HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-13 Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop of the Planning and Zoning Commission
City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
RegularMeeting,Public Hearing, and Workshop
Notice is hereby given of a of the La Porte
July18, 20136:00 P.M
Planning and Zoning Commission to be held on , at . at City Hall Council
Chambers, 604WestFairmont Parkway, La Porte, Texas, regarding the items of business according
to the agenda listed below:
1.Call to order
2.Roll Call of Members
3.Consider approval of June20, 2013, meeting minutes.
4.Open Public Hearing to receive public input on Rezone Request#13-92000001, which has been
requested for 12.2544 acres of land being a portion of a 17.7717 acre tract of land located along
Canada Road, further described as TRS 692C, 693B, 706 and 707, La Porte Outlots, as recorded
in Volume 83, Page 344, of the Deed Records of Harris County, William M. Jones Survey,
Abstract 482, La Porte, Harris County, Texas. The applicant seeks to have this property rezoned
from General Commercial (GC) to High Density Residential (R-3) for proposed Mariposa
Apartment Homes at Pecan Park.
A.StaffPresentation
B.Proponents
C.Opponents
D.Proponents Rebuttal
5.Close Public Hearing
6.Consider recommendation to City Council regarding Rezone Request #13-92000001for
change from General Commercial(GC)to HighDensity Residential (R-3) for subjecttract of land
located along Canada Road.
7.Open Workshop to discuss:
A.Amendmentsto the ordinancespertaining to the Domestic Livestock to be allowed on
commercially zoned properties.
th
Street.
B.Additional Truck Routes along S. 16
8.Administrative Reports
9.Commission Commentson matters appearing on agendaor inquiry of staff regardingspecific
factual information orexisting policy
10.Adjourn
A quorum of City Council members may be present and participate in discussions during this meeting;however,
no action will be taken by Council.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of La Porte will provide for reasonable
accommodations for persons attending public meetings. To better serve attendees,requests should be received
24 hours prior to the meetings. Please contact Patrice Fogarty, City Secretary, at 281.470.5019.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of the July18, 2013, agenda of items to be considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board on the ____ day of __________,2013.
Title: ______________________________
____________________________________________________
Out of consideration for all attendees of the meeting, please turn off all cell phones and
pagers, or place on inaudible signal. Thank you for your consideration.
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of June 20, 2013
Commissioners Present: Richard Warren, Phillip Hoot, Les Bird, Danny Earp, Lou Ann Martin,
Mark Follis, and Hal Lawler
Commissioners Absent: Helen LaCour and Doretta Finch
City Staff Present: Planning Director Tim Tietjens, City Planner Masood Malik, Assistant
City Attorney Clark Askins, and Office Coordinator Peggy Lee
Call to order.
1.
Meeting called to order by Chairman Hal Lawler at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call of Members.
2.
Commissioners Warren, Hoot, Martin, Follis, Earp, Bird, and Lawler were present for roll call.
Consider approval of April 18, 2013, meeting minutes.
3.
Motion by Commissioner Martin to approve the April 18, 2013, meeting minutes. Second by
Commissioner Warren. Motion carried.
Ayes: Commissioners Warren, Hoot, Martin, Follis, Earp, Bird, and Lawler
Nays: None
Open Public Hearing to receive public input on Rezone Request #12-92000001, which has been
4.
requested for 0.5280 acre tract of land located along South Broadway, further described as
Lots 17 through 24, Block 1437, Town of La Porte, Johnson Hunter Survey, Abstract No. 35, La
Porte, Harris County, Texas. Joe Farella c/o Monroe Properties, LLC., seeks to have this
property rezoned from Low Density Residential (R-1) to High Density Residential (R-3) for
proposed multi-family development.
Chairman Lawler opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m.
A. Staff Presentation
City Planner Masood Malik presented the staff report. The applicant has requested a
0.5280 acre tract along S. Broadway near Little Cedar Bayou be rezoned from Low
Density Residential to High Density Residential for the purpose of constructing an eight-
unit apartment building.
Public hearing notices were mailed to five property owners located within 200’ of the
subject site. The City received one response in favor of the rezone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of June 20, 2013
Page 2 of 6
Staff recommended denial of the zone change request.
Commissioner Follis inquired about the cost estimate for replacing trees that would be
removed for this development. Mr. Malik responded it is unknown at this time.
