 ,
,•." L
,
sz v 1 Y I s
5 16') F1''» f i
MAR NON 1049 P,:11 BAPI1 CONSTRUCTION S\, FAX Na 281 834 5899 P, 01/01
_
(-Ett ( 0-
1 (
, • -- - - -----. , "
• G 0 (
,..,,,o, •
6
,,,,,
,
, ,.,
,.... ,,,, .,,,,,,,-., .
.
I 2 Z 6 ..,
. e 4.,
, • I 1 6 ,...5
i - 1 4 ' 7r7 r i c e; 1 ,. „ - • „ ,..„„; \ 'S.1:' 'Cs .::` ..- .;
. .._
. tir, • ,..--,,,
I 2 q q . • \ 4,','
,
) - ...t..
i•-;... i 2 rif q
_ , N
: ,,, . '1/4,<- cs•
2 2 •
-_,
! ,, • / 4 („,, p 6 5 0
,...., • • . ,„...„, • •
H I-)
D Ci _c e N N3
i."
r•- ..„. - 1'
,::., e -- v ...
,..)
•1 1 ,,,,,—" -Q.' . e-,\ Y.L. \ ?:. 1
c.... — ,,....t.-.,
"-,:.,
:.\., \-,-,,- \....‹- cn ..•
.._
. . -- ---,-- • •
..,,,..,, •,, -t..,
. .
•
• ,...,:. ,-,:, . N
. ,. -,„
• - 1 \ii -t./3 3 `r ,4
•
, 1 7 ,-, , p l ,..,
f ,n..,,,,, ... ....,,, ---S.1
I 4-,
— .
•
1 •
. . • /
J I
cin Fi pro i Der-ily
. ,
§ 106 -333 LA PORTE CODE
when the development is situated adjacent to a single - family residential development.
The space needed to meet the required parking spaces shall be exclusive of the
required setback and the additional buffer.
16. In the case of multifamily residential developments being adjacent to single - family
residential developments, the buildings within the multifamily residential develop-
ments that are directly adjacent to the single - family residential development shall be
limited to two - stories in height. Buildings within the interior of the multifamily
residential developments may be three - stories in height.
17. Multifamily residential developments cannot exceed 180 dwelling units.
18. See section 106- 334(i)(3) for open space utilization criteria.
19. Following structures exempted from 40 percent lot coverage on single- family detached:
Accessory buildings 200 s.f. or less and patio covers up to 900 s.f.
20. Maximum lot coverage for single - family detached in planned unit development (PUD)
zoning district or residential subdivisions requiring a detention/drainage system, shall
be 50 percent.
✓ (The impervious cover factor of 55 percent for the total site for drainage, as prescribed
in PICM, remains in effect.)
(Ord. No. 1501 -JJ, § 6, 10- 14 -02; Ord. No. 1501 -LLLL, § 6(Exh. F), 4- 25 -05; Ord. No. 1501 -T4,
§ 6(Exh. F), 10- 24 -05; Ord. No. 3242, § 1, 4- 26 -10)
Cross references — Contents of mobile home park plans, § 98 -92; minimum area require-
ments for mobile home parks, § 98 -95; location of mobile homes with respect to property lines
and public streets, § 98 -99.
Sec. 106 -334. Special use performance standards; residential.
(a) Landscape buffers.
(1) A landscape buffer planted with grass or evergreen ground cover and also planted with
trees shall be provided. No buildings or refuse containers shall be placed in such areas.
(2) Standards:
a. Minimum width of planting strip: Four feet.
b. A planting plan specifying the location and species of trees to be planted as well
as the type of grass or ground cover to be utilized shall be submitted for approval
by the director or his duly authorized representative.
(3) Screening will be required in the following situations:
a. Parking areas for recreational buildings, community centers, religious, and
private and public educational institutions.
b. Manufactured housing parks and subdivisions screened from abutting uses.
(4) Required screening will count toward the required percentage of landscaping.
(5) Required landscaping must be maintained by the property owner and/or occupant.
Supp. No. 22 CD106:50
T � I^
A Meeting of the La Porte APB 1 9 °-, ' l i ' `ll L I
n n �I �: ,� !ill)
Zoning Board of Adjustment C t , ! ii
(Type of Meeting) B J
y
Scheduled for
April 28, 2011
(Date of Meeting)
to Consider
Variance #V11 93000002
(Type of Request)
.....mom - - -
I have received notice of the above referenced public hearing.