Commissioner Hoot asked if the rezone would constitute spot zoning. Assistant City
Attorney Clark Askins was asked for his opinion; Mr. Askins responded that although
subjective, if the zone being requested were out of character from the surrounding
zoning classifications and the long range plan, it could be construed as spot zoning.
B. Proponents
There were no proponents.
C. Opponents
There were no opponents.
D. Proponents Rebuttal
There were no rebuttals.
Close Public Hearing
5.
Chairman Lawler closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m.
Consider recommendation to City Council regarding Rezone Request #12-92000001 for change
6.
from Low Density Residential (R-1) to High Density Residential (R-3) for 0.5280 acre tract of
land located along South Broadway.
Motion by Commissioner Hoot to recommend City Council deny Rezone Request #12-92000001
from Low Density Residential (R-1) to High Density Residential (R-3) for a 0.5280 acre tract of
land located along South Broadway. Second by Commissioner Martin. Motion carried.
Ayes: Commissioners Warren, Hoot, Martin, Follis, Earp, Bird, and Lawler
Nays: None
Open Workshop to discuss:
7.
Chairman Lawler opened the workshop at 6:19 p.m.
Prior to commencement of discussion on Item 7.A., Commissioner Martin left the room recusing
herself from discussions and then left the meeting at 6:45 p.m., prior to the conclusion of
discussions.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of June 20, 2013
Page 3 of 6
A. Prospect of a potential Zone Change from Business Industrial (BI) to Light Industrial (LI)
for a property located along Fairmont Parkway at Bay Area Boulevard.
Planning Director Tim Tietjens presented the staff report and a map of deed restricted
areas. In attempt to develop his property, applicant and owner, A.J. Smith III, has
requested a 3½ acre tract at the northwest corner of Fairmont Parkway and Bay Area
Boulevard be discussed for the possibility of rezoning from Business Industrial to Light
Industrial. To prevent spot zoning, the rezone request also would include a strip
between Bay Area Boulevard and the pipeline easement east of Quality Inn.
The Association of Bayport Companies (ABC) will not allow any retail or commercial
development of the applicant’s property due to it being an inappropriate application of
use for lands around the Bayport Industrial District. Some individual properties around
the District were sold with deeds containing language limiting the use to industrial only
and with no reference to the more restrictive covenants of the ABC. The Association has
indicated to the applicant it would agree to allow a light industrial use if the City were to
rezone the property to Light Industrial. The situation is further complicated for the
applicant by the City’s classification of the property as Business Industrial, which does
not include more intensive Light or Heavy Industrial uses.
The Commission and staff discussed the item and then Chairman Lawler allowed input
from the audience.
A.J. Smith, owner of the subject property addressed the Commission. Mr. Smith wants
the ability to utilize his property in the same manner as neighboring properties. Mr.
Smith noted he is being taxed a great deal by the appraisal district for land he is unable
to develop.
Cheryl Westmoreland, 10908 Sycamore North, and President of the Fairmont Park East
Homeowners’ Association, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed
rezoning.
Chris Corin, longtime resident of La Porte, addressed the Commission. He inquired
about the existing vs. pre-existing status of the current developed properties within the
strip being proposed for rezoning and expressed his view regarding selective
enforcement of zoning.
David Janda, 3601 E. Desert Dr., addressed the Commission. Mr. Janda expressed
disappointment he did not hear the Commission first and foremost take into account
what the citizens of the area may want.
Mike Prasek, 10925 Dogwood Dr., addressed the Commission in opposition to the
proposed rezoning.
The Commission, by consensus, directed staff to meet again with the ABC to request
their written definition of “industrial” and to have them refer to the North American
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of June 20, 2013
Page 4 of 6
Industry Classification System (NAICS) manual to prepare a list of industrial uses they
would deem acceptable. Staff was also asked to provide Mr. Smith with a list of uses
allowed in the City’s Business Industrial District.
th
B. Additional Truck Routes along S. 16 Street
Planning Director Tim Tietjens presented the staff report. The City received a request
th
from Alton Ogden to have a portion of S. 14St. between W. E St. and the section of W.
thth
F St., between S. 16 St. and S. 14 St., designated as a truck route to accommodate
additional proposed developments in the Sector 23 area. Any change to the Truck
Route Map would require amending Chapter 70 and Chapter 106 of the Code of
Ordinances if use-related narrative was amended.
Commissioner Follis suggested if the idea is to limit where trucking terminals can be
located, then it should be regulated through zoning and not by amending the truck
route map. Otherwise, the section of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates where truck
terminals can be located should be removed and the requested truck route granted.
Commissioner Hoot wanted to ensure any direction the Commission provided did not
commit the City financially to any additional truck route roadway maintenance. His
main concern is not with the individual routes, but rather the overall plan to route
trucks through the City.
Commissioner Warren was concerned with roadway maintenance costs, and he wanted
to ensure what the citizens want is taken into consideration if routes are suggested for
change.
Chairman Lawler allowed input from the audience and cautioned about the impacts of
additional truck routes in the city.
Jeff Burkhalter, 63 Sterling Rd., Natchez, MS, partner in Oakland Land and Development,
addressed the Commission. Mr. Burkhalter spoke in favor of the requested additional
truck route designations and shared photos with the Commission of other properties
they have developed.
Alan Ward, 4731 Louise, Seabrook, area realtor, addressed the Commission in favor of
the added truck routes. Mr. Ward referred to a business that was denied building
occupancy at 1812 W. D because it was deemed a trucking terminal, yet 150-200
concrete trucks and trucks from neighboring businesses are allowed to use the same
roads. Mr. Ward spoke of a recent street closing by Mr. Walter Johnson, without
Oakland Land and Development having an opportunity to offer input.
Bill Campbell, 1404 N. Sam Houston Pkwy, #140, engineer for Oakland Land and
Development, addressed the Commission. Mr. Campbell spoke about implications of
not allowing the developer truck route access as it limits their ability to develop the
property in accordance with its zoning designation.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of June 20, 2013
Page 5 of 6
Ben Stanford, 10301 N.W. Frwy., #408, spoke in favor of allowing legalized truck
ingress/egress for the developer to access his property.
Commissioner Earp suggested staff prepare a recommendation to bring to the
Commission for consideration.
Administrative Reports
8.
A. Status of Dust Free Surface regulation criteria
Planning Director Tim Tietjens reminded the Commission of Council’s recent approval of
a Planning Department policy allowing the use of “chip seal” as an acceptable dust free
paving material.
B. Update of La Porte Code of Ordinances Chapter 106 (Zoning) Review
City Planner Masood Malik reported the subcommittee has been working on converting
the Zoning Ordinance use tables from SIC to NAICS.
Subcommittee Chairman Mark Follis reported there were approximately 500 uses not
previously classified that now will be easier to identify. Final edits are underway.
Mr. Tietjens acknowledged members of the subcommittee and staff for the incredible
amount of work they put into converting the use tables.
Commission Comments on matters appearing on agenda or inquiry of staff regarding specific
9.
factual information or existing policy.
Commissioner Hoot noted the health and safety of the residents was a priority during the zone
change from BI to LI workshop item earlier in the meeting.
Commissioner Warren thanked the subcommittee for their work and cautioned about approving
requests for additional truck routes based on financial gains for the City without regard for what the
citizens want.
Commissioner Follis commented he always takes citizens and property owners rights into
consideration and does not make decisions to appease any special interest groups or individuals.
Commissioner Bird thanked the audience for providing input and commented the Commission
should continue to do what it has been doing, which is taking into consideration what is best for the
citizens of La Porte.
Chairman Lawler enjoyed the group participation during the workshops and thanked everyone for
their input.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes of June 20, 2013
Page 6 of 6
Adjourn
10.
Motion by Commissioner Warrento adjourn. Second by Commissioner Hoot. Motion carried.
Ayes: Commissioners Warren, Hoot, Follis, Earp, Bird, and Lawler
Nays: None
Chairman Lawler adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Lee
Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission
Passed and Approved on __________________ ______, 2013.
Hal Lawler
Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
Zone Change Request
#13-92000001
Exhibits
A.Staff Report
B.Aerial Map
C.Preliminary SitePlan
D.Public Response
Mariposa @ Pecan Park
Staff ReportJuly18, 2013
Zone Change Request
#13-92000001
Requested by
:Mariposa Pecan Park, LP. and Stuart Shaw, on behalf of Bobby Grisham,
Owner/Trustee
Requested for
:Rezoning of the subject property from General Commercial (GC) to High
Density Residential (R-3) for proposed Mariposa Apartment Homes at Pecan
Park.