4 m in F VOR of granting this request for the following reasons:
1
/ J.f : , a 7s ',.5'/=, D / A
off) �l'Q27- ,% z C.:47- 49,D G. -A,,,
„, /
z:(...//, „,./i ____
I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons:
z >,?ityetz' ..<;-)',-_;27/ ,./,,,
_..,„ w e .lease print) ” z2 Address
iv
Signature City, State, Zip
A Meeting of the La Porte �
i
L
Zoning Board of Adjustment
APR 1 9 ?I ?1 ,
(Type of Meeting)
By
Scheduled for
April 28, 2011
(Date of Meeting)
to Consider
Variance #V11 93000002
(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:
g se ; s 2 ti 4 -e U /y o i iv 7 4 e_ 5rayi
I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons:
// kt / sL,S ) 6 ,
Name (please print) Address
( 7 - % - � —� ar� TF J Tx -77 S`7/
Signature City, State, Zip
A Meeting of the La Porte APR 1 9
2011
Zoning Board of Adjustment
(Type of Meeting) By
Scheduled for
April 28, 2011
(Date of Meeting)
to Consider
Variance #V11 93000002
(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:
( -00N-
110 \ LCY- cA r c b C. 4'v
w€ to el .. k ,
I am OPPOSED to granting this request for the following reasons:
1`l t5Yl cai+ tic l e
( 3 j e (l► s .�000 pfi
N ame (please print Address J
S' ���� City, State, Zip
VARIANCE
FOR
302 NORTH 11 STREET
EXHIBITS:
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
EXHIBIT A - AREA MAP
EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT C - SECTION 106 -797, CODE OF ORDINANCES
EXHIBIT D - PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSE
Staff Report Fence April 28, 2011
Variance Request
Requested by: Walter Johnson, La Porte Commercial Properties, LLC.
Requested for: Lots 12 thru 16, Block 74; Town of La Porte, Johnson Hunter Survey,
Abstract 35, La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
Location: 302 North 11 Street
Zoning: General Commercial (GC)
Background: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a proposed six feet high
chain link fence at 5' off the front property line within the front yard setback
along North 11 Street. The property in question is located at the southeast
corner of North 11 Street and West Adams Street. The property is currently
zoned General Commercial (GC). The Code of Ordinances prohibits a fence
from being erected within the required landscape portion of any yard or the
front yard setback (20') in the commercial and industrial zoning districts.
As per Section 106 -797 (2) of the Code of Ordinances, `fences in
commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security
measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which
barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet above
the ground, and such fence shall not be erected within the required
landscaped portion of any yard or the front yard setback of any commercial
or industrial establishment ".
A development site plan for the proposed project is under review by the City.
Total lot size is 15, 625 square feet with a proposed storage /staging yard at
site. The facility is required to comply with Section 106 -444 (b), Special Use
Performance Standards related to outdoor storage. Storage area shall be
screened from view from the public rights -of -way. There are two driveways
proposed for this facility, one along North 11 Street and a second driveway
along West Adams Street. Landscaping shall be provided along North 11
Street and West Adams Street. All landscaping shall be provided with an
approved irrigation system.
The applicant has submitted a variance request that seeks approval to erect a
fence at 5' off the front property line within the standard 20' building
setback line for commercial zoned property. According to the applicant, the
front yard fence at the property line is desired for the safe operation of the
storage yard at this site. In addition, the applicant stated that he would
comply with the ordinance, but he wanted to erect the fence at a distance,
which matches with the neighboring fences in the area.
Board of Adjustment
April 28, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Staff analyzed the surrounding area and based upon site inspections and
visual from the street, noted the following:
• An automotive repair shop located at 202 North 11 Street has an
existing fence within the front yard setback from the property line.
• A towing company with yard across the street has existing fences in
the front yard setback.
• The property at 314 North 11 m Street has a chain link fence within
the front yard setback.
• The property across the street at 1300 West Adams has a fence
within the front setback.
The standard front yard setback requirement in General Commercial zoning
district is 20'. The application's submittal also includes a site plan showing
the location of a fence with a request for "specific" fence setback of five foot
instead of twenty foot from the property line. It should be noted that if the
applicant's request is granted, the ZBOA will be determining the deviated or
"reduced" front yard setback whichever is appropriate.
Analysis: Section 106- 192(b)(1), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as a
deviation from the literal provisions of the chapter, which is granted by the
Board when strict conformity to the chapter would cause an unnecessary
hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property on which the
variance is granted.
Section 106 -1 defines fence as "...the manmade structural barrier erected on
or around a piece of property."
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.
Board of Adjustment
April 28, 2011
Page 3 of 4
• Allow construction of fence at 5 ft. off the property line with a reduced
setback in the front yard.