Legal Description:
12.2544 acres of land being a portion of 17.7717 acre tract of land located
along Canada Road, further described as TRS 692C, 693B, 706 and 707, La
Porte Outlots,as recorded in Volume 83, Page 344, of the Deed Records of
Harris County, William M. Jones Survey, Abstract No. 482, La Porte, Harris
County, Texas.
Location
:2000Block of Canada Road
Present Zoning:
General Commercial (GC)
Requested Zoning:
High Density Residential(R-3)
Land Use Plan:
Mid to High Density Residential
Surrounding Zoning:
North –Medium Density Residential(R-2)
South –General Commercial(GC)
East –Low Density Residential(R-1)
West –Manufactured Housing(MH)
Background
:
Earlier, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at the regular meeting on
November 15, 2012, directed staff to develop a recommendation toCity
Council to amend Map 2.1, revitalization areas within the draft
Comprehensive Plan 2030, to include undeveloped property for the
proposed Mariposa at Pecan Park apartment project for senior adults along
Canada Road
.
Later, City staff met with the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs (TDHCA) to discuss a road map for what needs to be
done by the City to help developers obtain necessary points towards this
development. TDHCA acknowledged that the Comprehensive Plan
Update meets some of the requirements of the Qualified Allocation Plan
(QAP) if adopted before the pre-application deadline (January 08, 2013)
#13-92000001
P&Z 07/18/13
Page 2of 5
because it addresses appropriate factors for developing a revitalization
plan, and it includes a specific target area.
At the December 10, 2012, meeting, City Council approved a support
letter for the Mariposa at Pecan Park apartment project and selected the
development as the project that most substantially contributed to the
revitalization efforts of the City of those proposed. In order to receive
maximum allowed points under the 2013 QAP for revitalization efforts,
the City also approved a resolution as requested.
The applicant is likely to receive an award from the TDHCA, which has
started underwriting the Mariposa at Pecan Park transaction. In order to
keep the award from the TDHCA at the July 25, 2013 meeting, the
applicant has to be able to provide proof of zoning in late August.
The subject tracts comprise approximately 18 acres ofland out of William
M. Jones Survey, Abstract-482, La Porte, Harris County, Texas.The
property is located approximately 1000’ north of the intersection of Canada
Road and Fairmont Parkway.The property in question isalso in the vicinity
of a pre-existing warehouse/tractor storage facility, manufactured housing,
and single-family residential subdivisions Pecan Crossing and Spenwick.
The adjoining property to the west acrossCanada Road and adjacent to the
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) facility consists of 33 acres
of land, whichis now known as City of La Porte’s Pecan Park.
The applicant seeksto rezone only 12.2544 acres of land from General
Commercial (GC) to High Density Residential (R-3) for multi-family
development. The proposed name for the community is Mariposa at Pecan
Park and will serve seniors (55 years and older) withapproximately 180
apartment homes.
Analysis
:In considering this request, Staff reviewed the following Comprehensive
Plan Update elements: Land Use, Thoroughfare System, Utility
Infrastructure, and Economic Development. The specific issues considered
are as follows:
Land Use
--Review of the City’s Land Use Plan shows the subject tract
developing as mid-to-high density residential, however, some commercial
uses are shown at the intersection of Canada Road and Fairmont Parkway.
Severalyearsago, approximately 35 acres of land includingthe subject
tract,located at the intersection of Canada Road and Fairmont Parkway,was
rezoned from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to General Commercial
(GC)in anticipation of commercial/retail activitiesat this major intersection.
#13-92000001
P&Z 07/18/13
Page 3of 5
The adjacent properties across the Spring Gully(B109-00-00) issingle-
family residential,Pecan Crossing Subdivision.Other surrounding existing
uses to the north are single-family residential(Spenwick), a manufactured
housing park(Pecan Plantation), and a storage/warehouse facility at 3337
Canada Road.Across the street to the west is the City’s new Pecan Park
along Canada Road.
In addition to above land use elements,the following aspects shallbe
considered for a rezone request:
Ability of infrastructure to support the permitted use.
Impact on the value and practicality of the surrounding land uses.
Conformance of a zoning request with the land use plan.
Character of the surrounding and adjacent areas.
Suitability of the property for the uses which would be permissible,
considering density, access and circulation, and adequacy of public
facilities and services.
The extent to which the proposed use designation would adversely affect
the capacity or safety of that portion of the road.
The extent to which the proposed use designation would create excessive
air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, or other environmental
harm to adjacent properties.
The gain, if any, to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City.
Transportation
–The tract in question will have access (60’ wide
ingress/egress easement) along Canada Road running north and south
between Spencer Highway and Fairmont parkway. There will be another
point of entry/exit (25’ wide) to the south of the subject tract.
The design of Canada Road improvement was completed in 2004. The
rights-of-way for the proposed road improvement acquired and the utilities
to serve this general area were designed given special consideration to the
pipeline adjustments and power lines relocation.The bidding and
construction of the road and utilities started in January 2005.The Canada
Road improvement/widening project wascompleted in November, 2005.
Portion of Genoa Red Bluff from Fairmont Parkway to Red Bluff Road is
already opened for traffic. Traffic signalization is already in place and
opened for traffic from Beltway 8to State Highway 225 via East Boulevard.
Canada Road, an arterial with a 100’ ROW, may accommodate the
additional traffic generated by futuredevelopments. In addition, Fairmont
Parkway, a controlled access highway with a 250’ ROWmay also
accommodate additional traffic generated by this development.
#13-92000001
P&Z 07/18/13
Page 4of 5
Utilities
–Due to the success of the Canada Road improvement project,
infrastructure for anticipated development at this intersection isin place.
Storm water drainage will be reviewed oncase by case basis with the
development site plansubmittal for the proposed development.
Economic Development
-One of the intentions of the ComprehensivePlan
is to encourage new and sustained investmentsin the City as the basis of a
successful redevelopment strategy. This may be achieved by encouraging
in-fill development within existing infrastructure service areas.
Proposed
project represents a significant impact to economic development within the City of
La Porte. Development costs are reported to be $8M plus improvements, which will
contribute approximately $36K annual revenues for the City.
Revitalization
–During the recently completed Comprehensive Plan
Update, several sites within the City were designated as Revitalization
areas. Proposed project site is among these areas, which are subject to
public/private investment, capital improvements, enhanced public
services, technical assistance, promotion, tax benefits, and other stimulus
packages including planning initiatives.
Multi-family Residential Regulations
–Other elements related to multi-
family residential development are as follow:
Density:Proposed apartment complex with 180-units consists of 12.2544
acres. The overall density equals 14.68 dwelling units per acre, while 14
units per acres allowed by ordinance. Additional acreage need to be
incorporatedfor compliance with the current ordinances.
Access Easements:Proposed multi-family development shows a minimum
of two points of entry for ingress and egress of vehicles traffic from
adjacent public right-of-way and thoroughfare. Proposed 60’ and 25’wide
ingress/egress easements shown along Canada Road must be included into
the project. Owner/developer should be responsible for the maintenance of
private entrance/exit to the complex.
Landscaping:Minimum of 25% of the total development is required to be
landscaped. Landscaping is a combination of trees and shrubs. Screening
is suggested along the east side of the proposed project.
Bond and Insurance Requirements:Per regulations, developer seeking to
construct a multi-family development of 100 units or more is required to
execute and file with the City a performance and/or payment bond, or
#13-92000001
P&Z 07/18/13
Page 5of 5
alternatively, an irrevocable letter of credit for the amount of $1,000,000
for the lifetime maintenance of the project.
Conclusion /
Recommendation
:
Based on the above analysis and the best use review option by the owner and
the prospective developers reveal that the subject site would be better served
by the proposed rezone, which would be complimentarywith the anticipated
use of property to the south of this tract. Using this scenario, the applicant is
requesting to rezone the property from General Commercial (GC) to High
Density Residential (R-3).
The requested change conforms to the underlying land use and is suitable for
the requested change to High Density Residential.The zone changeshould
not have a significant impact on traffic conditions in the area and utilities
maysupport future developments.
Actions available to the Commission are listed below:
Recommend to Council approval of this rezoning request, from
General Commercial (GC) to HighDensity Residential (R-3).
Recommend to Council denial of this rezoning request from General
Commercial (GC) to HighDensity Residential (R-3).
Table this item for further consideration by the Commission.