In determining if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the
public interest, Staff recognizes that the development of the fence at the
property may not create a problem with adjoining properties. A survey of
surrounding properties shows this non - compliance (pre- existing & non-
conforming) with the ordinance in the area.
Issues to consider are impact on neighboring property and the best public
interest. In this case, it appears that the fence will serve to provide a uniform
setback of adjacent properties and should not be injurious to the public. The
applicant wishes to construct the fence as requested by obtaining a City
building permit; however, staff is unable to approve a site plan based on
the conflict with the zoning regulations.
In this case, it appears that the fence will serve to provide safety and security
to the businesses intended to move or relocate to this area. In addition, it may
prohibit any vandalism and loitering in the area. The intent is to provide a
conducive environment for the safe operation of the businesses in the area.
In reviewing the specific grounds for granting a variance, however, staff
points out that the condition, as it exists, "...is the result of the applicant or
property owner's own actions..." contrary to the provisions of Section 106-
192. Staff finds no grounds to justify "...unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography, or other
extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the property in
question." Security and safety of the property may be considered in this
regard.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment's final consideration is whether granting
this request observes the spirit of the ordinance. Based on the facts noted in
this report, the applicant's request may not be contrary with the spirit of the
ordinance.
Conclusion : The application merits review by the Board based upon the parameters set by
the Ordinance.
The Board may consider:
➢ Granting the variance and allow the fence to be constructed at 5 ft.
off the property line in the front yard setback.
➢ Denying the variance thereby disapproving the construction of the
front yard fence.
Board of Adjustment
April 28, 2011
Page 4 of 4
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.
CITY OF LA P ORTE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE REQUEST
Application No.: /,` 3cVddeLJ
OFFICE USE ONLY: Yee: 5150.00 Date Received:
(—
Receipt No.:/ q '
Note: This Fee is Non - Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision `
Applicant: k\ja -{ Lr Jo n
Na me
CC 0 LONA Padi NAM .1 1)( 7 t5tp 11)--
Address Phone
I am the owner of the herein described property. I have authorized ( , r1L, s
to act on my behalf in this matter. -I � C
q it i � J' 0-6 �i�J"�J'E..�
Owner *: �� ,1 3
Name
r � o k, partiz yl I c T1O 113
Address Phone
l; (:) r 44 13 (
I am requesting a variance to Sect. "1 of the City Zoning regulations Chapter 106 of the
Code of Ordinance. r�
I am requesting this variance for property located at 3V L.; , i 1tq �t.
(] t Street ddress
Li f I l - - 1 , G IOCV 1 :' .Y r, �, t� a S rev
Legal Description
() Site Plan )6 Minor Development Site Plan
() Major Development Site Plan () General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed the information requested below on the
following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
* If applicant is NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act on the Owner's behalf.
Date Applica '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:
3
TYPE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT:
5 b(la J tomr Ott(' sir:0
THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUESTS:
nn r. ",�
IA J um+ p�rL e I i hc M
S:1CPShare\INSPECTION DIVISION1Standard Forms\ZONING BOARD VAR IANCE.d oc REVISION (0/21/03 RYC
P
rar_mttiz W;:'........11,7 101 ONIOVIS o I
apao0 paava0 P!!na /�lsaa .21MRI p ,a m� N r co.
aaolve
•3U1 'IIOi ;on.r�suo0 sciiog '}7F
LLGLL SVX31 '31a0d VI swam. e a u o m° � II z o
t l .133N1S H11 t 'N Z00 3 squaw eaa �1 -u-ro ro - ' � "" ! °
dl 'S311O3d0 1VI0a3WW03 3100d 01 aa0OJSna f N01.14121353(1 Aa arm AM A `� ° A P.
L
0a 31 O V
w �O s`o Z
w 0 Dog hp d n SZ22 I aZ
0
g - g E t, LnF p, tL X5;5 ~ K0 I I� a
c - ct _ . q xw < 0 °o o...c 8E Alf W5 1.`n zwo
0 k Z ogre 5 ti o U O ro 0 v ;o° loo a z ° �
o ° ° ° N 6 o - rc
FER �v~ia Uw S m F 0 Yj od 1 < 1-.2,7'2 1-.2,7'2 p
5 u°- m : 'Oh o °n :0 m 1 a ip =a`
�o° o S o o �� s �"� € Iv a
s Anw !la o - Lg L o a eA g o �x _ - a`c
00 !la ZZ° U�N z_ _� Fw Mr,;, n n x � _ p _ LS ~ ��
L'°-4E 5 S . x Lg' 1 p 3 p a 3 Nina" '- :: ;'
c? 0 � — 5 0 p � w o� 0 - r° p
. - lv' We 9 4< _ary 1=0 _ I oa
5 , m- �. Z',.•-=• fi 50 QC�rc a i 3 0 a�.r owv , In pipz
w o o'8 !L h - §1 o� LLoo 111° x wu N IJ
orpl��x t o- � a ,e rvav .. Wpj
o _ ¢: m =
o v1 a a
a- Ll v c 4'
e 1Ii
. ..., sw . 0 3 1100 .9 t > " , e � - - n - , _ � - I Q
J � COMIC S. '" �� 00'001 - H1aoN 's g - i 1 za, •
A ,p ,,,,x2--_, �1 = ! a !