AREA MAP
REZONE REQUEST # 13-92000001
R-1
D
EFIANC
E
EAGLE RUN
REZONE FROM
WICHITA DR
R-2 GC to R-3
R-1
MH
BARTON CT
R-1
GC
REVISED 12/18/2012 - BS
OHAWK DR
M
R-2
R-2
FAIRMONT PKWY
1 inch = 400 feet
Domestic Livestock
(Discussion Item)
Exhibits
A.Staff Report
B.Area Map
, 2013
Staff Report July 18
Domestic Livestock
Discussion Item
Background:
Staff has been asked to consider whether Domestic Livestock shouldbe allowed on the
commercially zoned propertiesin La Porte.Currently domestic livestock –large
residential lotis permitted in the Large Lot (LL) district. But, it is an accessory use in all
other residential zoning districts,i.e. R-1, R-2, R-3, & MH. Whereas, Domestic
Livestock-without an existing principal structure on the property, is permittedonlyin
largelot district, whentract is one acre in size or greater.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, during their November 15, 2012, meeting held a
public hearing to receive citizen input and City Council at the December 10, 2012,
meeting,approved zoning ordinance amendments pertaining to accessory structures,
barns and/or livestock without a primary structure which are indeed personal, non
commercial uses on tracts one acre in size or larger within the large lot district.
Analysis:
Staff’s research shows that neighboring cities ordinances contain provisions which
regulate livestock operations in agricultural and conservation zones, and prohibit the
keeping of livestock in residential zones. Some cities have different requirements for
different types of animals. Keeping of the horses is undoubtedly the predominant
domestic livestock usein La Porte.
The following concerns must be consideredwith respect to the keeping of livestock:
Animal waste management, storage, usage, and disposal
Health risks
Animal escaping and running at large
Treatment and housing of animals
Erosion and sedimentation control
Vehicular access
Noise
Odors
Water pollution
Lighting and fencing
Lomax area is a rural/large lot residential zoning district which abuts to commercially
zonedproperties to the east along Sens Road and west along Underwood Road where a
few small parcels of land are left undeveloped. Although, single-family dwellingis the
primaryuse,domestic livestockis also a predominant use within the Large Lot district.
Per ordinancetwo animals per acre is the general rule plus one head for each additional
one-haf acre of land on the same parcel.
Planning & Zoning Commission
July18, 2013
Page 2of 3
Suggested Requirements:
If the Commission wishes to consider domestic livestock be allowed on a
commercially zoned property, staff suggests minimum land area to be one acre,
undeveloped land currently zoned General Commercial (GC) and abutting Large
Lot (LL) residential district. In addition, the following requirements shouldbe
considered as supplementary to the existing provisions of the ordinance for
consistency with existing codes.
a.There shall be no more than two animals for the first acre of land. There shall
be no more than one additional animal for each additional one-half acre of
land on the same parcel.
b.A ten (10) foot buffer area with perimeter trees and shrubs shall be provided
adjacent to property lines.
c.No livestock shall be permitted to graze, forage, or otherwise roam within 50
feet of any dwelling, residence, or structure used for human occupancy (other
than the livestock owner’s dwelling or residence).
d.Any barns, stables, pens, sheds, or other structures used for the containment or
housing of livestock shall not be located closer than fifty feet from the
property line except for fencing around the perimeter of a pasture or garden
area which shall not be less than fifty feet from any residential structure. Any
detached accessory building not used for the containment or housing of
livestock shall not be located closer than ten feet from any residential
structure.
e.Barns, stables, sheds, pens, or other similar structure where livestock may be
housed, fed, or confined, or where food for livestock is stored shall not be
located within 100 feet of any residence (other than the livestock owner’s
residence or dwelling).
f.Livestock shall be enclosed with adequate fences or barriers that will prevent
such livestock from damaging shrubbery or other property situated on
adjacent property. Such fences or barriers shall be sufficient to prevent the
livestock from escaping the enclosures.
g.The owner keeping any livestock shall keep all yards, barns, pens, stables,
sheds or other enclosures in which such animals are confined in such a
manner so as not to give off odors offensive to persons in the immediate
vicinity, or to breed or attract flies, mosquitoesor other noxious insects or
rodents or in any manner to endanger the public health, safety, or welfare, or
to create a public nuisance.
Planning & Zoning Commission
July18, 2013
Page 3of 3
Conclusion/Recommendation:
Staffdoes not recommend that all undeveloped, commercially zoned property be allowed to
keep domestic livestock. If such consideration is granted, staff recommends it only be done
when abutting large lot district properties and withthe same requirements(lots in excess of
one acre) as currently presentedin the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 106 (Zoning)
regarding domestic livestock
Options/Action by the Commission
Options
1.Discuss the issue.are:
a.No change to the provisions of the current ordinance pertaining to
domestic livestock.
b.Allow keeping of domestic livestock on all commercially zoned properties
in La Porte.
c.Allow domestic livestock on commercially zoned properties when
abutting large lot district only.
2.The Commission may elect to:
Arrange a public hearing by next meeting
Make a Recommendation to City Council at conclusion of a public
hearing.
LARGE LOT DISTRICT
REVISED 12/18/2012 - BS
Legend
LA PORTE CITY LIMITS
LLD BOUNDARY
Additional Truck Routes
(Discussion Item)
Exhibits
A.Staff Report
Applicant’s Request
B.
Official Truck Routes Map
C.
18, 2013
Staff Report July
Additional Truck Routes
Background:
At the June20, 2013meeting, the Commission held a workshop to review the City’s official truck routemap
th
and discussedpossible addition of new truck routes nearSouth 16Street north of Fairmont Parkway.
Later, the Commission directed staff to prepare arecommendation withinthe followingoptions(alternatives):
To remove the requirement from trucking terminal section of the ordinances, which restrictlocation of
trucking terminal directly adjacent to an authorized truck routes.
th
To designate portions of West ‘F’ and South 14Streetsas additional truck routes.
Nochangeto the existing provisions of the ordinances.
Pros & Cons of the above three Alternatives are listed in the table below:
Action (Alternatives)ProsCons
Amendment to the Ordinances
Allow additional Expect more truck terminals
(Allowing Truck Terminals
developments in LI zoning
Traffic Congestion
anywhere in LI & HI zoning
districts
Additional maintenance of secondary roadways
districts)
Economic activity
Shortage of viable LI zoned properties for non-
enhanced in short term
truck terminal development
Better coordination
Loss of long term tax revenues otherwise
between access and land
expected
uses is accomplished
General impression as trucking town
Amendment to Truck Routes
Help individual property Additional short section of roads as truck route
(Map Change only)
owners to develop the
Cut through traffic in the Commercial District
property for own benefits
Need for stronger streets, maintenance and
surface type at this location
Disrupt efficiency of major arteries and other
thoroughfares
Disintegrate the non-thoroughfare network with
the regional transportation system
Impression as trucking town
No Changes to the Current
Compliance with the Loss of truck terminal activity off truck route t
Ordinance
community’s wishes
(Maintaining requirement for
Consistent with the City’s
truck terminals to be on truck
Land Use Plan
route)
Improve overall
impression of the City
No new interpretation is
required.
Limit trucks & trucking
facilities to appropriate
roadways
Less deterioration of
secondary roadways
Generate more economic
activities & revenues for
the City
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 18, 2013
Page 2of 4
Analysis:
It is important to describe the difference between warehouse and trucking terminal and measure the
employment capacity and values generated by these land uses.
A warehouse is typically a large building for storage of goods or merchandise. A warehouse is an important link
for freight movement in intermodal transportation. Cargo that may come by ship, rail, or airplane is usually
stored in the warehouse before the carrier delivers it to its final destination. Warehouses serve multiple purposes
such as to break down the packages into smaller packages (distribution centers) to store merchandise for
seasonal sales, or to be stored for pick up at the right time by the receivers.
A truck terminal is typically a site for the handling and temporary storage of freight pending transfers between
locations. Truck terminals that handle truck loads only, typically consist of a wide, open space where trucks are
parked. Usually, truck terminals also have a building for offices and a truck maintenance facility.
Staff determined the employment densities for warehousing versus trucking terminals to evaluate economic
development projects and strategies. In addition, data on the floor area ratio is collected for existing
establishments to determine anticipated employment or number of jobs associated with these developments.
As per research by the Planning Advisory Services (PAS) of the American Planning Association, employment
densities are calculated based on the gross internal floor space per workspace (rather than full-time equivalent
employee). For industrial, warehousing, and distribution centers, floor space information will typically be gross
external or internal space. The number of employees which should be measured to calculate density should be
all those working on-site expressed as full-time equivalent.