Lu
g �, m l I In
w Le I 44l 1; j m j_ i No
Z • ° I I' j 4, I o. 1 1 1 N i._91
. CD
.''¢'"! °
�I w n �' = I li \ �' p y- ` 1
1.4 n p ` ; 1 ' ^I a �\ ;.l - . 1 1 i Q 3 (7
N 1
fa., Q o
�
a 3 j ;b rEg; j -1 lb, " '''''1 Q 1-
- _ - ,g.1 %., V. j k; - 1 ; 1 I® 1 =11I , I--- 0 I
W 'C m j _ w 1 = ! (n 1
, Ln ° m m 1 • a 1 1 013 �' 1 � 'I I 1 ;b
!- ! ' i j
U] °° " �I I!
O - ", i t _ ! 'l' - s -
(> — R.-, ,00 sz t - H1nas imilmrs a j
- ___ �Ea __.— ___— _— _ —_____ I Y,
0_ 13301S 41 L l H1LION d� °1
Q 0 - v l
J
I j
0 0 0 <
g _. _ _ , - 0
6 - 0 000 t 1 -.
o _ n m 0 _ 0 3m 4
2'
aUOn433ti- p z `' u 0 b ° °n p ZN
w w 7,7, Y II I II W
w Y Rio m : yz 0.
_ z p o 8i o W � a p S o '1 0 W ° a 0
W o z
I
I I_ 0 5 ; w s i „Va w o p
(13391S VIOL 0a §§
H1009) in _0 LS o S m g0 ` O
'23<8 p f v
941 AVMHOIH v °o` > - i, i i o a v -` = 'O _ 'QLgo '”,
r I N B 1 00 r o rµ � G
w W ° "a rwf a + + +
. + , % .
a '' h' io .,2 v ^' i Sow�w E m 'd 5 °
wz � au �
�LL 30o ++ ++ 8 ga_�4- w < � �z i = !
3d.!". s \ y h > oz 0 .::, 1 q - r . , ! oo z4 Fi Fr i
rn 1332110 4010 01009 '
00 1 1
§ 106 -797 LA PORTE CODE
V 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
Fences in commercial and industrial zones which are primarily erected as a security
measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire
can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet above the ground, and such
fence shall not be erected within the required landscaped portion of any yard or the
front yard setback of any commercial or industrial establishment.
Sec. 106 -798. Fencing and wall requirements for automotive wrecking, salvage
yards, junk dealers, etc.
(a) General requirement. Every automotive wrecking and salvage yard/junk dealer /scrap
metal processor yard with the city shall be completely surrounded and enclosed by a solid fence
or wall which is at least eight feet in height.
(b) Construction, maintenance of fence or wall. Every fence or wall herein shall be
constructed and maintained as follows:
(1) All fences shall be constructed of wood, masonry, corrugated sheet metal, chain link or
any combination thereof; provided, however, that any one side of an automotive
wrecking and salvage yard/junk yard/scrap metal processing yard shall be bounded by
a fence or wall constructed of only one of the above materials.
(2) Chain link fences shall be constructed of galvanized chain link fencing with wood or
metal slats or strips run through all links of the chain link fence.
(3) All fences or walls shall extend downward to within three inches of the ground and
shall test plum and square at all times.
(4) All fences or walls shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable provisions of
the building code of the city.
(c) Use of wall, door or building as part of fence or wall. Any part of a fence or wall required
by subsection (a) of this section may consist in whole or in part of a solid wall and door, or walls
and doors of any completely enclosed building on the premises, if such wall or door meets all
construction requirements set forth in this section.
(d) Gates at openings in enclosure. Openings in the prescribed enclosure which are
necessary to permit reasonable access to said automotive wrecking and salvage yards /junk
yards /scrap metal processing yards shall be equipped with a solid gate or gates, constructed
and maintained in accordance with the requirements for a fence or wall set forth in this
section. Such gates shall be closed and securely locked at all times except during normal
daytime business hours.
(Code 1970, § 12 14(c) —(f))
Supp. No. 21 CD106:90