Summary of PAS research is as follows:
Floor Area per Employee
-In order to compare expected employment growth, it is assumed that a certain
number of people can be employed based on the category of employment use and the amountof floor area that
can be built. Measurements of the average floorspace per person in a building are used to determinethe number
of jobs associated with a development. There are distinct floor area ratios for development observed in the
following employment categories:
Employment CategorySquare Feet per Employee
Manufacturing500
Wholesale, Transportation, Communication, Utilities1000
Retail700
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Services400
Government/Education300
The floor area square feet per employee by employment category is calculated as follows:
Employment Capacity = (buildable acres x employment sector FAR x 43560/ square feet per employee.
An example of how this formula performs at the parcel level is shown below. Assume that a parcel (whether
vacant, partially-used or re-developable) has an estimate of buildable area of 3.5 acres. Also, assume that the
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 18, 2013
Page 3of 4
parcel is located in the industrial zone in which there is an observed FAR of 0.10 (ratio of usable employment
space built to land area built upon) for an industrial uses.
Employment Capacity = 3.5 x 0.10 x 43560 / 1000=15employees
Source: Employment Density Study, Snohomish County 2007 Buildable Land Project
Employment Density:
Employment Density for variousLogistics Market Segments is shown in the table below:
Market SegmentEmployee Density (jobs/acre)
Light Warehousing27
Industrial Park20
Light Industrial, Heavy Warehousing16
Trucking Terminal2
Source: Economic Effects of the logistics Initiative,HDR/HLB Decision Economics, Inc. January 2006
:
Staff’s research of existing facilities in La Porte is as follows
Existing Truck Terminal Statistics
Name/AddressArea (sq.ft.)Building (sq.ft.)FARImprovement Value
($)
POHA-401 North L Street449,53922,8000.050
Texas Transload & Log. –300 North J Street458,68620,0000.04323,213
Gulfwinds –100 North Broadway236,79200
Gulfwinds –110 North Broadway65,62300
Overland Express –100A North Broadway28,12500
Old Landfill Site –901 North Broadway2,078,20200
Frontier Port Prop. –801 North Broadway287,55013,7250.048162,411
Frontier Port Prop. –701 North Broadway105,6243,4200.03239,648
Joseph Cunningham –910 SH 146 N353,70720,1000.056350,866
All American Rigging Co. –2205 SH 146 N119,79000
A&J Leasing Co. 1901 SH 146 166,3995,6200.033300,314
Dragon Products –201 Strang Road142,7551,2500.008
GIS –101 Strang Road435,6007,2540.016347,297
J&S Services –1728 Old La Porte Road110,49800
Tiger Industrial –12803 SH 225193,27500
Crenshaw Dev. –500 North ‘E’ Street100,0001,4500.014537,986
Gus Brieden –1701 North 17 th Street100,00000
Buzbee –326 S. 16 th Street200,0005,0000.025206,800
HTI–502 S. 16 th Street236,80010,0700.042479,149
Core Trucking –501 S. 16 th St.54,0001,5040.028
Average Building/Improvement Value for Trucking Terminals/Yards= $ 0.96/s.f.
Planning & Zoning Commission
July 18, 2013
Page 4of 4
Existing Warehouses Statistics
NameSite Area Building FARImprovement
(s.f.)(s.f.)Value ($)
Port Crossing Business 12,458,1604,959,5550.4040,380,398
Park
Sens Road Business Park687,376267,5400.386,399,479
Underwood Business 8,711,0003,678,5000.4235,625,767
Park
Port Modal Business 645,786292,5000.4518,440,145
Park
Battleground Industrial 1,228,827148,8240.123,276,688
Park
Average Building/Improvement Value for Warehouses = $ 9.56/s.f.
Existing General Industrial/Light ManufacturingStatistics
Name/AddressSite Area Building FARImprovement
(s.f.)(s.f.)Value ($)
Sulzer Inc.–11518 Old La 1,103,12683,9200.0811,324,240
Porte Road
Realty Income Prop.–11110 447,03022,3800.05902,185
Old La Porte Road
Louisiana Chem.–11100554,99732,8000.06967,010
SH 225
Maxim Crane–401 North100,00012,6900.12437,124
th
16Street
Average Building/Improvement Value for General Industrial/Light Manufacturing = $ 4.50/s.f.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the language of the ordinance remain unchanged for the purpose of promoting health, morals,
and general welfare of the City.
641HS
TSHT61N
TSHT61S
DRDOOWREDNU